Steve Job's "Thoughts on Flash"

[MrBlue]

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/


Placement on Apple homepage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gruber/4563473736/

[Eastbound]

Very interesting read! Glad he shed some light on it, though.

[spacefrog]

Steve Jobs plays missinformation games with the non-geeks/non-techies or half-informed people. While his words sound reasonable, there is not much reality behind them when speaking of Apple's way to operate business. He might pretend to do everything for the customers best, but this whole affair is a power game - nothing more..

HTML5/Canvas will - IF it ever will completly take off - be ready to be comparable to Flash's possibilities in 3-4 yrs. Video might be good earlier, but Video for Flash is only a fracture of Flash's power. Performance in HTML5 see's the same Virtual Machine limitations as Flash has seen through all it's lifetime, so HTML5 is there were Flash was 5yrs ago. But HTML5 is in danger of different implementation quality and depth through different Browser providers, so there is danger that HTML5 falls into the same pit as SVG/VRML for example. The other things Jobs talks about ( slow adoption rate of OS features when using middleware) might have some point, but to such a degree in Games (my area of mobile interest using Unity to develop). Jobs really is the perfect example of an NLP infested salesman: speak honey, do the opposite...


Here some blogs to bring reality back to the topic a bit...

http://www.untoldentertainment.com/blog/2010/04/29/snow-jobs/

And here a blog entry from a game dev (flash mostly), of course totally biased pro flash ;-), but don't miss the link to "the enormous deficiencies" when coding with Html5/Canvas in it's current incarnation....

http://www.8bitrocket.com/newsdisplay.aspx?newspage=40391

[karlth]

Totally agree with him.

Interesting point also about flash not being suited to touch interfaces.

[spacefrog]

Totally agree with him.

Interesting point also about flash not being suited to touch interfaces.

how come this could be ?

Flash has all in it, the current coded flash pieces just do not make use of the touch features, because it's just started on mobile devices to play a bigger role (well except on iDevices). Flash can do every eventhandling which ever might be required for touch devices, but of course the Flash applications have to be coded to make use of Touch Input, which current Flash Application of course lack, because they were targeted at Desktops (mouse/keyboard). This is the most silly argument against Flash ever....

[NickFalk]

how come this could be ?

Flash has all in it, the current coded flash pieces just do not make use of the touch features, because it's just started on mobile devices to play a bigger role (well except on iDevices). Flash can do every eventhandling which ever might be required for touch devices, but of course the Flash applications have to be coded to make use of Touch Input, which current Flash Application of course lack, because they were targeted at Desktops (mouse/keyboard). This is the most silly argument against Flash ever....
While it's a weak argument against Flash in general, it is certainly a strong argument as to why Flash support isn't the most important thing in the world for the iDevices. Video, media, and even games can be created through open technologies that the devices support and games and "rich media" websites are all geared towards mouse/keyboard.

As there isn't a whole lot of touch-sensitive websites out there, there's little point starting to create these with a locked technology that's not supported by one of the biggest touch-platforms...

[micah]

I think Steve Jobs makes some good points about open web standards (as a web developer, I tend to hate Flash for the same reasons), but his justification for banning it, along with a lot of other great tools, is reminicent of Microsoft's anti-competetive practices.

Also, the "sixth, and most important reason" is a complete lie. Sub-standard programmers write sub-standard software, regardless of tools. And besides, he only addresses the "you must use Apple's tools" part of the agreement change. What about "you can't use any scripting but javascript, and if you use javascript you have to use Mobile Safari's implementation of the webkit javascript parser"? This has nothing to do with "sub-standard software" and everything to do with banning Lua and other scripting languages (not to mention BASIC, like in the C64 emulator), to somehow prevent people from running stuff on the iPhone that Apple doens't have a final say over.

Apple's the new Microsoft, only somehow they're a lot better at public relations and looking hip. But because of this, and how the App Store is run, I think the iPhone is a sinking ship. Steve Job's wouldn't have to write lengthy articles defending his position if it weren't.

