Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Stops Development For iPhone

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the flash-in-the-pad dept.

Iphone 497

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

cancel ×

497 comments

Appedot : Suck My Cock, Stuff That Matters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930110)

Fucking your dead great grandmother while jacking off Steve Jobs!

Re:Appedot : Suck My Cock, Stuff That Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930140)

That's complete nonsense, Steve Jobs would never be in the same room as a naked female.

Adobe also said... (5, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930112)

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

Re:Adobe also said... (1, Offtopic)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930226)

The ability to play flash games that are on facebook from your iPhone is a huge draw for a lot of folks. In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day). Flash is big right now, for that reason. With Android and other phone systems starting to catchup technologically, this move could be a bigger deal than Apple thinks.

Re:Adobe also said... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930442)

I was never really into Farmville and Mafia wars, but I don't think they use flash.

I mean, I know there are lots of games that DO use flash on Facebook, but the biggest ones I can recall don't. Maybe jetman or whatever it was called.

Re:Adobe also said... (2, Informative)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930602)

I was never really into Farmville and Mafia wars, but I don't think they use flash.

My wife and her 5 fake accounts beg to differ. Farmville is a Flashbeast.

Re:Adobe also said... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930618)

Farmville is definitely a flash game. I had to install flash for farmville when I was trying to get my fiance to use Ubuntu in an ultimately vain attempt at preventing a virus box from being on my network.

Re:Adobe also said... (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930870)

Not sure about mafia wars, maybe in a few places it uses flash but that is mainly HTML-based. If flash is used there it's for eye candy and not functionality.

Farmville is fill-blown flash. Cafe World and others from Zynga use Flash. Zynga really is the big flash game developer on facebook. They rely on it a lot.

Re:Adobe also said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930536)

Wait, what?

The iPhone has never supported Flash.

And unfortunately, with about 9 million iPhones sold in Apple's most recent financial quarter (3 months), it is going to be pretty hard to ignore the platform--with or without Flash.

Re:Adobe also said... (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930694)

In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).

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

Re:Adobe also said... (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930814)

In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).

Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash.

I knew they would be bad researchers when I heard they wanted to play Facebook games 24/7.

...he says while posting to Slashdot...

Re:Adobe also said... (-1, Flamebait)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930812)

How do you propose that those people play flash games on the iPhone? Bundle a mouse with each unit?

Re:Adobe also said... (3, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930698)

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

LIKE

who cares? (0)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930120)

apple wants to control their platform. would it be better if Adobe controlled the development for the iphone and Apple had to beg them to make changes to take advantage of new features of new handsets?

Re:who cares? (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930248)

I certainly agree - and have argued several times - that Apple has the right to decide what kind of apps they want the iPod and iPad to run. Generally this is my response to OSS philosophers who want to paint any restriction as somehow immoral and inherantly damaging to users' "rights" and "freedom".

But to say "who cares" is a little much. Anyone who wants to understand the current and prospective feature set of the iPad, iPod, or iPhone - because, I don't know, maybe they are deciding whether to buy one - cares.

Whether Apple shapes its terms in a way that suits Adobe's Flash initiatives is a business decision for Apple. Whether they do it, negotiate with Adobe over it, or just say "no" is entirely up to them, and I have no standing in telling them how to make that decision (unless I own stock in Apple, I guess). But I still take an interesting in the topic, I still have an opinion of what I think they should do or what I'd like them to do, and the decision they make may influence my actions. So who cares? Apparently I do.

Re:who cares? (4, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930318)

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

Re:who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930416)

You're one boring ass virgin, aren't you? By the way, a period goes INSIDE quotations, not outside. I could correct more of your nonsense but I think I'll leave it up to your third-grade teacher to pick up the slack.

Now go "take an interesting" or something you illiterate, unfuckable swine.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930636)

Now go "take an interesting" or something you illiterate, unfuckable swine.

So you're saying there's fuckable swine? How take an interesting...

Re:who cares? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930672)

I certainly agree - and have argued several times - that Apple has the right to decide what kind of apps they want the iPod and iPad to run.

Actually according to law they do not have that right. I realize that fanbois like yourself need to feel justified, but you're spreading FUD.

The only way possible for Apple to acquire and retain such a right would in fact be to not sell you a glorified telephone. No, in fact, it would only be possible to make your assertion if they leased you the iPhone.

