John Gruber lists the people affected by Apple's decision to change section 331 in his excellent "Daring Fireball": http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/wh...ed_section_331 - but there are other users affected by this decision not in his list...
As an app developer, we have government clients that want to commission a mobile app, but have to make any investment multi-platform in order to comply with rules requiring tax payers money to be spent on multiple-platform software.
Get your Government agency to purchase an Enterprise dev license. As the developer for their enterprise, you can deliver whatever they want to them without having to put it on the App store. You get to end run the whole set of App store restrictions because it is a private in-house only distribution.
You are still playing by the rules, this is why things like the Enterprise dev license exists.
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 needs Apple a LOT more than Apple needs Adobe.
Adobe is lucky Steve lets them put any of their products on his computers.
Adobe needs Apple a LOT more than Apple needs Adobe.
Adobe is lucky Steve lets them put any of their products on his computers.
Now you are just being silly. A large portion of the Macs sold go to creative professionals who use Adobe products. Why would Steve want to sell less product? CEOs should not get their undies in a bunch, it is not good for the shareholders. Lately APPL is doing fine despite Steve's eccentricities, but for how much longer?
Do you mean just for Apple products? Or in general?
What do you base that on?
In general.
The inexorable push of development thought where it touches the need for real security. Crap, it was't 8 hours after I posted before that Apple announces Webkit2 with per-process sandboxes. We already have OS X iPhone sandboxes and Google is trying to turn the sandboxed Chrome into an OS.
Also just follow the interesting papers and who hires those postdocs and newly minted PhDs.
I understand the argument that Apple doesn't want half baked crap coming to the iPhone but having to only use their flavor of C makes no sense to me. I agree with a previous commenter that it should be possible to compile the code so that Apple couldn't tell. I believe that a great programmer would much rather spend their time writing apps that could be used on as many devices as possible. This move by Apple is primarily a shot across the bow of Google because they are the only real competition Apple has in the mobile market.
Yes. Macs have a large marketshare but not to long ago I checked out Avid Symphony in Burbank. One of the largest Avid/FCP schoos you can go to. Anyway the vast majority of workstations are PC now. I was schocked. When I asked him why he said they were faster, cheaper, servers worked great, blaa, blaa, blaa. And that was vista not windows 7 so anything can happen, for example, when Apple came out with Logic from Emagic, adobe didn't releaseca mac release for nearly a year while the pcs got them. Not that jobs cares anyway. To him it's all consumer and iPhones, ipads and app store.
They don't even go after the prosumer musician, HUGE MARKET with a decent priced FireWire, 4-8 core mid range headless mac. Workstations were not always made out of server parts. That's just to Jack the price up. When I hear arguments on how a PC can cost more part for part compared to a mac, you can get better performance on non server faster workstations and the musician editor needs FPU AND CPU power.
To each his own.
Well that's all a little different from Adobe punishing Apple by messing with the CS apps. Photoshop and Illustrator dwarf the After Effects user base, and in those markets Macs are heavily entrenched.
I agree that Apple could and should do more for the pro film and audio markets, but that's not really Adobe's stronghold (outside of AE). Running Avid on PCs doesn't have any bearing on that one way or the other, and FCP seems to be doing fine, as far as I know. Is Premier making some kind of a comeback?
I personally would like to see Apple only allow apps written in assembly language. That will ensure that:
1) Apps are super efficient with no wasted CPU or memory
2) There is a high enough barrier that no more crappy apps would be published on the App Store
Programs written in assembler are usually blazing fast and extremely efficient. That much is true.
What I don't know is how many programmers actually still know how to do it. I've dabbled in it (although I am by no means highly proficient, and my experience is with x86 assembly) because I was curious. I really wonder if the majority of programmers (the ones that would write 90% of applications) know any assembly language in this day and age of high level start-to-finish development environments. Outside of the people who program microcontrollers for embedded applications, I have a feeling that almost any assembly language programmer is something of a rarity.
Apple does have one very good reason--and it is the big tradeoff for every gain you get as a result of programming in assembly language--not to make everyone program in assembly. Doing so could make any switch in CPUs very difficult to pull off. ARM is the nearly undisputed leader in power consumption vs. performance now, yet nobody knows for sure how long that will be true. Intel's Atom needs work but is not a bad chip. (Compare a D945GCLF board to the new D410PT/D510M0 to see how far they've come in terms of heat output alone.)