[spacefrog]

While it's a weak argument against Flash in general, it is certainly a strong argument as to why Flash support isn't the most important thing in the world for the iDevices. Video, media, and even games can be created through open technologies that the devices support and games and "rich media" websites are all geared towards mouse/keyboard.

As there isn't a whole lot of touch-sensitive websites out there, there's little point starting to create these with a locked technology that's not supported by one of the biggest touch-platforms...

Sorry - talking about Appstore/iDevice and "flash is a locked technology" in the same sentence is a little bit faaaaaaaar stretched. Of course Flash is not the "most important" thing to come to mobile devices, but that in no way is a reason to be that walling in as apple/jobs currently behaves. The reason for those actions against flash are plain and simple fear of losing control (which of course is understandable from a business POV). All things Steve talks about are honey-coated excuses and pure NLP opinion spinning efforts...

[RevolvingDoor]

Am I the only feels that it's morally wrong for a corporation to declare what their hardware can and cannot run for anything other than purely technical reasons? Flash works on the iPhone. It's debatable how buggy it is, or how good it is for the advancement of web technology. What's not debatable is that Flash is in demand. Like it or hate it, many people use Flash.

Apple has abused the power of their TOS to force their opinion on its customers. No matter what Steve Jobs believes, nothing good can come of that.

[Flickitty]

how come this could be ?

Flash has all in it, the current coded flash pieces just do not make use of the touch features, because it's just started on mobile devices to play a bigger role (well except on iDevices). Flash can do every eventhandling which ever might be required for touch devices, but of course the Flash applications have to be coded to make use of Touch Input, which current Flash Application of course lack, because they were targeted at Desktops (mouse/keyboard). This is the most silly argument against Flash ever....

Nope, not a silly argument at all. As a developer in BOTH Flash and Mobile Devices, I can tell you that Steve Jobs is exactly correct. My initial attempts to use Flash on Mobile Devices almost a decade ago came up with these exact problems: Flash is not designed for touch interfaces. Sure, there are workarounds, but it is ridiculous to think that the vast number of Flash that is available on the Web will work on mobile devices.

Need proof? Pick up a PSP and navigate to any number of Flash driven content. Need proof of its lacking in touch interfaces? Pick up a PocketPC/Windows Mobile device and navigate to any number of Flash-driven content.

It simply doesn't work. To think that we are actually missing anything with the CURRENT content is ludicrous and shows a gross misunderstanding of how both technologies work. Yes, content can be modified to work with mobile devices, but the underlying problems are still there, especially in regard to performance. Which is pathetic in the most optimistic sense.

[Flickitty]

Am I the only feels that it's morally wrong for a corporation to declare what their hardware can and cannot run for anything other than purely technical reasons? Flash works on the iPhone. It's debatable how buggy it is, or how good it is for the advancement of web technology. What's not debatable is that Flash is in demand. Like it or hate it, many people use Flash.

Apple has abused the power of their TOS to force their opinion on its customers. No matter what Steve Jobs believes, nothing good can come of that.

No, Flash is not in demand. It is widely used, but that does not mean it is in demand any more than HTML is 'in demand'. It is a method to bring content to the user- nothing more. I have NEVER ONCE been on my iPhone and said 'gee, I wish I could view Flash Content'. This shows a distinct line between what I choose and what is forced upon me.

Flash is forced on me, I don't go seeking Flash. As a developer, I realize this distinction, and the content is what truly matters.

Also, the "sixth, and most important reason" is a complete lie. Sub-standard programmers write sub-standard software, regardless of tools. And besides, he only addresses the "you must use Apple's tools" part of the agreement change. What about "you can't use any scripting but javascript, and if you use javascript you have to use Mobile Safari's implementation of the webkit javascript parser"? This has nothing to do with "sub-standard software" and everything to do with banning Lua and other scripting languages (not to mention BASIC, like in the C64 emulator), to somehow prevent people from running stuff on the iPhone that Apple doens't have a final say over.

Lua hasn't been banned as far as I know- new apps using Lua Wax have been approved since the change. I haven't checked in the last two days- maybe something changed?

