Blogger insists Adobe will sue Apple over CS4 iPhone app tools

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


    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. Adobe profited from the arrangement, how are they the offended party? From their own licensing terms? Really!?!? Come on people, the apes are catching up.



    Exactly. Adobe is doing what they think makes sense to make money off of their file format. Is it really surprising that Apple would not take a somewhat different approach when it comes to a computing platform? A file format and a computing platform are two rather different things.
  • Reply 102 of 199
    hmayeshmayes Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    I think that is a flat out daft terrible idea.



    Unless and until one company wields monopoly power over the smart phone market (I don't even foresee that as happening, ever), the courts have absolutely no business in such a debate. That is what markets are for and consumers will decide this with their wallets. Besides, King Solomon has bigger fish to fry.



    AGREED!!! Extremely well-said!



    -Mayes
  • Reply 103 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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.



    Or, they can go, "I will pay a developer for weeks to write a better version for the iPhone that is customized to the platform, which makes sense to me because that is by far the largest and competitive platform out there. I'll use CSS to make a more cookie-cutter version of the same thing for all the other platforms out there that have far smaller marketshare and are less competitive."



    That is what Apple is trying to achieve. Makes perfect sense from their perspective.
  • Reply 104 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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?



    If it's an open spec, then your point makes even less sense. Apple can do whatever they want.



    In every post you make you are talking about this as if it were some kind of morality issue. If Adobe chose to make PDF an open spec that anyone can use however they want, then Apple is well within its rights to use PDF however they want. Apparently Adobe must have believed that this was a strategy that was in their best interests.



    Apple is choosing a rather different strategy for the advancement of their iPlatform. I don't find it at all surprising that a company would choose to follow a different strategy to advance a computing platform than to advance a file format. This effort to make some kind of moral equivalence between the two is weird.
  • Reply 105 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    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's management are responsible to shareholders, and shareholders are interested in profits, not the hurt feelings of Adobe employees. Walking away from the CS revenue from the Mac is not an option for Adobe. Heck, if they tried it, Apple might just fill the space themselves.
  • Reply 106 of 199
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    There are some "functions" of Adobe Acrobat that one could well do without.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    There are, however, some aspects of the Adobe Reader's functionality that... are not provided in Preview. For example, forms can now be created in Acrobat that have dynamic content fields (such as drop-downs and check-boxes) and while Preview will display these fields, interactivity is not available and therefore the fields become static.



  • Reply 107 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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.



    Put another way, Apple is a for profit company that is more interested in making money than they are in whether developers are happy. Apple sees developers as subcontractors more than they see them as lifelong soul mates. Apple also sees individual developers as disposable -- kind of like interchangeable parts. As unflattering as that may be, it's probably more or less true.



    There are undoubtedly costs to Apple's approach. You are correct that Apple is making iPlatform development more costly for developers. But Apple is calculating that the benefits of selling apps on their platform will cover those costs, and developers will continue to make apps. I suspect they are correct. Apple also believes that this will make their platform more appealing to consumers. They may well be correct. The fact that Adobe made a different calculation with PDFs is just that -- a different calculation (not a morality thing)
  • Reply 108 of 199
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FckUadobe View Post


    Who else but a paid Adobe troll would write a thing like this?







    Forget about lawsuits -- Adobe's desperate survival strategy appears to be Paid Trolls



    I don't agree with the post you quoted, but I also don't agree that everyone who posts something that could be interpreted as "pro-Adobe" is a paid troll. But even if they are -- so what? It should be the content of what they write that matters, not their motivation for writing it or their identity. In this case, the content of what this person wrote makes no sense, and it doesn't take much to show that.



    Similarly, I really doubt that Sue is a paid troll. I think she is totally sincere in what she's writing, and she's clearly knowledgeable.
  • Reply 109 of 199
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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.



    ++. Finally someone who "gets it".
  • Reply 110 of 199
    allblueallblue Posts: 393member
    Surely I'm not the only one who is both amused and bemused by the stance taken both by Adobe and their advocates? That with Flash installed on "96% of computers" (cf Adobe) and covering '90% of the web' (cf various advocates) they are accusing Apple of monopolistic practises? Adobe has effectively installed their products as de-facto standards in more than one sphere, therefore are by definition a quasi-monopoly, whereas Apple are competing in a sea of vigorous competition. The very idea that Adobe wants to be anywhere near a courtroom, even as the plaintiff, where monopolistic practises are examined is risible. Imagine what 'search and disclosure' might reveal!



