Adobe needs to shut up and get over it. Apple can choose what they want to support on their system.
The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of iPad and iPhones in the world should paint enough of a picture that flash is not needed or people wouldn't have bought the product knowing in advance that it doesn't and never will support flash.
Flash is just another way to slow my phone down and chew up more of my 2GB data plan.
Flash is extensively used by ALL the big boys. For a reason.
People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.
ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.
Flash is in the past. It has not hurt Apple not supporting Flash. Each day that goes by more and more smart creators are using less and less Flash. Believe you me, Adobe knows this. That is the reason for the complaint with the FTC .
I understand that, for example, I don't know if the cellular mergers have benefited anyone but the cellular companies, where it's closer to an oligopoly than it was before. I realize some countries have fewer cellular companies, but those countries generally have far smaller populations as well.
And the banks. Don't forget how we ended up with "too big to fail."
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As Millmoss has pointed out, nothing at all may come out of it.
The recent FTC settlement with Intel is instructive I think. Intel agreed to discontinue pricing practices that they never even admitted that they'd ever used. Both Intel and AMD have declared themselves pleased with the outcome. Probably AMD is more pleased, but Intel is saying that the settlement doesn't harm their business.
But according to some, we always have to wail and moan about the Big Bad Government, even when they do something useful. In fact I've long suspected that the real fear is that the government does useful things, which makes it so much harder to sensibly argue that everything the government does is fundamentally awful and we should always be against it.
I can't believe after 160+ comments people still don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
There is actually very little information in this thread that would help a novice understand that difference.
Care to shed some light from your perspective?
Another point that bears repeating here. Adobe doesn't seem to have a clue regarding the anger many users, let alone developers, have had with many of their Mac products over the years. And in many cases, the true can be said of the Windows side, at least from a support stance. Don't believe me? Well, then ask any IT professional at any large corporation.
Point blank: Adobe stinks at backwards compatibility. Always has, and apparently always will. It just might be why many of us want to stay as clear of any form of Flash as possible.
Adobe needs to shut up and get over it. Apple can choose what they want to support on their system.
The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of iPad and iPhones in the world should paint enough of a picture that flash is not needed or people wouldn't have bought the product knowing in advance that it doesn't and never will support flash.
Flash is just another way to slow my phone down and chew up more of my 2GB data plan.
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to use Flash?
I'm curious as to why you believe that people buying an iPhone or an iPad even think about whether Flash is installed on them. Do the tens of millions of computer users out there care if the video they're watching is a Flash video? Do the majority of those users deliberately delete Flash from their computers?
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
If an iPhone owner (you for example) doesn't want Flash for the experience that's available on the Mac, then you can choose not to install it. Then Flash won't "slow your phone down", or "chew up your data plan".
You see how that works? Choice. Flash wouldn't be compulsory. You would be able to choose to not have Flash on your iPhone even though people who wanted it would be able to have it.
That's the issue.
Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform. And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
If SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. For the same reasons he claims he won't have it on iOS. But he hasn't. He's full of it.
I'm not justifying the FTC's investigation, but if you're going to post something, post the rest of it too.
If you think that the media hyped up the antenna issue with Apple, with some articles making this whole affair seem like BP's Oil Spill, then you should not pay any attention to this.
Just because Flash 10.1 crashes in a presentation isn't reason to simply dismiss it. Adobe deserves a chance to make things work with Flash on smartphones. I gave Apple a chance to make things work with the iPhone 4 and I owe Adobe at least that much.
Now with that said, if there is some RELIABLE, STATISTICAL STUDY to show that Flash Player for mobile phones is not very reliable, then that's a different matter.
Also, let me say that I understand Apple's stance on Flash and I am appalled at the types of comments I am hearing about Apple with regards to this issue, especially when those same people look the other way when Microsoft does far, far worse.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Opera on iOS is not a browser per sé but an app that uses the services provided by Apple's Safari browser. So in essence, it's an overlay on Safari rather than being a browser in its own right.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Opera on iOS is not a browser per sé but an app that uses the services provided by Apple's Safari browser. So in essence, it's an overlay on Safari rather than being a browser in its own right.
Actually it doesn't use Apple's rendering engine.
It's all rendered and compressed by Opera on their server.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
Away from where SJ is stopping you from having it, as you say.
Could it be because it doesn't exist, in which case Adobe would be stopping you, like they stop Blackberry owners from having it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to use Flash?
I'm curious as to why you believe that people buying an iPhone or an iPad even think about whether Flash is installed on them. Do the tens of millions of computer users out there care if the video they're watching is a Flash video? Do the majority of those users deliberately delete Flash from their computers?
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
If an iPhone owner (you for example) doesn't want Flash for the experience that's available on the Mac, then you can choose not to install it. Then Flash won't "slow your phone down", or "chew up your data plan".
