Apple is very active in the standardization of scripts used for the internet and mobile computing. As a predominantly hardware company, having software technology standards is crucial for Apple. It need not be marginalized even if it market share is in the minority, as has happened in the portable computer segment. [Now that Apple has made the game-changing products for mobile computing and consumer products, it has greater interest to have its say in the starndards for the industry,]
Apple -- even before its ascension as the most innovative in mobile computing -- has spearheaded development of these technologies, especially in mobile computing. Apple even contributed some of its proprietary technologies Iwithout charging royalties) to become the basis of these standards. This is not all altruistic though.
The more Apple could influence the standards, the more say it could in shaping the softwaare technology that would run the internet and mobile computing. Other companies, like Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc., have the same goals.
CGC
I hope you are right.
I guess what worry's me is the trend I see of late of Apple picking a fight with all the big players, MS, Adobe, and Google. The campaign against Adobe seems to be reminiscent of the MS campaign of shoot to maim.
I don't like flash ads on many sites, but there is a lot of content in streaming video that would not be available without it at this time. If all this content can be switched to html5 then that is great, and will happen if html5 is the better way to go. I don't think that Apple should be the one telling everyone that they have to go that way. I also find there is much inconsistency in flash video, some sites stream very poorly and some very smooth (on a Mac). I have also have had problems streaming non flash video off the Apple site. Why is that?
The web is what it is and Apple should build products for it, and not tell everyone to change to fit there new product.
I think JS problem with Adobe is much deeper than flash. I for one don't want to be used as a pawn in SJ's campaign for revenge.
If Apple goes the same direction that MS did I will be very disappointed as for many years Apple has been the best alternative to that.
I can't help feeling that part of this blame really falls on Adobe themselves.
For well over a year I've been plagued by slow flash on my mac and lots of crashing on my Windows box as well as lots of unexplainable crashes only when we do flash through our VPN network at work, without work arounds, we're forced to choose 'other' solutions as well.
I think that was a comment even Steve made about Flash being the major cause of most Safari crashes.
You'd think that Adobe would be putting quality into their work, even before all the issues. I mean, even browser builders are specifically altering the way they handle plugins so they don't crash the entire browser and am guessing it's almost solely because of Flash.
I don't know why Adobe doesn't come out with a Flash Like utility for HTML 5 and go with the flow.
I guess Microsoft hasn't stopped pushing Silverlight so guess HTML 5 will still have resistance.
Who'd of thunk a few years back that Apple would be having so much clout in the web world standards ... as they too were very proprietary in the past.
This isn't about preventing low quality apps from entering the iPhone app store. They already have quality control standards in place.
The new licensing allows Apple to deny an app because of how it was developed, even if it qualified in every other regard. This doesn't help users or developers. It has forced me, and many other independent developers out of Apple's market, and thousands of titles already in the app store violate this license.
Who will this help? Large companies that can afford dedicated iPhone development teams. Sure, this hurts Adobe, but this hurts many independent developers, and iPhone users who want to play their games.
Apparently someone skimmed over the article. What you failed to comprehend is that this restriction is for development of 4.0+ apps going forward. So how can current flash-ported apps designed for 3.x release possibly violate 4.0? Please enlighten us. I seriously doubt Apple is going to go back through the entire app store and flush all apps that are not designed with the current SDK.
I've asked a bunch of people why they hate the lack of flash support, and the only example that keeps popping up is guess what? Not being able to play Farmville. I feel your pain guys, I really do And to quote Homer Simpson: "Ah video games, the reason this generation of Americans is the best ever." But don't worry, I'm sure your precious Farmville will adapt. I'm getting the impression that people just love to hate Apple.
As much as I hate all the FarmVille crap (and the quickest way to get "unfriended" is to send me updates about your lost cow)...
What other option is there? Is there some other smartphone on the market that I'm not aware of that supports Flash? Is there even a production-ready demo of any smartphone that gets decent performance and battery life running Flash? At least a proof of concept?
I'm aware of that. A side-by-side comparison of Elements and Pixelmater would be interesting.
My thought as well. My impression is that Elements is oriented toward casual photo touch-up work, with a lot of automated features and filters to make it easy to do things like "intelligent" resizing, matting and color balance adjustments. Basically repackaging some specific Photoshop tech into idiot proof bundles and giving them fun names.
Whereas Pixelmator aspires to be a more general purpose imaging editor/creation tool.
I think we get that Photoshop is a mature program. I remember it being good at Version 4. But these days... bloated and slow. And hasn't supported GPU acceleration for years when it could have done.
Pixelmator is off to a good start. There's a few omissions like Twain Aquire. But the feature list is impressive, it has GPU acceleration and a gorgeous interface. And it's only on version 1.5.
