or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe resumes development of Packager for iPhone tool
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe resumes development of Packager for iPhone tool

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
Now that Apple has lifted restrictions banning Adobe's Flash to iPhone porting tool, Adobe will continue development of it for future releases of Flash Professional.

On its official blog, Adobe confirmed Thursday that it was resuming development of the tool, which allows Flash developers to "quickly and easily deliver applications for OS devices."

"We are encouraged to see Apple lifting its restrictions on its licensing terms, giving developers the freedom to choose what tools they use to develop applications for Apple devices," the company said in a statement earlier in the day.

Apple announced Thursday that iOS would now be open to third-party development tools, "as long as the resulting apps do not download any code." The Cupertino, Calif., company also released its App Store Review Guidelines, eliminating much of the mystery behind the approval process.

According to Adobe, developers are already seeing App Store approval of apps made using the Packager tool.

When Apple changed the iPhone Development Program License Agreement to ban apps using an "intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool" earlier this year, many saw it as a strike at Adobe, which had developed a Flash to iPhone cross compiler for Flash Professional in CS5.

Adobe subsequently abandoned development of the porting feature.

Thursday's announcements were "great news" for Google as well. According to Google, clauses in the developer agreement that could bar Google and AdMob from collecting user data have now been "clarified" to allow "many different mobile ad competitors" on the iPhone.

Something's still missing, though. Adobe was quick to point out that "Apples restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place."

Apple and Adobe exchanged missives earlier this year as tensions grew after Apple left Flash off of the iOS platform and then blocked Adobe's Flash Professional porting tool.
post #2 of 82
I guess Mr. Jobs lost on this one. Looks like he doesn't steer the Internet this time. Bring on Flash for iPhone!
post #3 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I guess Mr. Jobs lost on this one. Looks like he doesn't steer the Internet this time. Bring on Flash for iPhone!

Did you read the article?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Something's still missing, though. Adobe was quick to point out that "Apples restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place."



It's not all there, just the third party language/ cross-compilers.
post #4 of 82
Apple has been creating too many enimies while HTML5 is years behind finalization, and even then it won't be compatible with IE which currently dominates the Internet.

And recently, Facebook is very iPad UNfriendly and buying those $5 and $2 apps (like I did) to simply instant chat and upload pics to FB did not make any sense. I guess Apple seemes to, once again, take on too many projects and step on too many toes.

Two things SJ should've avoided.
1- bring a Google CEO into important Apple board meetings.
2- put Apple engineers at Intel's headquarters.

Both companies took a sneak peek into Apple's mind and are playing the me too game.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #5 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I guess Mr. Jobs lost on this one. Looks like he doesn't steer the Internet this time. Bring on Flash for iPhone!

Wow you're a moron.
post #6 of 82
Not looking forward to a tidal wave of shoddy ports but it seems Apple has very clearly reserved the right to reject applications for bad interfaces so I suppose that covers my biggest concern.
post #7 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe View Post

Not looking forward to a tidal wave of shoddy ports but it seems Apple has very clearly reserved the right to reject applications for bad interfaces so I suppose that covers my biggest concern.

We may see a lot of good apps or not. Does anyone know any Flash ported apps currently in the App Store? Adobe said there are about a hundred or so.
post #8 of 82
let me tell yall something! I'm on my 2ghz macbook original AL(13 inch) with 2 gigs of ram and 250 megs of Nvidia shared video. I tell you when I play quake live it looks like I'm in a pixar movie. The macbook can handle high-end graphics like a mothe*****.
Anyway, I was on that Nike.com site tonight and I wanted to explode! That site with all its nasty freaking flash is hell to navigate through. Flash is a disease. Kill it.
post #9 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe View Post

Not looking forward to a tidal wave of shoddy ports but it seems Apple has very clearly reserved the right to reject applications for bad interfaces so I suppose that covers my biggest concern.

Yeah, I think the FCC may have had something to do with this, but OTOH, Apple seems to be really throwing down the Gauntlet saying that if you UI sucks, and there are too many of a type of app, you aren't getting through. Both those seem to be targeted at Flash.
post #10 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnseenLlama View Post

Wow you're a moron.

