This is just the worst possible kind of rumor reporting. As a matter of fact, this kind of crap could open the author or blogger up to a defamation lawsuit from Adobe or a possible stock manipulation lawsuit by Apple or the SEC.
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.
*Whew* then we can attribute this to pure unadulterated bitterness then? That makes things much simpler.
More importantly though Adobe is not implementing the same across all platforms and so aren't the aggrieved party here. Their implementation of Flash has been clearly one-sided, as has their general development once they wedded themselves to the PC platform. Now they come, late to the game AGAIN, and wave their lovely little package in everyone's faces claiming "no really - this is a game changer - trust us!". Complete bullshit. Had this conversation with an acquaintance who does some minor dev in Adobe -based stuff and got the same basic storyline. Has Adobe put out a talking points doc or something? This all seems a bit too canned and directed. Sounds like panic has set in in the Adobe offices.
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. People who suffer from it are unable to relate their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around them and often withdraw from society.
Non sequitur. Your diagnosis is misapplied here. The rest of your response makes absolutely no sense whatesoever. There is a spectrum of users who buy and utilize these phone technologies and their dynamic range is closer to infinity than it is to the either/or grouping you've created here.
iPhone do have a lot of free software but even then that software can leverage the same native programming tools that power the paid software. There's no need to create needless distinctions.
The crux here is that Adobe wants to leverage Flash to as tool sitting over the native API and Apple knows that this will cause apps created like this to be delayed or shun new features in future versions. There is no upside for Apple. They have enough apps on the store...they need to focus on having more quality apps.
Don't be daft. If I called you a douche bag I wouldn't be trying to suggest you literally inject water into a body orifice, nor when I say you sound schizophrenic am I implying you literally suffer from a mental illness.
The rest of your rambling didn't present a clear enough point for me to comment on so I'll just reiterate... Apple are being tools about this and I hope Steve pulls his head out of his behind.
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?
I suspect most people don't use PDFs as much as you do, at least for passing around form data. The last time I needed to fill out a PDF form was at work for network permissions. This was on Windows, and fairly recently. Adobe's tool allowed me to fill out the form. Windows does not have a native app that allows me to do that. Why should OSX be required to implement all the features of Acrobat Pro?
Besides, who doesn't like the increasingly functional Preview? It rocks. And it gets better with each release. For all you/we know, Apple will add all the functionality you seek in the next release. They're famous for slowly (but solidly) rolling out new features.
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.
You're still missing the point. I see that as a rational business by Apple - whether that ultimately proves to be a mistake is for the future. If Adobe, in Apple's shoes choose to do the same thing, it's no different. It makes sense to not want to be tied to anyone else for these sorts of decisions.
Even assuming that everything you say is correct; what you are complaining about is Apple's decision making and taking away spec/technology. If it was Adobe's decision not to support Apple's system because of this, that is Adobe's right. They can do what they want. But they cannot now demand that another company allow and support their product/software/etc on its system.
Lowering costs to develop is just more incentive for every crap developer to want to get in on the action - it is not an incentive to learn the code or create native iPhone apps. It certainly is not an incentive for better apps, just more of it.
What you said here: "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. "
Apple has perhaps criticized Adobe for being lazy, but as far as I am aware, I haven't heard any reports of Apple criticizing Adobe for this. Unless you are privy to some insider information, nor do I think you know Apple's motivations for feelings (frustration - really?) for pulling certain things - making it appear as if you know that Apple did things out of pure spite, with no business reasoning at all. If that is true, please back that up. Or maybe I'm reading what you said wrong. If you mean to say that Apple pulled it out of frustration because it wasn't working or wasn't successful - how is that any different from any other business? If something is not working - you don't just continue with it. You modify it, or whatever you need to do and sometimes, yes, you just have to shelve it. It appears to me that you are coloured by your own feelings against Apple - your right of course, to feel any way you want.
Who else but a paid Adobe troll would write a thing like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
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.
