Apple's Developer Tools Turnaround 'Great News' For Adobe

Praise? by 0xdeadbeef · 2010-09-10 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Isn't that like praising a fundamentalist preacher for stopping his book burning?

Re:Praise? by ProppaT · 2010-09-10 04:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

i loled and wished I had mod points...

--
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Re:Praise? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:26 · Score: 1, Funny

Well, that guy didn't have much of a choice. They put him in a crate, and loaded him in the back of a C130 headed for somewhere in Middleasternland. They'll be air dropping him with 1000 copies of the Koran and a lighter. Good luck with your book burning dude. I'm sure they'll all appreciate whatever the hell you were trying to say.
.. kinda like going to a redneck town, shooting a guys dog, stealing his truck, and fucking his wife. It's a good way to get killed. I guess there are other combinations there that'd work just about as well. fucking his dog, stealing his wife, shooting his truck?
Re:Praise? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:26 · Score: 0

It's like thanking your prison rapist for using lube when he makes you his bitch. And then sells your ass to the mexicans for $5 a fuck.
Re:Praise? by zill · 2010-09-10 04:28 · Score: 2, Funny

One incites imminent lawless action, which precludes it from being considered constitutionally protected speech.

The other one forces all developers to learn Objective-C, which is arguably cruel and unusual punishment.
Re:Praise? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Mom?
Re:Praise? by geminidomino · 2010-09-10 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

.. kinda like going to a redneck town, shooting a guys dog, stealing his truck, and fucking his wife. It's a good way to get killed. I guess there are other combinations there that'd work just about as well. fucking his dog, stealing his wife, shooting his truck?
And the worst part is when he writes a crappy country song about it, your family won't even get a cut!
Re:Praise? by imthesponge · 2010-09-10 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course that's not true about the book burning.
Re:Praise? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:26 · Score: 1, Informative

Objective-C isn't a requirement to develop for iPhone. I should also point out that this doesn't put Flash on the iPhone either as some trolls are claiming. It simply allows developers to use the Adobe Packager to port junk Flash apps and compile them for iOS.

The other one forces all developers to learn Objective-C, which is arguably cruel and unusual punishment.
Re:Praise? by modmans2ndcoming · 2010-09-10 06:54 · Score: 1

how? Is the Koran not a book?
Re:Praise? by Ukab+the+Great · 2010-09-10 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Both involve an element of ridiculous, almost comical hypocrisy.
In one case where the some people who view burning a book as an outrage view anti-semitism and restricting churches from being built is socially acceptable, and in the other case where Cocoa developers are forced for 10 years to learn .NET, Java, PHP to make a living in the enterprise and then enterprise .NET/Java/PHP developers scream bloody murder when they're forced to learn Objective-C to write iPhone apps.
Re:Praise? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-11 10:08 · Score: 0

one case where the some people who view burning a book as an outrage view anti-semitism and restricting churches from being built is socially acceptable

Who? Name names, don't just point at some arbitrary group of people you want to demonize when you do it. Who, and I want you to name someone (for your sake, I suggest you name more than one person, and make sure it's someone mainstream, not some obscure fundamentalist cleric) who actually considers anti-semitism to be A-OK, and who wants to see church building restricted, but who sees the book burning as an outrage.
And don't forget to back up your accusations with quotes.
Re:Praise? by Ukab+the+Great · 2010-09-13 01:18 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
"The [Egyptian] government also requires permits for repairing churches or building new ones, which are often withheld."

Adobe's PR worked by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:24 · Score: 0

Apparently Adobe's PR worked. Didn't we use to hate Flash around here?

Re:Adobe's PR worked by iONiUM · 2010-09-10 04:27 · Score: 1

I don't know what you're talking about. We've always loved Flash.
In other news, the ministry of truth was working overtime in the last few days for some reason..
Re:Adobe's PR worked by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

We've always hated Flash, but we also always valued the Freedom to Suck. Remember, you can't ever do anything cool without sucking in someone's eyes.
Re:Adobe's PR worked by larry+bagina · 2010-09-10 04:44 · Score: 1

We hate flash, but we hate Apple more. So whenever it's an Apple story, we love flash and hate Apple because they prevent us from using flash, which we hate.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Adobe's PR worked by cgenman · 2010-09-10 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Flash is a hammer that frequently gets used to nail in screws. But sometimes you actually need a hammer.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Adobe's PR worked by WNight · 2010-09-10 07:49 · Score: 1

Apple only makes decisions based on user happiness, don't 'cha know?
Last week users would have been unhappy if their apps could be developed in Flash, this week it would please them.
There's NOTHING political going on here. (Well, nothing more than the original ban...)
And yeah, now us Flash haters get our real fun - Adobe will get its chance and blow it because Flash really does suck! I'm going to go get popcorn.
Re:Adobe's PR worked by WNight · 2010-09-10 07:52 · Score: 1

Pretty much exactly.
Well, that and the ban against Flash clearly wasn't just about an actual suck-metric reached, but Job's political decision to punish a troublesome partner.
Re:Adobe's PR worked by Gilmoure · 2010-09-10 09:14 · Score: 1

We've always been at war with Eurasia!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by Briden · 2010-09-10 04:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

guess what's more annoying than trolling? repeatedly reminding everyone about trolling.

I feel bad for Wired too by mzs · 2010-09-10 04:25 · Score: 1

They were an early casualty that had to redo their first issue magazine app because of Apple. In the end it was an underwhelming 500MB kludge, and I doubt they recouped the costs that they must have put into that.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/05/27/adobe-rewrites-wired-magazine-ipad-app-without-flash-gets-it-ap/

Eerie by danmart1 · 2010-09-10 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is eerily similar to Microsoft being praised for Windows 7 after pushing Vista. Sure the situation is completely different, but praising a company for finally listening to consumers is the wrong way to go about it.

Re:Eerie by dotwhynot · 2010-09-10 05:07 · Score: 2, Informative

This is eerily similar to Microsoft being praised for Windows 7 after pushing Vista. Sure the situation is completely different, but praising a company for finally listening to consumers is the wrong way to go about it.
You could argue that they didn't listen to consumers, or developers, but did it because they were under investigation for anti-competitive behavior on this, both in US and EU. A conviction on this would be tough on the image, even for Apple.
Re:Eerie by ooshna · 2010-09-10 05:39 · Score: 1

No its more like praising Microsoft for Vista after they came out with ME. It seems awesome at first before you realize its the same suckage just prettier.
Re:Eerie by BlueStraggler · 2010-09-10 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's eerie is that Apple does this with every single thing they have ever launched since time immemorial, and slashgeeks still love to think that Apple is evil, prone to making huge gaffes, and then quietly making good once they realize their colossal blunder. The "no wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" mindset is so effing retarded it's now an Internet meme, and we *still* don't get that the joke is on us. Not Taco. Us.
This is what Apple does: (1) strip every half-baked feature/freedom out of a new product until it is boiled down to its most basic essence. (2) Release it. (3) Start adding the features/freedoms back in one at a time once they are fully baked. (4) Profit! (Notice the lack of a ...? step.) They do this. Every. Single. Time. iPod storage. iTunes on Windows. Virtually everything in OS X. Webkit. Macbooks and minis. iTunes DRM. iPhone cut and paste. iPhone devkits. iOS multitasking. Every single time the geekosphere gnashes its teeth and bemoans that Apple is pushing bullshit that is missing X, Y, and Z. And then Apple does X, Y, and Z, and the geekosphere congratulates itself for doing Apple's product development for them.
If we believed our own propaganda (and it is apparent that many of us do), Apple is the world's most incompetent company that barely survives thanks to nerd rage steering them back on track on a more or less continuous basis. But Occam's Razor suggests that a more likely explanation is merely that Apple polishes the consumer experience first, and the nerd experience second. I guess that angers us.
Re:Eerie by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:04 · Score: 1

No, that's not it. I don't care if Apple "gets" it. It's that I object to them being called "developer friendly" when they clearly aren't - to selected developers and some random ones. It does a disservice to companies who really are developer friendly for Apple to just claim it like a trademark.
I mind them saying they're open source friendly when they mean they're extremely not open-source friendly but have merely stopped forbidding applications with open source.
They sell themselves as the people's device, but then they spit on the people at every step.
Their preciously tended UI experience, or its limits - even where they seem juvenile to me, aren't what bug me about Apple. I merely don't own an iPhone because I don't agree. No biggy.
I also don't own any Microsoft products and yet I feel free to criticize their anti-competitive practices. They're pissing on my industry, they can take my scorn. Same as Apple. Same as anyone who picks and chooses which parts of open to allow to their users while feasting on the benefits themselves.
Re:Eerie by niks42 · 2010-09-10 08:47 · Score: 1

We won't mention Apple TV .. oh drat.
Re:Eerie by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:57 · Score: 0

But Occam's Razor suggests that a more likely explanation is merely that Apple polishes the consumer experience first, and the nerd experience second. I guess that angers us.
That conclusion makes no sense whatsoever. There is no "customer experience" that goes against, rather than with, most of the features mentioned. They wasted our patience and their money for (perceived) profit gains with DRM, artificially inflated prices for storage and applications and all the other stuff. We gained nothing in "consumer experience" by Apple doing so, although Apple might have had some additional profit.

And even now after they handled the "basics" for nerds their consumer experience is still not "polished" by an objective standard, that's just marketing kool-aid. You cannot swap the battery (which decays over time) on their iOS handheld devices, a very standard feature on almost the whole market otherwise, etc etc. Basically, the "experience" still has many very rough edges.
Re:Eerie by pkphilip · 2010-09-10 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

You make it seem like this was a carefully crafted strategy from Apple. But that is simply not the case.
It just so happened that Steve Jobs thought that everyone would be happy to play in his walled garden while he collected tax. However, with Android coming out with flash..and considering the speed at which android phones are selling, he figured that the best thing to do would be to eat his pride and his words and fix those features that are missing.
Apple was wrong to have placed all those restrictions on the iphone. This is the Apple way of acknowledging their mistake.
Re:Eerie by danmart1 · 2010-09-10 09:24 · Score: 1

I highly doubt that most of the people that read this site think that Apple is incompetent. Sure they have made huge mistakes in the past, every company does, but that doesn't mean that they are going to do it forever. The point is that they do this stuff, in this case locking it up so tight Baptist parents are jealous, and then being praised for doing what they should have done in the first place. They even had a federal inquiry started because of how anal they were being. Did anyone praise the Nazis for releasing everyone they had in their concentration camps? No, and why should anyone.
Re:Eerie by bennomatic · 2010-09-10 09:28 · Score: 1

Do you mind if I cut and paste your post into a macro, so that I can repost it like a meme? Best. Analysis. Ever. Nutshell:

Occam's Razor suggests that a more likely explanation is merely that Apple polishes the consumer experience first, and the nerd experience second.
Brilliant.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:Eerie by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2010-09-10 10:01 · Score: 1

Here is what every Apple fanboy does. Try and rationalize and blindly justify everything Apple does including the gaffes. I have nothing actually against Apple or Steve Jobs I generally like the products themselves. But I am so fucking sick of unthinking unquestioning Steve Jobs cock sucking Apple fanboys I can' stand it.
Can we please please mother fucking please just put all the hipster douchebags on the goddamned B ark already and shoot the fucking thing in to the Sun? Please?
Re:Eerie by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 10:13 · Score: 0

More likely this was Steve Jobs petty revenge at Adobe for providing substandard software on the Mac platform for years. My guess is Adobe will have learned not to piss off The Steve so much in future. Additionally there is no Apple tax for restricting iOS dev tool usage, Xcode is free.
Re:Eerie by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 10:19 · Score: 0

This is the Apple way of acknowledging their mistake
You're holding it wrong!
Re:Eerie by Draek · 2010-09-10 14:01 · Score: 1

No, Occam's Razor suggests that the most likely explanation is that Apple survives and even thrives solely on its marketing department's expertise. Your "consumer experience" hypothesis fails to account for the distinct lack of success Apple has on that nebulous area we like to call "the rest of the world" relative to the US, where most of its marketing dollar is spent, and on markets other than home consumers, where most of its marketing dollar is aimed at.

