I knew of LineForm before as an alternative to Illustrator and while capable, it doesn't do much of what I need to do that I can in Illustrator.
But thanks to someone who pointed out Pixelmator. I'm very impressed with it as it does nearly everything I need an image editor to do at a fraction of the price I forked over for CS4.
Looks like I may just need to buy Illustrator and get to ditch Photoshop...
I could care less about Flash, not having it on my iPad has not hindered me one bit. What I do care about is that Apple is using their market share to manipulate the market. Right now it is trivial with Flash but what happens five years from now when Apple has even more market share and decides the only Email you can use on their products is Mobile ME, or that the only music you can play is what is bought through iTunes? Right now it is easy to say the customers will be driven away and speak with their wallets but if Apple has a majority of the market that wont happen, all the Apple adopters will have quite a large amount invested in Apple products and wont be able to turn away and be forced to swallow Steve Jobs pill. To me this Flash issue is just a means to get the ball rolling all in favor of Apple and Apple wallets.
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..
I get your point -- but the original author didn't, so I didn't.
Also developers look at risks and returns, costs and rewards. If anything the cost of being on the Mac platform since Steve's return went way way WAY up. Port to OS X, port to XCode, remove PowerPlant or MacApp or other frameworks because Apple killed them, port to Intel, port to 64 bit, re-do the port to 64 bit because Apple changed their mind, rip-out QuickTime, port to Cocoa, and so on and so on. Each time you do one of those that you don't have to do on Windows, you're doing that instead of adding features. It's a cost that is covered over a much smaller market, and you pay that BEFORE you get to add value to your customers. (None of that adds any value, most of it just introduces bugs and lowers quality).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
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.
Kind of. Yes, Steve isn't responsible for Bedrock failing. He had a lot to do with the failure of AIM or clones, and so on. And most of the things mentioned were after he was back. But from a developer which management made the bad decision isn't as important as whether you can trust the company or technologies not and in the future. The long history, that isn't getting better, still means more risk: which means I better get better returns or it's not worth it. (That's harder over a smaller market).
Apple could have done lots to lower the risks of the Mac or iPhone platform: but hey developers, they just aren't that in to you. They want to market to you why you should develop on their platform, but once you're a captive audience, prepare to be in an abusive relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
At least since the introduction of OSX there was a clear, reliable strategy for 3rd party devs and the master plan is still followed.
Oh the irony of that.
Sure. PowerPC forever... ooops. Intel forever. QuickTime rocks, that's why there's no 64 bit version. We support our 3rd party tools vendors, that's why we're killing CodeWarrior/Metrowerks by not sharing enough that they can stay in business. Carbon 64 is a valid way to get to 64 bit -- ha ha, just kidding. Here's the terms of the iPhone agreement: chortle, sucker -- you fell for it.
OS X (Rhapsody) started with a message of no compatibility. Then a commitment to backwards compatibility (Carbon). Then a re-commitment to it (64 bit), then they pulled it. They supported PPC until they changed. They supported QuickTime, until they changed. And so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
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.
And each of those moves introduced bugs that hurt the ISV's quality. Each of those moves is a cost that the ISV's have to eat. And Apple's marketing is so cult-like that users blame the ISV's that are left, for not doing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
Adobe isn't any more in the position to dictate Apple e.g. to provide porting API's like Carbon 64.
Adobe didn't get on stage and promise it one year and pull it the next. Also, if you know the architecture you know that lots of parts of Cocoa ride on Carbon, others are shared (so don't add any cost). Apple still created Carbon64 (or parts of it), what they did is just not make it available to Microsoft and Adobe -- but lots of it is in there, because it has to be to keep OS X running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
Instead Apple is defining how the game is played. That's just the situation, whether good or bad depends on Your point of view.
Exactly.
I want more, better, cheaper Apps, and my app vendors to focus on my needs, not chasing Apple's latest marketing gimmick or chance for Steve to attack some company for a perceived slight to his ego. Whether that is IBM for not lowering the costs to what he wants, record labels for believing in variable pricing (since I listen to older music, I'd come out ahead in that), publishers that just want to put out as much content for the least costs. To me, the platform is a vehicle to real solutions. I want Apple doing what they can to help that, and foster that -- not Apple thinking it should be the other way around, and that all of them should just eat higher costs and worse returns because Steve likes it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominoXML
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.
I hope they don't as well -- it's a losing situation.