Photoshop needs to go to the gym and work off some of its fat ass.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Go to any retouching studio and ask them what they use. They will probably say lightroom or camera raw and PHOTOSHOP. Slow? I use it on my imac and it's lightening fast.
Aperture and pixelmator are only for those very basic users but even then most basic users use photoshop as learning material is widely available on the net for free. Who cares about GPU acceleration, it's about end product and right now there is nothing that comes close to giving results as good as photoshop.
I couldn't care less about Flash but if you are deluded enough to think Photoshop is going to be knocked of it's perch any time soon you are mistaken. The same can be said for Illustrator and In Design.
Go to any retouching studio and ask them what they use. They will probably say lightroom or camera raw and PHOTOSHOP. Slow? I use it on my imac and it's lightening fast.
Aperture and pixelmator are only for those very basic users but even then most basic users use photoshop as learning material is widely available on the net for free. Who cares about GPU acceleration, it's about end product and right now there is nothing that comes close to the power of photoshop.
I don't know why you think Lightroom vs. Aperture is illustrative of anything. Could it be you have no idea what you're talking about?
While people certainly have preferences and Lightroom has the benefit of hooks to Photoshop, the idea that Aperture is "only for those very basic users" is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Apparently someone skimmed over the article. What you failed to comprehend is that this restriction is for development of 4.0+ apps going forward. So how can current flash-ported apps designed for 3.x release possibly violate 4.0? Please enlighten us. I seriously doubt Apple is going to go back through the entire app store and flush all apps that are not designed with the current SDK.
It's not just Flash we're talking about here. Anything using a cross compiler, compatibility bridge, or any type of external source code generation is now against their license. There's at least a half dozen major development tools this affects, including the popular Unity3D.
Will Apple go through and yank all the violators from the app store when they post their new version? I don't know, but I don't trust them to just look the other way.
I do not claim to be a technocrat. However, I followed to an extent the careers of both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. since the beginning of the portable computer. They are a study in contrast. Bill Gates is a more shrewed businessman, or knew people to understand the value of its software. To that extent, I admire Bill Gates, and for several years now, for his and his wife's humanitarian work, through their foundation. How, he devotes most of his time to the foundation, that was why he retired as CEO/Chairman(?) of Microsoft.
I mention this humnirarian side of Bill Gates because, by his own admission, when it comes to business, he was ruthless. I do not recall his exact words now, but when he was interviewed, he said it was not about the money. but about the kill, to prevail over the others, or something like that.
[If you follow the actions of Microsoft, this attitude pervades the company to this day. It seems to want to dominate everything, many times by quashing the efforts of others. One practice that I noticed in the past was to announce a product, even if they are not yet ready.]
If this is true, I would not be surprised if it was indeed Bill Gates who was behind the anti-competitive steps taken by MS, once Windows essentially had a monopoly. For example, giving away Internet Explorer for free to kill Netscape and thus rule not only the desktop PC but the budding internet, in the mid 1990s.
From a more personal experience, one of the universities I was connected with stopped supporting Apple; there was no IT person to deal with Apple even if many of the staff, especially in the science use Mac-based hardware, mostly. The rumor was that Microsoft offered them a deal. Not sure if this was indeed true, but this practice is common in the beverage industry -- exclusive Coke or Pepsi deals.
If Bill Gates is not a hypocrite, based from interviews, he does admire Steve Jobs.
Unlike Bill Gates, I have not read any report to indicate that Steve Jobs has ever dabbled in any humanitarian projects. Maybe in the future, when he has already achieved many of his goals, he was set to do. My feeling though is that it may not happen, the way it happened with Bill Gates.
Eversince, I came across the name of Steve Jobs, he has always been driven by his passion for technology. More than likely, this will be what would consume him until he dies. I have known many people like that devoted completely to one passion.
As we know now, and with the products to support it, Steve Jobs is a consumate perfectionist. Another thing that I admire about Steve Jobs is that he is not afraid to fail. As far as I am concerned, the courage to face failure is key to creating those that are truly evolutionary or game changers. In fact, some of his products that are considered commercial flops, are very much admired.
I do not consider Steve Jobs to be a technical genius (like those engineers working for Apple), but like true leaders, he surrounds himself with good people who are themselves the mavericks in their area of expertise. That he is not infallible in his judgement of people is evident with his recruitment of John Sculley. I read his interview when he first hired Sculley and why he did so. As it turned out, it led to the exile of Steve Jobs.
I read reviews though that speculated the ouster of Steve Jobs from Apple sobered him. His floundering company became the kernel of the technology as well as the seminal staff that became the foundation of his second coming to Apple.
It is true that Steve Jobs is possibly brash or even arrogant but those attributes may be part of his tendency to be the consumate perfectionist.