I suppose there is always the "Rosetta approach" but I don't know how well it would work on a device where battery life is the big selling and design point.
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.
Not true. Sega v. Accolade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill
Apple does have one very good reason--and it is the big tradeoff for every gain you get as a result of programming in assembly language--not to make everyone program in assembly. Doing so could make any switch in CPUs very difficult to pull off. ARM is the nearly undisputed leader in power consumption vs. performance now, yet nobody knows for sure how long that will be true. Intel's Atom needs work but is not a bad chip. (Compare a D945GCLF board to the new D410PT/D510M0 to see how far they've come in terms of heat output alone.)
I suppose there is always the "Rosetta approach" but I don't know how well it would work on a device where battery life is the big selling and design point.
Good points all. Yes, Apple would never want assembly to be the standard because it would then be impossible to change architectures. Rosetta at least makes it possible, although I doubt Apple much cares for using it again now that IBM owns it. And having everything be as easy as a recompile makes it easy.
I know this is your first post, but I just kinda don't believe you on some of the things you are saying here.
For instance this part: ... is a bit overdone isn't it? Sure, you are technically accurate, but isn't *most* Mac software written in C++ actually a lot better on average than software written in Java? I mean let's be honest. True, there is no technical reason why developing in Flash has to produce bad code, but the fact is that there is an absolute *ton* of crappy junk written in Java just the same.
Then this part here: Is just plain hard to swallow.
You have to publish a list of those apps before I'd believe it.
Then you go on a bit about what a fantastic development environment Flash is??? It seems to me like you have a slight bias.
Re: Overdone - Not at all. One of the most popular software development IDEs is written in Java: Eclipse. That said, it's true that desktop applications (Win or Mac) written in Java are few and far between. But desktop apps are only a small part of the picture. Try to find an enterprise web development shop in Silicon Valley that doesn't use Java to do the heavy lifting on the server-side. The upshot is this: it's highly unlikely that Apple would ever limit software development for Macs to a single language or family of languages.
Re: iPhone apps written in Flash and packaged using Adobe PFI - the two most popular I'm aware of are Chroma Circuit and Alchemist. I believe Chroma Circuit was an Apple Top 10 pick at one point.
Re: Bias - I've been a engineer for over 10 years - written software in C, C++, Java, Perl, VB, and, yes, Flash, Flex, and AIR using everything from VI to Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Flash Pro. The Flash IDE is unique in how it facilitates development of animated applications. I was delighted the first time I built a Flash trivia game and had questions flying around the screen controlled by an OO language (AS3). Would I have built the J2EE enterprise sales application I worked on at my previous job in Flash? Of course not. But for small, animated games and gadgets, Flash is perfect. For someone with little design experience, Flash opened up a world of animation possibilities for me. It let me do in hours what would have taken days in other development environments. It's fun. If you haven't tried it, you should.
And yes, there are thousands of would-be developers out there who write sloppy and sluggish Flash/AS3 code. The same is true for Java, C++, Perl, and Objective C. That said, there are also plenty of strong Flash/AS3 developers who know what they're doing and build apps like Chroma Circuit that are beautiful, fun, and perform really well. I have it on my iPod Touch and it's totally additive.
The point is this: Let developers do what they're good at and consumers will win. Stifle development and creativity by limiting developer options and everyone loses. ABSOLUTELY - Apple SHOULD be the gate-keeper for controlling the quality of apps on their products. There's just no correlation between the goal of quality control and the tools or languages people use to build apps with.
Exactly what standards? Objective-C, written and compiled in Xcode, is the standard for iPhone OS. What your demand amounts to is allowing others to impose standards on Apple, which only benefits those imposing the standards. Anyone who's used Apple platforms for any length of time has seen the crappy "ports" done using, "standards compliant, cross-platform development tools.".
I'm just saying there seems a world of difference between ruling out apps originally written in Flash or Silverlight, compared to developers using standards such as Javascript, CSS and HTML in tools such as Phonegap, Titanium and Unity.
Surely if these tools can export code that is compliant with Apple's iPhone OS 4.0 requirements, then they can live on - and allow developers with non-Objective-C programming experience the opportunity to publish to the app store. But if Apple then introduces an unnecessary mechanism to require native SDK use, then the restraint of trade issues might have more validity.