I do agree that sub-standard programmers will write sub-standard software, regardless of the tools. There is a lot of CRAP in the app store, and I refuse to believe it is all due to the tools and frameworks that are used. From personal experience, programmers are the single WORST designers, which is why we see crap like GIMP trying to compete with Photoshop (crappy UI for how many years now?). There are exceptions of course, so nobody should take offense.

Furthermore, the CRAP in the app store doesn't contain Flash, so the CRAP will exist regardless. I think the Fart App could have been done in any number of languages/frameworks- it certainly could be done in pure C/Obj-C

[MidianGTX]

I have NEVER ONCE been on my iPhone and said 'gee, I wish I could view Flash Content'.

Enough people have for multiple big name sites to post articles about every bit of Apple vs Flash info that comes their way.

[RevolvingDoor]

No, Flash is not in demand. It is widely used, but that does not mean it is in demand any more than HTML is 'in demand'. It is a method to bring content to the user- nothing more. I have NEVER ONCE been on my iPhone and said 'gee, I wish I could view Flash Content'. This shows a distinct line between what I choose and what is forced upon me.

Flash is forced on me, I don't go seeking Flash. As a developer, I realize this distinction, and the content is what truly matters.


Flickitty, I agree: it's the content that matters. But, as things stand, there happens to be a lot of good content that utilizes Flash. I can list dozens of high-quality Flash games. Without tools that allow their developers to easily bring them to the iPhone, there are good odds that most of them will never be ported. So, nevermind what we'd like as developers for a second, let's put ourselves in the shoes of the typical consumer.

As a consumer, the grim reality is that because Steve Jobs said so, I can't play my favorite Flash games on the iPhone. Why is a TOS agreement being used to dictate what I can and can't do? This is an abusive way to use a TOS. If Steve Jobs wakes up one day and decides that rap is inferior music, and that users who listen to rap on their iDevice tarnish Apple's super-cool image, does he have the power to modify his platform and user agreements to discourage his customers from listening to rap? You betcha. Should he use the power that he has in this way? In my opinion, definitely not.

What I guess I'm trying to say here is this. I'm not a fan of Flash. I'm not trying to defend Adobe in any way. I just think that as a consumer, that choice should belong to me, and every other consumer out there -- not to a handful of people with obviously biased opinions.

[Mindfield]

I do agree that sub-standard programmers will write sub-standard software, regardless of the tools. There is a lot of CRAP in the app store, and I refuse to believe it is all due to the tools and frameworks that are used. From personal experience, programmers are the single WORST designers, which is why we see crap like GIMP trying to compete with Photoshop (crappy UI for how many years now?). There are exceptions of course, so nobody should take offense.

Furthermore, the CRAP in the app store doesn't contain Flash, so the CRAP will exist regardless. I think the Fart App could have been done in any number of languages/frameworks- it certainly could be done in pure C/Obj-C

There is a certain degree of truth to the idea that intermediate development kits tend to breed crappier programs. Mainly it's because those who don't have quite the acumen to learn a full programming language but can manage semi-construction-kit type development environments don't usually have the foundation to know how to write a good game in the first place. If they lack the skills to wrap their head around a full development environment then they are usually lacking in some of the associated skills that make for good games. Not always, but it's the rule more than the exception.

Of course, there are some genius programmers that nevertheless think like engineers and lack the creativity for good game design too, so it goes both ways.

To me, as a development environment for games, Flash kind of sits in the middle between a full-blown language and a drag-and-drool design environment, which is actually not a bad place to be as it requires enough technical expertise to get the programming aspect of it down, and enough creative chutzpah to tie the bells on. But Flash has its limitations, and thus has earned a certain niche in the gaming world as a good environment in which to program casual games with simpler graphics.

That said, I don't really miss it on the iPhone. It'd be nice to have it, but it almost never factors into my web browsing habits on the go. As far as I'm concerned, while HTML5 might not be as advanced as Flash, it will get there, and it has the advantage of being an open standard that will gain widespread adoption without the need for plugins. It won't kill Flash, not for years anyway, but I can envision many sites switching to, or at least offering as an alternative, HTML5-based sites for rich content.

