The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
That is silly logic.
Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.
So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success so that they have more time to spend on apps which at least MIGHT be any good. That's no guarantee that they'll only have good apps, but they're at least trying to ensure quality - unlike anyone else out there. That's why so many thousands of apps have been rejected. Not all the bad apps, but enough to make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.
This is where Adobe's laziness comes back to bite them for two reasons:
1. By making it look exactly like a Flash app, it confirms Apple's statement that developers are lazy and will reduce everything to a lowest common denominator if you let them.
2. Since this is a non-Flash app that does everything that Flash does, it pretty convincingly destroys Adobe's argument that Flash is necessary.
Adobe doesn't have a strategy or plan. All they're doing is defending Flash at all costs, no matter how foolish it makes them look.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre.
There are many different forms of 'mediocre', and, being a (mostly) subjective assessment there's no way to prevent it. But the natively-written mediocrity that currently fills the app store is one level better than similar mediocrity ported from a Flash origin. It at least conforms to Apple's APIs and can be improved (maybe only to slightly-less mediocre) if Apple modifies/improves the OS foundation underneath.
The mediocrity that originated as Flash apps will not benefit from such a change.
My kid's netbook has a 160 Gig drive. When he fills that up, he'll transfer some data to one of the 1T external drives we have. After that, we'll likely throw a cheap big drive into the netbook.
I agree that in this day and age, the storage on the iPad is inadequate.
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:
Using native Cocoa:
- developers can take advantage of all of Cocoa's features, including under the hood stuff like memory management, etc. Can a Flash to Cocoa converter understand and properly take advantage of OpenCL, autorelease pools, etc.?
Using Flash to Cocoa converter:
- developers are restricted to doing only what the Flash to Cocoa converter supports. If there is a unique Cocoa feature that isn't on other platforms, Adobe isn't likely to support it because they want Flash to be cross platform.
The difference is obvious. With native Cocoa, it's up to the developer to do a good job. With Flash to Cocoa conversion, developers are beholden to Adobe to do a good job. Given Adobe's track record of Flash on the Mac, I think Apple is making the right choice here.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.
I would be willing to convert this to electronic format for the same price (or less), but no way am I going to pay out the nose just to use it on my ipad. Think about it - by converting to an electronic subscription for the same price, the publishers don't have to print (killing trees) or mail it (using fuel). Electronic distribution costs have to be a small fraction of printing/mailing. At the same subscription price as a print version, they'd still be making more money than a print version.
I agree with the person that said that Apple should provide a standard magazine (and newspaper ??) app. It could be called "Magazine Rack" or something. In this app, I would like to see the ability to keep back-issues on my computer if I want to save space on the ipad. I would like to keep all my issues, but not necessarily on the ipad. It would be nice to be able to keep the table of contents on the ipad for searching with the content offloaded to the computer. Also, the ability to bookmark articles/make notes/send to a friend, etc. would be nice. Also, the mags should be readable in iTunes, so that Mac/Windows users without ipads can take advantage of the electronic subscription also.
If we could get ALL of our magazines in electronic format, it would be great. We get Pop. Science, Pop. Mechanics, Southern Living, some cooking mags, Reader's Digest, and a few others. I can see getting my wife an ipad for her to use for this purpose. To this end, when she syncs from her Mac, it would be nice to bring in Magazine content, etc. from mine.
There needs to be the concept of a "family group" which can share mags, books, music, apps, etc. For me, I would want all purchases to ultimately end up on 1 computer/server.
OK - I know it's only been a few months since ipad shipped, but for magazines/periodicals, it's time for Apple to let the ipad evolve in this area.
I have no experience with the Zineo (sp ??) stuff - I have looked at it and the subscription prices are too great. Also, a friend said that from what they saw, it was just a scanned version of the print.
We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.
At least this seems to be a step in the right direction, as opposed to some periodicals that (as far as I've heard) require a separate app for each issue. Even still, I can't believe Apple didn't release a single 'magazine' app that everyone can publish to. Why does everyone have to reinvent the same wheel?
Agreed! I thought Magazines read on the iPad were as important as the iBook App. I have to believe Apple is designing that as we speak!
2) App includes Flash runtime, interpreted code and Flash UI
New way:
1) Flash used to develop app
========== Web Fork
2) App uses Flash Player (plugin), interpreted code and Flash UI
========== iPad Fork
2) Flash ActionScript cross-compiled to ObjC source
3) Adobe- supplied frameworks and APIs interface [ActionScript] ObjC source and iPad frameworks and APIs
4) iPad-specific code added as necessary-- iPad UI
5) above compiled into iPad app
... Or, if they really try to get cute, 2 and 3 are just an ObjC source implementation of a Flash Player/interpreter for the iPad (with a thinly-disguised Flash UI).