But not for the reasons you state. Remember, the problem here is that Adobe is helping publishers too much, and too many of the Air apps are too high on the list. Wired App rocked. If they were failing, Steve wouldn't care. It's that they are so good and winning why Apple created 3.1.1.
I'm not sure if this is the year that Apple peaked. Steve Jobs almost killed the original Mac with his ego. The closed eco-system, lack of expandability, arrogance, and so on hurt. Gassée saved the Mac by opening it up. Steve is trying to repeat the same things to prove he was right all along. But consumers pick Apple products in SPITE of many of the artificial limitations Steve forces on them -- not because of them.
Decisions are like, "yes, I'll give this because it has that". Apple could, would and should be doing better than it is, if Steve Jobs wasn't always looking of ways to force the drama and sacrifices on customers.
What if Steve went to Adobe and said, "as soon as Flash meets these thresholds of performance and reliability, we'll support it". He probably would have gotten more out of Adobe in effort, and MORE customers would have moved over (knowing that Flash was coming). What if Steve said, we're going to have an Adult App/Content store that's separate from the regular one, and impossible for kids to get into: more customers and higher sales. What if when Apple was making a new or breaking an old technology they tried to help their developers with the migration, how much more adoption would there be? At the last 10 WWDC's I went to, I heard many old developers asking for the same thing: lets have a porting guide and tools to move Apps from Carbon to Cocoa.
Apple's doing well. But if they behaved like they cared about their customers instead of just Steve, they could be doing much better.
Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create. We've had very open platforms like computers and very controlled platforms like consoles, iPods and other embedded devices. The iPhone appears to be somewhere in between. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, but they are definitely a major player so what they do does have a major effect on the market and a significant number of consumers. Are there concerns about Apple being able to pick and choose what and how a developer reaches the user? I think these are interesting questions to be settled more explicitly in court even if I don't know the best answer.
Are you referring to Flash with 90+% market share or Apple with perhaps 10%? That's Adobe's achilles heal in any legal conflict.
If Apple allowed this Adobe product those "apps" would still be sold through the App Store and Apple would still get their cut.
So the issue can't be about Apples revenue.....
Nor can it be about adoption of a new OS by users because adobe could tie their software into apples APIs if apple would allow them to through cross compiling magic or whatever sanctioned practice there was. Also, iPhone 3.0 OS didn't abandon 2.0 apps, so I'd say it's a FAR stretch of the imagination to say that 4.0 would abandon 3.0 apps. Apple still controls the app store and the marketing magic. It's cute the way this gets spun as though Apple denies Adobe software (or any other third party) for any reason other than maintaining it's monopolistic control on software development for it's mobile devices. I get it. You don't have to try and spin it to make Apple look better. I still like their desktops, but on the mobile front I can't roll with this anymore. Taking my money to a better service with a better phone (4G tethering anyone?)
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!
?Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.?
With any luck it'll be a class action suit, with the dozen or so RAD tools vendors joined by several thousand developers in an "The Entire World vs. Apple" showdown. Even if Apple wins the suit they'd lose the PR message.
Such a suit should have no trouble getting spin support: Job's hubris has earned himself quite a massive enemies list, including most music publishers, a few book publishers, Google, a great many other software companies large and small, and now many thousands of developers.
I'm getting a bag of peanuts and a ringside seat. Should be a good show.
[...] 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.
[...]
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.
You sound extremely bitter, despite protestations to the contrary. And, it seems like this is very personal for you, and very much directed at SJ personally. The venom, which you apparently tried to "soften" with your edit is dripping from the bits I quoted above.
It's also quite clear, that you don't give a damn about iPhone OS as a platform, or iPhone users for that matter; your only interest is in how you personally, or your employer, can exploit it for your own ends. If there's any hypocrisy here, it is yours, and yours alone.
Well, either that or you're so fixated on your SJ hate that you just aren't able to think rationally on this topic.
Outstanding developers will adapt with Apple because they have the capacity. Amateurs will complain that they got burned because they are short sighted and rigid. Adobe has a choice to either rise above and adapt or cry in the corner. I'm sick of all the crying!
To begin with, Apple is not a monopoly. There are many Apple product killers, and some of them are even larger than the total sales of Apple. Even if Apple is a monopoly, Apple is not imposing its rules to other componies creating mobile devices. Apple can legally impose any rule that will affect its products. There is no legal right for any developer or company to become part of the Apple ecosystem.
Adobe would not likely have a strong legal basis for its lawsuit.
