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 - Page 3

post #81 of 181
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.
post #82 of 181
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.
post #83 of 181
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.
post #84 of 181
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.
post #85 of 181
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.
post #86 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.

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!!!....
post #87 of 181
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.
post #88 of 181
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.
post #89 of 181
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.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #90 of 181
Sosumi!
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #91 of 181
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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #92 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.

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.
post #93 of 181
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.
post #94 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?

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.
post #95 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

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.

Exactly. Adobe is doing what they think makes sense to make money off of their file format. Is it really surprising that Apple would not take a somewhat different approach when it comes to a computing platform? A file format and a computing platform are two rather different things.
post #96 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

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.

AGREED!!! Extremely well-said!

-Mayes
post #97 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.

Or, they can go, "I will pay a developer for weeks to write a better version for the iPhone that is customized to the platform, which makes sense to me because that is by far the largest and competitive platform out there. I'll use CSS to make a more cookie-cutter version of the same thing for all the other platforms out there that have far smaller marketshare and are less competitive."

That is what Apple is trying to achieve. Makes perfect sense from their perspective.
post #98 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008

Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.

So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.

And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?

If it's an open spec, then your point makes even less sense. Apple can do whatever they want.

In every post you make you are talking about this as if it were some kind of morality issue. If Adobe chose to make PDF an open spec that anyone can use however they want, then Apple is well within its rights to use PDF however they want. Apparently Adobe must have believed that this was a strategy that was in their best interests.

Apple is choosing a rather different strategy for the advancement of their iPlatform. I don't find it at all surprising that a company would choose to follow a different strategy to advance a computing platform than to advance a file format. This effort to make some kind of moral equivalence between the two is weird.
post #99 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

In all seriousness, if, as some people urge, Adobe were to walk away from releasing the CS5 suite for Macs, who would be hurt more? Yes, the Mac apps are a steady revenue stream for Adobe, but I don't really see much in the way of alternatives for the CS5 apps. Photoshop in particular really is the 800-pound gorilla. I can see at least some users just throwing up their hands, buying new PCs to replace Macs or even just installing Windows 7 in Boot Camp and moving on with CS5. So it would seem Adobe, while it may hurt itself, may be able to hurt Apple more, at least among creative professionals. That's completely irrelevant in the iPhone/iPad space, of course.

Adobe's management are responsible to shareholders, and shareholders are interested in profits, not the hurt feelings of Adobe employees. Walking away from the CS revenue from the Mac is not an option for Adobe. Heck, if they tried it, Apple might just fill the space themselves.
post #100 of 181
There are some "functions" of Adobe Acrobat that one could well do without.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #101 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Put another way. Adobe, Ansca, Appcelerator, EA, PhoneGap, Unity3D, and most importantly 100's of app developers (many with top 10 apps in their category) all complied with Apple's terms. Millions of users bought and use those Apps. So Apple changed the terms of the contract in order to hurt them all, whatever the collateral damage. (Then they made a cowardly-irrational excuse that few really buy and they don't follow themselves).

And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.

Put another way, Apple is a for profit company that is more interested in making money than they are in whether developers are happy. Apple sees developers as subcontractors more than they see them as lifelong soul mates. Apple also sees individual developers as disposable -- kind of like interchangeable parts. As unflattering as that may be, it's probably more or less true.

There are undoubtedly costs to Apple's approach. You are correct that Apple is making iPlatform development more costly for developers. But Apple is calculating that the benefits of selling apps on their platform will cover those costs, and developers will continue to make apps. I suspect they are correct. Apple also believes that this will make their platform more appealing to consumers. They may well be correct. The fact that Adobe made a different calculation with PDFs is just that -- a different calculation (not a morality thing)
post #102 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by FckUadobe View Post

Who else but a paid Adobe troll would write a thing like this?



Forget about lawsuits -- Adobe's desperate survival strategy appears to be Paid Trolls

I don't agree with the post you quoted, but I also don't agree that everyone who posts something that could be interpreted as "pro-Adobe" is a paid troll. But even if they are -- so what? It should be the content of what they write that matters, not their motivation for writing it or their identity. In this case, the content of what this person wrote makes no sense, and it doesn't take much to show that.

