Apple 'licenced' the technology. That's as legitimate as spec usage gets. Again, if you want those features... buy Acrobat. Apple licensed (that word you should really look up) the PDF spec for their specific purposes.
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
Easy greasy publishing but craptastic playback on Macs and mobile devices. Sorry I'm the consumer and Flash is persona non grata on my Mac unless I want it to come through my gatekeeper (Click2Flash)
As you said before though ..I don't value Magazines that much anymore. Haven't purchased a subscription to anything for a few years now. Them going online with interactive Flash media isn't going to suddenly spiffen up their writing or need to cram advertising down my throught.
Magazines are dying and they think technology is going to come to their rescue but it's not because they simply aren't needed anymore.
Flash content on the iPhone is out obviously and has always been.
However, Adobe put a lot of effort for porting Flash content to the App store. If you watch the Adobe overview/preview of CS5 they wrapped a lot of the launch and marketing around this feature.
I think they are feeling pretty chapped about it all. Not just that all that work is now thrown out the window, but it's extremely embarrassing and a real economic hit to Adobe. They really spent a lot of capital and a big chunk of the CS 5 product launch towards this.
Every demo in the launch of the CS5 that is featured highlights the feature running on OS X. I don't think Windows was used once. The 2 companies have been traditionally very close not just geographically but strategically. They have had their differences in the last few of years but in my eyes Adobe's been moving to renew its support for Apple and..... they got shat on, intentionally or not.
Having been following the 2 companies for a couple of decades I think it was intentional. As a user and shareholder of both companies I don't know how I feel about it exactly since I don't have all the facts, but it doesn't smell good to me on first whiff at all.
You fail to take into consideration that Apple's business model is to sell hardware. It's efforts in terms of software are all geared toward selling more hardware. Apple would be happy with breaking even on software or taking a mild loss. The whole purpose of every application it creates, even OSX, is to add value to the hardware it wants to sell.
According to Apple, it created over 1500 new APIs in it's iPhone 4 OS. The only reason it could possibly want to engage in that massive effort, is in hopes of differentiating it's platform from competitors. Apple wants developers to use these API's to create applications that utilizes the strengths of it's platform.
Apple in return offers the following benefits: low cost development resources and a first class application store where it takes only thirty percent (imagine if the record industry was in charge here). That thirty percent covers expensive bandwidth costs, a expensive backend for billing, and some marketing. Every indication is that Apple choose the thirty percent in hopes of breaking even. The only reason it makes a profit is on shear volume. In Apple's mind any profit on the software sales is a bonus. It takes a loss on free applications because of bandwidth costs.
Now after energizing the mobile application space, Apple is supposed to help developers undermine Apple's chosen method of profit (selling hardware) so that developers can sell the exact same application to copy cat hardware manufacturers and application store providers? If Apple allowed developers to use development tools that didn't utilize it's platform's strengths, it would potentially have to make up for the possible loss in hardware sales by charging more for applications sales. I doubt developers would like that much either.
Now before developers start praising Google's Android platform. Keep in mind, Google can afford to break even on hardware and application sales, it's goal is to sell more advertising in the same way that Apple is willing to use software as a loss leader to sell more hardware. Apple is doing a lot to assist developers to develop for it's platform. It just isn't willing to risk doing anything that undermines it's bread and butter: hardware sales.
Further, at the end of the day, Apple's method is the most beneficial for consumers. Consumers want applications that feel at home on the platform they are using. That makes the applications easier to use and understand. The proof: Apple's mobile sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
First, Adobe shoots themselves in the foot by not using Xcode and spends a year sans intel apps. Then, they continue to ignore any sensible development wisdom and continue to patch Flash rather than rewrite and thereby continue to ship a buggy, nowhere-near-optimized "platform".
And they think lack of Flash on the iPhone is their big problem?
Their strategy is pretty transparent - late to the dance, they want to force their way into someone else's success and hope to catch up to the rest of the world. They should call Rob Glaser and get an object lesson on just how futile it is to try and bully Apple into accepting a failed model rather than understanding where the industry is going and getting on a successful path.
They can make far more money shipping great applications than they can by bullying anyone into accepting their so-so ones.
Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create.
And at the same time, they can force McDonalds to sell Whopper hamburgers. They can also force Rolls Royce to allow Hyundai to put Rolls Royce hood ornaments on their car. Then they can force Random House to publish any book that any author wants to send them.
