I used to think you were a rational person but now after reading your rabid anti-Adobe rhetoric it is clear you are just as closed minded as the other Apple apologists like J & PP. You know very well what I meant but decided instead to spin it to be a antagonist. Clearly I was not comparing Flash to regular HTML, or advocating that websites should be coded in Flash. I was, for the 100th time saying that the HTML5 / JAVASCRIPT/ CSS3 / SVG / CANVAS which some propose to replace the functionality of Flash should have a proper IDE. Furthermore this is the last communication I will direct to you on the subject because you are insane.
"Blah blah blah, you're insane." Well, quite the summing up. Yeah, I know what you meant. What I meant is that your point is to some degree pointless. Sure, Flash gives you lots of eye candy, lots of "effects", lot's of ways to go wrong and totally not communicate with your audience, unless you're only point is to get them to say, "Wow, this is cool," and not all of them will even think that, not the ones with any sense. What they'll think is, "Wow, what a flop."
Get over the idea that HTML5 has to piece by piece exactly replace every element of Flash, or it's a flop. HTML5 would be a flop if that's what it did, and a rather pointless flop at that. Yeah, HTML5 will replace a lot of what Flash does, but it will also introduce, as people begin to work with it, a whole new paradigm for designing web sites that won't be a big mess wrapped in a hairball that Flash is with it's useless interactivity and with actual information often so sparse and deeply hidden that it's utterly a waste of time to develop or visit a site that uses it.
All this noise about you have to have an IDE is just that, noise. IDEs will come. It's ridiculous to think they won't. But everyone ought to know that IDE development always lags language development, so the fact that a perfect HTML5 IDE doesn't exist today doesn't really mean much. But, that isn't even the point of this discussion. As far as Flash relates to this discussion, it's not even a second or third rate IDE for iPhone development. But, there's an IDE for that. It's called Xcode.
That's the really scary part of the whole thing. Adobe using the full power and authority of the United States Government, to demand that their software should be forced on people. It is just surreal.
This of course could backfire badly on Adobe. Apple could argue that the LACK of major Adobe applications for OSX is forcing people to use Windows.
For example, where is Adobe Connect , Captivate, Presenter for OSX ???
What Adobe wants of course is to force Apple to allow Apps made with its "flash-> iOS" hack so that they end up with control over a significant portion of development across all platforms. This will stymie Apple, RIM, Android, etc from offering enhancements to the OS because until Adobe supports those updates developers will be unable to offer them in their Apps.
Developers of course want the "write once run everywhere" as it reduces development costs and increases the size of potential market, thus increasing profits, the downside of this is that OS specific features must be ignored.
Adobe will of course be in a position to accept "development funding" from hardware suppliers to ensure that the Adobe tools essential to App developers stay current.... biggest bribe gets the biggest benefit.....
All Adobe has to do is write a decent version of Flash. So far, they haven't done that. Instead, they're whining to any government body who will accept their cash.
The bad is that there is a "dark side" where malicious apps roam. This is where a bit of thinking comes into play. Before an app installs on Android, it always declares what parts of the phone it'll access. So if it's accessing more than it should, then there's obviously something wrong and you can back out before more harm is done.
That is interesting! Is that (declaring access) a requirement of the Android OS or the app install procedure-- or just a developer convention? It would be a great feature if the OS or install procedure could enforce, or at least notify the user.
On iOS, you mainly are restricted to accessing files and data within the app's sandbox. Your app can't play in anyone else's sandbox. There are exceptions, but they are defined by the API.
Nothing is totally secure, but it is difficult for a normal developer to mess with other apps or system functions.
Developers of course want the "write once run everywhere" as it reduces development costs and increases the size of potential market, thus increasing profits, the downside of this is that OS specific features must be ignored.
Of course developers do this. And we don't need Adobe tools to do this either. Any sensible developer mostly codes iPhone apps in C/C++. Only the iPhone specific functionality is done in Objective-C (which is usually only a small part of the total code). This makes it much easier to create both Android and iPhone versions of apps. As you said, larger market and more potential profits.
As for platform specific functionality, well it comes down to cost v reward: How much will it increase sales if we add this feature? We often do add platform specific features to cross platform apps at least for the major platforms. It is minor platforms that really do badly with cross platform development. People often talk about the lowest common denominator but that is usually incorrect. Typically we target one or two major platforms (ie where most of the money is) and then we try to shoehorn the results onto the other platforms.