You see how that works? Choice. Flash wouldn't be compulsory. You would be able to choose to not have Flash on your iPhone even though people who wanted it would be able to have it.
That's the issue.
Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform. And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
If SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. For the same reasons he claims he won't have it on iOS. But he hasn't. He's full of it.
What do all of these Flash sites (even if some are impressive) have in common? Answer: none of them, accept HBO, will ever work on a phone, or a tablet of any make or OS as they are now.
All of the sites below will have to, as HBO has done, make a new interface for mobile devices, and more than likely 2: 1 each for phones and tablets. That?s a total of 3, for the same info and/or experience.
Now on the other hand, if they decide to use HTML5 & javascript, they just might get away with only 1, by just targeting the end users browser with a CSS switch.
NOTE: actually, a number of the current Apps on the AAS, as well as on the Android could and should be web apps anyway.
2 | Monoface = Should also be an App... and fairly easy for a developer to convert to HTML5/CSS3
3 | Waterlife = Really nice site... too bad it doesn?t offer any other way to get information about their documentary other than through their Flash interface.
4 | Marc Ecko = Also nice... but is it necessary? Especially when trying to get usable info (like contact) it needs to open a separate HTML window anyway.
5 | HBO - Home Box Office = Only site to ?degrade gracefully? and offer a choice for mobile users, or plain HTML... or, ?there?s an App? link to download.
Just because you may not be familiar with the current version of ActionScript, or don't know how to use it, does not mean anything. That would be like me saying about Objective-C (with which I'm not familiar) "That seems really hard and unintuitive, it's shite."
As I thought when you made your assertion, it's baseless hyperbole (but thanks for your input).
Oh whatever.I know both systems very well. And it makes no odds whatsoever if I am unfamiliar with the latest version of Flash or not. I do not need to justify to you or anyone. I'm very much aware of the advantages of Cocoa , which is so far advanced of Flash it makes this very conversation ridiculous.
Despite what you may think, a framework lives and dies by it's philosophy and vision (I have created a few in my time). This is not just my personal preference, there is clearly a higher level of thought that has contributed to the creation of Apples tools.
With Flash, every day would be a chore, the framework and language would change like the wind because the company lacked focus and direction, jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon like headless chickens.
With Cocoa/Objective C, it's stable as hell, and you have the speed of high level programming, yet can interchange naturally with a wealth of powerful low level C based API's. Not even in the same ballpark mate.
Farewell. And good luck with your next career. I should start looking now if I were you.
PS: You really should be comparing HTML 5 with Flash. They are both designed to run on multi platforms, yet Adobe has proved consistently that it can't even get that right, dragging their feet, making excuses, passing the buck like the dip shits they are and will always be.
Being platform agnostic, which it does terribly, is the only feature Flash has going for it. And now there is an open alternative.
I would just like to end this conversation with one praise for Adobe (well actually Macromedia) I'm quite fond of the timeline based method of working in flash. I have repeatedly badgered Apple over the years to introduce a timeline based tool to its suite, and I'm still convinced that it is on it's way, combined with Quartz Composer, one day, fingers crossed.
HTML5 is JUST starting to support the API's needed to take it beyond simple text. a year ago, it was barely something worth talking about beyond an alternative way to stream video.
If flash was removed from all web content today, there is NOTHING that is ready to fill everything it can do. Yes, it's going to fade, and yes, HTML5 will be superior to it. But not today.
Uhm, yeah, I think my point was that we are better off without "everything it can do" or at least without everything that's been done with it. Well, that and that the 5-10 years estimate is wrong and Flash has about 2-5 years of life left.
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
No one can force Apple to develop porting tools, but if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close. Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
Either the App Store business model is within the law or it isn't. If it is, and it certainly seems to be, then the whole "porting" issue you raise is moot.
Comments
The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of iPad and iPhones in the world should paint enough of a picture that flash is not needed or people wouldn't have bought the product knowing in advance that it doesn't and never will support flash.
Flash is just another way to slow my phone down and chew up more of my 2GB data plan.
3/4 of all web video is Flash based
The best advertising is Flash based
The best interactive content is Flash based
All The best movie sites are done in Flash
Flash is extensively used by ALL the big boys. For a reason.
People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.
ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.
Flash is in the past. It has not hurt Apple not supporting Flash. Each day that goes by more and more smart creators are using less and less Flash. Believe you me, Adobe knows this. That is the reason for the complaint with the FTC .
More random personal attacks in the absence of substance from the man who insists that "gross profit" is not a form of profit.
You just don't know when to quit....
He's probably just projecting out... let him be.
I understand that, for example, I don't know if the cellular mergers have benefited anyone but the cellular companies, where it's closer to an oligopoly than it was before. I realize some countries have fewer cellular companies, but those countries generally have far smaller populations as well.