It's a stupid concept and won't go anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
Well, gee. I guess that's why no one develops for the iPhone ecosystem.
Next argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by q dude
You sound bitter. Developers are not directly part of the corporate decision making process and are often caught off-guard by policy changes. The talented ones adapt.
The talented ones also read the rules before jumping in. It was known from the start that Apple wouldn't allow this type of runtime environment and Adobe clearly created Flash to iPhone as a feeble attempt to get around the rules. Sorry, no go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Sue for what, exactly? Hurt feelings?
Does it even matter? Adobe doesn't drive Mac sales anyway. Not by a long-shot. This isn't 15 years ago.
I don't think there's any chance that Adobe is even remotely considering suing Apple over the matter. It's click bait from some blogger who can't make an honest living.
Apple has made it clear to Adobe it doesn't want Flash on the iPhone. Although Adobe has for a while known Apple's stance on Flash for the iPhone, it went ahead with it's plan anyway. Adobe knowingly took a big risk.
Further, anybody who thinks Apple hasn't had private conversations with Adobe on the matter is foolish. So, Apple's move really shouldn't be a surprise to Adobe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Flash content on the iPhone is out obviously and has always been.
However, Adobe put a lot of effort for porting Flash content to the App store. If you watch the Adobe overview/preview of CS5 they wrapped a lot of the launch and marketing around this feature.
I think they are feeling pretty chapped about it all. Not just that all that work is now thrown out the window, but it's extremely embarrassing and a real economic hit to Adobe. They really spent a lot of capital and a big chunk of the CS 5 product launch towards this.
Every demo in the launch of the CS5 that is featured highlights the feature running on OS X. I don't think Windows was used once. The 2 companies have been traditionally very close not just geographically but strategically. They have had their differences in the last few of years but in my eyes Adobe's been moving to renew its support for Apple and..... they got shat on, intentionally or not.
Having been following the 2 companies for a couple of decades I think it was intentional. As a user and shareholder of both companies I don't know how I feel about it exactly since I don't have all the facts, but it doesn't smell good to me on first whiff at all.
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
So who is paying you to write all this pro Adobe material here? Just curious.
In all seriousness, if, as some people urge, Adobe were to walk away from releasing the CS5 suite for Macs, who would be hurt more? Yes, the Mac apps are a steady revenue stream for Adobe, but I don't really see much in the way of alternatives for the CS5 apps. Photoshop in particular really is the 800-pound gorilla. I can see at least some users just throwing up their hands, buying new PCs to replace Macs or even just installing Windows 7 in Boot Camp and moving on with CS5. So it would seem Adobe, while it may hurt itself, may be able to hurt Apple more, at least among creative professionals. That's completely irrelevant in the iPhone/iPad space, of course.
I wouldn't jump all over Adobe about this until they actually file the suit. Such a lawsuit would be even more inane than that hackintosh cloner whose name I've already forgotten. I would assume Adobe has pretty good in-house lawyers who would right away point out there is no legal basis for such a suit especially since iPhone is not a monopoly of any market other than the market for iPhones.
I worked for a company that created an intermediary layer above Oracle and other DB. We made it much easier to run reports against these DB than the native tools. We charged a pretty penny but with every Oracle update our engineers had to ascertain what changed and remap our software accordingly.
Flash compilation would be no different. It would simply delay the amount of time it takes to leverage new Apple iPhone OS API for the apps that use Flash.
The talented ones also read the rules before jumping in.
Unfortunately, Apple often likes to change the rules in the middle of the game. Notice one of the latest stories about Apple asserting that they own the rights to "Pad" and that developers would have to change any app names that include the term, like JournalPad and ComicPad. That's not sitting well with developers who have spent quite a bit of time and money setting up their marketing around the names they had previously chosen. So even if you play by Apple's rulebook, there's no guarantee you won't be penalized at Apple's whim.
Apple has made it clear to Adobe it doesn't want Flash on the iPhone. Although Adobe has for a while known Apple's stance on Flash for the iPhone, it went ahead with it's plan anyway. Adobe knowingly took a big risk.
Put another way. Adobe, Ansca, Appcelerator, EA, PhoneGap, Unity3D, and most importantly 100's of app developers (many with top 10 apps in their category) all complied with Apple's terms. Millions of users bought and use those Apps. So Apple changed the terms of the contract in order to hurt them all, whatever the collateral damage. (Then they made a cowardly-irrational excuse that few really buy and they don't follow themselves).