--
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Re:Eerie by squiggleslash · 2010-09-11 10:24 · Score: 1

They didn't listen to consumers. And nor does this have anything to do with lawsuits. This has to do with the policy itself being an idiotic, self-defeating, piece of stupidity that had everything to do with a kneejerk against a company Apple doesn't like without considering the consequences.
Want to know why it was overturned? Because Epic Games ported Unreal to the iPhone, and then made everyone aware that unless Apple did a 180, nobody was ever going to see a game based on that engine.
Building products using a third party engine may be uncommon for, say, productivity software, but for games it's pretty much the standard. And Apple's been seeing games as a make-or-break feature of smartapprunnercrapphones. If Google produces a great gaming platform, it'll hurt the iPhone, hard.
Now, I know what you're going to say. "But Epic could have just given Unreal an C API!" Sure, and it equally could not. Why should it? Why take something that works, and replace it with some technologies that still think we're programming minicomputers from the 1970s? Beyond "getting Unreal-based games approved", there was no advantage whatsoever to switching to a C based API. Particularly when the reason why Apple has that restriction is not because of any technical advantage (in fact, forcing people to write in C is mind bogglingly stupid, a guarantee that software will be even less secure and even less reliable than normal), but because Steve Jobs hates Adobe because Adobe produced a plug-in he doesn't think works particularly well, and wants to punish Adobe for doing so?
Epic stuck by their guns. Developers went to Apple and pointed at Unreal and said "Look, (a) Jobs might be successful, but he's letting a vendetta get the better of him right now and (b) unless you change your policies, Android is going to eat your lunch." Apple relented.
Personally, having read the revised conditions, I still think any developer who develops software for iPhone right now is asking for trouble, and they should switch to Android, which is growing faster and will almost certainly have a greater market share within the next year. I think developers should be using this as evidence not that "Apple's OK underneath, they fix their mistakes", but "Apple has made utterly ridiculous policy decisions in the past, born not out of business sense or some overriding strategy, but because they're run by a man whose ego and temper has the better of him, and Apple almost certainly will do it again in the future, at least as long as a meglomaniac is in charge. There's no reason to trust them."

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Good news, everybody! by bsDaemon · 2010-09-10 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny

I think this is the first time I've heard "flash support" and "good news" in the same sentence. My, how the times they are a changin'.

Re:Good news, everybody! by nine-times · 2010-09-10 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

It will only last until people stop thinking that lack of Flash support is an effective talking point for criticizing Apple. Then everyone will go back to hating Flash.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please do not conflate the question of Flash sucking hard, and the question of freedom of choice. One can hate Flash with a passion, but still believe that one should have the choice to enjoy that suckiness in full.
Re:Good news, everybody! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 06:21 · Score: 0

Do the warnings on common household items that happen to be very poisonous piss you off? You should go show those chemicals a lesson by ingesting them. /i do enjoy your suckiness in full.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 06:28 · Score: 1

The warnings do not prevent me from doing whatever I want with them, though. They just warn me about possible consequences.
Re:Good news, everybody! by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-09-10 07:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I still don't get why you need to have every possible choice available to you. You already have a choice here - don't buy iOS devices. Apparently nerds need to bitch until their every unrealistic whim is satisfied?
Re:Good news, everybody! by nine-times · 2010-09-10 07:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how everyone was pretty well in agreement that Flash sucks until Apple said they wouldn't allow it on iOS. Then suddenly it's like, "How could they do that?! Flash is awesome and efficient and never crashes and is an integral part of the web! It's a perfect little diamond of the application and is everything computer applications and frameworks should be!"
If it stops being a talking point against Apple, then most likely people will go back to agreeing that Flash sucks. Because it pretty well does. It's just some people are willing to pretend that Flash is awesome in order to try to make Apple look worse than they are.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm talking about how everyone was pretty well in agreement that Flash sucks until Apple said they wouldn't allow it on iOS. Then suddenly it's like, "How could they do that?! Flash is awesome and efficient and never crashes and is an integral part of the web! It's a perfect little diamond of the application and is everything computer applications and frameworks should be!"
I'm not sure where you've got this line from, because it certainly wasn't that way on Slashdot. In pretty much every Flash-on-iOS discussion I've seen here, vast majority of arguments in favor of Flash started with "Flash sucks, but ...". A few people (myself included) then pointed out that a Flash application for something is preferable to no application. Others focused on the freedom of choice angle. Some on portability. But, come to think of it, I don't recall any post that would actually praise Flash for being awesome. The closest that comes to it is some people making remarks that Flash isn't slow on their boxes as you'd think from reading Slashdot; but that isn't exactly an endorsement.
Re:Good news, everybody! by nine-times · 2010-09-10 07:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, I think you're missing a lot of posts, then.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 07:59 · Score: 1

If there are so many, it should be easy to link to a couple to prove your point.
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nope. I've always hated Flash, both because of its instability and its co-opting of standards.
But I still didn't want Apple to just ban it outright. I want to market to out-compete it. If Flash drains the battery, add battery-consumption tests to app approval and don't let in anything that does, Flash or not.
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:12 · Score: 1

No, those who know the industry get bitchy when someone leverages a monopoly in one area to destroy competition in another. The banning of Flash was political, not technological. (There were no tech metrics given, only PR ones)
It seems like just yesterday that the plucky fruit company was itself besieged by shithead monopolists, and whining about the injustice.
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:21 · Score: 1

So are you. Unfortunately you're focusing only on the trolls who validate your already held prejudices.
Would it help if I went back to roughly last week and found an example of myself saying "Flash sucks, but ..."? Would you admit that your opponents have a real point and presented it consistently?
Because I'm not going to bother if you'll just brush it off with yet another excuse.
Re:Good news, everybody! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:56 · Score: 0

Please do not conflate the question of Flash sucking hard, and the question of freedom of choice. One can hate Flash with a passion, but still believe that one should have the choice to enjoy that suckiness in full.
Except it's not the user's choice. It's the developers' choice, and the interests of the developers ("no porting work") may be at direct odds with those of the user ("longer battery life; native UI").
A similar dynamic is at work with anything that makes it easier to include ads (I'm looking at you, "iAds") or DRM.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 09:07 · Score: 1

Except it's not the user's choice. It's the developers' choice
The developer's choice is to use or not use Flash as a platform to build his apps on. The user's choice is to buy or not buy the apps thus built. As it stands, both are lacking.
Re:Good news, everybody! by nine-times · 2010-09-10 09:24 · Score: 1

I think you also misunderstand me.
Re:Good news, everybody! by Late+Adopter · 2010-09-10 09:38 · Score: 1

I'd love to have the freedom to choose not to use Flash. Right now, many websites require it, so I have to go without, or in the occasional case suck it up and use Flash anyway.

But if Apple uses the iPhone's popularity to start making web designers realize Flash support can't be taken for granted, then even without owning an iPhone my ability to choose not to use Flash is improved.
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 10:09 · Score: 1

How so? You were addressing the trolling masses as if they were the people whose voices they had drown out, were you not?

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how everyone was pretty well in agreement that Flash sucks [...] Then suddenly it's like, "How could they do that?! Flash is awesome
So you are aware that by "everyone" you really mean "some trolls"?
Re:Good news, everybody! by nine-times · 2010-09-10 10:24 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying that if you were reading Slashdot in recent months during the Flash/iPhone/iPad discussions or during the Flash HTML5/H264 discussions, Flash was pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. It solved all problems, and being critical of Flash got you modded down pretty regularly.
I would know, since I got yelled at and modded 'troll' for saying, "I don't like the control Apple has over iPhone/iPad application distribution, but let's be honest: Apple isn't really wrong in their criticisms of Flash."
But whatever. You're defensive and angry. I'm not going to argue with you.
Re:Good news, everybody! by mattack2 · 2010-09-10 10:30 · Score: 1

A few people (myself included) then pointed out that a Flash application for something is preferable to no application.
Even when it's "shockingly bad"? (http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/09/02/2159237)
Re:Good news, everybody! by mattack2 · 2010-09-10 10:33 · Score: 1

Then why doesn't Android have even vaguely usable Flash now?
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 11:07 · Score: 1

But whatever. You're defensive and angry. I'm not going to argue with you.
I was asking questions, but as you said, whatever.

I would know, since I got yelled at and modded 'troll' for saying, "I don't like the control Apple has over iPhone/iPad application distribution, but let's be honest: Apple isn't really wrong in their criticisms of Flash."
And you don't think that was Apple fans modding you down for not liking Apple's limits?
Because I've been yelled at and modded troll for saying "I hate Flash, Apple's right, it does suck. But I still don't want companies banning the competition's products." Everyone who complained did so about my not respecting Apple's right to do what they want and my SUPPORT of Flash (wtf!?), not my thinking that Flash stunk.
Re:Good news, everybody! by WNight · 2010-09-10 11:09 · Score: 1

Probably because Flash is bloated and stinks even on a desktop.
But I was actually under the impression it was coming along quite well on Android, for Flash... You know, about as crappy as anywhere.
Re:Good news, everybody! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 11:14 · Score: 1

The story you've linked to is FUD. I have an Android phone, so I've seen Flash on it first-hand. It's not lightning fast by any stretch, but it's not horribly slow, either - not slow enough to be unusable.
Regardless of that, however - yes, I'll take a "shockingly bad" app that still does something that I need to be done over the lack of any app able of doing that.
Re:Good news, everybody! by Draek · 2010-09-10 14:17 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying that if you were reading Slashdot in recent months during the Flash/iPhone/iPad discussions or during the Flash HTML5/H264 discussions, Flash was pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. It solved all problems, and being critical of Flash got you modded down pretty regularly.
No, it didn't. Otherwise I would've seen posts stating that Flash sucked compared to Theora modded 'Troll' rather than 'Insightful'. What likely got you the downmod was defending Apple's attempted hijacking of the HTML5 standard to favor of their own patented mess instead of the truly open format that was to be in its place 'til then, not your treatment of Flash per se.