[Stroffolino]

What's funny is that Adobe has noted that there are already over 100 Flash apps build for iphone using a pre-release build of the new Flash Pro CS5 SDK - approved by Apple and available in the AppStore.

This doesn't mean that Apple won't find a way to arbitrarily ban such apps in the future.

[CastleSoftware]

I dont mind Flash as a Format, but would i want all those flash games suddenly appearing in the store, no, or would i want the store ruined because people can just go and play flash games through the browser, again no.

So even though i dont agree with Apples methods in some way, as someone making games for their platform, i am glad Flash is stopped.

The only time as a user i have wanted flash on my Iphone was Flash video to see the Formula one on the BBC site.

Yeah i had heard some Flash apps had already been on the store.

[Flickitty]

As a consumer, the grim reality is that because Steve Jobs said so, I can't play my favorite Flash games on the iPhone. Why is a TOS agreement being used to dictate what I can and can't do? This is an abusive way to use a TOS.

This is complete fallacy. The reason you can't play your favorite Flash games on iPhone isn't because Steve Jobs says so, it is because the developer themselves have failed to go through the proper channels to PORT the game to iPhone. Nobody is preventing Flash apps from being ported.

The article clearly states "In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it." (Jobs)

This seems like a reasonable response, and you would think that Adobe could easily comply. The problem is, Adobe can't or won't.

So even if you could have access to your favorite Flash game on iPhone, there is no evidence to support that it would be functional or even playable.

[RevolvingDoor]

This is complete fallacy. The reason you can't play your favorite Flash games on iPhone isn't because Steve Jobs says so, it is because the developer themselves have failed to go through the proper channels to PORT the game to iPhone. Nobody is preventing Flash apps from being ported.

The article clearly states "In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it." (Jobs)

This seems like a reasonable response, and you would think that Adobe could easily comply. The problem is, Adobe can't or won't.

So even if you could have access to your favorite Flash game on iPhone, there is no evidence to support that it would be functional or even playable.


If I may be so blunt, I think you along with many others are missing the bigger point here. This is not about Flash. This is about what you are allowed to do with a tool that you have been sold. As a piece of hardware, I love the iPhone. The TOS however has become something malicious, and I really, really, really don't like it. I feel that Apple is using the legal powers of the TOS in a way that is immoral.

I disagree with you when you say that developers have "failed" to port Flash games through the proper channels. What exactly IS a proper channel? Until this latest TOS change, many third party tools were not only considered "proper," they were endorsed by Apple. Now their use is suddenly suspect. This detrimentally effects many indie developers who were far into any profitable project, employing any of those third-party tools. With that in mind, do you think Apple aims to do right by developers?

Steve Jobs' quote on the performance of Flash is a very poor excuse, given that Apple allowed over 100 Flash apps into the store, don't you think? I assume that these apps passed Apple's tests, just like any other, and were found to work well enough to meet standards.

[bmn0210]

I feel that Apple is using the legal powers of the TOS in a way that is immoral.

I know what you mean. You're missing a key point, though - Apple doesn't make the law. The TOS provides them no legal powers whatsoever, it simply allows them to set the terms under which they'll provide a service.

What does this mean? It means Apple now needs to watch their step. The more they try to impose draconian restriction on their store, the more developers and users are going to turn to the jailbreaking community and Cydia - which for Apple, means a loss of both revenue and control.

Apple's vendor lock-in only helps communities like Cydia to thrive, which in turn makes it ever-simpler for dissatisfied customers and devs to turn their backs to Apple's ecosystem whenever they like, without needing to buy new hardware. No doubt that's not what Apple wanted, and possibly not a scenario they'd even envisaged, but the fact remains that right now it's easier for an iPhone user to turn to the competition than it is for a user of pretty much any other smartphone. In effect, a subset of Apple's own users has become its closest direct competition (on the software side of things anyway).