And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
This is missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Apple has implemented all of certain features, it is not a good idea to be reliant on a third party to implement your features. If I was Apple, I want to be able to choose which features to install and allow on my product, I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone else for any part of this, especially one who has a history of delay. So the fact that I can choose to not use every feature, doesn't mean it's ok if I become dependent on a third party to make this decision.
This is missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Apple has implemented all of certain features, it is not a good idea to be reliant on a third party to implement your features. If I was Apple, I want to be able to choose which features to install and allow on my product, I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone else for any part of this, especially one who has a history of delay. So the fact that I can choose to not use every feature, doesn't mean it's ok if I become dependent on a third party to make this decision.
That was the original point.
Apple chooses not to implement all of a spec/technology, hides that they only implemented part of it from users, which hurts that spec and users. Oh well, it's Apple -- free pass because they make the iThing.
Then Apple creates a spec/technology (like QuickDraw GX) without consulting or working with their customers/developers, who don't need it because they already implemented their own (which works better and isn't as buggy), and they get mad because only a small part of their developer base implements that functionality. So then they pull it in frustration (hurting those that trusted them), and then they criticize anyone who does the same thing they do, back to them.
If you're Apple or Adobe, you want people to comply with your entire technology/spec. You're saying that Adobe is worse, because they do the same thing Apple does (only not as often).
If you're Apple you want to add value. If you're a developer, they can do that by lowering my costs to develop (like making cross platform tools, even if they do more on your platform), and increasing features and functionality I need. Apple chooses to be at odds with its developers.
If you're Adobe you want to add value. If you're a consumer they do this by making a ubiquitous standard and getting people to comply with it, so I can create content with a variety of tools and read/use them anywhere (Adobe hopes you pick Adobe's tools, because then they make money -- but you don't have to). Anyone can use PDF. Apple intentionally tries to break that, because they want to lock customers onto just their platform and not be able to work on anyone's devices. Why that would commoditize the market. (Consumers win, but Apple loses: can't charge extra for the same thing).
I don't see them as different: I see Apple as more hypocritical about it.
As a consumer, I'd rather PDF, eBooks, music, and many apps worked the same everywhere -- so I'm more aligned with Adobe. Apple is intentionally trying to make that NOT work.
Comments
Apple 'licenced' the technology. That's as legitimate as spec usage gets. Again, if you want those features... buy Acrobat. Apple licensed (that word you should really look up) the PDF spec for their specific purposes.
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
Easy greasy publishing but craptastic playback on Macs and mobile devices. Sorry I'm the consumer and Flash is persona non grata on my Mac unless I want it to come through my gatekeeper (Click2Flash)
As you said before though ..I don't value Magazines that much anymore. Haven't purchased a subscription to anything for a few years now. Them going online with interactive Flash media isn't going to suddenly spiffen up their writing or need to cram advertising down my throught.
Magazines are dying and they think technology is going to come to their rescue but it's not because they simply aren't needed anymore.
Does it even matter? Adobe doesn't drive Mac sales anyway. Not by a long-shot. This isn't 15 years ago.
However, Adobe put a lot of effort for porting Flash content to the App store. If you watch the Adobe overview/preview of CS5 they wrapped a lot of the launch and marketing around this feature.
I think they are feeling pretty chapped about it all. Not just that all that work is now thrown out the window, but it's extremely embarrassing and a real economic hit to Adobe. They really spent a lot of capital and a big chunk of the CS 5 product launch towards this.
Every demo in the launch of the CS5 that is featured highlights the feature running on OS X. I don't think Windows was used once. The 2 companies have been traditionally very close not just geographically but strategically. They have had their differences in the last few of years but in my eyes Adobe's been moving to renew its support for Apple and..... they got shat on, intentionally or not.
Having been following the 2 companies for a couple of decades I think it was intentional. As a user and shareholder of both companies I don't know how I feel about it exactly since I don't have all the facts, but it doesn't smell good to me on first whiff at all.
-tink
According to Apple, it created over 1500 new APIs in it's iPhone 4 OS. The only reason it could possibly want to engage in that massive effort, is in hopes of differentiating it's platform from competitors. Apple wants developers to use these API's to create applications that utilizes the strengths of it's platform.
Apple in return offers the following benefits: low cost development resources and a first class application store where it takes only thirty percent (imagine if the record industry was in charge here). That thirty percent covers expensive bandwidth costs, a expensive backend for billing, and some marketing. Every indication is that Apple choose the thirty percent in hopes of breaking even. The only reason it makes a profit is on shear volume. In Apple's mind any profit on the software sales is a bonus. It takes a loss on free applications because of bandwidth costs.
