Several companies have already announced cross-platform environments that allow the developer to deploy simultaneously across iphone, blackberry, android, and windows. Apple came up with a very clever approach to multi-tasking that preserves battery life but the trade-off is that it's not a total free-for-all implementation of multi-tasking, so it would be just a matter of time before one of these cross-platform environments implements their own multi-tasking on top of apple's single thread, and of course developers love it because they can now do anything as long as you leave the cross-platform environment in the foreground. If enough apps that a user cares about get ported to this cross-platform environment then users just leave the environment as the foreground app all the time. Of course, the device runs much slower, sucks battery life, but the average user doesn't know why or even know he's missing anything because it's performance is the same as HP's, and Windows Mobile, etc.
So Apple's new license say up front, no, that is not going to be allowed. I'm guessing Adobe is so pissed because that's exactly what they were planning to do.
EDIT: Guess I should have checked MR first... Apple's position has been clarified.
So, it sounds like it comes down to 2 reasons.
1) Prevent Flash from being used as a platform agnostic middleware that would allow devs to release identical apps for iPhone, BB, Android etc. I would agree with not wanting iPhone apps to only meet the lowest common denominator between platforms. That doesn't seem to be their reasoning here. The choice of wording 'lock-in" makes it sound like instead of wanting the best apps, they really just want to be the only platform with the apps. Not sure I like the sound of that.
2)The believe 3rd party toolkits might become too popular and restrict Apple ability to control how and when devs will implement certain features. hmmm...
Edit: I see that was really Gruber's choice of words, so I am still on the fence (mostly) with this one.
Edit2: Does anyone remember the OpenStep days, where write once run anywhere was an objective and not a taboo?
Yeah, and even though it was relatively simple to rearrange the interface in a platform specific UI in separate .nib files, people complained that OpenStep apps on Windows didn't behave correctly, and Microsoft let them know they weren't welcome.
Yeah, and even though it was relatively simple to rearrange the interface in a platform specific UI in separate .nib files, people complained that OpenStep apps on Windows didn't behave correctly, and Microsoft let them know they weren't welcome.
I don't recall any actions MS took against NS/OP apps, but it wouldn't surprise me. I just find it ironic that a platform with a theme for develop once for multiple platforms and that forms the basis for Mac OS X and iPhone OS is now at the heart of a policy that is meant to discourage or prohibit that exact idea. To be fair, it was never a theme that Apple adopted when the bought NeXT.
Any good software firm especially Apple, could implement an elegant solution. This article is wrong, reading a few fanboy comments one can barely stand to use the same OS as the people making suh douche-ridden comments.
totally agree. adobe should come up with an elegant solution. let them prove that they're up to the task of properly implementing apple's technology. no amount of shilling is going to help them until then.
I don't recall any actions MS took against NS/OP apps, but it wouldn't surprise me. I just find it ironic that a platform with a theme for develop once for multiple platforms and that forms the basis for Mac OS X and iPhone OS is now at the heart of a policy that is meant to discourage or prohibit that exact idea. To be fair, it was never a theme that Apple adopted when the bought NeXT.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Things change. You can't step in the same river once.
That lawyer and MBA types (including Steve Jobs) at Apple Inc. think they can exploit their ownership over the iphone OS platform to force a straightjacket upon developers is to me pretty disgusting.
I'm distressed by the license language, but I interpret it as legalese, reserving rights for Apple that I mostly expect them to never exercise (except, in this case, against Adobe). They certainly haven't prevented game developers from using their game engines, even though interpreted code was previously disallowed (I believe). They reserve the right to erase apps from your phone, which has never yet happened. I don't believe that Apple will use legal rights they have reserved to prevent activities that actually benefit their platform.
I welcome Apple's refusal to cater to lazy developers who can only code with Adobe's flash tools. By blocking them, they reward the ones that take the time to effectively implement good solutions for the iPhone and make their skills more valuable.
