Slashdot Mirror


Adobe Stops Development For iPhone

adeelarshad82 writes "Adobe's principal product manager Mike Chambers announced that Adobe is no longer investing in iPhone-based Flash development. The move comes after Apple put out a new draft of its iPhone developer program license, which banned private APIs and required apps to be written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine. According to Chambers, Adobe will still provide the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5, but the company is not currently planning any additional investments in that feature." Daring Fireball points out approvingly Apple's rebuttal to the claim that Flash is an open format, however convenient it might be for iPad owners. Related: The new app policy seems to be inconsistently enforced. Reader wilsonthecat writes "Novell have released a new press release in response to Apple's announcement that none-C/C++/Objective-C based iPhone application development breaks their SDK terms. The press release names several apps that have made it past app review process since the new Apple SDK agreement."

34 of 497 comments (clear)

  1. Adobe also said... by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Despite what their Facebook status says, we broke up with Apple first."

    1. Re:Adobe also said... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Despite what their Facebook status says, we broke up with Apple first."

      LIKE

      --
      Reply to That ||
    2. Re:Adobe also said... by diamondsw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This! (Where are mod points when I need them?)

      Apple has always been very clear about not allowing non-native frameworks on the iPhone OS - they've disallowed all interpreted code since the introduction of the first SDK (no Java, Flash, .Net, and so forth). Adobe tried to pull an end run by precompiling the Flash - and Apple said no. Bitchy and controlling perhaps, but not unexpected in the least. Anyone who pinned their hopes or business on this was a fool.

      What I've wondered throughout all of this is what Adobe's executives were doing all this time. Either:
      1) Having discussions with Apple, and ignoring Apple's response ("no"),
      2) Ignoring Apple entirely because they saw no concern with the plan, or
      3) Ignoring Apple because they knew the answer was "no", but thought they could force Apple into a corner.

      No matter how you slice it, Adobe was foolish to pursue this in the first place - Apple is not going to cede control of this platform, for better or worse. In many way's it's similar to Palm's antics last year syncing the Pre with iTunes by masquerading as an iPod. They had to have known it was an extremely risky idea, and instead of doing things the Approved Way, they played a game of brinkmanship with their user base.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    3. Re:Adobe also said... by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 3, Insightful

      right... because no one has ever designed a Flash app optimized for touch screen. Guh.

    4. Re:Adobe also said... by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, pro-Flash and anti-Apple people talk as though Flash is a stable and established standard component of any mobile platform, and has been for years.

      This, ladies and gents, is the perfect example of a straw man.

      While the rest of what you say is actually very spot on, I think you are forgetting that the implication here is that no one can package technology for anyone else to run on an iPhone. I could never create a library or SDK or what-have-you for you to include in your iphone binary if it has any hinf of interacting with another language at any statge.

      Apple's controlling nature and hatred for Flash is causing significant collateral damage and sets a terrible precedent with regards to respect for developers.

      --
      meep
    5. Re:Adobe also said... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should I, as a developer, not get a tool to help me render animations?

      Why should Apple, as a hardware vendor, permit you to commoditize its profitable hardware in order for you to create software that will help sell other hardware vendor's handsets?

      You seem to think all these different vendors give you these tools because they like you or something. Apple gives you tools so you can make apps that make people wanna buy iDevices. Anything you can do that doesn't necessarily drive hardware sales, they're going to fight very hard against. Adobe tries to make its Flash player as cheap and available as possible to drive demand for its authoring products. Anything that makes it possible to author rich web content outside of the Adobe ecosystem they're going to fight very hard against. Thus the two companies find themselves at crossed purposes here.

      Apple doesn't want people to write apps that run on multiple OSs, because it will drive commoditization of the handset hardware. Adobe doesn't want people to be able to create rich web animations with anything but its products, because it will drive commoditization of the authoring software. It's really just that simple.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  2. Hilarity by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be very funny if Adobe, just for spite, decided to stop making it's high end graphic design products compatible with Apple hardware. And figured out a way to make them not work via virtualization on Apple hardware as well.

    I know, I know, they are publicly traded & would never cut off that revenue stream.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Hilarity by dunezone · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never would happen, but that doesn't stop them from putting extra CPU intensive Loops in the Apple builds of the software.

