Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:55 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Recently, Apple changed its iPhone OS developer agreement to prohibit the use of programming language other than Objective-C, C, C++, and JavaScript running in WebKit. This has the effect of pretty much pre-emptively killing Adobe's CS5 iPhone developer tools, as well as several other, similar tools. Adobe has now said it will cease development of the iPhone development tools. To make matters really interesting, Apple has actually replied directly to this news.
Order by: Score:
Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 00:43 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

"Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary,"


apple, H.264 is not open, it is proprietary, you know this. why are you lying?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mieses on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 00:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

Absolutely right. Further down in the article Thom writes "Apple is lying here by claiming H264 is an open standard"..

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Smeagol on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

""Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary,"
apple, H.264 is not open, it is proprietary, you know this. why are you lying? "

It is not strictly a lie. HTML5, CSS and JavaScript are open and standard, and H.264 is standard.

H.264 is a public, published standard. However, since royalties apply, it does not conform to the accepted definition of "open".

It does, however, conform to the strict definition of "standard", since big buisness has been able to pressure some standard bodies to accept "RAND" terms. "RAND" means "reasonable and non-discriminatory", it does not mean "no royalties".

Having said that, the W3C web standards actually have a higher bar than other standards bodies, and they stipulate that W3C standards must have no royalties.

This means that H.264 is NOT a web standard.

Standard, yes; web standard, no.

So the quoted statement from the Apple spokesperson was not strictly a lie.

Re-worded slightly it would become strictly correct: "HTML5, CSS and JavaScript are open, and H.264 is standard".

This is tricky, and very deceptive, but not strictly a lie.

Edited 2010-04-22 02:26 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Smeagol on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Smeagol Member since:
2006-01-16

Uh, wrong. It is an open standard.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e

This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free.

So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Uh, wrong. It is an open standard. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free. So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".


"Published" != "Open".

"Open" = "Published specification, anyone may implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable".

H.264 is published, and it is a standard, but it is NOT an open standard.

Edited 2010-04-22 02:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by tyrione on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"Uh, wrong. It is an open standard. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free. So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".


"Published" != "Open".

"Open" = "Published specification, anyone may implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable".

H.264 is published, and it is a standard, but it is NOT an open standard.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard


An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process).

The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasise different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.


Keep arguing. There are probably 30 variations listed on that link.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"[q]Uh, wrong. It is an open standard. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free. So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".
"Published" != "Open". "Open" = "Published specification, anyone may implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable". H.264 is published, and it is a standard, but it is NOT an open standard. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasise different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
Keep arguing. There are probably 30 variations listed on that link. [/q]

There is no doubt that this is a debatable topic. That is why I said that the Apple spokesperson did not strictly lie.

However, a good, working, acceptable definition of the term "Open" ... from the people who actually want stuff to BE open, is as follows: "Published spec, anyone can implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable".

This is a definition that the main camps of open source software, namely GPL license and BSD license, can agree upon.

Having said that ... it must be admitted that there is a strong attempt to take over the word "open" and re-define it to include proprietary. Some of the wikipedia definitions you linked to are excellent examples of this, as are some of the licenses accepted by the OSI.

In any real, original, undiluted-by-vested-interests definition of the term "open", there is no place at all for concepts such as "reasonable and non-discriminatory" or for "royalty".

One of the most popular definitions of the term "open standard", as measured by Google ranking, is the one developed by Bruce Perens. His definition lists a set of principles that he believes must be met by an open standard:

Availability: Open Standards are available for all to read and implement.
Maximize End-User Choice: Open Standards create a fair, competitive market for implementations of the standard. They do not lock the customer in to a particular vendor or group.
No Royalty: Open Standards are free for all to implement, with no royalty or fee. Certification of compliance by the standards organization may involve a fee.
No Discrimination: Open Standards and the organizations that administer them do not favor one implementor over another for any reason other than the technical standards compliance of a vendor’s implementation. Certification organizations must provide a path for low and zero-cost implementations to be validated, but may also provide enhanced certification services.
Extension or Subset: Implementations of Open Standards may be extended, or offered in subset form. However, certification organizations may decline to certify subset implementations, and may place requirements upon extensions (see Predatory Practices).
Predatory Practices: Open Standards may employ license terms that protect against subversion of the standard by embrace-and-extend tactics. The licenses attached to the standard may require the publication of reference information for extensions, and a license for all others to create, distribute, and sell software that is compatible with the extensions. An Open Standard may not otherwise prohibit extensions.


