Slashdot Mirror
Will Adobe Sue Apple Over Flash?
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iron-bound determination to keep Adobe Flash out of any iWhatever device is about to blow up in Apple's face. Sources close to Adobe tell me that Adobe will be suing Apple within a few weeks."
In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecurt framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Adobe's in this position because Flash is the #1 cause of application crashes on the Mac. If they hadn't been foot-dragging for the last decade or so, flash would be something Apple actually wanted.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.
Who's my enemy here?
Apple's iron-bound determination to keep Adobe Flash out of any iWhatever device is about to blow up in Apple's face.
"That's some nice, reasonable commentary, Lou. You'll make Editor for this!" /chiefwiggum
Boo hoo, Adobe. Apple doesn't have to support Adobe products on their platform. Apple's market share is small enough that they're not a monopoly.
If this is Adobe's attempt to get on to the iPlatform they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.
This reminds me of a line from a movie...
"But in the Iran-Iraq war you sold guns to both sides."
"Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?"
We should be pointing out more reasons for the guys to sue each other than just a petty Flash dispute, we should arm them with the means to sue each other into oblivion!
Than, if my calculations are correct, the lawyers will have made enough to buy new yachts, bolstering the economy slightly. It's really a win for everybody all around.
Submitter seems to be experiencing some joy at the prospect of a lawsuit against Apple. Indeed he/she things it's going to "blow up in their face." Woohoo! I just can't understand the prevailing love on this site for Flash. What in the hell are you fighting for? A device that prevents Flash is a Godsend to me. People act like it's a problem. Who are you people?
"It was Microsoft's operating system." Oh, right, I forgot, under modern antitrust laws you're allowed to be a total anti-competitive asshole until you become the 800lb gorilla. Part of me is hoping that Adobe wins and takes Apple to the cleaners because I don't buy the hypocrisy here that Apple should be able to get away with behavior that would have launched an online World War 3 if done by Microsoft.
Couldn't Apple just give the end user the choice? There are times when not having flash can be really irritating, but it is probably something that I would keep switched off most of the time. I am so conflicted over this one!
Apple is historically marketed towards creative professionals, who use Adobe Creative Suite to get graphic design work done. Why doesn't Adobe just abandon support for Apple? Granted, they lose out on some marketshare for the moment but they provide a disincentive for Apple's historically core market to continue to use the platform.
Adobe would have to ensure that the product on Windows is a compelling product to drive people to that platform, but they could put a dent in the market that has been a Mac safe haven for years; the graphic design market.
Suing Apple is a NEGATIVE action and is not going to get you anywhere. Instead you can hit Apple in other ways. For example, why not take a POSITIVE action and port your software to Linux, providing those of us who rely on your software a great alternative to supporting this ass hole run company.
Adobe is going to sue for what?
Company A doesn't want to use technology developed by company B. Good luck with that.
Granted, Apple is quite aggressive and loud when it comes to Flash but that is still no reason to sue them for not using it. Their device, their technology.
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
Louis Gerbarg has written up a very good explanation of the issues involved.
Quote:
Adobe is a large company with a significant, and complicated, relationship with Apple. They have frequent high level contacts and meetings. Adobe has known for quite some time about Apple's desire not to have Flash on the iPhone. There is no doubt in my mind that if they asked Apple to bless this they were rebuffed, and if they didn't ask the only reason they didn't was because they knew Apple would say no. In either event, they announced the product to their customers and sold them on an idea they were not in a position to deliver, hoping Apple would be unwilling to piss off developers by not fulfilling Adobe's promises. They tried to force Apple's hand by putting Apple in a position where in order stop the Flash they would have to do it publicly in front of Adobe's users. That was a bad call on Adobe's part.
Read the whole thing.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What grounds are they suing under? Breach of contract? Why should Apple be forced to use Adobe's stuff if they don't want to?
Free Martian Whores!
What exactly are they going to sue them for? Is there a law that says a company has to allow another company's product to interact with theirs? I mean, sure, its generally considered good form to do so, but its hardly required. Of course, rising popularity of iPhone/iPod Touch/possibly the iPad as well, none of which run Flash, means that there will be less demand to use Flash, and therefore Adobe will be able to sell fewer Flash dev kits. Well, frankly, too bad. Adobe makes some good stuff, and is probably largely responsible for the success of the Mac, but as Apple moves more towards the mobile space, they don't really need Adobe as much as they used to anymore. But, as Apple continues to push the market space away from the desktop, Adobe may need Apple more than ever.
This is actually a "story"?
It's literally some anonymous guy on the internet saying something.
There's till hope for those who were afraid they couldn't watch porn on an iPad.
I don't really care who wins the lawsuit, but the PR fight is sure to be full of blatant hypocrisy. Meanwhile Google gets to brag about how Android is open source, the Android Market isn't held hostage to the whims of Steve Jobs, and they support both Flash and HTML 5.
I'm making popcorn.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
You can be sure that there will be unintended consequences (both positive and negative) with such a precedent setting decision regarding IP.
There will also be endless appeals, and lots of lawyers lavishly spending the fees this litigation will generate.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Apple could release modern versions of the venerable MacPaint and MacDraw apps, that easily cover what 90+% of Photoshop and Illustrator users need, and include them in the iLife bundle. Hell, they could even release them as developer sample code. Quartz 2D and Core Image provide more powerful image-editing capabilities than Photoshop.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I rtfa, (crazy, I know) and don't understand on what grounds the suing will occur. I understand why Adobe is pissed off, but is Apple really in an actionable position? They own the SDK, the hardware, everything, they can do whatever the fuck they want. While this might not make them popular and people might not buy their shit, how is it that Adobe can sue them because Apple said they couldn't come over and play in the walled garden?
Granted, ianal (but neither is Jack Thompson!) but I am just totally baffled as to what grounds the alleged suit is being brought on.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Yeah, which is strange. Why would he want to attract page hits from a bunch of people using AdBlock? He just lost a LOT of money in bandwidth costs.
(Actually, probably not, since not enough people use AdBlock.)
I don't get it, what grounds would Adobe have to sue Apple? Last I heard, there were no laws against having a closed platform. Even some sort of antitrust angle doesn't make sense. The iPhone is huge, but it's hardly the only smartphone on the market.
Hmm - it seems to me that apple is raping it's customer base and trying to make it ok by using lube.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
Indeed. I recently switched to Linux on my desktop. I used to use an iPod Touch for music and podcasts, but it's now collecting dust, because Apple refuses to publish interoperability information regarding their devices (and also refuses to port iTunes to Linux, which I suspect would be a trivial effort, but I don't think they WANT iTunes on a platform that could threaten OS X one day).