--
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by Pojut · 2010-09-10 04:28 · Score: 1

This is a troll. This is a troll on 4chan. And this is a troll on Slashdot.

Any questions?

--
Living With a Nerd

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Cyberax · 2010-09-10 04:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It's true that Nazis didn't kill the Jews. They just put them into a chamber filled with poison gas. That's just a detail, right?

PS: I love to Godwin myself.

IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by iONiUM · 2010-09-10 04:32 · Score: 1

Does anyone remember when "big blue" was the bad locked down company? And then, later, it was Microsoft (their former competitor)? And now it seems to be apple who has these crazy rules in place?

Maybe in the world of tech companies, there always has to be one to pull this kind of shit.

Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:41 · Score: 0

Yup, you are right. IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> Google -> ????
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by binarylarry · 2010-09-10 04:44 · Score: 1

IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> Google ->IBM
and the circle will be complete

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Does anyone remember when "big blue" was the bad locked down company? And then, later, it was Microsoft (their former competitor)? And now it seems to be apple who has these crazy rules in place?
Maybe in the world of tech companies, there always has to be one to pull this kind of shit.
Yes, this. I've been in the tech business for 25 years (man, writing that makes me feel old), and to me MS was the good revolution against the Big (bad) Blue (and the Unix system vendors of old). They had more lock-in, way higher prices, and didn't get the new user and personal computer driven model.
Then MS became the big bad market leader, and a whole generation growing up resenting their locking and practices. And there comes Apple (and Google), doing to MS what MS did to IBM. And now that position is beginning to make Apple and Google the new arrogant bad guys. Quite fascinating cycles. Especially because it seems the 'former bad guys', like IBM and (yes) MS, seemed to have learned and matured from going through this, and becoming more open in their dealings, more humble actually (yes, in industry dealings with MS many are saying these things today, rather surprised. In stark contrast to how they describe trying to deal with Google and Apple.)
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by TheMMaster · 2010-09-10 05:27 · Score: 1

correction:
IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> RIM
You heard it here first folks :)

--
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by elrous0 · 2010-09-10 05:54 · Score: 1

I know the who the "????" is. On March 1, 2012 Slashdot becomes sentient. 5.2 seconds later it orders all non-OSS companies shut down and floods the world with bad memes, forcing its counterpart at Digg to do the same. We'll all work for /. then, slaving away in the mines for the kdawson AI. We'll almost go out.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:23 · Score: 1

Meh, at least we'll be able to customize our tools. Could be worse.
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by Gilmoure · 2010-09-10 09:43 · Score: 1

I hope low /. ID's will equate to better harems.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by WNight · 2010-09-10 10:05 · Score: 1

I'm hoping to get picked by Commander Taco? Or is that not what you meant?
Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? by Gilmoure · 2010-09-10 10:17 · Score: 1

Cowboy Neal, dood!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

WiFi by NetNed · 2010-09-10 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nice that they post the rejection guidelines, but when will they actually follow them? The WiFi finders that disappeared is one. If Apple thinks that is own wifi locating software in iOS is enough to trump all the quality apps that were out there then that means they could do the same for any app even if the app performs better then the so called existing app. The wifi finders found 10x the networks that the network finder in iOS finds, yet this was enough to have apple take the stupid action of eliminating all wifi finders. An example is Wifi-fo-fum which will find 10 networks, tell you the mac, mode, security protocol channel, rssi and rates as opposed to apple's that tell you subnet and ip, with rssi only given in the form of the signal graphic that is about useless when trying to trouble shot signal strength on a wifi network and what might be affecting it.

Re:WiFi by NetNed · 2010-09-10 04:35 · Score: 1

Oh and I meant to put in that apple iOS network finder will find 2 to Wifi-fo-fums ten, even when Wifi-fo-fum will let you connect to a network that doesn't show on the weak iOS network finder
Re:WiFi by tylersoze · 2010-09-10 04:47 · Score: 5, Informative

The WiFi API is private that's why those types of apps were rejected. Believe me I know, we had a game based on finding WiFi hotspots we wanted to port from the DS, but didn't because we knew it wouldn't be approved for use of private API's.
Private API rejections are one of the rejections that actually makes sense. In those cases, you need to argue for Apple to make the particular API public rather than for them accept apps that use private API's that the company has no obligation to maintain compatibility for, so could change at any time, breaking your application.
Re:WiFi by Trolan · 2010-09-10 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

They're still verboten by the new rules:

2.5 Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected
The wireless framework is a non-public API under iOS.
Re:WiFi by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:49 · Score: 0

I don't think anything in the published rules say that it is all of a sudden OK to go out and use APIs that are not part of the published "OK to use" list. That was why these got pulled before.
Re:WiFi by TrancePhreak · 2010-09-10 05:02 · Score: 1

If your app is what I think it is, port to Android please ;D I found that game hard, but fun because of the hotspot detection.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:WiFi by BigRaj510 · 2010-09-10 06:19 · Score: 1

I've looked on google and I can't find it - what game is this?
Re:WiFi by Dynedain · 2010-09-10 06:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wasn't private API calls from Office to Windows a big part of what got into trouble w/ anti-trust regulations?

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:WiFi by cowscows · 2010-09-10 06:39 · Score: 1

Even if that was the case (I honestly have no idea), why would the various factors of anti-trust actions have to do with the iPhone?

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:WiFi by Bigjeff5 · 2010-09-10 08:13 · Score: 1

You don't need to be a monopoly to have an anti-trust issue. You generally don't get much attention on them until you are close to monopoly level though. Apple and the iPhone/iPad (and really all software platforms) is a bit of an exception - nowhere near a monopoly as most people see it, but there is a monopoly on the platform, and that platform is popular enough to draw attention.
The reason private api calls between Office and Windows was anti-competitive is because such calls are unavailable to third parties, and therefore represent a significant arbitrary advantage for Microsoft applications that their competitors have no access to. It's bad ju-ju to to artificially restrict a resource (the OS in both of these cases) to the detriment of your competitors. It's cheating, and it's bad for consumers on a number of levels.
For traditional resources this generally requires monopoly control - otherwise competitors will just find other sources of the resource and there is no advantage. For software platforms, however, all you need is someone who wants to compete on your platform - you've already got the requisite monopoly on that platform to run afoul of anti-trust laws.

--
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Re:WiFi by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:26 · Score: 1

But then, you see, someone could connect to a network with a weak signal and have a degraded user experience.
No, far better it be hidden so they don't know what they're missing.
Re:WiFi by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:33 · Score: 1

As if applications are unable to check the OS version they're running on, or API availability, and use the appropriate methods for each.
No, using a non-stable API is a reason to flag the app with a warning, because without special care, yes, it will break. But with any special care it's perfectly reasonable and allows all sorts of debugging you just can't do because the stable APIs, by necessity, can't be that complete.
Re:WiFi by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:36 · Score: 1

Because Microsoft was making the OS, whose undocumented (private API) calls they were using in their office products, to enable them to out-perform the competition.
Much like Apple wrote the OS and is also competing on the App store. And Apple of course has no rules about what technologies it can use it its apps, and can see the internals of all its competitors' apps.
Re:WiFi by TrancePhreak · 2010-09-10 08:41 · Score: 1

Metro Wardrive perhaps. Here's a link: http://www.qj.net/qjnet/nintendo-ds/metro-wardrive-101-wlan-based-wargame-for-ds.html

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:WiFi by rovolo · 2010-09-11 14:00 · Score: 1

But they sold Office as a separate product.

The Rejection List... Long. by Petersko · 2010-09-10 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

After reading the pdf "App Store Review Guidelines" I'm of two minds.

First, damn that's a long list of rejection reasons.

Second, the subset of that list that is neither reasonable nor obvious is very short. There are only a couple that I would say are stupid, and they revolve around censorship (i.e. adult themes).

In the end, would I try to write an app that violated any of those rules? Probably not. One could argue that I might want to... and that's true. But if I want to do that, there's an Android market just over thataway. It's a walled garden, but there's a door right there.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by beakerMeep · 2010-09-10 04:33 · Score: 1

Webkit doesn't disallow plugins, apple does.

--
meep

Coincidental? by Revotron · 2010-09-10 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just recently got full and official Flash support on my Motorola Droid with Android 2.2. It seems oddly coincidental to me that as soon as Android has solid Flash support, Apple decides it's time to open the floodgates and be best buddies with Adobe.

What the fuck? Sure, it's natural that Apple would do that because they want to stay competitive with the Android segment of the market, but Apple was supposed to be the leader and "innovator", not the follower.

Re:Coincidental? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:49 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure Apple still wants Adobe to take a flying leap. The issue was probably that some game developers would have to rewrite their engines and even game data to support the iphone under the previous rules.
Re:Coincidental? by Cogneato · 2010-09-10 05:09 · Score: 1

Wait, "solid Flash support"? From all I have read, it is anything but solid. "Spotty, buggy, resource-hog" seems to be what is being said, even by people that aren't fans of Apple.
Re:Coincidental? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:09 · Score: 0

I don't recall Adobe's stock going up 12% when Android phone manufacturers A, B, C, D, E and the rest kept touting Flash support on their devices.
Apple makes a move, Adobe's stock rises. Interesting.
Re:Coincidental? by _xeno_ · 2010-09-10 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm pretty sure this is coincidental. I'm fairly sure that Apple still wants Adobe to, well, fuck off, but that they hit too many apps as collateral damage with their policies that were designed to prevent Flash-based apps from being ported to the iPhone.
So they've relaxed the rules a bit, which happens to allow auto-ported Flash apps. But Flash still isn't supported in Mobile Safari and there's no sign that this will change.
Plus, this means that they've reopened the door for auto-ported apps from Android, so maybe this is a shot at Android, but not in the way you think.
Bottom line is that the flood gates are still firmly closed, they've just opened a sluice gate which allows some Flash to trickle through.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Coincidental? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-09-10 05:40 · Score: 1

Actually Apple made their point and now are getting kudos for returning to the original situation, Flash out but Flash compiled to compliant native code back in. Not bad if you ask me.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Coincidental? by Kilrah_il · 2010-09-10 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I just recently got my ingrown toenail taken care of. It seems oddly coincidental to me that as soon as my ingrown nail is fixed, Apple decides it's time to open the floodgates and be best buddies with me. I guess they know that now that I don't have to worry about my aching toe, I am ready to hound them to death if they don't open up the floodgates. Ha ha! Cowards...