This is way, way too verbose to be of any practical use as a concise definition of what is meant by "open standard", but it does convey the real meaning of the concept.

The W3C definition is not bad also:
transparency (due process is public, and all technical discussions, meeting minutes, are archived and referencable in decision making)
relevance (new standardization is started upon due analysis of the market needs, including requirements phase, e.g. accessibility, multi-linguism)
openness (anybody can participate, and everybody does: industry, individual, public, government bodies, academia, on a worldwide scale)
impartiality and consensus (guaranteed fairness by the process and the neutral hosting of the W3C organization, with equal weight for each participant)
availability (free access to the standard text, both during development and at final stage, translations, and clear IPR rules for implementation, allowing open source development in the case of Internet/Web technologies)
maintenance (ongoing process for testing, errata, revision, permanent access)


However, the W3C does have a rule about "no royalties" that appears to have been omitted in this definition.

Edited 2010-04-22 06:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by henderson101 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

However, a good, working, acceptable definition of the term "Open" ... from the people who actually want stuff to BE open, is as follows: "Published spec, anyone can implement,".


Yes

no royalties apply, freely re-distributable


Nice to have, not required for "Open" standard. Please re-read the Wikipedia article you quote from.

Edited 2010-04-22 10:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"However, a good, working, acceptable definition of the term "Open" ... from the people who actually want stuff to BE open, is as follows: "Published spec, anyone can implement,".


Yes

no royalties apply, freely re-distributable


Nice to have, not required for "Open" standard. Please re-read the Wikipedia article you quote from.
"

OK, wilco.

No Royalty: Open Standards are free for all to implement, with no royalty or fee. Certification of compliance by the standards organization may involve a fee.


The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


I have re-read the page. I found plenty of references to definitions that stipulate that an open standard must be royalty free.

In particular, standards for the web are required to be royalty-free, and so h.264 is NOT suitable for use as a standard on the web.

However, there are a number of parties that are attempting to commandeer the term, and re-define it as follows:
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard.


Even here, however, the reference is to the un-qualified term "standard", and NOT to the term "open standard".

See, I can read!

Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards".


There are only two organisations that would allow royalties within their definition of the term "open standard". They are very much in the minority.

This fact does not contradict anything I have said. The original, unadulterated, non-corrupted definitions of "open standard" still hold that being royalty free is indeed a requirement, despite the attempts by some vested interests to corrupt that meaning.

Vijay Kapoor, national technology officer, Microsoft, defines what open standards are as follows:

"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.


Whoo-hoo! It is not often that I get backup from Microsoft!

So what exactly was your point? What are you on about, then?

Edited 2010-04-22 11:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


In particular, standards for the web are required to be royalty-free, and so h.264 is NOT suitable for use as a standard on the web.


Vijay Kapoor, national technology officer, Microsoft, defines what open standards are as follows:

"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.


OK, do we get the gist here?

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-backs-Web-Open-Fon...

A WebFonts group was founded at the W3C in March, and this group now has the submitted specification to begin its technical work. Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, TypeSupply and LettError have all signed up to the W3C royalty free licensing requirements for any patented material within the submission.


Well, it appears that Microsoft gets it.

It is not every day that I get backed up by Microsoft TWICE !!!!!!

Edited 2010-04-22 11:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by henderson101 on Sun 25th Apr 2010 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

You didn't read the article again. Not really. You picked the sections that suited your argument. Read the section concerning Patents. Royalty-free as a specific requirement is neither universal nor required. Then again, you are the kind of person that picks holes in most things to suit their own agenda - why should this be any different?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Uh, wrong. It is an open standard.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e

This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free.

So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".

first you declare it to be open and then you acknowledge it to be patented/proprietary. you sir, are double speaking,misinformed or didnt think through your comment,

Patented technology are not "open", they are "proprietary". Since h,264 is proprietary, apple should have included it on the side flash is.

Edited 2010-04-22 03:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Smeagol on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Smeagol Member since:
2006-01-16

No! Anyone with enough money to cough up can get in. It's "open"...for business. You are associating Open with the open-source definition. Proprietary means it's mine and no one else can play. Yes, it's a derivative of the definition of open.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No! Anyone with enough money to cough up can get in. It's "open"...for business. You are associating Open with the open-source definition. Proprietary means it's mine and no one else can play. Yes, it's a derivative of the definition of open.