Apple basically sets their stuff up so that if you buy 1 piece of Apple equipment you're going Apple all the way or the whole thing will break. There's no TECHNICAL reason for that situation, and the artificial creation of such a situation should be regulated IMHO.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
...Sources close to Adobe tell me that Adobe will be suing Apple within a few weeks...
Any law suite will take years to resolve.
Want a hint? Look at SCO vs Novell/IBM over Linux and the so called patents. This suite has taken at least 6 years. Adobe's suite will face the same fate and by the time it's over, results will be irrelevant to the situation at that material moment. The "world" will have moved on. While I think Adobe should not sit idle, I think a law suite is a shot in the dark.
Adobe failed to keep their promise to provide a (first) free (then low-cost) license for Display PostScript (which was mostly written by NeXT so that Apple had to revise their Rhapsody OS plan (which included a free run-time license for Windows), delaying Apple's then much-needed new OS and opening the crack which became Carbon.
This cost users of Apple's new OS:
- nxhosting .eps graphics .ps files
- automatic display of
- easy previewing of
- automatic previewing of PostScript fills and stroke effects
and nifty applications like PasteUp.app which depended on such.
Come on, people!
Apple is telling developers that they aren't free to choose the tools they use. Specifically you can't use a tool that would allow you to write code once and run it on any platform. Who cares about Adobe, Apple is telling *you* to take it up the ass and like it.
And there are people in Slashdot that are ok with that?
GTFO.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Because Apple does not make money on only supporting HTML5, nor are they directly hurting adobe by not allowing them play in their sandbox. The fun flash games? Don't work very well with a touch screen, if at all. I certainly do not want that experience hindering my iProduct. Not to mention that most of these iProduct have 128 megs of ram; to the newer ones with 512 (I think). Flash is a horrid memory hog. Can your computer visit eight websites with a 400-500mhz prossessor, 128 megs of ram, etc, and still feel quick if you have flash enabled?
Jobs has stated that he will not allow them on because they are bloated, buggy, horrid, and would bog down the experiance. And you know what? As much as we hate "closed" products, we opt into this one for a reason. Like one of those super cars you buy for millions, and the manufacturor keeps until you call to use it at a track for a day, then take it back. They don't want you playing around with your weight, adding, taking away, etc, because you just dropped a fortune on a perfect driving experiance for whenever you call.
The iProducts are the video game consoles of the computer world. We buy our software that has been Apple approved, and we know it works perfectly. We don't need more ram. We don't need a new graphics card. No new processor. No stress. Sure it can't do everything, but neither can my wii. But it can do everything the little games marked "wii" say they can do. No mess, no fuss. If I want a more intensive game than the consoles can handle? That's when you get a computer. Same with Apple.
Sent from my iPhone in a slow moving line.
I do not see, and the original article did not provide, any grounds for a suit.
Adobe can threaten to sue and they can actually file suit. So what? Suing is not prevailing. Adobe needs Apple more than the other way around.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hah. Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Use our product! On your product! Without paying us! Or we'll sue you!
What next? Microsoft suing a suddenly popular PC manufacturer because they've completely abandoned Windows and only ship with Ubuntu Linux, or an "advanced" option out of a list of free OSes including Fedora, CentOS, Debian, FreeBSD?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Not to mention telling Apple "No, we're not going to port Photoshop to Yellow box (even though it's based on our Display Postscript technology)". It was a nasty one-two punch that could have put Apple out of business.
I don't understand why the EU isn't all over Apple for this stuff. As ridiculous as the MS browser choice stuff is, what Apple is up to in my opinion is far worse than having IE installed by default in windows. I dislike IE as much as the next slashdotter, but how about some consistency?
Perhaps you would be taken seriously, if you were to use proper spelling and grammar...
Apple's move to not include Flash will have some very good repercussions (I hope). Video on the web tends to be delivered through Flash. We need an open standard, not through a format or application owned by a single company. This is what makes HTML5 very enticing. And with Apple's move I think we'll see a stronger push towards HTML5 for video delivery.
I also hope Apple's move will force Adobe to put more effort towards building a stable and secure platform. Flash has a long history of being a major (if not #1) reason why browsers crash. If Adobe puts more effort into stabilizing Flash you will create a better user experience on the web.
And Adobe's work to make CS5 (and later) have the ability to export to HTML5 canvas is a brilliant way to keep Flash relevant. It will allow Flash to transfer from a content delivery platform to a content development platform. Apple's move will simply push this development forward a bit.
Yeah! And while we're suing people to tell them how to run their businesses, why won't 7-11 sell me "Hot Jugs and Leather Bimbos"? I demand that their porn lockout be ended by the courts at ONCE!
Oh, and it's "their app store" and "their banning may be going too far". Lrn2spell.
Their decision to not allow Flash or Silverlight on their products is a good thing. As I've said in other threads on this same subject, Flash must die!
Flash is a horrid item with huge security holes. Apple is right to not allow it to be installed.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.
While you are at it, sue Sony for their store on the PS3 and sue Microsoft for their XBox Live and sue Verizon because they only let apps for their phones be sold via their app store, and sue...
The dogcow says "Moof!"
They have a platform worth billions. Tens of billions. They have chosen to make it closed. You as a consumer can chose to use there platform or not, that is up to you. For them, to potentially put the fate of a multi-billion dollar product in the potential hands of a company that makes development content for this multi-billion dollar platform and not control it is suicide.
You can argue the merits of closed or open but in this case the point is moot. iPhone is closed and Apple wants it that way. They are not going to put their fate in the hands of Adobe. The only legs Adobe may have to stand on is if they were lead to believe that their platform was to be accepted (written contract or verbal) and then at the 11th hour to be shafted? Well then maybe they have a case.
Hey, I was the engineering dept. manager back at VLSI Tech back when chip sets was a good business. Intel decided, rightly so, that they could not put the fate of their CPU's in the hands of 3rd party chip set vendors. In ONE product cycle (after they finally figured out how to make them) they took 90% of the PC market with their chip sets. Did it hurt? Yea, it hurt. We went from $250M/yr to $25M/yr in 12 months. I lost my job along with a host of others. That being said, I still can't fault Intel for what they did. Quite frankly I'm surprised it took them as long as it did. The case in point with Apple and Adobe is no different.
"TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
I had thought about this a few days ago, that Adobe might sue Apple. However, I can't think of any actual grounds for a lawsuit. If Adobe wins, what's to stop Microsoft from suing companies for using Linux servers instead of Windows servers? What's to stop others from doing similar things?
As much as I am angry at Apple with their tightening grip on their platforms, I hope Apple wins this. If not for avoiding the bad precedent, at least to try to get Flash off of the internet.
When you have to resort to lawyers to force someone to use your stuff...
