Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create. We've had very open platforms like computers and very controlled platforms like consoles, iPods and other embedded devices. The iPhone appears to be somewhere in between. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, but they are definitely a major player so what they do does have a major effect on the market and a significant number of consumers. Are there concerns about Apple being able to pick and choose what and how a developer reaches the user? I think these are interesting questions to be settled more explicitly in court even if I don't know the best answer.
What you are suggesting is very dangerous to the American Tech industry particularly to innovative companies large and small. A company had a right to control their products as they see fit. If the market disagrees with them, they lost customers and they lose money and they will have to make their own decisions on how to change that outcome and the reverse is also true. Bringing the court to clarify the amount of control of a company like Apple to it's products and to force them to give up total control for the convenience of another company like Adobe's or group of people will destroy free enterprise in this country. Even though they have a major effect on the market, they are not the leaders nor do they command a insurmountable lead . Problem also, where is the full blown mobile Flash in Android, Symbian, WebOS or Windows 6 or 7? That's right, it does not exist. As you had pointed out, Apple does not have a monopoly of smartphones nor do they a monopoly on all mobile devices? Since Apple does not control the market but influences it, the Court will throw out every Adobe's complaint in the matter.
The best way for Adobe to do is get more engineers and programmers and fix Flash not only for the iGadgets, but also to the MacOS X , Windows and Linux platform instead of waiting the Court and taxpayers time.
I'd love Adobe to win this but it's probably not going to happen. Apple are just acting like tools and the last time I checked that wasn't illegal.
Apple should just let the market sort this out. If Adobe create a crap platform that leads to crap applications then users won't want them and so developers won't use Adobe.
If Adobe create something that allows developers to make better applications it will just be incentive for Apple to improve their own development tools.
This is nothing like the PC world. Apple aren't going to be pushed out of a market they basically own.
WHen a large corporation threatens to sue another corporation that is not their "direct" competitor, it is usually because the suer is worried that they are about to be taken to the cleaners because of poor product performance - or being absent in a new market. This is Adobe's situation. Arrogant to a fault, they kicked Apple around for several years...until Apple started climbing into the top of the market and taking over. Oops! What does Adobe do then? They cry foul, say nasty things about Apple, and threaten to sue a company that has every right to include and/or exclude any vendor they like! About time Adobe - you have screwed me (an iMac and Macbook user) too many times with your overpriced and poor performing Photoshop products. CS5 Extended is also way overpriced for the few features it offers to photographers. $350 for an upgrade?
If Adobe had, I dunno, more than 10 people in the U.S. writing code for them, I might give a fackool.
Yup, no fackool to be given here. The idea of a lawsuit over anything this blogger's mentioned is positively idiotic. Play by Apple's rules in the Appleverse. Apple doesn't drag its butt and usually has sound reasons for the tech decisions they make (even if we don't always agree with those decisions); can anyone say the same thing about Adobe? (Show some CS5 benchmarks on Mac that will blow me out of the water, and I might just start to give a fackool again...)
Lets see ..... Programmers at $50/hour ...... Lawyers at $500/hour ....... Adobe's stock holders need to step up to the plate and tell them to get real with their money. Just suck it up, re-write the code to make it really efficient and see what happens. Threats of lawsuits will only make Apple dig their heals in deeper.
In the early 1990's Apple's stagnant platform sales, lack of fixing OS issues were making most developers want to develop for both platforms/markets at once (diversify or die). QuickDraw GX or PowerTalk didn't add enough value to justify massive redevelopment costs for little returns (because it was completely incompatible with everything else, and was quite buggy originally, and the examples and documentation was a bit anemic). Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, or working with developers on what their customers wanted, Apple blames 3rd party developers because Apple failed to find the market-demand before implementing something that was incompatible with everything else.
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
I'd love Adobe to win this but it's probably not going to happen. Apple are just acting like tools and the last time I checked that wasn't illegal.
Apple should just let the market sort this out. If Adobe create a crap platform that leads to crap applications then users won't want them and so developers won't use Adobe.
