Well, you put a hell of a lot of words in my mouth right there...
I didn't say you said anything. I offered a sardonic response, while taking your statements to implied possible conclusions in question form inviting clarification (notice the question marks). You offered clarification, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
... exactly, and that's where the trouble comes in. What if there is great demand for an updated application, and the developer absolutely wants to sell an update, but the SDK developer in the middle is slow to update the tools that the developer is now reliant upon? Screwed. What if the SDK is finally updated, but in order to maintain continuity across multiple platforms, some of the new capabilities of one particular platform are not exposed to the developer? Then your app starts to become stale and crappy relative to your competition. You might think that these issues give the tool maker sufficient incentive to update their tools, so they can charge the developer again, but that doesn't mean they will be able to do so in a timely fashion. There would essentially be an uncontrollable mechanism smack dab in the middle of the development chain, and in a dynamic environment that is absolutely a serious issue. Show me someone who says otherwise and I'll show you someone that hasn't been there, done that.
Lot of "what ifs" there. What if the SDK developer in the middle is quick to offer an update because they want to remain a viable, reputable player on the Apple mobile platform? Not screwed. What if a particular OS update has no impact at all on existing apps? Not screwed. Apple releases regular updates for OSX, I can't remember when it resulted in a broken application that hobbled me. Most applications running on Apple computers, except ones developed by Apple for Macs, are cross-platform. For the most part there is parity between platform versions for major software, but certainly not always. As someone who does 3D work I can tell you there is often great disparity between platform versions of 3D apps. If Apple applied the same rationale to their computers, Macs would disappear for lack of software. Why does it makes sense to ham-string their mobile platform developers using that logic? You run the same risk using a computer (like switching from PPC to Intel) of software usability being substantially lessened or outright broken within a platform as you would with a mobile device. Code, native or compiled, can be broken by any update. With regard to iPhone/iPad if the app is selling will enough, the developer can rewrite it from scratch or should be able to use whatever tool they want to use if it suites their bottom line. It should be their choice. In reality, we're talking about $3 to $5 dollar apps that usually no user will find brings their life to a grinding halt if an update breaks it. If it's worth while for the developer to find a way to fix it, they will, if not, they won't. Same as any app, no matter the code. You could argue that any 3rd party SDK has a very high incentive to stay up to date and release timely fixes to allow their customers to fix their products in turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
It's clear to me that you haven't lived the development nightmare that I've described above. It's also fairly common behavior that if someone hasn't experienced something firsthand, then they tend to question the value of the lessons learned. Add this to a fairly common opinion of Steve Jobs as a manipulative prick, and *POOF* of course you aren't going to believe him. That's your prerogative.
But that doesn't give you the right to assume ANYTHING about me, least of all that I am a sucker. I don't suck up to Steve Jobs. I'm going by my experience, and it just so happens to match his explanation in this case.
Er, uh, talk about rather arrogant assumptions. You have know idea the nature of what I do for a living or the projects with which I've been involved. I can tell you from experience that I know full well the headaches of broken products due to bugs in authoring apps. However, I'm not going to declare being involved in said process at whatever coding level something to abandon because no authoring ap (or programming language for that matter) is full-proof or guaranteed free of trials and tribulations. Every developer is the one assuming the risks of their capital, and their resources to develop for any platform. They should be allowed to decide what risks they want to take as far as which tools they want to use, not Jobs, unless he is going to get into the app development business to keep his mobile products worth buying. I think Jobs' declaration that he doesn't want to be bothered in any way with considering what he does to his OS and hardware doesn't break apps that are written for it, so he will dictate what tools developers use is too one-sided. He might as well say he doesn't want to be bothered with developing products based on what users want, instead of what he wants them to want. Oh, wait...
If I can't access them with an iPhone or iPad they are irrelevant, your clients message is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Except those technologies can't do half of what Flash can and to develop with the canvas tag (which is not really open standards either) takes a zillion times longer to do even the simplest animation. Furthermore to deploy an HTML5 application is more difficult as it is not encapsulated like an swf. It has several bits an pieces, which in some cases, conflict with other parts of the Javascript on a page and is difficult to debug.
