Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +6
   04/13, 03:08pm | report spam | close reply

   rumors, right

   Like why pay attention to such things. Probably a rumor from a guy in a mail room.

Comment buried. Show
1. QualleyIV

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +20
   04/13, 03:10pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   If you can't compete, sue.

   Here's an idea, hire less lawyers and more programmers. I find it interesting how Adobe ALL OF A SUDDEN decides that it really wants to make the Mac (and the iPhone) a first class citizen with respect to flash. MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT FIVE YEARS AGO. It's not like we're all over here on the Mac hating on Adobe's products. There are plenty of solid Adobe offerings. That said, they do make stuff that just sucks (e.g. Premier) and Apple SHOULD kill it if it can...

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -11
   04/13, 03:17pm | report spam | close reply

   Article

   The statement is somewhat contradicted by Adobe Product Evangelist Lee Brimelow's own remarks, as he stressed that the company wouldn't retaliate by pulling Mac apps.
   
   A lawsuit isn't the same as pulling Mac apps. There is no contradiction, unless you think that they meant they wouldn't "retaliate" at all.
   
   And I wouldn't call this retaliation.
   
   where a reliance on third-party development tools left Adobe and Microsoft with software that had to be largely rewritten to work on Intel processors.
   
   And how is that Apple's problem or concern? And without those third-party compilers, the programs would have needed to be largely rewritten at the time they initially were working on converting to OS X, which would have delayed their products then.
   
   although it has been equally argued that the change encourages use of iPhone-specific features.
   
   Well, that was argued by Jobs, not really anyone else.
   
   And maybe Apple should listen to their users. You know, one of the main complaints about Quicken for Mac is (a) it lacks all the features of the Windows version, and (b) the data file isn't cross-platform. Very few people seemed to care that Quicken was a 'native' Mac app vs. a port. Oh, and have you heard all the grumblings over the completely redone Quicken 2010 for Mac? Sure, they started from the ground up. But it is also less capable in so many ways than it's Mac predecessor, let alone the Windows version.
   
   But at least it's developed in xCode! Apple must be thrilled.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -17
   04/13, 03:23pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: If you can't compete, sue.

   And that's the problem. They aren't even allowed to compete. Apple has basically said "You can't use any Adobe tools for the iPad". Therefore they might have to sue to try to get the right to compete.
   
   I find it interesting how Adobe ALL OF A SUDDEN decides that it really wants to make the Mac (and the iPhone) a first class citizen with respect to flash.
   
   First off, this has nothing to do directly with Flash.
   
   Second, who says that have not wanted to improve Flash on OS X. The problem might be that Apple was unwilling to aid them in that effort (if the APIs can't support what they need to do, they have to write their own and use the CPU instead of the GPU for stuff, slowing everything down). Oh, right, can't be Apple's fault, must by Adobe.
   
   

Comment buried. Show
1. WiseWeasel

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 1999

   +8
   04/13, 03:36pm | report spam | close reply

   Yeah Right

   Good luck with that, Adobe. Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile phones or tablets, or the software that runs on such devices. Adobe is free to compete with Apple by making their own cell phones, or by partnering with competing device makers. There's no reason Apple should be forced by the courts to allow anything they don't want on the iPhone platform.
   
   Once Apple is controlling 90% of the US mobile device market, then we can talk about getting the courts to look into not only Apple's lock on what can go in the App Store, but also the fact that the App Store is the only means of software distribution, Apple's lock on mobile payment processing at that point, unfair access to demographic and user info for their advertising business, and any number of facets to Apple iPhone business. Until then, however, Adobe will have to grin and bear it, and see how they can target iPhones in other ways (HTML5).

Comment buried. Show
1. iphonerulez

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2008

   -9
   04/13, 03:37pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Let me get this straight...

   Suppose a car manufacturer was selling a line of sports cars and a tire manufacturer decided on its own that they wanted to build tires for that line of cars. The auto manufacturer decides that they don't want to use that brand of tires for, let's say, lower-than-standard quality reasons. Now even though those tires would work on other manufacturers cars and the tire manufacturer wouldn't be stuck with useless tires, could the tire manufacturer sue and actually stand a chance of winning such a case? I'm not sure if this is a good analogy or not, but it just seems that if the auto manufacturer never committed to or drew up a contract to use those tires in the first place, how is that something worth taking to court.
   
   This suit may be just a rumor, but if it isn't I'm just asking if such a case would have any validity in proving Apple was at fault.

Comment buried. Show
1. WiseWeasel

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 1999

   +5
   04/13, 04:01pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: Let me get this straight...

   The analogy doesn't work very well; tires are very different from software, due to the fact that tires are historically standardized while native software must be custom-tailored for the platform it runs on. That said, there would be nothing stopping a car company from patenting a new type of tire attachment, and then only licensing it to a single tire manufacturer. The market typically frowns on that type of behavior, because it makes components significantly more expensive, and so the problem tends to be self-regulating.
   