Forget about lawsuits -- Adobe's desperate survival strategy appears to be Paid Trolls
This sounds made up to me. Even if it were true and Adobe were successful, I don't think many people would deploy on Flash knowing Apple is against it. I imagine that web stuff just won't work in it without major changes. You can't use it for ads. Flash GUIs that have never taken off. What is left to use it for? This is a dead end product without Apple's developer agreement taken in to consideration.
In the early 1990's Apple's stagnant platform sales, lack of fixing OS issues were making most developers want to develop for both platforms/markets at once (diversify or die). QuickDraw GX or PowerTalk didn't add enough value to justify massive redevelopment costs for little returns (because it was completely incompatible with everything else, and was quite buggy originally, and the examples and documentation was a bit anemic). Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, or working with developers on what their customers wanted, Apple blames 3rd party developers because Apple failed to find the market-demand before implementing something that was incompatible with everything else.
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
What a bunch of self-serving rot. We've heard this mime too many times. Mr. or Miss pseudonym, you must be concealing your identity as one of those developers who've already been screwed. And of course whining about your failure being entirely Steve Jobs' fault, not yours.
If all you say had any validity Apple would be a failure. Sorry, but how they do business works, for them, not you. Boo hoo.
Adobe started out as Apple's best friend (taking over Aldus' PageMaker, doing Fonts, etc.), until it wasn't convenient anymore. For years they dissed Apple and wouldn't give them the time of day. I say, what goes around comes around.
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.
There are not many developers that spend money on marketing. The AppStore is their marketing. There is a lot of precedent for this from Apple. These developers either knew this was coming or should have known.
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.
PhoneGap is not against the developer agreement. Some of these other apps may be able to fit in to the new terms with a few changes. Apple is more concerned about the runtime then the programming language. If these apps compile to objective-c first or at least use the objective-c runtime, they may be in compliance. Apple has strong reasons for the changes they are making. There are technical reasons that make a lot of sense here if you have ever done low level coding. This new policy is coming from engineering not sales. This is really how it should have been worded from the beginning. I think Apple found their no interpreter rules did not cover enough territory. Even the original rules continue to be broken though. I've found many references to the Lua scripting langauge looking at symbol tables from AppStore programs.
What Apple is asking for is not unusual by the way. The other major platforms have the same limitations. Android requires programs that use the Java Runtime, Microsoft requires the .net runtime on Windows Mobile 7, and Apple requires the Objective-C runtime. Other mobile platforms are either using Java, QT, or have so few applications that they handle it on a app-by-app basis.
Don't be daft. If I called you a douche bag I wouldn't be trying to suggest you literally inject water into a body orifice, nor when I say you sound schizophrenic am I implying you literally suffer from a mental illness.
The rest of your rambling didn't present a clear enough point for me to comment on so I'll just reiterate... Apple are being tools about this and I hope Steve pulls his head out of his behind.
Ok ..I'll dumb things down.
3rd party intermediary layers do indeed deliver an abundance of apps but, historically speaking, they do not deliver quality. So you need to explain to me why I should favor quantity over quality.
Where were all these put-upon developers when Apple was crying in the wilderness? Abandoning or ignoring Apple to write for PCs, that's where. Now that Apple is a cash cow, these poor developers don't like the working conditions.
Personally I think Adobe should just avoid the mobile landscape and focus their resources on desktop products. If Adobe sues they will look like TOTAL tools! It's only really important if Apple plans to move it's mobile OS to the macbook. Adobe only needs to wait until mobile hardware matures and makes this whole situation moot. Really, has Apple removed flash from it's desktop version of Safari? No. Apple's design paradigm doesn't like cramming square pegs into round holes.
With that said I find the iPad more of a mobile desktop hybrid and would like to see versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premier on the iPad. At least by iPad version 2 because the hardware should be much more accommodating. But I'm sure you will let someone with much less experience do that and miss the boat all together.
By the way the CS5 Flash mobile presentation was just ridiculous, and you looked foolish showing those two lame games. Really, It's okay to tell your nagging customers "NO!, round peg does not go in square hole"! That's what Apple is trying to tell you!
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.