All these noise from Adobe is propaganda. Most likely, anyone who is into technology and scripting would know how Adobe had neglected the Apple OS. Customers of Apple would know this. Thus, while Adobe may get some sympathetic ears, it will not be universal.
Adobe would be more productive to use its time colluding with companies that would want to compete with Apple (Google, Miscrosoft, Nokia, RIMM, etc.) and developers that do not want to be party to any Apple ecosystem. United with a common interest, such a collusion may yet create an scoystem that may truly become potential Apple product killers. That would be good even for Apple customers because it will keep Apple on its toes, all the time. Innovation will flourish, and prices may be moderated.
Such a suit should have no trouble getting spin support: Job's hubris has earned himself quite a massive enemies list, including most music publishers, a few book publishers, Google, a great many other software companies large and small, and now many thousands of developers.
I'm getting a bag of peanuts and a ringside seat. Should be a good show.
Apple is officially at war with Adobe. And Google. And HTC. And who else?
It's also quite clear, that you don't give a damn about iPhone OS as a platform, or iPhone users for that matter; your only interest is in how you personally, or your employer, can exploit it for your own ends. .
You say that like there is something wrong with that position.
But it is exactly what Apple does. Anything and everything Apple does WRT the iPhone is intended to exploit it for their own ends. The other considerations you mentioned are NOT Apple's (or any corporation's) priorities. Instead, they are means to their end.
...if they think something like this is really going to make Apple let Flash on the iPhone.
I suppose they're doing it to simply try and bully Apple into it, but if that's their logic, they need to brush up on their history... if SJ feels he (Apple) has been wronged by a company, he doesn't get mad (well, he does), he gets even.
This will only make SJ and Apple that much more opposed to Flash and work that much harder to give it the death it so richly deserves.
I'd love to see Adobe waste a ton of money on this and then get bought by Apple. I'd love to see the looks on the faces of Adobe's corp-execs when SJ gives them the axe...
It would also be sweet justice to see all the Windows versions killed off so that only Macs would have it.
I think Apple's SJ is very Anal he thinks he can tell you what to do with whatever Apple product after you purchased it, Sorry A**hole but it belongs to me now. Instead of getting a liver transplant he should have just died, this way we would have had one less a**hole in the world.
I think Apple's SJ is very Anal he thinks he can tell you what to do with whatever Apple product after you purchased it, Sorry A**hole but it belongs to me now. Instead of getting a liver transplant he should have just died, this way we would have had one less a**hole in the world.
Wow, take a deep breath and think before you speak.
Do you hate everyone when they don't make YOUR life happier or better? Like the old saying goes, "if you don't like it - fix it"
Yes, you could fix YOUR product to work the way YOU want it, and not bother anyone else. Heck, if you can find a way for ALL of the things that piss you off, to make YOUR life easier, and then in turn make other lives better, just think of how much money you'd have, and how folks would simply adore you.
You say that like there is something wrong with that position.
But it is exactly what Apple does. Anything and everything Apple does WRT the iPhone is intended to exploit it for their own ends. The other considerations you mentioned are NOT Apple's (or any corporation's) priorities. Instead, they are means to their end.
That's exactly right, and it's not like they have pretended otherwise. It is, after all, their platform, not Sue Denim's, not Adobe's, not someone else's. The hypocrisy is in wanting the iPhone OS to be open for 3rd-party exploitation (control) while complaining that Apple is controlling it themselves.
And that's what this is all about: Who gets to control and define what the iPhone OS platform is? Apple, who owns it? Or someone who just wants to exploit something owned by someone else?
I don't get the outrage from other people. Cross compiled stuff has always been more complicated to make great. I mean look at iTunes on Windows vs OS X.
If Apple said, I could only use AppleScript to code for the iPhone, I would feel constricted and shunned.
As (a former Windows) programmer with a Computer Science degree, I have to say Cocoa is hard to learn, but it's worth it. The programming environment and, APIs are as powerful, clean and elegant as Apple hardware.
All the astroturfing aside, I have a difficult time imagining how Adobe could make a case here. Their corporate legal staff would surely convince them not to waste the effort if the mgmt is actually considering legal action. Just my $.02.
More generally, the rift between Apple and Adobe has been growing for years it would seem. While it is possible to see both sides of the dispute(s), I think it's very difficult for longtime Apple customers to have any sympathy whatsoever for Adobe. They banished us to second class citizenship many years ago.