    Not that I give a flying one, but my friendly advice to Adobe would be to follow the old political dictum that 'if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging'. Back down from this ridiculous show of brinkmanship because there is nothing but grief for you down that path. Instead, focus on your software, clean it up, make sure it as relevant to the next decade as it has been to the past one, and earn your right to be the default rather than sitting back and abusing your dominant position in the market.
  • Reply 111 of 199
    sipsip Posts: 210member
    Scenario:



    You create a hardware platform, supply the OS for that hardware and provide all the tools to create programs to run on that hardware. You provide the marketing and marketplace for selling these pograms.



    All this costs you many millions of dollars.



    People like what you have produced and buy your product.



    The only question that needs to be answered is this:



    Would you allow someone else to hijack and take over your hardware platform to produce both inferior programs and user experience?



    Like frack you would!



    In simple laymen's terms, this is what Adobe is trying to do.
  • Reply 112 of 199
    ajmasajmas Posts: 597member
    It would be interesting to see Adobe win this one, to see if they utlimately lose against user and developer backlash, if what the article says is indeed true.



    Steve Jobs can afford to take this stance and probably looks forward to get sued to reiterate his point.
  • Reply 113 of 199
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sip View Post


    Would you allow someone else to hijack and take over your hardware platform to produce both inferior programs and user experience?



    Like frack you would!



    In simple laymen's terms, this is what Adobe is trying to do.



    1) There are gazillions of sub-standard "inferior" apps already for the iPhone despite being originally coded in obj-c.



    2) Microsoft did the same with its platform that it invested money into, and they were considered "evil" by Apple fanboys and were slapped with antitrust.



    3) The United States is governed by law. Apple can't do whatever it wants without expecting consequences.
  • Reply 114 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anglo View Post


    sjvn?



    There's a fairly prolific, well-known and fairly well connected IT Journalist with those initials.



    Steven J Vaughan-Nicholls.




    What are the chances of that coincidence, do you think? :P



    Anglo.



    Given that if you click on the sjvn on that page, you're taken to Steven's bio, I think that's probably it - you can always depend on Daniel not to do his research, of course.
  • Reply 115 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    I think that is a flat out daft terrible idea.



    Unless and until one company wields monopoly power over the smart phone market (I don't even foresee that as happening, ever), the courts have absolutely no business in such a debate. That is what markets are for and consumers will decide this with their wallets. Besides, King Solomon has bigger fish to fry.



    No I agree some court should decide what the difference is between a Computer with a sim chip that can make calls and a Phone that can do everything a Computer can. The lines are seemingly getting blurred but with large rule differences between the two.
  • Reply 116 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anglo View Post


    Ahh, just noticed the photo, that IS Steven J Vaughan Nicholls, if it was just a random blogger I would have dismissed it as hyperbole and nothing more, however Steven is fairly well connected, and has enough history in the business to take seriously, interesting!



    Totally. If Steven's saying someone close to the company has told him this, then someone either at the company or a direct partner (PR company, very close partner) has told it him. Of course, nothing may come to pass - Adobe's SMT may decide it's not worth the legal fees - but it's pretty clear that Adobe is pissed off enough to at least consider it.
  • Reply 117 of 199
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    ... 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).



    Do you realize how crazy you make yourself sound when you say stuff like this?



    Right... They spend all their time over there at Apple just trying to think up ways to screw people. Steve actually hates the iPad, but he figures they'll sell it anyway, just to screw Adobe.
  • Reply 118 of 199
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    And no one is paying me to post any of this. Not $.01.



    By which you mean that you work for Adobe and posting on the AI forums is not specifically in your job description?
  • Reply 119 of 199
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pondus View Post


    Sue Denim is a recent adition to this forum. His/Her posts are better written and argued than most here and the writer seems to be uncommenly knowledgeable.



    Thank you.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pondus View Post


    ]This recent post which spells out in elaborate detail all of Apples alleged wrongdoings to the developer community makes me wonder if "Sue Denim" is either a former Apple developer with an axe to grind (with or without good reason) OR - someone working for Adobe! In any case, it would be nice if he/seh/they would declare themselves, especially if they represent organized interests.