I totally agree that Flash is made for PC and not for mobile so no complaint about the lack of Flash there, just the criticism of Flash in general as serving no purpose in today's Internet, that I disagree with. Until there are better development tools for HTML5 and universal browser compatibility, it amounts to nothing more than dumbing down the web. Flash is a much more powerful application platform than javascript and your code can be encrypted so others cannot steal your work. Not so much with Javascript (is possible but trade secret)
I didn't say you said anything. I offered a sardonic response, while taking your statements to implied possible conclusions in question form inviting clarification (notice the question marks). You offered clarification, thanks.
In my experience, when a slew of sardonic questions come out in rapid fire, the intent is usually to score points via rhetoric rather than invite clarification. Given that you were actually inviting clarification and that you thanked me for my (clearly valuable) clarification, I can only say "you're welcome".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Lot of "what ifs" there. What if the SDK developer in the middle is quick to offer an update because they want to remain a viable, reputable player on the Apple mobile platform? Not screwed. What if a particular OS update has no impact at all on existing apps? Not screwed.
Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs", and there are a whole bunch more that I left out. The point to realize is that it only takes ONE of these "what ifs" to bite you, as opposed to requiring all of them to happen simultaneously. And as I said earlier, given the pace of technological transition these days (which puts the 1980's computer revolution to shame) each of these "what ifs" have a nontrivial probability of occurring, especially as multiple companies jockey for domination of the huge emerging mobile market.
So here's a thought experiment for you:
Premises:
* The next big technology market is the mobile market, and it is enormous.
* The technological landscape of this market is highly dynamic.
* The bigwigs at Apple have forward strategy meetings on a regular basis.
Conclusions:
* At their regular strategy meetings, the Apple leaders strongly consider "what ifs".
* Because of the dynamics involved, the Apple leaders realize that they must stay nimble.
* The Apple leaders realize that they can't have a third party in their development chain, else their ability to stay nimble is compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Apple releases regular updates for OSX, I can't remember when it resulted in a broken application that hobbled me. Most applications running on Apple computers, except ones developed by Apple for Macs, are cross-platform. For the most part there is parity between platform versions for major software, but certainly not always. As someone who does 3D work I can tell you there is often great disparity between platform versions of 3D apps. If Apple applied the same rationale to their computers, Macs would disappear for lack of software. Why does it makes sense to ham-string their mobile platform developers using that logic?
You are comparing a relatively steady state situation (in computer OS's) to an unbelievably complicated and competitive one right now (in mobile devices). In the early days such as this, there is always jockeying for position. You can't apply the same rules and expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Code, native or compiled, can be broken by any update.
Apple goes to extreme efforts to ensure that whenever they make a major change that requires recompile of applications, they simultaneously (if not a bit in advance) release a development system that makes it easy on the developer to make the transition. (You just saw it with the developer's release of iPhone OS 4.0) But they can't force a third party to stay in lock step. Time and time again, the third party lags and/or underwhelms. You may be inclined to simply dismiss that argument because I can't offer any better proof than my own experience (and you want to discount it). These are FACTS from a developer's experience. That's what you're not getting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
You could argue that any 3rd party SDK has a very high incentive to stay up to date and release timely fixes to allow their customers to fix their products in turn.
I already DID argue that in the very message that you are responding to. But for whatever reason (manpower, perhaps?) I am telling you that timeliness is the exception, not the rule. I am speaking from experience here, not idealistic philosophy (as you clearly are).
This is a freaking mobile gold rush, from the very bottom (vendor hardware specs and software operating systems) to the middle (developers doing battle, services doing battle, file formats doing battle, etc) to the top (users looking for best capabilities). Delays due to circumstances beyond your control are harmful right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Er, uh, talk about rather arrogant assumptions. You have know idea the nature of what I do for a living or the projects with which I've been involved. I can tell you from experience that I know full well the headaches of broken products due to bugs in authoring apps. However, I'm not going to declare being involved in said process at whatever coding level something to abandon because no authoring ap (or programming language for that matter) is full-proof or guaranteed free of trials and tribulations.