While you could legitimately argue that they have always made corporate decisions based on their own interest (as they can and should do), you can also make the argument that their decisions have been ill conceived and poorly executed. Their current leadership has very poor vision it would seem.
Apple skates to where the puck is going. Most companies skate to where the puck is. Adobe skates to where they want the puck to be.
Comments
But thanks to someone who pointed out Pixelmator. I'm very impressed with it as it does nearly everything I need an image editor to do at a fraction of the price I forked over for CS4.
Looks like I may just need to buy Illustrator and get to ditch Photoshop...
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..
I get your point -- but the original author didn't, so I didn't.
Also developers look at risks and returns, costs and rewards. If anything the cost of being on the Mac platform since Steve's return went way way WAY up. Port to OS X, port to XCode, remove PowerPlant or MacApp or other frameworks because Apple killed them, port to Intel, port to 64 bit, re-do the port to 64 bit because Apple changed their mind, rip-out QuickTime, port to Cocoa, and so on and so on. Each time you do one of those that you don't have to do on Windows, you're doing that instead of adding features. It's a cost that is covered over a much smaller market, and you pay that BEFORE you get to add value to your customers. (None of that adds any value, most of it just introduces bugs and lowers quality).
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.
Kind of. Yes, Steve isn't responsible for Bedrock failing. He had a lot to do with the failure of AIM or clones, and so on. And most of the things mentioned were after he was back. But from a developer which management made the bad decision isn't as important as whether you can trust the company or technologies not and in the future. The long history, that isn't getting better, still means more risk: which means I better get better returns or it's not worth it. (That's harder over a smaller market).
Apple could have done lots to lower the risks of the Mac or iPhone platform: but hey developers, they just aren't that in to you. They want to market to you why you should develop on their platform, but once you're a captive audience, prepare to be in an abusive relationship.
At least since the introduction of OSX there was a clear, reliable strategy for 3rd party devs and the master plan is still followed.
Oh the irony of that.
Sure. PowerPC forever... ooops. Intel forever. QuickTime rocks, that's why there's no 64 bit version. We support our 3rd party tools vendors, that's why we're killing CodeWarrior/Metrowerks by not sharing enough that they can stay in business. Carbon 64 is a valid way to get to 64 bit -- ha ha, just kidding. Here's the terms of the iPhone agreement: chortle, sucker -- you fell for it.
OS X (Rhapsody) started with a message of no compatibility. Then a commitment to backwards compatibility (Carbon). Then a re-commitment to it (64 bit), then they pulled it. They supported PPC until they changed. They supported QuickTime, until they changed. And so on.
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.
And each of those moves introduced bugs that hurt the ISV's quality. Each of those moves is a cost that the ISV's have to eat. And Apple's marketing is so cult-like that users blame the ISV's that are left, for not doing more.
Adobe isn't any more in the position to dictate Apple e.g. to provide porting API's like Carbon 64.
Adobe didn't get on stage and promise it one year and pull it the next. Also, if you know the architecture you know that lots of parts of Cocoa ride on Carbon, others are shared (so don't add any cost). Apple still created Carbon64 (or parts of it), what they did is just not make it available to Microsoft and Adobe -- but lots of it is in there, because it has to be to keep OS X running.
Instead Apple is defining how the game is played. That's just the situation, whether good or bad depends on Your point of view.
Exactly.
I want more, better, cheaper Apps, and my app vendors to focus on my needs, not chasing Apple's latest marketing gimmick or chance for Steve to attack some company for a perceived slight to his ego. Whether that is IBM for not lowering the costs to what he wants, record labels for believing in variable pricing (since I listen to older music, I'd come out ahead in that), publishers that just want to put out as much content for the least costs. To me, the platform is a vehicle to real solutions. I want Apple doing what they can to help that, and foster that -- not Apple thinking it should be the other way around, and that all of them should just eat higher costs and worse returns because Steve likes it that way.
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.
I hope they don't as well -- it's a losing situation.
But not for the reasons you state. Remember, the problem here is that Adobe is helping publishers too much, and too many of the Air apps are too high on the list. Wired App rocked. If they were failing, Steve wouldn't care. It's that they are so good and winning why Apple created 3.1.1.
I'm not sure if this is the year that Apple peaked. Steve Jobs almost killed the original Mac with his ego. The closed eco-system, lack of expandability, arrogance, and so on hurt. Gassée saved the Mac by opening it up. Steve is trying to repeat the same things to prove he was right all along. But consumers pick Apple products in SPITE of many of the artificial limitations Steve forces on them -- not because of them.