In my scenario, the only rights you'd be entitled to would be provisioned in the license agreement. In your scenario, a mega-corporation is trampling on my rights to do whatever the flying fuck I want to do with something I own. /pedant

the hard lesson of photoshop and Acrobat (4, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930476)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:the hard lesson of photoshop and Acrobat (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930924)

Of course if Apple weren't so secretive, they could just say they are planning on switching architectures when they make the decision, like a normal company. That way application developers would know what to expect.

Next step... (0, Troll)

sm284614 (946088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930142)

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

Re:Next step... (3, Interesting)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930504)

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

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

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

Re:Next step... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930708)

They killed Premiere but that was after Apple came out with FCP since Premiere on the Mac sucked so bad. Then putting out Lightroom after Apple came out with Aperture.

Aperture came out in December 2006. Lightroom was available to the public 6 weeks later, mid January 2007. I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Lightroom was a response to Aperture - I somehow think it had been in development for a bit more than a month (indeed, prototypes were in software form in 2003).

Re:Next step... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930670)

Adobe changes their updaters to uninstall everything, and nothing of value is lost.

ftfy

Re:Next step... (2, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930908)

You joke but imagine this press release: "Adobe announced today that it's CS suite will no longer support OSX."

Never gonna happen but man I'd pay to see the jaws drop. OSX has made great progress as far as the software pool it has. But for a while Adobe was keeping them on life support IMHO.

Hallelujah! (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930144)

In all seriousness this is the best news I've heard all week. After having put up with Adobe's terrible Flash implementations on the Mac, I'm ecstatic that I won't have to put up with what would have been an even worse iPhone implementation.

Re:Hallelujah! (2, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930174)

flash is not speedy on windows either, but the fan starts up on my laptop anytime i access flash content. it's like it's hard coded into the flash client to heat up the CPU and start up the fan

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930496)

I don't understand this - my laptop (2.2 ghz core 2 duo) seems to use around 15% of the cpu watching videos on hulu in HD. At work I tested it with a Dell Optiplex 745 (pizza box style pc) - same thing. Neither machine does the fan speed up or anything.

Neither of these two machines are all that new - I think the 745 is a 4-5 year old pc.

Re:Hallelujah! (0, Offtopic)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930794)

If you turn off red and blue, then you get Green Flash.

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930272)

You don't have to run it, you know.

And those of us with any sense run Flashblock, so we can get Flash when we need it, and pretend it doesn't exist at all other times (though the need for tools like FB is somewhat sad. Why exactly should a plug-in run without my asking it to anyway?)

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930350)

You don't have to run it, you know.

On the Mac? Sure. On the iPhone however this would ultimately lead to a Flash plugin for Safari, at which point you'd be trapped on the animated, audible, CPU-eating hellhole that is the modern Internet without the ability to use Flashblock/AdBlock.

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930396)

You're saying that the alternative to Uncle Steve banning the Flash plug-in is him installing it on everyone's iPhones and forcing it to be switched on at all times?

There is a happy medium you know.

Although if "Uncle Steve" thinks like that and thinks everyone will somehow be forced to run Flash the moment it appears in the app-store, it would explain a lot. Not because it explains his logic for banning it, so much as it re-enforces the idea that the man has gone completely cuckoo.

Re:Hallelujah! (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930418)

animated, audible, CPU-eating hellhole

HTML5 authoring tools will bring this to your iPhone.

Re:Hallelujah! (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930962)

without the ability to use Flashblock/AdBlock.

No problem, just install Firefox.

Oh, iPhone? never mind.

Re:Hallelujah! (2, Interesting)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930950)

I'm having trouble with this... This has nothing repeat NOTHING to do with running Flash on an iPhone/Pad. It has everything to do with Adobe building in the capability to compile an ActionScript project to an iWhatever binary. It is about restricting the tools that developers can use and basically locking them into the Apple ecosystem. If you could use one codeset to write an app for the iPhone/Android/WinMo/WebOS then how is the iPhone special? Now developers have to maintain multiple sets, and from an economic standpoint they'll code for the lowest hanging fruit, namely iPhone users who have already proven themselves to be a microtransaction loving force. It's about killing competition by making it harder to cross-develop.