(I've been mostly Flash-free, except for the occasional CNN.com video, for about 18 months now. It's made browsing faster, more reliable particularly in terms of virtual memory usage - Flash leaks storage like a sieve, and I don't miss cheesy animations one bit!)
Yep, I was in the same boat. I now just use a Cowon D2+ instead since it plays nice with pretty much everything via both USB-MSC and MTP.
They really truly want to rent you their products. They want to retain ownership and control, being able to prevent you from puting what you want on it.
But people don't want to rent, not even at really low prices. The Apple costs $500 and most people expect it to last two years, so Apple could have tried to renting it to us at $25/month with a two year contract and an option to renew at $5/month after that. But that would not fly, because people want to own.
So they 'sell' it to us, then try to put ridiculous restraints on it via every which way they can. Bullcrap. If we buy it, we can do whatever we want with it. Including installing Flash crap if we so choose. No one wants to rent your stuff, so stop tyring to get the benefits of renting.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
...to hogs everywhere!
is that cause they are sabotaging flash even now?
"Bring it on!"
Good luck, Jobs is above the law, consumers, any mere mortals
Apple is perfectly within their rights to not allow programs that will then run arbitrary code on their devices. No court would uphold this and im sure Apples lawyers have already done a preliminary job of putting together a case if this were to happen.
IANAL but it seems pretty airtight that Apple can decide arbitrarily what to run -on their own devices- especially when there are literally millions of phones/platforms that will let you do anything. Did Adobe really think Flash was going to be on top forever? Pretty shortsighted for a tech company if they did. With all the new ossum features in HTML5 why is anyone complaining that Apple is replacing a proprietary format with an open one anyways?
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
"Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited."
About the same as if the Win7 EULA contained something like "Applications not written in Visual-Studio are prohibited."
Apple is misusing its controll of the app-store to prohibit sale and production of third party development tools. And one of the main targets here is CS5.
What's stopping Adobe from porting Flash to iPhone, iPad, iPod?
Oh wait, they would have to make it not suck.
Flash is cool. I too have played some great flash games. But when my system goes from idle to 100% and all I did was open a web page with a flash based add, something is wrong. Why does something that takes up no more than a tenth of the web page cause my system to go to 100% cpu?
Everyone thinks Apple is the big bad wolf here. The reality is, Adobe has every opportunity to port flash and make it an outstanding piece of software. Instead they want to settle for good enough. Good enough is what has given us software that works, but requires ever increasing amounts of processor power, memory and disk space just to run at an acceptable level.
Processor, memory and more importantly battery life, are not unlimited in a mobile device. Apple is the gatekeeper so yes it does appear that they are the bad guys, but the reality is that Adobe has had every opportunity to make Flash better. Make it use less CPU, less memory and make it world class software. Instead, they've chosen to whine and complain about it.
Did Opera whine and complain about Apple's rules and how it was going to hurt them? Or did they innovate?
Adobe has every opportunity to make Flash function so well that Apple would have no problem letting it exist on the iProducts. Apple has provided the tools to write code for the iPlatforms. Adobe has access to those tools just like everyone else. The only thing stopping Adobe is Adobe. Apple has no further responsibility to make some other companies product work.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
When Apple entered the phone market, there were a number of entrenched competitors already in place. Even so, the iPhone has manage to hit what, 25% market share?
When Apple entered the portable music player market, there were a number of weaker competitors. It was the first affordable, viable, and stable digital player available. They now enjoy a 75% market share.
Now that Apple has entered the super-portable PC market, there are virtually no meaningful competitors. They are almost guaranteed a significant market share, even if their batteries start exploding. If they see market share in the super-portable arena like they do in the portable music player arena, you can bet that there will be a fair bit of scrutiny that comes down on the App Store.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This is the same concept as the Microsoft browser ballot. Apple is locking the platform to rival development platforms, same as Microsoft trying to lock the Windows platform to rival browsers. This would be like Microsoft banning Java, Javascript, Flash, Quicktime, and everything else not Microsoft. Adobe can win easily in places like the European Union. This is a big screw up for Apple and Jobs.
The EU measures against Microsoft were based on them being a de-facto monopoly, something you can't possibly say of Apple.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
iTunes is on Windows, and that threatens OSX EVERY DAY. The reason they don't is the same reason other people don't want to run on Linux - 1: it's a moving target, and 2: the DRM angle (even if it is already cracked).
*Sigh* So when you bought your iPod Touch did it not say Windows PC or Mac OS X only right? It was fairly clear on my box that there was no Linux support.
No there's no technical reason. Just practical ones. Apple doesn't want to support Linux. Many companies don't. That's their choice. You changing your OS is not the responsibility of Apple.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This what gets me with techies... They don't understand the legal framework.
Let's say I have a Mercedes, can I expect my car to be repaired by a Ford dealership? Or some dealership down the road? Answer NO. Mercedes and all of the car makers are very well in their right to repair their own cars. Just as people are very well in their right to choose whichever vehicle they want.
Apple has the right to choose whomever they want in their app store. Apple is not holding you back from buying another phone.
Microsoft on the other hand did hold people back. They said, if you sell a PC with another OS you will get worse conditions. Apple makes no such pre-conditions. This is also why I doubt Apple will be charged with being a monopoly. They have clear terms, and do not play favoritism. Apple does not say, "hey you make a RIM app and therefore I punish you." Apple says, "I don't care if you make RIM, Android or Windows apps, but if you make an iPhone app you will use the following tools."
You might not like the conditions, but you are able to choose a competitor. But if you choose Apple then STFU because you knew what you were getting into...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
First, they could make a reasonable Photoshop clone very easily. They already have all the underlying tech. They could buy a product like Pixelmator and get 90% of the functionality right out of the box TOMORROW and not sweat the cash outlay at all. It would not take much to fill in the remaining features.
Next...Did you see the iAd demo for Toystory 3? Apparently that was all HTML5. I wonder what tools they used to do it? Maybe they are cooking something up, like some kind of editor that output to HTML5 and canvas. First they will target their app store developers, but if it's good, maybe they will target traditional Flash houses.
Most people saw that demo as a salvo at Google for the mobile ad space. That's true, but I thought it was an opening shot towards flash developers. "see what you can do with html5?" Come on over and start making html5 ads for 50million captive, high income customers. If you're a small flash-ad shop, it seems like fertile fucking ground to me. What if Apple releases this dev tool for free, or for $99. Starts to make the multi-thousand dollar Adobe investment look pretty shitty.
It seems to me that the race will be for companies that produce dev tools for HTML5. I don't see a lot out there. CS5 has some capability there, but man, Adobe is blowing their chance. Instead of being the go-to guy for HTML5 dev tools, they are clinging to the flash vm and thinking about lawsuits.
