Please, kind Sir, tell me what I don't understand. I understand that Steve Jobs conveniently failed to mention that Apple will make money when a content provider pays the $5 million license fee since they hold patents on the technology. I understand that their "open" industry standard H.264 is just as closed and proprietary as Flash. I understand that Steve Jobs is an egomaniac and a control freak who can't stand the thought of using truly "open" and "free" standards.
I think SJ is more of an hypocrite then liar.
Liar is the one who has stolen apple and claims he hasn't done it.
Hypocrite is the on who has stolen apple and accuses another apple thief, failing to mention that he has stolen apple too.
SJ didn't say h.264 is free, he simply missed to mention it isn't free.
In my book, that is the finest example of hypocrisy. Not that he is the only one in the business, mind you, but he seems to be the most exposed one.
Bad form Steve. Part of your new job as "the man" is that once you've gone on a head kicking mission you can't turn back. You're not the "good guy" anymore, nor can you ever be again.
Just go back to making good products and leave the commentary to those with some credibility.
Since when was Steve Jobs ever the 'good guy'? He has always been a shrewd business man who has been right more than he's been wrong.
I honestly don't know if Steve, or Apple's position on Flash, is right or wrong. But, I applaud Apple for staking out their position publicly instead of letting the press and blogasphere endlessly speculate on Apple's motives...
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
There is nothing wrong about what he stated, the facts. If Steve would have claimed Apple is different but admits where they are close and where they are open. They even go as far to adopt open standards and support them. I think confusing the two issues is a basic argument at best.
The thing is loads of tablet computers supporting flash running on android and win7 will make it to the market soon. If Steve is right then those devices will have short battery life and multi-touch flash apps will suck. If not the ipad is going to be in trouble.
Well with the amont of AAPL stocks I have he better be right
Well, there was desktop comparative between Flash video playback and HTML5... not sure if it was here or on Anandtech.com, though. Anyway, much as I recall, HTML5 was doing better on Mac but results (CPU utilisation etc.) were almost identical on Windows, where Flash is hardware accelerated for some time already.
If that can translate to mobiles, I would expect that Flash can be as efficient... if done properly. But we yet have to see how well is Flash going to be executed on Android and WP7
Apple is the number 3 company in the U.S., a company that 100's of millions of people own either stock or product. Steve is the face of the company (Can you picture the CEO of Exxon? Does Ballmer show up on Time Magazine when WinPhone7 is released?
Geeks 'care' about this letter, however, 'everyone' in the U.S. will be exposed to the news about this letter.
Should it be national news. no (is the catfight between 2 companies a big deal, when AZ is effectively legislating racial profiling?, U.S. soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?, Tea Partiers are attracting racist and militarist elements, in the name of 'taking our country back' [from whom? the people whose majority vote elected the current congress and president?].
Is it natinal news. definitely.
WP7 is not released yet. I would not be surprised to see Balmer on front pages when that happens. Not that it would be sexiest front page ever
For the last time, Apple do not have to restrict the tools developers use. They just need to make tools available that leverage the strengths of iPhone OSX. Developers aren't stupid. If Apple's tools are the best, ( and produce the best apps), then developers will naturally gravitate to them. If Apple's tools produce apps that leverage new technologies that result in better apps, users will buy them. The iPhone platform is very robust and shitty apps written for the 'lowest common denominator' (SJ's words) simply will not survive.
The current SDK prevents developers from suing Flash to develop iPhone apps. It also prevents, at least under the strictest interpretation, developers from using Unity and monotouch or other assembly languages. At least that is the fear that developers have who use those tools.
I also have faith that users will support the best app available for a given task.
And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.
If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.
... But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. ...
Thompson
You seem to see this as just an 'Adobe' problem.
You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?
Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?
Read the letter again: Apple HAS been pushing Adobe for improvements for years now. We've heard this before in other forums too, so it's not like this letter is the first mention of Apple working with Adobe to make Flash better for mobile devices (and to stop crashing Safari).
Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.
If Apple was honest about this, they could have let Adobe create (hardware accelerated) Flash for iPhone, do comprehensive public testing, publish results and then decide if that technology is going to Apps Store or to Trash.
But to my knowledge, they haven't.
So to me - and I do believe I'm reasonably unbiased, having MS Windows PC and Apple iPhone (and enjoying both) - it still seems major grudge SJ has against Flash is, in a nutshell, his attempt to limit interactivity on the web (kill Flash games and apps) and boost importance - and exclusivity - of Apps Store.
Nay, I am simply using Adobe as the particular example that happens to be relevant to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?
