Blogger insists Adobe will sue Apple over CS4 iPhone app tools

1235710

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 199
    Since when i "a blogger" concidered to be a reliable source?



    A journalist, on the other hand, as this source happen to be. I still don't believe in analyst claims.
  • Reply 82 of 199
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member
    Oh, imagine if anyone could submit their Flash-app to the App store.... oh what a nightmare!

    But I totally think a Flash Playing app should be allowed though, given it's stable and complies with security and privacy measures.



    I think the best solution would be if Adobe made ONE native flash player app for iPhone. Then this app could surf to flash addresses and when loading them it could alert the user, like "This flash movie is using too much memory and has too many security issues. Loading cancelled." Hey, I even think it should be allowed to store compatible flash content locally within this Flash app. This way Adobe can be on top of things and update and optimize the Flash app to stay in line with Apple's frames, and developers can do their thing. Adobe should create their own Flash store. This way I think Apple would agree. But Adobe simply lacks the spirit, the guts and the creative mind to do anything this substantial, to lead the way.



    But to export iPhone native apps from within Flash itself... bad idea. Really bad idea. Then it would be up to each flash content developer to work around bugs and update their apps... and it simply won't happen effectively. That's one of the key problems with Flash, remember: It's often used by people who don't have deep knowledge of programming. I say this because I know even I can make a game with Flash!
  • Reply 83 of 199
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wondering View Post


    Being in the business of graphic design for the last 20 years, from the beginning of DTP through direct to film, then plate, then digital printing and all through online dev, I can tell you that the LAST thing I want to have my designers do is create an interactive Flash based ezine. The paradigm is a huge shift and it demands and deserves the appropriate application of technology, not a re-wrapping of yesterdays stuff just because people (developers, designers, etc.) can't adapt.



    Take a look at the Alice in Wonderland iPad app to see where things are going. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gew68Qj5kxw. Imagine interactive school books that automatically highlight, snip to their own notes/outlines, snip to complete reference for papers, and completely automates and becomes intuitive for the student.



    None of this will be done in Flash.



    It reminds me of what the Cobol programmers thought when technology advanced on them. It had/has it's place, but its not where it's at moving forward. Adapt or perish because it's a brand new paradigm.



    I love the look of that book but I can't help but think the creation of media like interactive books is begging for a 3rd party tool or framework. You can't have programmers involved in the creation of media.



    There is a creation tool for "Smart" boards that allows interactive media to be built by non-programmers in a very short amount of time using resources created by programmers. (In this example interactive school lessons by teachers). I think Apple putting a blanket ban on 3rd party tools like these will limit the potential of the iPad.
  • Reply 84 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I love the look of that book but I can't help but think the creation of media like interactive books is begging for a 3rd party tool or framework. You can't have programmers involved in the creation of media.



    There is a creation tool for "Smart" boards that allows interactive media to be built by non-programmers in a very short amount of time using resources created by programmers. (In this example interactive school lessons by teachers). I think Apple putting a blanket ban on 3rd party tools like these will limit the potential of the iPad.



    20 years ago people said that computers couldn't be used to create media, and that included print, video, art, music, etc. As such, I don't agree with the "You can't have programmers involved in the creation of media." statement.



    Some of the best programmers I know are amazing musicians and good programming is absolutely an art that calls on the same side of the brain that artists use to create media.
  • Reply 85 of 199
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palegolas View Post


    Oh, imagine if anyone could submit their Flash-app to the App store.... oh what a nightmare!

    But I totally think a Flash Playing app should be allowed though, given it's stable and complies with security and privacy measures.



    I think the best solution would be if Adobe made ONE native flash player app for iPhone. Then this app could surf to flash addresses and when loading them it could alert the user, like "This flash movie is using too much memory and has too many security issues. Loading cancelled." Hey, I even think it should be allowed to store compatible flash content locally within this Flash app. This way Adobe can be on top of things and update and optimize the Flash app to stay in line with Apple's frames, and developers can do their thing. Adobe should create their own Flash store. This way I think Apple would agree. But Adobe simply lacks the spirit, the guts and the creative mind to do anything this substantial, to lead the way.



    But to export iPhone native apps from within Flash itself... bad idea. Really bad idea. Then it would be up to each flash content developer to work around bugs and update their apps... and it simply won't happen effectively. That's one of the key problems with Flash, remember: It's often used by people who don't have deep knowledge of programming. I say this because I know even I can make a game with Flash!



    Maybe...



    I kind of feel like Adobe was on the right track here though. Adobe are good at making an IDE, they aren't so good at creating and maintaining all of the interpreters for client devices.



    The ability to export a Flash application as a native iPhone app was a step in the right direction IMO. The second step would have been the ability to export the same Flash application to other mobile platforms, and most importantly to HTML5.



    That way Flash developers are able to keep leveraging their experience and Adobe's IDEs, and the rest of us can start moving toward HTML5.



    Unfortunately Steve has decided that if you're not with him, you're against him. The whole thing seems very un-Apple to me.
  • Reply 86 of 199
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wondering View Post


    20 years ago people said that computers couldn't be used to create media, and that included print, video, art, music, etc. As such, I don't agree with the "You can't have programmers involved in the creation of media." statement.



