Because then the entire Flash Player would have to be open source. If it was, then we wouldn't be having this argument, because then Apple would be able to tune the open source Flash Player to their devices, and get its performance up to par with their expectations.
If Apple gets the level of monopoly on smartphones that Microsoft had on Windows during that time, then yes. But you and I both know that isn't gonna happen.
Because having a bunch of Blackberry apps doesn't serve to tie you to the Blackberry platform, or having a bunch of Android apps doesn't tie you to the Android platform. Hell, I've even heard a bunch of bitching from people on here about how Windows Phone 7 is breaking backwards compatibility, and so all the apps they've bought are worthless.
True. But you know that going in. If you value that, then you don't buy it on Steam. Personally, for PC games, I don't care about that, so I tend to get stuff on Steam when I can.
History has proven that the largest polluters aren't corporations but rather the government.
Citation fucking needed. I'm pretty sure this past month BP has polluted more than the US government ever has. A bunch of the Superfund sites come to mind, too. I'm pretty sure those were caused by people in the private sector being gigantic douche nozzles.
Actually, Final Cut is what made Macs popular in video editing departments. And that only came about because Adobe decided not to support Premier on Macs back in the 90s.
Face it, Adobe is not blameless in this feud either. Despite Mac sales being about half their revenue from CS sales, they always have and continue to treat MacOS as a second class platform. They refused to release an Intel compatible version of CS3, instead making users wait an entire year and forcing them to buy a new version if they wanted Intel support. Then was their refusal to bring CS to Cocoa at all, instead sticking with Carbon til the very end. Carbon was never meant to be a long term framework; instead it was a quick way for developers to bring their Classic MacOS apps to OS X while they worked on bringing them over to Cocoa, the framework to use going forward. It wasn't til 64 big Carbon was killed that Adobe finally got the hint.
Personally, I think a developer should be able to use whatever language they want, but they still need to be beholden to the same standards that a native ObjC app would be held to, in performance, memory usage, and adherence to UI/UX guidelines. If a Mono Touch app or a Flash app can't meet those, then it should be rejected, just like an ObjC app that doesn't meet them would.
To be fair, the political satire app provision has been in the SDK agreement for a long time. Its that the political cartoons guy conveniently decided to ignore it. However, his app is in the store now.
They're attempting to do just that with Android. However, the ship date for Android Flash has slipped a few times already. Personally, I'll believe they can pull it off decently when I see it, and run it on my phone. However, I don't have high hopes for it, mainly because my current phone is a G1.
Except they're not. Check Apple's financial statements (required to be open, as they are a publicly traded company). They make dick on the iTunes Store, just barely over what it costs to run.
Its not easy to move away from the iPhone, its also not easy to move away from Windows Mobile, or Blackberry, or Android, or Symbian. They all have a degree of lock in. Some let you choose which manufacturer to by the hardware from (WinMobile, Android), others require you to buy your hardware from the same company that makes the OS (Blackberry, iPhone). Even if the same app is available on iPhone and Android, if it cost anything, you're still gonna have to buy it again. If you only have a few apps that you really need, its not too bad, but if you've bought a lot of Apps on Android, you're still gonna have to throw those away if you move to any other OS.
Except Adobe wouldn't release new SDK functionality for free. Hell, they didn't even release a patch for Intel compatibility for CS3. You had to wait another year and pay for CS4 when that came out.
1. Since most Flash video is an FLV container wrapped around h.264, it should be easy to simply extract the video and play it using the regular player. Hell, that's what Click to Flash does on Safari. Maybe something similar could be built into Mobile Safari.
4. There is already an app certification/approval process. Why should Flash get its own? Why can't Flash apps go through the standard approval process? Should they not be held to the same standards of performance and usability that any other apps are held to?
The ability to program for something does not a general purpose computer make. I can write programs for DSP chips, but they're definitely not going to be used for general purpose computing.
Well, if it were any other company, I'd say that this WebOS tablet (as well as the iPad, and a few of the Android tablets) might be needing some version of Office to do viewing and light editing of documents on. Of course, with the launch of the online Office thingy, that might kill some desire for dedicated apps on these devices, as long as the site works well in a standard (read: non Microsoft) browser, and works with a touchscreen.
Because they don't. At best, they have 20 some percent of the smartphone market. Not bad numbers at all, but not a monopoly by a longshot.
And how are you defining tablet? Because there have been Tablet PCs out for about 10 years now. Just because Apple is the only one that's been any good at it doesn't mean they are a monopoly.
And I lump the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch together because they all run the same OS, and are covered under the same platform.
I have no idea what your post is saying. "Apple's non-smartphone platforms": Are you referring to the Mac? Because you can develop for that using whatever you like. You should have a Mac for testing your app, just like you should have Windows and Linux for testing if you plan to release on those.
I didn't get the heat that people felt about this argument at first, but some of that is because I already have a mac. If I was looking at developing iphone apps and had to buy one just for that, I now see how that would upset a developer.
I don't. I don't see it as being any different than requiring Windows to develop apps for Windows Mobile. It may cost less to buy Windows, but the fact remains that I still have to pay Microsoft for Microsoft's platform.
No. Most of the other products shoehorn a bunch of features right away, but most of them are only half baked. Apple may do fewer features, but they do the most important ones, and they do them extremely well.
Slashdot Mirror
Because then the entire Flash Player would have to be open source. If it was, then we wouldn't be having this argument, because then Apple would be able to tune the open source Flash Player to their devices, and get its performance up to par with their expectations.
They've had since OS X first came out to do it. I wouldn't expect it to happen right out of the gate, but they've had more than enough time to do it.