Adobe can't afford to drop the Mac platform. Not only would they piss off their most loyal customers, but they can't afford it because they are still in debt from the Macromedia purchase. They are also publicly owned and there is no way their stockholders would allow that.
Not looking at this from a business perspective, you are comparing unrelated things. If Adobe were to leave Apple they would be doing it to hurt Apple. Apple is (possibly) not allowing Flash for technical reasons. Only us developers can see this as purely a technical stance I guess...
Personally I think Adobe should just avoid the mobile landscape and focus their resources on desktop products. If Adobe sues they will look like TOTAL tools! It's only really important if Apple plans to move it's mobile OS to the macbook. Adobe only needs to wait until mobile hardware matures and makes this whole situation moot. Really, has Apple removed flash from it's desktop version of Safari? No. Apple's design paradigm doesn't like cramming square pegs into round holes.
With that said I find the iPad more of a mobile desktop hybrid and would like to see versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premier on the iPad. At least by iPad version 2 because the hardware should be much more accommodating. But I'm sure you will let someone with much less experience do that and miss the boat all together.
By the way the CS5 Flash mobile presentation was just ridiculous, and you looked foolish showing those two lame games. Really, It's okay to tell your nagging customers "NO!, round peg does not go in square hole"! That's what Apple is trying to tell you!
I somewhat agree. Adobe needs to stop hanging on to the past and look to the future. There is a need for rich HTML5 authoring tools now and dreamweaver doesn't cut it for rich media. Everything from ads to rich media ebooks will be based on open standards. Some investors have got to be looking at this as an opportunity to pump lots of money in to a competitor because Adobe is slipping with Flash.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
If it crashes while viewing, what difference does it make? It's all wasted effort.
No matter how cheap and easy it is to create, if the audience can't see it it is wasted effort. And make no point about it, Flash crashes, alot. Between OS 10.6 and click2flash all my non-flash crashes has stopped. The only crashes I get now days is from Flash when I allow click2flash to play flash. And 10.6 makes recovering from these crashes painless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim
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.
Do you even know what Preview is? It is a viewing app, not a creation app. As such it does a good job of displaying PDFs and many other file types. In your example you admitted that it will display a PDF form but would not fill in the form. Well that is a creation event that I submit is beyond the purpose of Preview. Thus Apple choose not to include those portions of the PDF spec. To do what you want, fill in PDF forms, I would do what I had to do on my PC at work; download Acrobat from Adobe.
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.
You obviously didn't research any of your examples. They are are wrong. Quickdraw is about 20 years old and way before the time of any of Apple's current management. Quickdraw is also obsolete and has been superseded by Quartz which developers have been very happy with. This was one of the first things Steve Jobs killed when he returned to Apple. It is not a good thing for developers to be implementing their own versions of libraries like this though. These are functions that benefit from hardware acceleration and should be in Apple's control. Apple follows open specifications better then most companies. They pass all the Acid3 tests for example. Their epub reader on the iPad is the best available. Not everyone can use PDF and it is not an open standard. You have to buy a license from Adobe or you can create and view it with Adobe software. Apple bought a license when it was new so they got a good deal. Microsoft is unwilling to pay the current price from Adobe. They tried to add PDF support in Office, but had to remove it when Adobe sued them. Your complaints about Apple and their proprietary standards don't make sense because Apple controls the platform. If Adobe controlled the platform they could do whatever they wanted. Like most people discussing this issue, you don't know the technical side of this. Developers that have worked with lower level code don't have a problem with this because we see this as it is: a purely technical decision. This is, by the way, just slightly more restrictive then their previous stance on the issue. Considering Apples (and all other major platforms) stance on this same issue, Adobe is to blame for pursuing a feature that is likely not to be allowed without asking Apple first.
We may see some more Adobe protests from Apple engineering as well. I understand that Apple is not happy about some deep hooks in the system used by Adobe licensing that can cause system wide instability. Maybe a warning every time an Adobe program is launched that says it causes problems with the system until Adobe fixes the problem.
