Apps are not universal. So app market for iPhone and app market for Android (any other mobileOS) MAY NOT BE treated as the same market for legal purposes.
Really? That surprises me. Got any supporting cites?
Adobe should to do what every technology company should do in the face of competition.
Innovate.
I mean, as a tech company, isn't the purpose to push boundaries and find new and better ways of doing things? Even M$ seem to have realised that you shouldn't diss people who are better than you, you should admire them and use it as inspiration to do better yourself.
Come on Adobe, up your game.
But one last reply before i go. Adobe can't step it's game up if there is NO CHANCE they can get their product on the iProducts. That's this scenario, hence all the hubbub.
True, and though they're #1 in sales dollars, in the long run Android devices will overtake them especially if they continue down the path they're going.
I don't think that is a certainty. The iPhone OS platform has momentum of consumers behind it and generally devs will stay with it, even if they also explore other platforms. As long as Apple creates compelling products and getting mindshare through marketing and media attention, Android would have to do a lot more than appease developers to gain any real traction against Apple. Apple has done far too good a job creating an entire ecosystem and market inertia. Certainly in the short term and medium term I don't see Android as a significant threat.
Looks like 80% of the people responding did NOT understand AT ALL what this is all about. Its not about flash support, its about tools to convert flash into iphone OS code. Apple wants to forbid it, which is clearly illegal if you ask me.
Flexibility. Flexibility is not about coding somewhat compatible apps for a multitude of devices in a single language. Flexibility is about being able to code in a multitude of languages for many devices. Hence bring the best experience possible to the end customer which will eventually lead to a superior income (NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND).
You only code in one language. Your problem. Not Apple's.
The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are pursuing an antitrust inquiry over Apple's changes to its iPhone developer agreement, which banned the porting of Adobe Flash apps to the iPhone OS, according to the New York Post.
"After years of being the little guy who used Washington to fend off Goliaths like Microsoft, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is about to learn what life is like when the shoe's on the other foot.
According to a person familiar with the matter, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are locked in negotiations…"
I am trying to recall all the times Jobs uses Washington for anything. I do remember one but from the tone of the statement, there apparently is a lot more. Somehow, I am reluctant to accept an article written in a tabloid.
Let's say that your data is correct (I'm very skeptical, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.
Android fans claim that there are 40,000 apps for Android and there are 180,000 apps for iPhone. So 180,000 apps exist to obtain 99.4% of the market, yet 40,000 apps have been created for the remaining 0.6% (actually less because Android does not have ALL of the non-iPhone market). So Android apps are far, far more prevalent than their market share would predict, and therefore they are not being artificially hindered. Your argument just disappeared.
There is no argument. Someone stated Apple were a small player in total mobile handset sales (which is true) so I found some numbers based on the market which the inquiry is focusing on (which Apple control 99.4% of). I'm not arguing one way of the other, just bringing in the facts. Feel free to make up your own mind.
Can I get a copy of the source-- it's been a long time since I coded any Flash. I'd like to see this for myself. I am an iPhone developer and have every version of the iPhone and iPad.
TIA, Dick Applebaum.
.
Actually it's part of sample code/template when you first start the program. Look for animation section I believe it's called Random Movement Organic. It looks like green bugs moving around. Now go to the document's properties, set the proper dimensions and set the publishing profile to iPhone OS in player dropdown list. I have a 3GS and it doesn't perform well. Also try probing it with Instruments why the laggy performance.
Also, try the rain or snow demo.
I'm going to benchmark it some more with vector tween animations, blends, and touch responses.
Adobe has made the Mac platform a second class citizen for far too long. what do they expect ??
Almost as long as Apple themselves:
Quote:
In his letter, Jobs derided Adobe for not adopting new technologies quick enough, pointing specifically towards how long it has taken Adobe to leave Carbon behind. It wasn't until the recently released Creative Suite version 5.0 that Adobe switched its applications over to Cocoa. Considering how old Cocoa is, it's indeed about time.
