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!

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

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the line-must-be-drawn-he-ah dept.

Iphone 234

cgriffin21 writes "Apple is being praised for loosening of some of the restrictions in its Application Developer Program license agreement that open the door for app developers to work in Flash for the Apple iPhone, iPad and other devices. And no one is happier about the change than Flash-maker Adobe itself. They wrote, 'This is great news for developers and we're hearing from our developer community that Packager apps are already being approved for the App Store. We do want to point out that Apple's restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place.'" Apple also received praise from Google over their reversal, which may have been prompted by an FTC probe. Reader Stoubalou adds that Apple shed more light on the app review process by publishing a list of guidelines (PDF) the violation of which may get an app rejected from the App Store.

cancel ×

234 comments

Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePixel (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33534878)

Which sockpuppet will be used to troll this thread?

Remember it moderators, odies = sopssa = SquarePixel, three sockpuppets, one stupid troll! His posts are simple: repeat ad nauseam what the article posted, add a few 'Captain Obvious' style facts and then add his anti Linux/Google/Apple/USA innuendo. Or it's a simple China or MS apologist post that turns into a straw man, and you guessed it, it's against Linux/Google/Apple/USA.

Peace out!

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi (0, Offtopic)

Briden (1003105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535016)

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

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535058)

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

Any questions?

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535192)

Can I get my troll scrambled with cheese?

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535258)

No...only spam.

Re:Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePi (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536066)

“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.”

Flash is not restricted in Safari (-1, Offtopic)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33534922)

We do want to point out that Apple's restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place.

This is outright false. Apple places no restrictions on playing Flash content within the browser. It is true that you must use WebKit technologies (Javascript, HTML5, etc.) instead of a plugin to implement your Flash player, but that is an implementation detail only.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari (0, Flamebait)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535070)

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.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari (0)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535438)

There are several [github.com] implementations [smokescreen.us] 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 (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535630)

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

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535832)

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 [techcrunch.com] . That is quite a bit more advanced program than most Flash apps.

Re:Flash is not restricted in Safari (5, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535962)

"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:Flash is not restricted in Safari (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535150)

Webkit doesn't disallow plugins, apple does.

Praise? (2, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33534940)

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

Re:Praise? (0, Offtopic)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33534986)

i loled and wished I had mod points...

Re:Praise? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535030)

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? (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535376)

.. 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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535044)

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? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535108)

Mom?

Re:Praise? (2, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535064)

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? (3, Insightful)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535504)

Of course that's not true about the book burning.

Re:Praise? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535796)

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.

But flash is dead, according to Jobs! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33534990)

"Insecure, power-hungry, inappropriate for touch devices, never ready, outdated", he called it. So now why is Flash being allowed after all? Did Flash suddenly get more secure, less power-hungry, etc?

Re:But flash is dead, according to Jobs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33536192)

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

Adobe's PR worked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535002)

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

Re:Adobe's PR worked (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535056)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535202)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535250)

No, it's good now because Apple is doing it. Those macfags backpedal pretty quickly.

Re:Adobe's PR worked (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535286)

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.

Re:Adobe's PR worked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535464)

Slashdotters generally fawn over Apple. You can't blame them; I would be too if I paid twice as much to have that Apple logo.

Pragmatism. (4, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535804)

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:Adobe's PR worked (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535982)

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

I feel bad for Wired too (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535026)

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/ [downloadsquad.com]

Eerie (2, Insightful)

danmart1 (1839394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535040)

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 (2, Informative)

dotwhynot (938895) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535574)

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 [cnet.com] on this, both in US and EU. A conviction on this would be tough on the image, even for Apple.

Re:Eerie (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536010)

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.

Good news, everybody! (4, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535054)

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! (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535592)

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! (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536136)

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.

IBM became Microsoft became Apple? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535128)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535256)

Yup, you are right. IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> Google -> ????

Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535290)

IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> Google ->IBM

and the circle will be complete

Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? (1)

TheMMaster (527904) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535806)

correction:

IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> RIM

You heard it here first folks :)

Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536244)

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.

Re:IBM became Microsoft became Apple? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535744)

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.)

WiFi (3, Interesting)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535140)

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 (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535170)

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 (5, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535322)

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 (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535490)

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.

Re:WiFi (2, Informative)

Trolan (42526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535336)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535352)

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.

The Rejection List... Long. (4, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535146)

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.

Coincidental? (4, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535174)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535354)

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? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535500)

Android has solid Flash support

Uh, have you actually used it yet? I think you might be in for a disappointment.

Oh, maybe you're comparing it to flash on a PC.

Re:Coincidental? (1)

Cogneato (600584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535594)

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? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536162)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535600)

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? (3, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535928)

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.

Re:Coincidental? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536020)

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.

Re:Coincidental? (2, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536042)

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...

How about the entry fee? (3, Insightful)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535180)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535432)

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? (1, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535974)

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.

Re:How about the entry fee? (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536046)

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? (3, Insightful)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535528)

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

Re:How about the entry fee? (2, Insightful)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536220)

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.

Publicity 101 (2, Insightful)

Brannoncyll (894648) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535194)

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 (5, Funny)

RockGrumbler (1795608) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535216)

<badnews>GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Flash can now port applications to the iphone!</badnews>

Re:context (1)

LittlePud (1356157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535228)

I'm surprisd "Anything that AT&T doesn't like" isn't on the list.

bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535218)

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... (3, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535294)

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... (1, Insightful)

jecowa (1152159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535350)

running Flash is processor intensive

Re:bad news... (1)

jecowa (1152159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535546)

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

Re:bad news... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535614)

any app that has constant animation is processor intensive.

Re:bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535712)

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... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535864)

what's your point? those non-animated flash web pages / fragments use zero CPU cycles.

Re:bad news... (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535368)

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... (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535686)

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.)

Re:bad news... (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535768)

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... (0, Troll)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535412)

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

Re:bad news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535442)

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... (4, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536056)

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.

ick (2, Insightful)

jecowa (1152159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535316)

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

Re:ick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535434)

Ahh you posted the same thing twice. Once as anonymous and once as your user id.

Silly silly.

Re:ick (1)

jecowa (1152159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535480)

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?

Re:ick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535920)

I don't want flash-based apps on my iOS device.

Here's an idea, don't install them then!

Nothing bad about this (3, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535410)

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.

Re:Nothing bad about this (2, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535682)

>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 (5, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535882)

Choice is good, not bad.

If I needed Flash I wouldn't have bought an iPhone. Choice made.

Re:Nothing bad about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33536026)

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.

I'm not a choice fundamentalist (2, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536088)

I believe, as research has shown [telegraph.co.uk] , 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.

Re:Nothing bad about this (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536212)

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...

do77 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33535440)

had at luNchtime [idge.net] wE don't sux0r as of OpenBSD versus

FTC anyone? (0, Redundant)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535530)

I honestly believe this switch-a-roo is because of the Anti-Trust lawsuit brought on by the FTC... But they wouldn't mention that would they. They would be like "Sure, we'll let Flash-based apps on our store and show everyone the approval guidelines. It's not like we're being forced to or anything...." "Of course not...."

Re:FTC anyone? (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535790)

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

iOS development from GNU/Linux desktop? (2, Interesting)

otakuj462 (1071510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535732)

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 [ubuntu.com]

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?

Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your way) (2, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33535904)

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.

Re:Apple's way or the Highway (ok fine, or your wa (3, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536252)

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!

Wonderful! (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33536158)

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

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

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...