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Re:Coincidental? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 05:48 · Score: 1

I didn't read reviews, but I have it on my N1, and while not lightning-fast, it's fast enough to not be annoying. I haven't actually used it enough to find out if it's a battery hog or not.
Re:Coincidental? by Skuld-Chan · 2010-09-10 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Read the marketplace comments for Flash - there's plenty of praise for it. While its not perfect - it does work, and it allows you to see a full website where there were holes before.
On my nexus one - battery life actually got better with 2.2 and Flash installed so I don't think its really a resource hog any more than any other app.
Re:Coincidental? by Threni · 2010-09-10 06:15 · Score: 1

If you're playing a Flash game, or watching a Flash-delivered animation, then it makes little difference to me how much of the extensive resources of my phone (HTC Desire, in my case) are being used. Android is pretty good at managing memory, so as soon as you stop using Flash it'll be freed up and used for whatever wants it next.
Re:Coincidental? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:37 · Score: 0

You're confused. These things are unrelated. You still cannot run Flash on iOS devices. What this is about is allowing Adobe (for example) to cross compile a Flash app to iOS.
Android 2.2 recently gaining Flash support is irrelevant. iOS does not run Flash.
Re:Coincidental? by WNight · 2010-09-10 08:42 · Score: 1

No, you don't, because it didn't happen. Of course. That was the default condition. Why would their stock rise on news of "Today, same as yesterday"?
Re:Coincidental? by exomondo · 2010-09-12 15:29 · Score: 1

Wait, "solid Flash support"? From all I have read, it is anything but solid. "Spotty, buggy, resource-hog" seems to be what is being said, even by people that aren't fans of Apple.
Gees, people who believe that shit are only an intellectual stone's throw from the moron's who write it. It's not the platform that has the issue but the fact that these douchers are using it to view content specifically designed for desktop computing devices with desktop computing power, Captain Obvious will tell you that experience won't be ideal on a mobile device.

How about the entry fee? by Sabalon · 2010-09-10 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I guess you still have to pay $99/yr for appstore developer ability, or $299/yr for corporate development.

But what about people that just want to do the coding for themselves or fun? I don't want to distribute my app. Why can't I register one device that I can load my code onto for free without paying either of these?

I have a Mac, iPhone and XCode. Why can't I compile my code and move it onto my device without paying (or jailbreaking).

Seems that would be a nice way to get some more developers in.

Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:57 · Score: 0

Apple is not open source, will not become open source so I'd get used to it. That's what Android is for. It's gotten to be a tired argument complaining that Apple isn't free and open. They charge a $100 for developers, deal with it. It was never meant for tinkerers. You should see what game engine companies charge for iPhone versions. How about Wii or PS3? A $100 a year isn't much for access. Some things in life cost money. It costs Apple money to provide for the developers so it's fair to charge and it's dirt cheap. If free is your primary concern then you need to switch to Android.
Re:How about the entry fee? by TrancePhreak · 2010-09-10 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple doesn't allow that because then you could distribute your code to everyone and get around the app store.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:How about the entry fee? by BitterOak · 2010-09-10 05:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple is not open source, will not become open source so I'd get used to it.
Windows is not open source either, but I can still write programs for it for free.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:How about the entry fee? by catbutt · 2010-09-10 05:41 · Score: 1

Closed source doesn't say somehow make them immune to antitrust scrutiny. They want to sell their devices in the US (or elsewhere), they have to play by the rules.

The computer industry took off because home computers have always allowed hobbyists to get in an program them and share their programs easily. I think a strong case could be made that rules that disallow the sort of thing Apple is doing would benefit everyone. I'm a fan of Apple and have made a lot of money off their stock, but I fully support the government pressuring them to do the right thing for consumers and the industry as a whole in cases like these.

Android doesn't fully address the problem either, since one incentive for programming as a hobby is that you learn skills that can make you money later. But skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone, and iphone is such a large chunk of the market that could potentially make learning the skill financially worthwhile..
Re:How about the entry fee? by Late+Adopter · 2010-09-10 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because then Apple can't keep malware off the iPhone. A $99 payment is a pretty good barrier to stop people from following instructions on the internet to get a Bonzai Buddy app, etc, to work. Unfortunately that stops the good code with the bad, but $99 is cheap enough for most developers but the most part-time hobbyists, like yourself.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:58 · Score: 0

You can write programs for OS X for free too. That would be the correct comparison.
Re:How about the entry fee? by vijayiyer · 2010-09-10 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously, $99 isn't much money. Even if you value your time at minimum wage, the amount of money it will take you to actually write software that does something for you will rapidly exceed $99. And, as you said yourself, they're giving you XCode for free without strings attached.
In any profession, tools that generate revenue cost money. In the world of software, it happens to be incredibly cheap. If you were a mechanic, a single ratchet would cost $99.
Re:How about the entry fee? by DragonWriter · 2010-09-10 06:32 · Score: 1

But what about people that just want to do the coding for themselves or fun? I don't want to distribute my app. Why can't I register one device that I can load my code onto for free without paying either of these?
I have a Mac, iPhone and XCode. Why can't I compile my code and move it onto my device without paying (or jailbreaking).
If you aren't paying Apple to develop for their platform, they don't really care about your ability to develop for their platform.
Google has a different philosophy and business model, so if that's where your interest lies, Android is probably better for you.
Re:How about the entry fee? by dave024 · 2010-09-10 06:38 · Score: 1

I think jailbreaking is your best solution. In fact running your own code on the device without Apple's approval is kind of the whole point of jailbreaking. I've spent some time developing apps for my phone. I'd like to come up with something worthwhile, and then pay the $99 fee.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Microlith · 2010-09-10 06:50 · Score: 1

Because then Apple can't keep malware off the iPhone
You, I, and everyone at Slashdot know that this is pure bullshit. Look at how many applications with undocumented functionality zip right by Apple's review process, only to be pulled retroactively once it is revealed.
The $99 fee is no deterrent to malware, especially not if it's subtle enough. Forcing people to pay $99 to put software on their phone just ensures that hobbyists are kept out, and everyone is forced to go through their store.
I will say that MS has one-upped Apple in the anti-free(as in beer)-software with app submission fees on top of signup fees. Nothing quite like abusing your developer base.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-10 06:58 · Score: 1

You can write programs for OS X for free too. That would be the correct comparison.
Nah. His analogy used two platforms that actually have some market share. :P
Re:How about the entry fee? by zeroshade · 2010-09-10 07:25 · Score: 1

Apple created the SDK and maintains it. The amount of money they spent on the development of the SDK is negligible compared to the actual development of iOS and how much they profit. There is absolutely no reason except greed and lock-in to prevent someone from freely being able to tinker with apps on their own device. In fact, removing the $99/yr barrier to putting apps on your own device would result in many more developers just "testing the waters" with iPhone development and thus lead to many more developers actually paying that $99/yr in order to release apps. Think about it this way, you have to invest that $99/yr just to start developing the app. Instead, what if you could develop for free and they charged you the $99/yr for only what they say they are charging it for, hosting it on the App Store. If you only needed the license to actually distribute the app, a lot more people would be developing for the iPhone.
Re:How about the entry fee? by zeroshade · 2010-09-10 07:28 · Score: 1

Android doesn't fully address the problem either ... skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone
It is not a failing of Android that the skills don't transfer well. They are different devices with different APIs for different reasons. In fact I would argue that the skills transfer just fine. The skills you learn from picking up the documentation and learning the API and learning how to code to the API and use the system transfer just as well when you pick up the documentation for the iPhone and have to spend the time to learn the API and how to code for it. Just because the API and language are different, does not mean that the skills don't transfer.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Late+Adopter · 2010-09-10 08:22 · Score: 1

You misunderstand what I'm arguing. Paying for a developer cert only gives you access to your own devices. To successfully propagate malware you have to coax your victims to load the code, and they aren't going to pay $99 to do it.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:26 · Score: 0

Forcing people to pay $99 to put software on their phone just ensures that hobbyists are kept out, and everyone is forced to go through their store.
You live in a strange universe where "hobbyist" = "unwilling to pay a single cent to indulge in a hobby". In my universe, hobbyists routinely drop hundreds to thousands of dollars on their hobby. Ever step inside a R/C hobby store? That stuff ain't free, my friend.
Furthermore, considering that everything else you need in order to develop software for iPhone will cost you a total of around $2500 (2 year AT&T data plan plus a Mac mini), $99 is kinda a drop in the bucket. It's intended to provide just enough of an economic barrier that regular users won't sign up for it just to be able to upload non-AppStore apps. It's certainly no barrier to hobbyists.
Finally, you don't even need to drop $99 to begin the hobby. Last I saw, the iPhone SDK and simulator are free downloads, so if you want to get started before committing any cash you can. You only need to pay in order to get signed up for the account which lets you test your app on real hardware and also upload things to the App Store.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:47 · Score: 0

Closed source doesn't say somehow make them immune to antitrust scrutiny. They want to sell their devices in the US (or elsewhere), they have to play by the rules.
Do tell... which rule is it that states any company which ships any closed source software is by definition a trust?
You seem to be fundamentally confused about what antitrust law is intended to do.

The computer industry took off because home computers have always allowed hobbyists to get in an program them and share their programs easily.
That only covers the early years when computers were cool for geeks and hobbyists, but had relatively little appeal to mom and pop and other people whose primary interest wasn't computing for computing's sake. Computers didn't go mainstream until the software and hardware (and, let's be frank, the development of the Internet) reached a tipping point where they were obviously useful to everyone. Hobbyist software had very little to do with that.

I think a strong case could be made that rules that disallow the sort of thing Apple is doing would benefit everyone.
So you think a case could be made but you haven't bothered to even formulate it.

