Apple Effectively Bans Flash Compiler in iPhone Os 4 Developer Agreement

| News

Apple has effectively banned compiling apps through a Flash compiler in the developer agreement for iPhone OS 4, which was just announced today. According to language in the agreement first spotted by Daring Fireball, any and all compilers that do not expressly rely on C, C++, or Objective-C calls to Apple’s APIs are explicitly forbidden, and the use of any and all third party APIs are likewise not allowed.

That serves to more than effectively kill Adobe’s Flash-to-iPhone compiler that is mere weeks away from shipping. Adobe has been trying to work around the lack of Flash support on the iPhone and iPad by allowing developers to develop apps for the device in Flash, and then use Flash-to-iPhone to compile them into iPhone-ready apps.

That method would still work in terms of a converted app actually running on the iPhone, but Apple would not approve them if they were spotted in the approval process. Daring Fireball noted that such apps can be detected by merely inspecting the bundle, something that if it was not already part of the approval process, likely will be going forward.

The language from the agreement, which is section 3.3.1: 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).”

Apple made it expressly clear that there would be no change in the company’s lack of support for Flash in iPhone OS in today’s media event launching the new OS, even going so far as to note that ads developed for Apple’s new iAd mobile advertising network would be created using HTML 5 standards.

In the meanwhile, Adobe is days away from officially unveiling Creative Suite 5, including a new version of Flash that incudes the above-mentioned Flash-to-iPhone compiler as one of its primary features.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And here is another one they banned. REAL Studio (n?e REALbasic). REAL has been moving to LLVM back end as part of a transition to Cocoa. From their April 2010 newsletter that hit my email an hour ago:

As previously announced on the REAL Software Blog, we are working on a significant change to the back end of REAL Studio’s compiler. We will be replacing it with an open source compiler back end, called LLVM, which stands for Low Level Virtual Machine. LLVM supports all of the processors we support or would likely want to support, including the ARM processor, which is used by most smartphones today, including the iPhone.

This is a giant dick move (read: giant “dick-move”, not “giant-dick” move) by Apple. I know that none of you really care and you think Steve Jobs is looking out for you. I hope Adobe can come up with some creative way to retaliate. They won’t pull their Mac software from the market.

Lee Dronick

Okay programmers does this mean that there is an alternate way to do Flash things in C, C++, Objective-C, or JavaScript? I don’t mean video, but the game type of stuff. I have to ask because I don’t do much in the way of programming beyond simple AppleScripts.

jorisx

Yo flashdevelopers, get a vacation! ... smile
Ah I’m a flash developer too… hmm so where should I go now steve? wink

Still I think this is a good decision from Apple, so that the real developers dive into xcode and the others remain in yesterdays world.
Flash is best for prototyping and some browser based development, but let the hardcore application development be done by the real devs, please smile

Tiger

Bosco,

You ought to love this thread. It may actually make some sense. Adobe’s current market cap is $18.1B.

Apple’s sitting on approximately $48B in cash….....

so, I can’t actually post the link with the html code, so copy this and put http:// on the front end.

macenstein.com/default/2010/04/is-apple-destroying-flash-just-to-make-adobe-cheaper-to-buy/

Lee Dronick

can?t actually post the link with the html code, so copy this and put http:// on the front end.

macenstein.com/default/2010/04/is-apple-destroying-flash-just-to-make-adobe-cheaper-to-buy/

Tiger can you use the url took above the comment window?

I did it here is-apple-destroying-flash-just-to-make-adobe-cheaper-to-buy

Anyway, what is Adobe’s big money makers? Is it PhotoShop, InDesign, Flash or whatever

Sidebar: CS5 launch event on Monday

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@jorisx: It’s a horrible idea. All it does is raise the cost of developing an app. There are plenty of horribly performing apps written with Apple’s native tools. 95% of anything an app developer would want to do could be done quite efficiently and easily in a higher level development environment. The remaining 5% can usually be done quite efficiently with a little work.

Fran?ois

So stupid,so we’ll have to use that shitty language Objective-c wich is against all productivity to make application, seriously i hope apple will die.

Tiger

Every time I pasted it as a full URL and even quoted it, the resulting window when I hit submit came up with a message about being unable to post, site is blacklisted.

Lee Dronick

Every time I pasted it as a full URL and even quoted it, the resulting window when I hit submit came up with a message about being unable to post, site is blacklisted.

That used to happen with my posts that contained links, a year or more ago then it stopped. Must be that merde Objective-C in which the blog software is written.

jameskatt

It should be easy for Adobe or other 3rd party SDK developers to work around this stipulation.

All they have to do is to have their SDK translate their code (e.g. Flash, Java or Javascript) into C, C++, or Objective-C X-Code projects, which can then be compiled in X-Code into working apps.

This should be easy for any programmer worth his/her salt.

If Adobe’s programmers aren’t good enough to do this then they should be bitch-slapped a million times then dumped into a vat of wet diarrheic feces like in the movie, Slumdog Millionaire.

