Apple hurting Adobe?

[Seadog]

In a report about Adobe's SEC filing, under the worse case scenario, Adobe has admitted that Apple's refusal to deal with flash could hurt them badly. More and more customers are abandoning flash for other resources. With the the exclusion of the Adobe upcoming CS5 in any upcoming apps, Adobe is going to have to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Edlex]

I'm sure they would like everyone on board but flash is just a part of what adobe does. Truth is they need to evolve just like everyone else in order to survive. They just have to move a bit faster in this arena or they will get left behind.

 

[Dorje]

It's been pointed out back when the no-flash on iPad shot was fired. Adobe can easly adapt by taking it's content creation tools and turning them to export HTML5 clean and easy. If the tools aren't super expensive for what the offer Adobe will survive and may get a bit of a revival. But that's going to be their choice.

They could also... you know, clean up the bloody MacOSX code for Flash and take away Apples primary public beef. If it corrected the coding issues Apple publicly objects to (and that mess with thier battery life projections), the Apple looks more the bully an gets harder consumer feedback to support it. Just a thought.

Look how long it took Apple to create multi-tasking in a way they liked.

 

[brobar]

Apple is blocking Adobe from allowing people to develop for the iPhone using FLASH/AS in CS5... I say Adobe should fire back and say well if you think our products don't run that well on Apple hardware then maybe we should just pull Apple support all together!

I know it will never happen and it would be a shitty thing to do to Adobe customers who are also Mac people... but if Apple can FORCE Adobe out of development for the iDevices... why can't Adobe fire back??? It wouldn't hurt Apple a ton... however there are a lot of Mac users who swear by the Adobe line of products (Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc...)

I can get over not having FLASH support in Safari for the iDevices... even though that forces people to develop all of their sites TWICE until there is wide adopted support for HTML5 in all browsers. However I can't really get over the fact that Apple is blocking Adobe from allowing developers to develop in FLASH and export/transition code to Objective-C through the upcoming CS5! To me... that just seems like Apple trying to smack down Adobe in any way they can. What do they get out of that? Developers STILL have to pay for the Apple Developer License to release those apps to the app store so it isn't like it would be costing Apple any revenue. In fact... it would be bringing them more revenue through increased apps and sales and would be helping developers by allowing them to develop once (compile twice) for web apps / iDevice apps.

Apple is really starting to irk me! Yes I'm excited that this may really push HTML5 to wide adoption faster than it would have! But blocking people from developing app-store apps in FLASH (that end up being objective-C apps in the end anyways) is just wrong (in my opinion)

 

[mjeagent]

CNN just put up an article on this...still no comment out of Apple - probably haven't stop smiling/laughing yet.

 

[Seadog]

This is only a gloom and doom scenario and is extremist thinking. The fact is that flash is a dead horse and Adobe needs to stop beating it. Besides, they may be using this to take the heat off of what may be their biggest worry. Adobe is taking a lot of flack over the vulnerabilities in PDF format which, from what I have heard, is where about 80% of all attacks are being made on user systems. And don't get too sorry for Adobe. They use to make a lot of Mac software, and then when Apple was going through a bad patch, they pulled the plug. A lot of customers switched to PCs because they could not get Mac native Adobe products.

 

[CanonicalKoi]

The fact is that flash is a dead horse and Adobe needs to stop beating it.

This. Flash is a horse that should have been put down long ago were it not already dead. It's a resource-hogging, kludgy piece of crap that's long past it's sell-by date. Laptops, let alone the iPad are going smaller and thinner; if you want halfway decent battery life, Flash has got to go. Other than some online games like FarmVille and the few remaining Flash splash pages left in the wild (thankfully, an endangered species now), what do you need Flash for anymore?

 

[4phun]

The fact is that flash is a dead horse and Adobe needs to stop beating it.

This. Flash is a horse that should have been put down long ago were it not already dead. It's a resource-hogging, kludgy piece of crap that's long past it's sell-by date. Laptops, let alone the iPad are going smaller and thinner; if you want halfway decent battery life, Flash has got to go. Other than some online games like FarmVille and the few remaining Flash splash pages left in the wild (thankfully, an endangered species now), what do you need Flash for anymore?

I agree with you for technical reasons. You see I know it is not possible to have a ten hour battery life in a lite weight hand held which also does Flash.

Further more the issue of Apple banning code developed by an Adobe tool is not meant to hurt Adobe but to protect their new multitasking structure they have developed for the iPhone/iPad.

If someone feels outrage over this it is a sign of foolishness instead of clear thinking. They can not have it both ways.

If they do not value the freedom from a bag full of batteries and the constant need to recharge every few hours with an attached wire then they should move on and choose a non Apple product. No one is going to miss them among those who value what Apple has created with the iPad.

 

[brobar]

Further more the issue of Apple banning code developed by an Adobe tool is not meant to hurt Adobe but to protect their new multitasking structure they have developed for the iPhone/iPad.

If someone feels outrage over this it is a sign of foolishness instead of clear thinking. They can not have it both ways.

Can you elaborate on this?

How does disallowing another tool that will cross compile the source into the native objective-c needed for iDevice apps have ANYTHING to do with protecting multitasking??? I'm dying to know!!!

 

[IpadOne]

Can you elaborate on this?

How does disallowing another tool that will cross compile the source into the native objective-c needed for iDevice apps have ANYTHING to do with protecting multitasking??? I'm dying to know!!!

I believe is the pure right of Apple to choose witch code source they accept or not …


If we start like i will complain why MICROSOFT DON’T ALLOW XP TO RUN MAC SOFTWARE ??

or why i can’t run Apple iphone app’s on Android based device ….

