Right, like the zero notice they gave Adobe on depreciating 64-bit Carbon.
When apps and suites are as large as Office and CS, it takes some time to turn the ship around. If Apple makes a statement at a developer conference, and backs it up with written information, then a company has the right to believe what was stated. If that no longer is true, at so e later date, then a lot of work (money) went down the drain attempting to upgrade the software to that previous statement.
Remember that it took Apple themselves years to upgrade some of their own biggest projects away from 32 bit Carbon. Blaming Adobe for everything is a fun game for some, but it isn't true, nor is it fair.
There are two things that lead me to believe this is Adobes fault. One is as you highlight below Apple is very good about keeping developers informed. Two is that Adobe isn't trying to pin this on Apple.
I'll play the wait-and-see approach and hope Apple makes some official statement of what the API was. In the past with OS updates that Apple puts out to the developer community, I've always read the API update documentation of times past and Apple always mentions the rules of using it, deprecate, etc... I find it really, really hard to believe that Apple would just make an API disappear without telling anyone. It's not their style. No proof yet, but I am leaning more to Adobe doing something with an API it wasn't supposed to do, but I'll wait and see.
Or, it sums up Apple's attitude to Mac OS X if it is simply leaving developers to find out the hard way that it is removing APIs.
Apple's developer support leaves a lot to be desired, especially for Mac OS.
This is really FUD. If Adobe used Apple's API guidelines, instead trying to do THEIR own thing, their CS6 would work. Adobe is known for just these types of problems with every major update they create. I've been an CS users since version one (not by choice) and I, like everyone I know who uses CS, know very well to beware of Adobe updates. This is nothing new to Adobe.
This is really FUD. If Adobe used Apple's API guidelines, instead trying to do THEIR own thing, their CS6 would work. Adobe is known for just these types of problems with every major update they create. I've been an CS users since version one (not by choice) and I, like everyone I know who uses CS, know very well to beware of Adobe updates. This is nothing new to Adobe.
Of course. How else are they going to get you to shell out thousands of dollars every few years? They certainly don't add enough features to justify the price, so they have to make sure the old version breaks regularly. Easiest way to do that is to use unsupported APIs so the app automatically breaks when the API is changed.
It's a very nice little program for amateurs who shouldn't be using PS anyway. But if you consider it to be anywhere close to PS for the professional work we use it for, then it just shows that you aren't as familiar with PS as you think you are.
Whether that's true or not (I don't do professional level graphics, so I can't comment), the fact is that lots of people are using Photoshop for jobs that could easily be handled by Pixelmator (or Photoshop Elements, for that matter). Photoshop is such a standard that a lot of people (particularly non-professionals) use it automatically without seeing if a less expensive product would work.
Of course. How else are they going to get you to shell out thousands of dollars every few years? They certainly don't add enough features to justify the price, so they have to make sure the old version breaks regularly. Easiest way to do that is to use unsupported APIs so the app automatically breaks when the API is changed.
It's not thousands each year. It's $750 for the CS creative Suite Premium, which I get. It comes out at a minimum of 18 months, and usually, every two years.
Whether that's true or not (I don't do professional level graphics, so I can't comment), the fact is that lots of people are using Photoshop for jobs that could easily be handled by Pixelmator (or Photoshop Elements, for that matter). Photoshop is such a standard that a lot of people (particularly non-professionals) use it automatically without seeing if a less expensive product would work.
While that's undoubtedly true, pros shouldn't be using amateur programs, and amateurs usually don't need pro programs. But Adobe understands this, which is why Lightroom has become so popular with Pros who don't need all the functionality of PS.
I didn't say it was only their fault but they certainly share some of the blame. It wasn't that long ago that Apple told developers to go ahead and count on 64 bit carbon then a year later decided to pull the plug on that causing delays in 64 bit software such as some of Adobe's products. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/06/64-bit-support-in-leopard-no-carbon-love/
As far as working with developers go, Apple is no angel. Only a true Apple fanboi could take the position it is all Adobe's fault.
-kpluck
I was at both WWDCs and even in the sessions when Apple said they were going to support 64bit Carbon and the one where they said they weren't. When they said they were going to support it, they didn't have full commitment. They said they were going to try and have it by the end of summer. But in the same session apple was clearly explaining to devs that Cocoa was the future. I even remember Metrowerks asking about it at the time. Obviously they couldn't hit that mark. They never officially supported it, only said they were going to try. At the next year they even went over Resolution Independence, which is the technology that helps the move to retina. Sometimes things take longer than expected or don't happen at all.
Either way, as Melgross pointed out, without knowing the specific library that was pulled / changed, it's impossible to know if Apple gave warning or not. Regardless if they did, it's Adobe's job to keep up on this, not Apple's.
I'm not surprised. This isn't actually an "Adobe" problem. But Adobe might use these calls more than some other developers.
