iPhone OS 4

[photon]

Well Apple has a very clear history of behaviour with respect to developers and decisions.

I don't doubt Adobe was in contact with Apple during the process of developing CS5, but in big companies like that it's easy to have one part happily answering questions one way right up until the day Jobs walks on stage and announces the EULA change.

Because while Adobe is big enough to plow ahead and try and maneuver things to make Apple look bad to compel them to play nicely or whatever, the other smaller developers who were doing similar things would be in no such position.. if they had any inkling that it wasn't kosher they would have been out of there that afternoon.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't doubt Adobe was in contact with Apple during the process of developing CS5, but in big companies like that it's easy to have one part happily answering questions one way right up until the day Jobs walks on stage and announces the EULA change.

Exactly. I'm just wondering at what point, or if at all, Adobe was made aware of Apple's plans to block their product. The wording of the clause in the SDK seems specifically reverse engineered for blocking cross-compilers. It's not one of those typical lawyer cover your ass phrases ( like "we will not be held liable for any loses encountered when using our product"). So at some point some engineers and lawyers got together and decided on the best way to block Flash -- either Apple was trying to block Adobe specifically and other cross-compilers were collateral damage or Flash was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back in regards to Apple not like cross-compiling in general.

What I'm trying to get at is that if Apple knowingly let Adobe continue developing a product that they knew they were going to render useless before it even saw the light of day when Adobe could have instead invested the same resources on competing with Apple, perhaps that will be part of the arguments Adobe brings against Apple in a lawsuit. And again, that's why whether Apple has a monopoly on the mobile app market is important -- because without a monopoly the product is not effectively useless; with a monopoly it is.

Again, I'm no lawyer, so I don't even know if that can be argued as a savy (albeit it ruthless) business strategy or anti-competitive.

[photon]

Heh, I think Adobe found it at the same time the rest of us did.. watching Gizmodo's liveblog!

[BlackEleven]

Best, most level-headed article I've read on the subject:

http://www.devwhy.com/blog/2010/4/12...framework.html

He brings up a few points discussed already in this thread, but many that haven't as well. It's worth the read.

[photon]

I haven't read the whole article yet but he misses the whole point in the chunk I did read. Flash CS5 isn't a runtime environment, and the EULA change isn't to block Flash from the iPhone.

I'll read more of it later.

[mykalberta]

It was a good article if what he wrote was true.

Apple doesnt want to have to worry about backwards compatibility issues. Anyone who uses Windows can see why they would take a hit on the chin now to save themselves alot of pain later on.

[photon]

It works the opposite direction as well, if Apple makes a significant API change that breaks a large # of apps, then working with Adobe or MonoTouch to fix the compiler will fix a large # of apps in one big swath, rather than having to depend on thousands of different individual developers on thousands of different code bases to develop thousands of individual and unique fixes for their apps.

Plus that's the whole reason for betas; developers read the new APIs and make the proper changes and try their app on the new platform and fix anything that's broken.

Plus the article mashes together the idea of the Flash CS5 being a compiler for apps and the idea of a runtime environment and the simple "putting Flash on the iPhone", so the argument isn't completely clear.

But there are some interesting points.

[Flaming Choy]

Probably the wrong thread to put this, but you can run android on your iphone now. Maybe this will kill the iPhone vs. Android phone debate?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/21/a...ted-to-iphone/

Pretty neat, but still a work in progress

[FanIn80]

Flash compiler done?

Adobe Flash Platform project manager Mike Chambers yesterday offered on his blog a detailed explanation of his and Adobe's view of Apple's change of heart, noting that while Packager for iPhone will continue to ship in Flash Professional CS5, Adobe is ceasing investments on the feature for the future.

While it appears that Apple may selectively enforce the terms, it is our belief that Apple will enforce those terms as they apply to content created with Flash CS5. Developers should be prepared for Apple to remove existing content and applications (100+ on the store today) created with Flash CS5 from the iTunes store.