It seems a bit like a supermarket saying, "we will only sell the carrots from farmer X in our store if they used fertilizer Y to grow them".
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.
You've got that backwards. Remember about what, ten years ago or whatever, when Avid said they'd stop developing for the Mac? They faced a customer revolt that forced them to change their position in a heartbeat.
Something like half of Adobe's Creative Suite sales are the Mac version. (This was said publicly by an Adobe employee not long ago, but I'm failing to google it up right now.) Adobe needs the Mac more than Apple needs Flash developers to release apps for the iPhone. It's simple maths.
Actually, yeah, it seems to be. I don't use it myself, so I can't comment, but the industry buzz for Premiere CS5 is quite good. But it's still a bit of a walled garden, unfortunately.
Avid is Avid, and as long as they don't fall completely out of their chairs, they're going to maintain their market position for the foreseeable future. Final Cut's core strength in commercial post (in addition to being less than half the price of MC Soft) is XML: it's not perfect, but it's generally far easier to interoperate with other systems through XML than through EDL.
Premiere has neither the already-strong market position nor the interoperability with anything other than the other Adobe apps. "Lookit! You can link After Effects comps and Premiere timelines together!" Great. But what about sending a Premiere timeline to Smoke for conforming and finishing? Hello? Hello, Adobe, are you there?
With Premiere Adobe seems to be doing one of two things. Either they're really aggressively going after what I call the "wedding videographer" market ? one-man operations on the very low end of the professional spectrum ? or they're trying to move into commercial post but just doing it really poorly. Not sure which.
Actually, yeah, it seems to be. I don't use it myself, so I can't comment, but the industry buzz for Premiere CS5 is quite good. But it's still a bit of a walled garden, unfortunately.
Avid is Avid, and as long as they don't fall completely out of their chairs, they're going to maintain their market position for the foreseeable future. Final Cut's core strength in commercial post (in addition to being less than half the price of MC Soft) is XML: it's not perfect, but it's generally far easier to interoperate with other systems through XML than through EDL.
Premiere has neither the already-strong market position nor the interoperability with anything other than the other Adobe apps. "Lookit! You can link After Effects comps and Premiere timelines together!" Great. But what about sending a Premiere timeline to Smoke for conforming and finishing? Hello? Hello, Adobe, are you there?
With Premiere Adobe seems to be doing one of two things. Either they're really aggressively going after what I call the "wedding videographer" market — one-man operations on the very low end of the professional spectrum — or they're trying to move into commercial post but just doing it really poorly. Not sure which.
It makes sense that a not ruinously expensive and reasonably capable edit package for the PC would make some headway, particularly now that relatively cheap PC hardware is capable of running same at a decent clip. Premiere costs what, about half of what Vegas goes for? As you say, for the wedding videographer market it's a natural, particularly since such operations are likely to already be running at least Photoshop. Adobe has been pretty aggressive with leveraging their package deals to get you to treat their various CS offerings as virtually all one thing.
The barriers for entry into commercial post are pretty high at this point-- similar to what Photoshop rivals face in the commercial image editing market. FCP is firmly established as the "other" pro level solution after Avid, all though of course a few other NLEs have their enthusiasts. Since hardware costs aren't really an issue when setting up pro-level editing suites, Premiere would have to be doing something amazing to make much headway, IMO.
Even so, Apple needs to keep on it. FCP is overdue for an overhaul, and I think there is at least the perception that the pro video apps aren't getting much love. What ever happened to mythical Shake rewrite?
The notion that this protects the iPhone from low quality apps is without merit. Their license agreement already enables them to deny apps on these grounds.
What this lets Apple do is deny an app that would otherwise meet their standards only on the grounds of what tools and techniques were used to develop it.
This isn't good for users or developers.
As an independent developer, I'm now forced out of the iPhone market. There are many more like me, and thousands of existing games in the app store in violation of this license.
The notion that this protects the iPhone from low quality apps is without merit. Their license agreement already enables them to deny apps on these grounds.
What this lets Apple do is deny an app that would otherwise meet their standards only on the grounds of what tools and techniques were used to develop it.
This isn't good for users or developers.
As an independent developer, I'm now forced out of the iPhone market. There are many more like me, and thousands of existing games in the app store in violation of this license.
"Forced out" in the sense that you can't or won't take the trouble to learn the native tools?