With the iPhone, you need to realize that the main customer is the unsophisticated user who might get themselves into trouble with Flash. It would cost Apple way too much money to have to answer all there phone calls at AppleCare.
I don't think that I'd call the main iPhone customer unsophisticated-- many have a different need and perspective than an Android user. If the customer's objective is to buy a device and get instantly productive with it-- he may make a sophisticated choice to by an iPhone. If the customer is more inclined to want to control and tailor his user experience-- he may make the sophisticated choice to use an Android phone.
So, it's an analogy where there are no similarities, other than that the FTC and EU regulators are "investigating", whatever that actually means? Well, if these are similar situations, and they aren't, then what sort of analogy is it? Not a very good one? Not one at all? I think the latter. What it is is you saying, "Look what happened to Microsoft, look what happened to Intel, there fate depends on which course they take." Well, no it doesn't, it depends on the particular circumstances related to this case, which have nothing in common with those circumstances. The reason you can't make me understand it is that there isn't anything to understand, because it's just not applicable.
All Adobe has to do is write a decent version of Flash. So far, they haven't done that. Instead, they're whining to any government body who will accept their cash.
Pants on fire.
You expect that poster to be able to back up their libelous claim of federal graft?
That is interesting! Is that (declaring access) a requirement of the Android OS or the app install procedure-- or just a developer convention? It would be a great feature if the OS or install procedure could enforce, or at least notify the user.
On iOS, you mainly are restricted to accessing files and data within the app's sandbox. Your app can't play in anyone else's sandbox. There are exceptions, but they are defined by the API.
Nothing is totally secure, but it is difficult for a normal developer to mess with other apps or system functions.
.
As far as I can tell, it's a "requirement" of the OS itself. I would imagine it like a guard at the door requiring all incoming deliverymen to declare what they're doing there.
From what I've read, Android functions in a similar fashion. All apps are run in their own "silo" (to borrow from the article I read) so they can't affect other apps. Seems like deep down inside, Android and iOS aren't completely different.
The App Store is curated. That's how they keep the porno apps out, and other harmful stuff.
Yes, I know the store is curated. I shop there regularly. That is not the point.
His argument against allowing flash on the iPhone is that doing so would result in bad "crappy" apps. However, that argument implies that there CURRENTLY are no crappy apps at the app store.
We all know there are PLENTY of crappy apps, so that does not seem to be a credible line of reasoning against Adobe.
Nobody in America can reasonably believe this statement. EU regulators are extremely biased against American companies as has been demonstrated again and again. In effect the EU operates in such a way as to protect their native companies from real competition. Yes competition that would wipe many of them out.
Apple is an American company and Adobe is an American company so tell me just how this "biased against American companies" going to help Adobe?
If EU has any brains in its head it will see Abode as the bigger tiger and shoot them first.
Pretty funny from the guy who spent most of the thread writing, "Oh, but you have to take into account my super fabulous Microsoft/Intel analogy, which isn't based on any similarities, and which I can't explain."
Using MS? IE as an example, maybe the EU wants to get started now so that if Apple does become a monopoly in a decade they will actually seem timely. Hell, Adobe might even have Flash on more one than one mobile OS by then.
Sort of like launching a preemptive war on Saddam before he has a chance to use his HUGE arsenal of WMDs?
Pretty funny from the guy who spent most of the thread writing, "Oh, but you have to take into account my super fabulous Microsoft/Intel analogy, which isn't based on any similarities, and which I can't explain."
Comments
I used to think you were a rational person but now after reading your rabid anti-Adobe rhetoric it is clear you are just as closed minded as the other Apple apologists like J & PP. You know very well what I meant but decided instead to spin it to be a antagonist. Clearly I was not comparing Flash to regular HTML, or advocating that websites should be coded in Flash. I was, for the 100th time saying that the HTML5 / JAVASCRIPT/ CSS3 / SVG / CANVAS which some propose to replace the functionality of Flash should have a proper IDE. Furthermore this is the last communication I will direct to you on the subject because you are insane.
"Blah blah blah, you're insane." Well, quite the summing up. Yeah, I know what you meant. What I meant is that your point is to some degree pointless. Sure, Flash gives you lots of eye candy, lots of "effects", lot's of ways to go wrong and totally not communicate with your audience, unless you're only point is to get them to say, "Wow, this is cool," and not all of them will even think that, not the ones with any sense. What they'll think is, "Wow, what a flop."