No, that is just an attempt to commandeer the word "open". The true, unadulterated meaning of "open standard" most definitely includes "no royalties apply".

Examples: the C and C++ programming language standards; HTML standard; URIs; ASCII standard; POSIX; TCP/IP standard; USB standard, OpenDocument (ODF); PNG; etc, etc.

Counter-examples: .NET; x86 architecture and instruction set; Visual Basic; H.264; MP3; .doc/.xls/ECMA376; etc, etc.

The latter group all have elements of "you may use this but they may not". Hence they are decidedly NOT open, even though they pseudo-claim to be "standards".

Edited 2010-04-22 06:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by henderson101 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

apple, H.264 is not open, it is proprietary, you know this. why are you lying?


No - you are missing the point. There are two distinct issues here. h.264 is open - there are fully working open implementations of both the encoder and decode. H.264 is patented up to its eyeballs. Two completely different situations. Anyone could implement a new h.264 implementation, but would need to live within the patent restrictions and licensing. Do you understand what I am saying? The right to implement the standard is open, the right to use the standard is not.

Adobe, on the other hand, do not give anywhere enough information to implement a fully working Flash VM. The closest there is, still is not implementing all the features of Flash 8 (IIRC, it may have improved.)

Apple is not lying, Apple is at worst being economical with the truth. But then, they have paid the licensing fee so the licensing does not affect them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by axilmar on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

The right to implement the standard is open, the right to use the standard is not.


It's no use to be able to implement the standard openly and then having to pay for royalties in order to distribute your code. There is no difference to having to pay for obtaining the specs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"apple, H.264 is not open, it is proprietary, you know this. why are you lying?


No - you are missing the point. There are two distinct issues here. h.264 is open - there are fully working open implementations of both the encoder and decode. H.264 is patented up to its eyeballs. Two completely different situations. Anyone could implement a new h.264 implementation, but would need to live within the patent restrictions and licensing. Do you understand what I am saying? The right to implement the standard is open, the right to use the standard is not.

...

But then, they have paid the licensing fee so the licensing does not affect them.
"

Pfffft.

If "the right to implement the (h.264) standard" is indeed open, why did Apple have to pay a licensing fee in order to implement it?

Apple is not lying, Apple is at worst being economical with the truth.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Vijay Kapoor, national technology officer, Microsoft, defines what open standards are as follows:

"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free


According to Microsoft's Vijay Kapoor, Apple are indeed lying.

Edited 2010-04-22 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ugly on the inside
by mieses on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 00:47 UTC
mieses
Member since:
2006-02-07

So Apple finally became a market leader in something and this is how they act? Their ugly behavior makes Google, who has been a market leader for ages, look downright saintly. Maybe if they weren't such d$cks, they'd have a long term chance against Android.

Edited 2010-04-22 00:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: ugly on the inside
by nt_jerkface on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 01:26 UTC in reply to "ugly on the inside"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Android and Windows Phone 7 will both put pressure on them. All the companies that have made games with XNA will be able to easily port them to Phone 7.

Reply Score: 2

Miguel claims that Monotouch is ok
by nt_jerkface on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 01:11 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

but no direct confirmation from Apple:
As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement.
http://monotouch.net/


Continue to believe? They want people to shell out $400 for MonoTouch and just hope that Apple won't take action?

Edited 2010-04-22 01:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

arbour42 Member since:
2005-07-06

From what Chambers says in his blog post, it seems that Apple is going to be selective in what non-Objective-C code it lets in.

Flash compiled is a no go. That's definite.

Monotouch or Unity3D? Maybe Apple will let them slide. I don't really know. But it does show how arbitrary this whole thing is. Apple's arrogance is overwhelming.

Reply Score: 3

kahen Member since:
2009-09-07

*Sarcasm mode*
So Apple's profet The Mighty Steveness has in his infinite mercy graciously(1) allowed MonoTouch and Unity3D entry to the hallowed halls of The Holy iPhone... for now.
*End Sarcasm mode*

Well excuse me for not going out and immediately dumping 400$ on a MonoTouch license. Apple and His Steveness are fickle masters and they might say one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow.

I think there are quite a few people thinking along the same lines out there. I don't see MonoTouch picking up any (sane) new developers in the coming months due to the cloud of FUD that's now surrounding the product. Even if Apple does nothing, which is the most likely IMO. Apple tends to have a mushroom management(2) approach to informing people outside the company about stuff.