Comments
John Gruber lists the people affected by Apple's decision to change section 331 in his excellent "Daring Fireball": http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/wh...ed_section_331 - but there are other users affected by this decision not in his list...
As an app developer, we have government clients that want to commission a mobile app, but have to make any investment multi-platform in order to comply with rules requiring tax payers money to be spent on multiple-platform software.
Get your Government agency to purchase an Enterprise dev license. As the developer for their enterprise, you can deliver whatever they want to them without having to put it on the App store. You get to end run the whole set of App store restrictions because it is a private in-house only distribution.
You are still playing by the rules, this is why things like the Enterprise dev license exists.
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 needs Apple a LOT more than Apple needs Adobe.
Adobe is lucky Steve lets them put any of their products on his computers.
Adobe needs Apple a LOT more than Apple needs Adobe.
Adobe is lucky Steve lets them put any of their products on his computers.
Now you are just being silly. A large portion of the Macs sold go to creative professionals who use Adobe products. Why would Steve want to sell less product? CEOs should not get their undies in a bunch, it is not good for the shareholders. Lately APPL is doing fine despite Steve's eccentricities, but for how much longer?
Do you mean just for Apple products? Or in general?
What do you base that on?
In general.
The inexorable push of development thought where it touches the need for real security. Crap, it was't 8 hours after I posted before that Apple announces Webkit2 with per-process sandboxes. We already have OS X iPhone sandboxes and Google is trying to turn the sandboxed Chrome into an OS.
Also just follow the interesting papers and who hires those postdocs and newly minted PhDs.
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.
And how many of those 85,000 are shovelware or just copies of a million other apps on the appstore?
Yeah, a bigger pile of crap is always... more crap
And how many of those 85,000 are shovelware or just copies of a million other apps on the appstore?
Yeah, a bigger pile of crap is always... more crap
So that would apply to the Android market as well?
Yes. Macs have a large marketshare but not to long ago I checked out Avid Symphony in Burbank. One of the largest Avid/FCP schoos you can go to. Anyway the vast majority of workstations are PC now. I was schocked. When I asked him why he said they were faster, cheaper, servers worked great, blaa, blaa, blaa. And that was vista not windows 7 so anything can happen, for example, when Apple came out with Logic from Emagic, adobe didn't releaseca mac release for nearly a year while the pcs got them. Not that jobs cares anyway. To him it's all consumer and iPhones, ipads and app store.
They don't even go after the prosumer musician, HUGE MARKET with a decent priced FireWire, 4-8 core mid range headless mac. Workstations were not always made out of server parts. That's just to Jack the price up. When I hear arguments on how a PC can cost more part for part compared to a mac, you can get better performance on non server faster workstations and the musician editor needs FPU AND CPU power.
To each his own.
Well that's all a little different from Adobe punishing Apple by messing with the CS apps. Photoshop and Illustrator dwarf the After Effects user base, and in those markets Macs are heavily entrenched.
I agree that Apple could and should do more for the pro film and audio markets, but that's not really Adobe's stronghold (outside of AE). Running Avid on PCs doesn't have any bearing on that one way or the other, and FCP seems to be doing fine, as far as I know. Is Premier making some kind of a comeback?
I personally would like to see Apple only allow apps written in assembly language. That will ensure that:
1) Apps are super efficient with no wasted CPU or memory
2) There is a high enough barrier that no more crappy apps would be published on the App Store
Programs written in assembler are usually blazing fast and extremely efficient. That much is true.
What I don't know is how many programmers actually still know how to do it. I've dabbled in it (although I am by no means highly proficient, and my experience is with x86 assembly) because I was curious. I really wonder if the majority of programmers (the ones that would write 90% of applications) know any assembly language in this day and age of high level start-to-finish development environments. Outside of the people who program microcontrollers for embedded applications, I have a feeling that almost any assembly language programmer is something of a rarity.
Apple does have one very good reason--and it is the big tradeoff for every gain you get as a result of programming in assembly language--not to make everyone program in assembly. Doing so could make any switch in CPUs very difficult to pull off. ARM is the nearly undisputed leader in power consumption vs. performance now, yet nobody knows for sure how long that will be true. Intel's Atom needs work but is not a bad chip. (Compare a D945GCLF board to the new D410PT/D510M0 to see how far they've come in terms of heat output alone.)
I suppose there is always the "Rosetta approach" but I don't know how well it would work on a device where battery life is the big selling and design point.