Make no mistake, as a vendor of a closed system that is a very bad position to be in, since it means that there's always a proportion of users of your hardware using a competing service, and that proportion can very easily increase if customers are even the slightest bit dissatisfied with your own service. There's nothing Apple can do to stop that, and they know it; it's the reason they're so scared of jailbreaking.
Locking users into their hardware/OS is ineffective, because competing services like Cydia now exist within the confines of that system. Apple also has no legal recourse to shut these down since users are perfectly entitled to write and run software on any OS of their choosing, and reverse-engineer it if necessary to do so (any EULA that tries to state otherwise is invalid - EULAs do not override laws), and there's more than enough examples of legitimate uses on Cydia to prevent Apple from using the excuse that it "incites copyright infringement", as has usually been the case for console modchips.

(Ironically enough, Apple themselves should probably be thankful that there's no law allowing them to take action against jailbreakers, because between their questionable app store TOS and their patent abuse, right now it's the only thing standing between them and being involved in monopolistic practices.)

[steelfires]

Yeah, but Apple is getting way better at stopping jailbreaking. Look at MC 3.1.3 models. All non-jailbreakable. First time, too.

[bmn0210]

Yeah, but Apple is getting way better at stopping jailbreaking. Look at MC 3.1.3 models. All non-jailbreakable. First time, too.

No, first time was 2.x, a LONG time ago. 3.1.3 wasn't actually such a problem by comparison - blackra1n or redsn0w worked for most (albeit not too well in some cases), and the exploit that would work in the few cases where they didn't was only held back because of the iPad, back when both models were due to launch in late march. The real killer in the 3.1.3 case was the baseband.

[MidianGTX]

Adobe responds, haven't looked for the full text:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10093314.stm

[don_k]

Adobe responds, haven't looked for the full text:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10093314.stm

Yeah very weak response that is.

They can't answer in a straight and direct manner, always try to shift the focus to something else, avoiding the main problems.

[don_k]

Microsoft's take:

"There’s been a lot of posting about video and video formats on the web recently. This is a good opportunity to talk about Microsoft’s point of view.

The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support. Because of this standardization, you can easily take what you record on a typical consumer video camera, put it on the web, and have it play in a web browser on any operating system or device with H.264 support (e.g. a PC with Windows 7). Recently, we publicly showed IE9 playing H.264-encoded video from YouTube. You can read about the benefits of hardware acceleration here, or see an example of the benefits at the 26:35 mark here. For all these reasons, we’re focusing our HTML5 video support on H.264.

Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press. Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty.

Today, video on the web is predominantly Flash-based. While video may be available in other formats, the ease of accessing video using just a browser on a particular website without using Flash is a challenge for typical consumers. Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance. We work closely with engineers at Adobe, sharing information about the issues we know of in ongoing technical discussions. Despite these issues, Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web.

Dean Hachamovitch
General Manager, Internet Explorer"

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx

[Flickitty]

If I may be so blunt, I think you along with many others are missing the bigger point here. This is not about Flash. This is about what you are allowed to do with a tool that you have been sold. As a piece of hardware, I love the iPhone. The TOS however has become something malicious, and I really, really, really don't like it. I feel that Apple is using the legal powers of the TOS in a way that is immoral.


The simple answer? Jailbreak. Here's a novel idea, how about you worry about your own goddam phone, and NOT worry about mine or anyone else. If you can't jailbreak your phone, it isn't my problem and I don't care.

I disagree with you when you say that developers have "failed" to port Flash games through the proper channels. What exactly IS a proper channel? Until this latest TOS change, many third party tools were not only considered "proper," they were endorsed by Apple. Now their use is suddenly suspect. This detrimentally effects many indie developers who were far into any profitable project, employing any of those third-party tools. With that in mind, do you think Apple aims to do right by developers?

Not my concern. I specifically use frameworks and languages that are suspect. Flickitty could easily be in violation right now. I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm a developer. It's a ****ing iPhone. There are tons of other opportunities out there and I am resourceful. If Apple doesn't want me on their platform, I am not going to cry about it.