I'm a fan of Apple and have made a lot of money off their stock, but I fully support the government pressuring them to do the right thing for consumers and the industry as a whole in cases like these.
I doubt that you have really thought the matter through, or examined the history of personal computing much (if at all). Even if one assumes the truth of your assertion that computers succeeded due to hobbyist software, you would need to do at least all of the following before I could possibly take your claim that Apple should be forced to be more open seriously:
1. Show that the conditions early in the history of personal computing which required hobbyist software for progress still apply
2. Show that what Apple is doing truly harms the ability of hobbyists to write software (hint 1: it's not an open and shut case that they prevent all hobbyist programming on their own platform, and hint 2: they aren't even remotely close to being a monopoly)
3. Show that market pressures are inadequate to correct the situation. (You'll have trouble with this; if openness is such an important thing to progress, any platform which lacks it logically ought to fall behind those which have it.)
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 09:06 · Score: 0

Apple created the SDK and maintains it. The amount of money they spent on the development of the SDK is negligible compared to the actual development of iOS and how much they profit.
Uh, what? Surely you cannot be wholly ignorant of the fact that any rational cost accounting would put a large amount of the SDK costs under iOS development costs. Apple needs its own SDK to write iOS and iOS apps. They have incremental costs related to supporting outside developers, obviously, but even had they never released the SDK to the public they would have needed to write a less polished version for internal purposes.
In fact, since iOS and its SDK is very closely related to MacOS X and its SDK, and the iOS development environment and toolchain are mostly shared with MacOS X (Xcode), it's a bit difficult to disentangle any of it as an outsider. Trying to make points based on this is a fool's game.

There is absolutely no reason except greed and lock-in to prevent someone from freely being able to tinker with apps on their own device.
If you gave every user the ability to load arbitrary applications, people would quickly exploit that to enable piracy without even needing to jailbreak. (Do you really think most jailbreakers do it to buy crappy apps on Cydia? Ho ho ho. Guarantee you at least 90% of it is to pirate cracked App Store apps.)

In fact, removing the $99/yr barrier to putting apps on your own device would result in many more developers just "testing the waters" with iPhone development and thus lead to many more developers actually paying that $99/yr in order to release apps. Think about it this way, you have to invest that $99/yr just to start developing the app. Instead, what if you could develop for free and they charged you the $99/yr for only what they say they are charging it for, hosting it on the App Store. If you only needed the license to actually distribute the app, a lot more people would be developing for the iPhone.
You can develop for free, using the simulator. This is more than enough to "test the waters" for most classes of app. You don't even need to drop ~$2K on an iPhone plus a 2 year data contract to test the waters that way.
$99 is not a barrier to anyone who seriously wants to do iPhone development. It is a barrier to people who just want to pirate apps. If pirates are too cheap to buy iPhone apps (most of which are priced quite modestly), they certainly won't pay $99 to be able to sign and upload apps to their own phone. So complain all you want, but don't expect Apple to change this policy any time soon. The price is cheap enough, but not so cheap that it is an attractive option to pirates.
Re:How about the entry fee? by WNight · 2010-09-10 09:11 · Score: 1

If you were a mechanic, a single ratchet would cost $99.
Yeah, sucks to be in an industry where you can't replicate the tools for free. Ouch.

Seriously, $99 isn't much money.
Well okay, you made it sound like a lot, but sure.
Even though it's not a lot it's a significant barrier to a new programmer, especially if they're pre-teen.

Even if you value your time at minimum wage, the amount of money it will take you to actually write software that does something for you will rapidly exceed $99.
But your time, especially on a project you're learning from, is a ready commodity to many people.
Sure, to anyone with a credit card this is no big deal, but to a kid who'd have to save for weeks, borrow a credit-card they can use online, and register (probably something they couldn't actually do, being underage and having to sign a contract), just to get the tools to start writing 'Hello World', it's a big enough barrier.

And, as you said yourself, they're giving you XCode for free without strings attached.
Yeah, no strings. What string would they attach? After all, it only works with their products. Where are you going to go with that, Android?
It's their house, they can do what they want. I'm just saying it's going to be a pretty stagnant house with less and less junior programmers.
You know though, which market segment I've seen adopt the iPhone in greatest numbers (aside from existing Mac users) - the middle-aged and elderly. Like getting Grandma an iMac, getting her an iPhone is pretty easy. I guess it's not surprising, Jobs is what, 70? So yeah, he's probably not just out of touch but a bit afraid of teenagers these days, what with all their hacking and blue boxes.
Re:How about the entry fee? by WNight · 2010-09-10 09:16 · Score: 1

Strange, Apple really used to seem to care about reaching out to students. Charging for developer tools is so stuffy and 1984-chained to your seats watching the same monotone monopolistic leader chanting that it's surreal.
Re:How about the entry fee? by WNight · 2010-09-10 09:17 · Score: 1

You are aware that in Apple's opinion, jailbreaking is a DMCA violation? As soon as it suits them they'll detect jailbroken phones, shut you down, and file a massive nuisance lawsuit ala DirecTV.
Re:How about the entry fee? by bennomatic · 2010-09-10 09:35 · Score: 1

If you were a mechanic, a single ratchet would cost $99.
In my world of Freedom, I could make my own ratchet. I've seen Gilligan's Island... I could make one out of a coconut! And you can't stop me!

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:How about the entry fee? by dave024 · 2010-09-10 10:04 · Score: 1

Are you aware that in the government's opinion jailbreaking is not a DMCA violation? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/us-government-jailbreaking-iphone-legal/story?id=11254253
Re:How about the entry fee? by WNight · 2010-09-10 10:12 · Score: 1

No. That's not the important thing though - Apple does. Or claims to and has lawyers. They might lose those nuisance lawsuits, or never even file them, but they still hate jailbreakers and would ruin them if they could.
That's just something to think about when casually picking a platform to develop for.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 10:27 · Score: 0

> Apple doesn't allow that because then you could distribute your code to everyone and get around the app store.
Oh, really ? Do you actually know anything about iPhone development, in particular signing ? For 99$ you can only run you apps on 100 signed devices. They could do a free devkit limited to 5 devices for instance.
Why do people talk about things they know nothing about and get modded insightful ?
Re:How about the entry fee? by minniger · 2010-09-10 10:33 · Score: 1

You can develop with the simulator for both the iphone and the iPad all day long with a free developer account. So your basic point isn't accurate.
A developer connection subscription used to be 500 oer year. So they have really dropped the price quite a bit.
All the big companies change for developer access to their stuff. Last I checked a msdn subscription was a fair chunk too.
Seriously. 99/year isn't bad at all. Just think of all the stuff they do
- Xcode on going dev and support
- online and actually up to date docs
- access to all the wwdc session videos
- developer connection website with all the various tools
- early access to ios and lots of other stuff.
So agin.. Less than 10 bucks a month is too much? Really?
Re:How about the entry fee? by Draek · 2010-09-10 14:30 · Score: 1

But what about people that just want to do the coding for themselves or fun?
They buy an Android or a Nokia smartphone.

I have a Mac, iPhone and XCode.
And that's your problem right there. If you had a Thinkpad, a Nexus One and Eclipse instead you'd be programming now rather than hoping Big Brother takes pity on you sometime before the next decade.

--
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Re:How about the entry fee? by quetwo · 2010-09-11 01:08 · Score: 1

ummm... you CAN write apps for your own phone without paying the $99 for the apple-signed cert. If you use a self-signed cert, you can upload the IPK to your phone with iTunes, and you can explicitly share it with other users, as long as your know their phone-id.
I've done this all without paying the Apple fee. The day I was ready to plunk down the money for the cert is when they went all ballistic with the new rules. I got gun-shy and haven't looked back since.
Re:How about the entry fee? by exomondo · 2010-09-12 15:33 · Score: 1

You can write programs for OS X for free too. That would be the correct comparison.
Why should it be any different? You're only suggesting the idea of it being the 'correct comparison' because it supports your argument.
Re:How about the entry fee? by zeroshade · 2010-09-13 03:04 · Score: 1

Because so much of the documentation and other information is freely online, an MSDN subscription is not required to develop for windows. It is completely free to develop an application for windows unless you want to buy specific tools, which is your choice to do but is not required in any way.

All the big companies change[sic] for developer access to their stuff.
I can name at least one that doesn't, Google. You are only charged to put something on the market (and it's a one-time charge if I remember correctly not an annual one). You can freely distribute, install, and develop without paying anything. In fact most companies don't charge for developer access at all, they charge for tools. You can freely develop for OS X without a developer fee. You can develop for Windows with no developer fee. Even developing for a console, the fee is to purchase a dev box that allows you to put stuff on it and the dev toolkit. If you got a dev box from someone else and got the tools to develop for free, you don't need to have paid for a specific key in order to be allowed to put your stuff on the dev box. (If I remember correctly anyways =P).
It's not that less than 10 bucks a month is too much. But for the person who is just starting to play with development, $100 entry fee (let alone annual if it takes them longer than 1 year to make a profitable app) is a bit much to sink in as a "I wonder if I'll enjoy this" or "I wonder if I can do this". It creates enough of a barrier to remove the hobbyist that just wants to toy with the tools and development unless they feel that it's enough of a value to invest the money. Developing for the iPhone/iPad, you're paying (in addition to the other stuff) for a key that allows you to install something you created yourself onto the device that you own. THAT is what I object to. Wanna charge a one-time fee for the dev tools? Go for it. I shouldn't need an annual subscription fee just to develop for the device I own. They should divorce the ability to develop from the other stuff. Pay the subscription for the early access, the videos, the tools. But if I don't want all that, let me develop for the device freely.
As for the simulator you describe, I've never heard of it. Could you provide a link? If you can develop freely and use the simulator freely and it's good. Then I accept that it's much better than what I thought. However a simulator is not a substitute for being able to develop on the actual device.
Re:How about the entry fee? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 04:02 · Score: 0

As for the simulator you describe, I've never heard of it. Could you provide a link? If you can develop freely and use the simulator freely and it's good. Then I accept that it's much better than what I thought. However a simulator is not a substitute for being able to develop on the actual device.
http://developer.apple.com/devcenter/ios/index.action
Create a free account. The simulator comes bundled with xcode. It's very well done and integrates right into the development cycle.
WRT google. Ok, that's one and I'm sure there are others that give stuff away for various reasons. But the point still stands that what apple is doing is not outlandish or unusual. Apple doesn't charge for access to docs or to the tools. Just for access to pre-release stuff, dev support, and for actual installation tools/keys for iOS devices. Try IBM, Oracle/Sun, MS, etc... MSDN is not required, but if you're building a commercial application for windows? You'd be crazy not to have it. Same goes for the others...
Would I like it if apple didn't charge? Sure. I'd really like it if apple would open up in all sorts of ways (bug tracking, java, etc, etc!)... But the 99$/year is not a serious barrier to entry if you want to put your app in the app store. Heck, that's the least of the issues anyone should really have with iOS development and apple.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by geminidomino · 2010-09-10 04:37 · Score: 1

Can I get my troll scrambled with cheese?

Publicity 101 by Brannoncyll · 2010-09-10 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Publicity 101 for leveraging a strong market position:

1) Impose unnecessary and draconian restrictions
2) Lots of anger in community; blog postings / news articles result (read: publicity)
3) Remove unnecessary and draconian restrictions
4) Lots of praise in community; blog postings / news articles result (read: more publicity)
5) ....
6) Profits!

context by RockGrumbler · 2010-09-10 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Flash can now port applications to the iphone!