    2. Re:Hilarity by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I love how you mentioned Aperture and Final Cut, and forgot the three, three-and-a-half elephants in the room, InDesign, which is far and away pretty much the only page layout game in town, Illustrator, Flash (for many graphic designers are required to work extensively, if not exclusively, with Flash, whatever the average Slashdot geek might fume about)... oh, what was that other one you didn't mention... oh yeah...

      Photoshop.

      Yeah, if there was no Photoshop for Mac, millions of designers would ditch the foremost image edit suite in the world for what, exactly? Or would they ditch Mac? "Adobe screwed", indeed... *eyeroll*

    3. Re:Hilarity by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which, considering most of the complaints against Gimp are about its user interface, sounds right up Apple's alley.

      But when has Apple ever taken an open-source project, cleaned it up with bugfixes and lots of other improvements, and put a proprietary wrapper around it for ease-of-use?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Hilarity by alexo · · Score: 3, Funny

      But when has Apple ever taken an open-source project, cleaned it up with bugfixes and lots of other improvements, and put a proprietary wrapper around it for ease-of-use?

      Samba? Webkit? CUPS?

      iWhoosh...

  3. Pretty amusing, actually. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seeing one closed off, 'play by our rules or gtfo' company, whining about another closed off 'play by our rules or gtfo' company is golden.

  4. Adobe has invoked the anger of Father Steve by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They must be banished from the compound and no believer may ever speak with them again.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Android... by the_one_wesp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Adobe is instead focusing on other platforms, namely Android. Chambers said he will personally shift "all of my mobile focus" from the iPhone to Android, and that he has a particular interest in Android-based tablets.

    Guess that means we'll be seeing more flash based porn apps?

  6. Re:who cares? by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has nothing to do with the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod Touch, or iPhone. It relates only to the features available to the developers on those systems. This article does not discuss Flash in a browser or embedded web content, but rather Flash as a development environment that can be compiled down to native iPhoneOS binaries. So it really only matters to developers of existing Flash games who want to port their content to the iPhone easily. Given the market share of the App Store in the mobile space, though, my guess is it won't put much of a dent in app availability, and thus not affect end-users at all.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  7. Re:Objective C? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a rival to Fair and Balanced C. In both languages, you give both sides (C, some half-assed SmallTalk implementation) equal time, regardless of which is actually any good.

    Fair and Balanced C is the version that includes Geraldo Rivera's implementation of Python.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Is there a downside? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would it take to get Adobe to quit infecting all platforms with their overhyped junk? Yes, yes, people love Photoshop. Just imagine that app, though, rewritten with a modern GUI toolkit and brand new underpinnings so that it wasn't a steaming pile. Now realize that it'll never happen because Apple fanboys have nothing on Adobe advocates and Adobe has no reason to spend development money making it better instead of adding shiny new features. (BTW, I'm not a Gimp fan, either - it's fully possible to dislike both apps on their own demerits.)

    While I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, I sincerely thank him for driving a stake into Flash's corrupted heart. Would that the rest of Adobe's hoggish wares die with it.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  9. Re:Hallelujah! by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    animated, audible, CPU-eating hellhole

    HTML5 authoring tools will bring this to your iPhone.

  10. Re:Apple is the lesser of two evils here by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    by forcing people into HTML5,

    This has nothing to do with HTML5. This is about Adobe compiling Flash to objective-C.

  11. the hard lesson of photoshop and Acrobat by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before apple switched to Intel, they warned developers they ought to stick to the cocoa coding guidelines uber strictly. Those that apps that did were nearly just a recompile away from being native fat binaries for intel/ppc after switch.

    Adobe took over 2 years to release native photoshop and acrobat readers. The only reason those apps even ran was because Apple had purchased the company Rosetta to make an emulator. If no emulator had existed then they would have lost photoshop!! Even then graphic arts folks were not thrilled to be having to retain their PPC computers just to run native.

    You can see why apple would not want to have an adobe flash layer running apps on the iphone. Assuming adobe did not update the flash player for two years, apps would not even run on the platform switch. There might not be a suitable emulator that could run on a resource starved iphone.

    Apple would lose a lot of apps. Consumers would be confused. And Developers would blame apple for the platform switch going so ugly.

    Now is it reasonable to presume that Adobe is not using Xcode to develope their apps? yes. One might even speculate they are using adobe AIR or some other cross platform API since their apps run on many more platforms than xcode supports.