    I speak for myself, not the organizations I have or have not worked at. Being a valley kid, means I've worked at lots of places. Being an industry observer for a few decades is probably more relevant.



    Just because I believe Apple is wrong (in THIS case), doesn't mean that I'm bitter. Apple does good things as well. But I don't like revisionist computer history where Apple is all right, and Adobe or others are all wrong. I hate the ignorant lie that the technology used to create a solution matters more than the solution itself, or absolutes like saying OOD and abstraction/intermediate layers are bad, or pretending that Apple doesn't use them all over the place.



    The original history in the first post was a not a balanced review of Apple history: I offered some balance. Apple and Adobe are companies run by people. Both make mistakes. We could make a long list of Adobe's mistakes. Ironically most of the authors original points wouldn't make the list. And the reasons many would, might point to Apple as well. Many would read like this: Apple makes yet another major change to the OS and pulls another important API, many companies can't afford to rewrite that functionality and keep up for such small sales market: they drop support. Fanboys blame the companies not the market conditions created by Apple.



    But in this case, Adobe is trying to offer me more choice, cheaper content, more content, help publishers and so on. Apple is doing the opposite, harming many developers (not just Adobe). Many of the top FEW HUNDRED applications could go away. Apple probably won't enforce their "rules" consistently, but selectively (which might be litigable). Fanboys say this is fine, they all sucked, because Steve told them so.



    Do you really want a dictator in your pocket saying "what's good for me is not for thee"? Do you really think Apple randomly targeting Apps/Companies and selective enforcement is going to encourage more software/content developers to take risks on the platform, or less? Sure Apple can, many other companies do things like that as well, but do you want to support that by buying their products or not speaking up? All that HAMPERS choice and innovation, and it is wrong behavior that everyone should reject when ANY company does it. Even if they like their iToys.



    Software engineering is a business. Engineers look at TRADEOFFS. Apple just raised the cost to create content to the iPhone. Will that result in more or less content/choice?



    Apple just killed some good Apps and good App developers or moved them off platform, why is that a win?



    Steve Jobs wants to control the publishers, not for egalitarian reasons or the good of the users, but for power. Fine, own it. But I bought a phone, not a service where Apple gets to do evil in my name.



    You want to look at why we're down to 3 major 3rd party software developers on the Mac (and all of the others left). Instead of blaming all of them, you should look at the costs and risks to develop on the platform. The ecosystem is dying, and there's a long list of companies that won't develop for Mac/iPhone. Why? If one developer says you're evil and leaves, who cares. If we're down to a few major ones left, and they're all having problems, it might tell you something.



    I doubt this will drive Adobe away, and I doubt the lawsuit But seeing how all Apple's partners are getting treated here, is sure going to change how many other businesses choose to get involved with this platform.



    And yes, yes, I get that we have 100,000 small shareware apps and many small developers that Apple can more easily bully around to make up for it. But a good ecosystem has a variety of developers and sizes. Not a bunch of little ones, all waiting for their turn to get crushed under by Steve Jobs latest policy change.
  • Reply 120 of 199
    dominoxmldominoxml Posts: 110member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post


    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.



    You made some valid points about the past, but I think You should divide the age pre Steve Jobs and the current Steve Jobs (Next) age.



    Apple did a lot of wrong decisions in the 80's and 90's but to blame the current management and development team for this is not legit.



    At least since the introduction of OSX there was a clear, reliable strategy for 3rd party devs and the master plan is still followed. Since years there's a clear commitment to cocoa / XCode and web-techniques as optimized environments.



    One can hardly blame Adobe for preferring Windows some years ago or for their way to concept their Mac products as Windows port.



    But times have changed. OSX is no doomed platform any more.

    A big part of the OSX success was to move fast by delivering superior technologies.



    Adobe isn't any more in the position to dictate Apple e.g. to provide porting API's like Carbon 64.



    Instead Apple is defining how the game is played. That's just the situation, whether good or bad depends on Your point of view.



    Trying to establish flash as a brake block completely negotiating thousands of optimized API's powered by market share and one click deployment is at least something Apple does not have to appreciate.



    I hope there's a way to sort things out and they invent a synergy strategy.



    If Adobe pushes a legal battle I think they will go down even if the lawyers succeed in a partial success, because the innovation train will not wait for them at the railway station.
Sign In or Register to comment.