If you are making the analogy to "authoring apps" then you just proved my point. Your level is about 4 layers up from the platform, and by the time the changes propagate up to you, we're a year or two down the road from the fundamental change. In the mobile devices world, things are changing too quickly for that. You won't see 3rd party authoring tools on this platform for a very long time (if ever, since the screen is too small anyway). The "coding levels" that you admit to not "being involved" with are one level above the platform, which is far more relevant to this discussion.
He's given his reasons. Adobe and 'Flash' fans may not like them. But that's that. And there is no way Adobe are going to extend their desktop of monopoly onto the 'true' portable revolution that is going to hit them and Microsoft like a Tsunami.
He's offered them an olive branch, such as it is. 'Get back to creating 'creative' tools...and support open standards and you won't get yourself in this sort of mess in the future. Or get off your lazy ass and create lean, innovative programs.' Their design and programming model are going to have to change as the enter the 3rd Great Age or they will die. Or certainly be significantly diminished as a force. Adobe, a 'creative software' company who think they are a 'standards company'. They've lost sight of who they are because they spent a few billion on a company to take out all competition. Now their ten year complacency ride on the desktop is coming to an end (just like Microsoft...) as we enter a new age where 'monopolies' in one area don't guarantee success in another area. Create and innovate. Apple are. Apple nailed the 'eco system' and the rest of their competitors to the cross. In Adobe's case? Upside down on that cross. In short, they've had it coming for a long, long time. For ten years we've had to put up with their laggardly, grudging support, lack of feature parity and the shabby treatment of Mac users as 2nd class citizens and charging us exorbitant prices for that privilege of being Adobe customers and insulting us with 'Windows' interfaces with buggy ports. And to add insult to injury, the shoddy port of flash to the Mac. Buggy, insecure crash bait...with crap video quality...a complete cpu hog running on ancient tech'. Jobs must be rubbing his hands that his competitors are rushing to implement flash on their ultra portable devices. See how they'll do in battery comparison tests... And even if Flash gets GPU support for video, I doubt that acceleration will work across the board...
I'm looking forward to what Apple do next. 10.7 is going to be...very intriguing. I'm guessing a U.I makeover and some more 'killer' features. The candy floss will return. I suspect a '7 inch' iPad possibly at some point. Maybe even a hybrid 15 inch iPad/iMac touch crossover. Signalling a future without the traditional 1984 desktop metaphor..?
Apple are well placed.
Applauds Job's 2nd Era at Apple. A masterclass in execution of products and the competition.
Seems to me that Flash is about doomed. H.264 has been on the rise, while Flash has been declining, according to Encoding.com. There's a whole chart about it here
Seems to me that Flash is about doomed. H.264 has been on the rise, while Flash has been declining, according to Encoding.com. There's a whole chart about it here
Flash is far from doomed and has many, many years ahead of it as the de facto method for interactive animated content. . It's been pushing H.264 video for quite awhile now.
What is on the way out is Flash being the ideal way to push H.264 video across the web. On the desktop, it will take awhile for the majority of browsers in use to accommodate the HTML5 video tag so Flash as a fallback option will still be an option well after it's not the most commonly used option, something that may happen sooner than people think considering the growth of devices running mobile OSes over growth of devices using desktop OSes.
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
Hello???? What -- do you expect Apple to give away all its technology? What planet are you on?
Give away? You don't need that, when Apple pushes HTML5 changes...
" Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so". Fallacy of equivocation, really. Even if they are both proprietary, does not make them equally bad (or good).
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
Hello???? What -- do you expect Apple to give away all its technology? What planet are you on?
Give away? You don't need that, when Apple pushes HTML5 changes...
" Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so". Fallacy of equivocation, really. Even if they are both proprietary, does not make them equally bad (or good).