    Why bet the farm on adobe's good will when they screwed apple over photoshop and Acrobat

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:the hard lesson of photoshop and Acrobat by beakerMeep · · Score: 5, Informative
      Every time a Flash story comes out someone pushes this anecdote about cocoa but where's the evidence? You're complaining it took two years to rewrite Photoshop in a completely different language? How many times have you re-written something as complex as Photoshop in the past two years?

      Btw here's what one of the photoshop engineers said about the switch to intel based Macs: http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html

      Here's another quote from the Photoshop Product manager (John Nack) in 2008:

      No one has ever ported an application the size of Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa (as I mentioned earlier, after 9 years as an Apple product Final Cut Pro remains Carbon-based), so we’re dealing with unknown territory.

      ...

      1) Writers gin up controversy about Apple vs. Adobe, portraying this as a case of some tit-for-tat ("This one time, Steve wouldn't play golf with Shantanu, so Adobe is sulking!"). Oh, come on. This is why Lightroom x64 is a such a nice counterpoint: Adobe's decisions are pragmatic, not ideological. Look, Apple and Adobe share the goal of maximizing Photoshop performance on Mac hardware, and we're working together on all aspects of that story--64-bit included.

      "If it bleeds, it leads," however, and writers looking to drive ad impressions will try to fabricate a grudge match. Please don't let them.

      2) Adobe gets castigated for "dragging its feet" on Cocoa/x64. This charge will be inevitable, I suppose, but I want you to know that we started work on the problem immediately after WWDC '07. We started peeling senior engineers off the CS4 effort, and we'll keep pouring on the muscle in the next cycle. This work comes at the expense of other priorities, but so be it.

      3) We start hearing all about "Cocoa Über Alles"--about how Adobe should have known that Cocoa is the One True Way and should have started the move years ago. Most Mac users don't know Cocoa from Ovaltine, and nor should they: it's just an implementation detail, not a measure of quality. I think Brent Simmons, creator of wonderful Cocoa apps like NetNewsWire, put it most elegantly: "Finder + Cocoa = Finder." That is, rewriting one's app in Cocoa doesn't somehow automatically improve its speed, usability, or feature set.

      I'll also note that Apple's Carbon Web site says, "Carbon is a set of APIs for developing full-featured, high-performance, and reliable applications for Mac OS X... The Carbon APIs are also well-suited to cross-platform development." I don't mention it to detract from Cocoa; I mention it to point out that each approach has its pros and cons, and in hopes that we don't hear all about how Cocoa is clearly the only way to write "real" Mac software.

      Read more here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

      This whole cocoa vs carbon drama is stupid. It seems only to suffice as some PR dig from Apple fanboys against Adobe. Or some shit-stirring controversy for tech blogs to get hits or slashdotters to whore karma. Anyone who has used Adobe apps professionally on mac in the past ten years knows at no time were they ever not available on Macs.

      Nobody screwed anybody. It's just what happens when platforms change.

      --
      meep
  12. Re:Next step... by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Adobe discontinue all their software suites for the mac and change their updaters to uninstall everything remotely and everyone is very sad.

    Next step? It's not like Adobe hasn't already been doing this for years. They canceled Framemaker for Mac despite it being a better seller on the Mac than PC. They killed Premiere but that was after Apple came out with FCP since Premiere on the Mac sucked so bad. Then putting out Lightroom after Apple came out with Aperture. Even Flash. They really haven't done anything with it on the Mac side since they got it from Macromedia. Development has been lagging on the Mac side (and even worse for Linux). Perhaps if Adobe had been paying attention to it and actually supporting it, Apple might not have decided they didn't want it so quickly.

    For that matter, it's not like they have a real copy of Flash for any phone yet, let alone the iPhone. Even if Apple hadn't had prevented it, there's no real garantee it would be anything but vaporware yet. At best, there would be some Lite version that wouldn't do much and whose performance would lag behind even the Linux version of Flash. My suggestion to Adobe is that if they really want Flash as an iApp, then concentrate on the Android OS. Put out a really good version of Flash for that platform, show that it can work, and that it isn't going to be some half assed job, then maybe Apple will reconsider, especially if it becomes a selling point for the Droid.

  13. Re:Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? by balbus000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly.

    People don't care about Flash, and they don't care about an open app store. The iPhone does what they want it to do.

    I don't care that I had to mod my original X-Box so that I could run XBMC, watch DVDs without buying the remote, or backup my games to run off the harddrive. At the time of the purchase, I was aware of the features (and limitations) of what I was buying. I have an iPhone and don't want an Android. I use the web browser to look up things randomly, IMDB movies, listen to Pandora, etc. What am I missing out on? If I need anything else, I have a perfectly capable desktop and laptop.