If Adobe does this right, they have a great opportunity-- create a set of tools that generates apps that run efficiently and intuitively on the desktop and are tailored to specific mobile platforms. Done wrong, on the mobile platforms, it'll be the same old, same old!
Now that this app is written, could it be used as the base for bringing other publications to the iPad without having to start from scratch? Could publications ready their content for an "Adobe iPad Publication Engine" standard?
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
If he's a flash designer why would you rub it in his face that he could have financial troubles ahead? Kind of a dick move.
Not if he accepts reality now and starts learning new technologies. It's kind of like being a COBOL programmer. Once Y2K was over, not the best career path. But, those who had the foresight to prepare for a different future were fine.
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
So I didn't buy any magazines.
My sentiments exactly! I was talking to my triathlete daughter and told I found a Triathlon magazine I would like to subscribe to and she said, don't just go to the web.
I do enjoy magazines and newspapers but am turned off by the pages upon pages of ads.
Regarding all these massive flash - non-flash discussions, I wonder where AI stands? It seems on the flash side, as they still using it a lot. What does this mean?
What does AI have to do with it? They can't even keep their servers running for 10 minutes and their iPhone website is useless. Sure they use Flash ads, but those come directly from agencies. AI needs a lot of help just with proofreading... (WTF is "Pixar rafted each frame"? ) They certainly are not going to set any positive precedence with their lack of digital publishing acumen.
Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.
Don't get upset so easily. I never said it's bad. My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.
For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.
We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.
I'll get off my soapbox now...
Phil
All good comments Phil, and I agree about saving trees. There is another aspect too...all the waste of energy to 'pick-up,' transport and recycle the unsold magazines every month.
I presently get a whole host of magazines and newspapers and I make sure to recycle all of them!
I did have Zino on my iMac but found it a bit annoying to have to zoom and scroll. It wasn't quite right. The iPad form looks to be a lot better.
Comments
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
That is silly logic.
Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.
So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success so that they have more time to spend on apps which at least MIGHT be any good. That's no guarantee that they'll only have good apps, but they're at least trying to ensure quality - unlike anyone else out there. That's why so many thousands of apps have been rejected. Not all the bad apps, but enough to make a difference.
The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.
This is where Adobe's laziness comes back to bite them for two reasons:
1. By making it look exactly like a Flash app, it confirms Apple's statement that developers are lazy and will reduce everything to a lowest common denominator if you let them.
2. Since this is a non-Flash app that does everything that Flash does, it pretty convincingly destroys Adobe's argument that Flash is necessary.
Adobe doesn't have a strategy or plan. All they're doing is defending Flash at all costs, no matter how foolish it makes them look.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre.
There are many different forms of 'mediocre', and, being a (mostly) subjective assessment there's no way to prevent it. But the natively-written mediocrity that currently fills the app store is one level better than similar mediocrity ported from a Flash origin. It at least conforms to Apple's APIs and can be improved (maybe only to slightly-less mediocre) if Apple modifies/improves the OS foundation underneath.
The mediocrity that originated as Flash apps will not benefit from such a change.
Edit: narrowly beaten by jragosta
Granted.
My kid's netbook has a 160 Gig drive. When he fills that up, he'll transfer some data to one of the 1T external drives we have. After that, we'll likely throw a cheap big drive into the netbook.
I agree that in this day and age, the storage on the iPad is inadequate.
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
Compromise often leads to mediocrity.
But no compromise at all may lead to fanaticism.
It is wisdom when one knows when to stand and when to agree to a compromise.
CGC
They lost me at Five Bucks.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:
Using native Cocoa:
- developers can take advantage of all of Cocoa's features, including under the hood stuff like memory management, etc. Can a Flash to Cocoa converter understand and properly take advantage of OpenCL, autorelease pools, etc.?
Using Flash to Cocoa converter:
- developers are restricted to doing only what the Flash to Cocoa converter supports. If there is a unique Cocoa feature that isn't on other platforms, Adobe isn't likely to support it because they want Flash to be cross platform.
The difference is obvious. With native Cocoa, it's up to the developer to do a good job. With Flash to Cocoa conversion, developers are beholden to Adobe to do a good job. Given Adobe's track record of Flash on the Mac, I think Apple is making the right choice here.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...
I call hypocrisy
I would be willing to convert this to electronic format for the same price (or less), but no way am I going to pay out the nose just to use it on my ipad. Think about it - by converting to an electronic subscription for the same price, the publishers don't have to print (killing trees) or mail it (using fuel). Electronic distribution costs have to be a small fraction of printing/mailing. At the same subscription price as a print version, they'd still be making more money than a print version.