Get a clue guys....Palm called and wants their business model back. We see how their strategy with iTunes syncing worked out for them.
It is simple. Flash crap is everywhere wether you want it or not. But it is trivial to get a non-iPhone phone.
So I am with Apple 100% on this. Flash has to die and die horribly.
They really got themselves to blame. Apple is just paying them back for the years Adobe did not support Flash on Apple OS/Hardware.
If Apple can kill Flash, it killed a dependency on a 3rd party provided who determines what you can and cannot do.
Quick test: If I launch a 128 bit CPU that is completely different from x86 or ARM, then will Adobe support it? No of course not. But Apple might want to do something like that one day, and it then doesn't want to have to beg Adobe to please release flash for their new product.
Apple already has enough problems with MS products not running on its OS, it doesn't want an endless number of 3rd party providers that can screw a product launch.
Doubt it? What killed Vista? Lack of 3rd party support with drivers. Why does MS still have to support 32 and 16 bit? 3rd party software vendors.
Right now, Apple can do whatever it wants with its platforms and screw any slow ass 3rd party provider.
And of course, they don't have to worry about the endless security holes in Flash or its piss poor coding standards that can bring a desktop PC to its knees, let alone a mobile phone.
Flash die!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
While historically speaking the Mac was "the best system for multimedia"
Proper use of "was" (past tense) is correct.
and that's why they sell Umm, that should be sold (you forgot to use past tense)
I don't necessarily believe that holds water anymore.
Correct.
Adobe Premier on Windows currently wears the crown of the video editing kingdom.
Sonar and Pro Tools on Windows currently wear the crowns of the DAW music production kingdom.
...there is a whole bunch of systems you can use for your work besides the Mac.
Fortunately for me, there is the Mac.
Apple has always had a closed platform, has always kept anyone from building a Mac, installing their OS, and now everyone's surprised they want to keep Flash off? The truth is that Flash is a resource hog, and the way its implemented in most sites is even worse. Apple is pushing for a new and better standard, and doesn't want to deal with John Doe who doesn't know how to properly embed a flash video in their site - I don't really see a problem with that.
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
Why didn't they choose the newer Core i3 instead of the old Core 2 Duo?
When Jobs gives testimony and demos that Flash is bloated, buggy, and slow, Adobe's stock will take a dive. They may win the case, but the PR damage won't be worth it.
Table-ized A.I.
The reality is that a correctly obfuscated Flash binary, or one compiled to C first, won't be noticeable to Apple. Apple's licensing doesn't prevent Adobe from releasing the tools; it prevents developers from attempting to submit these applications for fear of being rejected.
While Adobe probably won't get any enterprise business that way (as big companies shy away from things that could put them in litigious situations), they'd still be pissing off Apple and Apple would not sue against hundreds of small-time developers.
IMO, Adobe could even engineer and market their product in such a way that it does not 'encourage' breaking of the license. "Generate starter Objective C code, which can be integrated into your application!" It's probably a lot more development work on their end, but they're not the first ones to have to go through development hell to get around Apple's arbitrary rules.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
It's too easy for people to avoid the lock in. Don't buy an iThing and you're not locked in to their store or their syncing software. If Apple had a monopoly on portable personal computers, then you might have a point, but they're just one of many.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think it's a no brainer. Support Adobe.
Then, maybe, someone will attack Adobe about their platform.
When that happens, support them.
Remember...the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
This is vengeance AND making sure Abobe AND MS can't pull any of the same shit ever again. Abobe was very slow with Flash for Apple (and linux and bsd etc) and MS pulled development for IE and Office several times.
And that is highly risky. Apple never again wants to have to depend on a third party vendor who can decide how its products are perceived.
Suck it up Adobe, this is payment for your slowass releases for other platforms then MS. Should have done better, now people hate your guts. Well those who don't have Bill Gates dick in their mouth.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What matters is if they have market power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power) and whether they are using that market power in anti-competitive ways (price manipulation, creation of barriers to entry, etc). I think it is pretty clear that Apple has market power within the smart phone and mp3 markets. I think it is also pretty clear that they have been abusing this power to favor their own products (They used their monopoly in the mp3 sales market to lock their users into their own DRM and then force them to use apple products to play those songs).
Everybody is obsessing about Flash. Meanwhile, 9 times out of 10, it does not work on even a desktop in Mac OS X or Windows. "Do you want to abort the script?" Oh yes, please...
I can't wait for the day that my web browsing experience is totally ruined on my iPhone/iPad by Flash just like it is every single day on my desktop/laptop machines.
I would love to see Flash on my iPhone, as long as Adobe fixes it and Flash producers, especially ad makers, actually make sure it will not totally crap the bed every single time it is loaded.
Jobs is an extreme control-freak. The east-German Stasi would have been proud of him.
He will go as far as making Youtube and 90% of all applications* unavailable to his clients, just to keep total control over everything.
Sorry, but that’s completely insane from a business perspective. And without his massively extreme viral marketing, he would not survive a month with it.
Which somehow reminds me of Microsoft...
* Your reality might already be distorted here, without you knowing it, but that’s really the percentage of Apps out there that are Java based. They are so common, and they run on every single phone out there (except for the iPhone), that it’s pretty normal, to not even mention that they are Java apps.
I know because I work in the business, and am doing it myself.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Imagine Microsoft denying Apple the right to code Flash for windows or IE specifically.
Its about time Apple got sued for doing the same evil... if not more evil than Microsoft gets accused of doing.
Can I sue Adobe for releasing such a shitty Linux version? I mean, is it really too much to ask to have working full screen video and to not have the plugin crash Firefox several times a day?
Windows is already on top in that sector, so it's no threatening OS X - OS X is threatening it. Apple would be stupid not to support the OS running on 90% of the computers of the world in this regard. Right now though, OS X is THE alternative. They don't want to give a possible boost to anything that might steal that promise.
The "moving target" argument is baseless. If you're coding against OSS libraries then sure, but iTunes isn't an open source project. A regular old binary with all libraries statically compiled will work in virtually any Linux system from the last 10 years, and would likely continue to work for the next 10. There are plenty of binary distributed apps that work just fine on just about any Linux distro. Prime example that I saw lately is Hereoes of Newerth. Everything statically compiled, distributed as a single installer file. I launched the file, it installed to my home director, created a shortcut, and poof: app installed. Just as seamlessly as on Mac or Windows. Loki did the same way on their game ports. Claiming Linux as a "moving target" is just an excuse.
The DRM argument is equally baseless. Mac OS X and Windows both have just as many debuggers, compilers, and other dev tools available on them. Linux isn't some magical unicorn when it comes to breaking a DRM standard. If they can do it there, they can do it elsewhere.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I'm not being mindlessly dismissive here, but what does Adobe seek to gain here? To sway the hearts and minds of a handful of pundits while Steve Jobs rolls out products that make HTML5 development attractive?