(1): If you are reading this aloud, remember to roll the r, and try to ham it up a bit ;-)
(2): "keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em s%!t"---mostly keeping people in the dark

Edited 2010-04-22 09:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I don't see MonoTouch picking up any (sane) new developers in the coming months due to the cloud of FUD that's now surrounding the product.


Miguel should just focus on MonoDroid and forget about Apple. They're purposely not responding to him to discourage the use of MonoTouch. They want it to sit in a cloud of $400 FUD so developers go with Apple's sdk instead.

This is really lame given how few apps are probably written with MonoTouch. It isn't as if Apple has a shortage of Mac-only iphone developers. Apple is not going to gain converts by doing this.

Reply Score: 2

spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

you know...fuck apple, and fuck microsoft's new crap that is a bad imitation of apple.

Reply Score: 0

cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Apple wants to play hard ball with Adobe do they? Apple has forgotten a few things, apparently. If Adobe were smart, it would immediately cease sales of Adobe's flagship Creative Suite for Apple Macintosh, OS-X equipped computers and instead focus its efforts on producing a port for Linux and of course continue its Windows version. If every professional graphics artist who uses Creative Suite on the Mac suddenly found themselves without Adobe's major products, support or future upgrade paths I'm pretty sure Apple would start playing nice nice with Adobe real quick and stop wasting everyone's time with its petty power plays. Who does Apple think it is, Microsoft?

Reply Score: 5

bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

That would be playing into Apple's hand, and eliminate one of the biggest reasons for them to continue a marginally profitable "computer" business.

Reply Score: 2

mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

Apple wants to play hard ball with Adobe do they? Apple has forgotten a few things, apparently. If Adobe were smart, it would immediately cease sales of Adobe's flagship Creative Suite for Apple Macintosh, OS-X equipped computers and instead focus its efforts on producing a port for Linux and of course continue its Windows version. If every professional graphics artist who uses Creative Suite on the Mac suddenly found themselves without Adobe's major products, support or future upgrade paths I'm pretty sure Apple would start playing nice nice with Adobe real quick and stop wasting everyone's time with its petty power plays. Who does Apple think it is, Microsoft?


That's all good except technically Adobe has treated Apple users like trash ever since the pentium 3 days. That would also be great except Adobe would lose about half of it's Creative Suite revenue and to make it sound like Apple doesn't know how to create top tier creative software is silly, Final Cut Pro or any of their other pro apps?

I would bet they already have a Plan B ready if Photoshop were ever to get worse or not released at all anymore on the Mac.

You can look at total market share all you want, at the end of the day actual publishing firms and businesses (the ones that actually buy and use Photoshop) are mostly all Mac shops, they were Mac shops when Apple was pretty bad with Mac OS 7-9 days and now they're even stronger with OSX and Intel hardware.

Reply Score: 3

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

I think you've forgotten a few things: the countless hours and millions of dollars that have already been invested in their Macintosh software. You're also forgetting (or ignoring) the potentional millions more they will need to spend to develop a Linux version that will be acceptable to the Linux community. Furthermore, you're underestimating the lost revenue Adobe will cop when design firms -- rather than abandon their investment in Macintosh hardware -- simply hang onto their older licences for Creative Studio.

You're proposing a very expensive way for Adobe to give Apple "the finger". I believe they are smarter than that. :-)

Reply Score: 5

Smeagol Member since:
2006-01-16

Bwahahahaah! Um, Adobe can't afford to do this. The tables have turned and Apple doesn't need Adobe. The converse holds however. Flash is a pile of junk. Long live HTML5!

Apple owns the platform and controls what is placed on it because they care about the user experience. They don't cater to the developer who wants to inflict some steamy pile of junk they want some bone-headed user to download. Leave that to the Windows users of the world.

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple and fans want to be elitist on commodity x86/ARM hardware?

The Emperor has no clothes...

Reply Score: 2

RMSe17 Member since:
2006-03-06

The tables have turned and Apple doesn't need Adobe. The converse holds however. Flash is a pile of junk. Long live HTML5!