Note for example that it was not Apple (thus Job) that pick the fight with Microsoft, Adobe, Google or Nokia. If the report were trie. it was Microsoft that was caught stealing proprietary technology from Apple. I forgot which software now but supposedly MS did not even bother changing some of the Apple codes. The $100 million plus the agreement to continue the MS Office series were supposed to be the settlement for this. Also, if you followed the evolution of PCs, MS was DOS3, and the Windows GUI was definitely a copy from the innovative Macintosh GUI.
If you read the reports, the co-founders of Google, Larry Page and and Sergey Brin actually consider Steve Jobs as their mentor. It was the actions of Eric Smith, the Google CEO that led to the current ruffled feathers between Google and Apple. In a sense, the case of Google is reflective of the naivette in Steve Jobs and Apple. This might have clouded by the psychology: "If your enemy is my enemy, we must be allies."
If Apple sued HTC, the Google phone manufacturer, this is expected. The suit may or may not succeed, but Apple has to protect its patented technology. On the other hand, it was Nokia that first sued Apple. It was after that when Apple countersued. It was worth noting that Apple did not sue Palm, which blatantly integrated Apple iTunes in its Palm Pre.
In the case of Adobe, the latter company has neglected its Apple product users. As others noted here, Adobe may be getting its comeuppance; not too many Apple product users would cry even crocodile tears for Adobe.
In regard Apple dictating on others, this is not exactly accurate. Unlike Microsoft, Apple while a game changer does not have dominance in many of the technologies it entered. It cannot outright dictate the rules, but it definitely is trying to influence the rules through its participation in the standardization consortium.
Moreover, it should be noted that the strict rules that Apple wanted to apply are only for the Apple ecosystem -- sometimes derisively referred to as the "Walled Garden" because it is vertically integrated. Other companies -- Nokia, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, Palm, and many others -- which do not believe in Apple's strategy have been attempting to create their own business strategy. In this sense, Apple cannot and has not imposed onn other companies to follow Apple's strategy of vertical integration.
It will be a few years before the dust will settle to crown the winner. Apple II for example augured the portable computer (PC) revolution, but MS-centric PCs not McIntosh, remains the current leader. ?Whether history repeats itself has yet to take its course.
One great difference this time around is that the Apple and Steve Jobs of today,are not the same as the entities of the 1980s. Apple has been not only the one that shaked every segment it has entered lately -- music (iPod), phone (iPhone) and now the mobile computer, represented by iPad -- but also became predominant in those sectors.
CGC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Ambivalent
I guess what worry's me is the trend I see of late of Apple picking a fight with all the big players, MS, Adobe, and Google. The campaign against Adobe seems to be reminiscent of the MS campaign of shoot to maim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Ambivalent
The web is what it is and Apple should build products for it, and not tell everyone to change to fit there new product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Ambivalent
I think JS problem with Adobe is much deeper than flash. I for one don't want to be used as a pawn in SJ's campaign for revenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Ambivalent
If Apple goes the same direction that MS did I will be very disappointed as for many years Apple has been the best alternative to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Ambivalent
I don't like flash ads on many sites, but there is a lot of content in streaming video that would not be available without it at this time. If all this content can be switched to html5 then that is great, and will happen if html5 is the better way to go. I don't think that Apple should be the one telling everyone that they have to go that way. I also find there is much inconsistency in flash video, some sites stream very poorly and some very smooth (on a Mac). I have also have had problems streaming non flash video off the Apple site. Why is that?
Go to any retouching studio and ask them what they use. They will probably say lightroom or camera raw and PHOTOSHOP. Slow? I use it on my imac and it's lightening fast.
That's one of the more subtle ironies of this whole debate. Adobe says that Flash is so slow because they can't get access to the APIs. So a simple popup menu can suck up 120% CPU time.
Yet Adobe is able to product Photoshop which (while it loads like a drunken pig in quicksand) can quickly modify multi-MB or GB images - involving changes to millions or billions of pixels.
Has no one at Adobe ever considered that if Photoshop can do that that Flash's slowness isn't due to Apple withholding anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
Apple cant win. They favor an Open standard over adobe's proprietary crap and they still are the bad buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
Just curious, Many criticize Apple because of their :vertical integration - derisively called "Walled Garden". Many would not buy the latest Apple products because they are not open source, and would rather use Android.
If the opposition to Apple's latest products is about its being not open source, why the championing of products, like Flash from Adobe, which does not even work very well for Apple products?
There are a number of people where who would complain that Apple's evil no matter what they do. If they put a $1,000 check in every iPad box, these whiners would complain that it's unfair because it's hard for a poor person to cash a check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
Adobe doesn't want to invest the money in a marginal platform (OS X). Lets face it, OS X is less than 10% of the installed base world wide, why should they invest more than 10% of their development resources. This is why the Flash plug-in for OS X sucks.