Get over the idea that HTML5 has to piece by piece exactly replace every element of Flash, or it's a flop. HTML5 would be a flop if that's what it did, and a rather pointless flop at that. Yeah, HTML5 will replace a lot of what Flash does, but it will also introduce, as people begin to work with it, a whole new paradigm for designing web sites that won't be a big mess wrapped in a hairball that Flash is with it's useless interactivity and with actual information often so sparse and deeply hidden that it's utterly a waste of time to develop or visit a site that uses it.
All this noise about you have to have an IDE is just that, noise. IDEs will come. It's ridiculous to think they won't. But everyone ought to know that IDE development always lags language development, so the fact that a perfect HTML5 IDE doesn't exist today doesn't really mean much. But, that isn't even the point of this discussion. As far as Flash relates to this discussion, it's not even a second or third rate IDE for iPhone development. But, there's an IDE for that. It's called Xcode.
That's the really scary part of the whole thing. Adobe using the full power and authority of the United States Government, to demand that their software should be forced on people. It is just surreal.
This of course could backfire badly on Adobe. Apple could argue that the LACK of major Adobe applications for OSX is forcing people to use Windows.
For example, where is Adobe Connect , Captivate, Presenter for OSX ???
What Adobe wants of course is to force Apple to allow Apps made with its "flash-> iOS" hack so that they end up with control over a significant portion of development across all platforms. This will stymie Apple, RIM, Android, etc from offering enhancements to the OS because until Adobe supports those updates developers will be unable to offer them in their Apps.
Developers of course want the "write once run everywhere" as it reduces development costs and increases the size of potential market, thus increasing profits, the downside of this is that OS specific features must be ignored.
Adobe will of course be in a position to accept "development funding" from hardware suppliers to ensure that the Adobe tools essential to App developers stay current.... biggest bribe gets the biggest benefit.....
All Adobe has to do is write a decent version of Flash. So far, they haven't done that. Instead, they're whining to any government body who will accept their cash.
Pants on fire.
.
The bad is that there is a "dark side" where malicious apps roam. This is where a bit of thinking comes into play. Before an app installs on Android, it always declares what parts of the phone it'll access. So if it's accessing more than it should, then there's obviously something wrong and you can back out before more harm is done.
That is interesting! Is that (declaring access) a requirement of the Android OS or the app install procedure-- or just a developer convention? It would be a great feature if the OS or install procedure could enforce, or at least notify the user.
On iOS, you mainly are restricted to accessing files and data within the app's sandbox. Your app can't play in anyone else's sandbox. There are exceptions, but they are defined by the API.
Nothing is totally secure, but it is difficult for a normal developer to mess with other apps or system functions.
.
Developers of course want the "write once run everywhere" as it reduces development costs and increases the size of potential market, thus increasing profits, the downside of this is that OS specific features must be ignored.
Of course developers do this. And we don't need Adobe tools to do this either. Any sensible developer mostly codes iPhone apps in C/C++. Only the iPhone specific functionality is done in Objective-C (which is usually only a small part of the total code). This makes it much easier to create both Android and iPhone versions of apps. As you said, larger market and more potential profits.
As for platform specific functionality, well it comes down to cost v reward: How much will it increase sales if we add this feature? We often do add platform specific features to cross platform apps at least for the major platforms. It is minor platforms that really do badly with cross platform development. People often talk about the lowest common denominator but that is usually incorrect. Typically we target one or two major platforms (ie where most of the money is) and then we try to shoehorn the results onto the other platforms.
If you want options, stay with Android.
With the iPhone, you need to realize that the main customer is the unsophisticated user who might get themselves into trouble with Flash. It would cost Apple way too much money to have to answer all there phone calls at AppleCare.
I don't think that I'd call the main iPhone customer unsophisticated-- many have a different need and perspective than an Android user. If the customer's objective is to buy a device and get instantly productive with it-- he may make a sophisticated choice to by an iPhone. If the customer is more inclined to want to control and tailor his user experience-- he may make the sophisticated choice to use an Android phone.
I leave you with this:
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3069
and this:
I have this brochure-- 2 months after the date, I bought my first personal computer.
.