If Adobe create something that allows developers to make better applications it will just be incentive for Apple to improve their own development tools.
This is nothing like the PC world. Apple aren't going to be pushed out of a market they basically own.
How is Apple acting like tools? Users will flock to whatever is cheap regardless of whether said item is crap (i.e see Windows based PC)
Apple spends a lot of money to develop rich API for developers to leverage in making great iPhone apps. The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here.
I bought an iPhone to have iPhone apps crafted. I don't give a shit about making it easy for the developer to create an Android, Blackberry or WinMo app.
What you are suggesting is very dangerous to the American Tech industry particularly to innovative companies large and small. A company had a right to control their products as they see fit. If the market disagrees with them, they lost customers and they lose money and they will have to make their own decisions on how to change that outcome and the reverse is also true. Bringing the court to clarify the amount of control of a company like Apple to it's products and to force them to give up total control for the convenience of another company like Adobe's or group of people will destroy free enterprise in this country. Even though they have a major effect on the market, they are not the leaders nor do they command a insurmountable lead . Problem also, where is the full blown mobile Flash in Android, Symbian, WebOS or Windows 6 or 7? That's right, it does not exist. As you had pointed out, Apple does not have a monopoly of smartphones nor do they a monopoly on all mobile devices? Since Apple does not control the market but influences it, the Court will throw out every Adobe's complaint in the matter.
The best way for Adobe to do is get more engineers and programmers and fix Flash not only for the iGadgets, but also to the MacOS X , Windows and Linux platform instead of waiting the Court and taxpayers time.
I'm glad you said this... however I'd like to add... "Waaaaaaaaaaaaa, Apple won't let me have their toys to break Mommy!"
This is the entitlement mentality, that's so prevalent among whiny developers and forum posters. They think the courts should jump in and give them 3rd party features, and they cower behind pathetic misunderstandings and fantasies about monopoly laws.
Adobe keeps looking worse and worse in this whole Flash thing. Again, just more little babies who can't do anything on their own, whining about someone else's work, and why everyone else won't bend to meet their petty needs. Probably a parenting issue, this is why those of you here with kids, should spank them instead of that bs hippy child-rearing nonsense. A little butt pain, helps mitigate decades of blubbering later.
The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
Just curious, were you or a company you worked for one of the ones that got screwed?
You can change the names of the companies, parts and pieces and have the same story for Microsoft.
Great comment, hope to see more from you in the future.
In the early 1990's Apple's stagnant platform sales, lack of fixing OS issues were making most developers want to develop for both platforms/markets at once (diversify or die). QuickDraw GX or PowerTalk didn't add enough value to justify massive redevelopment costs for little returns (because it was completely incompatible with everything else, and was quite buggy originally, and the examples and documentation was a bit anemic). Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, or working with developers on what their customers wanted, Apple blames 3rd party developers because Apple failed to find the market-demand before implementing something that was incompatible with everything else.
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
I think you are either being completely dishonest, or you did an exceedingly bad job on your homework.
Apple added transparency to the PDF spec and a few other enhancements, they traded the technology back to Adobe for the license to use PDFs at the core of OS X. Adobe benefitted greatly. If you want all the Acrobat features... don't just sit there and whine expecting someone else to facilitate your leeching - go buy it!
After experiencing the bloatware free Acrobat Reader, and the dismal glut of the Pro version, I'll stick with the much quicker, slicker Preview.
I'll leave the rest for those with development experience to explain why Apple is not required to make it easier to develop Windows software and APIs. You'll also notice during the Olympics, that the Norwegians don't stop in the middle of an event, to go help the Swedish team. Really?!?! Sheesh.
How is Apple acting like tools? Users will flock to whatever is cheap regardless of whether said item is crap (i.e see Windows based PC)
Apple spends a lot of money to develop rich API for developers to leverage in making great iPhone apps. The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here.
I bought an iPhone to have iPhone apps crafted. I don't give a shit about making it easy for the developer to create an Android, Blackberry or WinMo app.