    I'm not trying to flame, can someone answer: What kind of apps do you use on the Android that aren't available on the iPhone, but are so important that you have to use them immediately, and can't wait until you're back on a desktop/laptop? (But of course if you can answer that question, then buy an Android, ignore the iPhone and move on)

  14. To quote by jvillain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When your enemies are fighting. Don't interrupt them.

  15. Re:Apple is the lesser of two evils here by mario_grgic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except it seems Apple won't be happy until they kill the notion of "general purpose computer" for the masses and each computing "device" sold to the public is a locked down single purpose appliance designed for the consumption of content, all preferably sold by Apple.

    I as someone who makes a living from developing software and who generally loves tinkering with computers hate that vision and can not support Apple moving close to it.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  16. Re:Something deeper by feepness · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think Apple (rightly or wrongly) have decided their mission is to drag the tech world kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    ...kicking and screaming into their dedicated storefront you mean.

    This has nothing to do with whether the iPad runs on fusion and unicorn farts or coal fired steam engines. It's about making sure people can't develop any apps or consume any content that will compete with what you can buy in the App store.

  17. Re:Something deeper by _Swank · · Score: 5, Informative

    All your points relate to a completely different issue than what this article is actually about (don't worry, it looks like 99% of the 'techies' posting to this article fail to understand what Adobe actually announced related to Flash and the iPhone).

    In short: THIS IS NOT ABOUT FLASH IN THE BROWSER ON THE IPOD/IPHONE/IPAD.

    Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT ABOUT FLASH IN THE BROWSER ON THE IPOD/IPHONE/IPAD.

    Adobe released a feature that allows you to export an app created in Flash CS5 (not the Flash Player client) as a native iPhone app. This meant you could export an iPhone app that includes ZERO bits of Flash that could then be submitted to Apple's AppStore and appears like every other app.

    What Apple said in the their license is, essentially, you must not use 3rd party tools to create native iPhone Apps. XCode and Objective-C are your options.

    What Adobe said is that they will no longer work on the above feature for the Apple devices. But will work on it for other devices.

    So if you want to create an app that targets the web, the desktop, Android, iPhone, etc. You will be able to target all these platforms with a single code base -- except the iPhone...that you will have to write separately in Objective-C as a completely different code base. Because of Apple's whims.

    Note that, according to the license, this also applies to all other non-Apple tools that can be used to cross-compile to a native iPhone app.

  18. Re:Hallelujah! by MBCook · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get a Macintosh.

    I have a MacBook Pro, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB of RAM. It's 2 years old, and doesn't support GPU help decoding video (it's a GeForce 8600M GT). Someone at my work was questioning why I think Flash is so evil, today I was able to show them. I watched three videos today. Let's compare the experiences.

    1. Video one was an MPEG-4 720p trailer for Super Mario Galaxy 2, played in QuickTime Player. When it ran, both of my cores were at 15-20% usage, playback was perfectly smooth.
    2. Video two was an MPEG-4 video played through an HTML5 demo (first demo on this page). According to the article, the video is played onto an HTML Canvas, which is then used to draw on another canvas which is displayed. This video, while smaller, took about 10% of one core and 40-50% of another on Safari, with little hit clicking on the video having it explode. The playback was nice and smooth.
    3. Video three was an old video on YouTube. It wasn't very big (maybe 360px high), and used 75-80% of both cores. Playing this causes my laptop to heat up and fans to kick on. It's pathetic.

    Now not all YouTube videos are that bad, for some reason that particular video was just really bad. Many small videos like that will only use 30-50% of both cores. Even smaller videos will have occasional hiccups where it will drop 2 frames. 480p videos will usually use up a good chunk of my CPU (~80%), and 720p videos can drop frames when a lot changes in the scene (like a pan). If I change from Flash to HTML5 video (MPEG4), 720p stuff plays back no problem. OK Go's recent video of a Rube Goldberg machine? My Mac can't play it reliably in Flash at 480p without dropping frames when a lot of action is going on.

    It's not just videos, although that's where I usually run into it. Flash sites with animation just suck down CPU, little games can really heat up my Mac. I think the problem is the way Flash displays things, but that's just a hunch.