Flash is not a pile of junk. Flash is pretty amazing actually. For the first time, I can go to any website, and watch a video through my browser. Without having to worry about some Media Player plugin, without having to worry about some Real Media product crashing on me, or not showing me the progress bars, or not being able to pause a video, or trying to figure out just what codec I am missing. Flash has done what no other format did: Unify the movie infrastructure on the web. HTML5 does the oposite. By not standardizing or specifying the format of the video, we are back to the crapper. Ex: I can't use Firefox to watch a youtube video if I switch to HTML5 beta youtube. That is ridiculous. It's 2010, and I can't watch a video on the internet?! Give me my flash back, kthx.

RMSe17

Reply Score: 1

So long...
by darknexus on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:21 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

and thanks for all the crap--er, flash.

Reply Score: 2

Monotouch
by cheungie on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:32 UTC
cheungie
Member since:
2005-07-07

Will the change in iPhone OS developer agreement affect Monotouch as well?

Reply Score: 1

I'm Torn...
by galvanash on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 04:00 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

On one hand, Im a developer. I despise the idea of being told not only what types of apps I can write, but now what language is blessed for me to write them in. I frankly don't write iApps, but if I did this would probably piss me off enough that I would quit.

On the other hand, I'm a user. I just recently got an iPad. I like it - it's pretty nice. But i have to say... I HATE flash... So as a user I am glad that flash is being embargoed. Granted, there are some cruddy apps in the app store, but allowing flash would lower the bar so far the flood of crap that would result would make the whole place stink.

So I honestly don't know where I land on this one...

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm Torn...
by l3v1 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 04:24 UTC in reply to "I'm Torn..."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

but allowing flash would lower the bar so far the flood of crap that would result would make the whole place stink


I'd hate to disappoint you - well, actually I don't really care ;) - but you're quite mistaken if you think people can't/won't create a similar flood of crap by using Objective-C, C, C++, and JavaScript running in WebKit ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE: I'm Torn...
by bloodline on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:42 UTC in reply to "I'm Torn..."
bloodline Member since:
2008-07-28

When developing for the iPhone you are pretty much stuck with Objective-C anyway. Sure you can mix a bit of c++ in there, but the API is totally Obj-C built and driven.

I was a bit miffed having to learn Obj-C, but actually after a few months using it, I really like it... The foundation frameworks are very nice too. Obj-C just feels more mature than C++ to me now ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm Torn...
by Slambert666 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 12:25 UTC in reply to "I'm Torn..."
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

So I honestly don't know where I land on this one...


I have to wonder what kind of developer you were since you don't understand that the CS5 compiler is not a flash run time but a compiler that compiles to native code, just like C, OBJ-C, C++ etc.

Given Apples new rules you are not allowed to write code in for example Forth even if the app would be more efficient than an OBJ-C application. So efficiency is not a valid argument at all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I'm Torn...
by galvanash on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm Torn..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I have to wonder what kind of developer you were since you don't understand that the CS5 compiler is not a flash run time but a compiler that compiles to native code, just like C, OBJ-C, C++ etc.


You are missing the point entirely. The compiler/runtime/technology details are not relevant at all to my issues with flash. The problem is the _developers_, because most of them couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.

It is a tool designed over 10 years ago to make things shoot around on the screen, and the vast majority of its users have never got passed that use case. Sure, it has matured some over the years and with flex and other technologies that have been bolted on it is now arguably a capable tool for application development - but that doesn't mean its going to get USED that way...

My point is, like it or not, the current barrier of entry to iPhone/Pad development a requirement to at least have a fundamental understanding of programming concepts. Many (most?) flash "developers" simply don't have that - a large portion of them never get past making banner ads... I don't think the apps those people would write will bring any real value to the app store. hence my flood of crap comment. HOW the app is run, i.e. compiled instead of using the runtime - is totally besides the point - its still built in Flash.

I'm sure I sound like an ass saying that - it is harsh but try to read past that... I think there is a reason the "new" Apple has not tried to create another HyperCard, and why Microsoft killed off classic VB in favor of .NET, and why modern "learning" languages like Python are actually build to scale to _real_ development - it is because of the realization that giving dumbed-down tools to non-programmers that allow them to create programs is a dangerous strategy in the long run - it damages the environment so to speak. Sure, there were some gems built in HyperCard and even VB, but not many - most of it (millions and millions of lines of VB for sure) is totally useless educational exercises that the rest of the world should have never been exposed to...