   If the new tire comes to dominate a market, becoming a standardized part across a significant portion of the car market, and other tire manufacturers can demonstrate that their business is being harmed by anti-competitive behavior, because the car manufacturer won't license it to them for the same rate it charges the first tire manufacturer, then there's a lawsuit. That's a far cry from this case, however, as the iPhone doesn't even have any tires, to stretch the analogy, and Adobe is trying to force Apple to sell tires when Apple's already moved on to vector-thrust flight.

Comment buried. Show
1. facebook_Ted

   Via Facebook

   Joined: Apr 2010

   +15
   04/13, 04:02pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Terrible analogy

   iphonerulez - that's a terrible analogy.
   
   Look at it this way. How come there aren't any Flash games available for the Xbox 360, Playstation or Wii? Because none of those platform's owners will allow them. The consoles have much more horsepower than the iPad/iPhone, and yet those platform owners don't allow games to be developed on their systems in Flash. When you sign up to develop games for Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, you sign an agreement. I haven't read any of those agreements, but I'm assuming they are as restrictive as Apple's (probably even more so).
   
   Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on here. They rolled the dice hoping Apple wouldn't block their Flash packager, and they lost. It was a foolish gamble, and they lost.

Comment buried. Show
1. climacs

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Sep 2001

   +14
   04/13, 04:08pm | report spam | close reply

   kill flash

   can't happen soon enough
   

Comment buried. Show
1. ElectroTech

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2008

   +4
   04/13, 04:17pm | report spam | close reply

   Energy usage

   Adobe has made a few changes to some good products but it is time that they spend some time and money fixing other lagging product.
   
   Energy use has not seemed to be on Adobe's radar and it makes it necessary to keep buying new hardware for these energy hungry titles.
   
   I am going to skip this offering because it doesn't have any real and meaningful changes. Adobe's refusal to deal with energy use seems criminal.

Comment buried. Show
1. RoosterJuice

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2010

   -10
   04/13, 04:31pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Officially

   Any respect i've gained for Apple as a company in recent years is now lost. I hope Adobe whoops their asses.

Comment buried. Show
1. luckyday

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2008

   -3
   04/13, 04:51pm | report spam | close reply

   Tire analogy

   This would be more like you buying a car from Chrysler and them telling you that you can't put on whatever tires you want a few years down the road.
   
   Apple not wanting flash on the iphone is one thing. I think that is within their right. But not allowing developers to code in flash and then convert it, is anti-competitive and there is legislation in the US which governs anti-competitive behavior and you don't need to have a monopoly for it to be applicable.

Comment buried. Show
1. leamanc

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2003

   -1
   04/13, 05:23pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Sue for what?

   Anti-competitive practices? They may get a judge or jury to buy that with the right lawyers, but I don't think there is any kind of precedent for this situation. I don't think you can force a hardware maker to support a programming language that they don't want on their platform. If you can, our legal system is more screwed than I thought.

Comment buried. Show
1. aristotles

   Grizzled Veteran

   Joined: Jul 2004

   +3
   04/13, 05:44pm | report spam | close reply

   The real reason flash continues to suck on OS X.

   Jobs was right, Adobe is being lazy. They could support OS X and linux with a similar speed as windows but that would mean having to refactor their codebase to support video acceleration on OS X using corevideo and whatever they would use on linux.
   
   Right now, their code base contains optimizations for windows but not other platforms.

Comment buried. Show
1. dimmer

   Mac Enthusiast

   Joined: Feb 2006

   0
   04/13, 06:29pm | report spam | close reply

   Flash

   Flash via a backdoor is still Flash. And Apple have been very, very clear that they won't allow that. If the CS5 export is a valid xCode project, then there is probably no issue: but from what I hear, that isn't the case.
   
   The power-saving and CPU saving multi-tasking in iPhone OS 4 is due, in part, to being able to "understand" the application being executed: hence the requirement that the app be "understandable" -- no-one writes to the kernal.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +3
   04/13, 06:38pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: terrible analogy

   How come there aren't any Flash games available for the Xbox 360, Playstation or Wii? Because none of those platform's owners will allow them.
   
   First of all, people, this is not about Flash being banned from the iPhone. This is about telling developers they can't use a third-party product to produce binaries.
   
   So, how about the question: Does the xbox, Playstation, etc, ban any/all games because they weren't written in a specific language in a specific development environment? Because that's the question.
   
   The consoles have much more horsepower than the iPad/iPhone, and yet those platform owners don't allow games to be developed on their systems in Flash.
   
   Well, you don't develop any games on their systems. You develop on computers to run on systems. And while they may not include flash, neither do the programs you would create using Adobe's export tool.
   
   Oh, but why bother with the actual story. We'll make up what we think it's about and run with it, because it is far easier to do that.

Comment buried. Show
1. jpellino

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 1999

   +5
   04/13, 07:15pm | report spam | close reply

   Sillier and sillier...

   First, Adobe shoots themselves in the foot by not using Xcode and spends a year sans intel apps. Then, they continue to ignore any sensible development wisdom and continue to patch Flash rather than rewrite and thereby continue to ship a buggy, nowhere-near-optimized "platform".
   