Decisions are like, "yes, I'll give this because it has that". Apple could, would and should be doing better than it is, if Steve Jobs wasn't always looking of ways to force the drama and sacrifices on customers.
What if Steve went to Adobe and said, "as soon as Flash meets these thresholds of performance and reliability, we'll support it". He probably would have gotten more out of Adobe in effort, and MORE customers would have moved over (knowing that Flash was coming). What if Steve said, we're going to have an Adult App/Content store that's separate from the regular one, and impossible for kids to get into: more customers and higher sales. What if when Apple was making a new or breaking an old technology they tried to help their developers with the migration, how much more adoption would there be? At the last 10 WWDC's I went to, I heard many old developers asking for the same thing: lets have a porting guide and tools to move Apps from Carbon to Cocoa.
Apple's doing well. But if they behaved like they cared about their customers instead of just Steve, they could be doing much better.
Regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, I think it will be useful to have the courts clarify what amount and what type of control a company should have over a popular platform they create. We've had very open platforms like computers and very controlled platforms like consoles, iPods and other embedded devices. The iPhone appears to be somewhere in between. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, but they are definitely a major player so what they do does have a major effect on the market and a significant number of consumers. Are there concerns about Apple being able to pick and choose what and how a developer reaches the user? I think these are interesting questions to be settled more explicitly in court even if I don't know the best answer.
Are you referring to Flash with 90+% market share or Apple with perhaps 10%? That's Adobe's achilles heal in any legal conflict.
Think of things this way....
If Apple allowed this Adobe product those "apps" would still be sold through the App Store and Apple would still get their cut.
So the issue can't be about Apples revenue.....
Nor can it be about adoption of a new OS by users because adobe could tie their software into apples APIs if apple would allow them to through cross compiling magic or whatever sanctioned practice there was. Also, iPhone 3.0 OS didn't abandon 2.0 apps, so I'd say it's a FAR stretch of the imagination to say that 4.0 would abandon 3.0 apps. Apple still controls the app store and the marketing magic. It's cute the way this gets spun as though Apple denies Adobe software (or any other third party) for any reason other than maintaining it's monopolistic control on software development for it's mobile devices. I get it. You don't have to try and spin it to make Apple look better. I still like their desktops, but on the mobile front I can't roll with this anymore. Taking my money to a better service with a better phone (4G tethering anyone?)
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!
?Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.?
Such a suit should have no trouble getting spin support: Job's hubris has earned himself quite a massive enemies list, including most music publishers, a few book publishers, Google, a great many other software companies large and small, and now many thousands of developers.
I'm getting a bag of peanuts and a ringside seat. Should be a good show.
[...] 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.
[...]
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.
You sound extremely bitter, despite protestations to the contrary. And, it seems like this is very personal for you, and very much directed at SJ personally. The venom, which you apparently tried to "soften" with your edit is dripping from the bits I quoted above.
It's also quite clear, that you don't give a damn about iPhone OS as a platform, or iPhone users for that matter; your only interest is in how you personally, or your employer, can exploit it for your own ends. If there's any hypocrisy here, it is yours, and yours alone.
Well, either that or you're so fixated on your SJ hate that you just aren't able to think rationally on this topic.
++. Finally someone who "gets it".
Outstanding developers will adapt with Apple because they have the capacity. Amateurs will complain that they got burned because they are short sighted and rigid. Adobe has a choice to either rise above and adapt or cry in the corner. I'm sick of all the crying!
Daring Fireball
http://daringfireball.net/
To begin with, Apple is not a monopoly. There are many Apple product killers, and some of them are even larger than the total sales of Apple. Even if Apple is a monopoly, Apple is not imposing its rules to other componies creating mobile devices. Apple can legally impose any rule that will affect its products. There is no legal right for any developer or company to become part of the Apple ecosystem.
Adobe would not likely have a strong legal basis for its lawsuit.
All these noise from Adobe is propaganda. Most likely, anyone who is into technology and scripting would know how Adobe had neglected the Apple OS. Customers of Apple would know this. Thus, while Adobe may get some sympathetic ears, it will not be universal.
Adobe would be more productive to use its time colluding with companies that would want to compete with Apple (Google, Miscrosoft, Nokia, RIMM, etc.) and developers that do not want to be party to any Apple ecosystem. United with a common interest, such a collusion may yet create an scoystem that may truly become potential Apple product killers. That would be good even for Apple customers because it will keep Apple on its toes, all the time. Innovation will flourish, and prices may be moderated.
