or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Blogger insists Adobe will sue Apple over CS4 iPhone app tools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blogger insists Adobe will sue Apple over CS4 iPhone app tools

post #1 of 181
Thread Starter 
A security blogger cited unnamed sources to claim that Adobe has plans in place to sue Apple over its decision to block the use of Flash Professional to create iPhone apps.

The blogger, known as "sjvn," writes for ITWorld, part of the IDG Network. He predicted the issue will "blow up in Apple's face," and cited "sources close to Adobe" as saying that Adobe "will be suing Apple within a few weeks."

After reviewing the recent details of conflict between Apple and Adobe over support Flash on the iPhone and in creating iPhone apps, "sjvn" concluded, "unless things change drastically between Apple and Adobe in the next few weeks, from what I'm hearing you can expect to see Adobe taking Apple to court over the issue. It's not going to be pretty."

It's not clear what exactly Adobe would be suing Apple over. Apple has apparently never contracted in bad faith with Adobe to co-deliver Flash on the iPhone, nor did the company approve or endorse or in any way guarantee that Adobe's efforts to skirt the existing restrictions in the iPhone SDK would result in commercial success.

Apple on Flash: not good enough

Instead, Apple has maintained a clear, unchanging position since the iPhone first appeared that Adobe's desktop Flash platform was not suited for use on mobiles, while its Flash Lite platform failed to support the kind of Flash content users would expect of it.

Adobe did not deliver a mobile version of Flash Player until version 10.0 for Android last summer, but that version still didn't play most of the content users would encounter on the web.

Only the latest 10.1 Flash Player, which is still under development, can play most desktop Flash content on mobiles. However, it requires a Cortex A8-class processor, meaning that even if Apple wanted to bundle it, it could only work on the latest iPhone 3GS.

Adobe's mobile Flash Player 10.1 is targeted at Palm's webOS and Google's Android, with a version planned for Microsoft's upcoming Windows Phone 7 and eventually RIM's BlackBerry OS. On any platform, it can only run on the latest phones sold over the past several months.

Apple has been selling the iPhone for three years now, and has never even had the option to bundle a version of Flash until just recently. It would be hard to imagine how Adobe could claim any legal right to demand that Apple support its monopoly position in desktop dynamic web content playback.

Apple's progressive iPhone platform

Adobe's alternative strategy, which brainstormed the concept of using Flash Professional to create native iPhone apps as a way for Flash developers to port their existing content to the App Store, was similarly never something Apple said it would support. Instead, while Adobe worked on adding support to its Flash development tools to create apps that could run on iPhone 3.0 devices, Apple was busy working to finish iPhone 4.0, which is expected to ship in roughly two months.

At that point, Apple will want to rapidly shift its developers from iPhone 3.0 to iPhone 4.0-savvy apps within iTunes, just as it worked to quickly transition iPhone App Store titles to iPhone 3.0 last year.

However, if a significant number of App Store titles are built using third party tools (such as Flash Professional) that do not support the new iPhone 4.0 APIs, including features such as multitasking and new enterprise APIs, Apple's ability to quickly shift users to the new OS and its capacity to push developers to support its new features will be severely impaired.

This all happened before

Apple ran into similar problems back in the early 90s, when all the application developers that had started their businesses on the Macintosh began seeking lowest common denominator ways to sell their apps to both Mac users and Windows PC users. This resulted in developers largely ignoring all the new features Apple developed for the Mac OS, including QuickDraw GX and PowerTalk.

Rather than developing apps for the Mac, developers such as Microsoft and Adobe began creating their own internal platforms that then tacked a Mac-native front end onto their new general purpose code. The result was that Apple suddenly became powerless to push its third party Mac developers to support the platform's unique features, resulting in increasingly less differentiation between the Mac and Windows PCs.

Ten years later, Apple similarly had a difficult time trying to convince its third party developers to natively support its new Mac OS X operating system. Adobe refused to bring many of its Mac apps to the new Carbon environment Apple created expressly to facilitate easy porting to Mac OS X; among the list of apps that never made the transition were FrameMaker and Premiere. Adobe didn't even bring Photoshop to Mac OS X as a native app until 2005.

Similarly, while Adobe joined Apple on stage in announcing the migration of the Mac to Intel in 2005, Adobe didn't release a Universal Binary version of its core apps until early 2007. The company never updated its existing Creative Suite 2 apps, nor the Studio 8 suite it had acquired from Macromedia.