And the banks. Don't forget how we ended up with "too big to fail."
As Millmoss has pointed out, nothing at all may come out of it.
The recent FTC settlement with Intel is instructive I think. Intel agreed to discontinue pricing practices that they never even admitted that they'd ever used. Both Intel and AMD have declared themselves pleased with the outcome. Probably AMD is more pleased, but Intel is saying that the settlement doesn't harm their business.
But according to some, we always have to wail and moan about the Big Bad Government, even when they do something useful. In fact I've long suspected that the real fear is that the government does useful things, which makes it so much harder to sensibly argue that everything the government does is fundamentally awful and we should always be against it.
No; I didn't make an assertion like Monstrosity did.
I'm simply asking a question people; settle down.
My Dad always told to be polite when engaged in a battle of wits and check to make sure that your opponent is armed.
I just might need to make an exception in your case....
It would be one thing if Apple was just prohibiting Flash, but is not the case. It was the media that turned this into a Flash vs. Apple fight.
NO 3rd party run time engines can be installed. There is no Adobe AIR, no Microsoft Silverlight, no Firefox, or Opera
Actually, Opera is available in the App Store.
FTC ought to just bud-out. Government only makes matters worse and makes a mess of things. Government is the PROBLEM, NOT the solution!
If Adobe really wants Flash on iPhone, release it on Cydia, OR make an Adobe Flash phone.
The government's job is to ensure that nothing anti-competitive is going on. They should do that. Monopolies should not be permitted to exist.
However, the issue at stake here is that there is no monopoly to speak of.
I can't believe after 160+ comments people still don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
There is actually very little information in this thread that would help a novice understand that difference.
Care to shed some light from your perspective?
Another point that bears repeating here. Adobe doesn't seem to have a clue regarding the anger many users, let alone developers, have had with many of their Mac products over the years. And in many cases, the true can be said of the Windows side, at least from a support stance. Don't believe me? Well, then ask any IT professional at any large corporation.
Point blank: Adobe stinks at backwards compatibility. Always has, and apparently always will. It just might be why many of us want to stay as clear of any form of Flash as possible.
Adobe needs to shut up and get over it. Apple can choose what they want to support on their system.
The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of iPad and iPhones in the world should paint enough of a picture that flash is not needed or people wouldn't have bought the product knowing in advance that it doesn't and never will support flash.
Flash is just another way to slow my phone down and chew up more of my 2GB data plan.
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to use Flash?
I'm curious as to why you believe that people buying an iPhone or an iPad even think about whether Flash is installed on them. Do the tens of millions of computer users out there care if the video they're watching is a Flash video? Do the majority of those users deliberately delete Flash from their computers?
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
If an iPhone owner (you for example) doesn't want Flash for the experience that's available on the Mac, then you can choose not to install it. Then Flash won't "slow your phone down", or "chew up your data plan".
You see how that works? Choice. Flash wouldn't be compulsory. You would be able to choose to not have Flash on your iPhone even though people who wanted it would be able to have it.
That's the issue.
Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform. And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
If SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. For the same reasons he claims he won't have it on iOS. But he hasn't. He's full of it.
Then click on the link, where the Flash spokesperson explained what went wrong:
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2...ng-on-android/
I'll quote some of it for you:
I'm not justifying the FTC's investigation, but if you're going to post something, post the rest of it too.
If you think that the media hyped up the antenna issue with Apple, with some articles making this whole affair seem like BP's Oil Spill, then you should not pay any attention to this.
Just because Flash 10.1 crashes in a presentation isn't reason to simply dismiss it. Adobe deserves a chance to make things work with Flash on smartphones. I gave Apple a chance to make things work with the iPhone 4 and I owe Adobe at least that much.
Now with that said, if there is some RELIABLE, STATISTICAL STUDY to show that Flash Player for mobile phones is not very reliable, then that's a different matter.
Also, let me say that I understand Apple's stance on Flash and I am appalled at the types of comments I am hearing about Apple with regards to this issue, especially when those same people look the other way when Microsoft does far, far worse.
Actually, Opera is available in the App Store.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Opera on iOS is not a browser per sé but an app that uses the services provided by Apple's Safari browser. So in essence, it's an overlay on Safari rather than being a browser in its own right.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Opera on iOS is not a browser per sé but an app that uses the services provided by Apple's Safari browser. So in essence, it's an overlay on Safari rather than being a browser in its own right.
Actually it doesn't use Apple's rendering engine.
It's all rendered and compressed by Opera on their server.
Actually it doesn't use Apple's rendering engine.
It's all rendered and compressed by Opera on their server.
Thanks for the heads-up. Consider me educated on the topic.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
Absolutely 100% dead ON!!!! Great post!
Away from where SJ is stopping you from having it, as you say.