Wow I thought you necro'd a seven year old thread to say something profound or at least amusing...not actually argue about something dead with a poster that likely hasn't been around in years...
Comments
Well, you put a hell of a lot of words in my mouth right there...
I didn't say you said anything. I offered a sardonic response, while taking your statements to implied possible conclusions in question form inviting clarification (notice the question marks). You offered clarification, thanks.
... exactly, and that's where the trouble comes in. What if there is great demand for an updated application, and the developer absolutely wants to sell an update, but the SDK developer in the middle is slow to update the tools that the developer is now reliant upon? Screwed. What if the SDK is finally updated, but in order to maintain continuity across multiple platforms, some of the new capabilities of one particular platform are not exposed to the developer? Then your app starts to become stale and crappy relative to your competition. You might think that these issues give the tool maker sufficient incentive to update their tools, so they can charge the developer again, but that doesn't mean they will be able to do so in a timely fashion. There would essentially be an uncontrollable mechanism smack dab in the middle of the development chain, and in a dynamic environment that is absolutely a serious issue. Show me someone who says otherwise and I'll show you someone that hasn't been there, done that.
Lot of "what ifs" there. What if the SDK developer in the middle is quick to offer an update because they want to remain a viable, reputable player on the Apple mobile platform? Not screwed. What if a particular OS update has no impact at all on existing apps? Not screwed. Apple releases regular updates for OSX, I can't remember when it resulted in a broken application that hobbled me. Most applications running on Apple computers, except ones developed by Apple for Macs, are cross-platform. For the most part there is parity between platform versions for major software, but certainly not always. As someone who does 3D work I can tell you there is often great disparity between platform versions of 3D apps. If Apple applied the same rationale to their computers, Macs would disappear for lack of software. Why does it makes sense to ham-string their mobile platform developers using that logic? You run the same risk using a computer (like switching from PPC to Intel) of software usability being substantially lessened or outright broken within a platform as you would with a mobile device. Code, native or compiled, can be broken by any update. With regard to iPhone/iPad if the app is selling will enough, the developer can rewrite it from scratch or should be able to use whatever tool they want to use if it suites their bottom line. It should be their choice. In reality, we're talking about $3 to $5 dollar apps that usually no user will find brings their life to a grinding halt if an update breaks it. If it's worth while for the developer to find a way to fix it, they will, if not, they won't. Same as any app, no matter the code. You could argue that any 3rd party SDK has a very high incentive to stay up to date and release timely fixes to allow their customers to fix their products in turn.
It's clear to me that you haven't lived the development nightmare that I've described above. It's also fairly common behavior that if someone hasn't experienced something firsthand, then they tend to question the value of the lessons learned. Add this to a fairly common opinion of Steve Jobs as a manipulative prick, and *POOF* of course you aren't going to believe him. That's your prerogative.
But that doesn't give you the right to assume ANYTHING about me, least of all that I am a sucker. I don't suck up to Steve Jobs. I'm going by my experience, and it just so happens to match his explanation in this case.
Er, uh, talk about rather arrogant assumptions. You have know idea the nature of what I do for a living or the projects with which I've been involved. I can tell you from experience that I know full well the headaches of broken products due to bugs in authoring apps. However, I'm not going to declare being involved in said process at whatever coding level something to abandon because no authoring ap (or programming language for that matter) is full-proof or guaranteed free of trials and tribulations. Every developer is the one assuming the risks of their capital, and their resources to develop for any platform. They should be allowed to decide what risks they want to take as far as which tools they want to use, not Jobs, unless he is going to get into the app development business to keep his mobile products worth buying. I think Jobs' declaration that he doesn't want to be bothered in any way with considering what he does to his OS and hardware doesn't break apps that are written for it, so he will dictate what tools developers use is too one-sided. He might as well say he doesn't want to be bothered with developing products based on what users want, instead of what he wants them to want. Oh, wait...