Similarly, I really doubt that Sue is a paid troll. I think she is totally sincere in what she's writing, and she's clearly knowledgeable.
post #103 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.

++. Finally someone who "gets it".
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 #104 of 181
Surely I'm not the only one who is both amused and bemused by the stance taken both by Adobe and their advocates? That with Flash installed on "96% of computers" (cf Adobe) and covering '90% of the web' (cf various advocates) they are accusing Apple of monopolistic practises? Adobe has effectively installed their products as de-facto standards in more than one sphere, therefore are by definition a quasi-monopoly, whereas Apple are competing in a sea of vigorous competition. The very idea that Adobe wants to be anywhere near a courtroom, even as the plaintiff, where monopolistic practises are examined is risible. Imagine what 'search and disclosure' might reveal!

Not that I give a flying one, but my friendly advice to Adobe would be to follow the old political dictum that 'if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging'. Back down from this ridiculous show of brinkmanship because there is nothing but grief for you down that path. Instead, focus on your software, clean it up, make sure it as relevant to the next decade as it has been to the past one, and earn your right to be the default rather than sitting back and abusing your dominant position in the market.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #105 of 181
Scenario:

You create a hardware platform, supply the OS for that hardware and provide all the tools to create programs to run on that hardware. You provide the marketing and marketplace for selling these pograms.

All this costs you many millions of dollars.

People like what you have produced and buy your product.

The only question that needs to be answered is this:

Would you allow someone else to hijack and take over your hardware platform to produce both inferior programs and user experience?

Like frack you would!

In simple laymen's terms, this is what Adobe is trying to do.
post #106 of 181
It would be interesting to see Adobe win this one, to see if they utlimately lose against user and developer backlash, if what the article says is indeed true.

Steve Jobs can afford to take this stance and probably looks forward to get sued to reiterate his point.
post #107 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

Would you allow someone else to hijack and take over your hardware platform to produce both inferior programs and user experience?

Like frack you would!

In simple laymen's terms, this is what Adobe is trying to do.

1) There are gazillions of sub-standard "inferior" apps already for the iPhone despite being originally coded in obj-c.

2) Microsoft did the same with its platform that it invested money into, and they were considered "evil" by Apple fanboys and were slapped with antitrust.

3) The United States is governed by law. Apple can't do whatever it wants without expecting consequences.
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 #108 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.

Given that if you click on the sjvn on that page, you're taken to Steven's bio, I think that's probably it - you can always depend on Daniel not to do his research, of course.
post #109 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

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.

No I agree some court should decide what the difference is between a Computer with a sim chip that can make calls and a Phone that can do everything a Computer can. The lines are seemingly getting blurred but with large rule differences between the two.
post #110 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anglo View Post

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!

Totally. If Steven's saying someone close to the company has told him this, then someone either at the company or a direct partner (PR company, very close partner) has told it him. Of course, nothing may come to pass - Adobe's SMT may decide it's not worth the legal fees - but it's pretty clear that Adobe is pissed off enough to at least consider it.
post #111 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

... So Apple changed the terms of the contract in order to hurt them all, whatever the collateral damage. (Then they made a cowardly-irrational excuse that few really buy and they don't follow themselves).

Do you realize how crazy you make yourself sound when you say stuff like this?

Right... They spend all their time over there at Apple just trying to think up ways to screw people. Steve actually hates the iPad, but he figures they'll sell it anyway, just to screw Adobe.
post #112 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.

By which you mean that you work for Adobe and posting on the AI forums is not specifically in your job description?
post #113 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.

You made some valid points about the past, but I think You should divide the age pre Steve Jobs and the current Steve Jobs (Next) age.

Apple did a lot of wrong decisions in the 80's and 90's but to blame the current management and development team for this is not legit.

At least since the introduction of OSX there was a clear, reliable strategy for 3rd party devs and the master plan is still followed. Since years there's a clear commitment to cocoa / XCode and web-techniques as optimized environments.

One can hardly blame Adobe for preferring Windows some years ago or for their way to concept their Mac products as Windows port.

But times have changed. OSX is no doomed platform any more.
A big part of the OSX success was to move fast by delivering superior technologies.

Adobe isn't any more in the position to dictate Apple e.g. to provide porting API's like Carbon 64.