There is nothing wrong with HyperCard or other simplified languages as learning tools (I leave out VB because I think it does more harm than good), but you have to leave those languages behind at some point. They require no real commitment by the developer, they are toys, and they have too much missing functionality to scale to real development. This flash for iPhone business sounds EXACTLY like a dumbed-down, non-programmer, casual development tool to me...

Having said that - that is how I FEEL about it. As a developer, anything that can turn a non-programmer into one is a good thing. I just wish that was some way to allow people to learn the craft without turning unsuspecting users into their beta testers...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm Torn...
by nt_jerkface on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm Torn..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Oh give me a break you can only build 'punch the monkey' type crap without doing any programming in Flash. But more importantly a poorly optimized game written in any language will not make it past the approval process.

As for VB being used as a teaching language over Python a big part of that has to do with Windows integration and getting students familiar with building programs in Visual Studio. There's also a convenience issue since schools can just install a copy of VS and have a languages available for multiple skill levels.

I personally hate VB.net (dim dim dim) but the schools like it and it does its job as an educational/casual language. If Python had a good Windows ide that included a visual program designer it would probably be used more.

The real problem with Flash games is that they have been given a bad rep by mediocre programmers. Flash has attracted a lot of web developers that don't have a strong background in programming and just sort of bang together something that works. Then you have latency issues which makes the experience even worse.

If you want to see what skilled developers can do with Flash then have a look at Machinarium. It's a full length adventure game built entirely in Flash.
http://machinarium.net/demo/

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm Torn...
by galvanash on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm Torn..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Oh give me a break you can only build 'punch the monkey' type crap without doing any programming in Flash. But more importantly a poorly optimized game written in any language will not make it past the approval process.


A non-programmer with some time on his hands and some moderate artistic skill can learn enough flash in a week to write a 'punch the monkey' game. Hand the same person XCode and see how far he gets in a week...

There is nothing wrong with a tool that lets anyone with an IQ over 80 build a simple app in a week, some of those people will go on to actually become real developers (which is good - most developers start with such tools). It is the false impression that you ARE a developer BECAUSE you wrote 'punch the monkey' in a week I take issue with...

As for VB being used as a teaching language over Python a big part of that has to do with Windows integration and getting students familiar with building programs in Visual Studio. There's also a convenience issue since schools can just install a copy of VS and have a languages available for multiple skill levels.


I was talking about classic VB. VB.NET, while I don't particularly care for it, is a different language and most of the stupidness has been corrected. Not all, but most. While I don't use or much like VB.NET, I think it (barely) qualifies as a "real" programming language - unlike its predecessor. Classic VB was an abomination - it did virtually everything wrong. It was an anti-teaching language, i.e. it taught you how to be a bad programmer.

The real problem with Flash games is that they have been given a bad rep by mediocre programmers. Flash has attracted a lot of web developers that don't have a strong background in programming and just sort of bang together something that works. Then you have latency issues which makes the experience even worse.


And my point is a mediocre programmer has to spend quite a bit of time and brain power to learn enough Obj C to even successfully compile a simple program that works reliably. They are therefore much less likely to give Obj C a bad rep, because they are forced to commit to it and thus are less likely to be mediocre...

If you want to see what skilled developers can do with Flash then have a look at Machinarium. It's a full length adventure game built entirely in Flash.
http://machinarium.net/demo/


Sometimes good developers have to use bad tools - and that usually results in a good product. That does not change the fact that the tool is still bad...

Reply Score: 2

What Language is Adobe CS5 written In ?
by hackmykack on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 06:15 UTC
hackmykack
Member since:
2006-10-01

Hi Guys,
What Programming Language is Adobe CS5 written in ... ?
If its C or C++ etc. then should it not be fine for iPhone OS 4.0 devel coz really what Adobe would be doing is translating from their format (Flash Markup) to C++ to Native iPhone binary ...

Or is this completely wrong reasoning ...

Reply Score: 1

More Proprietary??
by MacMan on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 06:23 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

Get real Thom,

you said "You'll need Xcode, you'll need a Mac, and you'll need Apple's blessing - just as closed, proprietary, and restrictive as CS5; more so, probably."

Lets see, Adobe CS5 costs what, like $2000 (And no, just because you can pirate CS5 for free does not make it an open platform).

Xcode - FREE!! All XCode is is a nice IDE built around the GNU toolchain, you can just as easily use eclipse, or makefiles if you wanted.

As for compiler, we have gcc , tell me Thom, how exactly is gcc more proprietary then Flash???