Just goes to show there is no limit to the extent of unexpected consequences in relying on traditionally proven code snippets. The interoperability of expected environments can be a double edged sword
Edit : as an example I recently programmed a credit card checkout application. I thought I had it covered with a date checking script. What I learned the hard way is that you can't call parseint on an input value of 08 or 09 because those values are assumed to be octal and in octal there is no 08 or 09 so my credit card algorithm failed for any card with a August or September expiration date. This is similar to what has happened with the inDesign situation but they will fix it quickly because their business model depends on it.
Edit2: months start with zero in case you are wondering
So yeah their warning alert dialog should have said something like cannot divide by zero instead of being blank but I understand how these things happen
Most likely Adobe was using a private API that's now been changed or removed in the special build of 10.7.4 released with the new Macs. Apple has zero obligation to inform developers of changes to APIs that they aren't supposed to be using in the first place.
I'd normally agree except that if Apple (or MS, to be fair) is going to remove an API, they have no business doing it in just a "special build" of 10.7.4. They should only remove them when major releases come out (i.e. 10.8.)
I'd normally agree except that if Apple (or MS, to be fair) is going to remove an API, they have no business doing it in just a "special build" of 10.7.4. They should only remove them when major releases come out (i.e. 10.8.)
I agree + 1 they shouldn't even build special releases with the same number.
I'd normally agree except that if Apple (or MS, to be fair) is going to remove an API, they have no business doing it in just a "special build" of 10.7.4. They should only remove them when major releases come out (i.e. 10.8.)
Why? If no one is supposed to be using an API, anyway, why can't Apple drop it when they no longer need it or replace it with something better?
If they did what you suggest and never drop an obsolete API, OS X would become as bloated as Windows - and that's not to anyone's benefit except perhaps for people who break the rules like Adobe.
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly when making a phone call. I wonder what he would've said for this "InDesign" issue? Perhaps he would've said that this "InDesign" issue was an "out of design" flaw created by an overly "flashy" vendor. Again, Apple is a company without flaws.
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly when making a phone call. I wonder what he would've said for this "InDesign" issue? Perhaps he would've said that this "InDesign" issue was an "out of design" flaw created by an overly "flashy" vendor. Again, Apple is a company without flaws.
Besides being a bit rude and disrespectful, hasn't this already been settled a bazillion times??? You must have missed the fact that nearly every other phone on the market did the exact same thing. The news media simply promoted the "flaw" on the iPhone because it gets them more attention.
Why? If no one is supposed to be using an API, anyway, why can't Apple drop it when they no longer need it or replace it with something better?
If they want to act sociopathic, then sure. But there are customers and other businesses being affected. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and all your (and their) claims as to having the moral high road isn't apparently keeping customers able to run InDesign. So please dismount that high horse you're riding.
I was at both WWDCs and even in the sessions when Apple said they were going to support 64bit Carbon and the one where they said they weren't. When they said they were going to support it, they didn't have full commitment. They said they were going to try and have it by the end of summer. But in the same session apple was clearly explaining to devs that Cocoa was the future. I even remember Metrowerks asking about it at the time. Obviously they couldn't hit that mark. They never officially supported it, only said they were going to try. At the next year they even went over Resolution Independence, which is the technology that helps the move to retina. Sometimes things take longer than expected or don't happen at all.
Either way, as Melgross pointed out, without knowing the specific library that was pulled / changed, it's impossible to know if Apple gave warning or not. Regardless if they did, it's Adobe's job to keep up on this, not Apple's.
Apple's own software gets caught up in this as well. If Apple can't get their own software ready in time, how can we expect that third parties can get theirs ready in time? Look at how long it took Apple to get their own pro software to Cocoa, and 64 bits.
And Apple has had problems with removed Kexts and APIs with their own software. They also introduced bugs that affected just some software, and have taken some time acknowledging and fixing it. Often, not until a point update.
I'm not trying to put all the blame, all the time, on them. That's clearly not fair. But often enough, it is Apple. It seems to be impossible to release any software these days without some problem for someone.
This is BS. I was at WWDC 2007 where this was told to developers there that there will be no 64 bit Carbon.
Then they should have made certain their own programming teams knew about it, because it took years for some of their own software to move over. What excuse do you offer for that?
Comments
When apps and suites are as large as Office and CS, it takes some time to turn the ship around. If Apple makes a statement at a developer conference, and backs it up with written information, then a company has the right to believe what was stated. If that no longer is true, at so e later date, then a lot of work (money) went down the drain attempting to upgrade the software to that previous statement.
Remember that it took Apple themselves years to upgrade some of their own biggest projects away from 32 bit Carbon. Blaming Adobe for everything is a fun game for some, but it isn't true, nor is it fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13
Or, it sums up Apple's attitude to Mac OS X if it is simply leaving developers to find out the hard way that it is removing APIs.
Apple's developer support leaves a lot to be desired, especially for Mac OS.
This is really FUD. If Adobe used Apple's API guidelines, instead trying to do THEIR own thing, their CS6 would work. Adobe is known for just these types of problems with every major update they create. I've been an CS users since version one (not by choice) and I, like everyone I know who uses CS, know very well to beware of Adobe updates. This is nothing new to Adobe.
Of course. How else are they going to get you to shell out thousands of dollars every few years? They certainly don't add enough features to justify the price, so they have to make sure the old version breaks regularly. Easiest way to do that is to use unsupported APIs so the app automatically breaks when the API is changed.