But then, why did it take Apple so many years to transition the prime Mac OS X application, the Finder, to Cocoa? The Cocoa variant of the Finder shipped with Snow Leopard, which was released August 28, 2009. To make matters worse - iTunes still hasn't been re-written in Cocoa, and is still shipping in all its 32bit Carbon goodness.
You could argue that surely, iTunes has no benefit from switching to Carbon and 64bit, and I'll grant you that one. However, Apple has one massive application that is still fully Carbon and 32bit, an application that is very similar in scope to Adobe's product offerings: Final Cut Pro is still written in Carbon, and is still 32bit. In other words, it's okay for Apple to neglect Cocoa for Final Cut Pro, but it's not okay for Adobe to take their time.
But one last reply before i go. Adobe can't step it's game up if there is NO CHANCE they can get their product on the iProducts. That's this scenario, hence all the hubbub.
The iPhone doesn't meet the minimum requirements for Flash 10.1, so unless they dial back requirements Apple wouldn't be able to have Flash on the iPhone as it currently stands. If the new one has a 1GHz processor as has been talked about, then it could be possible. We have anecdotal evidence from someone else in the thread about converted Flash running poorly on the iPhone. I'd be curious to know what the 100 apps on the store that were converted w/Adobe's apps are and how well they perform. If the converted apps are all as laggy and slow as mentioned earlier, then there is something poor in Adobe's software when it converts the code over to Objective C. That is something they can fix and equates to stepping up their game.
Adobe should to do what every technology company should do in the face of competition.
Innovate.
Well... they kind of did with the ability to generate native iPhone apps using CS5 (a good idea) instead of trying to get Flash running on the iPhone (not such a good idea).
Adobe innovated -> Apple blocked them -> time for an antitrust inquiry.
What market are they supposedly monopolising? Not the smartphone market. The iPhone market?!
If you define the market small enough, anyone is in breach of antitrust.
This is precisely the right question. In order to be found to have violated antitrust laws, Apple will have to be found to have market power in a defined market, and to have abused that power to restrain trade. The market must be defined properly, and firstly, and it's is not going to be the market for their own products. This was Psystar's first mistake -- they figured somehow that Apple could be forced under the antitrust laws to compete with themselves, which was a ridiculous argument from word go.
I suspect as we speak the DoJ and FTC lawyers are arguing over this very issue, trying to work out whether Apple could even theoretically have market power over any market. Seems like a real stretch to me, but they must have some angles they are exploring or we would not have heard about it. Very possibly Adobe's lawyers are hammering on members of Congress, so we're getting one of those Washington kabuki dances where the bureaucrats go through the motions just to get the pols off their backs.
It is about time. I understand Mr. Jobs' point on technology, but legal rules are not to disable 3rd party competitive attempts. He has to realize that Apple is not setting legal market rules PERIOD.
It is just business and Mr. Jobs has to learn how to cope with this in competitive market even though some might be using what is percieved as obsolete or having no future.
This is precisely the right question. In order to be found to have violated antitrust laws, Apple will have to be found to have market power in a defined market, and to have abused that power to restrain trade. The market must be defined properly, and firstly, and it's is not going to be the market for their own products. This was Psystar's first mistake -- they figured somehow that Apple could be forced under the antitrust laws to compete with themselves, which was a ridiculous argument from word go.
I suspect as we speak the DoJ and FTC lawyers are arguing over this very issue, trying to work out whether Apple could even theoretically have market power over any market. Seems like a real stretch to me, but they must have some angles they are exploring or we would not have heard about it. Very possibly Adobe's lawyers are hammering on members of Congress, so we're getting one of those Washington kabuki dances where the bureaucrats go through the motions just to get the pols off their backs.
That's easy. Doesn't it in smartphones? Too bad for them they were declared stronger than Motorola (and strongest in the USA) just last days.