That's nonsense for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that Apple accounts for 50% of Adobe revenues and that iPhone OS accounts for 64% of mobile internet access), but even if it's true, so what? Everyone knows that Flash is crap, so Apple is not supporting it. Why would anyone care WHY that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by catluck
This isn't about preventing low quality apps from entering the iPhone app store. They already have quality control standards in place.
The new licensing allows Apple to deny an app because of how it was developed, even if it qualified in every other regard. This doesn't help users or developers. It has forced me, and many other independent developers out of Apple's market, and thousands of titles already in the app store violate this license.
Who will this help? Large companies that can afford dedicated iPhone development teams. Sure, this hurts Adobe, but this hurts many independent developers, and iPhone users who want to play their games.
That's why no one develops for iPhone OS. It's too much trouble, right? Those 200,000 AppStore apps just created themselves.
I'm sorry, but if you can't learn to develop for the OS, you're not needed. There are enough fart apps already that more mindless clones of existing junk is a waste. Apple is saying "we're happy to have all the quality apps we can get, but if you're not interested in making a good app, don't bother". I support that 100%. I'd much rather have 100 great apps than 10,000 cookie cutter garbage apps.
It's too bad you don't know what you're talking about. At all.
Many of the performance optimizations afforded to Flash on Windows (in 10.1 specifically) are a direct result of access to hardware acceleration. The plugin development structure in Safari does not allow the same access. It cannot be done because Apple does not make available the required APIs.
This is untrue. I have personally created applications in Microsoft Silverlight that employed shader effects and animation. While they were certainly not running directly on the hardware, Microsoft obviously employed the right APIs to get it done, because it worked really well. And that's something that simply can't be accomplished any other way. Adobe wants direct hardware access for their plugin because that way they can port the (probably) C++ they're writing flash in directly, and only have to maintain one codebase for the plugin. If they have to tie into core animation or video frameworks, their codebase diverges significantly, which means a lot more work for them, as any new feature has to be written twice (in theory, anyways)
It's as though the Adobe CEO declared at some point "This is how we are going to treat Microsoft, and THIS is how we are going to treat Apple. And Apple will just have to take it." They dug their heels in and sniggered for five years. Now comes the reaction from Apple and they cry foul.
(Oh wait, that was pretty much what did happen. I remember the discussion long ago of how Adobe were going to apportion their coding resources based on units sold.)
I certainly wouldn't say 100% share. Don't forget people are still using CorelDraw, Paint Shop Pro, and Pixelmator is rapidly becoming one to watch in the design market.
LOL. Okay then. 99.99% of the market. CorelDraw? Paint Shop? Seriously?! Hahahahahahaha.
"a frightening move that has no rational defense other than [Apple] wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe."
Can someone tell him about these: Objective-C, C, C++, and JavaScript.
Yeah, Quadra. I know Freehand had it's fans. Shame it was discontinued? I always thought Illustrator was slow and bloated. I thought Xara handed it its ass in raw speed.
Adobe buying Macromedia didn't pan out too well. We lost alot of good programs on both sides. Reduced competition...shame.
Adobe forgot where they've come from.
I'll check out the YouTube videos, thanks for that, Quadra.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Illustrator 10 - the last non-bloated version - still runs fine on snow leopard. it runs circles around any later version, despite having to run in rosetta.
I am an Apple fan and Mac programmer. And I am looking forward to watching Adobe's bones being nailed to the roof of Apple's headquarters so that they may slowly bleach in the sun.
That's one of the more subtle ironies of this whole debate. Adobe says that Flash is so slow because they can't get access to the APIs. So a simple popup menu can suck up 120% CPU time.
Yet Adobe is able to product Photoshop which (while it loads like a drunken pig in quicksand) can quickly modify multi-MB or GB images - involving changes to millions or billions of pixels.
Has no one at Adobe ever considered that if Photoshop can do that that Flash's slowness isn't due to Apple withholding anything?
There are a number of people where who would complain that Apple's evil no matter what they do. If they put a $1,000 check in every iPad box, these whiners would complain that it's unfair because it's hard for a poor person to cash a check.
That's nonsense for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that Apple accounts for 50% of Adobe revenues and that iPhone OS accounts for 64% of mobile internet access), but even if it's true, so what? Everyone knows that Flash is crap, so Apple is not supporting it. Why would anyone care WHY that is?
That's why no one develops for iPhone OS. It's too much trouble, right? Those 200,000 AppStore apps just created themselves.
I'm sorry, but if you can't learn to develop for the OS, you're not needed. There are enough fart apps already that more mindless clones of existing junk is a waste. Apple is saying "we're happy to have all the quality apps we can get, but if you're not interested in making a good app, don't bother". I support that 100%. I'd much rather have 100 great apps than 10,000 cookie cutter garbage apps.