The upside is that the EXACT third-party tools that Apple is trying to stop allow cross-platform compiling. It's not like the the project is immediately at a dead end, it can be pushed to another platform.

Steve Jobs' quote on the performance of Flash is a very poor excuse, given that Apple allowed over 100 Flash apps into the store, don't you think? I assume that these apps passed Apple's tests, just like any other, and were found to work well enough to meet standards.

These apps should be relatively easy to find, don't you think? If this is true, then Adobe shouldn't have any problem complying with Job's VERY SIMPLE request to show proof of Flash running on any mobile device.

Personally, I'd like to see it.

[RevolvingDoor]

Flickitty, what's all the fuss about? I happen to have an opinion that differs from yours. I tried to convey it in a respectful manner. My apologies if I have failed to do that.

You've made a ton of great points. I agree with most of what you said -- the iPhone is just one opportunity, and there are many others. There have always been stumbling blocks in the TOS which could cause a great, high-quality, family-friendly app to be rejected. I recognize all this.

However, I still stand by what I said. I think the TOS was modified in an immoral way. I signed up for a smart phone. I have no desire to endorse anyone's opinions on what is or isn't functional software, which is essentially what iPhone users are being forced to do. Jailbreaking may help a little with what runs on my iPhone, but it does not solve the problem of the TOS being immoral.

[steelfires]

No, first time was 2.x, a LONG time ago. 3.1.3 wasn't actually such a problem by comparison - blackra1n or redsn0w worked for most (albeit not too well in some cases), and the exploit that would work in the few cases where they didn't was only held back because of the iPad, back when both models were due to launch in late march. The real killer in the 3.1.3 case was the baseband.
Incorrect. All MC models are un-jailbreakable unless you've already saved your ID on Saurik's servers. Otherwise, you can't downgrade to 3.1.2 and jailbreak. I should know, I accidentally upgraded to 3.1.3

[bmn0210]

Incorrect. All MC models are un-jailbreakable unless you've already saved your ID on Saurik's servers. Otherwise, you can't downgrade to 3.1.2 and jailbreak. I should know, I accidentally upgraded to 3.1.3

Yes, but only that specific model/firmware combination, meaning not everyone was affected (unlike with 2.x), and those who did upgrade were anyway left with a far bigger problem because of the baseband situation.

The only reason a fix wasn't release sooner (it's actually due tomorrow, AFAIK), was because of the iPad delays.

[EssentialParadox]

The singlemost reason my browser crashes on my computer is always due to Flash. I hate, hate, hate it when my browser crashes and I lose some (if not all) of my open windows. When Steve Jobs wants to remove that and force the considerably more stable HTML5 onto people, is it wrong? In a way yes… But is it what I want him to do? Most certainly, yes.

[steelfires]

Really? Finally jailbreaking my ipod touch agian.

[amroc]

I think the other important point here, that Steve Jobs raised, is this: Allowing cross platform middleware (like flash) to generate iPhone app code, will put developers who choose to use it at the mercy of the middleware maker when it comes to supporting new iDevice hardware/sofware features.

I think this one is key. Apple of course wants to bring the latest features they implement in sdk/hardware updates to the developers, and so onto consumers. They don't want to have to rely on some abstraction layer controlled by another company, with competing interests, exposing when and how those features should be available.

[johnwayne]

It's time to move on......steve

stand up and go like you did in the 90's... Oh, forgot...you didn't left, they FIRED you ....time to do it again!

Some little brainwash and then come back next year. With a better philosophy and the flashcompiler in the bag.

[HappyFuntime]

Nope, not a silly argument at all. As a developer in BOTH Flash and Mobile Devices, I can tell you that Steve Jobs is exactly correct. ... Flash is not designed for touch interfaces. ... It simply doesn't work. ... Yes, content can be modified to work with mobile devices, but the underlying problems are still there, especially in regard to performance. Which is pathetic in the most optimistic sense.