We will still be shipping the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5. However, we are not currently planning any additional investments in that feature.

I have mixed feelings on this. I've been thinking about this a lot over the last week, and while I'm not at all a fan of anything Adobe does, I'm also not not a fan of pushing would-be-developers towards other platforms.

Having said that, I'm still in favour of native development... Aaaargh. I'm still all over the place on this.

Anyway, here's an interesting rebuttal from Apple:

"Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," said spokeswoman Trudy Miller in a statement.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/21/...icense-change/

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I have mixed feelings on this. I've been thinking about this a lot over the last week, and while I'm not at all a fan of anything Adobe does, I'm also not not a fan of pushing would-be-developers towards other platforms.

Having said that, I'm still in favour of native development... Aaaargh. I'm still all over the place on this.

Flash CS5 creates native iPhone applications, so it is native development, just with some more abstraction and code.

And it's an odd and amusing response..

Adobe: Here's a great compiler to make iPhone applications using the language flash developers are familiar with!
Apple: We're changing our EULA so now we won't allow that even though we allowed it before.
Adobe: That's not fair!
Apple: We're Apple and we can do what we want.
Adobe: Fine! We aren't going to make a product that does what you are disallowing anymore. So there.
Apple: ...

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Anyway, here's an interesting rebuttal from Apple:

Which is amusing because it has nothing to do with what Flash CS5 does for iPhone applications. It's also amusing because Apple is a proponent of a completely closed ecosystem when it suits them, restricts people from using other tools (even open ones), but then criticizes others for doing the same thing (doing it before Apple even). And it's also not completely accurate, some aspects of Flash are open.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

...it is native development, just with some more abstraction and code.

That sounds like that whole "0.9 = 1" thing.

"0.9 is 1, just with some more abstraction and math."

[photon]

More like 2 + 3 = 5, and 1 + 1 + 3 = 5, but you aren't allowed to use 1's so you can't come to 5 by 1 + 1 + 3.

Or 0.9999repeating = 1 is true, except it isn't because even though they are equal and have the same end result we just say it isn't true.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

It was a good article if what he wrote was true.

Apple doesnt want to have to worry about backwards compatibility issues. Anyone who uses Windows can see why they would take a hit on the chin now to save themselves alot of pain later on.

That explains part of the answer.

Doesn't explain why they're so fundamentally 'moral' and not allowing porn on the iPhone. Well, except for those specific apps they like.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Azure

Doesn't explain why they're so fundamentally 'moral' and not allowing porn on the iPhone. Well, except for those specific apps they like.

I have lots of porn on my iPhone...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

I have lots of porn on my iPhone...

Yeah, but you can't get it through the App store.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, but you can't get it through the App store.

And you know the neat thing about that? I don't have to.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

And you know the neat thing about that? I don't have to.

Nor do I have too on an Android phone. Oh wait, they do have an adult app store.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nor do I have too on an Android phone. Oh wait, they do have an adult app store.

That's the point though, I don't need an "adult" store.

Your clear hatred for all things Apple is getting a little old. I know Apple is off killing panda's and puppies, but perhaps we could give it a rest?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

That's the point though, I don't need an "adult" store.

Your clear hatred for all things Apple is getting a little old. I know Apple is off killing panda's and puppies, but perhaps we could give it a rest?

Nor do I. But I have that option. And Google isn't telling me that it is their moral obligation to not let me download porn apps onto an Android phone.

Hey, Apple can do what they want. Doesn't mean I have to support them. And apparently I'm not the only one considering how well Android devices have been doing.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nor do I. But I have that option. And Google isn't telling me that it is their moral obligation to not let me download porn apps onto an Android phone.

Hey, Apple can do what they want. Doesn't mean I have to support them. And apparently I'm not the only one considering how well Android devices have been doing.

To me coming into an Apple thread and constantly telling people they kick puppies is almost as bad as someone coming into a thread about a former hair band front man having a brain hemorrhage and trolling.