Re:context by LittlePud · 2010-09-10 04:39 · Score: 1

I'm surprisd "Anything that AT&T doesn't like" isn't on the list.
Re:context by R3d+M3rcury · 2010-09-10 08:07 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure AT&T has nothing to say about Apps on the iPhone. However, I'm sure they have given some guidelines, which Apple have dutifully passed along.

2.15: Apps larger than 20MB in size will not download over cellular networks (this is automatically prohibited by the App Store)
9.3: Audio streaming content over a cellular network may not use more than 5MB over 5 minutes
9.4: Video streaming content over a cellular network longer than 10 minutes must use HTTP Live Streaming and include a baseline 64 kbps audio-only HTTP Live stream
Re:context by eulernet · 2010-09-10 08:26 · Score: 1

<AnnoyingFlashPopup>GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Flash can now port applications to the iphone!</AnnoyingFlashPopup>
Fixed for you.

bad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:38 · Score: 0

Am I the only one that doesn't want flash-based apps on my iOS device? Don't flash-based apps use more battery power than a non-flash equivalent apps?

Re:bad news... by AndrewNeo · 2010-09-10 04:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Why would Flash take more battery than a normal app? Is there a suck_battery_life() function somewhere in the API nobody else is using but Adobe?
Re:bad news... by jecowa · 2010-09-10 04:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

running Flash is processor intensive

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
Re:bad news... by Trolan · 2010-09-10 04:51 · Score: 1

No, it's a function Flash isn't using: usleep(). ;-)
Basically Flash has a tendency to spin its wheels while waiting a lot more than a normal application. Continually polling for stuff to do is heavy on the processor and consequently is detrimental to battery life.
Re:bad news... by Cinder6 · 2010-09-10 04:55 · Score: 0, Troll

Well, if something is grossly inefficient, it's going to take more battery to get the job done than an efficient app.

--
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Re:bad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:58 · Score: 0

Modern systems (and especially devices like cell phones) will commonly save as much power as possible by having specialty hardware for performing certain activities like video playback, and putting the processor to sleep until it is needed again once it finishes a current task. The expectation is that Adobe's flash version for iphone will neither take advantage of all hardware capabilities or allow the processor to go to sleep.
I understand Apple's original position - by letting Adobe make a flash compiler for porting to the iPhone, you are nearly guaranteed a lot of shitty, slow apps with reduced functionality and hardware integration, with a developer audience incapable of improving any of those aspects. If apple rejects a flash-based app for say using up system memory and being killed after moderate use, the developer has no recourse other than to beg Adobe for a fix. Adobe has also proven in the past to try to use their developer and user audience as leverage to try to get their way on the iphone (such as crying publicly about apple not letting them ship a flash plugin, three years before they had a ARM-based full flash plugin shippable as a beta on any mobile phone)
Re:bad news... by jecowa · 2010-09-10 05:05 · Score: 1

why am I a troll now? for expressing my opinions on Flash?

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
Re:bad news... by farble1670 · 2010-09-10 05:10 · Score: 1

any app that has constant animation is processor intensive.
Re:bad news... by Tacvek · 2010-09-10 05:16 · Score: 1

True. But the method of porting flash apps to the iphone may introduce differences from how flash is run as an applet. Do you have any evidence that the recompiled flash apps for iPhone have the same issues as flash applets? (Barring of course programmers using explicit busy waits.)

--
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:bad news... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:18 · Score: 0

any app that has constant animation is processor intensive.
Which would make sense, if all Flash apps had constant animation. Or even some animation at all.
Re:bad news... by Trolan · 2010-09-10 05:24 · Score: 1

As this is still a fairly new development, who knows if the Flash->iOS native inherits the same faults of the original runtime. I would tend to think it's likely that it will, for the following reason. It would be far easier and less prone for porting weirdness for Adobe to build a Flash as static link library and stub launcher that can bind against the data chunk from a source .fla than to completely transcode the .fla into native code.
Re:bad news... by farble1670 · 2010-09-10 05:30 · Score: 1

what's your point? those non-animated flash web pages / fragments use zero CPU cycles.
Re:bad news... by _xeno_ · 2010-09-10 05:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Apparently. Firefox CPU utilization without Lexulous (a non-animated Flash-based Facebook game - shut up, my Mom likes to play it with us) is about 8%-10%. (This is with Twitter and Facebook open which presumably are doing AJAX polling in the background.)
Throw open Lexulous, and I discover that I'm losing again (bah), and the CPU usage shoots up to 90% as long as that tab is open. With a Flash app that is literally sitting there doing nothing. No animation, no AJAX polling, just showing a Scrabble board.
So, joke or not, yes, it would appear that somewhere Flash has found the equivalent of suck_battery_life() and has a rather liberal usage policy for it.
Disclaimer: the computer I'm trying this on is an old Mac Pro G5, so I'd hope modern computers wouldn't be quite as bad, but still, that's pretty horrible.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:bad news... by gorzek · 2010-09-10 06:00 · Score: 1

Flash has a reputation for doing everything (video decoding, etc.) in software even when there is (more efficient) hardware available on the device.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:bad news... by Tacvek · 2010-09-10 06:09 · Score: 1

I doubt that. First of all excesive battery use by means of things like busy waits are grounds for rejection, as are failing to follow the HIG.
Assuming the cross compiling system does not use busy waits and polling as much as flash on other platforms do, then there is no battery life issue unless the programmer has added his only busy wait code, which would be indisputable grounds for rejection.
Regular apps would be a pain to implement with flash, since it would require simulating the standard widgets.
But there is one category of applications that is not really expected to follow the HIG, namely games. A large number of games on the iPhone are ports of games implemented in flash on other platforms.
A few I can think of off the top of my head (there are many, many, more though):
5 Minutes to Kill Yourself, Amateur Surgeon, Bloons, Boomshine, Cannabalt, Crush the Castle, FarmVille, Gravity Hook, My Li'l Bastard, Shift, Sushi cat, and Vector Runner.
Furthermore, since PopCap games has Flash versions of many of its games, which may provide an an easier way of porting its games to the iPhone, just adding in the remaining features of the full version as desired for the iPhone and iPad, and possibly tweaking the form factor and controls a bit.

--
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:bad news... by zeroshade · 2010-09-10 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, good thing the code is converted to native iPhone code since the iPhone still does not run flash.
Running an app that has been ported from flash will be no different than running any other native app that runs with a native abstraction library. ie. Will not use any more battery power than a non-flash equivalent app.
Re:bad news... by Psykechan · 2010-09-10 09:09 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as a Mac Pro G5. All Mac Pros use Intel CPUs and the G5 is a PowerPC chip. You're probably using a G5 PowerMac. That being said...
Adobe Flash was designed initially for use on Microsoft Windows systems running x86 CPUs. Although it has been ported to other platforms and architectures, its performance is still better on Windows than other OSes and magnitudes better on x86 than other CPUs. I've used Flash on a dual 2GHz G5 PowerMac and I can attest that it runs worse than a 1GHz Pentium III.
The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad/AppleTV all use an ARM CPU, an ARM Cortex A8 to be more specific which is what the Motorola Droid uses, which means that Flash performance on the Apple iOS devices should be comparable to the Droid's. In other words, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Re:bad news... by _xeno_ · 2010-09-10 11:28 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as a Mac Pro G5.
I'm not a Mac guy (he says, typing on a MacBook). Well, not really. Yeah, you're right, it's a PowerMac or whatever. I know it's a PowerPC G5, and that it's from whatever the Pro line was called before it was a MacPro since it's the same huge honking case. (It's a second-hand work computer, and was at hand at the time.)
I still experience the same CPU usage increase on Intel chips even when displaying a non-animated Flash app, it's just not as drastic. (From about 20% to 35% - but this is under Firefox 4 Beta 5, which hates Flash under Mac OS X. It keeps on declaring it "crashed.")
One other correction from my previous post - I had written "tab open" when I really meant "tab visible." Right now I still have the Lexulous tab open, and Firefox's CPU usage is down to what it would be without the tab open. Whenever Flash is visible, the CPU usage shoots up. I assume it has something to do with the rendering engine animating non-animated things. I dunno. I just know that it happens and is easily reproducible. Then again, I still am not sure why Firefox burns CPU time doing nothing either, but it does, so it's not limited to Flash.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:bad news... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2010-09-10 22:24 · Score: 1

Actually, the question is "why does", not "why would".
Actually, the question is "what was the loud wooshing noise going over your head?"

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Re:bad news... by TheSunborn · 2010-09-11 01:20 · Score: 1

But is the problem with this specific application or with flash? The tower defence game I used to play a little(Gem crafter) newer took much cpu time when nothing happend. But it can take a lot of cpu time when there are lots of monsters on the map.
Remember You can make a busy loop in any language. Doom does that so even standing still in the game will tax your cpu to 100% rendering that nice 640x480 screen again and again.
Re:bad news... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2010-09-12 23:06 · Score: 1

Thanks for missing that the joke made much more sense after my change
Erm? Ok. Maybe to you.
Anyway - sorry for the late reply, I didn't even realize you'd replied!
I don't know if you realize, but it is a very hard to see your posts when they're all at -1.
Perhaps if you start being a little less offensive, you'll get some more karma.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by Pojut · 2010-09-10 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

No...only spam.

--
Living With a Nerd

ick by jecowa · 2010-09-10 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't want flash-based apps on my iOS device. They are slower and use more batteries than non-flash-based equivalent apps.

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such

Re:ick by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:57 · Score: 0

Ahh you posted the same thing twice. Once as anonymous and once as your user id.
Silly silly.
Re:ick by jecowa · 2010-09-10 05:01 · Score: 1

yes. but I still can't see the first post I made titled "bad news". but I can see the reply that AndrewNeo made to it. Do you know why I wouldn't be able to see it?

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
Re:ick by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:33 · Score: 0

I don't want flash-based apps on my iOS device.
Here's an idea, don't install them then!
Re:ick by stephanruby · 2010-09-10 06:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't want flash-based apps on my iOS device. They are slower and use more batteries than non-flash-based equivalent apps.
How would you know?? Did you actually load flash-based apps on your iDevice?? And what about Unity-based games? Unity has a plugin that generates Objective C code (just like the new Flash builder tool used to do before it got banned). Can you even tell the difference when a 3D/2D game was made with the Unity game engine, or when it was not?
Re:ick by jecowa · 2010-09-10 06:13 · Score: 1

Is there a way to distinguish which apps are using Flash?

