@Edobe To expand on that comment, right now Adobe has a valid argument since the only way to make IOS apps is through the IOS SDK. And the IOS SDK is only compatible with Macs so in order to make an iPhone or iPad app you must have a Mac. This can be seen as anti competitive since Apple has many programs such as Safari or iTunes that work fine with Windows but they refuse to make an IOS SDK for Windows forcing iphone devs to purchase macs. If the IOS sdk were available on windows Apple's point would be that since anyone can get the ios sdk they don't need to allow apps to be developed through 3rd party software
@Edobe Maybe you are right. But I really hate Adobe. I am torn here. If it was some other company I would probably be supporting them. No offense to all the flash developers out here.... I think flash is the biggest virus to infect the internet.... it needs to die.
@Edobe Actually, no, the only way to make iOS apps is to code them in a compatible language (one of 3). The SDK is required to package the code and submit it to apple and provides the virtual phone system for app testing. Even 3rd party generated code (ported code) works with the SDK. Apple is simply refusing to allow "machine generated" code or code from another language to be machine converted onto one of the 3 the compiler supports. This is for performance and security reasons. Machine ported C code is simply not nearly as efficient as native written C code, creates larger packages, and for debigging purposes is a god awful nightmare since it typically is very hard to read and contains few if any developer notes/comments).
These ported code apps can not be quickly edited for bugs, run slower, compile larger, and are buggy. You code has to be converted to C, Object C, or C+ before running through the SDK for compile, apple is just insisting that be done MANUALLY. No one said you can't use the code editor of your choice (so long as the code in in C).
@Edobe "And the IOS SDK is only compatible with Macs so in order to make an iPhone or iPad app you must have a Mac."
And Adobe doen't have HUNDREDS of Macs for working on, oh I don't know, their largest selling suite of software?
It's not that I'm in favor of either one, but Adobe has the sources to do it. They just don't want to play by Apple's rules, and they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. More power to Adobe for fighting the system.
Adobe is full of it. Apple has just as much right to restrict use of it's developer system as Adobe does to restrict use of it's Ai files. Tried to open a later CS file with an earlier version of CS? What other legitimate programs can you use to work on Illustrator documents or LiveCycle. The List goes on and on. Adobe is just upset that they suck at a few things, don't know how to fix it and as a result Apple doesn't want them around.
This spat between Adobe and Apple goes way back - much farther than this recent event, I don't see it healing overnight, but both companies could use a fresh dose of "OPEN."
Somehow I don't see Apple wanting to invest in something that won't actually generate revenue for them. They absolutely needed iTunes for Windows to drive adoption of the iPod and now the iOS devices. Safari was probably a mistake since I doubt it is generating as much of a return as they were hoping for. Porting Xcode to Windows would be utterly pointless because it not only would be expensive to do so but also would mean they lost sales of Macs.
@JojoMojo When I continue to see awesome thing like this in Flash: http://getcu3er.com/
Then I have to disagree. Flash is a valid technology that picks up where HTML leaves off.
HTML - "Hyper-Text Markup Language". The point of HTML was not to create rich-media animations. Even CSS - "Cascading Style Sheets" is what it says, styling of the information that has been marked with hyper-text.
I wouldn't use HTML to design my company logo. I wouldn't use HTML to clean up a photo I shot. I wouldn't use HTML to do any image work, commonly people use Photoshop.
And thus, when it comes to rich-media production, I would choose the tool that does it correctly - Flash (and possibly Silverlight). I don't think Flash should be used when HTML and JavaScript can work just fine. However, there are instances where Flash is useful to create a more remarkable user experience.
All that said, I am just like any other designer. I use the tools available today. For you and all the other Flash haters out there, please go make something better. It isn't HTML5. As nice as it is, it fails to replace Flash in the current spec and isn't supported widely anyway. But when you develop both a player that works cross-platform pixel perfect and a robust authoring environment with better stability and features than Flash, I'll be all over it with thousands of other designers.
nice point...your last part was great. If someone created something that was better than flash i dont think Adobe would try to lock down people. If they did then they will have the same issues MS and Apple has. Apple is selling snake oil to corner people and them use their little secret flash replacement project.
@NotZura Forcing people to buy boutique expensive non-mainstream computers to develop software for the presently dominant smart phone is the very definition of anti-competitive monopoly practice.
And for all the people hating on Flash I would like to point out that to watch Quicktime videos (used by a lot of studios for trailers) I have to install a third party plug in which also installs an updater that tries to install Apple's Safari browser and iTunes all the time. I'm not having a flash love in here, but both companies make crap buggy software that needs constantly updated so their really is no good guy here.
@Anatidae I have no idea what you are talking about. You used Flash to design your logo? Most people use something like illustrator or photoshop for that.
