"While still in fourth place, more than doubled its market share over those three months. Google's Android platform went from 3.8 percent in Nov. 2009 to 9 percent in Feb. 2010. Likely, much of that can be attributed to the Motorola Droid, the most successful Android device to date.
Meanwhile, RIM (1) and Apple (2) still dominate the report. RIM rose 1.3 percent, while Apple actually dropped by 0.1 percent. "
The difference is that no one is raving about the real stuff that Flash apps allow them to do, that makes a real difference in their lives, whereas, a lot of people are raving about what their iPhones allow them to do.
The only ones who really care about Flash as a technology are Flash developers and Adobe.
There are many people surfing the web who just take Flash for granted. They use it everyday like they use their home appliances. They don't rave about their appliances but if you take them away they scream bloody murder. iPhone is a fascinating new piece of hardware. Of course people are going to rave about it, just like people raved about the Internet when that was the new thing. Now the Internet is just part of life and Flash is part of the Internet.
Apple is guaranteeing they will not be the industry standard platform, once again.
Are you kidding me? Adobe is jumping for joy. Apple just removed themselves as a real contender for vertical markets and multi-platform apps.
What are you blathering about? The iPhone is already the industry standard smart phone, and the iPad will soon be the dominant tablet. You think CS5 was going to make one iota of difference to Apple's market success? It's Adobe's platform that will be (further) marginalised by this decision, not Apple's.
And why would Adobe be happy that Apple has just blocked a technology that they were developing? Surely if they didn't want that technology to exist they wouldn't have developed it?!
Technically, that might fall foul of the agreement, which requires original development in Objective-C/C/C++, although, practically, it might be difficult to detect. Probably the vulnerable point there would be app resources created in Interface Builder vs. some other tool. So, all app resources would probably need to be created programmatically -- i.e., in Objective-C code -- which certainly complicates the code generation, and the absence of these resources might end up being something of a red flag in and of itself.
Good point but it could be done. Flash could export the entire project so it would look exactly like an Xcode project.
There are some really cool visual nuances that Flash can do very easily which are rather clumsy when you try to duplicate the same effect using the tools in Xcode.
There is no question that you would have to plan a Flash project carefully to prepare it for export.
March saw amazing growth in the Android Market, which added an amazing 9,308 new applications. What's even more interesting is that the size of the Android Market has doubled since January.
Well, it's easy to double when you are small. The growth of Apple's iPad platform since April 2nd is absolutely off the charts! (It's even pretty good since April 3rd.)
March saw amazing growth in the Android Market, which added an amazing 9,308 new applications. What's even more interesting is that the size of the Android Market has doubled since January.
Sure. And Apple's App Store gained 85,000 apps from January through April.
Does anyone realize what would happen if Adobe said, ya know, we are no longer making After Effects for the Mac? TV and commercials would go into a frenzy. Apple should watch out how far they keep pushing Adobes buttons. I would use a little more caution.
Adobe's management can't afford to. Should they pull something like that a single letter and a couple afternoons buying spree could put Apple in control. Apple doesn't want that, but they only have several times more cash on hand than necessary to do it out of what amounts to petty change.
No. Adobe needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. They have been making enemies throughout the Valley because of their arrogance and there are quite a few standards and open source initiatives that are receiving substantial $$ only because they may someday help with HTML5. Sun was a big behind the scenes stirrer of pots on this one, actually recruiting support for projects to head off Flash as an internet defacto standard, you don't think those folks are going to stop that now that they work for Larry do you?
Flash could export the entire project so it would look exactly like an Xcode project.
Not necessarily. All Apple would have to do is add some "required" comment string to a required resource file saying something like "blah blah blah, Copyright Apple Inc. 2010" and Adobe couldn't duplicate it.
Open and standard is always better than closed and proprietary.
Actually, well-designed single-vendor software is invariably better than committee-designed open source software.
The two aren't mutually exclusive - Webkit is open-source and is brilliant, but it's brilliant because Apple developed it, not because they open-sourced it.
Open standards are important for things like document formats or APIs, but closed software is usually superior because there's more money to be made from it which means more investment which means more smart people working harder to make it good.
And Flash is just as closed and single-vendor as Cocoa anyway so I fail to see the relevance here in any case.
Not necessarily. All Apple would have to do is add some "required" comment string to a required resource file saying something like "blah blah blah, Copyright Apple Inc. 2010" and Adobe couldn't duplicate it.