Oh oh. Name calling. Gonna report you.

But for the record, there is a word for someone who doesn't respond to what a person says and tries to dismiss the person with name calling and insults. You, sir, are a...

Agh, I can't name call. I have too many points already.
post #11 of 82
I have nothing personal against Adobe but this boneheaded move by Apple is going to open the floodgates to a lot of cross compiled crapware, the beauty of the App store was that it had tons of apps that could not be found elsewhere, developers were forced to learn a unique programming language which kept them from porting their apps to the other stores, this set the App Store apart from it's competitors, instead of sharing all of the same apps, they had different ones to offer, now, it's not going to matter which phone you buy, they'll all have the same crappy cross compilations that aren't tailored to the specific platforms, they'll just be cheap, general purpose, poorly implemented and sunk to the lowest common denominator.


Tell me, do you think that Sony would allow their developers to cross compile their PlayStation games, no, you either use the official development tools or you don't make any money. the same goes for Microsoft's Xbox, or the Wii!
post #12 of 82
I think cross platform developers should proudly label their apps as 'Made With Flash', that way I will know which ones to avoid.
post #13 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"as long as the resulting apps do not download any code."

What does this statement mean in English, or practical reality? Anybody know?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #14 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedos View Post

I think cross platform developers should proudly label their apps as 'Made With Flash', that way I will know which ones to avoid.

That's as likely to happen as for industrial dairy farms to label their milk as being produced by cows treated with rBGH and massive doses of antibiotics. It's the organic (native xcode) developers who would want to label their apps with the development environment. I hope they do, so that if a person wants to make a buying decision based upon some principle, they would have the information to do so.
post #15 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB Sting View Post

I have nothing personal against Adobe but this boneheaded move by Apple is going to open the floodgates to a lot of cross compiled crapware, the beauty of the App store was that it had tons of apps that could not be found elsewhere, developers were forced to learn a unique programming language which kept them from porting their apps to the other stores, this set the App Store apart from it's competitors, instead of sharing all of the same apps, they had different ones to offer, now, it's not going to matter which phone you buy, they'll all have the same crappy cross compilations that aren't tailored to the specific platforms, they'll just be cheap, general purpose, poorly implemented and sunk to the lowest common denominator.

which still have to meet the Apple UI guidelines. This may have the perverse effort of improving, overall, the quality of cross-compiled 'crap' as you put it. Crap like, say, the Unreal engine?

BTW, forcing developers to use a specific set of tools doesn't guarantee any quality at all. As a testament, how many Apps on the app store are utter rubbish?
post #16 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedos View Post

I think cross platform developers should proudly label their apps as 'Made With Flash', that way I will know which ones to avoid.

I think Apple should do that if they can detect it.

I wonder if the move was a collaboration with Adobe to support HTML 5. In other words, they allow the cross-compiler if Adobe agrees to help push HTML 5 forward at the expense of their Flash format.

There's no sense in supporting Adobe if they don't do the same in return.
post #17 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What does this statement mean in English, or practical reality? Anybody know?

It means that no app can use plug-ins / scripts downloaded from any other place but AppStore. Say, you can make a photo editor application and can offer its users additional image filters and effects for a fee. Those are essentially pieces of code. But you can offer them only through IAP (in-App Store), not from some internet server or local computer.

In other words, every piece of code - integrated or not - must pass AppStore approval.

Back to the topic: I never approved Apple's restriction on developer tools though I agreed with what Jobs said in open letter about Flash: 3rd party tools lead to lower quality apps. However, I think that in highly competitive environment (the AppStore) Flash ports will have tough time surfacing on any of the top lists. Inefficient, lacking flexibility of native apps, lacking tight integration with device capabilities they will die out on their own.
post #18 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What does this statement mean in English, or practical reality? Anybody know?

My guess would be that these cross-compiled solutions (Flash, C# "Mono", Java etc) are actually interpreter engines for applications that can run on them, in a similar way that your web browser is an interpreter for HTML pages.

Just like you can load multiple pages into your web browser once it is on your computer, so you can load the code for multiple applications into your cross-compiled solution once it is installed.