If Adobe’s programmers aren’t good enough to do this then we all know why Flash SUCKS.

The key with this stipulation is that it forces developers to take the iPhone platform seriously, to create best-of-breed apps for the iPhone, not just port crap software to the iPhone.

Many cross-platform developers use crap Java front-ends to their software so that they can develop on one platform and sell it to all other platforms.  But this creates Bizarro crap applications which obviously show lack of care and consideration for the native platform, such as Mac OS X.

If the iPhone platform is important enough to developers - and it is - they should have the attitude that they will develop best-of-breed apps for the platform, not simply copy what was done on other platforms.

Apple’s stipulation keeps crap Flash and Java ports out of its ecosystem. Only those ports where the developer took care and displayed craftsmanship are allowed to pass in.

The crap can stay on Android, Microsoft, and Nokia’s neighborhoods.

jameskatt

So stupid,so we?ll have to use that shitty language Objective-c wich is against all productivity to make application, seriously i hope apple will die.

NO.

You can develop in C or C++ also. 

Unless you call C and C++ shitty languages too.

And Apple won’t die.  It is now worth more than WalMart.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@jameskatt: Thanks for demonstrating how little you know about software development and how little you know about the cross-platform value proposition.

A great deal of value proposition in cross-platform apps for customers who straddle platforms is consistency of experience regardless of platform. So if you use an app at work on Windows, and you use the same app at home on the Mac, they feel about the same. Or if you have to support a mixed environment, such as at a school, the software works the same for your teachers and students regardless of platform. The iPhone poses special issues because of its small screen, but the iPad would ideally be just another platform target for developers who need to support it alongside their desktop offerings.

Terrin

Strange, many developers develop specifically to the platform. Microsoft included. It has two different versions for both platforms. Further, cross platform applications that don’t take into consideration the native platform’s environment usually feel inferior.

I do not know if I agree with Apple’s decision as I do not know it’s ultimate motivation. It probably is trying to make it harder for developers to design one application for both Android and Apple platforms. Might stink for some developers, but Apple’s ultimate goal is to keep Apple’s bottom line healthy without giving Android a free ride. It also clearly has a thing against Adobe. You know the company that at one point suggested users switch platforms from Mac to Windows so it would only have to develop for one platform.  Further, we really do not know what other private grievances Apple has against Adobe and the validity of the issues. I for one have Click to Flash installed. Amazing how much better my browsing experience has become.

Eventually Apple will have to loosen the control up if it keeps gaining market share.  It, however, is not yet a monopoly and it is free to do what it wants with it’s platform.

I for one have my iPhone unlocked and jail broken so I don’t care.

So if you use an app at work on Windows, and you use the same app at home on the Mac, they feel about the same.

Joe

@jameskatt:
“It should be easy for Adobe or other 3rd party SDK developers to work around this stipulation.

All they have to do is to have their SDK translate their code (e.g. Flash, Java or Javascript) into C, C++, or Objective-C X-Code projects, which can then be compiled in X-Code into working apps.

This should be easy for any programmer worth his/her salt.

If Adobe?s programmers aren?t good enough to do this then they should be bitch-slapped a million times then dumped into a vat of wet diarrheic feces like in the movie, Slumdog Millionaire.”

If Adobe’s programmers were any good, Flash wouldn’t have been banned from Apple’s portable devices in the first place. What makes you think that Adobe recently hired real programmers?

BurmaYank

Terrin said:  I for one have Click to Flash installed. Amazing how much better my browsing experience has become.

Amen!  Amen!!!  And again I say…

furbies

Terrin said:? I for one have Click to Flash installed. Amazing how much better my browsing experience has become.

Amen!? Amen!!!? And again I say?

Me too.

Flash is utter utter utter @#*!

ScottD

Apple fanboys and their Flash hate are really getting old.

“Flash is utter utter utter @#*!”? Statements like that are so far outside of the realm of reasonable conversation that you’ve made yourself out to be either horribly ignorant or willfully brainwashed.

If jameskatt had any idea what kind of ridiculous talent it requires for the guys at Adobe to do what they do… Grant Skinner sums it up nicely:

“Try building a player that runs a huge range of dynamic content written on a variety of tools (some of which you don’t control) by developers with massively varying skill levels. Now try making it compatible, consistent, and performant across dozens of OSes, browsers, platforms, and devices. And maintain backwards compatibility with the last 9 versions even while your target platforms change. And keep it under 5MB. And maintain it in parity with an OSS effort (Tamarin). And try to keep up with the demands of one of the most active and vocal developer communities.”(My Thoughts on the Future of Flash, Grant Skinner)

WaltFrench

Okay programmers does this mean that there is an alternate way to do Flash things in C, C++, Objective-C, or JavaScript?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. And then some.

Conversely, is there a way to do in Flash what you can do in C (C++, Objective-C, JavaScript)?
At least 50%, depending how you figure it. Maybe, closer to 90%. But exactly 0% of the new features announced today. Developers who want to use Flash should know that they are getting a lowest-common-denominator solution, from a company that has had running battles with Apple for years.