The problem is that Apples' tools aren't the best in all scenarios. If a well designed apps created with Unity3d can be of higher quality than a lessor designed version written utilizing XC and OC why is it good to ban it? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ban apps that don't meet a performance threshold rather than basing it on the tools they used?
I agree they don't have to wonder if Xcode, Objective-C, and WebKit but they do have to wonder if whatever functionality they decide to implement in their app is going to get rejected for arbitrary reasons.
I'll grant you that a team with less time to ship and lesser skills can put out a superior product to one they might have been able to make on their own without the tool. That totally unarguable.
But for the not in an undue rush, and quite competent programmer crowd, the external tool won't change their quality. The right tool could make them faster though which can be a competitive advantage.
I think a tool like Unity can still be viable, but they are going to have some work to do to stay within the iPhone OS 4.0 guidelines. The meantime could be rough.
You have no idea how your 15 year from now desktop OS looks from a security standpoint. It actually looks a lot like it will be going the way of the iPhone OS / Chrome browser. You won't have a nanny, you will have a self sealing sandbox, and to keep the sand from getting out of the box, or unauthorized sand from getting in there will be a lot less development monkey-business allowed.
Do you mean just for Apple products? Or in general?
I think a tool like Unity can still be viable, but they are going to have some work to do to stay within the iPhone OS 4.0 guidelines. The meantime could be rough.
We will have to see if Apple actually enforces this rule. It could be a slippery slope. Sort of like civil laws that seldom get enforced.
In some cities it is illegal to spit in public, except on baseball diamonds.
Comments
At least make an attempt to back up your claims.
"While still in fourth place, more than doubled its market share over those three months. Google's Android platform went from 3.8 percent in Nov. 2009 to 9 percent in Feb. 2010. Likely, much of that can be attributed to the Motorola Droid, the most successful Android device to date.
Meanwhile, RIM (1) and Apple (2) still dominate the report. RIM rose 1.3 percent, while Apple actually dropped by 0.1 percent. "
http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-San-...inues-to-surge
The difference is that no one is raving about the real stuff that Flash apps allow them to do, that makes a real difference in their lives, whereas, a lot of people are raving about what their iPhones allow them to do.
The only ones who really care about Flash as a technology are Flash developers and Adobe.
There are many people surfing the web who just take Flash for granted. They use it everyday like they use their home appliances. They don't rave about their appliances but if you take them away they scream bloody murder. iPhone is a fascinating new piece of hardware. Of course people are going to rave about it, just like people raved about the Internet when that was the new thing. Now the Internet is just part of life and Flash is part of the Internet.
(Android still has a LOOOOOOONNNNGGG way to go to catch up to Apple, particularly wrt apps),
This has some hard data on that subject:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/..._market_2.html
I guess the consensus is that a native fart app is better than a compelling game built with third party tools.
Open and standard is always better than closed and proprietary.
Apple is guaranteeing they will not be the industry standard platform, once again.
Are you kidding me? Adobe is jumping for joy. Apple just removed themselves as a real contender for vertical markets and multi-platform apps.
What are you blathering about? The iPhone is already the industry standard smart phone, and the iPad will soon be the dominant tablet. You think CS5 was going to make one iota of difference to Apple's market success? It's Adobe's platform that will be (further) marginalised by this decision, not Apple's.
And why would Adobe be happy that Apple has just blocked a technology that they were developing? Surely if they didn't want that technology to exist they wouldn't have developed it?!
I just don't get it. It's a bad and backwards business decision. And it feels like Big Brother to me.
Don't let the screen door hit you where the sun don't shine!!
Apple is Doomed!!
Technically, that might fall foul of the agreement, which requires original development in Objective-C/C/C++, although, practically, it might be difficult to detect. Probably the vulnerable point there would be app resources created in Interface Builder vs. some other tool. So, all app resources would probably need to be created programmatically -- i.e., in Objective-C code -- which certainly complicates the code generation, and the absence of these resources might end up being something of a red flag in and of itself.
Good point but it could be done. Flash could export the entire project so it would look exactly like an Xcode project.
There are some really cool visual nuances that Flash can do very easily which are rather clumsy when you try to duplicate the same effect using the tools in Xcode.
There is no question that you would have to plan a Flash project carefully to prepare it for export.