It looks like Apple are limiting cross-compiled solutions to the one application that Apple certifies and blocking them from downloading more applications. This is kind of like bundling up your web browser and a specific HTML page together, and blocking the browser from going to different pages.

It makes sense. If Apple let Adobe load multiple applications into their Flash application on the iPhone then Adobe could essentially build their own competing application store.
post #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think Apple should do that if they can detect it.

I wonder if the move was a collaboration with Adobe to support HTML 5. In other words, they allow the cross-compiler if Adobe agrees to help push HTML 5 forward at the expense of their Flash format.

There's no sense in supporting Adobe if they don't do the same in return.

It probably has more to do with Apple being worried about an FCC bitch slapping.
post #20 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I guess Mr. Jobs lost on this one. Looks like he doesn't steer the Internet this time. Bring on Flash for iPhone!

This has nothing to do with the flash plug in.

What this has demonstrated is Apple's power - Adobe shares up 12% on this news and an immediate response from them.
post #21 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Apple has been creating too many enimies while HTML5 is years behind finalization, and even then it won't be compatible with IE which currently dominates the Internet.

And recently, Facebook is very iPad UNfriendly and buying those $5 and $2 apps (like I did) to simply instant chat and upload pics to FB did not make any sense. I guess Apple seemes to, once again, take on too many projects and step on too many toes.

Two things SJ should've avoided.
1- bring a Google CEO into important Apple board meetings.
2- put Apple engineers at Intel's headquarters.

Both companies took a sneak peek into Apple's mind and are playing the me too game.

A few notes:

The dominant engine on mobile devices, Android or iOS, is WebKit which is the backbone of Chrome and Safari! Opera uses Presto. All of these platforms support HTML5. IE9 is purpose built for HTML5 as well however it will not be available for Win XP. I think they are going to release it in the next few days! Even in the PC market adding Firefox to the list and the incoming IE9 one can conclude the majority of NEW computers will support HTML5 by the end of this year!!!!

iPad unfriendly Facebook app has nothing to do with SJ or Apple!

Why do we have to put Apple engineers at Intel headquarters! Intel processors use x86 architecture, iOS does not use x86 architecture, A4 is not a x86 system!
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Apple has been creating too many enimies while HTML5 is years behind finalization, and even then it won't be compatible with IE which currently dominates the Internet.

A year maybe, not "years". Ie 9 just does fine thank you (which will be out by that time). I think you misunderstand what HTML5 is and that many, many developers already use as do many of the sites you visit every day. Professional coders ensure that their sites work in any browser, and all browsers have varying support - no browser has 'zero' support.

Also ie no longer 'dominates', it has a majority of use, but that has dropped massively, firefox is a very close second, and mobile use of ie is nearly zero.
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Yeah, I think the FCC may have had something to do with this, but OTOH, Apple seems to be really throwing down the Gauntlet saying that if you UI sucks, and there are too many of a type of app, you aren't getting through. Both those seem to be targeted at Flash.

What? they don't seem to be targeted at Flash in any way? What do you mean?
post #24 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What does this statement mean in English, or practical reality? Anybody know?

Very simply that is has to use only the code that is part of the app submitted to the app store, it's not allowed to call/download extra code during runtime.
post #25 of 82
Why do people still respond to blackintosh and the other loser moron trolls? There is an ignore list. Use it.
post #26 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think Apple should do that if they can detect it.

I wonder if the move was a collaboration with Adobe to support HTML 5. In other words, they allow the cross-compiler if Adobe agrees to help push HTML 5 forward at the expense of their Flash format.

There's no sense in supporting Adobe if they don't do the same in return.

Adobe already support HTML5. HTLM5 != a flash replacement.

HTML5 is the successor to HTML4 - hyper text mark up language - its nothing new, and most professional developers already use it. It's the core language of web page development, nothing else. It's not some brand new black magic and seems to be very misunderstood on these posts.
post #27 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Adobe already support HTML5. HTLM5 != a flash replacement.

Most people seem to think that html+js is a viable alternative to flash now that html5 is around. I would challenge those people to go to a website like http://10k.aneventapart.com/ and see how their iphone just EATS IT UP. It won't.