In the future, Apple doesn't want to be forced to wait a few years for Adobe to get up to speed on its development plans. For the iPhone OS, Apple has established a rapid development cycle that demands that its app developers stay current with the latest firmware. They can't do that if they're tied to a third party development platform like Flash Professional, which is likely to lag Apple's own Xcode tools by months or even a year or more.

That being the case, it's hard to fathom how Adobe could invent a legal claim to force Apple to do anything to support its efforts to produce iPhone apps using alternative development tools.

Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs reportedly explained the situation to a user by writing, "we've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform."
post #2 of 181
Its CS5 that has the flash to iphone
post #3 of 181
Yeah- I'm sure SJVM- I'm sure it won't be pretty. I'm sure it will blow up in Apple's face. I'm sure this will be the most monumental, awesomely huge legal argument Adobe will be able to put forward!

Or wait- hmmm... no anti trust arguments, no contractual arguments, Apple maintains the closed ecosystem.... Sounds like Adobe is just bitching, thinking that this will turn in to some sort of PR spectacle that will hurt Apple.

I couldn't care less about Adobe. they do write crap software- acrobat always trying to update itself every 15 minutes, crashing, flash sucks.

sorry bud- sounds like Adobe is in its death throes.

Good riddance I say.

Sound's like Adobe is looking for summary judgement on a poorly conceived lawsuit.

i hope nothing changes- I like Apple's stance. i want to see Adobe actually try and sue Apple.
post #4 of 181
Good luck Adobe fighting Apple and their 40 billon dollar cash reserves.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #5 of 181
Think of things this way....

If Apple allowed this Adobe product those "apps" would still be sold through the App Store and Apple would still get their cut.

So the issue can't be about Apples revenue.....
post #6 of 181
sjvn?

There's a fairly prolific, well-known and fairly well connected IT Journalist with those initials.

Steven J Vaughan-Nicholls.


What are the chances of that coincidence, do you think? :P

Anglo.
post #7 of 181
Great ! On what grounds though? Adobe must be really desperate...
post #8 of 181
Developers who have made flash apps for 3.0 can't sue apple because of their T&Cs, I imagine. I don't see how Adobe is effectively able to sue on their behalf, but that is about as close to a legal argument they have left.
post #9 of 181
Ahh, just noticed the photo, that IS Steven J Vaughan Nicholls, if it was just a random blogger I would have dismissed it as hyperbole and nothing more, however Steven is fairly well connected, and has enough history in the business to take seriously, interesting!

I still think Adobe have no grounds, maybe they are thinking "Tortious Interference" or similar, will be one to get the popcorn for, I predict Adobes failure in this endeavour though.
post #10 of 181
This should be entertaining ... I can see the opening argument now. "Your honor we demand compensation for imagined damages because the defendant is a no good poo-poo head, and hasn't been nice to us."

Heres an idea ... why doesn't Adobe spend their time and energy fixing their product so it doesn't need to be eschewed. Just an idea ...
post #11 of 181
hm... perhaps someone should sue Adobe for price gouging it's international customers. As they say don't throw with rocks if you are sitting in a glass house.
post #12 of 181
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.
post #13 of 181
...if they think something like this is really going to make Apple let Flash on the iPhone.

I suppose they're doing it to simply try and bully Apple into it, but if that's their logic, they need to brush up on their history... if SJ feels he (Apple) has been wronged by a company, he doesn't get mad (well, he does), he gets even.

This will only make SJ and Apple that much more opposed to Flash and work that much harder to give it the death it so richly deserves.

I'd love to see Adobe waste a ton of money on this and then get bought by Apple. I'd love to see the looks on the faces of Adobe's corp-execs when SJ gives them the axe...

It would also be sweet justice to see all the Windows versions killed off so that only Macs would have it.
post #14 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

Yeah- I'm sure SJVM- I'm sure it won't be pretty. I'm sure it will blow up in Apple's face. I'm sure this will be the most monumental, awesomely huge legal argument Adobe will be able to put forward!

Or wait- hmmm... no anti trust arguments, no contractual arguments, Apple maintains the closed ecosystem.... Sounds like Adobe is just bitching, thinking that this will turn in to some sort of PR spectacle that will hurt Apple.


I'd love to know something from anyone that has seen the pre 4.0 SDK. does it say what languages apps are to be written in. and does it say anything that allows these container apps that apparently are what Adobe's convertor is making.

if these things were covered pre 4.0 then Adobe knew they were taking a chance with this new feature.
post #15 of 181
"We've been there before." Indeed. WIth Microsoft. 20 years ago.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #16 of 181
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. .

I think that is a flat out daft terrible idea.