Also, it is nice to see apple keeping the closed standards of its iphone and iPad out of reach from these kinds of developers, because their attitude of refusing to learn new, appropriate and quality-checked methods for producing apps and code for the platform means they will likely have a lower standard for what they condor as acceptable programming.
By saying no to flash, Apple keeps its quality standards high for its iPhone and iPad. This seems to be a reigning mantra of the company, and one that is obviously successful, as the market is ignoring these whiny developers in Adobe's camp and really not batting an eye towards the rejection of flash and cross compilers.
The market has already decided the winner, and no piss-poor attempt at unfounded harassment litigation will save Adobe now. Even as a PR stunt, it would be a colossal expensive failure as consumers just don't care about Adobe and the lack of support for its products on the iPhone and iPad.
And I am not even addressing the fact that Apple has completely created its ecosystem and is not any sort of common-carrier type monopoly, making any accusations of unfair business practices laughable at best.
Bring on the next iPhone I say- and Apple- bring it to other carriers! the iAds has got to motivate that now!
Well, that type of multitasking isn't poorly implemented or battery draining if you're willing to throw a big battery, fast CPU and a slug of RAM at the problem. The Nexus has 2X the RAM of the 3GS, half again as much battery and CPU speed, so it has more headroom to deal with the issues. Versus the 3G, it's even starker, and Apple doesn't even try to implement its non-shitty, well-implemented, battery-sipping multi-tasking ON A CURRENT MODEL.
A simple engineering/business choice. Having programmed for Macs since the very first model, I see a long history of minimized hardware; even so, the company has had to deal with low volumes and so necessarily higher prices. And I can cite other firms, like Sun, that bet the company on a gold-plated lineup just as the DotBomb exploded, showing that Apple is not simply being neurotic.
Still, Apple's implementation choices don't have to be the right ones for everybody. Multi-tasking on the Google phone is pretty sweet, as long as you don't tax it too hard and/or are willing to pace yourself on the number of apps, the same way that iPhone users have to pace themselves on the number of hours of surfing & talking between charges.
In summary: Android multi-tasking is very similar to the model that Apple has adopted in iPhone 4.0. It's very much NOT like how multitasking works on the Mac.
You should have worded all that more carefully for people, who actually see your point. As long as processes and their contexts are allowed to passively stay in memory, anti-malware safety concerns should never leave OS writer alone.
Comments
So Apple's new license say up front, no, that is not going to be allowed. I'm guessing Adobe is so pissed because that's exactly what they were planning to do.
EDIT: Guess I should have checked MR first... Apple's position has been clarified.
So, it sounds like it comes down to 2 reasons.
1) Prevent Flash from being used as a platform agnostic middleware that would allow devs to release identical apps for iPhone, BB, Android etc. I would agree with not wanting iPhone apps to only meet the lowest common denominator between platforms. That doesn't seem to be their reasoning here. The choice of wording 'lock-in" makes it sound like instead of wanting the best apps, they really just want to be the only platform with the apps. Not sure I like the sound of that.
2)The believe 3rd party toolkits might become too popular and restrict Apple ability to control how and when devs will implement certain features. hmmm...
Edit: I see that was really Gruber's choice of words, so I am still on the fence (mostly) with this one.
Edit2: Does anyone remember the OpenStep days, where write once run anywhere was an objective and not a taboo?
Yeah, and even though it was relatively simple to rearrange the interface in a platform specific UI in separate .nib files, people complained that OpenStep apps on Windows didn't behave correctly, and Microsoft let them know they weren't welcome.
Yeah, and even though it was relatively simple to rearrange the interface in a platform specific UI in separate .nib files, people complained that OpenStep apps on Windows didn't behave correctly, and Microsoft let them know they weren't welcome.
I don't recall any actions MS took against NS/OP apps, but it wouldn't surprise me. I just find it ironic that a platform with a theme for develop once for multiple platforms and that forms the basis for Mac OS X and iPhone OS is now at the heart of a policy that is meant to discourage or prohibit that exact idea. To be fair, it was never a theme that Apple adopted when the bought NeXT.