Flash is old donkey and if that disappear i didn’t think we will miss it

 

[brobar]

I think people don't quite understand... or don't care enough to understand. The code built in flash in CS5 that is put into the app store is NOT flash!!! They aren't disallowing flash code... they are disallowing objective-c code that just happened to originate in flash!

That would be like Microsoft not allowing people to install software on their Windows machines that were converted from Java to C# using the Java2C converter in Eclipse! Microsoft would never do that because A) it is completely harmless and B) there is absolutely no reason to! I get it... Apple wants to play the bully now and flex some muscle since they and Adobe can't seem to work out their problems. That's fine... they have that right. But people trying to justify it by saying it is to "protect" the iDevice system & stability have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and/or are confusing flash in the browser with app store apps that just happened to be coded in the flash tool BEFORE being converted to objective-c!

 

[IpadOne]

I think people don't quite understand... or don't care enough to understand.

Frankly speaking this is none belong to out business, who care in witch language is coded the app’s you enjoy

if tomolo Apple don’t provide good devices, or useless app’s all will turn to what that work

How many software company didn’t convert their software in OSX ?? , now because iMobile become famous we listen complain from every corner

Apple decide what they want for THEIR PRODUCTS until they provide what we need … it’s not more complicated than this …


if the developer are not satisfied nobody force them to code for iTunes they can go to see the competitor and propose them their knowledge

 

[brobar]

You hit the nail on the head... if the developers aren't happy with it they can/will look for another platform which is kinda sad. Don't get me wrong... I'm cheering for Apple here and want what is best for them (and the developers since I'm one myself). I just can't comprehend how Apple wins here though... there is so much possible revenue at stake here that Apple seems to be passing up for no perceivable reason. If there was a valid reason then I'd love to hear it but the only reason that carries any weight that people have thrown out there is Apple is only doing it "because they can" and if I were an Apple shareholder or on the board I wouldn't find that reason very justifiable when taking into consideration possible squandered opportunities at additional revenue.

Let's make sure that we make and keep the distinction between flash in the browser and app store apps that were converted from flash/action script to objective-c!

I understand completely the motive behind Apple not allowing flash in the browser. I get that from a monetary point of view as well as a battery life issue and a browser stability issue. But that isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm focusing on and questioning is what is Apple's motive and what do they GAIN by disallowing objective-c apps in the app store that were cross-compiled from flash? We all know that they CAN do it... but is there a reason for them to do it outside of "because they can"??? What do they gain from that? I've looked at it from every conceivable angle and I don't see a gain at all... only a loss!

 

[IpadOne]

You hit the nail on the head... if the developers aren't happy with it they can/will look for another platform which is kinda sad. Don't get me wrong... I'm cheering for Apple here and want what is best for them (and the developers since I'm one myself). I just can't comprehend how Apple wins here though... there is so much possible revenue at stake here that Apple seems to be passing up for no perceivable reason. If there was a valid reason then I'd love to hear it but the only reason that carries any weight that people have thrown out there is Apple is only doing it "because they can" and if I were an Apple shareholder or on the board I wouldn't find that reason very justifiable when taking into consideration possible squandered opportunities at additional revenue.

I understand you clearly, but i guess the shareholder know the real reason … Apple are like every company they want to make revenue and long term business

Don’t you think if they can provide us the multi tasking early they will do ??
they took time because they want provide the best user experience possible
like the copy and paste, as Android didn’t have if i am not wrong ….

they have surely a reason, but they are not YET forced to disclose it


PS: i didn’t talk about you as developer , i talk about the one say he stop to develop for Apple

 

[4phun]

Further more the issue of Apple banning code developed by an Adobe tool is not meant to hurt Adobe but to protect their new multitasking structure they have developed for the iPhone/iPad.

If someone feels outrage over this it is a sign of foolishness instead of clear thinking. They can not have it both ways.

Can you elaborate on this?

How does disallowing another tool that will cross compile the source into the native objective-c needed for iDevice apps have ANYTHING to do with protecting multitasking??? I'm dying to know!!!

Please note this quote " The primary reason for the change, say sources familiar with Apple's plans, is to support sophisticated new multitasking APIs in iPhone 4.0. The system will now be evaluating apps as they run in order to implement smart multitasking. It can't do this if apps are running within a runtime or are cross compiled with a foreign [insert Adobe's software tool] structure that doesn't behave identically to a native C/C++/Obj-C app.

"[The operating system] can't swap out resources, it can't pause some threads while allowing others to run, it can't selectively notify, etc. Apple needs full access to a properly-compiled app to do the pull off the tricks they are with this new OS,"...unquote.


That quote was from this link

AppleInsider | Apple's prohibition of Flash-built apps in iPhone 4.0 related to multitasking

Apple isn't out to screw Adobe, they just don't need the archaic crap that is interfering with moving mobile technology ahead.

Apple's unique approach to managed multitasking means two things. They are going to save that long life battery experience and everything should remain snappy for the user. Multitasking on Android and Win Mo becomes very sluggish when too many unregulated apps remain open each stealing the resources of the mobile CPU.

That is why an Android user must have access to a task manager to kill some of the unneeded tasks that are running in the background when Android becomes sluggish. Android never did not implement multitasking properly on a low power CPU. Here again is another area that Apple can patent to lock in their OS advances and permanently differentiate themselves from iPad wannabees.

Did you not notice the swipe Jobs made at task managers during the presentation?

Apple doesn't need developers on their side who can not grasp this. Let them work for someone else, they are unqualified to run with the big dog in mobile.