Unless and until one company wields monopoly power over the smart phone market (I don't even foresee that as happening, ever), the courts have absolutely no business in such a debate. That is what markets are for and consumers will decide this with their wallets. Besides, King Solomon has bigger fish to fry.
post #17 of 181
just let them sue apple...they're just joining the trend with nokia and kodak...nothing to worry about...
post #18 of 181
I would like to suggest that apple insider (and macrumors and macsurfer etc) consider moving these lawsuit stories off the main page and onto a lawsuit-specific page for people who are interested in such things. I'm not saying that I have no interest, but I do have a very limited interest in this stuff. I'd much rather see front page stories that are more technology or product focused.

Let me put it this way -- if we are going to have front page stories on lawsuits, then in the interest of consistency we should also have stories on trash removal at apple's Cupertino campus. I mean inquiring minds want to know -- is apple using Waste Management or a local mom and pop operation? And does Steve ever hurt the feelings of the trash truck driver? Surely there must be a blogger covering this who could be quoted...
post #19 of 181
Let Adobe sue. Flash is the new QuickDraw GX.

If Adobe had, I dunno, more than 10 people in the U.S. writing code for them, I might give a fackool.
post #20 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by stehsegler View Post

hm... perhaps someone should sue Adobe for price gouging it's international customers. As they say don't throw with rocks if you are sitting in a glass house.

it's not just international ones. A lot of folks here in the US feel like they are overpricing period. their programs are great but are they $700 for the upgrade great. they have cornered the market so they get the money but is it fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

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.

Monopolies and tying are not inherently abusive under US law. So a company can do as they please. Until they abuse a high power level. There are so many cell phones and even smart phones on the market that even the highest selling phone is still only like 5-7% of the market max.

Same gig for game consoles, PMPs, and even computers. That distinction is why Psystar had no grounds to claim anti-trust when Apple told them they legally could not make clones and to cut it out.

Now when the iphone is more like 50% of the market, we will have a different game going on. Perhaps then you might be onto something
post #21 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anglo View Post

sjvn?

There's a fairly prolific, well-known and fairly well connected IT Journalist with those initials.

Steven J Vaughan-Nicholls.


What are the chances of that coincidence, do you think? :P

Anglo.

Yes, that's him. We got that after you posted it the first time.
post #22 of 181
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.

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.
post #23 of 181
Wow. After reading this article, I feel that Adobe can go suck eggs.

Whatever that means.
post #24 of 181
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.
post #25 of 181
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?
post #26 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcatma61 View Post

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...)
post #27 of 181
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.
post #28 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

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.
post #30 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.
post #31 of 181
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.

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.
post #32 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

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.
post #33 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.
post #34 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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.
post #36 of 181
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?

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.
post #37 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 181
Yes but that's Flash's raison d'ĂȘtre.

Easy greasy publishing but craptastic playback on Macs and mobile devices. Sorry I'm the consumer and Flash is persona non grata on my Mac unless I want it to come through my gatekeeper (Click2Flash)

As you said before though ..I don't value Magazines that much anymore. Haven't purchased a subscription to anything for a few years now. Them going online with interactive Flash media isn't going to suddenly spiffen up their writing or need to cram advertising down my throught.

Magazines are dying and they think technology is going to come to their rescue but it's not because they simply aren't needed anymore.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #39 of 181
Sue for what, exactly? Hurt feelings?

Does it even matter? Adobe doesn't drive Mac sales anyway. Not by a long-shot. This isn't 15 years ago.
post #40 of 181
Flash content on the iPhone is out obviously and has always been.

However, Adobe put a lot of effort for porting Flash content to the App store. If you watch the Adobe overview/preview of CS5 they wrapped a lot of the launch and marketing around this feature.

I think they are feeling pretty chapped about it all. Not just that all that work is now thrown out the window, but it's extremely embarrassing and a real economic hit to Adobe. They really spent a lot of capital and a big chunk of the CS 5 product launch towards this.

Every demo in the launch of the CS5 that is featured highlights the feature running on OS X. I don't think Windows was used once. The 2 companies have been traditionally very close not just geographically but strategically. They have had their differences in the last few of years but in my eyes Adobe's been moving to renew its support for Apple and..... they got shat on, intentionally or not.

Having been following the 2 companies for a couple of decades I think it was intentional. As a user and shareholder of both companies I don't know how I feel about it exactly since I don't have all the facts, but it doesn't smell good to me on first whiff at all.

-tink

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Blogger insists Adobe will sue Apple over CS4 iPhone app tools