This part is redundant, but needs to be asked, why is Adobe not fixing flash? Is it cheaper to litigate and wage a PR war than it is to fix the damn browser plugin and development tools?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
No there's no technical reason. Just practical ones. Apple doesn't want to support Linux. Many companies don't. That's their choice. You changing your OS is not the responsibility of Apple.
If they don't want to then fine, but Apple has done their very best to make sure that NO ONE ELSE supports those devices on Linux either. What rudimentary support there is has been painstakingly discovered by trial and error.
If you don't want to support Linux then at least FOLLOW A STANDARD or publish sufficient documentation so that others can. As you say, many companies don't, but it's pretty telling that just about any other MP3 player except an iPod will work just fine in Linux, because they don't do their best to obfuscate the whole thing (ie, on most of them if you plug it into the USB port, it simply reports as a USB Mass Storage device).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Play it at /.
fixed that for you... a subtle, but important, distinction.
How the hell can one company require another company to use their products? Apple wants only things written in a certain language, and that can't be used to re-execute additional code, etc etc, to be installed. Have we already forgotten /Launch from pdfs, a week later? And flash itself allows additional, non-Apple-approved, code to be run. That's the point...whether or not you or I like the policy, it's not as though Adobe is being singled out. They just feel like they are because they have such crap products that are near-monopolies themselves.
"How can you shut us out!!! We would have had our monopoly locked down if not for you...and now people are all abuzz about html5 instead! You bastards!" Yeah, I don't see how that's a legally binding thing. Ford can decide that they won't install Pioneer radios in their cars...what legal grounds would Pioneer have to suing them in to forcing them to use their product? Especially if Pioneer radios somehow broke a policy that Ford has (such as - no apps that can be used to write new apps that can be run).
I fail to see how this will blow up in Apple's face. Big tech companies sue each other all the time. It's just par for the course. Both companies are posturing and playing a public relations game. The market place will eventually show us the winner.
Even if Adobe could somehow win it would take years. By then either Apple bows to user or Android pressure and includes Flash or Flash become much less relevant.
Depends on what you are measuring. Apple is now the number 3 US company in terms of market cap. Only MS and Exxon are larger, and some are speculating they will surpass MS some time this year. http://247wallst.com/2010/04/06/apples-market-cap-may-pass-microsofts-soon/
And depending on who you read, they are getting between 7-10% of US computer sales now.
lots of speculation here that it could be a competition based case 'you won't let us play in the iPhone monopoly'.
That seems to rest on the tenuous argument that the iPhone is a monopoly of something.
There might be a stronger case for the wasted effort that Adobe put into the flash runtime.
legal argument something along the lines of:
1) I (adobe) entered into a contract with you via the developer sdk. I paid my $99
2) the rules didn't disallow me from creating my adobe runtime, and the associated flash to iPhone compiler
3) You knew I was spending a lot of time and money on this work
4) You have an implicit duty of care to me through our contract
5) You waited until I had invested a lot of time and money, then changed the rules
6) This was in breach of your implicit duty of care
of course IANAL,
wikipedia has an article on US based duty of care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care#United_States
Of course there would be endless legal wrangling about what was covered by contracts to whom, and whether apple's 'we can change watever we like' clauses in the sdk applied and whether black was white, or some law applied on sundays.
still - from a naive reading, it is clear that Apple could definitely forsee that these rules would cause harm to Adobe.
The timing seems to imply that they deliberately waited until Adobe had done the work before warning them rather than telling them early on in the game that this would not be accepted.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
This looks much like Netscape vs. Microsoft. The barrier was Windows 95, it was software.
In the Adobe vs. Apple case, it's the hardware.
... is because of the proxy platform battle. Apple is managing a couple platforms now and doesn't want any of them to depend on Adobe. I'd say that includes the Mac, because so much of the Web needs Flash. If Apple can make the Web less dependent on Flash then it doesn't matter if the Mac version of Flash sucks. The less Apple has to rely on third-party support the better for them, as they have corporate developers and a developer community (including the Open Source community) that can implement standards that are open in practice (Flash is open in theory but Adobe's implementation is the only one that matters).
I'd love to see Flash die on the Web and I think Apple would, too. So our interests are a bit aligned. But I can't say I think this is the right way to go about it.
I think arguments against compatibility layers generally are silly. There's both good and bad software made with compatibility layers; ultimately the responsibility is on developers to make the UI good. Plenty of developers will make really good and useful apps using compatibility layers, and they'll be denied. Meanwhile Apple allows lots of outright crap in their App Store -- as long as it doesn't include things like, oh, political speech. Adobe may have some success striking down the compatibility layer ban -- if there are specific, tangible problems with an app Apple has every reason to keep it out of the store, but there's no reason but spite to ban it on the basis of how it was created.
I imagine that MSFT doesnt like very much the rise of AAPL shares. They can screw Apple now and help Adobe. Imagine that Microsoft announces that Internet Explorer 9 (that will be the standard for web) will not support HTML 5 video. That means that almost all developers will cease to use HTML video and continue to use Flash. Imagine that Microsoft tells Adobe not to release flash for iBullshits even if Apple begs them in their knees. What will we see then? Customers will cease to buy a platform that only allows them to see 50% of the web.
Wow, someone finally implemented my idea for the most insidious and hateful banning method possible. Leave their account 'active', but all future posts invisible to everyone else. They'll keep on going for days, thinking they are just being ignored.
Like MicroSoft used to make it hard to use other browsers Windows. The Apple "platform" isnt quite a utility yet. Nor has pervasive market share. But its getting there.
My first though (after a brief "Sue them for what?") is that perhaps Apple should attempt a take over of Adobe. Adobe has plenty of good pro apps that would go great along side Apples pro apps.
But then I think back to what I know from having worked with Adobe. Its a highly bloated organization, not run in a very efficient manner. Their authoring tools are great, but a lot of what made them a great company doesn't seem to be there anymore. The project that I worked on with them was very poorly conceived, poorly executed and was already on its third or fourth iteration (none of them ever went anywhere beyond the pilot program I worked on).
For Apple, buying adobe could be too much of a drag, they would want them to be a subsidiary but the changes they would have to make to streamline to corporation could be more than Apple would want to bite off.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Let's say I have a Mercedes, can I expect my car to be repaired by a Ford dealership? Or some dealership
> down the road? Answer NO. Mercedes and all of the car makers are very well in their right to repair their
> own cars. Just as people are very well in their right to choose whichever vehicle they want.
You are an idiot.