You (and Adobe) cannot have access to the API's
a good reason? - you (and Adobe) may 'stuff' up
another reason? - not required (see above)[
Yes Photoshop is a 'killer' app, I've used it since version 3.0 and regularly use 8.0 and 10.0.1 (CS & CS3),
it works, it's that simple (most of the time) - FLASH - (for want of a better word) - SUCKS!
Comments
Where did you get this impression?
Apple is very active in the standardization of scripts used for the internet and mobile computing. As a predominantly hardware company, having software technology standards is crucial for Apple. It need not be marginalized even if it market share is in the minority, as has happened in the portable computer segment. [Now that Apple has made the game-changing products for mobile computing and consumer products, it has greater interest to have its say in the starndards for the industry,]
Apple -- even before its ascension as the most innovative in mobile computing -- has spearheaded development of these technologies, especially in mobile computing. Apple even contributed some of its proprietary technologies Iwithout charging royalties) to become the basis of these standards. This is not all altruistic though.
The more Apple could influence the standards, the more say it could in shaping the softwaare technology that would run the internet and mobile computing. Other companies, like Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc., have the same goals.
CGC
I hope you are right.
I guess what worry's me is the trend I see of late of Apple picking a fight with all the big players, MS, Adobe, and Google. The campaign against Adobe seems to be reminiscent of the MS campaign of shoot to maim.
I don't like flash ads on many sites, but there is a lot of content in streaming video that would not be available without it at this time. If all this content can be switched to html5 then that is great, and will happen if html5 is the better way to go. I don't think that Apple should be the one telling everyone that they have to go that way. I also find there is much inconsistency in flash video, some sites stream very poorly and some very smooth (on a Mac). I have also have had problems streaming non flash video off the Apple site. Why is that?
The web is what it is and Apple should build products for it, and not tell everyone to change to fit there new product.
I think JS problem with Adobe is much deeper than flash. I for one don't want to be used as a pawn in SJ's campaign for revenge.
If Apple goes the same direction that MS did I will be very disappointed as for many years Apple has been the best alternative to that.
For well over a year I've been plagued by slow flash on my mac and lots of crashing on my Windows box as well as lots of unexplainable crashes only when we do flash through our VPN network at work, without work arounds, we're forced to choose 'other' solutions as well.
I think that was a comment even Steve made about Flash being the major cause of most Safari crashes.
You'd think that Adobe would be putting quality into their work, even before all the issues. I mean, even browser builders are specifically altering the way they handle plugins so they don't crash the entire browser and am guessing it's almost solely because of Flash.
I don't know why Adobe doesn't come out with a Flash Like utility for HTML 5 and go with the flow.
I guess Microsoft hasn't stopped pushing Silverlight so guess HTML 5 will still have resistance.
Who'd of thunk a few years back that Apple would be having so much clout in the web world standards ... as they too were very proprietary in the past.
This isn't about preventing low quality apps from entering the iPhone app store. They already have quality control standards in place.
The new licensing allows Apple to deny an app because of how it was developed, even if it qualified in every other regard. This doesn't help users or developers. It has forced me, and many other independent developers out of Apple's market, and thousands of titles already in the app store violate this license.
Who will this help? Large companies that can afford dedicated iPhone development teams. Sure, this hurts Adobe, but this hurts many independent developers, and iPhone users who want to play their games.
Apparently someone skimmed over the article. What you failed to comprehend is that this restriction is for development of 4.0+ apps going forward. So how can current flash-ported apps designed for 3.x release possibly violate 4.0? Please enlighten us. I seriously doubt Apple is going to go back through the entire app store and flush all apps that are not designed with the current SDK.
If you don't need the full Photoshop, you can get PS Elements ($80) which covers what most people need and uses a lot of the plugins also.
I'm aware of that. A side-by-side comparison of Elements and Pixelmater would be interesting.
I've asked a bunch of people why they hate the lack of flash support, and the only example that keeps popping up is guess what? Not being able to play Farmville. I feel your pain guys, I really do
As much as I hate all the FarmVille crap (and the quickest way to get "unfriended" is to send me updates about your lost cow)...
What other option is there? Is there some other smartphone on the market that I'm not aware of that supports Flash? Is there even a production-ready demo of any smartphone that gets decent performance and battery life running Flash? At least a proof of concept?
I'm aware of that. A side-by-side comparison of Elements and Pixelmater would be interesting.
My thought as well. My impression is that Elements is oriented toward casual photo touch-up work, with a lot of automated features and filters to make it easy to do things like "intelligent" resizing, matting and color balance adjustments. Basically repackaging some specific Photoshop tech into idiot proof bundles and giving them fun names.
Whereas Pixelmator aspires to be a more general purpose imaging editor/creation tool.
I think we get that Photoshop is a mature program. I remember it being good at Version 4. But these days... bloated and slow. And hasn't supported GPU acceleration for years when it could have done.