    Some of the best programmers I know are amazing musicians and good programming is absolutely an art that calls on the same side of the brain that artists use to create media.



    I'll re-phase. It's impractical (for a multitude of reasons) to require the input of programmers in the creation of media.



    A programmer can be a musician, but not all musicians should have to be programmers.
  • Reply 87 of 199
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I love the look of that book but I can't help but think the creation of media like interactive books is begging for a 3rd party tool or framework. You can't have programmers involved in the creation of media.



    There is a creation tool for "Smart" boards that allows interactive media to be built by non-programmers in a very short amount of time using resources created by programmers. (In this example interactive school lessons by teachers). I think Apple putting a blanket ban on 3rd party tools like these will limit the potential of the iPad.



    They are not putting a ban on these tools. It just happens that Flash conflicts with the developer agreement. Anything based on HTML5, SVG, javascript, UIKit, or epub would be fine.
  • Reply 88 of 199
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I'll re-phase. It's impractical (for a multitude of reasons) to require the input of programmers in the creation of media.



    A programmer can be a musician, but not all musicians should have to be programmers.



    Music is a bad example, but even musicians form bands because one musician can't do everything. Currently for the web (the closest comparison) you do need to be both. Web designers need to know at least a little programming, so the same will be true for media. Apple plans to make this easier for iAds by creating templates, but that still requires a programmer. Video productions usually require quite a few different types of artists for a single production, so that isn't too different either.



    However, with the current state of HTML5, SVG, and CSS it would make sense to make this stuff more designer friendly. No need to be backwards compatible for rich media in an app. I'm really surprised that there has been no serious effort to do this yet. This could be the difference between iWeb and Dreamweaver though. The pros will use Dreamweaver for more complicated work while simple stuff may work fine in iWeb.



    Remember that Adobe spearheaded the SVG spec as a replacement for Flash before they acquired Macromedia. Now the iPhone supports that, but they want to push their proprietary spec instead. We don't need Flash, we need an Indesign variant for rich media.
  • Reply 89 of 199
    1) Apple does not have a monopoly on the smartphone market. Apple may have the best smart phones and the most popular, but there are plenty of other phones and plenty of other app stores. Adobe's complaint boils down to, "...I want to have a monopoly on the tools to develop apps for all mobile platforms." That's not a very compelling arguing position when you are trying to break up someone else' [perceived] monopoly.



    2) Apple doesn't own HTML5. Apple has no financial stake in leading developers to work in html5. That makes it difficult to argue that Apple has nefarious motives for making a switch.



    3) Apple is able to demonstrate that Adobe Flash has a deleterious effect on device performance and battery life. If flash is a millstone around a mobile device's neck, mobile device makers have every right to stop supporting it. Think of it this way, if we found out that Michelin tires got worse mileage and performance than Goodyear tires, would you really expect to be able to sue to force car manufacturers to use Michelin tires?



    4) Most Apple iPhones are not capable of using the latest builds of Flash that allow all web content to be viewed on a mobile device. The phones lack the processors and firmware. However, they can all benefit from html5 coding. If people with iPhone or Iphone 3g see commercials advertising flash apps requiring the latest hardware, they may buy an app that they can't use. THAT is a problem for Apple.



    Adobe just needs to realize that they backed the wrong horse (flash), develop tools for HTML5 or accept that they will only be doing business with low-quality smartphones running Android and Windows Mobile.
  • Reply 90 of 199
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

    That was the original point.

    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.



    You're quite amusing. Being a NeXT and Apple Alumni it's quite entertaining, albeit fantastical.
  • Reply 91 of 199
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Maybe...



    I kind of feel like Adobe was on the right track here though. Adobe are good at making an IDE, they aren't so good at creating and maintaining all of the interpreters for client devices.



    The ability to export a Flash application as a native iPhone app was a step in the right direction IMO. The second step would have been the ability to export the same Flash application to other mobile platforms, and most importantly to HTML5.



    That way Flash developers are able to keep leveraging their experience and Adobe's IDEs, and the rest of us can start moving toward HTML5.



    Unfortunately Steve has decided that if you're not with him, you're against him. The whole thing seems very un-Apple to me.



    Yeah, if Adobe embraced exporting to HTML5 it would be GREAT! Then Flash would suddenly be the standard tool for creating interactive HTML5 content, that is currently mostly for highly skilled developers. This is a place where I imagine Adobe would want to be. Perhaps you can't do everything in HTML5, but did you see Quake2 running in HTML5? If that runs in HTML5, I guess it's powerful enough for most things, including Flash.
  • Reply 92 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    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.



    COMPANIES LIKE ADUMBE and MICRO$HIT should just DIE and ROLLOVER or just go BANKRUPT, they are becoming more and more irrelevant as the days go by...



    ADOBE left US MAC USERs in the DARK many times with this BULLSHIT of not working with APPLE to move over to the 'newer' technologies when APPLE clearly was making it easy for them-



    so i say FUCK and LET 'EM EAT $HIT!!!!