I don't want to paraphrase your quote too much Flickitty, but if we're talking about the iPhone packager in CS5, Flash is perfectly suited for creating touch applications, and it can handle multi-touch gestures as well. As you said yourself, one can make crappy code in any language, even in the "chosen languages" sanctioned by Apple. If done right, I think developers could build some fantastic content using the Flash iPhone packager.

I would think all Apple developers should be concerned about the new TOS changes, not because Apple seems to think there's a good technical reason for banning cross-compilers, but because they also seem to think that they're right to tell developers what languages they can and can't program in. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. If the binary works, and it doesn't crash the phone, why should Apple care what tools/languages I used to create it with?

Personally I've heard all the arguments against the Flash iPhone packager, but even the most cogent ones seem to fall a bit short. The only real explanation can be that Apple feels threatened by anything they can't completely control.

***
EDIT: Had to edit my response a little... It's very frustrating to engage in this Flash on iPhone argument because the discussion is never very clear-cut as to whether we're talking about Flash in the browser, or the CS5 iPhone packager. I saw a lot of talk about the TOS, so I assumed the packager.

[amroc]

Personally I've heard all the arguments against the Flash iPhone packager, but even the most cogent ones seem to fall a bit short. The only real explanation can be that Apple feels threatened by anything they can't completely control.

But they have every reason to feel threatened, and react to it. The choice is between controlling or being controlled, on their own platform.

There are a lot of flash developers out there who would likely start using the packager straight away. I don't think the argument about how this would allow adobe to control the delivery of apple's features to these developers falls short at all. It's a huge issue, and allowing it would be a very risky (and potentially messy) path for Apple to go down.

[EssentialParadox]

It's time to move on......steve

stand up and go like you did in the 90's... Oh, forgot...you didn't left, they FIRED you ....time to do it again!

Some little brainwash and then come back next year. With a better philosophy and the flashcompiler in the bag.

Haha. He's completely turned around Apple, he's making billions, and increasing profits by huge margins each year. Why would they ever fire him over blocking Flash?

[johnwayne]

it's not just because of flash....Questionable Approval Process....No crosscompilers allowed....high amount of restrictions for users&developers and he wants to get in war with any big company such as google, adobe etc.

Google entered the mobile market and steve jobs got pissed off, remember?
Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra Is ‘Bullshit,’ Adobe Is Lazy' ...

On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them, he says

This guy got totally crazy :rolleyes: Google for sure entered the mobile market just to kill the iphone, yeah right. Adobe is Lazy, sure, they have a big Portfolio of superb Tools for Webmasters,Designers,Visual Effects Artists etc. for Win & Mac .... yeah totally lazy :D

So guess why he doesn't allow cross-compilers. This is for sure one big reason. Do the work twice if you want to publish for android aswell.

[Mindfield]

The "no cross-compilers allowed" thing is open to interpretation. Read the revised 3.3.1 again:

Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

Although it says stuff must be "originally written in", how is Apple going to tell the difference between a cross-compiler such as, say, GLBasic, and native C/C++/ObC code when GLBasic converts everything directly over to native Objective-C code that must be compiled in the iPhone SDK? Simple answer: They can't. What's preventing someone from using a cross-compiler that does this? Nothing, unless you want to interpret 3.3.1 to the strictest letter, and to be honest, I don't actually think that's in the spirit of Apple's intent with this revision to the dev agrement.

Apple want to prevent third-party middleware from coming between developers and the features of the device. I'm not talking about packaged sets of APIs like Unity that add easy to implement features on top of the SDK. I'm talking about compilers and middleware that get used instead of the SDK. It's all fine and well to use these when they support all documented features of a device. But when new features become available, developers who use these will be at the mercy of their creators as to when such new features will be supported properly.

Technically, alternate development environments and languages like GameSalad, Torque, GLBasic, and the rest fall under this category too, but they also produce native Objective-C code, and GLBasic even supports inline Objective-C code, so if it doesn't support a feature you want you can inline and use the real ObC code in your own GLB code. Probably things like GameSalad would be something Apple is intending to cover with the revised 3.3.1, but as it produces native Objective-C code how would Apple ever know?