I can take my Benz to any mechanic I like.
I even know "car geeks" that could fix my Benz in their driveway.
This is about the single dumbest comparison you could possibly make.
Wannabes that have probably never touched a luxury car should not perpetrate BS car analogies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unless Adobe can convince a court that the market for iPhone OS development tools is a distinct market; a market open to third parties shuttered at the last minute to kill Adobe's tools in order to protect Xcode and to push another Apple product (Macs to run Xcode).
To the extent that any technical background has been discussed, about whether Apple could allow 3rd party development packages, it's that they question whether the "multi-tasking" in iPhone OS 4.0 could be made to work safely.
From what I've gathered, the "multi-tasking" (beyond the limited number of special server processes) in iPhone OS 4.0 is really more of a fast application switching system, where the os saves and restores data state when stopping and restarting processes. Apple thinks they can safely do this for apps compiled against the Apple 4.0 developers kit. They don't think they can safely do this for any arbitrary code.
If this is correct, Adobe could say "Tell us what information you need, and we'll tell you how to find it for apps compiled using our tool". Apple might then say "If we do this for you, we would have to do this for anybody who wanted to build a 3rd party development kit; that would not be practical".
My question to Apple, if I was Adobe, would be "If our tool built binaries that followed the exact rules of your developers kit, such that iPhone OS 4.0 could not tell the difference between a binary built by us, and a binary built by our software, what would happen?"
...but it is probably something that I would keep switched off most of the time.
Whereas most people would switch it on and not think of it again, then angrily complain to Apple that their battery only lasts two hours.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Sorry, but I do drive a Mercedes. And no I am not an idiot! And no you may not take it to any dealership that you want.
Want to know why? Because Mercedes like many other car manufacturers have computers that are not being sold to other garages. And if you were to do that then your warranty would go poof!
Mercedes has very very cleverly made it such that they offer everything. And if you take advantage of it then all is good. BUT, if you decide to use outside help. Well, then things not so good. Mercedes will charge you through the nose!
Mercedes is not the only car maker to do this. I have owned a BMW as well, and they are the same.
The reality is that the car makers don't want anyone but an authorized dealership to touch their cars.
So sure you can get your neighbor to fix your Mercedes. Just don't expect to take that Mercedes to a dealership for further repair. Mercedes will know and indicate that you have problems that will cost money.
Who's the wannabe now?
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
So Adobe lawyers suing apple to force them to allow a kludge on their platform is a better approach than fixing the problems in Flash?
Sue Sony for PS3 lockdown too. And Nintendo for Wii lockdown and Microsoft for XBox 360 and future WP7 phones and so on.
You know our legal systems sucks when a company can even think about suing someone for something like this. If apple wants to keep a closed app eco system it is their choice and consumers have the choice to not use the platform. A company ought to be able to control their own products. Because the no cross-compiling stuff comes into the developer agreement and is not enforced on the system I doubt adobe has any chance. They can not force apple to host programs which apple finds crappy. They can also not force Apple to provide a way to get unauthorized third party apps on the system. It would be like saying goolge must provide a way to create native applications for chrome os. It goes against the design/architecture of the system and thus is out of the question. Apples control over the app store while probably largely for Apple to have control, is also in place as a security model. So forcing apple to allow unauthorized apps is out of the question and it seems very unlikely that the government could legally force Apple to host software that they dont want to.
Anti-competitive: maybe? Anti-crap: definitely. Wrong: no.
And I dont want flash crap or anything made with flash crap on my phone. Adobe is terrible (look at the price of photoshop and you will know they are evil) and all of their software is super buggy.
If Adobe wins I'll sue them for damaging my device. Let them fix their product first and then maybe they can be included. I should sue them anyway for damaging my computer.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
All this app and language blocking kinda reminds me of Activision making games for ATARI's console in the early 80s. ATARI tried to stop Activision from selling games for its console, the court ruled in Activisions favor opening the door for 3rd party games and clearly benefiting video game consumers over the last 30 years. Seems like this precedent would give Adobe a good shot at winning.
From now on all iProduct apps must have images taken with an iCamera and audio recorded with an iMicrophone. We can't allow any assets that are generated without one of our iDeveloper products! Forget using Photoshop, some of those pixels could contain viruses!!
Yeah ... that Java .. the one that promised to compile once and run everywhere....
It sucked. Least the user interfaces always did. There was never a native look to it. You could always tell you were staring at a Java app.
So, in a way, I'm kinda with Apple on this one. Cross - FOO to iPhone direct... no. C# -> XCode -> iPhone which uses the native interfaces. Yes.
Least that's my reading of it. There's a great deal of concern yet as no one exactly knows if environments like Unity 3D a popular 3D game creation environment which uses C# and/or JavaScript and does the C#/Javascript -> Xcode -> iPhone is actually affected by the 3.3.1 license change or not. It it's affected. Color me in the pissed off camp. But until then... it's hard to get too excited. It's like banning BASIC... yawn.
Probably because Apple is providing a main selling point for Adobe's software. Graphic design people like Apples (why? Don't ask me, I'm just a programmer). Adobe wants that market. Adobe wants to run on Apple.
Wait, now I'm confused, only one of these two have an insecure framework/product/application?
mainly because it doesn't have that buggy piece of shit that is the flash plugin installed on it
Allows me to browse the web mobile without having to download some lazy bastards 500k swf based home page
"Sources" tell me that Adobe won't sue Apple...
so i guess by sueing adobe we could bring photoshop to linux?
I'm going to side with Adobe here. To use a bad programming analogy, Apple has gone beyond the public APIs. They're trying to control how two third parties can relate with each other. There's absolutely no basis for this except that Apple is trying to kill a competitor by telling developers how they can relate to Adobe. It's an underhanded move, and if not illegal, certainly wrong.
Anybody suing Apple so they would let them release something for their platform - the times, they are a-changin'.
Really....
Show me what percentage of the media players are Apple iPods.
Then tell me they're not a de factor monopoly.
I think they can. As I would like to develop for my iPhone. And cannot because I own a PC. CS5 would have given me a path to that.
Actually, I believe there are laws that guarantee that I can bring my Mercedes to my local mechanic for repairs. In fact, there is a lawsuit going on the issue of diagnosis codes being kept secret.
And if I choose Apple, I have every right to bitch and moan and voice my opinion.
Apple will cave, and flash games will suddenly work around the apple store, and eventually java games will too.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
If you "git thar fast with the most" you win with inferior product. Existing market penetration by itself raises a barrier to entry.
Are they going to sue me for not letting them come to my house?
Do you have ESP?
*gets popcorn*
It ceases to be their platform the minute it enters my hot grubby little hands.
It is then MY platform and they can keep their hot grubby greasy slimy anti-competitive hands OFF!