So, it's an analogy where there are no similarities, other than that the FTC and EU regulators are "investigating", whatever that actually means? Well, if these are similar situations, and they aren't, then what sort of analogy is it? Not a very good one? Not one at all? I think the latter. What it is is you saying, "Look what happened to Microsoft, look what happened to Intel, there fate depends on which course they take." Well, no it doesn't, it depends on the particular circumstances related to this case, which have nothing in common with those circumstances. The reason you can't make me understand it is that there isn't anything to understand, because it's just not applicable.
There, no "crap", happy?
Pretty much 100%.
The problem is iOS is the dominant platform for mobile apps.
Apple says they have less than 17% of the market. Define "dominant".
Originally Posted by jragosta
All Adobe has to do is write a decent version of Flash. So far, they haven't done that. Instead, they're whining to any government body who will accept their cash.
Pants on fire.
You expect that poster to be able to back up their libelous claim of federal graft?
LOL.
Apple App Store : 25%
Blackberry App World : 16%
Verizon Application Store : 15%
AT&T Application Store : 12%
Sprint Application Store : 10%
T-Mobile Application Stores : 8%
Windows Marketplace : 4%
Android Market Store : 2%
Palm App Store : 1%
Handango : 1%
You are talking about two different markets. Nokia is the largest phone manufacturer and has the smallest app market of everyone.
Apple says they have less than 17% of the market. Define "dominant".
That is interesting! Is that (declaring access) a requirement of the Android OS or the app install procedure-- or just a developer convention? It would be a great feature if the OS or install procedure could enforce, or at least notify the user.
On iOS, you mainly are restricted to accessing files and data within the app's sandbox. Your app can't play in anyone else's sandbox. There are exceptions, but they are defined by the API.
Nothing is totally secure, but it is difficult for a normal developer to mess with other apps or system functions.
.
As far as I can tell, it's a "requirement" of the OS itself. I would imagine it like a guard at the door requiring all incoming deliverymen to declare what they're doing there.
From what I've read, Android functions in a similar fashion. All apps are run in their own "silo" (to borrow from the article I read) so they can't affect other apps. Seems like deep down inside, Android and iOS aren't completely different.
The App Store is curated. That's how they keep the porno apps out, and other harmful stuff.
Yes, I know the store is curated. I shop there regularly. That is not the point.
His argument against allowing flash on the iPhone is that doing so would result in bad "crappy" apps. However, that argument implies that there CURRENTLY are no crappy apps at the app store.
We all know there are PLENTY of crappy apps, so that does not seem to be a credible line of reasoning against Adobe.
The EU are EXPERTS in the field - of wasting other people's money.
I thought wasting other people's money was the job of the United States.
Nobody in America can reasonably believe this statement. EU regulators are extremely biased against American companies as has been demonstrated again and again. In effect the EU operates in such a way as to protect their native companies from real competition. Yes competition that would wipe many of them out.
Apple is an American company and Adobe is an American company so tell me just how this "biased against American companies" going to help Adobe?
If EU has any brains in its head it will see Abode as the bigger tiger and shoot them first.
Pretty much 100%.
Pretty funny from the guy who spent most of the thread writing, "Oh, but you have to take into account my super fabulous Microsoft/Intel analogy, which isn't based on any similarities, and which I can't explain."
Mobile App Store Market Share Based On Usage
Apple App Store : 25%
Blackberry App World : 16%
Verizon Application Store : 15%
AT&T Application Store : 12%
Sprint Application Store : 10%
T-Mobile Application Stores : 8%
Windows Marketplace : 4%
Android Market Store : 2%
Palm App Store : 1%
Handango : 1%
Precisely: 3/4 of the world have nothing to do with iOS.
Apple says they have less than 17% of the market. Define "dominant".
Able to exercise influence or control.
Using MS? IE as an example, maybe the EU wants to get started now so that if Apple does become a monopoly in a decade they will actually seem timely. Hell, Adobe might even have Flash on more one than one mobile OS by then.
Sort of like launching a preemptive war on Saddam before he has a chance to use his HUGE arsenal of WMDs?
Able to exercise influence or control.
Apple can't influence other manufacturers into banning Flash. Reality can.
Pretty funny from the guy who spent most of the thread writing, "Oh, but you have to take into account my super fabulous Microsoft/Intel analogy, which isn't based on any similarities, and which I can't explain."
It's been explained, you just fail to comprehend.
I am done with you.