Apple is not hypocritical because it is their platform. There are no standards to follow in this case. As famous as Apple's marketing is, their technology is controlled by their engineers. Steve Jobs himself said that Apple puts design and engineering before profits. It is essentially their business model. Gain a loyal following by selling a premium product. This is an engineering decision as Apple themselves have stated. The speculation is just getting out of control. If you don't trust Apple then you should listen to what developers are saying. Apple is basically just putting their foot down before this gets out of hand. Remember that Adobe was planning to release this without consulting Apple when it just barely made it through their old developer agreement. They were looking at the literal writing of the agreement instead of the intention.
Cross-platform UI technology has never been very good. You end up with an inferior product that is more difficult to maintain. You could assign two programers to build two superior UIs (or one programer sequentially so they start making money faster) for two platforms in 6 months or one programmer could build an inferior UI with cross platform tools in 12 months. There is an argument for cross-platform backend code because that currently doesn't vary as much between platforms, but the user interface is not something that should be abstracted with cross platform tools. The older companies that believe in the cross-platform methodology have the hardest time understanding this because they can throw obscene amounts of money at a bad design instead of going out of business like everyone else. You don't see small companies with cross-platform UIs for a reason. Intuit finally learned this and has their first decent Mac program now.
The business model Adobe is trying to create here is a horrible strategy anyway. They are right about needing an easier platform for designers. They are wrong about that platform being flash. This feels like a poorly thought out reaction to not being allowed in the browser. Adobe needs to get on the ball before someone else steals their throne.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
Or, they go, "I can pay a developer for weeks to write the same thing. But it'll be buggier, and I have to do it for each platform". They have to jack up the prices to get their investment back, but they have to eat support for it, so it becomes more of a pain. Result: you get less content for higher costs.
You can't break the fundamental laws of economics. If it costs more to do, they have to make that up somehow.
Being in the business of graphic design for the last 20 years, from the beginning of DTP through direct to film, then plate, then digital printing and all through online dev, I can tell you that the LAST thing I want to have my designers do is create an interactive Flash based ezine. The paradigm is a huge shift and it demands and deserves the appropriate application of technology, not a re-wrapping of yesterdays stuff just because people (developers, designers, etc.) can't adapt.
Take a look at the Alice in Wonderland iPad app to see where things are going. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gew68Qj5kxw. Imagine interactive school books that automatically highlight, snip to their own notes/outlines, snip to complete reference for papers, and completely automates and becomes intuitive for the student.
None of this will be done in Flash.
It reminds me of what the Cobol programmers thought when technology advanced on them. It had/has it's place, but its not where it's at moving forward. Adapt or perish because it's a brand new paradigm.
Comments
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.
*Whew* then we can attribute this to pure unadulterated bitterness then? That makes things much simpler.
More importantly though Adobe is not implementing the same across all platforms and so aren't the aggrieved party here. Their implementation of Flash has been clearly one-sided, as has their general development once they wedded themselves to the PC platform. Now they come, late to the game AGAIN, and wave their lovely little package in everyone's faces claiming "no really - this is a game changer - trust us!". Complete bullshit. Had this conversation with an acquaintance who does some minor dev in Adobe -based stuff and got the same basic storyline. Has Adobe put out a talking points doc or something? This all seems a bit too canned and directed. Sounds like panic has set in in the Adobe offices.
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. People who suffer from it are unable to relate their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around them and often withdraw from society.
Non sequitur. Your diagnosis is misapplied here. The rest of your response makes absolutely no sense whatesoever. There is a spectrum of users who buy and utilize these phone technologies and their dynamic range is closer to infinity than it is to the either/or grouping you've created here.
iPhone do have a lot of free software but even then that software can leverage the same native programming tools that power the paid software. There's no need to create needless distinctions.
The crux here is that Adobe wants to leverage Flash to as tool sitting over the native API and Apple knows that this will cause apps created like this to be delayed or shun new features in future versions. There is no upside for Apple. They have enough apps on the store...they need to focus on having more quality apps.
Don't be daft. If I called you a douche bag I wouldn't be trying to suggest you literally inject water into a body orifice, nor when I say you sound schizophrenic am I implying you literally suffer from a mental illness.