Except those technologies can't do half of what Flash can and to develop with the canvas tag (which is not really open standards either) takes a zillion times longer to do even the simplest animation. Furthermore to deploy an HTML5 application is more difficult as it is not encapsulated like an swf. It has several bits an pieces, which in some cases, conflict with other parts of the Javascript on a page and is difficult to debug.
I totally agree that Flash is made for PC and not for mobile so no complaint about the lack of Flash there, just the criticism of Flash in general as serving no purpose in today's Internet, that I disagree with. Until there are better development tools for HTML5 and universal browser compatibility, it amounts to nothing more than dumbing down the web. Flash is a much more powerful application platform than javascript and your code can be encrypted so others cannot steal your work. Not so much with Javascript (is possible but trade secret)
Too long; did not read. IIRC
Thanks.
Yes I did contribute to that.
I didn't say you said anything. I offered a sardonic response, while taking your statements to implied possible conclusions in question form inviting clarification (notice the question marks). You offered clarification, thanks.
In my experience, when a slew of sardonic questions come out in rapid fire, the intent is usually to score points via rhetoric rather than invite clarification. Given that you were actually inviting clarification and that you thanked me for my (clearly valuable) clarification, I can only say "you're welcome".
Lot of "what ifs" there. What if the SDK developer in the middle is quick to offer an update because they want to remain a viable, reputable player on the Apple mobile platform? Not screwed. What if a particular OS update has no impact at all on existing apps? Not screwed.
Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs", and there are a whole bunch more that I left out. The point to realize is that it only takes ONE of these "what ifs" to bite you, as opposed to requiring all of them to happen simultaneously. And as I said earlier, given the pace of technological transition these days (which puts the 1980's computer revolution to shame) each of these "what ifs" have a nontrivial probability of occurring, especially as multiple companies jockey for domination of the huge emerging mobile market.
So here's a thought experiment for you:
Premises:
* The next big technology market is the mobile market, and it is enormous.
* The technological landscape of this market is highly dynamic.
* The bigwigs at Apple have forward strategy meetings on a regular basis.
Conclusions:
* At their regular strategy meetings, the Apple leaders strongly consider "what ifs".
* Because of the dynamics involved, the Apple leaders realize that they must stay nimble.
* The Apple leaders realize that they can't have a third party in their development chain, else their ability to stay nimble is compromised.
Apple releases regular updates for OSX, I can't remember when it resulted in a broken application that hobbled me. Most applications running on Apple computers, except ones developed by Apple for Macs, are cross-platform. For the most part there is parity between platform versions for major software, but certainly not always. As someone who does 3D work I can tell you there is often great disparity between platform versions of 3D apps. If Apple applied the same rationale to their computers, Macs would disappear for lack of software. Why does it makes sense to ham-string their mobile platform developers using that logic?
You are comparing a relatively steady state situation (in computer OS's) to an unbelievably complicated and competitive one right now (in mobile devices). In the early days such as this, there is always jockeying for position. You can't apply the same rules and expectations.
Code, native or compiled, can be broken by any update.
Apple goes to extreme efforts to ensure that whenever they make a major change that requires recompile of applications, they simultaneously (if not a bit in advance) release a development system that makes it easy on the developer to make the transition. (You just saw it with the developer's release of iPhone OS 4.0) But they can't force a third party to stay in lock step. Time and time again, the third party lags and/or underwhelms. You may be inclined to simply dismiss that argument because I can't offer any better proof than my own experience (and you want to discount it). These are FACTS from a developer's experience. That's what you're not getting.
You could argue that any 3rd party SDK has a very high incentive to stay up to date and release timely fixes to allow their customers to fix their products in turn.
I already DID argue that in the very message that you are responding to. But for whatever reason (manpower, perhaps?) I am telling you that timeliness is the exception, not the rule. I am speaking from experience here, not idealistic philosophy (as you clearly are).
This is a freaking mobile gold rush, from the very bottom (vendor hardware specs and software operating systems) to the middle (developers doing battle, services doing battle, file formats doing battle, etc) to the top (users looking for best capabilities). Delays due to circumstances beyond your control are harmful right now.