Our company just went through a revamp of our website and stripped every bit of flash out of it. Our company does not care about how hard it is for a designer to create a website, Our company does not care what language its written in. All we care about is:
that our viewers are having a good experience. that we are not crashing their browser. the widest audience can actually view our site.
Right or wrong, Flash is now fragmented. you either have it or you don't. The primary point of a company website is to get your message across. Why would any company want to exclude a percentage of their customers that can't or refuse to use flash. Can you do some neat stuff with flash, sure, but you can also do a lot of cool stuff with out it. The reward is not worth the exclusion you get. A smart website is one that will work on any browser without any plug ins. Open Standards FTW and may flash die already so I don't have to keep reading this crap.
While I am right there with you with the QuickTime wanting to install iTunes and Safari, I don't see a realistic alternative to asking developers to write applications using a Mac. Porting the whole Xcode SDK would be a heck of a job, surely, and what would the benefit be if you don't get any revenue from it. That's not anti-competitive, that's just common sense.
@Kelmon fourthletter is right. That is the very definition of anti-competitive monopoly practice. It's using their dominance in the smartphone market to gain a competitive advantage in the Laptop/Desktop market.
@fourthletter OK... who here is supporting quicktime? It is like saying "I hate baby-killers" and geting up-ranked for that. Flash is proprietary needs to die.... especially for video... for other stuff...I am not so sure. I don't play flash games and I hate websites that have unnecessary flash... but it is a personal preference. If someone wants to play flash games they should be able to install the plugin and play games. I should not be forced into installing this plugin.... period.
@Anatidae You need to educate yourself more on HTML 5... especially HTML5 and tags. Flash is proprietary and needs to die. It had its time now it is time to move on.
@JojoMojo Flash is open by project Tamarin, an Adobe initiative, you can code, compile and run it online in such great free sites as http://wonderfl.net/ . Now the STFU.
@zelannii wow quite informative post. (you cleared up some other things that I was wondering about) However you missed the point though. The SDK that is used to package the code and submit to Apple only runs on Apple machines.
Er, I think that's pushing things a bit, isn't it? Should Apple have to port Xcode to every other platform? That's crackers. I do see your point but I just don't think it is important and I certainly don't see asking people to buy a Mac to write an iOS product to be anti-competitive. You could, for example, simply write an application for Android instead and therefore stick with Windows. It's not as though the iOS is the only game in town.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
If Apple would release an IOS SDK for Windows then this would all be over.
@Edobe To expand on that comment, right now Adobe has a valid argument since the only way to make IOS apps is through the IOS SDK. And the IOS SDK is only compatible with Macs so in order to make an iPhone or iPad app you must have a Mac. This can be seen as anti competitive since Apple has many programs such as Safari or iTunes that work fine with Windows but they refuse to make an IOS SDK for Windows forcing iphone devs to purchase macs. If the IOS sdk were available on windows Apple's point would be that since anyone can get the ios sdk they don't need to allow apps to be developed through 3rd party software
@Edobe Maybe you are right. But I really hate Adobe. I am torn here. If it was some other company I would probably be supporting them. No offense to all the flash developers out here.... I think flash is the biggest virus to infect the internet.... it needs to die.
@Edobe Actually, no, the only way to make iOS apps is to code them in a compatible language (one of 3). The SDK is required to package the code and submit it to apple and provides the virtual phone system for app testing. Even 3rd party generated code (ported code) works with the SDK. Apple is simply refusing to allow "machine generated" code or code from another language to be machine converted onto one of the 3 the compiler supports. This is for performance and security reasons. Machine ported C code is simply not nearly as efficient as native written C code, creates larger packages, and for debigging purposes is a god awful nightmare since it typically is very hard to read and contains few if any developer notes/comments).
These ported code apps can not be quickly edited for bugs, run slower, compile larger, and are buggy. You code has to be converted to C, Object C, or C+ before running through the SDK for compile, apple is just insisting that be done MANUALLY. No one said you can't use the code editor of your choice (so long as the code in in C).
@Edobe
"And the IOS SDK is only compatible with Macs so in order to make an iPhone or iPad app you must have a Mac."
And Adobe doen't have HUNDREDS of Macs for working on, oh I don't know, their largest selling suite of software?
It's not that I'm in favor of either one, but Adobe has the sources to do it. They just don't want to play by Apple's rules, and they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. More power to Adobe for fighting the system.
@Edobe
Adobe is full of it. Apple has just as much right to restrict use of it's developer system as Adobe does to restrict use of it's Ai files. Tried to open a later CS file with an earlier version of CS? What other legitimate programs can you use to work on Illustrator documents or LiveCycle. The List goes on and on. Adobe is just upset that they suck at a few things, don't know how to fix it and as a result Apple doesn't want them around.
This spat between Adobe and Apple goes way back - much farther than this recent event, I don't see it healing overnight, but both companies could use a fresh dose of "OPEN."