Now after energizing the mobile application space, Apple is supposed to help developers undermine Apple's chosen method of profit (selling hardware) so that developers can sell the exact same application to copy cat hardware manufacturers and application store providers? If Apple allowed developers to use development tools that didn't utilize it's platform's strengths, it would potentially have to make up for the possible loss in hardware sales by charging more for applications sales. I doubt developers would like that much either.
Now before developers start praising Google's Android platform. Keep in mind, Google can afford to break even on hardware and application sales, it's goal is to sell more advertising in the same way that Apple is willing to use software as a loss leader to sell more hardware. Apple is doing a lot to assist developers to develop for it's platform. It just isn't willing to risk doing anything that undermines it's bread and butter: hardware sales.
Further, at the end of the day, Apple's method is the most beneficial for consumers. Consumers want applications that feel at home on the platform they are using. That makes the applications easier to use and understand. The proof: Apple's mobile sales.
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
And the problem is as a customer, do I care? Do I really need some lame iPhone only feature on a DigitalMagazine -- "oh look, my magazine has GPS so it knows where I am". Or do I just want it to work well (and the same) no matter what device I'm using it on?
Platform specific features only add value if they're needed. For most simple information recovery systems, or silly games, or web graphs, and so on, Flash is good enough. I can spend the time I saved by the quick port, on what's important: the core content that adds value.
The seats are still warm from the Pystar/hackintosh folks. You should feel right at home.
Apple and Adobe haven't been chummy in a long time.
Have a good read here
http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/201...ewed-yourself/
And they think lack of Flash on the iPhone is their big problem?
Their strategy is pretty transparent - late to the dance, they want to force their way into someone else's success and hope to catch up to the rest of the world. They should call Rob Glaser and get an object lesson on just how futile it is to try and bully Apple into accepting a failed model rather than understanding where the industry is going and getting on a successful path.
They can make far more money shipping great applications than they can by bullying anyone into accepting their so-so ones.
Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create.
And at the same time, they can force McDonalds to sell Whopper hamburgers. They can also force Rolls Royce to allow Hyundai to put Rolls Royce hood ornaments on their car. Then they can force Random House to publish any book that any author wants to send them.
It's a stupid concept and won't go anywhere.
Your choice is this:
1) Lower the cost of development to your developers. If you do they will have more time to make either more apps, or implement more features.
2) Raise the cost of development for your developers. You will get less competition/apps and features (and more bugs).
Most companies develop on a budget. If they spend it just getting it to run on that platform at all, they have less to spend on making it run well, or adding platform specific things.
Well, gee. I guess that's why no one develops for the iPhone ecosystem.
Next argument...
You sound bitter. Developers are not directly part of the corporate decision making process and are often caught off-guard by policy changes. The talented ones adapt.
The talented ones also read the rules before jumping in. It was known from the start that Apple wouldn't allow this type of runtime environment and Adobe clearly created Flash to iPhone as a feeble attempt to get around the rules. Sorry, no go.
Sue for what, exactly? Hurt feelings?
Does it even matter? Adobe doesn't drive Mac sales anyway. Not by a long-shot. This isn't 15 years ago.
I don't think there's any chance that Adobe is even remotely considering suing Apple over the matter. It's click bait from some blogger who can't make an honest living.
Further, anybody who thinks Apple hasn't had private conversations with Adobe on the matter is foolish. So, Apple's move really shouldn't be a surprise to Adobe.
Flash content on the iPhone is out obviously and has always been.
However, Adobe put a lot of effort for porting Flash content to the App store. If you watch the Adobe overview/preview of CS5 they wrapped a lot of the launch and marketing around this feature.
I think they are feeling pretty chapped about it all. Not just that all that work is now thrown out the window, but it's extremely embarrassing and a real economic hit to Adobe. They really spent a lot of capital and a big chunk of the CS 5 product launch towards this.
Every demo in the launch of the CS5 that is featured highlights the feature running on OS X. I don't think Windows was used once. The 2 companies have been traditionally very close not just geographically but strategically. They have had their differences in the last few of years but in my eyes Adobe's been moving to renew its support for Apple and..... they got shat on, intentionally or not.
Having been following the 2 companies for a couple of decades I think it was intentional. As a user and shareholder of both companies I don't know how I feel about it exactly since I don't have all the facts, but it doesn't smell good to me on first whiff at all.