The rest of your rambling didn't present a clear enough point for me to comment on so I'll just reiterate... Apple are being tools about this and I hope Steve pulls his head out of his behind.
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?
I suspect most people don't use PDFs as much as you do, at least for passing around form data. The last time I needed to fill out a PDF form was at work for network permissions. This was on Windows, and fairly recently. Adobe's tool allowed me to fill out the form. Windows does not have a native app that allows me to do that. Why should OSX be required to implement all the features of Acrobat Pro?
Besides, who doesn't like the increasingly functional Preview? It rocks. And it gets better with each release. For all you/we know, Apple will add all the functionality you seek in the next release. They're famous for slowly (but solidly) rolling out new features.
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.
You're still missing the point. I see that as a rational business by Apple - whether that ultimately proves to be a mistake is for the future. If Adobe, in Apple's shoes choose to do the same thing, it's no different. It makes sense to not want to be tied to anyone else for these sorts of decisions.
Even assuming that everything you say is correct; what you are complaining about is Apple's decision making and taking away spec/technology. If it was Adobe's decision not to support Apple's system because of this, that is Adobe's right. They can do what they want. But they cannot now demand that another company allow and support their product/software/etc on its system.
Lowering costs to develop is just more incentive for every crap developer to want to get in on the action - it is not an incentive to learn the code or create native iPhone apps. It certainly is not an incentive for better apps, just more of it.
What you said here: "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. "
Apple has perhaps criticized Adobe for being lazy, but as far as I am aware, I haven't heard any reports of Apple criticizing Adobe for this. Unless you are privy to some insider information, nor do I think you know Apple's motivations for feelings (frustration - really?) for pulling certain things - making it appear as if you know that Apple did things out of pure spite, with no business reasoning at all. If that is true, please back that up. Or maybe I'm reading what you said wrong. If you mean to say that Apple pulled it out of frustration because it wasn't working or wasn't successful - how is that any different from any other business? If something is not working - you don't just continue with it. You modify it, or whatever you need to do and sometimes, yes, you just have to shelve it. It appears to me that you are coloured by your own feelings against Apple - your right of course, to feel any way you want.
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.
Forget about lawsuits -- Adobe's desperate survival strategy appears to be Paid Trolls
In the early 1990's Apple's stagnant platform sales, lack of fixing OS issues were making most developers want to develop for both platforms/markets at once (diversify or die). QuickDraw GX or PowerTalk didn't add enough value to justify massive redevelopment costs for little returns (because it was completely incompatible with everything else, and was quite buggy originally, and the examples and documentation was a bit anemic). Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, or working with developers on what their customers wanted, Apple blames 3rd party developers because Apple failed to find the market-demand before implementing something that was incompatible with everything else.
Apple then pulled those same technologies out on a whim, screwing all the developers that were naive enough to have trusted Apple and committed to them -- putting many out of business, or at least setting their product back years. Apple blames 3rd party developers for not adopting them, instead of themselves for not following through on promises.
Apple repeated that with OpenDoc, Bedrock, Newton, MacApp, and about 50 other technologies. But wonders why the few companies that survived all that are reluctant to jump on Apple's latest and greatest promises at first blush.
All big software companies do cross platform development. They abstract the core business logic from the UI, and the lowest level (I/O) in a somewhat MVC type design. More Platform UI edge -> Core functionality -> Hardware edge type design. The easier this is to do (the more the platform does to help), the more time/money they have to spend on platform specific features. Microsoft is slow moving and stable, and doesn't break things every release. Apple goes for a fast-moving, fast-changing and high-breakage model, that means with equal resources, developers spend their time fixing or adapting instead of adding features that the market wants. Apple blames 3rd party developers for this.
Apple had to do the same thing (platform abstraction) and solved problems like QuickTime by porting the MacToolbox to Windows and putting QuickTime on top of that. Instead of sharing that with their developers, which many developers would have used and allowed Apple to drive the market, they kept this proprietary.