@Edobe
Somehow I don't see Apple wanting to invest in something that won't actually generate revenue for them. They absolutely needed iTunes for Windows to drive adoption of the iPod and now the iOS devices. Safari was probably a mistake since I doubt it is generating as much of a return as they were hoping for. Porting Xcode to Windows would be utterly pointless because it not only would be expensive to do so but also would mean they lost sales of Macs.
@JojoMojo When I continue to see awesome thing like this in Flash:
http://getcu3er.com/
Then I have to disagree. Flash is a valid technology that picks up where HTML leaves off.
HTML - "Hyper-Text Markup Language". The point of HTML was not to create rich-media animations. Even CSS - "Cascading Style Sheets" is what it says, styling of the information that has been marked with hyper-text.
I wouldn't use HTML to design my company logo. I wouldn't use HTML to clean up a photo I shot. I wouldn't use HTML to do any image work, commonly people use Photoshop.
And thus, when it comes to rich-media production, I would choose the tool that does it correctly - Flash (and possibly Silverlight). I don't think Flash should be used when HTML and JavaScript can work just fine. However, there are instances where Flash is useful to create a more remarkable user experience.
All that said, I am just like any other designer. I use the tools available today. For you and all the other Flash haters out there, please go make something better. It isn't HTML5. As nice as it is, it fails to replace Flash in the current spec and isn't supported widely anyway. But when you develop both a player that works cross-platform pixel perfect and a robust authoring environment with better stability and features than Flash, I'll be all over it with thousands of other designers.
@Anatidae
nice point...your last part was great. If someone created something that was better than flash i dont think Adobe would try to lock down people. If they did then they will have the same issues MS and Apple has. Apple is selling snake oil to corner people and them use their little secret flash replacement project.
@NotZura Forcing people to buy boutique expensive non-mainstream computers to develop software for the presently dominant smart phone is the very definition of anti-competitive monopoly practice.
And for all the people hating on Flash I would like to point out that to watch Quicktime videos (used by a lot of studios for trailers) I have to install a third party plug in which also installs an updater that tries to install Apple's Safari browser and iTunes all the time.
I'm not having a flash love in here, but both companies make crap buggy software that needs constantly updated so their really is no good guy here.
@Anatidae
I have no idea what you are talking about. You used Flash to design your logo? Most people use something like illustrator or photoshop for that.
Our company just went through a revamp of our website and stripped every bit of flash out of it. Our company does not care about how hard it is for a designer to create a website, Our company does not care what language its written in. All we care about is:
that our viewers are having a good experience.
that we are not crashing their browser.
the widest audience can actually view our site.
Right or wrong, Flash is now fragmented. you either have it or you don't. The primary point of a company website is to get your message across. Why would any company want to exclude a percentage of their customers that can't or refuse to use flash. Can you do some neat stuff with flash, sure, but you can also do a lot of cool stuff with out it. The reward is not worth the exclusion you get. A smart website is one that will work on any browser without any plug ins. Open Standards FTW and may flash die already so I don't have to keep reading this crap.
@fourthletter
While I am right there with you with the QuickTime wanting to install iTunes and Safari, I don't see a realistic alternative to asking developers to write applications using a Mac. Porting the whole Xcode SDK would be a heck of a job, surely, and what would the benefit be if you don't get any revenue from it. That's not anti-competitive, that's just common sense.
@fourthletter
Good points.
I you make the case for simplification through direct use of the original protocol. Let's dump all of these crap plugins.
@Altivec
Ummm....link your site.
@Kelmon fourthletter is right. That is the very definition of anti-competitive monopoly practice. It's using their dominance in the smartphone market to gain a competitive advantage in the Laptop/Desktop market.
@fourthletter OK... who here is supporting quicktime? It is like saying "I hate baby-killers" and geting up-ranked for that.
Flash is proprietary needs to die.... especially for video... for other stuff...I am not so sure. I don't play flash games and I hate websites that have unnecessary flash... but it is a personal preference. If someone wants to play flash games they should be able to install the plugin and play games. I should not be forced into installing this plugin.... period.
@Anatidae You need to educate yourself more on HTML 5... especially HTML5 and tags. Flash is proprietary and needs to die. It had its time now it is time to move on.
@JojoMojo I meant especially "video" and "canvas" tags.
@JojoMojo Flash is open by project Tamarin, an Adobe initiative, you can code, compile and run it online in such great free sites as http://wonderfl.net/ . Now the STFU.
@zelannii wow quite informative post. (you cleared up some other things that I was wondering about) However you missed the point though. The SDK that is used to package the code and submit to Apple only runs on Apple machines.
@Edobe
Er, I think that's pushing things a bit, isn't it? Should Apple have to port Xcode to every other platform? That's crackers. I do see your point but I just don't think it is important and I certainly don't see asking people to buy a Mac to write an iOS product to be anti-competitive. You could, for example, simply write an application for Android instead and therefore stick with Windows. It's not as though the iOS is the only game in town.