Pixelmator is off to a good start. There's a few omissions like Twain Aquire. But the feature list is impressive, it has GPU acceleration and a gorgeous interface. And it's only on version 1.5.
Photoshop needs to go to the gym and work off some of its fat ass.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Aperture and pixelmator are only for those very basic users but even then most basic users use photoshop as learning material is widely available on the net for free. Who cares about GPU acceleration, it's about end product and right now there is nothing that comes close to giving results as good as photoshop.
I couldn't care less about Flash but if you are deluded enough to think Photoshop is going to be knocked of it's perch any time soon you are mistaken. The same can be said for Illustrator and In Design.
Aperture and pixelmator are only for those very basic users but even then most basic users use photoshop as learning material is widely available on the net for free. Who cares about GPU acceleration, it's about end product and right now there is nothing that comes close to the power of photoshop.
I don't know why you think Lightroom vs. Aperture is illustrative of anything. Could it be you have no idea what you're talking about?
While people certainly have preferences and Lightroom has the benefit of hooks to Photoshop, the idea that Aperture is "only for those very basic users" is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Apparently someone skimmed over the article. What you failed to comprehend is that this restriction is for development of 4.0+ apps going forward. So how can current flash-ported apps designed for 3.x release possibly violate 4.0? Please enlighten us. I seriously doubt Apple is going to go back through the entire app store and flush all apps that are not designed with the current SDK.
It's not just Flash we're talking about here. Anything using a cross compiler, compatibility bridge, or any type of external source code generation is now against their license. There's at least a half dozen major development tools this affects, including the popular Unity3D.
Will Apple go through and yank all the violators from the app store when they post their new version? I don't know, but I don't trust them to just look the other way.
I hope you are right.
I do not claim to be a technocrat. However, I followed to an extent the careers of both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. since the beginning of the portable computer. They are a study in contrast. Bill Gates is a more shrewed businessman, or knew people to understand the value of its software. To that extent, I admire Bill Gates, and for several years now, for his and his wife's humanitarian work, through their foundation. How, he devotes most of his time to the foundation, that was why he retired as CEO/Chairman(?) of Microsoft.
I mention this humnirarian side of Bill Gates because, by his own admission, when it comes to business, he was ruthless. I do not recall his exact words now, but when he was interviewed, he said it was not about the money. but about the kill, to prevail over the others, or something like that.
[If you follow the actions of Microsoft, this attitude pervades the company to this day. It seems to want to dominate everything, many times by quashing the efforts of others. One practice that I noticed in the past was to announce a product, even if they are not yet ready.]
If this is true, I would not be surprised if it was indeed Bill Gates who was behind the anti-competitive steps taken by MS, once Windows essentially had a monopoly. For example, giving away Internet Explorer for free to kill Netscape and thus rule not only the desktop PC but the budding internet, in the mid 1990s.
From a more personal experience, one of the universities I was connected with stopped supporting Apple; there was no IT person to deal with Apple even if many of the staff, especially in the science use Mac-based hardware, mostly. The rumor was that Microsoft offered them a deal. Not sure if this was indeed true, but this practice is common in the beverage industry -- exclusive Coke or Pepsi deals.
If Bill Gates is not a hypocrite, based from interviews, he does admire Steve Jobs.
Unlike Bill Gates, I have not read any report to indicate that Steve Jobs has ever dabbled in any humanitarian projects. Maybe in the future, when he has already achieved many of his goals, he was set to do. My feeling though is that it may not happen, the way it happened with Bill Gates.
Eversince, I came across the name of Steve Jobs, he has always been driven by his passion for technology. More than likely, this will be what would consume him until he dies. I have known many people like that devoted completely to one passion.
As we know now, and with the products to support it, Steve Jobs is a consumate perfectionist. Another thing that I admire about Steve Jobs is that he is not afraid to fail. As far as I am concerned, the courage to face failure is key to creating those that are truly evolutionary or game changers. In fact, some of his products that are considered commercial flops, are very much admired.
I do not consider Steve Jobs to be a technical genius (like those engineers working for Apple), but like true leaders, he surrounds himself with good people who are themselves the mavericks in their area of expertise. That he is not infallible in his judgement of people is evident with his recruitment of John Sculley. I read his interview when he first hired Sculley and why he did so. As it turned out, it led to the exile of Steve Jobs.
I read reviews though that speculated the ouster of Steve Jobs from Apple sobered him. His floundering company became the kernel of the technology as well as the seminal staff that became the foundation of his second coming to Apple.
It is true that Steve Jobs is possibly brash or even arrogant but those attributes may be part of his tendency to be the consumate perfectionist.