Actually, MacApp created a Windows version using that technology and got it to release: Steve Jobs killed it a year later, because it helped developers too much and used Carbon.
There was a version of Cocoa (OpenStep) that ran on top Windows. This would allow developers to write on Mac first and run on Windows. Apple wouldn't release it.
Apple started up many different failed efforts to do the same things (Taligent, Dylan, OpenDoc / ODF, Bedrock, MacApp for Windows, not counting OpenStep for Windows, and YellowBox). Apple systematically killed them, usually after a few developers were stupid enough to trust Apple and get on board. Heck look at QuickTime today and Apple's lackluster support for the Windows version or 64 bit versions. Then they wonder why instead of trusting Apple for a base technology platform, large businesses built their own abstractions or used Windows/MFC and built porting layers for the Mac? This is all everyone but Apple's fault.
Then Apple goes and does the same things it is accusing Adobe of doing:
1) Apple first attacked Adobe by making incompatible Fonts (TrueType) just to undermine Adobe's licensing -- then is reluctant to work back to join OpenType effort.
2) Adobe had Acrobat and PDF which supports the full standard. Apple does what? They create Preview App which can't handle many PDF things like forms, scripting, security, and so on. They make an incompatible version and won't let users know when Apple's failing at interpreting the spec.
3) Apple create iPhone which can't work with standard browser plug-ins, mime types, and so on. It's like a standard, where Apple defines what's standard and leaves out the parts that anyone else thinks is important.
4) Apple uses an open ePub (eBook) format, but instead of licensing the standard DRM or making it compatible with others, they make a proprietary implementation that is incompatible with everyone else. (Defeating the purpose of open or standard).
And this never stops. Apple tells everyone one year that 64 Bit Carbon is coming, the next year they pull it out -- costing developers a year of wasted effort that they have to redo. Apple implemented 64 bit in a much harder to port sort of way.
EA just got burned by Apple's iPhone policy, gosh, do you think that'll mean more or less EA games in the future?
Apple is their own worst enemy when it comes to their developer community. Ask any developers that left, why. There's a constant influx of new young wannabe-fanboys, that are rabid enthusiasts for a few years. And there a constant outflux of burned companies that are put out of business by Apple's policies.
Someone said there are two kinds of Mac developers - those who've been screwed by Apple, and those waiting their turn. The irony is that Apple blames everyone else for it, and too much of the community worship "the Steve" and don't realize what Steve's policies are costing them.
What a bunch of self-serving rot. We've heard this mime too many times. Mr. or Miss pseudonym, you must be concealing your identity as one of those developers who've already been screwed. And of course whining about your failure being entirely Steve Jobs' fault, not yours.
If all you say had any validity Apple would be a failure. Sorry, but how they do business works, for them, not you. Boo hoo.
Adobe started out as Apple's best friend (taking over Aldus' PageMaker, doing Fonts, etc.), until it wasn't convenient anymore. For years they dissed Apple and wouldn't give them the time of day. I say, what goes around comes around.
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.
There are not many developers that spend money on marketing. The AppStore is their marketing. There is a lot of precedent for this from Apple. These developers either knew this was coming or should have known.
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.
PhoneGap is not against the developer agreement. Some of these other apps may be able to fit in to the new terms with a few changes. Apple is more concerned about the runtime then the programming language. If these apps compile to objective-c first or at least use the objective-c runtime, they may be in compliance. Apple has strong reasons for the changes they are making. There are technical reasons that make a lot of sense here if you have ever done low level coding. This new policy is coming from engineering not sales. This is really how it should have been worded from the beginning. I think Apple found their no interpreter rules did not cover enough territory. Even the original rules continue to be broken though. I've found many references to the Lua scripting langauge looking at symbol tables from AppStore programs.
What Apple is asking for is not unusual by the way. The other major platforms have the same limitations. Android requires programs that use the Java Runtime, Microsoft requires the .net runtime on Windows Mobile 7, and Apple requires the Objective-C runtime. Other mobile platforms are either using Java, QT, or have so few applications that they handle it on a app-by-app basis.