Instead Apple is defining how the game is played. That's just the situation, whether good or bad depends on Your point of view.

Trying to establish flash as a brake block completely negotiating thousands of optimized API's powered by market share and one click deployment is at least something Apple does not have to appreciate.

I hope there's a way to sort things out and they invent a synergy strategy.

If Adobe pushes a legal battle I think they will go down even if the lawyers succeed in a partial success, because the innovation train will not wait for them at the railway station.
post #114 of 181
I knew of LineForm before as an alternative to Illustrator and while capable, it doesn't do much of what I need to do that I can in Illustrator.

But thanks to someone who pointed out Pixelmator. I'm very impressed with it as it does nearly everything I need an image editor to do at a fraction of the price I forked over for CS4.

Looks like I may just need to buy Illustrator and get to ditch Photoshop...
post #115 of 181
I could care less about Flash, not having it on my iPad has not hindered me one bit. What I do care about is that Apple is using their market share to manipulate the market. Right now it is trivial with Flash but what happens five years from now when Apple has even more market share and decides the only Email you can use on their products is Mobile ME, or that the only music you can play is what is bought through iTunes? Right now it is easy to say the customers will be driven away and speak with their wallets but if Apple has a majority of the market that wont happen, all the Apple adopters will have quite a large amount invested in Apple products and wont be able to turn away and be forced to swallow Steve Jobs pill. To me this Flash issue is just a means to get the ball rolling all in favor of Apple and Apple wallets.
post #116 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.

Are you referring to Flash with 90+% market share or Apple with perhaps 10%? That's Adobe's achilles heal in any legal conflict.
post #117 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

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.....

Nor can it be about adoption of a new OS by users because adobe could tie their software into apples APIs if apple would allow them to through cross compiling magic or whatever sanctioned practice there was. Also, iPhone 3.0 OS didn't abandon 2.0 apps, so I'd say it's a FAR stretch of the imagination to say that 4.0 would abandon 3.0 apps. Apple still controls the app store and the marketing magic. It's cute the way this gets spun as though Apple denies Adobe software (or any other third party) for any reason other than maintaining it's monopolistic control on software development for it's mobile devices. I get it. You don't have to try and spin it to make Apple look better. I still like their desktops, but on the mobile front I can't roll with this anymore. Taking my money to a better service with a better phone (4G tethering anyone?)
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #118 of 181
With any luck it'll be a class action suit, with the dozen or so RAD tools vendors joined by several thousand developers in an "The Entire World vs. Apple" showdown. Even if Apple wins the suit they'd lose the PR message.

Such a suit should have no trouble getting spin support: Job's hubris has earned himself quite a massive enemies list, including most music publishers, a few book publishers, Google, a great many other software companies large and small, and now many thousands of developers.

I'm getting a bag of peanuts and a ringside seat. Should be a good show.
post #119 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

[...] Apple just killed some good Apps and good App developers or moved them off platform, why is that a win?

Steve Jobs wants to control the publishers, not for egalitarian reasons or the good of the users, but for power. Fine, own it. But I bought a phone, not a service where Apple gets to do evil in my name.

[...]

And yes, yes, I get that we have 100,000 small shareware apps and many small developers that Apple can more easily bully around to make up for it. But a good ecosystem has a variety of developers and sizes. Not a bunch of little ones, all waiting for their turn to get crushed under by Steve Jobs latest policy change.

You sound extremely bitter, despite protestations to the contrary. And, it seems like this is very personal for you, and very much directed at SJ personally. The venom, which you apparently tried to "soften" with your edit is dripping from the bits I quoted above.

It's also quite clear, that you don't give a damn about iPhone OS as a platform, or iPhone users for that matter; your only interest is in how you personally, or your employer, can exploit it for your own ends. If there's any hypocrisy here, it is yours, and yours alone.

Well, either that or you're so fixated on your SJ hate that you just aren't able to think rationally on this topic.
post #120 of 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

++. Finally someone who "gets it".

Outstanding developers will adapt with Apple because they have the capacity. Amateurs will complain that they got burned because they are short sighted and rigid. Adobe has a choice to either rise above and adapt or cry in the corner. I'm sick of all the crying!
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