Point is, Jobs does have a point with regard to developers being at the mercy of third party IDEs supporting new features, especially new features of new devices. Apple supports their own new features through new APIs right away. Others will take varying amounts of time to support them. Apple wants to encourage innovation and use of new features, and they can't do that when third party dev environments take their sweet-ass time to add support for them.

From their point of view it does make sense. I'd personally like to see that choice left up to the developer -- if they don't want to use certain new features or have no use for certain new features I think they should have the option of using whatever environment they're most comfortable with -- but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it. There are alternatives, either that do not fall under 3.3.1 or could be used with impunity despite 3.3.1 for lack of Apple's ability to tell the difference.

[steelfires]

Exactly why apple won't let flash. They don't want another company to have control on their own platform.

[GlennX]

People have very short memories.

My last pre-iPhone phone was a Nokia N95, a symbian S60 phone with a 3D chip which, thanks to it's relatively low resolution screen, was effectively more powerful than the original iPhone. It also had an almost identical accelerometer to the iPhone.

What was the software like?

Mostly crappy java ports, backward compatible with five year old phones with tiny screens. The few that used 3D games were software rendered and chugged along at <10 FPS with no filtering or even perspective correction, giving sub-PS1 results.

Apple just don't want to see people coding games that might work better on someone else's device.

I can totally understand why they don't want people making slightly compromised generic games for the iPhone but surprised that they have taken this step. It makes them look scared and upsets developers when the app store and it's apps could have kept Apple on top indefinitely anyway.

[thewiirocks]

Mostly crappy java ports, backward compatible with five year old phones with tiny screens. The few that used 3D games were software rendered and chugged along at <10 FPS with no filtering or even perspective correction, giving sub-PS1 results.
I don't get it. That sounds like a vindication of what Apple is doing. Why would they want to replicate Nokia's failure by allowing under-performing software?

[johnwayne]

i got the ultimate solution ..... steve jobs out, me in.

My intentions :

- Everyone can send Apps to the Appstore, from Windows user to Linux user.
- Approval Process will remain, but only quality counts. If it runs bad, feels bad, or sounds bad, it will be rejected.
- If the OS will receive significant changes or new features, where the code must be re-written, it will be announced a few weeks before release. If you don't re-write your code, your App will be kicked out.
- Ever 3 Months a "user-requested-feature" will be implemented into the Iphone OS.
- Aggressive co-operation with Adobe to get a superb Flash Player to the Iphone.

....that's it. If you like this, VOTE 4 ME! :D

[micah]

Exactly why apple won't let flash. They don't want another company to have control on their own platform.

Yeah, it sure infuriates me that Unity3D and GameSalad are controlling the iPhone! Why won't they just let iPhone developers use Objective-C if they want?!!?!?!

Erhrmm.. oh wait.

[GlennX]

I don't get it. That sounds like a vindication of what Apple is doing. Why would they want to replicate Nokia's failure by allowing under-performing software?

That was my point. I can see why Apple would want to put a stop to lowest common denominator software. I'm just surprised that they've taken this step. Presumably someone must have predicted the negative reaction but then decided it was still worth the risk. That's the surprising thing, specially when devs were very unlikely to stop native iPhone support anyway.

[StevePerks]

- Approval Process will remain, but only quality counts. If it runs bad, feels bad, or sounds bad, it will be rejected.


And this is the 'problem' with approval and ultimately any form of leadership. Someone has to make a decision on the definition of quality. An app that feels bad is or sounds bad cannot be defined objectively, it's only an opinion.

Overall I'm in favour of an approval process (only if my game gets approved ;)). The drawback is that errors WILL be made by anyone in charge of this system. The hope is that mistakes are rectified and lessons are learnt.

[spacefrog]

Here is a great Interview with Kevin Lynch (Adobe CTO), talking about Adobe 's view on the whole thing. In my opinion magnitudes more serious and truth based than anything Steve Jobs was fantasizing/or babbling about on this topic.
Like a breeze of fresh air in all this mess of Apple stupitity....

http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/05/06/kevin-lynch-interview-at-web-2-0/