Originally Posted by nikon133
Apple is preventing people to port
apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
Not just Adobe tools. And it would only be anti-competitive if Apple were somehow able to prevent people from doing such activity on other operating systems or platform, by either having overwhelming market share or some other advantage.
They aren't and they don't, so all the anti-competative and monopoly talk is just that - talk.
if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Why? Why shouldn't Apple be able to? They have their stated reasons for doing so - and I happen to firmly agree with them. As a Mac user, it's obvious the vendors that meerly port an application to Mac OSX vs. writing native code.
Maybe your a Windows user so porting doesn't affect you as often, or maybe you don't mind mediocre software with inconsistent interface conventions - fine. I don't want mediocre software and Mac OSX is my primary platform. I want apps written to fully exploit it. I like the minimum standards that Apple is setting. It helps ensure that I won't have to hear more people drone on and on about the millions of fart apps instead of thousands of fart apps
If you don't agree, then knock yourself out with Android or some other system. The choice is yours.
I fail to see how Apple introducing a model that has never existed before in a widespread and widely supported manner is anti-competative or anti-choice. Funny how that no one in these threads who's anti iOS and want's Apple to "open up" addresses this.
Apple isn't the one being restrictive or limiting real choice.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close.
Close sucks. Apple has stated that it's not good enough. For the critical parts of a program like the user interface, I don't want a port where some controls designed for a mouse environment are abstracted, poorly, into a touch world.
Your arguing for mediocrity. If you really want that, there are platforms like Android that own't prevent it - go knock yourself out. Apple has stated that they have minimum standards and that they are not interested in developers that aren't committed enough to their platform to write apps that will take 100% advantage of the platform.
As a user and not
a developer, I find this a most welcome and refreshing change. If your a developer and don't like it - Apple isn't lobotomizing you so you can't program on some other platform - their saying that your want's just don't match theirs and your free to not play in their sandbox.
I find the hubris of people that think they have the RIGHT to force Apple to comply with their narrow minded vision simply breathtaking. It's Apple's platform - they could arbitrarily declare they will only accept programs from authors who's first name is Stan - except they haven't done that. They have (for the most part) clearly defined reasons for why they are doing what they do. No one is forcing anyone to write for the iOS, and Apple not accepting everything under the sun is perfectly fine.
Indeed, it's welcomed by me and others who want the choice of a platform that will function more like an appliance than the wild west that is general computing. Why so many are threatened that others may not want what they do is just fascinating to me. Apple doesn't want to play the same old game as everyone else - good for them!
Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
Yes, and Apple has stated that not all porting is equal. Things like physics engines for games are not under the same scrutiny as a simple recompiling of a flash application to some abstraction layer. As with anything, it's a definite "it depends". If it doesn't impact the user experience and if the shared code enhances rather than homogenizes the end user experience, I sincerely doubt you are ever going to have to worry about anything from Apple.
People who fail to acknowledge this or try to paint Apple as being hypocritical in these "exceptions" are being disingenuous or missing the point (ignorant). A physics engine is low level code that is not directly exposed to the end user. The rest of the application - the user interface in particular - is still coded in native tools to take full advantage of the UI and other platform specific features. Unlike the simple wholesale ports like Adobe was pushing with their flash compiler.
Look at it from Apples perspective - they have put lots of time in crafting APIs to allow developers to do lots of cool things to really exploit and show off their platform (which they have also spent lots of time crafting). The best way to encourage people to take advantage of those cool things is to not allow porting with abstraction layers like Adobe was peddling. All that does is ensure bland applications that exploit the "lease common denominator" of features between platforms the programmer targets.
How is that a win for Apple or it's customers? It's not. Those are developers Apple doesn't care about loosing - they add nothing to the platform, instead they cheapen and blunt the overall user experience. They are actually detrimental to the long term success of Apple's platform since rather than showing off the assets of the environment, they carry over the bare minimum. If you care about your platform, you won't want tools like Adobe's generic porting tools either!