Hilarity (5, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930154)

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

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

Re:Hilarity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930334)

Yeah, it would be funny, because if they did that, they would be screwed. I know hundreds of people who've switched from PC because of many numerous issues with viruses, malware, other generic problems that dont exist in Mac OS. All these people use Adobe software all the time as they're photographers videographers or graphic designers. They wouldnt switch back to windows, they would switch to another program, and Apple would be all too happy to get new customers switching to Aperture or Final Cut. Adobe would be screwed and either have to re-release the programs for mac or close shop. Apple is in the position of power, and Adobe can only whine about it

Re:Hilarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930634)

I wonder about that. Macs are supposed to be easy to use, ditto Windows although arguably less so. But Adobe sells professional tools which are difficult to learn and even harder to master. Which would you rather ditch, the OS that's just there in the background, or the program that lets you bring food to the table? I'm not saying an Apple fan would ditch Apple, but they might move their work to PCs (perhaps keeping an iPad to goof off?).

It might not be a very popular opinion but I think you should choose your tools first and then the platform that supports them rather than the other way around. In a somewhat related issue, when people argue about which console is better, my first thought is "Well, which console has the games you actually want to play?"

Re:Hilarity (2, Insightful)

drewhk (1744562) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930744)

"All these people use Adobe software all the time as they're photographers videographers or graphic designers."

It is even more funny, that many of these designers are designing Flash media.

Re:Hilarity (4, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930816)

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

Photoshop.

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

Vote to promote homosexuality in high school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930444)

Democrat Nov'10

Re:Hilarity (5, Funny)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930546)

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

Re:Hilarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930588)

They've already long failed to make proper Mac versions.

Re:Hilarity (2, Insightful)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930760)

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

It would probably work about as well as MS deciding not to develop IE for the Mac any more or Adobe's earlier decision to skip development of Premiere for the Mac. Apple would just buy some company and put out their own version that would not only work but work the way they wanted it to. Apple learned a long time ago to not compete with their own developers, but after that, they also learned that if the developers aren't their own any more, to just do it them selves. Kill your app for the Mac and if Apple decides that it is needed, they will just provide a replacement themselves. If photoshop ever disappears for the Mac, I bet there will be an Apple photo editing suite out fairly quickly. Photoshop has it good because there is no real competition. Apple already has the basics down and RAW editing in Aperture. it would take some work to add in filters, masks, cutting paths, etc, but I imagine they could probably do it.

Re:Hilarity (1, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930938)

Exactly. Look no further than iWork. Microsoft made noise about ceasing Mac development for Office and suddenly Apple had a text editing, spreadsheet, and presentation software suite available. Adobe may think that Apple needs them more than Adobe needs Apple but that's a game of chicken that Adobe would do well to not play. Apple's stared in the face of significantly, dramatically larger software developers than Adobe and didn't flinch...

And, as someone who's used Final Cut (Apple's answer to Adobe turning their back on Premiere), allow me to say that Apple can and will make a damn fine program when forced to do so. I'd actually _love_ to see them put together a graphics suite, in fact...

Re:Hilarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930808)

Every night before I go to bed I pray that Adobe will get so ticked off with Apple that they release Creative Suite for Linux.

Title (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930166)

I think the title should reflect the article and contain "flash development". It is slightly misleading.

I hope (2, Funny)

expert464 (1639331) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930192)

I hope Apple is starting to develop their own image editing software.... ..just sayin'

Re:I hope (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930218)

actually the latest rumor is that Apple is going to buy AMD

Re:I hope (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930488)

Great, so the cost of a Mac will be cut in half, from not using those horribly cost-prohibitive Xeon chipsets and processors ?

Or would it go up, because you need three AMD chips to match one Intel's performance ?

Re:I hope (1)

drewhk (1744562) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930772)

*shivers*

Pretty amusing, actually. (5, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930196)

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

Re:Pretty amusing, actually. (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930382)

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

Right, and my personal take is that they both offer very seksi very clean UIs and user experiences. It's probably a pissing match between two companies that are concerned about the being the one who controls the de facto look and feel. Because when you're in control of that situation, you're situated to make a handsome profit. And when you have a proprietary product under the well executed marketing guise of being open then you get to decide who lives and who dies on your platform.

Re:Pretty amusing, actually. (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930426)

Okay, I'll bite. In what way is Adobe a "play by our rules or gtfo" company?

Adobe has invoked the anger of Father Steve (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930204)

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

Re:Adobe has invoked the anger of Father Steve (1)

Yahma (1004476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930288)

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

Father Steve, you have spoken your wish. We shall obey..

Objective C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930216)

Whats objective C? Why would I care? Is it another dumbed down programming language?

Re:Objective C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930292)

Whats objective C? Why would I care? Is it another dumbed down programming language?