Psystar was thwartet not because this was not the case, but because Apple uses power and money to kill "obstacles". Sometimes US system law looks like big bazaar that you can buy merchandise and traders are called lawyers. Try this in EU and perhaps results will be different (already proven with Apple and Microsoft).
In any case Apple more and more deserves reminding slap. I am saying this as Apple user and actual lover of most of products from this company... but I will never be developer to Apple in any form because of such hostile and binding approach. I'd rather develope for smaller platforms with friendly potential. (In the meantime i devlope for larger platforms and firms than Apple - not mobile though).
This is just plain stupid. If someone wants to develop mobile software and not use Apple's solution for Apple's devices then they can develop for Android or Windows Phone 7.
Looks like 80% of the people responding did NOT understand AT ALL what this is all about. Its not about flash support, its about tools to convert flash into iphone OS code. Apple wants to forbid it, which is clearly illegal if you ask me.
Actually, many people seem to be missing a key point that Steve Jobs has made a few times. Apple does not want to be at the mercy of cross platform tools creators, i.e. Adobe. When Apple releases OS 4, there won't be a single cross platform tool that supports every new feature that Apple put into the OS. Only the XCode SDK will support every feature. If Adobe and others are unable, for one reason or another, to support the latest features of the OS, that can minimize Apple's competitive edge. When Apple puts unique features into their latest OS, they want developers to take advantage of these features to help differentiate their product from others. This is what they believe gives them the competitive edge thereby gaining more customers. Cross platform tools tend to level the playing ground and often take away "unique features" of a platform because it costs them, i.e. Adobe, too much resources to put extra effort into supporting features that are only available for a single platform such as the iPhone.
It's certainly easier for a developer to get the apps onto multiple platforms using cross compiler tools, but it does lead to a less than optimal experience for each platform. Steve may be a tyrant, but I think he's right one this point.
Here's another idea of an angle the DoJ and FTC might be working.
A developer has a finite amount of resources, this we can all agree on. Before Apple's code ban, all he would need to do is buy a cross-platform compiler, code his app, then compile it for whatever platform he wants. Very general, I know, but that should be the jist of it. His bases are covered in all platforms and whatever shifts happen in the app markets won't affect him too much.
After this ban, the developer now has to choose which basket to put his eggs in. I'd say that not many have the initial resources to buy the tools to develop for the iPhone and the tools for the rest of the market.
The App Store is the biggest right now and the best shot for earning money, so the developer would probably go there to start. Now Apple has, in the short term, locked the developer into making apps only for their platform. If (and that's a big if) they get successful in the App Store over the long term, then they have enough resources to put towards developing for another platform.
However, in the time it took for the developer to get those resources, it's advanced Apple's App Store that much more over their competition. In some cases, the developers probably won't even bother working for another platform. Hence, Apple has effectively delayed development of its competitors.
I might be wrong, but this is just a thought I had. Slightly outside of the box.
Steve may be a tyrant, but I think he's right one this point.
Exactly. And what's to stop a vendor from holding their developers hostage? Like if you want to take advantage of OS 4 features and your vendor wants to charge you for an upgrade, especially if those features are limited to the iPhone and have no similar features for Android. The vendor will either fragment their tools for the various platforms or hold off on releases because only x number of their developers want that functionality.
This is just plain stupid. If someone wants to develop mobile software and not use Apple's solution for Apple's devices then they can develop for Android or Windows Phone 7.
That isn't the point of the inquiry.
Hypothetical - You build a home automation system and want to create a mobile interface. You have resources to create one application. You could have written it once and ported to all mobile platforms, but Apple has blocked that.
So you have to write the iPhone app because Apple control most of the mobile application market, the other mobile platforms just miss out.
Because your software is good people buy an iPhone over a competitor... and the cycle continues.
I'm not sure when astute business practices and the leveraging of market power becomes grounds for an antitrust case. I'm guessing that is what the inquiry is for.