Lets talk language, C++, Objective C and Javascript, all open standards, and again compiled by gcc.

How about libraries, you have access to millions of open source libraries with the C family of languages. You can leverage all the existing C based libraries you have written in the past.

So, we are left with the cost of a Mac, about $599 or so for a Mac Mini.

I will give you that H.264 is patent encumbered, but Apple paid the license fees, and you are free to play any H.264 encoded movies on iPhone. What about compression, a: free with Quicktime, and free with Handbrake (IMO, the best dammed compressor out there) Is Handbrake fully legal, not exactly sure about that one, but I know its certainly legal to use quicktime to compress whatever you want.

Is Apple or their stance perfect, absolutely not. I personally would have liked to see support for .ogv, and support for decent scripting languages like Python, Ruby, and the like. As for MonoTouch, if it does not add some sort of cross platform abstraction layer (which Miguel DeIcaza says it does not), then I'm all for having MonoTouch on the iphone.

Oh, and the fundamental problem with Flash is not necessarily the code, is interpreted or compiled with rather the runtime. You see, flash is fundamentally an animation program, so the runtime creates lots of very very high resolution timers, basically, it signals the OS to call flash every MS and then the runtime looks to see what frames to animate and so forth. Sort of similar to a polling loop in game. Well, other then the CPU hogging, it sort of works on on desktop PC as long as you don't use Linux or Mac, but forget it on mobile devices, there is no way around the event model, short of a complete redesign of flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE: More Proprietary??
by Smeagol on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 06:38 UTC in reply to "More Proprietary??"
Smeagol Member since:
2006-01-16

That is the problem. Flash polls. It sucks the life out of a battery very quickly! Async event notification is the only way to go on mobile devices.

And Flash isn't known for being the most robust software out there. Long live HTML5!

Reply Score: 1

RE: More Proprietary??
by darknexus on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 07:44 UTC in reply to "More Proprietary??"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Is Handbrake fully legal, not exactly sure about that one, but I know its certainly legal to use quicktime to compress whatever you want.


Nope, Handbrake uses X264 which is a free and open source H.264 encoder (very possibly the absolute best one) but this means that it's not legal in places where the H.264 patents are upheld. Handbrake itself is perfectly legal in these places as it can also produce Theora video files (though in Matroska only), but X264 and thus the H.264 compression is not. That, of course, assumes you care about such ridiculousness as software patents in the first place, obviously.

Reply Score: 2

RE: More Proprietary??
by alcibiades on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 08:54 UTC in reply to "More Proprietary??"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

So, we are left with the cost of a Mac, about $599 or so for a Mac Mini.

You cannot seriously be suggesting the Mini is a reasonable hardware choice for a serious developer????

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: More Proprietary??
by Kroc on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE: More Proprietary??"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Uh, yes, yes it is. They are pretty amazing machines. With plenty of RAM how is it not an affordable yet powerful developer machine? It’s not a MacPro, but then it’s one quarter the price.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: More Proprietary??
by henderson101 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE: More Proprietary??"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

So, we are left with the cost of a Mac, about $599 or so for a Mac Mini.

You cannot seriously be suggesting the Mini is a reasonable hardware choice for a serious developer????


I've developed Mac and iPhone apps on a Netbook running Leopard and now Snow Leopard. A Mac Mini would be an absolute luxury ;-)

Yes I own a slew of Mac hardware of various vintages (MacBook being the newest and only Intel) but I'm NOT taking a £900 MacBook on a train every day!! My little MSi weighs next to nothing and takes up half the space.

Reply Score: 1

RE: More Proprietary??
by nt_jerkface on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 17:06 UTC in reply to "More Proprietary??"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


So, we are left with the cost of a Mac, about $599 or so for a Mac Mini.


What about the people that invested time and money into CS5? Screw them because Jobs has been throwing a tantrum over all things Adobe?


Well, other then the CPU hogging, it sort of works on on desktop PC as long as you don't use Linux or Mac, but forget it on mobile devices, there is no way around the event model, short of a complete redesign of flash.


I'm not convinced that Flash has systemic problems when it comes to animation. It's not the most efficient engine but not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. The real problem has been with video rendering where there is unneeded processing taking place in cases where only basic video is needed. That and poor optimization for alternative systems, including alternative browsers in Windows. They are improving in this area and I suspect Google will take it even further when they integrate Flash into Chrome.