If you have to ask then you probably wouldn't be able to code in it anyway.

Objective as in Objects
C as in the 'C' programming language (you know, the one that's just a little bit harder than HTML?)

Re:Objective C? (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930324)

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

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

Re:Objective C? (2, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930620)

Sort of. It's a kinda goofy dialect of C with objects tacked on. They borrow some Smalltalk idioms and pepper the mixture with a generous helping of unnecessary brackets and parentheses.

Personally, I think C++ is just as messy so I call it a draw.

Re:Objective C? (1)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930680)

It's basically good old K&R C with a bit of Smalltalk-inspired object syntax on top of it. It is not as much as dumbed down as rather not dumbed up.

Rotten Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930230)

hey aPPle, u r going "wrong way". open comunity will dump u soon.

Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? (1, Troll)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930254)

Apple just posted a 90% year-over-year profit increase [marketwatch.com] in their best non-Christmas quarter ever. iPhone sales increased 130% year-over-year. AAPL stock price reached an all-time high today. Of course, these amazing results are without Flash on the iPhone. People (including myself) are enjoying native apps which were written in Objective-C. I don't think any consumer cares about seeing Flash on the iPhone anymore.

Re:Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930498)

From what I've read here at Slashdot everything you list is due to the absolute fact that most people are stupid.

Of course that isn't correct and many people who are plenty intelligent have heard Sladhdot's arguments and are showing, by voting with dollars, that they do not care much at all about software freedom, or walled gardens, or catherdrals or bazaars, or Flash.

Re:Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? (4, Insightful)

balbus000 (1793324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930528)

Exactly.

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

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

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

Re:Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930764)

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

I can't answer your question because I've ignored the iPhone, bought an Android, and moved on.

Re:Does anyone care about Flash on the iPhone? (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930778)

I don't understand the troll mod, but I agree with your sentiment. Everyone I know with an iPhone knows it doesn't do Flash and couldn't care less.

Finally !!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930266)

Maybe Adobe will finally stop bitching and moaning... awesome!

Android... (4, Funny)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930280)

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

Guess that means we'll be seeing more flash based porn apps [slashdot.org] ?

Monotouch's stance (2, Insightful)

wilsonthecat (1043880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930308)

Found here [mono-project.com] - namely 4 apps have made it through the app review process that signed the 3.1.3 clause.

Something deeper (2, Insightful)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930310)

Is there some deep, personal clash going on here? Did Narayen steal Jobs' girlfriend back in college? I can't help but think that enabling Flash on the iPad would only help both Apple and Adobe. I wonder how much business Apple is losing simply because of this lack of integration? (Nevermind no-multi-tasking or no camera or no wide-screen). Why give people one more reason not to buy i?

Re:Something deeper (2, Insightful)

robus (852325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930586)

I don't think so. I think Apple (and Steve Jobs) are ruthless about killing what they see as legacy tech. And they're pissed at Adobe for dragging their heels in adopting the new Cocoa APIs for UI development.

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

Re:Something deeper (3, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930652)

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

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

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

Re:Something deeper (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930754)

If that is the case I'm surprised Apple hasn't noticed that every iPod and iPhone seems to have this 'Safari' app on it. Connects to this "internet" thing that you can interact with.

Re:Something deeper (2)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930912)

If that is the case I'm surprised Apple hasn't noticed that every iPod and iPhone seems to have this 'Safari' app on it. Connects to this "internet" thing that you can interact with.

And play Flash games or watch Flash videos?

The internet does not compete with the App Store. Flash does.

Re:Something deeper (1, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930624)

well to start with Adobe would have to make a special version of flash for the ipad. Since Adobe generally treats anything but the windows version with scorn coming later, and with less features devoting time to keep flash updated on all platforms with reasonable speed requires more developers than adobe is willing to work with.

if Apple decides to do a processor change under the hood. native apps will port quickly but flash would take a year or so before it becomes ready.

Given by year end apple will have sold more ipads than all android models together I don't think they are going to lose much. Why Because apple spends as much on the interface to make it usable as they do on the hardware. Android is already fragmenting, with hardware manufactures stopping to allow upgrades at various versions, all of them with different UI's.

Maybe one day techies will realize that 90% of the population aren't techies, and aren't going to put up with the crap that techies do. Remember people who couldn't program their VCR's can use an iPhone but struggle to use Blackberries.