Will Adobe Sue Apple Over Flash?
Do cows eat corn?
Ive been saying this for awhile, the Ipad is Apple's 'console'. It is NOT a general purpose PC anymore then the Xbox 360 or PS3 (RIP OtherOS). Sony and MS pull dick moves like this all the time on their closed platforms and very few say boo. Imagine if Apple all of a sudden said you cant Boot Camp other OS's on your Mac anymore for OS X security reasons? The computing world would burn them at the stake, Sony does it and no one says a word. Interesting.
Good-bye
Saying that Apple's relatively small marketshare should immunize it from the same standard is like saying that a street thug who murders 1 person should be treated with kid gloves because they don't have an army willing to commit genocide. Either a behavior is illegal because it's wrong or it's illegal because we want to be hypocritical busybodies.
If i take my warrantied Mercedes to a STATE CERTIFIED mechanic and he performs standard maintenance/replacement with standard parts (any manufacturer), Mercedes CANNOT void your warranty in any way. The law is EXTREMELY clear on this.
Good-bye
I dont like most flash websites. I find it annoying. I use flash swf catcher in firefox to stop flash. But these are just personal preferences.
My biggest peeve with Flash is the lazy web masters that do not provide alternate landings for people that are site impaired or with other disabilities. Screen Readers you lazy sloths. Screen Readers.
Also trying to use a web based translator is futile.
When you think of the iPhone/iPod/iPad as a game console, Adobe's case looks really moot.
Why doesn't adobe sue MS and Sony for similar reasons?
Maybe you just don't recognize sarcasm.
Infuriate left and right
"Sources close to me, that is, at the desk next to mine here at Adobe's PR agency... ."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
because they don't deserve to win on merit.
of course flash is threaded.
(single threaded heh heh)
That may put Apple out of computer business, not appliance business (iWhatever hardware).
You idiot, the music labels mandated the DRM, Apple didn't. In fact Steve Jobs issued an open later calling for the abolishment of DRM, was criticized by the music labels (and Microsoft) for that letter, and eventually got rid of the DRM altogether by pressuring the labels. If you don't know what the heck you're talking about then please don't post anything. You're just muddying the water with your false rantings.
Microsoft has been doing it for years, on the XBox 360 (and before that, on the XBox). So has Sony, with the PS3 and PSP (and the PS2 before that, and the PS1 before that). So has Nintendo with the Wii and DS (and their predecessors). If you want to write programs for their platforms, you do it their way, you have to get their approval for your applications, and you give them a cut of the profits.
Needless to say, if there was anything the least bit illegal about this, they'd all have been sued out of existence long ago.
I doubt it would be as much of an issue if Adobe could make Flash not send the cpu to 100% at times, crash (often taking the browser with it), and be insecure (by coincidence, Adobe Acrobat/PDF is the other popular attack vector).
Most people probably blame Apple each time the browser crashes. Imagine putting this same crappy implementation of Flash on a mobile device and having the device's batteries run down fast, it gets hot, and crashes a lot. Apple can read the writing on the wall, and they say "Do not want!" Adobe ran out the clock when given the chance to fix Flash. So Apple says, "Too bad, with an open alternative we'd rather support HTML5 instead of Flash."
I would also have to imagine that Adobe could have done more over the years evolving Flash into an open standard, being either what we now call HTML5 or something else. Having to use their closed proprietary, buggy, insecure plugin sucks.
When Apple introduced iPhone OS 4 with Ad support, it seemed to be another big gotcha: do we allow Flash? If we do, you know the ads (which users are already going to hate) are going to crash, use up the batteries, etc. I don't think Apple had a choice but put down the hammer and say, no, we're going HTML5 only. It's a no-win for users, developers, and Apple.
What are the benefits of having Flash supported? Well, there is existing content that uses it... Games, ads, and skinned video players, mostly. The games are keyboard and/or mouse/pointer centric generally, so they are sort of useless. Ads, well, most people wouldn't mind those going away anyways. Videos sites like YouTube are migrating to HTML5, but there are some other niche video sites (*cough*) that are Flash-only. Lastly, sites that are entirely Flash or use Flash for embellishment generally should have a static equivalence when the plug-in isn't available anyways.
That said, I'd still like the option of trying Flash on the iPhone or iPad, but still many people who might opt-in if such a thing existed would still blame Apple for the problems it causes, so I can understand how Steve might take the hard line on this.
It might be interesting to see what would come out of such a lawsuit, but as others have stated, I can't think of a legitimate reason why Adobe could sue unless there is some contract between Adobe and Apple we don't know about?
Perhaps this would be an issue... If I owned something Apple based. Both my phone and PC run Flash happily.
If you aren't prepared to buy a Mac so that you can develop for the iPhone, perhaps you aren't that serious about it? A bottom of the line MacBook and a developer membership are pretty cheap business expenses compared to many other industries. It does suck if you just want to experiment or tinker first, of course.
Microsoft is keeping Flash off of Windows Phone 7. Is WW3 starting yet?
so by the definition you cite Apple does not have a monopoly. That's not to say they won't have one if they bury RIM, Android, Windows mobile, but they're not there yet. They never will be, if iPhone stays tied to AT&T.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
That bite from the Apple logo is bitten out by Adobe.
This is all about getting your app published in the App store.
Apple is the publisher here. No news that they are nearly arbitrary in what they accept or reject. Similar to a book publisher.
Can you sue to get published??
I would think not, not even there were no where else to get published (and there is).
I can't imagine this is seriously something Adobe is considering.
It is nearly as bad as the childish rant from their platform evangelist.
She's not the first. I knew a MUD that did that, too, long ago. There are probably others.
And what do media players have to do with the subject at hand?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
There wasn't any iWhatever hardware in 1997.
Microsoft would be in trouble... Just those two getting in trouble for it... it's never going to happen.
and also refuses to port iTunes to Linux, which I suspect would be a trivial effort,
I think you have funny ideas about what "trivial" means. Porting to Linux and maintaining it would require at least a few extra full-time staff, probably more, considering that you would also have to port the supporting tools, like Quicktime. And even if it was ported, it would only generate whining among Linux users that it's not Free and Open Source. Even if it was Free and Open Source, whenever you mention iTunes to a Linux user, they whine about how bloated it is.
What, exactly, is the upside for Apple of porting iTunes to Linux?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Because Mercedes like many other car manufacturers have computers that are not being sold to other garages.
My Mercedes doesn't have any computers or electronic equipment in it, so I don't see how that's relevant.
And if you were to do that then your warranty would go poof!
What warranty?
... and then they built the supercollider.
apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.
While you are at it, sue Sony for their store on the PS3 and sue Microsoft for their XBox Live and sue Verizon because they only let apps for their phones be sold via their app store, and sue...