SNIP
Any good software firm especially Apple, could implement an elegant solution. This article is wrong, reading a few fanboy comments one can barely stand to use the same OS as the people making suh douche-ridden comments.
totally agree. adobe should come up with an elegant solution. let them prove that they're up to the task of properly implementing apple's technology. no amount of shilling is going to help them until then.
I don't recall any actions MS took against NS/OP apps, but it wouldn't surprise me. I just find it ironic that a platform with a theme for develop once for multiple platforms and that forms the basis for Mac OS X and iPhone OS is now at the heart of a policy that is meant to discourage or prohibit that exact idea. To be fair, it was never a theme that Apple adopted when the bought NeXT.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Things change. You can't step in the same river once.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Things change. You can't step in the same river once.
True enough. Ideals of youth are often discarded with age.
True enough. Ideals of youth are often discarded with age.
I would phrase it differently:
"The ideals of youth are often tempered with experience"... such as discovering the difference between gross pay and net pay, on your first paycheck!
.
That lawyer and MBA types (including Steve Jobs) at Apple Inc. think they can exploit their ownership over the iphone OS platform to force a straightjacket upon developers is to me pretty disgusting.
I'm distressed by the license language, but I interpret it as legalese, reserving rights for Apple that I mostly expect them to never exercise (except, in this case, against Adobe). They certainly haven't prevented game developers from using their game engines, even though interpreted code was previously disallowed (I believe). They reserve the right to erase apps from your phone, which has never yet happened. I don't believe that Apple will use legal rights they have reserved to prevent activities that actually benefit their platform.
Also, it is nice to see apple keeping the closed standards of its iphone and iPad out of reach from these kinds of developers, because their attitude of refusing to learn new, appropriate and quality-checked methods for producing apps and code for the platform means they will likely have a lower standard for what they condor as acceptable programming.
By saying no to flash, Apple keeps its quality standards high for its iPhone and iPad. This seems to be a reigning mantra of the company, and one that is obviously successful, as the market is ignoring these whiny developers in Adobe's camp and really not batting an eye towards the rejection of flash and cross compilers.
The market has already decided the winner, and no piss-poor attempt at unfounded harassment litigation will save Adobe now. Even as a PR stunt, it would be a colossal expensive failure as consumers just don't care about Adobe and the lack of support for its products on the iPhone and iPad.
And I am not even addressing the fact that Apple has completely created its ecosystem and is not any sort of common-carrier type monopoly, making any accusations of unfair business practices laughable at best.
Bring on the next iPhone I say- and Apple- bring it to other carriers! the iAds has got to motivate that now!
Well, that type of multitasking isn't poorly implemented or battery draining if you're willing to throw a big battery, fast CPU and a slug of RAM at the problem. The Nexus has 2X the RAM of the 3GS, half again as much battery and CPU speed, so it has more headroom to deal with the issues. Versus the 3G, it's even starker, and Apple doesn't even try to implement its non-shitty, well-implemented, battery-sipping multi-tasking ON A CURRENT MODEL.
A simple engineering/business choice. Having programmed for Macs since the very first model, I see a long history of minimized hardware; even so, the company has had to deal with low volumes and so necessarily higher prices. And I can cite other firms, like Sun, that bet the company on a gold-plated lineup just as the DotBomb exploded, showing that Apple is not simply being neurotic.
Still, Apple's implementation choices don't have to be the right ones for everybody. Multi-tasking on the Google phone is pretty sweet, as long as you don't tax it too hard and/or are willing to pace yourself on the number of apps, the same way that iPhone users have to pace themselves on the number of hours of surfing & talking between charges.
Gruber has taken this article to task for getting the state of multi-tasking on Android utterly wrong: http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/mobile_multitasking
In summary: Android multi-tasking is very similar to the model that Apple has adopted in iPhone 4.0. It's very much NOT like how multitasking works on the Mac.
You should have worded all that more carefully for people, who actually see your point. As long as processes and their contexts are allowed to passively stay in memory, anti-malware safety concerns should never leave OS writer alone.