Note for example that it was not Apple (thus Job) that pick the fight with Microsoft, Adobe, Google or Nokia. If the report were trie. it was Microsoft that was caught stealing proprietary technology from Apple. I forgot which software now but supposedly MS did not even bother changing some of the Apple codes. The $100 million plus the agreement to continue the MS Office series were supposed to be the settlement for this. Also, if you followed the evolution of PCs, MS was DOS3, and the Windows GUI was definitely a copy from the innovative Macintosh GUI.
If you read the reports, the co-founders of Google, Larry Page and and Sergey Brin actually consider Steve Jobs as their mentor. It was the actions of Eric Smith, the Google CEO that led to the current ruffled feathers between Google and Apple. In a sense, the case of Google is reflective of the naivette in Steve Jobs and Apple. This might have clouded by the psychology: "If your enemy is my enemy, we must be allies."
If Apple sued HTC, the Google phone manufacturer, this is expected. The suit may or may not succeed, but Apple has to protect its patented technology. On the other hand, it was Nokia that first sued Apple. It was after that when Apple countersued. It was worth noting that Apple did not sue Palm, which blatantly integrated Apple iTunes in its Palm Pre.
In the case of Adobe, the latter company has neglected its Apple product users. As others noted here, Adobe may be getting its comeuppance; not too many Apple product users would cry even crocodile tears for Adobe.
In regard Apple dictating on others, this is not exactly accurate. Unlike Microsoft, Apple while a game changer does not have dominance in many of the technologies it entered. It cannot outright dictate the rules, but it definitely is trying to influence the rules through its participation in the standardization consortium.
Moreover, it should be noted that the strict rules that Apple wanted to apply are only for the Apple ecosystem -- sometimes derisively referred to as the "Walled Garden" because it is vertically integrated. Other companies -- Nokia, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, Palm, and many others -- which do not believe in Apple's strategy have been attempting to create their own business strategy. In this sense, Apple cannot and has not imposed onn other companies to follow Apple's strategy of vertical integration.
It will be a few years before the dust will settle to crown the winner. Apple II for example augured the portable computer (PC) revolution, but MS-centric PCs not McIntosh, remains the current leader. ?Whether history repeats itself has yet to take its course.
One great difference this time around is that the Apple and Steve Jobs of today,are not the same as the entities of the 1980s. Apple has been not only the one that shaked every segment it has entered lately -- music (iPod), phone (iPhone) and now the mobile computer, represented by iPad -- but also became predominant in those sectors.
CGC
I guess what worry's me is the trend I see of late of Apple picking a fight with all the big players, MS, Adobe, and Google. The campaign against Adobe seems to be reminiscent of the MS campaign of shoot to maim.
The web is what it is and Apple should build products for it, and not tell everyone to change to fit there new product.
I think JS problem with Adobe is much deeper than flash. I for one don't want to be used as a pawn in SJ's campaign for revenge.
If Apple goes the same direction that MS did I will be very disappointed as for many years Apple has been the best alternative to that.
I don't like flash ads on many sites, but there is a lot of content in streaming video that would not be available without it at this time. If all this content can be switched to html5 then that is great, and will happen if html5 is the better way to go. I don't think that Apple should be the one telling everyone that they have to go that way. I also find there is much inconsistency in flash video, some sites stream very poorly and some very smooth (on a Mac). I have also have had problems streaming non flash video off the Apple site. Why is that?
That's one of the more subtle ironies of this whole debate. Adobe says that Flash is so slow because they can't get access to the APIs. So a simple popup menu can suck up 120% CPU time.
Yet Adobe is able to product Photoshop which (while it loads like a drunken pig in quicksand) can quickly modify multi-MB or GB images - involving changes to millions or billions of pixels.
Has no one at Adobe ever considered that if Photoshop can do that that Flash's slowness isn't due to Apple withholding anything?
Apple cant win. They favor an Open standard over adobe's proprietary crap and they still are the bad buy.
Just curious, Many criticize Apple because of their :vertical integration - derisively called "Walled Garden". Many would not buy the latest Apple products because they are not open source, and would rather use Android.
If the opposition to Apple's latest products is about its being not open source, why the championing of products, like Flash from Adobe, which does not even work very well for Apple products?
There are a number of people where who would complain that Apple's evil no matter what they do. If they put a $1,000 check in every iPad box, these whiners would complain that it's unfair because it's hard for a poor person to cash a check.
Adobe doesn't want to invest the money in a marginal platform (OS X). Lets face it, OS X is less than 10% of the installed base world wide, why should they invest more than 10% of their development resources. This is why the Flash plug-in for OS X sucks.
That's nonsense for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that Apple accounts for 50% of Adobe revenues and that iPhone OS accounts for 64% of mobile internet access), but even if it's true, so what? Everyone knows that Flash is crap, so Apple is not supporting it. Why would anyone care WHY that is?
This isn't about preventing low quality apps from entering the iPhone app store. They already have quality control standards in place.