Don't be daft. If I called you a douche bag I wouldn't be trying to suggest you literally inject water into a body orifice, nor when I say you sound schizophrenic am I implying you literally suffer from a mental illness.
The rest of your rambling didn't present a clear enough point for me to comment on so I'll just reiterate... Apple are being tools about this and I hope Steve pulls his head out of his behind.
Ok ..I'll dumb things down.
3rd party intermediary layers do indeed deliver an abundance of apps but, historically speaking, they do not deliver quality. So you need to explain to me why I should favor quantity over quality.
And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.
well, if they were, it would be too much...
With that said I find the iPad more of a mobile desktop hybrid and would like to see versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premier on the iPad. At least by iPad version 2 because the hardware should be much more accommodating. But I'm sure you will let someone with much less experience do that and miss the boat all together.
By the way the CS5 Flash mobile presentation was just ridiculous, and you looked foolish showing those two lame games. Really, It's okay to tell your nagging customers "NO!, round peg does not go in square hole"! That's what Apple is trying to tell you!
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.
Adobe can't afford to drop the Mac platform. Not only would they piss off their most loyal customers, but they can't afford it because they are still in debt from the Macromedia purchase. They are also publicly owned and there is no way their stockholders would allow that.
Not looking at this from a business perspective, you are comparing unrelated things. If Adobe were to leave Apple they would be doing it to hurt Apple. Apple is (possibly) not allowing Flash for technical reasons. Only us developers can see this as purely a technical stance I guess...
Personally I think Adobe should just avoid the mobile landscape and focus their resources on desktop products. If Adobe sues they will look like TOTAL tools! It's only really important if Apple plans to move it's mobile OS to the macbook. Adobe only needs to wait until mobile hardware matures and makes this whole situation moot. Really, has Apple removed flash from it's desktop version of Safari? No. Apple's design paradigm doesn't like cramming square pegs into round holes.
With that said I find the iPad more of a mobile desktop hybrid and would like to see versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premier on the iPad. At least by iPad version 2 because the hardware should be much more accommodating. But I'm sure you will let someone with much less experience do that and miss the boat all together.
By the way the CS5 Flash mobile presentation was just ridiculous, and you looked foolish showing those two lame games. Really, It's okay to tell your nagging customers "NO!, round peg does not go in square hole"! That's what Apple is trying to tell you!
I somewhat agree. Adobe needs to stop hanging on to the past and look to the future. There is a need for rich HTML5 authoring tools now and dreamweaver doesn't cut it for rich media. Everything from ads to rich media ebooks will be based on open standards. Some investors have got to be looking at this as an opportunity to pump lots of money in to a competitor because Adobe is slipping with Flash.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
If it crashes while viewing, what difference does it make? It's all wasted effort.
No matter how cheap and easy it is to create, if the audience can't see it it is wasted effort. And make no point about it, Flash crashes, alot. Between OS 10.6 and click2flash all my non-flash crashes has stopped. The only crashes I get now days is from Flash when I allow click2flash to play flash. And 10.6 makes recovering from these crashes painless.
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.
Do you even know what Preview is? It is a viewing app, not a creation app. As such it does a good job of displaying PDFs and many other file types. In your example you admitted that it will display a PDF form but would not fill in the form. Well that is a creation event that I submit is beyond the purpose of Preview. Thus Apple choose not to include those portions of the PDF spec. To do what you want, fill in PDF forms, I would do what I had to do on my PC at work; download Acrobat from Adobe.
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.