Could it be because it doesn't exist, in which case Adobe would be stopping you, like they stop Blackberry owners from having it.
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to use Flash?
I'm curious as to why you believe that people buying an iPhone or an iPad even think about whether Flash is installed on them. Do the tens of millions of computer users out there care if the video they're watching is a Flash video? Do the majority of those users deliberately delete Flash from their computers?
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
If an iPhone owner (you for example) doesn't want Flash for the experience that's available on the Mac, then you can choose not to install it. Then Flash won't "slow your phone down", or "chew up your data plan".
You see how that works? Choice. Flash wouldn't be compulsory. You would be able to choose to not have Flash on your iPhone even though people who wanted it would be able to have it.
That's the issue.
Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform. And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
If SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. For the same reasons he claims he won't have it on iOS. But he hasn't. He's full of it.
All of the sites below will have to, as HBO has done, make a new interface for mobile devices, and more than likely 2: 1 each for phones and tablets. That?s a total of 3, for the same info and/or experience.
Now on the other hand, if they decide to use HTML5 & javascript, they just might get away with only 1, by just targeting the end users browser with a CSS switch.
NOTE: actually, a number of the current Apps on the AAS, as well as on the Android could and should be web apps anyway.
Top 10 Best Flash Websites of 2010
1 | Moodstream | Getty Images = Should be an App.
2 | Monoface = Should also be an App... and fairly easy for a developer to convert to HTML5/CSS3
3 | Waterlife = Really nice site... too bad it doesn?t offer any other way to get information about their documentary other than through their Flash interface.
4 | Marc Ecko = Also nice... but is it necessary? Especially when trying to get usable info (like contact) it needs to open a separate HTML window anyway.
5 | HBO - Home Box Office = Only site to ?degrade gracefully? and offer a choice for mobile users, or plain HTML... or, ?there?s an App? link to download.
6 | Get The Glass = Worthless... but pretty.
7 | AgencyNet Interactive = Uh oh... nice stuff. But is it useful? And wow are they tied to Flash in a big way!
8 | 2Advanced Studios = Nice futuristic design. Far too busy though, and absolutely unusable on anything other than a desktop.
9 | Section Seven Inc. = Shows off Flash "capabilities" and nothing else worthwhile ... or READABLE!
10 | Dave Werner's Portfolio = Could see this as an app or eBook/Magazine Album. talented designer though(!)
Just my take.
Just because you may not be familiar with the current version of ActionScript, or don't know how to use it, does not mean anything. That would be like me saying about Objective-C (with which I'm not familiar) "That seems really hard and unintuitive, it's shite."
As I thought when you made your assertion, it's baseless hyperbole (but thanks for your input).
Oh whatever.I know both systems very well. And it makes no odds whatsoever if I am unfamiliar with the latest version of Flash or not. I do not need to justify to you or anyone. I'm very much aware of the advantages of Cocoa , which is so far advanced of Flash it makes this very conversation ridiculous.
Despite what you may think, a framework lives and dies by it's philosophy and vision (I have created a few in my time). This is not just my personal preference, there is clearly a higher level of thought that has contributed to the creation of Apples tools.
With Flash, every day would be a chore, the framework and language would change like the wind because the company lacked focus and direction, jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon like headless chickens.
With Cocoa/Objective C, it's stable as hell, and you have the speed of high level programming, yet can interchange naturally with a wealth of powerful low level C based API's. Not even in the same ballpark mate.
Farewell. And good luck with your next career. I should start looking now if I were you.
PS: You really should be comparing HTML 5 with Flash. They are both designed to run on multi platforms, yet Adobe has proved consistently that it can't even get that right, dragging their feet, making excuses, passing the buck like the dip shits they are and will always be.
Being platform agnostic, which it does terribly, is the only feature Flash has going for it. And now there is an open alternative.
I would just like to end this conversation with one praise for Adobe (well actually Macromedia) I'm quite fond of the timeline based method of working in flash. I have repeatedly badgered Apple over the years to introduce a timeline based tool to its suite, and I'm still convinced that it is on it's way, combined with Quartz Composer, one day, fingers crossed.
HTML5 is JUST starting to support the API's needed to take it beyond simple text. a year ago, it was barely something worth talking about beyond an alternative way to stream video.
If flash was removed from all web content today, there is NOTHING that is ready to fill everything it can do. Yes, it's going to fade, and yes, HTML5 will be superior to it. But not today.
Uhm, yeah, I think my point was that we are better off without "everything it can do" or at least without everything that's been done with it. Well, that and that the 5-10 years estimate is wrong and Flash has about 2-5 years of life left.
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
No one can force Apple to develop porting tools, but if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close. Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
Either the App Store business model is within the law or it isn't. If it is, and it certainly seems to be, then the whole "porting" issue you raise is moot.