To me the real reason Flash sucks is that the horsepower isn't there. Not for flash, and in my experience, not for html5+js, either.
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Most people seem to think that html+js is a viable alternative to flash now that html5 is around. I would challenge those people to go to a website like http://10k.aneventapart.com/ and see how their iphone just EATS IT UP. It won't.

To me the real reason Flash sucks is that the horsepower isn't there. Not for flash, and in my experience, not for html5+js, either.

No, the real reason Flash sucks, besides that it's a technological pile of crap, is that the people who use it produce utter crap. This is absolutely true on the web -- I've never seen a Flash based website that wasn't awful -- and it will be just as true in the App Store. Flash is what people who shouldn't be developing anything use.
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

According to Adobe, developers are already seeing App Store approval of apps made using the Packager tool.


This gives the lie to Steve's former protest that such apps would inevitably be low quality. That man is just simply full of shit.

I don't believe anything Apple says about its reasons for doing or not doing anything. They have proven that they will say anything that sounds plausible.

And they have proven that when their excuses DON'T sound plausible, it is because they are complete fabrications.
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedos View Post

I think cross platform developers should proudly label their apps as 'Made With Flash', that way I will know which ones to avoid.


Why, because otherwise they are not able to be distinguished from those made with Apple's proprietary tools?
post #31 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

There's no sense in supporting Adobe if they don't do the same in return.

If not for Adobe, the Mac Pro would be unlikely to still exist. You should be kissing their feet for supporting Apple.
post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What does this statement mean in English, or practical reality? Anybody know?


Probably an indirect reference to Flash. The way some advanced Flash programmers write applications is to create a shell application that loads other swf files (compiled code) into the main stage. These other swf files could actually come from a internet and not reside in the local app package. I think that is the part that is prohibited.

It is actually kind of a bummer though because it could serve as a great platform to deliver animated magazine subscriptions which are loaded into the reader app, if they allowed it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #33 of 82
Wow you guys were all wrong. This is all but a strategic move designed to increase support of the iOS / App Store because the "Big One" is coming. I'm talking about iOS powered iMacs. Apple can't have too many enemies when this comes out. Plain and simple.
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, the real reason Flash sucks, besides that it's a technological pile of crap, is that the people who use it produce utter crap.

Can you point us to examples of superior things you've produced at the same or lower cost?
post #35 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViktorCode View Post

It means that no app can use plug-ins / scripts downloaded from any other place but AppStore. Say, you can make a photo editor application and can offer its users additional image filters and effects for a fee. Those are essentially pieces of code. But you can offer them only through IAP (in-App Store), not from some internet server or local computer.

In other words, every piece of code - integrated or not - must pass AppStore approval

Or in other words, Apple insists on making 30% off of everything in the iOS ecosystem, and they don't really care what it's made with, Flash or anything else, as long as they get to keep collecting that tax.
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, the real reason Flash sucks, besides that it's a technological pile of crap, is that the people who use it produce utter crap. This is absolutely true on the web -- I've never seen a Flash based website that wasn't awful -- and it will be just as true in the App Store. Flash is what people who shouldn't be developing anything use.

You are clearly on the kool aid.
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedos View Post

I think cross platform developers should proudly label their apps as 'Made With Flash', that way I will know which ones to avoid.

If Flash is as bad as you say, you won't need such a label.

And if you need such a label, clearly Flash isn't as bad as you say.
post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Apple has been creating too many enimies while HTML5 is years behind finalization...

Q: What do automotive repair, soybean farming, and the manufacture of processed cheese food have in common?

A: Those are the three industries Steve Jobs hasn't pissed off this year.
post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, the real reason Flash sucks, besides that it's a technological pile of crap, is that the people who use it produce utter crap. This is absolutely true on the web -- I've never seen a Flash based website that wasn't awful -- and it will be just as true in the App Store. Flash is what people who shouldn't be developing anything use.

You should probably start looking for a good therapist because your hated for Flash is psychotic. Now that Flash ports are going to be allowed on iPhone, you might just go postal on us without professional help.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

Can you point us to examples of superior things you've produced at the same or lower cost?


He's invented nothing. Ignore those types of comments.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe resumes development of Packager for iPhone tool