Comments
Apps are not universal. So app market for iPhone and app market for Android (any other mobileOS) MAY NOT BE treated as the same market for legal purposes.
Really? That surprises me. Got any supporting cites?
Adobe should to do what every technology company should do in the face of competition.
Innovate.
I mean, as a tech company, isn't the purpose to push boundaries and find new and better ways of doing things? Even M$ seem to have realised that you shouldn't diss people who are better than you, you should admire them and use it as inspiration to do better yourself.
Come on Adobe, up your game.
But one last reply before i go. Adobe can't step it's game up if there is NO CHANCE they can get their product on the iProducts. That's this scenario, hence all the hubbub.
True, and though they're #1 in sales dollars, in the long run Android devices will overtake them especially if they continue down the path they're going.
I don't think that is a certainty. The iPhone OS platform has momentum of consumers behind it and generally devs will stay with it, even if they also explore other platforms. As long as Apple creates compelling products and getting mindshare through marketing and media attention, Android would have to do a lot more than appease developers to gain any real traction against Apple. Apple has done far too good a job creating an entire ecosystem and market inertia. Certainly in the short term and medium term I don't see Android as a significant threat.
Looks like 80% of the people responding did NOT understand AT ALL what this is all about. Its not about flash support, its about tools to convert flash into iphone OS code. Apple wants to forbid it, which is clearly illegal if you ask me.
Flexibility. Flexibility is not about coding somewhat compatible apps for a multitude of devices in a single language. Flexibility is about being able to code in a multitude of languages for many devices. Hence bring the best experience possible to the end customer which will eventually lead to a superior income (NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND).
You only code in one language. Your problem. Not Apple's.
The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are pursuing an antitrust inquiry over Apple's changes to its iPhone developer agreement, which banned the porting of Adobe Flash apps to the iPhone OS, according to the New York Post.
"After years of being the little guy who used Washington to fend off Goliaths like Microsoft, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is about to learn what life is like when the shoe's on the other foot.
According to a person familiar with the matter, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are locked in negotiations…"
I am trying to recall all the times Jobs uses Washington for anything. I do remember one but from the tone of the statement, there apparently is a lot more. Somehow, I am reluctant to accept an article written in a tabloid.
The distinction is irrelevant in this context.
It's not, hence the inquiry.
Let's say that your data is correct (I'm very skeptical, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.
Android fans claim that there are 40,000 apps for Android and there are 180,000 apps for iPhone. So 180,000 apps exist to obtain 99.4% of the market, yet 40,000 apps have been created for the remaining 0.6% (actually less because Android does not have ALL of the non-iPhone market). So Android apps are far, far more prevalent than their market share would predict, and therefore they are not being artificially hindered. Your argument just disappeared.
There is no argument. Someone stated Apple were a small player in total mobile handset sales (which is true) so I found some numbers based on the market which the inquiry is focusing on (which Apple control 99.4% of). I'm not arguing one way of the other, just bringing in the facts. Feel free to make up your own mind.
Can I get a copy of the source-- it's been a long time since I coded any Flash. I'd like to see this for myself. I am an iPhone developer and have every version of the iPhone and iPad.
TIA, Dick Applebaum.
.
Actually it's part of sample code/template when you first start the program. Look for animation section I believe it's called Random Movement Organic. It looks like green bugs moving around. Now go to the document's properties, set the proper dimensions and set the publishing profile to iPhone OS in player dropdown list. I have a 3GS and it doesn't perform well. Also try probing it with Instruments why the laggy performance.
Also, try the rain or snow demo.
I'm going to benchmark it some more with vector tween animations, blends, and touch responses.
Adobe has made the Mac platform a second class citizen for far too long. what do they expect ??
Almost as long as Apple themselves:
In his letter, Jobs derided Adobe for not adopting new technologies quick enough, pointing specifically towards how long it has taken Adobe to leave Carbon behind. It wasn't until the recently released Creative Suite version 5.0 that Adobe switched its applications over to Cocoa. Considering how old Cocoa is, it's indeed about time.