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
You sound bitter. Developers are not directly part of the corporate decision making process and are often caught off-guard by policy changes. The talented ones adapt.
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
1. Done - with each successive iteration of iPhone OS the developer gets easier access to more Apple technologies and more API to play with. All of this for less than a pair of good Nike shoes annually is a steal.
2. Apple clearly hasn't gone here as it would improve quality but also increase application cost to end users and reduce the amount of applications total.
Customers don't know they should care until they are made aware of the missing feature. Often a feature of using Apple tools and API is stability and who doesn't like stability? People choose Apple and they pay a premium precisely because "good enough" no longer holds sway with them.
If people think that "good enough" such rule the day then please explain why Java didn't make it or the plethora of other tools promising to "write once, deploy everywhere"
They never work because people "do" want the differentiation. If I had my druthers I'd wear tailored shirt and suits but for pricing reasons I'm stuck wearing shirts made for men with beer bellies. Such is life but I don't have to eat the shit sandwich being given to me and tell'em that it's good.
I think you are either being completely dishonest, or you did an exceedingly bad job on your homework....
I think you're missing the point. Apple implemented a subset of the spec. That subset holds back both platforms. Apple fails silently so users don't even know they're missing something. Like they did by taking the little blue lego out of webpages where there's something they don't see.
Apple was saying that not implementing Mac-only features holds the platform back -- while actively not implementing specs/functions, and hiding it from users.
There are, however, some aspects of the Adobe Reader's functionality that... are not provided in Preview. For example, forms can now be created in Acrobat that have dynamic content fields (such as drop-downs and check-boxes) and while Preview will display these fields, interactivity is not available and therefore the fields become static.
Go through this, and you'll find a long list of things that Apple doesn't support that the spec does:
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
I think you the confused party. You're example doesn't display anything schizophrenic, nor is their any 'hypocrisy' - which I believe is the word you were looking for.
Besides you don't get arrogant as a result of confusion induced by schizophrenia.
I think what the problem is... your argument got totally torpedoed, and you don't have a logical counter.
Obviously you're unaware of the predominance of cheap electronics devices and computers in most tech segments. Obviously you're also unaware of this company called Apple, that tends to make slightly higher priced products and have repeatedly stated their objective to make more elegant devices rather than chase the low end of various markets.
I think you're missing the point. Apple implemented a subset of the spec. That subset holds back both platforms. Apple fails silently so users don't even know they're missing something. Like they did by taking the little blue lego out of webpages where there's something they don't see.
Apple was saying that not implementing Mac-only features holds the platform back -- while actively not implementing specs/functions, and hiding it from users.
There are, however, some aspects of the Adobe Reader's functionality that... are not provided in Preview. For example, forms can now be created in Acrobat that have dynamic content fields (such as drop-downs and check-boxes) and while Preview will display these fields, interactivity is not available and therefore the fields become static.
Go through this, and you'll find a long list of things that Apple doesn't support that the spec does:
Should Apple be held to a different standard than they hold others or not?
Apple 'licenced' the technology. That's as legitimate as spec usage gets. Again, if you want those features... buy Acrobat. Apple licensed (that word you should really look up) the PDF spec for their specific purposes. Adobe profited from the arrangement, how are they the offended party? From their own licensing terms? Really!?!? Come on people, the apes are catching up.
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. People who suffer from it are unable to relate their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around them and often withdraw from society.
Non sequitur. Your diagnosis is misapplied here. The rest of your response makes absolutely no sense whatesoever. There is a spectrum of users who buy and utilize these phone technologies and their dynamic range is closer to infinity than it is to the either/or grouping you've created here.
iPhone do have a lot of free software but even then that software can leverage the same native programming tools that power the paid software. There's no need to create needless distinctions.
The crux here is that Adobe wants to leverage Flash to as tool sitting over the native API and Apple knows that this will cause apps created like this to be delayed or shun new features in future versions. There is no upside for Apple. They have enough apps on the store...they need to focus on having more quality apps.