Do you even know what this discussion is about? it's nothing to do with the app store serving only the iFashionable platforms, it's about utilising that fact to prevent competition by denying applications on non-technical grounds. PS Store, XBox Live, etc... do not do this! If you build a cross-platform application for PS and XBox there is no problem with regard to the PS Store or XBox live, however on the App Store this is forbidden.
Has anyone here taken in the fact that 3.3.1 only applies to iPhone OS4, and that perhaps it actually has a technical reason for existence?
*looks around* Oh... this is slashdot. *face palm*
Ok. Have you ever seen an OSX crash log from a Flash app? It's basically one big block of barf. Ever tried to sample a Flash app? ..Barf..
Now compare that to the crash log of an Obj-C app. In those logs I can look through each individual thread and see which thread was doing what, when and why.
So, what's new in iPhone 4, (that didn't exist in iPhone 3) that would require such an ability? MULTI-TASKING!
(Or at least what Apple calls multitasking)
If the system can't peek at what an app is doing, it can't make educated guesses as to what can be paused/resumed/killed at the thread level.
But hey, don't let the simple answer get in the way of a good flamewar.
There is nothing wrong with Adobe developing the cross-compiler and Apple's new portion of the agreement is unlawful. The reason is because Adobe is just using public standards.
This is as if Apple said "We support JPEGs on our platform!" expecting everyone to use their JPEG-creating software. Then Adobe comes along and says "We can help you make those JPEGs! But they will look even better! And they'll still follow exactly the same specs and standards as regular JPEGs!" Then Apple's like "Oh, but you can't use JPEGs created by Adobe's software." If Apple wants to investigate every single JPEG and make sure it isn't made with Adobe's software, they certainly can. And they can reject as many JPEGs as they want.
The problem is that these are public standards. You can make C/C++ source files with one app and compile them in another. There is nothing Apple can do to stop you.
I call scare crow. The clause in the agreement is ridiculous and nigh unenforceable anyway.
Furthermore, this is akin to if Apple decided to block certain websites from its customers. You can be sure that they'd get a ripping in court if they tried that.
Lucky bastard!
How can it be a "new level" if it's not in the same domain?
Netscape's browser was a multi-platform app that the company intended to eventually form the core of an operating system that would bypass Microsoft entirely and run directly on PC hardware.
Microsoft had a monopoly position in the OS market, but was not a PC manufacturer, and had no web browser.
So, Microsoft monkeyed with their OS in order to strangle Netscape to the point where they could neither grow their marketshare, nor establish themselves on PC hardware.
In summary, Microsoft abused their monopoly in one market (OS for commodity PCs) to achieve dominance in another market (Browser), and to maintain their control over a third market (PC hardware).
By contrast, Apple is making a proprietary device, running proprietary software, for a market that they are not even close to a monopoly in. There is no "commodity iphone hardware" market for them to abuse. And they are not implementing a replacement for Flash, because they are not "strangling" Adobe's presence in the smartphone market, because Adobe doesn't EVEN HAVE a damn presence in the smartphone market.
If that's what you call "taking it to a new level", you must mean, several orders of magnitude less evil.
Worst case Apple looks for the binary signature for the runtime of tool XYZ, and then you are busted. Pretty hard to hide that.
without the threat of enforceable legal action, big corporations would simply act like gangsters
This must be humour...
you had me at #!
Sure it's their app store, they should have control on what they put in there. But once I buy an iPhone or iPad, it's MINE. They shouldn't be able to deprive me of things I want to do on MY phone/device/appliance.
Why, for heaven's sake, should anyone dictate what I can or can't put in it? Destroying the user experience is a poor excuse at best. I should be able to keep my changes without fear that on the next forced update, my changes wouldn't just disappear all of a sudden.
Sure, void my warranty, whatever, but to actually impose restrictions as to what I put on my phone? Shit.
How they run their business is their business, but once the product is in my hands, Apple should just STFU about how I use it. If someone has to sue to get Apple off peoples' backs, then so be it.
He's had more money than he knew what to do with since he was 25.
How do you explain away Gates' sociopathic obsession with accumulating wealth and totalitarian market share, then?
He has no qualms about breaking the law to shave market share from the competition while still being just a hair's breadth from 100% all the while. What would you call that? Greed doesn't seem to cover it.
(And yes, the Foundation is just a continuation of the same demented war on civilisation.)
As for Jobs... he could be a lot less mercenary. But the legal obligations to shareholders - not to mention the megalomania of management - apparently leave public companies hidebound to perpetrate horrors on their market and consumers. (Including Adobe, who milk their category leadership for all it's worth.)
you had me at #!
n/t
And what do media players have to do with the subject at hand?
Nothing at all. But some people have an overinflated sense of their own intelligence, despite the fact that they clearly can't read and interpret pretty clear laws :D
So basicly, Apple has the ball, and they don't want Adobe to play. So Adobe now has gone running to an adult trying to get Apple in trouble.
First, that makes Adobe a snitch. Second, Adobe losses all respect by the others that are playing. Third, as far as I know, there isn't any laws that say you can not make it so some other company can't make products for your devices.
Not sure about others, but where I grew up, Adobe would be picked on and left out of everything after that.
Now, if Adobe was smart & rich, they'd figure out a better way to get their product across. Guess they are neither.
Be seeing you...
There is no reason Apple could logically argue to ban others programming on 3rd party's property (you own the iPhone, not Apple).
Adobe should investigate suing in Europe, the consumer protection laws are far more sensible than in the US....
Nope. Never.
Will Adobe go after Nintendo next for not allowing flash on the Wii, or DS, therefore prohibiting youtube and other flash content?
That's actually a great analogy. I'm afraid Apple might be repeating the same error they made in the 80s by becoming self centered and ignoring the world of openness that was happening around them. Then it was the PC, not it might be Android that puts them back in a small, but admittedly very profitable corner of the market.
To do list for Windows
Because if they went after Apple for the AppStore lockdown and dev requirements they would also need to go after Sony for the PS3, Microsoft for the XBox 360 and Nintendo for the Wii. Then Ford for the Ford Sync, various GPS device vendors etc...
This is a simple statement, "we don't need you Adobe".
Well maybe Adobe should either threaten or act by ending their production of flagship products on the apple platform as a response. R&D to port these products is costly, and while they make a boatload of money on them (probably most of their money), people will switch platforms to keep them. No more photoshop, no more flash, no more acrobat, no more after effects, no more anything.
The design industry would be forced to switch to PCs, maybe this would seem costly for Adobe in the short term, but it would be much more damaging to apple.
Adobe products are the industry standard, nothing else will do. Take that Apple.