Whether that's true or not (I don't do professional level graphics, so I can't comment), the fact is that lots of people are using Photoshop for jobs that could easily be handled by Pixelmator (or Photoshop Elements, for that matter). Photoshop is such a standard that a lot of people (particularly non-professionals) use it automatically without seeing if a less expensive product would work.
It's not thousands each year. It's $750 for the CS creative Suite Premium, which I get. It comes out at a minimum of 18 months, and usually, every two years.
While that's undoubtedly true, pros shouldn't be using amateur programs, and amateurs usually don't need pro programs. But Adobe understands this, which is why Lightroom has become so popular with Pros who don't need all the functionality of PS.
I highly recommend it.
I was at both WWDCs and even in the sessions when Apple said they were going to support 64bit Carbon and the one where they said they weren't. When they said they were going to support it, they didn't have full commitment. They said they were going to try and have it by the end of summer. But in the same session apple was clearly explaining to devs that Cocoa was the future. I even remember Metrowerks asking about it at the time. Obviously they couldn't hit that mark. They never officially supported it, only said they were going to try. At the next year they even went over Resolution Independence, which is the technology that helps the move to retina. Sometimes things take longer than expected or don't happen at all.
Either way, as Melgross pointed out, without knowing the specific library that was pulled / changed, it's impossible to know if Apple gave warning or not. Regardless if they did, it's Adobe's job to keep up on this, not Apple's.
Just goes to show there is no limit to the extent of unexpected consequences in relying on traditionally proven code snippets. The interoperability of expected environments can be a double edged sword
Edit : as an example I recently programmed a credit card checkout application. I thought I had it covered with a date checking script. What I learned the hard way is that you can't call parseint on an input value of 08 or 09 because those values are assumed to be octal and in octal there is no 08 or 09 so my credit card algorithm failed for any card with a August or September expiration date. This is similar to what has happened with the inDesign situation but they will fix it quickly because their business model depends on it.
Edit2: months start with zero in case you are wondering
So yeah their warning alert dialog should have said something like cannot divide by zero instead of being blank but I understand how these things happen
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtDecoDalek
Most likely Adobe was using a private API that's now been changed or removed in the special build of 10.7.4 released with the new Macs. Apple has zero obligation to inform developers of changes to APIs that they aren't supposed to be using in the first place.
I'd normally agree except that if Apple (or MS, to be fair) is going to remove an API, they have no business doing it in just a "special build" of 10.7.4. They should only remove them when major releases come out (i.e. 10.8.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
I'd normally agree except that if Apple (or MS, to be fair) is going to remove an API, they have no business doing it in just a "special build" of 10.7.4. They should only remove them when major releases come out (i.e. 10.8.)
I agree + 1 they shouldn't even build special releases with the same number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky
Right, like the zero notice they gave Adobe on depreciating 64-bit Carbon.
This is BS. I was at WWDC 2007 where this was told to developers there that there will be no 64 bit Carbon.
Why? If no one is supposed to be using an API, anyway, why can't Apple drop it when they no longer need it or replace it with something better?
If they did what you suggest and never drop an obsolete API, OS X would become as bloated as Windows - and that's not to anyone's benefit except perhaps for people who break the rules like Adobe.
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly when making a phone call. I wonder what he would've said for this "InDesign" issue? Perhaps he would've said that this "InDesign" issue was an "out of design" flaw created by an overly "flashy" vendor. Again, Apple is a company without flaws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly when making a phone call. I wonder what he would've said for this "InDesign" issue? Perhaps he would've said that this "InDesign" issue was an "out of design" flaw created by an overly "flashy" vendor. Again, Apple is a company without flaws.
Besides being a bit rude and disrespectful, hasn't this already been settled a bazillion times??? You must have missed the fact that nearly every other phone on the market did the exact same thing. The news media simply promoted the "flaw" on the iPhone because it gets them more attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why? If no one is supposed to be using an API, anyway, why can't Apple drop it when they no longer need it or replace it with something better?
If they want to act sociopathic, then sure. But there are customers and other businesses being affected. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and all your (and their) claims as to having the moral high road isn't apparently keeping customers able to run InDesign. So please dismount that high horse you're riding.
Apple's own software gets caught up in this as well. If Apple can't get their own software ready in time, how can we expect that third parties can get theirs ready in time? Look at how long it took Apple to get their own pro software to Cocoa, and 64 bits.
And Apple has had problems with removed Kexts and APIs with their own software. They also introduced bugs that affected just some software, and have taken some time acknowledging and fixing it. Often, not until a point update.
I'm not trying to put all the blame, all the time, on them. That's clearly not fair. But often enough, it is Apple. It seems to be impossible to release any software these days without some problem for someone.
Then they should have made certain their own programming teams knew about it, because it took years for some of their own software to move over. What excuse do you offer for that?
Adobe has come up with a wacky workaround for this:
http://helpx.adobe.com/indesign/kb/indesign-crashes-blank-dialog-boxes.html#community