1. Done - with each successive iteration of iPhone OS the developer gets easier access to more Apple technologies and more API to play with. All of this for less than a pair of good Nike shoes annually is a steal.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
Or, they go, "I can pay a developer for weeks to write the same thing. But it'll be buggier, and I have to do it for each platform". They have to jack up the prices to get their investment back, but they have to eat support for it, so it becomes more of a pain. Result: you get less content for higher costs.
You can't break the fundamental laws of economics. If it costs more to do, they have to make that up somehow.
Comments
Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create. We've had very open platforms like computers and very controlled platforms like consoles, iPods and other embedded devices. The iPhone appears to be somewhere in between. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, but they are definitely a major player so what they do does have a major effect on the market and a significant number of consumers. Are there concerns about Apple being able to pick and choose what and how a developer reaches the user? I think these are interesting questions to be settled more explicitly in court even if I don't know the best answer.
What you are suggesting is very dangerous to the American Tech industry particularly to innovative companies large and small. A company had a right to control their products as they see fit. If the market disagrees with them, they lost customers and they lose money and they will have to make their own decisions on how to change that outcome and the reverse is also true. Bringing the court to clarify the amount of control of a company like Apple to it's products and to force them to give up total control for the convenience of another company like Adobe's or group of people will destroy free enterprise in this country. Even though they have a major effect on the market, they are not the leaders nor do they command a insurmountable lead . Problem also, where is the full blown mobile Flash in Android, Symbian, WebOS or Windows 6 or 7? That's right, it does not exist. As you had pointed out, Apple does not have a monopoly of smartphones nor do they a monopoly on all mobile devices? Since Apple does not control the market but influences it, the Court will throw out every Adobe's complaint in the matter.
The best way for Adobe to do is get more engineers and programmers and fix Flash not only for the iGadgets, but also to the MacOS X , Windows and Linux platform instead of waiting the Court and taxpayers time.
Whatever that means.
Apple should just let the market sort this out. If Adobe create a crap platform that leads to crap applications then users won't want them and so developers won't use Adobe.
If Adobe create something that allows developers to make better applications it will just be incentive for Apple to improve their own development tools.
This is nothing like the PC world. Apple aren't going to be pushed out of a market they basically own.
If Adobe had, I dunno, more than 10 people in the U.S. writing code for them, I might give a fackool.
Yup, no fackool to be given here. The idea of a lawsuit over anything this blogger's mentioned is positively idiotic. Play by Apple's rules in the Appleverse. Apple doesn't drag its butt and usually has sound reasons for the tech decisions they make (even if we don't always agree with those decisions); can anyone say the same thing about Adobe? (Show some CS5 benchmarks on Mac that will blow me out of the water, and I might just start to give a fackool again...)
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
I'd love Adobe to win this but it's probably not going to happen. Apple are just acting like tools and the last time I checked that wasn't illegal.
Apple should just let the market sort this out. If Adobe create a crap platform that leads to crap applications then users won't want them and so developers won't use Adobe.
If Adobe create something that allows developers to make better applications it will just be incentive for Apple to improve their own development tools.
This is nothing like the PC world. Apple aren't going to be pushed out of a market they basically own.
How is Apple acting like tools? Users will flock to whatever is cheap regardless of whether said item is crap (i.e see Windows based PC)
Apple spends a lot of money to develop rich API for developers to leverage in making great iPhone apps. The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here.
I bought an iPhone to have iPhone apps crafted. I don't give a shit about making it easy for the developer to create an Android, Blackberry or WinMo app.
What you are suggesting is very dangerous to the American Tech industry particularly to innovative companies large and small. A company had a right to control their products as they see fit. If the market disagrees with them, they lost customers and they lose money and they will have to make their own decisions on how to change that outcome and the reverse is also true. Bringing the court to clarify the amount of control of a company like Apple to it's products and to force them to give up total control for the convenience of another company like Adobe's or group of people will destroy free enterprise in this country. Even though they have a major effect on the market, they are not the leaders nor do they command a insurmountable lead . Problem also, where is the full blown mobile Flash in Android, Symbian, WebOS or Windows 6 or 7? That's right, it does not exist. As you had pointed out, Apple does not have a monopoly of smartphones nor do they a monopoly on all mobile devices? Since Apple does not control the market but influences it, the Court will throw out every Adobe's complaint in the matter.