But then, why did it take Apple so many years to transition the prime Mac OS X application, the Finder, to Cocoa? The Cocoa variant of the Finder shipped with Snow Leopard, which was released August 28, 2009. To make matters worse - iTunes still hasn't been re-written in Cocoa, and is still shipping in all its 32bit Carbon goodness.
You could argue that surely, iTunes has no benefit from switching to Carbon and 64bit, and I'll grant you that one. However, Apple has one massive application that is still fully Carbon and 32bit, an application that is very similar in scope to Adobe's product offerings: Final Cut Pro is still written in Carbon, and is still 32bit. In other words, it's okay for Apple to neglect Cocoa for Final Cut Pro, but it's not okay for Adobe to take their time.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23224/Jo...t_with_a_Knife
But one last reply before i go. Adobe can't step it's game up if there is NO CHANCE they can get their product on the iProducts. That's this scenario, hence all the hubbub.
The iPhone doesn't meet the minimum requirements for Flash 10.1, so unless they dial back requirements Apple wouldn't be able to have Flash on the iPhone as it currently stands. If the new one has a 1GHz processor as has been talked about, then it could be possible. We have anecdotal evidence from someone else in the thread about converted Flash running poorly on the iPhone. I'd be curious to know what the 100 apps on the store that were converted w/Adobe's apps are and how well they perform. If the converted apps are all as laggy and slow as mentioned earlier, then there is something poor in Adobe's software when it converts the code over to Objective C. That is something they can fix and equates to stepping up their game.
Adobe should to do what every technology company should do in the face of competition.
Innovate.
Well... they kind of did with the ability to generate native iPhone apps using CS5 (a good idea) instead of trying to get Flash running on the iPhone (not such a good idea).
Adobe innovated -> Apple blocked them -> time for an antitrust inquiry.
What market are they supposedly monopolising? Not the smartphone market. The iPhone market?!
If you define the market small enough, anyone is in breach of antitrust.
This is precisely the right question. In order to be found to have violated antitrust laws, Apple will have to be found to have market power in a defined market, and to have abused that power to restrain trade. The market must be defined properly, and firstly, and it's is not going to be the market for their own products. This was Psystar's first mistake -- they figured somehow that Apple could be forced under the antitrust laws to compete with themselves, which was a ridiculous argument from word go.
I suspect as we speak the DoJ and FTC lawyers are arguing over this very issue, trying to work out whether Apple could even theoretically have market power over any market. Seems like a real stretch to me, but they must have some angles they are exploring or we would not have heard about it. Very possibly Adobe's lawyers are hammering on members of Congress, so we're getting one of those Washington kabuki dances where the bureaucrats go through the motions just to get the pols off their backs.
It couldn't possibly be our goood friends over at Adobe, could it?
It is just business and Mr. Jobs has to learn how to cope with this in competitive market even though some might be using what is percieved as obsolete or having no future.
Enough is enough.
This is precisely the right question. In order to be found to have violated antitrust laws, Apple will have to be found to have market power in a defined market, and to have abused that power to restrain trade. The market must be defined properly, and firstly, and it's is not going to be the market for their own products. This was Psystar's first mistake -- they figured somehow that Apple could be forced under the antitrust laws to compete with themselves, which was a ridiculous argument from word go.
I suspect as we speak the DoJ and FTC lawyers are arguing over this very issue, trying to work out whether Apple could even theoretically have market power over any market. Seems like a real stretch to me, but they must have some angles they are exploring or we would not have heard about it. Very possibly Adobe's lawyers are hammering on members of Congress, so we're getting one of those Washington kabuki dances where the bureaucrats go through the motions just to get the pols off their backs.
That's easy. Doesn't it in smartphones? Too bad for them they were declared stronger than Motorola (and strongest in the USA) just last days.