    If you know anyone with a Mac (the older the better), go play around with Flash content. It's almost impressive how poorly it performs. Faster and faster Macs help cover it up, but that's no excuse. I'm pretty sure that I could have played Flash content through Parallels at the same or lower CPU usage, but I don't have Parallels installed anymore to test with.

    If Adobe spent any time optimizing Flash on OS X, people wouldn't hate it nearly as much. Apple would still hate it (Steve likes control), but people wouldn't have the "kill it now" attitude.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  19. Re:Interesting scenario by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now that Apple has had some success outside of their previously small, niche market, they seem to be taking a big crap on one of their largest supporters. It is an interesting example of power dynamics in the real world. Apple apparently doesn't lend much weight to their long term relationship, or what Adobe has done for them in the past. It seems to be all about Apple saying, "What have you done for me lately?"

    It's because Adobe really hasn't done much for Apple lately. I might be out of the loop because I use gimp for mac full time now, but as far as I know Adobe never actually ported Photoshop to become a cocoa app. This is another bad problem: no 64 bit for macs, only windows. And that's been the Mac user's cross to bear for a long time now, companies like Adobe (or Bungie) that used to focus on the mac platform have made the calculation that when one OS manufacturer owns 90% of the market (MS), even if all of the remaining people buy their products, it's still only 10% of the total base and more sales could be had by focusing on the monopoly OS. In the past Apple had to bend over and take it. Now they don't. As a guy who started using macs in 1997, all I have to say is: Revenge is sweet. I hate flash anyway, slow as molasses.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  20. Re:Apple slows down innovation on all fronts by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web?! FLASH!?! Are you high? Your comment is entirely devoid of any reason and sanity. Do you know who developed webkit? It was Apple, they forked konqueror. Now webkit runs half the browsers out there. Safari, which also runs on webkit, is, in their words:

    The first browser to support HTML5 audio and video tags, Safari helps developers create media-rich sites that don't require additional plug-ins.

    From where I sit, html5 is the innovation and the future of the web here, flash is holding innovation up because it's being forced to do things it was never designed to do. Apple is pushing the world forward by releasing us fro relying on a plugin that relies on a single manufacturer, i.e., Adobe.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  21. This is different. by weston · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash. That's why the iPad flap was always so funny to me. It could be summarized as "Adobe is angry that Apple won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms".

    You don't understand what just happened between Adobe and Apple, then.

    Apple's said plenty of times that it won't support Flash as an interpreter/runtime on the iPhone. I think everybody understood that.

    What happened here is that Adobe took them at their word, and did something totally different: they wrote a compiler which takes content written using CS5 and targets *Apple's* runtime. FLA file in, iPhone Binary out. Not SWF, iPhone Binary. Doesn't need the Flash Player to run. Apple wouldn't have had to do a damn thing to "support" these applications.

    So Apple changed their license terms and banned apps from the store that were created by another toolchain to target Apple's runtime.

    And, for good measure, they also banned apps that are made by targeting Apple's tool chain from another language. So that way, Adobe knows they can't decide to build a version of Flash that takes a FLA file and emits an XCode project that's ready to build.

    Of course, that means you can't do something like write in Scheme that compiles to C, either. Or for that matter, generate any code, really. If you're going to target the iPhone, you'll write all your C, C++, and Objective C code by hand like a real man, buster, and you'll like it.

  22. Re:Hallelujah! by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everytime someone complains that Flash is terrible on Linux, I have to remind people that Flash is just terrible on every platform.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  23. We're talking about iPhone apps. by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand exactly what happened; I just don't care.

    And in turn, I don't care that you don't care. I do care, however, that you made a post that indicates and propogates misunderstanding about the matter.

      "Adobe is angry that Apple won't start supporting an app that it's never supported on its other portable platforms".

    Perhaps you should stop posting on the topic until you can bring yourself to care enough to make statements that are accurate.

    And I still stand by my assertion that buying a iPhone for the explicit purpose of running Flash apps is a fundamentally bad decision.

    We're not talking about Flash apps. We're talking about iPhone apps.

  24. Re:Why bypass the OS??? by washu_k · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ummm, third parties, cannot directly access the video hardware on Windows or Linux either, but apps running on them seem to be able to use the provided video APIs just fine.

    Read the up on the problems VLC and others have on OSX. Yes the APIs are there, but they DON'T ACTUALLY WORK!

    Flash, VLC and the rest don't need direct hardware access on OSX, just playback APIs that aren't crippled.