Absolutely. As a matter of fact, considering I gave another example from a completely different tool (CodeWarrior), time, and circumstance, I believe it should be clear that my understanding is generic in nature. How is it possible that you are still missing my point? It is exactly as Steve said in the sixth point of his letter: letting a third party put a layer between the developer and the platform (any third party!) is to invite these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?
Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."
It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.
This may have already been said but, at first glance the two most important complaints of Adobe's Flash is it is not modern and a resource hog...
Stevo does not want his Apple platform infected with inferior code! Simple as that!
So, why is most of the code written in C? With reference to previous comment, C is certainly not 'modern', but it is not a resource hog because it does not do mandatory checks to save us from things like viruses, etc.
This is because C came out of a low-level telecommunications mindset, rather than a 'modern' high-level programming mindset. Oh well.
Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."
It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.
Thompson
Fair enough.
I admit that there is still some uncertainty as to whether these tools are in compliance with the new SDK agreement.
But from the strictest interpretation they would appear to not be in compliance as the SDK requires code to be written in the original language of either Obj C, C, C++ or JS.
I think you underestimate the turmoil this will create but time will tell.
There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard (muster) under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.
Yes, it's unknown, but Unity thinks they're in compliance AND you haven't seen Apple publicly attacking Unity. That's not definitive, but it is certainly suggestive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.
That is not correct. You've been able to use hardware acceleration on the Mac for many years - as long as you use the correct APIs (CoreVideo, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc). Other companies did just fine using Apple's proper APIs.
Adobe refused to do so because they would have had to hire some real Mac programmers, and demanded that Apple give them direct access to the hardware - which is ALWAYS a bad idea, particularly for a product like Flash which is so full of security holes, anyway.
Furthermore, hardware acceleration affects only video playback. If that was the only area where Flash sucked, you might have a point. But Flash sucks CPU cycles and battery life and crashes and opens security holes even on sites that don't play back video, so Flash's problems go far deeper than this.
And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.
If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.
Thompson
The hardest most costly solution is always better? No pain no gain? Why do you think an app is automatically crappy because it may have been written via compiler? I don't think users give a rat's a-- about the code. All they care about is whether or not what it does is useful, fun, or both, and if it works. The apps "written by hand" in native code from scratch are not immune to breaking. There are a ton of bad reviews for buggy apps on the app store right now, I doubt all of those apps were written via 3rd party compiler. Besides, the phrase "so what" comes to mind. Any company with an investment in a popular money making app will promptly update their product by whatever means (further motivated by an opportunity to sell it again to existing customers ? maybe throw in a feature or two and call it an upgrade). If they choose not to update their apps, again, so what. The user has the use of the original app until it's broken by an OS change. On average they paid all of a few bucks, vs never having the opportunity to use the app at all because it was excluded in the first place. If the app is on the expensive side, again, more incentive for the developer to update their product if it is selling well. If not enough people are buying it to make it worth keeping it running, again, so what if it dies. Do you think users's feel grateful to Jobs if their favorite app disappears from the store because Jobs chose to yank it at his discretion (as can happen no matter what) vs. it dying away because it was broken by an OS update? What's the difference from the users' point of view?
Frankly, I think you're letting yourself be suckered into buying Jobs' BS on this one. I don't believe this is about managing tightly controlled hardware specs tuned to their OS to maintain an optimal "user experience" as is the legitimate model Apple applies to it's computer business. I don't think it's about protecting the user by keeping them safe from sub-par apps or ensuring they won't break in the future (which can't done, no matter how the code was generated). It's about Jobs proclivity towards exclusion to a degree that goes a bit beyond rationality. It's about competition through trying to force developers to create products exclusive to the Apple mobile platform, betting on Apple as the 800 pound gorilla in the mobile market making developers who can't afford the investment in developing separately for multiple platforms chose Apple. It may be an approach that is better for Apple, but it's not an approach that's better for their customers, or developers who want to support their platform. Ironically in the long run, what is not in the best interest of the latter two is probably not the best for Apple either.
Comments
Please, kind Sir, tell me what I don't understand. I understand that Steve Jobs conveniently failed to mention that Apple will make money when a content provider pays the $5 million license fee since they hold patents on the technology. I understand that their "open" industry standard H.264 is just as closed and proprietary as Flash. I understand that Steve Jobs is an egomaniac and a control freak who can't stand the thought of using truly "open" and "free" standards.
I think SJ is more of an hypocrite then liar.
Liar is the one who has stolen apple and claims he hasn't done it.