I agree with the person that said that Apple should provide a standard magazine (and newspaper ??) app. It could be called "Magazine Rack" or something. In this app, I would like to see the ability to keep back-issues on my computer if I want to save space on the ipad. I would like to keep all my issues, but not necessarily on the ipad. It would be nice to be able to keep the table of contents on the ipad for searching with the content offloaded to the computer. Also, the ability to bookmark articles/make notes/send to a friend, etc. would be nice. Also, the mags should be readable in iTunes, so that Mac/Windows users without ipads can take advantage of the electronic subscription also.
If we could get ALL of our magazines in electronic format, it would be great. We get Pop. Science, Pop. Mechanics, Southern Living, some cooking mags, Reader's Digest, and a few others. I can see getting my wife an ipad for her to use for this purpose. To this end, when she syncs from her Mac, it would be nice to bring in Magazine content, etc. from mine.
There needs to be the concept of a "family group" which can share mags, books, music, apps, etc. For me, I would want all purchases to ultimately end up on 1 computer/server.
OK - I know it's only been a few months since ipad shipped, but for magazines/periodicals, it's time for Apple to let the ipad evolve in this area.
I have no experience with the Zineo (sp ??) stuff - I have looked at it and the subscription prices are too great. Also, a friend said that from what they saw, it was just a scanned version of the print.
We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.
I'll get off my soapbox now...
Phil
At least this seems to be a step in the right direction, as opposed to some periodicals that (as far as I've heard) require a separate app for each issue. Even still, I can't believe Apple didn't release a single 'magazine' app that everyone can publish to. Why does everyone have to reinvent the same wheel?
Agreed! I thought Magazines read on the iPad were as important as the iBook App. I have to believe Apple is designing that as we speak!
Old [deprecated] way:
1) Flash used to develop iPhone/iPad app
2) App includes Flash runtime, interpreted code and Flash UI
New way:
1) Flash used to develop app
========== Web Fork
2) App uses Flash Player (plugin), interpreted code and Flash UI
========== iPad Fork
2) Flash ActionScript cross-compiled to ObjC source
3) Adobe- supplied frameworks and APIs interface [ActionScript] ObjC source and iPad frameworks and APIs
4) iPad-specific code added as necessary-- iPad UI
5) above compiled into iPad app
... Or, if they really try to get cute, 2 and 3 are just an ObjC source implementation of a Flash Player/interpreter for the iPad (with a thinly-disguised Flash UI).
If Adobe does this right, they have a great opportunity-- create a set of tools that generates apps that run efficiently and intuitively on the desktop and are tailored to specific mobile platforms. Done wrong, on the mobile platforms, it'll be the same old, same old!
We shall see...
.
I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.
Read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/flash_saga
It goes a long way towards explaining why Apple doesn't want to let Adobe leverage the iPhone/Pad platform away from Apple.
Great article link!
Disk space is cheap.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
If he's a flash designer why would you rub it in his face that he could have financial troubles ahead? Kind of a dick move.
Not if he accepts reality now and starts learning new technologies. It's kind of like being a COBOL programmer. Once Y2K was over, not the best career path. But, those who had the foresight to prepare for a different future were fine.
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
So I didn't buy any magazines.
My sentiments exactly! I was talking to my triathlete daughter and told I found a Triathlon magazine I would like to subscribe to and she said, don't just go to the web.
I do enjoy magazines and newspapers but am turned off by the pages upon pages of ads.
Regarding all these massive flash - non-flash discussions, I wonder where AI stands? It seems on the flash side, as they still using it a lot. What does this mean?
What does AI have to do with it? They can't even keep their servers running for 10 minutes and their iPhone website is useless. Sure they use Flash ads, but those come directly from agencies. AI needs a lot of help just with proofreading... (WTF is "Pixar rafted each frame"? ) They certainly are not going to set any positive precedence with their lack of digital publishing acumen.
Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.
Don't get upset so easily. I never said it's bad. My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.
For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.
But no compromise at all may lead to fanaticism.
It is wisdom when one knows when to stand and when to agree to a compromise.
CGC
Yes, and this is definitely one of those times when it's wise for Apple to stand.
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.
We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.
I'll get off my soapbox now...
Phil
All good comments Phil, and I agree about saving trees. There is another aspect too...all the waste of energy to 'pick-up,' transport and recycle the unsold magazines every month.
I presently get a whole host of magazines and newspapers and I make sure to recycle all of them!
I did have Zino on my iMac but found it a bit annoying to have to zoom and scroll. It wasn't quite right. The iPad form looks to be a lot better.
Best