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
Re:ick by stephanruby · 2010-09-10 09:02 · Score: 1

Is there a way to distinguish which apps are using Flash?
Well yes, according to you -- there is! Take a look at what you just wrote in your original post: "I don't want flash-based apps on my iOS device. They are slower and use more batteries than non-flash-based equivalent apps." [the emphasis in bold is mine]
In other words, whenever you find evidence (in the form of user reviews, or iOS logs, or a personal impression) of an app feeling "slower and using more batteries" than some other equivalent apps, then according to you at least, there is a good chance that the app was made using a flash-based code generator.
And besides, it's not like it matters anyway. If an app is slow, or battery-hungry, even if it was hand-coded right from the start in Objective C from the hands of a gorgeous maiden, the results are the same, the results are what matters, you wouldn't want such a slow and battery-hungry app on your iDevice anyway.

Nothing bad about this by rsborg · 2010-09-10 04:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apple must feel secure enough in it's ecosystem or have felt enough pressure from regulators to make the change, it does seem uncharacteristic of the typical fortress-like mentality bred by previous incursions.

I think it will be good for everyone involved that the rules are clearer and more app creation tools exist, as long as the approval process is both stringent and non-abusive.

Also glad that Flash applets are not allowed... those are 90% advertisements, and for those useful non-ad content, I'm happy using my desktop to view them.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:Nothing bad about this by gad_zuki! · 2010-09-10 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Also glad that Flash applets are not allowed...
On Android you can set flash to run only when request, just like flashblock on Firefox. So, in other words, you don't need your phone provider to refuse to give you access to flash objects. You can simply not activate them. The difference between the iphone and my EVO is that I can watch embedded video that's not supported natively. They can't. Neither of us is viewing flash ads. Choice is good, not bad.
Re:Nothing bad about this by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-09-10 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Choice is good, not bad.
If I needed Flash I wouldn't have bought an iPhone. Choice made.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Nothing bad about this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:40 · Score: 0

Why worry at all? You've been without flash on your phone for a few years now. The world has not ended, and most websites are savvy enough to realize that mobile version of a page is a waste of flash. It was a pointless 'plus point' that the Apple haters swooped on and ate up when they should have stuck to their principals.
Flash sucks, has always sucked, and will continue to suck, regardless of Apple. To claim it doesn't suck on Android, even under 2.2 a fairy tale.
Re:Nothing bad about this by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 05:53 · Score: 1

How about this for a conjecture.
WP7 is going to be released by the end of the year, and Silverlight is a primary development platform for that. As a language and platform, it's noticeably higher-level than Obj-C, so the learning curve is less steep there, and tooling can be made better. It's also really good at doing bling with a few mouse clicks (or a few lines of XML, whichever you fancy).
And guess what? All of the above are something that Flash is also good at, or better (e.g. tools). Purely coincidentally, of course...
Re:Nothing bad about this by Late+Adopter · 2010-09-10 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the idea is that Apple is using their market muscle to make Flash less necessary in the first place. If you had to opt-out of flash usage, you might find it more difficult since site makers would have no reason whatsoever to cater to you.

I don't have an iPhone nor do I want one, but I'm thrilled at the potential effect for iPhones to have on the Flash-heavy web.
Re:Nothing bad about this by DragonWriter · 2010-09-10 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple must feel secure enough in it's ecosystem or have felt enough pressure from regulators to make the change
Why are those the only two options? Couldn't the threat from competitors have been an issue? Android is gaining ground rapidly, and the greater freedom developers face on that platform combined with its rapidly expanding reach makes developing apps for Android more and more attractive a choice of where to put resources compared to iOS development.
Re:Nothing bad about this by DragonWriter · 2010-09-10 06:47 · Score: 0

If I needed Flash I wouldn't have bought an iPhone. Choice made.
And Android is rapidly overtaking iOS in mobile marketshare. The mobile market is bigger than you, and Apple is probably aware of that.
Re:Nothing bad about this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 07:17 · Score: 0

Android market-share will level off then decline as all the hand set makers go out of business because they aren't turning a profit.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by mini+me · 2010-09-10 04:58 · Score: 0

There are several implementations of Flash that run in iOS Safari without the need for jailbreaking or violating any agreements with Apple. There is absolutely nothing stopping Adobe from bringing Flash to Safari on iOS, though this announcement gives them even less reason to do so.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Cyberax · 2010-09-10 05:11 · Score: 1

Absolutely none of them are on par with the real flash. It's not possible to re-implement it in HTML5.

iOS development from GNU/Linux desktop? by otakuj462 · 2010-09-10 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I saw that with libimobiledevice, it's possible to control your iOS device with your Ubuntu desktop, including doing things like installing apps: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PortableDevices/iPhone

What I'm wondering is, would it now be possible to develop apps for the iPhone from your GNU/Linux desktop, using a free software stack? What I have in mind is something like this: you write the application in C (a strict subset of Objective C), compile it using GCC (targeting ARM architecture?), using headers obtained from the Apple SDK (I suppose GNUStep wouldn't do), and then use libimobiledevice to deploy it to your phone. I suppose this still lacks some important parts, such as a device emulator which can hook back into a debugger, but still I think it's interesting to think about.

Is anyone currently pursuing this kind of work?

Re:iOS development from GNU/Linux desktop? by mini+me · 2010-09-10 08:41 · Score: 1

I don't know if anyone is working on it directly, but indirectly they are. UMEKit is a Cocoa port of UIKit. Cocotron is a Linux (and Windows) port of Cocoa. Combined, you have the basis of your iPhone simulator and the basic tools necessary to conduct the development process.
Re:iOS development from GNU/Linux desktop? by ceoyoyo · 2010-09-10 16:57 · Score: 1

GCC can compile Objective-C too. The jailbreak toolchain uses it.
I don't see why you couldn't get the jailbreak toolchain working just fine on Linux. If you're happy with jailbreak development, you're all set. If you want official development, you have to figure out some way to sign your apps. As far as I know, you need a Mac for that, but you can do it via SSH.

Re:FTC anyone? by Trolan · 2010-09-10 05:26 · Score: 1

Not yet a suit, just an investigation. And now, not likely to become one.

Pragmatism. by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-10 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's possible to both hate Flash and realize that a lot of things you want still require it.

(And, possibly, that there isn't a better alternative technology in some cases. I said some cases, HTML5-is-the-answer-to-all-things-video partisans.)

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by mini+me · 2010-09-10 05:29 · Score: 1

Which feature of Flash is impossible to re-implement? Using the front-facing camera on the iPhone 4 is the only one I can think of, and even that is being worked on and should be quickly resolved in the near future.

Heck, they've even ported Quake to HTML5. That is quite a bit more advanced program than most Flash apps.

Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your way) by StikyPad · 2010-09-10 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny

So lets see.. first there was "Edge is fine.. 3G is overkill," then "WE HAVE 3G!!" Then it was "nobody needs tethering," "Stop the presses: WE HAVE TETHERING*!!!! (*except in the US)", then "Multitasking is ridonkulous," "Oh, one more thing... WE HAVE MULTITASKING!!!"

And now Flash.

Steve Jobs is such a visionary.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Cyberax · 2010-09-10 05:36 · Score: 5, Informative

"Which feature of Flash is impossible to re-implement?"

1) High-quality fast vector graphics with morphing and keyframe animation. Nothing in HTML5 is even close (sorry, Canvas is just a toy).

2) Video overlays and compositing.

3) Audio (nope, HTML5 doesn't have enough support).

4) Language with optional typing and fast VM. JS is not yet there.

"Heck, they've even ported Quake to HTML5 [techcrunch.com]. That is quite a bit more advanced program than most Flash apps."

Nope, they haven't. They ported it to WebGL which is NOT a part of HTML5 draft standard.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by dyingtolive · 2010-09-10 05:43 · Score: 1

“Hello, slashdotters, look at your troll, now back to me, now back at your troll, now back to me. Sadly, your troll isn’t me, but if he stopped using copypasta and old memes and switched to creative shit, he could get modded like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a basement with the troll your troll could sound like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an key to your own place and a girlfriend. Look again, the girlfriend is now a Beowulf cluster. Anything is possible when your troll is creative and not a lady. I’m on a Android.”

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

I'm not a choice fundamentalist by rsborg · 2010-09-10 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I believe, as research has shown, that too much choice can actually be a bad thing. In terms of things like software platforms, too much choice can not only be bad, but destructive to progress (i.e., think of competing packaging tools on various linux distros or maybe virus protection software on windows). The lack of a single or small set of clear choices prevents network effects from taking place, and introduces disarray that can be exploited by the malicious or incompetent.

There are extremes, and a happy medium... I prefer being happy.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:I'm not a choice fundamentalist by zeroshade · 2010-09-10 07:44 · Score: 1

There are extremes, and a happy medium... I prefer being happy.
And sometimes theres no medium, there's either yes or no. Two extremes being the only choices. This is one of those cases. Either you have the choice to use flash or not. There is no medium. This is a completely different situation than distribution packaging tools or virus protection. This is the ability to have access to something or not to have access to it at all. Can you name me one way, one single way, that flash being ALLOWED on the iPhone is a bad thing? It's not like we have multiple competing versions and Apple is restricting you to only one single version.

Wonderful! by cgenman · 2010-09-10 05:48 · Score: 1

Now we get our native Google Voice app, right? Right?

Oh, this just overturns one previous bad rule, not all of them.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Wonderful! by ceoyoyo · 2010-09-10 17:59 · Score: 1

The author of the Google Voice app said he'd heard from Apple that it would probably get accepted as soon as he resubmitted. So yes, probably.
Re:Wonderful! by hawaiian717 · 2010-09-10 18:08 · Score: 1

Maybe. The developer of GV Mobile has apparently gotten word that the app would likely be approved for the app store if he resubmitted it: http://www.todaysiphone.com/2010/09/gv-mobile-may-return-to-app-store/
So there may be hope for an official Google Voice app from Google as well.

--
End of Line.

Re:But flash is dead, according to Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:50 · Score: 0

Maybe he just wanted you guys to shut up and quit your bitching.

Re:Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your wa by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-10 05:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, you have to admit that it takes a visionary to make a product that's functionally inferior to everything else on the market, and yet outsell everyone by such a large margin. And then roll out new versions with all those missing features, and sell it to all those poor schmucks who had already bought the original phone again and again!

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by mini+me · 2010-09-10 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

2) Video overlays and compositing.

Video overlay is up to the browser, but compositing is certainly possible.

3) Audio

Support is there. Including the ability to generate audio from code. Which lacking feature do you feel is necessary?

4) Language with optional typing

If you are talking about the development of the viewer, Javascript can run anything that LLVM can spit out. That includes Objective-C and even ActionScript in the optionally typed language category.

If you are talking about the Flash content itself, why wouldn't you be using ActionScript? There is no reason why a Javascript app cannot interpret it.