-tink
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
So who is paying you to write all this pro Adobe material here? Just curious.
Wow. After reading this article, I feel that Adobe can go suck eggs.
Whatever that means.
Is Adobe your grandmother
Flash compilation would be no different. It would simply delay the amount of time it takes to leverage new Apple iPhone OS API for the apps that use Flash.
The talented ones also read the rules before jumping in.
Unfortunately, Apple often likes to change the rules in the middle of the game. Notice one of the latest stories about Apple asserting that they own the rights to "Pad" and that developers would have to change any app names that include the term, like JournalPad and ComicPad. That's not sitting well with developers who have spent quite a bit of time and money setting up their marketing around the names they had previously chosen. So even if you play by Apple's rulebook, there's no guarantee you won't be penalized at Apple's whim.
Apple has made it clear to Adobe it doesn't want Flash on the iPhone. Although Adobe has for a while known Apple's stance on Flash for the iPhone, it went ahead with it's plan anyway. Adobe knowingly took a big risk.
Put another way. Adobe, Ansca, Appcelerator, EA, PhoneGap, Unity3D, and most importantly 100's of app developers (many with top 10 apps in their category) all complied with Apple's terms. Millions of users bought and use those Apps. So Apple changed the terms of the contract in order to hurt them all, whatever the collateral damage. (Then they made a cowardly-irrational excuse that few really buy and they don't follow themselves).
And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.
http://www.itworld.com/sjvn
Please show where Apple licensed an open ISO spec: ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008
Please learn that even if you license the rights to use the spec, doesn't mean that you actually implement it all. Please show where Apple says they are compliant with the spec.
So tell me, is this a good behavior: You're a user, a friend sends you a form, you can't fill it out, and some elements are missing so you don't know. It has 3D or some security encodings, but that doesn't work on the Mac either. The Mac doesn't tell you when that's failed.
And remember the point -- you (someone) said that Apple complained because Adobe or others didn't use every feature they created in the OS (when Apple didn't in their own Apps either). Then Apple does what? It doesn't implement all the features of the specs it kinda claims that it supports, and it doesn't tell users where/when it has failed so that users know they need something that can read the entire document. Which is worse?
This is missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Apple has implemented all of certain features, it is not a good idea to be reliant on a third party to implement your features. If I was Apple, I want to be able to choose which features to install and allow on my product, I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone else for any part of this, especially one who has a history of delay. So the fact that I can choose to not use every feature, doesn't mean it's ok if I become dependent on a third party to make this decision.
This is missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Apple has implemented all of certain features, it is not a good idea to be reliant on a third party to implement your features. If I was Apple, I want to be able to choose which features to install and allow on my product, I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone else for any part of this, especially one who has a history of delay. So the fact that I can choose to not use every feature, doesn't mean it's ok if I become dependent on a third party to make this decision.
That was the original point.
Apple chooses not to implement all of a spec/technology, hides that they only implemented part of it from users, which hurts that spec and users. Oh well, it's Apple -- free pass because they make the iThing.
Then Apple creates a spec/technology (like QuickDraw GX) without consulting or working with their customers/developers, who don't need it because they already implemented their own (which works better and isn't as buggy), and they get mad because only a small part of their developer base implements that functionality. So then they pull it in frustration (hurting those that trusted them), and then they criticize anyone who does the same thing they do, back to them.
If you're Apple or Adobe, you want people to comply with your entire technology/spec. You're saying that Adobe is worse, because they do the same thing Apple does (only not as often).
If you're Apple you want to add value. If you're a developer, they can do that by lowering my costs to develop (like making cross platform tools, even if they do more on your platform), and increasing features and functionality I need. Apple chooses to be at odds with its developers.
If you're Adobe you want to add value. If you're a consumer they do this by making a ubiquitous standard and getting people to comply with it, so I can create content with a variety of tools and read/use them anywhere (Adobe hopes you pick Adobe's tools, because then they make money -- but you don't have to). Anyone can use PDF. Apple intentionally tries to break that, because they want to lock customers onto just their platform and not be able to work on anyone's devices. Why that would commoditize the market. (Consumers win, but Apple loses: can't charge extra for the same thing).
I don't see them as different: I see Apple as more hypocritical about it.
As a consumer, I'd rather PDF, eBooks, music, and many apps worked the same everywhere -- so I'm more aligned with Adobe. Apple is intentionally trying to make that NOT work.