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.
Not true. Sega v. Accolade.
Apple does have one very good reason--and it is the big tradeoff for every gain you get as a result of programming in assembly language--not to make everyone program in assembly. Doing so could make any switch in CPUs very difficult to pull off. ARM is the nearly undisputed leader in power consumption vs. performance now, yet nobody knows for sure how long that will be true. Intel's Atom needs work but is not a bad chip. (Compare a D945GCLF board to the new D410PT/D510M0 to see how far they've come in terms of heat output alone.)
I suppose there is always the "Rosetta approach" but I don't know how well it would work on a device where battery life is the big selling and design point.
Good points all. Yes, Apple would never want assembly to be the standard because it would then be impossible to change architectures. Rosetta at least makes it possible, although I doubt Apple much cares for using it again now that IBM owns it. And having everything be as easy as a recompile makes it easy.
I know this is your first post, but I just kinda don't believe you on some of the things you are saying here.
For instance this part: ... is a bit overdone isn't it? Sure, you are technically accurate, but isn't *most* Mac software written in C++ actually a lot better on average than software written in Java? I mean let's be honest. True, there is no technical reason why developing in Flash has to produce bad code, but the fact is that there is an absolute *ton* of crappy junk written in Java just the same.
Then this part here: Is just plain hard to swallow.
You have to publish a list of those apps before I'd believe it.
Then you go on a bit about what a fantastic development environment Flash is??? It seems to me like you have a slight bias.
Re: Overdone - Not at all. One of the most popular software development IDEs is written in Java: Eclipse. That said, it's true that desktop applications (Win or Mac) written in Java are few and far between. But desktop apps are only a small part of the picture. Try to find an enterprise web development shop in Silicon Valley that doesn't use Java to do the heavy lifting on the server-side. The upshot is this: it's highly unlikely that Apple would ever limit software development for Macs to a single language or family of languages.
Re: iPhone apps written in Flash and packaged using Adobe PFI - the two most popular I'm aware of are Chroma Circuit and Alchemist. I believe Chroma Circuit was an Apple Top 10 pick at one point.
Re: Bias - I've been a engineer for over 10 years - written software in C, C++, Java, Perl, VB, and, yes, Flash, Flex, and AIR using everything from VI to Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Flash Pro. The Flash IDE is unique in how it facilitates development of animated applications. I was delighted the first time I built a Flash trivia game and had questions flying around the screen controlled by an OO language (AS3). Would I have built the J2EE enterprise sales application I worked on at my previous job in Flash? Of course not. But for small, animated games and gadgets, Flash is perfect. For someone with little design experience, Flash opened up a world of animation possibilities for me. It let me do in hours what would have taken days in other development environments. It's fun. If you haven't tried it, you should.
And yes, there are thousands of would-be developers out there who write sloppy and sluggish Flash/AS3 code. The same is true for Java, C++, Perl, and Objective C. That said, there are also plenty of strong Flash/AS3 developers who know what they're doing and build apps like Chroma Circuit that are beautiful, fun, and perform really well. I have it on my iPod Touch and it's totally additive.
The point is this: Let developers do what they're good at and consumers will win. Stifle development and creativity by limiting developer options and everyone loses. ABSOLUTELY - Apple SHOULD be the gate-keeper for controlling the quality of apps on their products. There's just no correlation between the goal of quality control and the tools or languages people use to build apps with.
Not true. Sega v. Accolade.
Different issues, not applicable case law.
Different issues, not applicable case law.
Care to elaborate?
Exactly what standards? Objective-C, written and compiled in Xcode, is the standard for iPhone OS. What your demand amounts to is allowing others to impose standards on Apple, which only benefits those imposing the standards. Anyone who's used Apple platforms for any length of time has seen the crappy "ports" done using, "standards compliant, cross-platform development tools.".
I'm just saying there seems a world of difference between ruling out apps originally written in Flash or Silverlight, compared to developers using standards such as Javascript, CSS and HTML in tools such as Phonegap, Titanium and Unity.
Surely if these tools can export code that is compliant with Apple's iPhone OS 4.0 requirements, then they can live on - and allow developers with non-Objective-C programming experience the opportunity to publish to the app store. But if Apple then introduces an unnecessary mechanism to require native SDK use, then the restraint of trade issues might have more validity.