Re:Something deeper (5, Informative)

_Swank (118097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930918)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple's policy is quite clear (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930320)

If you make a product that competes with an existing or future Apple product, it will probably not be allowed to run on the iPhone. Most iPhone apps could run as Flash apps, which would cost Apple revenue, and that would delay construction of Steve's interstellar spacecraft (the only rational reason you need $100 billion vs $1 billion, in my mind, is if you intend to leave the planet; if you do anything else with it you're just an asshole).

I don't see why people are surprised at this. Just stay out of Steve's way and you'll be fine.

That said, I despise Flash. I don't want Flash on my phone unless I can block it by default.

Apple is the lesser of two evils here (2, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930362)

This whole Adobe-Apple thing was conflicting for me for a while: do I cheer Apple on for killing Adobe's standards-busting, lousy-performance (very, very lousy performance) closed-source plugins, or despise them for their policy of locking down their devices (of which Adobe was just one of several innocent bystanders).

At the end of the day, I've decided to give my grudging approval to what Apple is doing: at least by forcing people into HTML5, they're encouraging the adoption of a fully standards-based internet. And even though people go on and on about Apple banning Flash because it forces people to stay locked into the App Store ecosystem, HTML5 offers many of the same capabilities, and there is not-- yet-- any indication that Apple will restrict Safari in this way. (Of course, if/when they do, then we can start complaining, but not before).

Re:Apple is the lesser of two evils here (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930462)

by forcing people into HTML5,

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

Re:Apple is the lesser of two evils here (3, Interesting)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930612)

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

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

Re:Apple is the lesser of two evils here (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930876)

Html-5 is really a convenient scapegoat - if it wasn't that it would be something else, and its not battery life or stability - I think more than one person has put down that myth. The reality is developing applications on html-5 is tricky business still because its still in development, but I'm sure it will get much easier once developer tools arrive and standards are more firmly set.

The reality here is that Flash, like Java would create an end run around the app-store immediately (and their revenue sharing scheme with developers) - that's it. Flash is actually being used to develop a lot of the same applications that Java has been used for. Its not the best platform to design programs in for sure, but I've seen word processors and video editing tools written in Flash. The tools exist right now to develop pretty much anything you want.

That C64 emulator that got denied a while back? Easy solution - port it to Flash [codeazur.com.br] and distribute it that way. Same with most any other denied app.

Plus you could use the Flash C compiler to port just about anything to the iPhone if they let Flash on board - including their own app store.

Last but not least since Apple controls their html5 implementation - maybe they could restrict it so that it wouldn't compete with the app-store. I wouldn't hold that out just yet.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. When Android phones are running the best of the web on html-5, Flash and Java - what then Apple?

Is there a downside? (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930368)

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

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

Re:Is there a downside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930592)

Well Apple already wanted Adobe to completely rewrite Photoshop in Objective C instead of maintaining it in a cross-platform language. They didn't do this, so now Mac gets the worse version.

Re:Is there a downside? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930828)

Well Apple already wanted Adobe to completely rewrite Photoshop in Objective C instead of maintaining it in a cross-platform language. They didn't do this, so now Mac gets the worse version.

Poor, poor Adobe. They only had a decade to port the Photoshop GUI to ObjC, C, or C++ [apple.com] - the languages supported by Cocoa. Again, I'm not a big Apple fan. While they make some neat stuff, they do plenty of screwy things that make me not want to deal with them. Still, it's hard to sympathize in any way with Adobe's positions in this war.

Daring Fireball (1)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930378)

Anyone else think it's hilarious how John Gruber is pouting about Gizmodo and the iPhone 4 leak? It's like he's a six-year-old who was just told by a drunk uncle that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are actually just his parents. "I want my sense of childlike wonder back! **waaaaaaaah!**

Re:Daring Fireball (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930478)

I laughed at his comment that Apple's claim that flash was closed and proprietary was 'spot on.' It's proprietary, but as you can download the specification for free and implement it I don't think closed is quite the right word.

Had almost enough of this (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930384)

It would seem that every time I read an Apple story, it is about Apple fighting with someone to keep their eco-system pure or some sanctimonious blathering about what people want. Down the slashdot page there is a story about the iPhone and porn, or how they will keep your kids pure by withholding porn from the device. Okay... I get it, Apple products are closed entertainment devices. Not PC's (Apple's branding says so)... Fine, no flash, no firefox, no, no, no... Got it... will not buy an Apple product. Like most people, I like the look of some of their stuff, like most people, I won't buy any As for Adobe, Apple has said no flash from the beginning... so give it up. It's lousy on low powered stuff anyway and you better be gearing up for a new product because HTML5 is going to ultimately be the death of flash

Apple: When will it end? (1)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930390)

This is ominous to the iPhone user. Next I expect to hear that ActiveX and Real will be booted from the iPhone, and then we'll never get anything done. The iPhone simply doesn't support ALL of the web.