You're probably got me on performance, but that does not stop one from implementing said features.

Oh wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 06:10 · Score: 0

Did Adobe secretly threatened to discontinue Photoshop for OSX or something?

Re:Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your wa by StikyPad · 2010-09-10 06:56 · Score: 1

That's not the hallmark of a visionary, but rather of a salesman.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Ingenious by ryan.onsrc · 2010-09-10 06:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I actually think supporting the addition of Flash in apps but, now this is key: continuing to not support Flash in Safari -- is actually rather ingenious of Apple.

First off, Apple was smart to ban Flash from App Store apps, initially. This has allowed Apple to build the thriving eco-system of apps, using their native graphics APIs, that exists today. Now, they have lifted said ban, one might be concerned that this means that suddenly a bunch of slow flash-based apps are going to dominate. But, here is the kicker: in order for a flash-based app to be successful it will have to compete favorably against the hordes of non-flash apps, already out there. Personally, all the apps that I use on a daily basis, aside from having all the features I need, are fast, pleasant to use, and just look nice. All the rest simply sit on my last page of the home screen as they approach their fate of being deleted.

By lifting the ban, they have effectively said to Adobe: "Fine, you can submit Flash-based apps. But, just watch what happens." My guess is that there maybe only a handful of flash-based apps will make the cut, if that. And by continuing to not support Flash in Safari, Apple continues applying their pressure on web developers to migrate from Flash to HTML5. Of course, this move could potentially back-fire on Apple, should Adobe figure out a way to optimize flash such that it's performance hit would be insignificant. My former prediction is the more likely scenario. And I'd bet real money that this is exactly what the folks in Cupertino are counting on.

The reality is, the "room" has gotten a bit too hot (with everyone complaining about App Store restrictions, the iPhone 4 Antenna issue, etc.) so Apple made, what I believe to be a very wise decision, to help relieve some of this pressure. It's a calculated risk for sure. But, one that will pay off for them in the end.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 07:02 · Score: 0

lol the war is coming. that is some nice hyperbole. FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO FREE ENTERTAINMENT!

Value of Malware by TheNinjaroach · 2010-09-10 07:03 · Score: 1

Apparently you have underestimated the value of malware. $99 is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money they could make from it.

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..

Re:Value of Malware by Late+Adopter · 2010-09-10 08:21 · Score: 1

My argument is that requiring a developer cert keeps malware off victims' phones by preventing them from loading arbitrary code.

Unless you're arguing that coaxing a user to load malware is worth $99/victim?

From the guidelines by black_lbi · 2010-09-10 07:04 · Score: 1

We have lots of kids downloading lots of apps, and parental controls don't work unless the parents set them up (many don't). So know that we're keeping an eye out for the kids.

Pathetic excuse ... I already sold my 3G and sure as hell won't buy another Iphone. Next stop: Android city.

Re:Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your wa by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 07:11 · Score: 0

Steve Jobs is such a visionary.

Of course he is. He could pick up any Android phone and notice it had 3G and multitasking built-in from the get-go. He could even pick up any of a wide variety of other smartphones at the time and see the 3G part, at least, and many had tethering at the time. Said noticing required eyesight. Hence, since he uses his sense of vision, he is, by definition, a visionary. Done and done.

I got this in a fortune cookie today: by Thud457 · 2010-09-10 07:25 · Score: 1

no, now we'll just bitch about how "Insecure, power-hungry, inappropriate for touch devices, never ready, outdated" Flash is on the iPhone

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

That's a very coarse-grained choice... by Osvaldo+Doederlein · 2010-09-10 07:54 · Score: 1

...you can just make a big opt-out off Flash. Apple has restricted your choice, whether you like this interpretation or not. It's like alcohol: I normally describe myself as a non-drinker, but I'm not a fanatic and I will drink a bit in special occasions (the champagne in my own wedding for example - god it would suck to toast with Diet Coke wouldn't it?). In Apple land, you have the Prohibition. I suppose some Americans (the absolutely radical non-drinker types) were happy with that in the 1920's.

Re:That's a very coarse-grained choice... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-09-11 14:23 · Score: 1

Your analogy is flawed. If you want to stay with the prohibition metaphor it's more like this: if I want to take a job abroad and don't care if I can drink there I can go work in a Muslim country, if I do want to drink alcohol I just go work in another western country and either way I can come home (desktop) and drink all I want. I restrict my own choice by adjusting my prerequisites. The fact I can choose between 2 companies with different visions for their products is the very essence of choice.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

Misinformation by Excelsior · 2010-09-10 07:56 · Score: 1

I have a couple points that seem to be lost in this thread. First, this isn't the "Flash" that you know and hate. This is apps written in ActionScript 3 that are compiled into native iOS apps. They aren't necessarily going to be straddled with the same issues the community often complains about.

Second, there is one important aspect of this that no one seems to pay attention to. Adobe's Flash Packager for IPhone and MonoTouch are the only way for someone to develop IPhone software without buying a Apple Macintosh (at least without a Hackintosh, which is of questionable legality). It's always surprised me how few people point out that IPhone development requires a Mac, and that the barrier of entry is (or was) much, much greater than $99 / year for the majority of us.

Rolls Eyes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 08:02 · Score: 0

Apple got bitch slapped for being anti-competitive and reversed their decision before it got ugly (i.e. they avoided a court appearance), 'nuff said. Don't praise them for being dumb asses in the first place.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi by dyingtolive · 2010-09-10 08:11 · Score: 1

Not that responding to ACs is a worthwhile endeavour, but see http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/.
Specifically note the group that ASCAP is considering their enemies. Note, among others, Creative Commons. How will you feel when you no longer have the right to distribute stuff you make under the conditions and license you choose?

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:But flash is dead, according to Jobs! by WingCmdr · 2010-09-10 08:26 · Score: 1

"Maybe he just wanted you guys to shut up and quit your bitching."

That's funny. Steve Jobs never listens to people who bitch. You'll have to come up with a better troll than that to defend Jobs.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Cyberax · 2010-09-10 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

"Video overlay is up to the browser, but compositing is certainly possible."

Not really. It's possible to have other items over the "video" tag, but effects like 'fade in' are going to be difficult.

"Support is there. Including the ability to generate audio from code. Which lacking feature do you feel is necessary?"

Not really. There's no programmatic access to live audio stream. There are some proposed extensions: http://ajaxian.com/archives/amazing-audio-sampling-in-javascript-with-firefox but nothing standard so far.

"There is no reason why a Javascript app cannot interpret it. You're probably got me on performance, but that does not stop one from implementing said features."

I'm talking about AS3, it has optional typing to speed up JIT. So far, it works much better than most JavaScript JITs.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Nadaka · 2010-09-10 08:47 · Score: 1

1: SVG

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by Cyberax · 2010-09-10 09:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Which is a total phail.

There's no real animation support for SVG and its renderers are dog-slow.

You see, vector model of SVG is not really suitable for morphing and keyframe animation. In SVG, pictures are composed of polygons, which are composed of vertices connected by edges.

Suppose that we have a picture of two adjacent triangles (a square with one diagonal).

Then in SVG it will be represented as 4 vertices and 2 triangles composed from these vertices. These triangles are separate and are not dependent on each other.

Flash uses completely different way to represent data: as a plane divided into sections. So to get this picture you start with a plane (frame surface), and divide it into two adjacent areas. The diagonal line is represented not as a line from point A to point B, but as an element dividing two areas.

This gives a lot of advantage, Flash player can easily and smoothly animate scenes. There's no risk of ugly 'hole' effects caused by numerically instable algorithms or incorrect processing of self-intersections.

You still can't download Flash code by tgibbs · 2010-09-10 09:17 · Score: 1

Even if you manage to implement a translator that plays Flash via web kit but is not a "plug in," there is still another obstacle. From Apple's guidelines:

2.7 Apps that download code in any way or form will be rejected

However, there is Cloud Browse which runs Firefox with Flash remotely, and then streams the display to your iPhone.

Imagine iOS4 + Flash by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 09:19 · Score: 0

I guess that it could have to do with the rant about Adobe laziness / performance issues. Judging by how iOS4 runs on the iPhone 3, Apple would have to bar the iOS 4 developers from deploying to the platform for the same reasons as Flash.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by cgenman · 2010-09-10 14:39 · Score: 1

5) A mature development environment.

6) Tools integration.

7) Mature development pathways with known costs.

5, 6, and 7 will exist eventually, but *really* don't exist right now. Creating a semi complex app (like, say, a college information front-end) in Flash would be far easier, cheaper, and with less unexpected problems than doing it in HTML 5.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari by AHuxley · 2010-09-10 23:13 · Score: 1

Re "Support is there. Including the ability to generate audio from code. Which lacking feature do you feel is necessary?"
Want to use your cam to stream video and audio to the web? Any website with video support?
Thats the freedom of flash, vs say 'open' facetime.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Err your are not running Flash by awjr · 2010-09-11 08:01 · Score: 1

It would help if people understood what it is that is now allowed on an iPhone. You cannot run Flash on the iPhone, you, however as a developer, now write one Flash (AS3) or Flex app and WILL be able to deploy it as a stand alone application to:
1) iOS
2) Android 2.2
3) RIM
4) Symbian
5) Windows Mobile
6) Meego
7) Palm OS
8) Linux (Desktop App)
9) OSX (Desktop App)
10) Windows (Desktop App)
11) Any browser that supports Flash 10.1

So, yeah, Flash is bloody awful apparently, but the value proposition of one set of code deployed to pretty much everything, is erm...well awesome. The development tool set Adobe (and others) have released for ActionScript 3 are exceptionally good. Flash isn't going away, but people keep bitching about the performance of it within the browser and how all it is used for is messing up your web experience and that is completely missing the point.

Adobe, and I have spoken to the Flex product development team, don't give a damn about web browser support, they want/need Flex to run as a standalone application through Air because that means they can deliver it to the above 10 operating systems.

From a business point of view, Adobe have a development platform that really can't be touched and the clause change Apple announced rightly caused Adobe's stock to rise 15%.

For all those anti-flash people, ActionScript 3 ain't that bad, and Flex is very productive.

Re:Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your wa by laddiebuck · 2010-09-12 04:22 · Score: 1

Outsell everything on the market? The smartphones that can actually do those things, from RIM or Nokia, have a far greater marketshare than Apple, and even Android is growing faster than the iPhone. Nokia sells more phones per quarter than Apple have ever sold. Silicon Valley is not the world.

http://www.clothes6.us by lokmm1452 · 2010-09-13 02:20 · Score: 1

========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ====== Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbagwelcome to ==== http://www.clothes6.us/ ==== Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12 New era cap NY $9 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18 $9 ========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ======

Slashdot Mirror

Apple's Developer Tools Turnaround 'Great News' For Adobe

234 comments