March saw amazing growth in the Android Market, which added an amazing 9,308 new applications. What's even more interesting is that the size of the Android Market has doubled since January.
Well, it's easy to double when you are small. The growth of Apple's iPad platform since April 2nd is absolutely off the charts! (It's even pretty good since April 3rd.)
Android Market Gains Whopping 9,300 Apps In March
Posted by Eric Zeman, Apr 8, 2010 09:20 AM
March saw amazing growth in the Android Market, which added an amazing 9,308 new applications. What's even more interesting is that the size of the Android Market has doubled since January.
Sure. And Apple's App Store gained 85,000 apps from January through April.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store
Not to mention, of course, that half of the Android apps are porn.
Does anyone realize what would happen if Adobe said, ya know, we are no longer making After Effects for the Mac? TV and commercials would go into a frenzy. Apple should watch out how far they keep pushing Adobes buttons. I would use a little more caution.
Adobe's management can't afford to. Should they pull something like that a single letter and a couple afternoons buying spree could put Apple in control. Apple doesn't want that, but they only have several times more cash on hand than necessary to do it out of what amounts to petty change.
No. Adobe needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. They have been making enemies throughout the Valley because of their arrogance and there are quite a few standards and open source initiatives that are receiving substantial $$ only because they may someday help with HTML5. Sun was a big behind the scenes stirrer of pots on this one, actually recruiting support for projects to head off Flash as an internet defacto standard, you don't think those folks are going to stop that now that they work for Larry do you?
Flash could export the entire project so it would look exactly like an Xcode project.
Not necessarily. All Apple would have to do is add some "required" comment string to a required resource file saying something like "blah blah blah, Copyright Apple Inc. 2010" and Adobe couldn't duplicate it.
Open and standard is always better than closed and proprietary.
Better for whom?
Open and standard is always better than closed and proprietary.
Actually, well-designed single-vendor software is invariably better than committee-designed open source software.
The two aren't mutually exclusive - Webkit is open-source and is brilliant, but it's brilliant because Apple developed it, not because they open-sourced it.
Open standards are important for things like document formats or APIs, but closed software is usually superior because there's more money to be made from it which means more investment which means more smart people working harder to make it good.
And Flash is just as closed and single-vendor as Cocoa anyway so I fail to see the relevance here in any case.
Not necessarily. All Apple would have to do is add some "required" comment string to a required resource file saying something like "blah blah blah, Copyright Apple Inc. 2010" and Adobe couldn't duplicate it.
That would probably raise an eyebrow at the FTC
Not to mention, of course, that half of the Android apps are porn.
Hey, the porn sites will be the deciding nail in Flash's coffin! Does anyone really think they are going to pass on reaching all those iPad users?
The problem is that Apples' tools aren't the best in all scenarios. If a well designed apps created with Unity3d can be of higher quality than a lessor designed version written utilizing XC and OC why is it good to ban it? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ban apps that don't meet a performance threshold rather than basing it on the tools they used?
I agree they don't have to wonder if Xcode, Objective-C, and WebKit but they do have to wonder if whatever functionality they decide to implement in their app is going to get rejected for arbitrary reasons.
I'll grant you that a team with less time to ship and lesser skills can put out a superior product to one they might have been able to make on their own without the tool. That totally unarguable.
But for the not in an undue rush, and quite competent programmer crowd, the external tool won't change their quality. The right tool could make them faster though which can be a competitive advantage.
I think a tool like Unity can still be viable, but they are going to have some work to do to stay within the iPhone OS 4.0 guidelines. The meantime could be rough.
That would probably raise an eyebrow at the FTC
Maybe, but that's all.
You have no idea how your 15 year from now desktop OS looks from a security standpoint. It actually looks a lot like it will be going the way of the iPhone OS / Chrome browser. You won't have a nanny, you will have a self sealing sandbox, and to keep the sand from getting out of the box, or unauthorized sand from getting in there will be a lot less development monkey-business allowed.
Do you mean just for Apple products? Or in general?
What do you base that on?
I think a tool like Unity can still be viable, but they are going to have some work to do to stay within the iPhone OS 4.0 guidelines. The meantime could be rough.
We will have to see if Apple actually enforces this rule. It could be a slippery slope. Sort of like civil laws that seldom get enforced.
In some cities it is illegal to spit in public, except on baseball diamonds.