And it doesn't stop there. I bet that MS-Office macros will be considered a programming language, and then will be booted off ot the Mac!

This is the END! I'm tired of these control games.

This whole battle is missing so many details (2, Interesting)

mcwop (31034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930430)

This whole battle still has me scratching my head, with all the different theories. My main question is why Adobe has been so late to create a true mobile player that supports touch for newer mobile devices - the ones that actually can access the internet easily. A player that optimizes battery life, and resources. I know version 10.1 is supposed to be this, but I can't really tell if it will deliver. 10.1 also seems to be 1+ years behind schedule. Adobe is the one that owns the player and that onus is on them. Of course, current flash sites cannot be made to work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple nor Adobe. I think the latter is a major issue, especially when Jobs wants user experience as a priority.

Of course, Apple could just be trying to do away with it, hoping HTML 5 takes more hold.

And they didn't see this coming? (2, Funny)

adamwright (536224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930440)

Direct quote from Mike Chambers: "Because this is Flash, it is rather trivial to port games created with Flash that target the iPhone to target other operating systems, such as Android."

Which pretty much sums up the entire reason for 3.3.1. Did they seriously expect that, going in with this offering, they'd get no pushback from Apple? It's been abundantly clear from day one that the iPhone store is a closed platform, subject to the business ideals of Apple (i.e. make Apple more money). Any sane iPhone developer knew this going in, and really doesn't care (or they'd never have started).

I suspect the correct way to view the iPhone store is not "A horribly closed environment compared to e.g. Windows/the Web", but "A largely open market compared to the PS3/Wii etc". Closed platforms have existed for eons without the world ending, and they'll continue to exist in the future. The real novelty with the iPhone is it sits in the middle - neither open nor closed. People are freaking out trying to shoehorn it into one camp or the other, when it's just not possible.

Obligatory side picking: Apple. Just because I will be so very, very glad when I never have to see a Flash ridden site again. Also, because I'm enjoying the irony of the de-facto "Let's take an open environment like the web, and close it up" getting all angry over openness.

To quote (4, Insightful)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930598)

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

H264 is open ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930616)

Now there

Worst title EVER. (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930640)

Seriously, "no longer investing in iPhone-based Flash development" is not even close to the same thing as "Adobe Stops Development For iPhone."

H.264 isn't open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930704)

Daring Fireball Quotes in his post “Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” but H.264 isn't open, 0n February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015. However, other fees remain in place and the license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.

Re:H.264 isn't open (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930944)

Daring Fireball Quotes in his post “Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” but H.264 isn't open,

Regardless of your take on whether H.264 is open, can we agree that publishing H.264 video with a <video> tag is at least as open as publishing H.264 video wrapped inside a Flash container?

If Microsoft tryed to pull this (3, Informative)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930810)

If Microsoft tried to pull this off, lawyers would be tripping over each other to be the first to file an antitrust lawsuit,along with adobe and the slashdot community be up in arms. I really don't understand that because apple is anything but an open company and very much controlling. Is it just because they use open source as there OS that makes whatever they do OK here at slashdot?? To me whatever is wrong is wrong no matter who does it.

Interesting scenario (1, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31930834)

It is really interesting to see Adobe and Apple not getting along. For as long as I can remember the primary users of Apple hardware were "creative professionals". All of those users were using Apple because of Photoshop and the various other Adobe tools. Even when Adobe put their tools out for Windows, 99% of the creative professionals preferred to continue using them on Apple hardware. In much the same way that people claim, "I have a Windows box to play games on.", others would claim, "I have a Mac to do creative work on."

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

APPLE .v. ADOBE old feud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31930868)

This is legacy business, unfinished from the days of NeXTstep, fellas. ADOBE forced Steve Jobs to abandon Display Postscript on the NeXT operating system or pay a very dear royalty price to ADOBE to continue using postscript. Steve Jobs replied " Thank you very much" but " no thanks". The rest is just more of the same ADOBE.v.APPLE business relationship legacy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...