If Apple gets the level of monopoly on smartphones that Microsoft had on Windows during that time, then yes. But you and I both know that isn't gonna happen.
Android can't run J2ME apps out of the box either. Gonna bitch about that?
Because having a bunch of Blackberry apps doesn't serve to tie you to the Blackberry platform, or having a bunch of Android apps doesn't tie you to the Android platform. Hell, I've even heard a bunch of bitching from people on here about how Windows Phone 7 is breaking backwards compatibility, and so all the apps they've bought are worthless.
So even when HTML5 is mature, it won't replace native apps. Yet, you think that Flash will?
So there are no security concerns in allowing Flash on the device. Flash has never been used as an attack vector for malware. That's good to know.
True. But you know that going in. If you value that, then you don't buy it on Steam. Personally, for PC games, I don't care about that, so I tend to get stuff on Steam when I can.
History has proven that the largest polluters aren't corporations but rather the government.
Citation fucking needed. I'm pretty sure this past month BP has polluted more than the US government ever has. A bunch of the Superfund sites come to mind, too. I'm pretty sure those were caused by people in the private sector being gigantic douche nozzles.
With that requirement, wouldn't that mean that no new judges could be appointed?
Actually, Final Cut is what made Macs popular in video editing departments. And that only came about because Adobe decided not to support Premier on Macs back in the 90s.
Face it, Adobe is not blameless in this feud either. Despite Mac sales being about half their revenue from CS sales, they always have and continue to treat MacOS as a second class platform. They refused to release an Intel compatible version of CS3, instead making users wait an entire year and forcing them to buy a new version if they wanted Intel support. Then was their refusal to bring CS to Cocoa at all, instead sticking with Carbon til the very end. Carbon was never meant to be a long term framework; instead it was a quick way for developers to bring their Classic MacOS apps to OS X while they worked on bringing them over to Cocoa, the framework to use going forward. It wasn't til 64 big Carbon was killed that Adobe finally got the hint.
Personally, I think a developer should be able to use whatever language they want, but they still need to be beholden to the same standards that a native ObjC app would be held to, in performance, memory usage, and adherence to UI/UX guidelines. If a Mono Touch app or a Flash app can't meet those, then it should be rejected, just like an ObjC app that doesn't meet them would.
To be fair, the political satire app provision has been in the SDK agreement for a long time. Its that the political cartoons guy conveniently decided to ignore it. However, his app is in the store now.
They're attempting to do just that with Android. However, the ship date for Android Flash has slipped a few times already. Personally, I'll believe they can pull it off decently when I see it, and run it on my phone. However, I don't have high hopes for it, mainly because my current phone is a G1.
Except they're not. Check Apple's financial statements (required to be open, as they are a publicly traded company). They make dick on the iTunes Store, just barely over what it costs to run.
Its not easy to move away from the iPhone, its also not easy to move away from Windows Mobile, or Blackberry, or Android, or Symbian. They all have a degree of lock in. Some let you choose which manufacturer to by the hardware from (WinMobile, Android), others require you to buy your hardware from the same company that makes the OS (Blackberry, iPhone). Even if the same app is available on iPhone and Android, if it cost anything, you're still gonna have to buy it again. If you only have a few apps that you really need, its not too bad, but if you've bought a lot of Apps on Android, you're still gonna have to throw those away if you move to any other OS.
Except Adobe wouldn't release new SDK functionality for free. Hell, they didn't even release a patch for Intel compatibility for CS3. You had to wait another year and pay for CS4 when that came out.
1. Since most Flash video is an FLV container wrapped around h.264, it should be easy to simply extract the video and play it using the regular player. Hell, that's what Click to Flash does on Safari. Maybe something similar could be built into Mobile Safari.
4. There is already an app certification/approval process. Why should Flash get its own? Why can't Flash apps go through the standard approval process? Should they not be held to the same standards of performance and usability that any other apps are held to?
The ability to program for something does not a general purpose computer make. I can write programs for DSP chips, but they're definitely not going to be used for general purpose computing.
Well, if it were any other company, I'd say that this WebOS tablet (as well as the iPad, and a few of the Android tablets) might be needing some version of Office to do viewing and light editing of documents on. Of course, with the launch of the online Office thingy, that might kill some desire for dedicated apps on these devices, as long as the site works well in a standard (read: non Microsoft) browser, and works with a touchscreen.
Because they don't. At best, they have 20 some percent of the smartphone market. Not bad numbers at all, but not a monopoly by a longshot.
And how are you defining tablet? Because there have been Tablet PCs out for about 10 years now. Just because Apple is the only one that's been any good at it doesn't mean they are a monopoly.
And I lump the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch together because they all run the same OS, and are covered under the same platform.
They fall under the same category. There are no other PDAs or tablets you can develop for?
I have no idea what your post is saying. "Apple's non-smartphone platforms": Are you referring to the Mac? Because you can develop for that using whatever you like. You should have a Mac for testing your app, just like you should have Windows and Linux for testing if you plan to release on those.
I didn't get the heat that people felt about this argument at first, but some of that is because I already have a mac. If I was looking at developing iphone apps and had to buy one just for that, I now see how that would upset a developer.
I don't. I don't see it as being any different than requiring Windows to develop apps for Windows Mobile. It may cost less to buy Windows, but the fact remains that I still have to pay Microsoft for Microsoft's platform.
No. Most of the other products shoehorn a bunch of features right away, but most of them are only half baked. Apple may do fewer features, but they do the most important ones, and they do them extremely well.
Because it takes way more resources to support Flash, and they decided that those resources would be better used working on something else.