Hypocrite is the on who has stolen apple and accuses another apple thief, failing to mention that he has stolen apple too.
SJ didn't say h.264 is free, he simply missed to mention it isn't free.
In my book, that is the finest example of hypocrisy. Not that he is the only one in the business, mind you, but he seems to be the most exposed one.
Bad form Steve. Part of your new job as "the man" is that once you've gone on a head kicking mission you can't turn back. You're not the "good guy" anymore, nor can you ever be again.
Just go back to making good products and leave the commentary to those with some credibility.
Since when was Steve Jobs ever the 'good guy'? He has always been a shrewd business man who has been right more than he's been wrong.
I honestly don't know if Steve, or Apple's position on Flash, is right or wrong. But, I applaud Apple for staking out their position publicly instead of letting the press and blogasphere endlessly speculate on Apple's motives...
There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.
Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.
Did you mean, "pass muster"?
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
There is nothing wrong about what he stated, the facts. If Steve would have claimed Apple is different but admits where they are close and where they are open. They even go as far to adopt open standards and support them. I think confusing the two issues is a basic argument at best.
Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.
Did you mean, "pass muster"?
Yes.
The thing is loads of tablet computers supporting flash running on android and win7 will make it to the market soon. If Steve is right then those devices will have short battery life and multi-touch flash apps will suck. If not the ipad is going to be in trouble.
Well with the amont of AAPL stocks I have he better be right
Well, there was desktop comparative between Flash video playback and HTML5... not sure if it was here or on Anandtech.com, though. Anyway, much as I recall, HTML5 was doing better on Mac but results (CPU utilisation etc.) were almost identical on Windows, where Flash is hardware accelerated for some time already.
If that can translate to mobiles, I would expect that Flash can be as efficient... if done properly. But we yet have to see how well is Flash going to be executed on Android and WP7
Yes.
Don't be embarrassed. Most people make this mistake because we're also familiar with
"cut muster" and "cut mustard" both being used.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_the_muster
You believe Flash is open? Really?
You think any of the Flash phones are going to have anything approaching acceptable battery life for a phone? Really?
To proceed in your spirit:
You think you are that funny? Really?
How about we wait and see Flash on Android before we make any conclusion?
BusinessWeek/Bloomberg http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html
AP http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qNrvgD9FCPK8O2
within an hour of posting on Apple.
Apple is the number 3 company in the U.S., a company that 100's of millions of people own either stock or product. Steve is the face of the company (Can you picture the CEO of Exxon? Does Ballmer show up on Time Magazine when WinPhone7 is released?
Geeks 'care' about this letter, however, 'everyone' in the U.S. will be exposed to the news about this letter.
Should it be national news. no (is the catfight between 2 companies a big deal, when AZ is effectively legislating racial profiling?, U.S. soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?, Tea Partiers are attracting racist and militarist elements, in the name of 'taking our country back' [from whom? the people whose majority vote elected the current congress and president?].
Is it natinal news. definitely.
WP7 is not released yet. I would not be surprised to see Balmer on front pages when that happens. Not that it would be sexiest front page ever
For the last time, Apple do not have to restrict the tools developers use. They just need to make tools available that leverage the strengths of iPhone OSX. Developers aren't stupid. If Apple's tools are the best, ( and produce the best apps), then developers will naturally gravitate to them. If Apple's tools produce apps that leverage new technologies that result in better apps, users will buy them. The iPhone platform is very robust and shitty apps written for the 'lowest common denominator' (SJ's words) simply will not survive.
The current SDK prevents developers from suing Flash to develop iPhone apps. It also prevents, at least under the strictest interpretation, developers from using Unity and monotouch or other assembly languages. At least that is the fear that developers have who use those tools.
I also have faith that users will support the best app available for a given task.
And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.
If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.
Thompson
... But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. ...
Thompson
You seem to see this as just an 'Adobe' problem.
You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?
Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?
Read the letter again: Apple HAS been pushing Adobe for improvements for years now. We've heard this before in other forums too, so it's not like this letter is the first mention of Apple working with Adobe to make Flash better for mobile devices (and to stop crashing Safari).
Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.
If Apple was honest about this, they could have let Adobe create (hardware accelerated) Flash for iPhone, do comprehensive public testing, publish results and then decide if that technology is going to Apps Store or to Trash.
But to my knowledge, they haven't.
So to me - and I do believe I'm reasonably unbiased, having MS Windows PC and Apple iPhone (and enjoying both) - it still seems major grudge SJ has against Flash is, in a nutshell, his attempt to limit interactivity on the web (kill Flash games and apps) and boost importance - and exclusivity - of Apps Store.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/...ith-adobe-ceo/
Mr. Adobe responding to SJ's letter.