CGC
Such a suit should have no trouble getting spin support: Job's hubris has earned himself quite a massive enemies list, including most music publishers, a few book publishers, Google, a great many other software companies large and small, and now many thousands of developers.
I'm getting a bag of peanuts and a ringside seat. Should be a good show.
Apple is officially at war with Adobe. And Google. And HTC. And who else?
Is that really the best strategy?
It's also quite clear, that you don't give a damn about iPhone OS as a platform, or iPhone users for that matter; your only interest is in how you personally, or your employer, can exploit it for your own ends. .
You say that like there is something wrong with that position.
But it is exactly what Apple does. Anything and everything Apple does WRT the iPhone is intended to exploit it for their own ends. The other considerations you mentioned are NOT Apple's (or any corporation's) priorities. Instead, they are means to their end.
...if they think something like this is really going to make Apple let Flash on the iPhone.
I suppose they're doing it to simply try and bully Apple into it, but if that's their logic, they need to brush up on their history... if SJ feels he (Apple) has been wronged by a company, he doesn't get mad (well, he does), he gets even.
This will only make SJ and Apple that much more opposed to Flash and work that much harder to give it the death it so richly deserves.
I'd love to see Adobe waste a ton of money on this and then get bought by Apple. I'd love to see the looks on the faces of Adobe's corp-execs when SJ gives them the axe...
It would also be sweet justice to see all the Windows versions killed off so that only Macs would have it.
I think Apple's SJ is very Anal he thinks he can tell you what to do with whatever Apple product after you purchased it, Sorry A**hole but it belongs to me now. Instead of getting a liver transplant he should have just died, this way we would have had one less a**hole in the world.
Think of things this way....
If Apple allowed this Adobe product those "apps" would still be sold through the App Store and Apple would still get their cut.
So the issue can't be about Apples revenue.....
Is it about how Apple will take a ton of shit because their products are slower, wear the battery down and therefore will make Apple look bad?
Skip
I think Apple's SJ is very Anal he thinks he can tell you what to do with whatever Apple product after you purchased it, Sorry A**hole but it belongs to me now. Instead of getting a liver transplant he should have just died, this way we would have had one less a**hole in the world.
Wow, take a deep breath and think before you speak.
Do you hate everyone when they don't make YOUR life happier or better? Like the old saying goes, "if you don't like it - fix it"
Yes, you could fix YOUR product to work the way YOU want it, and not bother anyone else. Heck, if you can find a way for ALL of the things that piss you off, to make YOUR life easier, and then in turn make other lives better, just think of how much money you'd have, and how folks would simply adore you.
Skip
You say that like there is something wrong with that position.
But it is exactly what Apple does. Anything and everything Apple does WRT the iPhone is intended to exploit it for their own ends. The other considerations you mentioned are NOT Apple's (or any corporation's) priorities. Instead, they are means to their end.
That's exactly right, and it's not like they have pretended otherwise. It is, after all, their platform, not Sue Denim's, not Adobe's, not someone else's. The hypocrisy is in wanting the iPhone OS to be open for 3rd-party exploitation (control) while complaining that Apple is controlling it themselves.
And that's what this is all about: Who gets to control and define what the iPhone OS platform is? Apple, who owns it? Or someone who just wants to exploit something owned by someone else?
- Steve
Sent from my Flash-free iPhone
If Apple said, I could only use AppleScript to code for the iPhone, I would feel constricted and shunned.
As (a former Windows) programmer with a Computer Science degree, I have to say Cocoa is hard to learn, but it's worth it. The programming environment and, APIs are as powerful, clean and elegant as Apple hardware.
More generally, the rift between Apple and Adobe has been growing for years it would seem. While it is possible to see both sides of the dispute(s), I think it's very difficult for longtime Apple customers to have any sympathy whatsoever for Adobe. They banished us to second class citizenship many years ago.
While you could legitimately argue that they have always made corporate decisions based on their own interest (as they can and should do), you can also make the argument that their decisions have been ill conceived and poorly executed. Their current leadership has very poor vision it would seem.
Apple skates to where the puck is going. Most companies skate to where the puck is. Adobe skates to where they want the puck to be.
Chronicles of Conflict: the History of Adobe vs. Apple
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...dobe-vs-apple/
I'm not sure about all the facts etc. but still hilarious.