It seems a bit like a supermarket saying, "we will only sell the carrots from farmer X in our store if they used fertilizer Y to grow them".
The solution?
The SDK/Developers licence has to become FREE.
it's called action script not active script. wtf?
I like it; sounds more like ActiveX
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.
You've got that backwards. Remember about what, ten years ago or whatever, when Avid said they'd stop developing for the Mac? They faced a customer revolt that forced them to change their position in a heartbeat.
Something like half of Adobe's Creative Suite sales are the Mac version. (This was said publicly by an Adobe employee not long ago, but I'm failing to google it up right now.) Adobe needs the Mac more than Apple needs Flash developers to release apps for the iPhone. It's simple maths.
Is Premier making some kind of a comeback?
Actually, yeah, it seems to be. I don't use it myself, so I can't comment, but the industry buzz for Premiere CS5 is quite good. But it's still a bit of a walled garden, unfortunately.
Avid is Avid, and as long as they don't fall completely out of their chairs, they're going to maintain their market position for the foreseeable future. Final Cut's core strength in commercial post (in addition to being less than half the price of MC Soft) is XML: it's not perfect, but it's generally far easier to interoperate with other systems through XML than through EDL.
Premiere has neither the already-strong market position nor the interoperability with anything other than the other Adobe apps. "Lookit! You can link After Effects comps and Premiere timelines together!" Great. But what about sending a Premiere timeline to Smoke for conforming and finishing? Hello? Hello, Adobe, are you there?
With Premiere Adobe seems to be doing one of two things. Either they're really aggressively going after what I call the "wedding videographer" market ? one-man operations on the very low end of the professional spectrum ? or they're trying to move into commercial post but just doing it really poorly. Not sure which.
Actually, yeah, it seems to be. I don't use it myself, so I can't comment, but the industry buzz for Premiere CS5 is quite good. But it's still a bit of a walled garden, unfortunately.
Avid is Avid, and as long as they don't fall completely out of their chairs, they're going to maintain their market position for the foreseeable future. Final Cut's core strength in commercial post (in addition to being less than half the price of MC Soft) is XML: it's not perfect, but it's generally far easier to interoperate with other systems through XML than through EDL.
Premiere has neither the already-strong market position nor the interoperability with anything other than the other Adobe apps. "Lookit! You can link After Effects comps and Premiere timelines together!" Great. But what about sending a Premiere timeline to Smoke for conforming and finishing? Hello? Hello, Adobe, are you there?
With Premiere Adobe seems to be doing one of two things. Either they're really aggressively going after what I call the "wedding videographer" market — one-man operations on the very low end of the professional spectrum — or they're trying to move into commercial post but just doing it really poorly. Not sure which.
It makes sense that a not ruinously expensive and reasonably capable edit package for the PC would make some headway, particularly now that relatively cheap PC hardware is capable of running same at a decent clip. Premiere costs what, about half of what Vegas goes for? As you say, for the wedding videographer market it's a natural, particularly since such operations are likely to already be running at least Photoshop. Adobe has been pretty aggressive with leveraging their package deals to get you to treat their various CS offerings as virtually all one thing.
The barriers for entry into commercial post are pretty high at this point-- similar to what Photoshop rivals face in the commercial image editing market. FCP is firmly established as the "other" pro level solution after Avid, all though of course a few other NLEs have their enthusiasts. Since hardware costs aren't really an issue when setting up pro-level editing suites, Premiere would have to be doing something amazing to make much headway, IMO.
Even so, Apple needs to keep on it. FCP is overdue for an overhaul, and I think there is at least the perception that the pro video apps aren't getting much love. What ever happened to mythical Shake rewrite?
What this lets Apple do is deny an app that would otherwise meet their standards only on the grounds of what tools and techniques were used to develop it.
This isn't good for users or developers.
As an independent developer, I'm now forced out of the iPhone market. There are many more like me, and thousands of existing games in the app store in violation of this license.
The notion that this protects the iPhone from low quality apps is without merit. Their license agreement already enables them to deny apps on these grounds.
What this lets Apple do is deny an app that would otherwise meet their standards only on the grounds of what tools and techniques were used to develop it.
This isn't good for users or developers.
As an independent developer, I'm now forced out of the iPhone market. There are many more like me, and thousands of existing games in the app store in violation of this license.
"Forced out" in the sense that you can't or won't take the trouble to learn the native tools?