Er, uh, talk about rather arrogant assumptions. You have know idea the nature of what I do for a living or the projects with which I've been involved. I can tell you from experience that I know full well the headaches of broken products due to bugs in authoring apps. However, I'm not going to declare being involved in said process at whatever coding level something to abandon because no authoring ap (or programming language for that matter) is full-proof or guaranteed free of trials and tribulations.
If you are making the analogy to "authoring apps" then you just proved my point. Your level is about 4 layers up from the platform, and by the time the changes propagate up to you, we're a year or two down the road from the fundamental change. In the mobile devices world, things are changing too quickly for that. You won't see 3rd party authoring tools on this platform for a very long time (if ever, since the screen is too small anyway). The "coding levels" that you admit to not "being involved" with are one level above the platform, which is far more relevant to this discussion.
Thompson
Outstanding.
He's given his reasons. Adobe and 'Flash' fans may not like them. But that's that. And there is no way Adobe are going to extend their desktop of monopoly onto the 'true' portable revolution that is going to hit them and Microsoft like a Tsunami.
He's offered them an olive branch, such as it is. 'Get back to creating 'creative' tools...and support open standards and you won't get yourself in this sort of mess in the future. Or get off your lazy ass and create lean, innovative programs.' Their design and programming model are going to have to change as the enter the 3rd Great Age or they will die. Or certainly be significantly diminished as a force. Adobe, a 'creative software' company who think they are a 'standards company'. They've lost sight of who they are because they spent a few billion on a company to take out all competition. Now their ten year complacency ride on the desktop is coming to an end (just like Microsoft...) as we enter a new age where 'monopolies' in one area don't guarantee success in another area. Create and innovate. Apple are. Apple nailed the 'eco system' and the rest of their competitors to the cross. In Adobe's case? Upside down on that cross. In short, they've had it coming for a long, long time. For ten years we've had to put up with their laggardly, grudging support, lack of feature parity and the shabby treatment of Mac users as 2nd class citizens and charging us exorbitant prices for that privilege of being Adobe customers and insulting us with 'Windows' interfaces with buggy ports. And to add insult to injury, the shoddy port of flash to the Mac. Buggy, insecure crash bait...with crap video quality...a complete cpu hog running on ancient tech'. Jobs must be rubbing his hands that his competitors are rushing to implement flash on their ultra portable devices. See how they'll do in battery comparison tests... And even if Flash gets GPU support for video, I doubt that acceleration will work across the board...
I'm looking forward to what Apple do next. 10.7 is going to be...very intriguing. I'm guessing a U.I makeover and some more 'killer' features. The candy floss will return. I suspect a '7 inch' iPad possibly at some point. Maybe even a hybrid 15 inch iPad/iMac touch crossover. Signalling a future without the traditional 1984 desktop metaphor..?
Apple are well placed.
Applauds Job's 2nd Era at Apple. A masterclass in execution of products and the competition.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Seems to me that Flash is about doomed. H.264 has been on the rise, while Flash has been declining, according to Encoding.com. There's a whole chart about it here
Flash is far from doomed and has many, many years ahead of it as the de facto method for interactive animated content. . It's been pushing H.264 video for quite awhile now.
What is on the way out is Flash being the ideal way to push H.264 video across the web. On the desktop, it will take awhile for the majority of browsers in use to accommodate the HTML5 video tag so Flash as a fallback option will still be an option well after it's not the most commonly used option, something that may happen sooner than people think considering the growth of devices running mobile OSes over growth of devices using desktop OSes.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/procreativ...newsid=3222489
Taking out the competition and creating a 'creative' monopoly..?
If the current price hikes and glacial feature innovation are anything to go by then Adobe is indeed a monopoly.
The fate of 'Freehand' is an interesting story in the context of Adobe's public bleating.
Lemon Bon Bon.
" Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so".
Fallacy of equivocation, really. Even if they are both proprietary, does not make them equally bad (or good).