   And they think lack of Flash on the iPhone is their big problem?
   
   Their strategy is pretty transparent - late to the dance, they want to force their way into someone else's success and hope to catch up to the rest of the world. They should call Rob Glaser and get an object lesson on just how futile it is to try and sue Apple into accepting a failed model rather than understanding where the industry is going and getting on a successful path.
   
   They can make far more money shipping great applications than they can by bullying anyone into accepting their so-so ones.

Comment buried. Show
1. bvz

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2001

   +6
   04/13, 07:56pm | report spam | (2 replies) close | reply

   Let's have an intelligent conversation about this

   It seems kind of sad to rank down people for dissenting. If you do not agree with an opinion, please post a reasoned and thoughtful response. Simply voting down something you do not agree with seems counter-productive. It has the feeling of a political debate here in the U.S. where dissent is to be shouted down rather than considered.
   
   So: Now for the comment that will cause this post to be voted down.
   
   Like testudo said, this is not about Flash being banned from the iPhone. Under CS5 Flash applications are compiled to become native applications. Once they are native apps, what is the difference between them and native apps created from within XCode?
   
   I have had native apps crash on me over and over. I have had native apps that use a completely non-native looking UI (games especially). I have had native apps that weren't worth the bits they were printed on.
   
   I have also developed apps using Appcelerator Titanium that allow for specific, iPhone only features to be added even while cross-compiling to Android.
   
   Why are apps going to be judged on the tools used to create them vs. the merits of the app itself? If the issue is power usage, then set usage limits in the app approval process. If the issue is the ability to properly suspend or background an app, make the ability to correctly do that part of the approval process. If the issue is the stability of the app, well I suspect the ranking system of the app store would be adequate as users shy away from low-ranked apps.
   
   What I am saying is that there seem to be mechanisms in place to handle bad apps (or somewhat, anyway... there are plenty of bad apps already on the app store). Why put in a restriction that arbitrarily targets some apps completely unrelated to their actual performance?

Comment buried. Show
1. Roehlstation

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +2
   04/13, 09:24pm | report spam | close reply

   Simple Message for Adobe

   Clean up Flash.

Comment buried. Show
1. facebook_Shaw

   Via Facebook

   Joined: Apr 2010

   -1
   04/13, 09:54pm | report spam | close reply

   No Real Legal Argument

   Adobe has no real legal theory to stand on here. Will be an interesting case to watch though. My bet is that it will be disposed of quickly.

Comment buried. Show
1. facebook_Mike

   Via Facebook

   Joined: Apr 2010

   0
   04/14, 09:10am | report spam | close reply

   The next thing

   The next thing you know, the virus creators will be suing to allow their creations to installed on all computers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -3
   04/14, 03:09pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: Sillier and sillier...

   First, Adobe shoots themselves in the foot by not using Xcode and spends a year sans intel apps. Then, they continue to ignore any sensible development wisdom and continue to patch Flash rather than rewrite and thereby continue to ship a buggy, nowhere-near-optimized "platform".
   
   When, exactly, should Adobe have 'switched' to XCode? Because whenever they 'should' have done it, there would have been a long delay with whatever next version of their software. Oh, but why bother with such mundane things as "cost" and "money" and things. Developers should just always keep updating their code, right?
   
   But the problem you don't mention is how Apple also screwed over Adobe. By announcing Carbon 64, Adobe was geared to keep a Carbon app (which they had) that needed to be migrated to xCode. But then Apple nixes 64-bit carbon. So now Adobe has to rewrite not just for xCode, but also Cocoa, which is a completely different ball of wax.
   
   Oh, right, regardless of what Apple said, Adobe should have known Carbon was a dead-end street and just gone straight to Cocoa.
   
   And, the same problem arises. When do you do it, how much will it cost, and how long of a delay will this put on your software?

Comment buried. Show
1. dimmer

   Mac Enthusiast

   Joined: Feb 2006

   -1
   04/17, 02:43pm | report spam | close reply

   Well

   "By announcing Carbon 64, Adobe was geared to keep a Carbon app (which they had) that needed to be migrated to xCode. But then Apple nixes 64-bit carbon."
   
   When did Apple announce a 64 bit version of Carbon? They did make very clear that Carbon was a transition technology, not a long-term one. Adobe have been dragging their heels for years on OS X -- for Apple to create and maintain a 64 bit Carbon just for Adobe would have been a bad business decision.

Comment buried. Show
1. chirpy22

   Junior Member

   Joined: Jan 2006

   0
   04/19, 08:56pm | report spam | close reply

   Flash Conversion

   Testudo and anyone else that says this conversion becomes a native app... Have you actually played around with CS5 yet to legitimize this, or are you taking Adobe's word for it? Because I don't see a way that Actionscript could be automatically converted int C or C++ or whatever that easily. My guess is that the final app produced would be a Flash application with Actionscript that is wrapped within an iPhone native wrapper app, much the same way that the Flash plugin allows Flash content to be viewed within a browser.
   I don't buy that these are 100% native code apps unless someone can prove it to me.