The best way for Adobe to do is get more engineers and programmers and fix Flash not only for the iGadgets, but also to the MacOS X , Windows and Linux platform instead of waiting the Court and taxpayers time.
I'm glad you said this... however I'd like to add... "Waaaaaaaaaaaaa, Apple won't let me have their toys to break Mommy!"
This is the entitlement mentality, that's so prevalent among whiny developers and forum posters. They think the courts should jump in and give them 3rd party features, and they cower behind pathetic misunderstandings and fantasies about monopoly laws.
Adobe keeps looking worse and worse in this whole Flash thing. Again, just more little babies who can't do anything on their own, whining about someone else's work, and why everyone else won't bend to meet their petty needs. Probably a parenting issue, this is why those of you here with kids, should spank them instead of that bs hippy child-rearing nonsense. A little butt pain, helps mitigate decades of blubbering later.
The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
Just curious, were you or a company you worked for one of the ones that got screwed?
You can change the names of the companies, parts and pieces and have the same story for Microsoft.
Great comment, hope to see more from you in the future.
In the early 1990's Apple's stagnant platform sales, lack of fixing OS issues were making most developers want to develop for both platforms/markets at once (diversify or die). QuickDraw GX or PowerTalk didn't add enough value to justify massive redevelopment costs for little returns (because it was completely incompatible with everything else, and was quite buggy originally, and the examples and documentation was a bit anemic). Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, or working with developers on what their customers wanted, Apple blames 3rd party developers because Apple failed to find the market-demand before implementing something that was incompatible with everything else.
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
I think you are either being completely dishonest, or you did an exceedingly bad job on your homework.
Apple added transparency to the PDF spec and a few other enhancements, they traded the technology back to Adobe for the license to use PDFs at the core of OS X. Adobe benefitted greatly. If you want all the Acrobat features... don't just sit there and whine expecting someone else to facilitate your leeching - go buy it!
After experiencing the bloatware free Acrobat Reader, and the dismal glut of the Pro version, I'll stick with the much quicker, slicker Preview.
I'll leave the rest for those with development experience to explain why Apple is not required to make it easier to develop Windows software and APIs. You'll also notice during the Olympics, that the Norwegians don't stop in the middle of an event, to go help the Swedish team. Really?!?! Sheesh.
How is Apple acting like tools? Users will flock to whatever is cheap regardless of whether said item is crap (i.e see Windows based PC)
Apple spends a lot of money to develop rich API for developers to leverage in making great iPhone apps. The last think they want is a lowest common denominator API like Flash churning out identical and boring apps for iPhone/Android/insert phone OS here.
I bought an iPhone to have iPhone apps crafted. I don't give a shit about making it easy for the developer to create an Android, Blackberry or WinMo app.
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
You sound bitter. Developers are not directly part of the corporate decision making process and are often caught off-guard by policy changes. The talented ones adapt.
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
1. Done - with each successive iteration of iPhone OS the developer gets easier access to more Apple technologies and more API to play with. All of this for less than a pair of good Nike shoes annually is a steal.
2. Apple clearly hasn't gone here as it would improve quality but also increase application cost to end users and reduce the amount of applications total.
Customers don't know they should care until they are made aware of the missing feature. Often a feature of using Apple tools and API is stability and who doesn't like stability? People choose Apple and they pay a premium precisely because "good enough" no longer holds sway with them.
If people think that "good enough" such rule the day then please explain why Java didn't make it or the plethora of other tools promising to "write once, deploy everywhere"
They never work because people "do" want the differentiation. If I had my druthers I'd wear tailored shirt and suits but for pricing reasons I'm stuck wearing shirts made for men with beer bellies. Such is life but I don't have to eat the shit sandwich being given to me and tell'em that it's good.