The new licensing allows Apple to deny an app because of how it was developed, even if it qualified in every other regard. This doesn't help users or developers. It has forced me, and many other independent developers out of Apple's market, and thousands of titles already in the app store violate this license.
Who will this help? Large companies that can afford dedicated iPhone development teams. Sure, this hurts Adobe, but this hurts many independent developers, and iPhone users who want to play their games.
That's why no one develops for iPhone OS. It's too much trouble, right? Those 200,000 AppStore apps just created themselves.
I'm sorry, but if you can't learn to develop for the OS, you're not needed. There are enough fart apps already that more mindless clones of existing junk is a waste. Apple is saying "we're happy to have all the quality apps we can get, but if you're not interested in making a good app, don't bother". I support that 100%. I'd much rather have 100 great apps than 10,000 cookie cutter garbage apps.
It's too bad you don't know what you're talking about. At all.
Many of the performance optimizations afforded to Flash on Windows (in 10.1 specifically) are a direct result of access to hardware acceleration. The plugin development structure in Safari does not allow the same access. It cannot be done because Apple does not make available the required APIs.
This is untrue. I have personally created applications in Microsoft Silverlight that employed shader effects and animation. While they were certainly not running directly on the hardware, Microsoft obviously employed the right APIs to get it done, because it worked really well. And that's something that simply can't be accomplished any other way. Adobe wants direct hardware access for their plugin because that way they can port the (probably) C++ they're writing flash in directly, and only have to maintain one codebase for the plugin. If they have to tie into core animation or video frameworks, their codebase diverges significantly, which means a lot more work for them, as any new feature has to be written twice (in theory, anyways)
(Oh wait, that was pretty much what did happen. I remember the discussion long ago of how Adobe were going to apportion their coding resources based on units sold.)
I certainly wouldn't say 100% share. Don't forget people are still using CorelDraw, Paint Shop Pro, and Pixelmator is rapidly becoming one to watch in the design market.
LOL. Okay then. 99.99% of the market. CorelDraw? Paint Shop? Seriously?! Hahahahahahaha.
"a frightening move that has no rational defense other than [Apple] wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe."
Can someone tell him about these: Objective-C, C, C++, and JavaScript.
..."THAT APPLE AND ITS TYRANNICAL LANGUAGE!"
Yeah, Quadra. I know Freehand had it's fans. Shame it was discontinued? I always thought Illustrator was slow and bloated. I thought Xara handed it its ass in raw speed.
Adobe buying Macromedia didn't pan out too well. We lost alot of good programs on both sides. Reduced competition...shame.
Adobe forgot where they've come from.
I'll check out the YouTube videos, thanks for that, Quadra.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Illustrator 10 - the last non-bloated version - still runs fine on snow leopard. it runs circles around any later version, despite having to run in rosetta.
I am an Apple fan and Mac programmer. And I am looking forward to watching Adobe's bones being nailed to the roof of Apple's headquarters so that they may slowly bleach in the sun.
Dead Dead Dead.
Bye bye, Adobe.
Adobe is digging a hole, 6 feet.... For them self?
Correctamundo.
Will Apple go through and yank all the violators from the app store when they post their new version?
I sure hope so.
That's one of the more subtle ironies of this whole debate. Adobe says that Flash is so slow because they can't get access to the APIs. So a simple popup menu can suck up 120% CPU time.
Yet Adobe is able to product Photoshop which (while it loads like a drunken pig in quicksand) can quickly modify multi-MB or GB images - involving changes to millions or billions of pixels.
Has no one at Adobe ever considered that if Photoshop can do that that Flash's slowness isn't due to Apple withholding anything?
There are a number of people where who would complain that Apple's evil no matter what they do. If they put a $1,000 check in every iPad box, these whiners would complain that it's unfair because it's hard for a poor person to cash a check.
That's nonsense for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that Apple accounts for 50% of Adobe revenues and that iPhone OS accounts for 64% of mobile internet access), but even if it's true, so what? Everyone knows that Flash is crap, so Apple is not supporting it. Why would anyone care WHY that is?
That's why no one develops for iPhone OS. It's too much trouble, right? Those 200,000 AppStore apps just created themselves.
I'm sorry, but if you can't learn to develop for the OS, you're not needed. There are enough fart apps already that more mindless clones of existing junk is a waste. Apple is saying "we're happy to have all the quality apps we can get, but if you're not interested in making a good app, don't bother". I support that 100%. I'd much rather have 100 great apps than 10,000 cookie cutter garbage apps.
You (and Adobe) cannot have access to the API's
a good reason? - you (and Adobe) may 'stuff' up
another reason? - not required (see above)[
Yes Photoshop is a 'killer' app, I've used it since version 3.0 and regularly use 8.0 and 10.0.1 (CS & CS3),
it works, it's that simple (most of the time) - FLASH - (for want of a better word) - SUCKS!