Psystar was thwartet not because this was not the case, but because Apple uses power and money to kill "obstacles". Sometimes US system law looks like big bazaar that you can buy merchandise and traders are called lawyers. Try this in EU and perhaps results will be different (already proven with Apple and Microsoft).
In any case Apple more and more deserves reminding slap. I am saying this as Apple user and actual lover of most of products from this company... but I will never be developer to Apple in any form because of such hostile and binding approach. I'd rather develope for smaller platforms with friendly potential. (In the meantime i devlope for larger platforms and firms than Apple - not mobile though).
(An arrogant Euro living in the USA).
Looks like 80% of the people responding did NOT understand AT ALL what this is all about. Its not about flash support, its about tools to convert flash into iphone OS code. Apple wants to forbid it, which is clearly illegal if you ask me.
Actually, many people seem to be missing a key point that Steve Jobs has made a few times. Apple does not want to be at the mercy of cross platform tools creators, i.e. Adobe. When Apple releases OS 4, there won't be a single cross platform tool that supports every new feature that Apple put into the OS. Only the XCode SDK will support every feature. If Adobe and others are unable, for one reason or another, to support the latest features of the OS, that can minimize Apple's competitive edge. When Apple puts unique features into their latest OS, they want developers to take advantage of these features to help differentiate their product from others. This is what they believe gives them the competitive edge thereby gaining more customers. Cross platform tools tend to level the playing ground and often take away "unique features" of a platform because it costs them, i.e. Adobe, too much resources to put extra effort into supporting features that are only available for a single platform such as the iPhone.
It's certainly easier for a developer to get the apps onto multiple platforms using cross compiler tools, but it does lead to a less than optimal experience for each platform. Steve may be a tyrant, but I think he's right one this point.
A developer has a finite amount of resources, this we can all agree on. Before Apple's code ban, all he would need to do is buy a cross-platform compiler, code his app, then compile it for whatever platform he wants. Very general, I know, but that should be the jist of it. His bases are covered in all platforms and whatever shifts happen in the app markets won't affect him too much.
After this ban, the developer now has to choose which basket to put his eggs in. I'd say that not many have the initial resources to buy the tools to develop for the iPhone and the tools for the rest of the market.
The App Store is the biggest right now and the best shot for earning money, so the developer would probably go there to start. Now Apple has, in the short term, locked the developer into making apps only for their platform. If (and that's a big if) they get successful in the App Store over the long term, then they have enough resources to put towards developing for another platform.
However, in the time it took for the developer to get those resources, it's advanced Apple's App Store that much more over their competition. In some cases, the developers probably won't even bother working for another platform. Hence, Apple has effectively delayed development of its competitors.
I might be wrong, but this is just a thought I had. Slightly outside of the box.
Maybe Apple should release a Windows version of Xcode.
Maybe Microsoft should release a version of Visual Studio for the Mac.
Steve may be a tyrant, but I think he's right one this point.
Exactly. And what's to stop a vendor from holding their developers hostage? Like if you want to take advantage of OS 4 features and your vendor wants to charge you for an upgrade, especially if those features are limited to the iPhone and have no similar features for Android. The vendor will either fragment their tools for the various platforms or hold off on releases because only x number of their developers want that functionality.
This is just plain stupid. If someone wants to develop mobile software and not use Apple's solution for Apple's devices then they can develop for Android or Windows Phone 7.
That isn't the point of the inquiry.
Hypothetical - You build a home automation system and want to create a mobile interface. You have resources to create one application. You could have written it once and ported to all mobile platforms, but Apple has blocked that.
So you have to write the iPhone app because Apple control most of the mobile application market, the other mobile platforms just miss out.
Because your software is good people buy an iPhone over a competitor... and the cycle continues.
I'm not sure when astute business practices and the leveraging of market power becomes grounds for an antitrust case. I'm guessing that is what the inquiry is for.