I think you are either being completely dishonest, or you did an exceedingly bad job on your homework....
I think you're missing the point. Apple implemented a subset of the spec. That subset holds back both platforms. Apple fails silently so users don't even know they're missing something. Like they did by taking the little blue lego out of webpages where there's something they don't see.
Apple was saying that not implementing Mac-only features holds the platform back -- while actively not implementing specs/functions, and hiding it from users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preview_(software)
There are, however, some aspects of the Adobe Reader's functionality that... are not provided in Preview. For example, forms can now be created in Acrobat that have dynamic content fields (such as drop-downs and check-boxes) and while Preview will display these fields, interactivity is not available and therefore the fields become static.
Go through this, and you'll find a long list of things that Apple doesn't support that the spec does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF
Should Apple be held to a different standard than they hold others or not?
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
I think you the confused party. You're example doesn't display anything schizophrenic, nor is their any 'hypocrisy' - which I believe is the word you were looking for.
Besides you don't get arrogant as a result of confusion induced by schizophrenia.
I think what the problem is... your argument got totally torpedoed, and you don't have a logical counter.
Obviously you're unaware of the predominance of cheap electronics devices and computers in most tech segments. Obviously you're also unaware of this company called Apple, that tends to make slightly higher priced products and have repeatedly stated their objective to make more elegant devices rather than chase the low end of various markets.
I think you're missing the point. Apple implemented a subset of the spec. That subset holds back both platforms. Apple fails silently so users don't even know they're missing something. Like they did by taking the little blue lego out of webpages where there's something they don't see.
Apple was saying that not implementing Mac-only features holds the platform back -- while actively not implementing specs/functions, and hiding it from users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preview_(software)
There are, however, some aspects of the Adobe Reader's functionality that... are not provided in Preview. For example, forms can now be created in Acrobat that have dynamic content fields (such as drop-downs and check-boxes) and while Preview will display these fields, interactivity is not available and therefore the fields become static.
Go through this, and you'll find a long list of things that Apple doesn't support that the spec does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF
Should Apple be held to a different standard than they hold others or not?
Apple 'licenced' the technology. That's as legitimate as spec usage gets. Again, if you want those features... buy Acrobat. Apple licensed (that word you should really look up) the PDF spec for their specific purposes. Adobe profited from the arrangement, how are they the offended party? From their own licensing terms? Really!?!? Come on people, the apes are catching up.
You sound schizophrenic. Either you're a sheep that flocks to whatever crap is cheap, or you bought an iPhone because you wanted quality applications. You can't be both.
The only other option is that you are a smart consumer but everyone else is just stupid. That would be pretty arrogant though so I'm guessing it must be one of the first two.
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. People who suffer from it are unable to relate their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around them and often withdraw from society.
Non sequitur. Your diagnosis is misapplied here. The rest of your response makes absolutely no sense whatesoever. There is a spectrum of users who buy and utilize these phone technologies and their dynamic range is closer to infinity than it is to the either/or grouping you've created here.
iPhone do have a lot of free software but even then that software can leverage the same native programming tools that power the paid software. There's no need to create needless distinctions.
The crux here is that Adobe wants to leverage Flash to as tool sitting over the native API and Apple knows that this will cause apps created like this to be delayed or shun new features in future versions. There is no upside for Apple. They have enough apps on the store...they need to focus on having more quality apps.
1. Done - with each successive iteration of iPhone OS the developer gets easier access to more Apple technologies and more API to play with. All of this for less than a pair of good Nike shoes annually is a steal.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
Or, they go, "I can pay a developer for weeks to write the same thing. But it'll be buggier, and I have to do it for each platform". They have to jack up the prices to get their investment back, but they have to eat support for it, so it becomes more of a pain. Result: you get less content for higher costs.
You can't break the fundamental laws of economics. If it costs more to do, they have to make that up somehow.