You obviously didn't research any of your examples. They are are wrong. Quickdraw is about 20 years old and way before the time of any of Apple's current management. Quickdraw is also obsolete and has been superseded by Quartz which developers have been very happy with. This was one of the first things Steve Jobs killed when he returned to Apple. It is not a good thing for developers to be implementing their own versions of libraries like this though. These are functions that benefit from hardware acceleration and should be in Apple's control. Apple follows open specifications better then most companies. They pass all the Acid3 tests for example. Their epub reader on the iPad is the best available. Not everyone can use PDF and it is not an open standard. You have to buy a license from Adobe or you can create and view it with Adobe software. Apple bought a license when it was new so they got a good deal. Microsoft is unwilling to pay the current price from Adobe. They tried to add PDF support in Office, but had to remove it when Adobe sued them. Your complaints about Apple and their proprietary standards don't make sense because Apple controls the platform. If Adobe controlled the platform they could do whatever they wanted. Like most people discussing this issue, you don't know the technical side of this. Developers that have worked with lower level code don't have a problem with this because we see this as it is: a purely technical decision. This is, by the way, just slightly more restrictive then their previous stance on the issue. Considering Apples (and all other major platforms) stance on this same issue, Adobe is to blame for pursuing a feature that is likely not to be allowed without asking Apple first.
We may see some more Adobe protests from Apple engineering as well. I understand that Apple is not happy about some deep hooks in the system used by Adobe licensing that can cause system wide instability. Maybe a warning every time an Adobe program is launched that says it causes problems with the system until Adobe fixes the problem.
Apple is not hypocritical because it is their platform. There are no standards to follow in this case. As famous as Apple's marketing is, their technology is controlled by their engineers. Steve Jobs himself said that Apple puts design and engineering before profits. It is essentially their business model. Gain a loyal following by selling a premium product. This is an engineering decision as Apple themselves have stated. The speculation is just getting out of control. If you don't trust Apple then you should listen to what developers are saying. Apple is basically just putting their foot down before this gets out of hand. Remember that Adobe was planning to release this without consulting Apple when it just barely made it through their old developer agreement. They were looking at the literal writing of the agreement instead of the intention.
Cross-platform UI technology has never been very good. You end up with an inferior product that is more difficult to maintain. You could assign two programers to build two superior UIs (or one programer sequentially so they start making money faster) for two platforms in 6 months or one programmer could build an inferior UI with cross platform tools in 12 months. There is an argument for cross-platform backend code because that currently doesn't vary as much between platforms, but the user interface is not something that should be abstracted with cross platform tools. The older companies that believe in the cross-platform methodology have the hardest time understanding this because they can throw obscene amounts of money at a bad design instead of going out of business like everyone else. You don't see small companies with cross-platform UIs for a reason. Intuit finally learned this and has their first decent Mac program now.
The business model Adobe is trying to create here is a horrible strategy anyway. They are right about needing an easier platform for designers. They are wrong about that platform being flash. This feels like a poorly thought out reaction to not being allowed in the browser. Adobe needs to get on the ball before someone else steals their throne.
Have you seen the CS5 demos? Publishers (who know publishing, not ObjectiveC Mac programming), can take InDesign, and create an interactive Flash based eMagazine in a couple hours. And they can have it on multiple platforms or online. They think "this is cheap and easy", and they make the content widely available.
Or, they go, "I can pay a developer for weeks to write the same thing. But it'll be buggier, and I have to do it for each platform". They have to jack up the prices to get their investment back, but they have to eat support for it, so it becomes more of a pain. Result: you get less content for higher costs.
You can't break the fundamental laws of economics. If it costs more to do, they have to make that up somehow.
Being in the business of graphic design for the last 20 years, from the beginning of DTP through direct to film, then plate, then digital printing and all through online dev, I can tell you that the LAST thing I want to have my designers do is create an interactive Flash based ezine. The paradigm is a huge shift and it demands and deserves the appropriate application of technology, not a re-wrapping of yesterdays stuff just because people (developers, designers, etc.) can't adapt.
Take a look at the Alice in Wonderland iPad app to see where things are going. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gew68Qj5kxw. Imagine interactive school books that automatically highlight, snip to their own notes/outlines, snip to complete reference for papers, and completely automates and becomes intuitive for the student.
None of this will be done in Flash.
It reminds me of what the Cobol programmers thought when technology advanced on them. It had/has it's place, but its not where it's at moving forward. Adapt or perish because it's a brand new paradigm.
Adobe Photoshop 7 was both Mac OS and Mac OS X native and it came out in 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_P...elease_history