You seem to see this as just an 'Adobe' problem.
Nay, I am simply using Adobe as the particular example that happens to be relevant to this thread.
You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?
Absolutely. As a matter of fact, considering I gave another example from a completely different tool (CodeWarrior), time, and circumstance, I believe it should be clear that my understanding is generic in nature. How is it possible that you are still missing my point? It is exactly as Steve said in the sixth point of his letter: letting a third party put a layer between the developer and the platform (any third party!) is to invite these issues.
Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?
Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."
It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.
Thompson
Were curious if a "Ghost Writer" may been in on this
.
Bet you the Mortgage
Some Staffer(s) may helped with info, facts, details, yada yada ... but
Steve wrote it
.
This may have already been said but, at first glance the two most important complaints of Adobe's Flash is it is not modern and a resource hog...
Stevo does not want his Apple platform infected with inferior code! Simple as that!
So, why is most of the code written in C? With reference to previous comment, C is certainly not 'modern', but it is not a resource hog because it does not do mandatory checks to save us from things like viruses, etc.
This is because C came out of a low-level telecommunications mindset, rather than a 'modern' high-level programming mindset. Oh well.
Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."
It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.
Thompson
Fair enough.
I admit that there is still some uncertainty as to whether these tools are in compliance with the new SDK agreement.
But from the strictest interpretation they would appear to not be in compliance as the SDK requires code to be written in the original language of either Obj C, C, C++ or JS.
I think you underestimate the turmoil this will create but time will tell.
Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.
Unity has nothing to do with Flash?it's strictly 3D.
There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard (muster) under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.
Yes, it's unknown, but Unity thinks they're in compliance AND you haven't seen Apple publicly attacking Unity. That's not definitive, but it is certainly suggestive.
Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.
That is not correct. You've been able to use hardware acceleration on the Mac for many years - as long as you use the correct APIs (CoreVideo, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc). Other companies did just fine using Apple's proper APIs.
Adobe refused to do so because they would have had to hire some real Mac programmers, and demanded that Apple give them direct access to the hardware - which is ALWAYS a bad idea, particularly for a product like Flash which is so full of security holes, anyway.
Furthermore, hardware acceleration affects only video playback. If that was the only area where Flash sucked, you might have a point. But Flash sucks CPU cycles and battery life and crashes and opens security holes even on sites that don't play back video, so Flash's problems go far deeper than this.
And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.
If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.
Thompson
The hardest most costly solution is always better? No pain no gain? Why do you think an app is automatically crappy because it may have been written via compiler? I don't think users give a rat's a-- about the code. All they care about is whether or not what it does is useful, fun, or both, and if it works. The apps "written by hand" in native code from scratch are not immune to breaking. There are a ton of bad reviews for buggy apps on the app store right now, I doubt all of those apps were written via 3rd party compiler. Besides, the phrase "so what" comes to mind. Any company with an investment in a popular money making app will promptly update their product by whatever means (further motivated by an opportunity to sell it again to existing customers ? maybe throw in a feature or two and call it an upgrade). If they choose not to update their apps, again, so what. The user has the use of the original app until it's broken by an OS change. On average they paid all of a few bucks, vs never having the opportunity to use the app at all because it was excluded in the first place. If the app is on the expensive side, again, more incentive for the developer to update their product if it is selling well. If not enough people are buying it to make it worth keeping it running, again, so what if it dies. Do you think users's feel grateful to Jobs if their favorite app disappears from the store because Jobs chose to yank it at his discretion (as can happen no matter what) vs. it dying away because it was broken by an OS update? What's the difference from the users' point of view?
Frankly, I think you're letting yourself be suckered into buying Jobs' BS on this one. I don't believe this is about managing tightly controlled hardware specs tuned to their OS to maintain an optimal "user experience" as is the legitimate model Apple applies to it's computer business. I don't think it's about protecting the user by keeping them safe from sub-par apps or ensuring they won't break in the future (which can't done, no matter how the code was generated). It's about Jobs proclivity towards exclusion to a degree that goes a bit beyond rationality. It's about competition through trying to force developers to create products exclusive to the Apple mobile platform, betting on Apple as the 800 pound gorilla in the mobile market making developers who can't afford the investment in developing separately for multiple platforms chose Apple. It may be an approach that is better for Apple, but it's not an approach that's better for their customers, or developers who want to support their platform. Ironically in the long run, what is not in the best interest of the latter two is probably not the best for Apple either.