    I HATE WHAT ACROBAT does to my MAC and all the other crappy shit ADOBE puts out and tries to ignore APPLE like they are some 2nd class software/hardware company, well the CHICKEN has come HOME TO ROOST!!!



    and NO COURT is going to make APPLE change ANYTHING!!!!

    sorry sore loSERs...



    Has anybody seen the new iPAD or the new MacBook Pros that just came out Tues??



    SWEET!!!....
  • Reply 93 of 199
    qualarqualar Posts: 72member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post


    COMPANIES LIKE ADUMBE and MICRO$HIT should just DIE and ROLLOVER or just go BANKRUPT, they are becoming more and more irrelevant as the days go by...



    ADOBE left US MAC USERs in the DARK many times with this BULLSHIT of not working with APPLE to move over to the 'newer' technologies when APPLE clearly was making it easy for them-



    so i say FUCK and LET 'EM EAT $HIT!!!!



    I HATE WHAT ACROBAT does to my MAC and all the other crappy shit ADOBE puts out and tries to ignore APPLE like they are some 2nd class software/hardware company, well the CHICKEN has come HOME TO ROOST!!!



    and NO COURT is going to make APPLE change ANYTHING!!!!

    sorry sore loSERs...



    Has anybody seen the new iPAD or the new MacBook Pros that just came out Tues??



    SWEET!!!....



    What pleasant language.
  • Reply 94 of 199
    ponduspondus Posts: 3member
    Sue Denim is a recent adition to this forum. His/Her posts are better written and argued than most here and the writer seems to be uncommenly knowledgeable. This recent post which spells out in elaborate detail all of Apples alleged wrongdoings to the developer community makes me wonder if "Sue Denim" is either a former Apple developer with an axe to grind (with or without good reason) OR - someone working for Adobe! In any case, it would be nice if he/seh/they would declare themselves, especially if they represent organized interests.
  • Reply 95 of 199
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jpellino View Post


    First, Adobe shoots themselves in the foot by not using Xcode and spends a year sans intel apps. Then, they continue to ignore any sensible development wisdom and continue to patch Flash rather than rewrite and thereby continue to ship a buggy, nowhere-near-optimized "platform".



    And they think lack of Flash on the iPhone is their big problem?



    Their strategy is pretty transparent - late to the dance, they want to force their way into someone else's success and hope to catch up to the rest of the world. They should call Rob Glaser and get an object lesson on just how futile it is to try and bully Apple into accepting a failed model rather than understanding where the industry is going and getting on a successful path.



    They can make far more money shipping great applications than they can by bullying anyone into accepting their so-so ones.



    . . . is the idea that some fool blogger comes up with the harebrained idea that Adobe should sue Apple and that all you armchair quarterbacks are scrambling to be on the jury with your stupid preconceived notions of how Apple (and/or Adobe) should be run. Never mind any real facts!



    What's really going on here is simple ENVY from a bunch of deadbeats over two companies that are actually producing products that people need and want.



    They became prosperous because there are still enough people around actually working who simply lay down their hard-earned money and buy those products which then help them make more money. And then they and these companies are happy.



    But then you bozos come along, and since you're NOT working or since you're IN-competent enough with these hardware and software tools so as to have to settle for slave labor jobs or be FIRED from decent jobs in the industry so as not to be able to AFFORD these products, figure if you whine and moan enough about these big bad companies then maybe someone will feel sorry for you and give you some money. . .or maybe lower their prices. . . or make everything FREE. Or at least someone will get some money if they throw enough stones (or words) at these big bad companies.



    In the meantime, we keep seeing the other financial earnings articles of how great Apple is doing. But none of you bozos seem to appreciate the fact that if it weren't for Steve Jobs and his intelligence and courage and leadership, there'd be no such good news.



    There'd be none of these stupid "news" articles about people thinking they know better than Apple how it should conduct its business.
  • Reply 96 of 199
    Sosumi!
  • Reply 97 of 199
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    So like Adobe's control over Flash content development and the software required to view that content.



    I guess you have have a point Adobe could be in trouble for monopolising and controlling web content and who can access it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    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.



  • Reply 98 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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.



    Wow, I guess this all explains why there are so few apps in the app store and why Mac sales have dwindled over the last few years.
  • Reply 99 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by q dude View Post


    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.



    Yup -- life is hard. This is true in any business. It's not that I don't sympathize -- I definitely do. I work in a business that is very client-focused. And my coworkers and I often whine about the clients, often for good reason. That whining is kind of a coping mechanism, and everybody does it. But there's a difference between cathartic whining among friends and bitterness that impairs one's ability to deal with reality.
  • Reply 100 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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're looking at this from a some kind of fairness/morality perspective (and a fairly arbitrary one so far as I can tell), and that's not what it's about. Adobe had chosen to handle the PDF standard in a way that they think makes sense. Apple is choosing to handle the development of their iPlatform in a way that they think makes sense. The two companies have taken different approaches -- not surprising since a computer platform and a file format are two fundamentally different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.