CS5 converts Flash into native code which means you don't need the extra processing required for a plug-in. For all we know CS5 could actually optimize animation in iphone games by making use of animation algorithms that the typical iphone developer is unaware of.

It's annoying that you have to install Flash for basic video but when it comes to animation it has been unfairly maligned.

Flash beats HTML5 in animation benchmark on nexus one
http://phandroid.com/2010/04/01/speed-test-flash-vs-html5-on-the-ne...

Reply Score: 2

good riddance
by REM2000 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 08:53 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I don't know why every one is against apple. Im all for it, i'd rather have open standards like HTML5 etc and whatever the case may be for H264 than flash which is owned by the one company.

Apple have been one of the larger companies to push for more open standards. They give back quite a bit via CUPS and various other projects, what has adobe ever given back? Apart from incredibly poor flash plugins for the mac which run the processors at 100%, and software ports so bad that im amazed anyone still uses Creative Suite, im sure if there were some viable alternatives people would move away in groves.

Even Microsoft have seen the way the tide is going, we are now having a multitude of internet connected devices which all need to communicate, open standards are the way. I know they had to pay bu the Samba team managed to do rather well getting the Microsoft file sharing protocol, could you imagine any company getting that information 10 years ago?

The other thing i would like to add is that Adobe have said that they are going to target the Android platform. Now as above im not a Adobe lover as you might tell, however this is the great thing about choice, the only way companies will listen is when other companies and people vote with their feet. If flash is popular then im sure apple will relent.

Edited 2010-04-22 09:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: good riddance
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:01 UTC in reply to "good riddance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know why every one is against apple. Im all for it, i'd rather have open standards like HTML5 etc and whatever the case may be for H264 than flash which is owned by the one company.


*facepalm*

This isn't about Flash. The code outputted by CS5 for the iPhone is... Fully compatible with the iPhone SDK. CS5 does not put Flash applications on your iPhone. It puts compliant code on your iPhone.

I dislike Flash as much as anyone else, but I am amazed at how easily Apple manages to pull the wool over everybody's eyes by shouting "FLASH! FLASH" a couple of times. Either Apple is genius, or the people that fall for it are idiots.

Or both.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: good riddance
by Kroc on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE: good riddance"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yeah, surprised by the disconnect in this thread. We are talking about Adobe compiling ARM code; not a literal porting of the Flash runtime to iPhone.

I agree with Apple not allowing plugins, but I don’t agree with Apple arbitrarily disallowing developer’s choices in development tools; especially since all Apple get for review is a binary and what tools that were used is irrelevant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: good riddance
by Tuxie on Mon 26th Apr 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: good riddance"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

I'm on Adobe's side in this case and I think Apple is wrong. However, what Adobe should be able to do is compile to C-code that could then be compiled by xcodebuild instead of compiling directly to a binary. Apple couldn't stop that, could they?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: good riddance
by r_a_trip on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE: good riddance"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, I'd say both.

Apple is a master in gilding cages. That is the major thing which strikes Apple of my list for purchasing. The higher price might be justifiable. They do design a lot more than the competition after all. But it is the level of control freakishness coming from Cupertino I can't stomach. I also don't get the hordes of people screaming "Beads and mirrors! Beads and mirrors!", while Apple shackles them in their walled garden.

Then again, I'm probably the weirdo here. Most people don't care about the how and what, as long as Mai Ling gives them their happy ending.

Reply Score: 1

The real issue
by Morty on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 10:07 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

The real issue is not the Flash application, as Thom said the CS5 iPhone development tools deliver native code compliant with the iPhone SDK. So bringing in HTML5 is just a red herring.

The real reason are quite simple and Mike Chambers sums it up quite nicely in his blog: "The primary goal of Flash has always been to enable cross browser, platform and device development. The cool web game that you build can easily be targeted and deployed to multiple platforms and devices. However, this is the exact opposite of what Apple wants"

And the reason Apple don't want this is simple: "Because this is Flash, it is rather trivial to port games created with Flash that target the iPhone to target other operating systems, such as Android."

It simply has the power to make the iPhone/iPad into just another device, not something special and exclusive. If developers start getting good tools making it more efficient to deploy on all mobile platforms, it's a game changer and will level the field. Then a new application in iStore also gives a new application in the Android store, and the Apple product are not so special any more.

Reply Score: 6