Apple’s move is to get developers to use the resources that Apple provides. Apple is seemingly still PO’d at Adobe for not exploiting Apple’s 64-bit and multi-CPU tools in PhotoShop, making it look like a weaker, slower and just-as-ugly-but-out-of-place-ugly clone of the Windows version. (Which it is.)

This change means when Apple releases iPhone OS 5.0, developers won’t have to wait on Adobe to update Flash with features that “only” run on the iPhone.

WaltFrench

?Apple fanboys and their Flash hate are really getting old.?

True enough, and the link to skinner was helpful.

But backing up to one second before the “i” devices, on which ultramobile / smartphone was there EVER a stable, full-featured, usable, secure Flash? Yeah, the Nexus, with twice the iPad’s RAM (4X what my iPhone 3G has) and 2X the original iPhone’s CPU speed, gives great vapor. (It’s over 90 days since the ?preview? of Flash 10.1.)

But how has Jobs’s FAIL caused RIM, MS, Palm, Nokia and all the others to be unable to have decent Flash?

Flash seems to have been spec’d on the assumption of a powerful CPU wth lots of RAM and no budget for power. Works reasonably well on a full-featured PC (where Adobe deems it worthwhile to offer it). Just seems that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew when it comes to the mobile space. Apple’s sin seems to be that it pointed out how crappy somebody else’s software was. Rude.

jecrawford

iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are essentially touch devices.

Implementing “touch” features in Flash is ? (insert your own word).

Mathieu Gosselin

Obviously this forum is completely sold out to Apple. If this isn’t a war declaration towards adobe/flash, i don’t know what it is!
Open your eyes a little bit, Apple’s ethic is really getting dirty. Just One more step into their total world domination.

furbies

Apple fanboys and their Flash hate are really getting old.

Do I knock Apple where appropriate ? YES Am I an unthinking Apple FanBoy ? NO
When the iPad was announced, I saw it as a iPod touch on steroids.
Not a game changing move as some have seen it, more an evolution in the iPhone/iPod touch genre.

As for Flash:
Flash is a CPU hog, always has been, and until Adobe get’s it’s A into G and does something about that, I’ll block Flash in Safari, unless a website relies on it for navigation.

Phil W

Adobe aren’t going to output flash as Obj-C, and I can’t see many others doing it either (i.e. Unity).

Even with code obfuscation, they’d be putting their IP in plain sight. Not happening.

Joe

@ScottD:
“If jameskatt had any idea what kind of ridiculous talent it requires for the guys at Adobe to do what they do? Grant Skinner sums it up nicely:”

That’s a lousy summary.

Quicktime does those things without driving your fans into orbit. Silverlight does them. HTML does them.

There is absolutely no reason the CPU usage on my dual core 2.3 GHz 4 GB laptop should go over 100% (out of 200% possible) simply by opening a web page with animated menus.

The fact that something is difficult is no excuse for doing it so poorly. In years and years of trying, they have not delivered anything that works even reasonably well on smart phones. (Sure, the NEXT version will work. Right….)

Joe

“Open your eyes a little bit, Apple?s ethic is really getting dirty. Just One more step into their total world domination.”

Or maybe it’s just another example of Apple striving to offer the best user experience in the industry - and Flash has been proven again and again to not be part of that.

Given Apple’s outstanding customer satisfaction ratings, the facts out there support that interpretation a lot better than yours.

mrmwebmax

+

So let’s see: The App Store has 150,000+ apps, and commentators complain that there’s too much junk and not enough quality. So Apple ups the barrier to entry to those who can actually write a genuine iDevice program, and commentators are complaining again.

Pick one. You can’t have them both. And if you don’t like it, either use another phone/tablet/music player, or develop for another platform.

There’s a reason why Apple’s portable devices fly off of the shelves. They work really, really well. I dare say they work better than any other hardware/software platform ever created. That takes very careful planning, and a high level of control. That’s what makes Apple product, well, Apple products.

As for Flash itself, I never liked creating content in Flash, and I hate how often Safari crashes because of it. Regarding Adobe itself, as a Creative Suite user, I must confess they—not Apple—are reminding me of Microsoft more and more every day. Creative Suite freakin’ FIVE is coming out soon? I’m still using 2 and 3, and both have far more features than I’ll ever need or want. It’s four-figure bloatware, more and more.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Pick one. You can?t have them both. And if you don?t like it, either use another phone/tablet/music player, or develop for another platform.

Just wow. Find me a single person who holds those two positions simultaneously, and you my friend, have found a unicorn. Geez.

OK, here’s where Bosco lets you all in on the big secret. This license term isn’t as much about Flash as it is about Cydia and other unsigned app distribution. You don’t have to agree to the Apple Developer Agreement if you buy CS5 and make an app from Flash, do you? However, is the feature worthy of Adobe’s support if it can only be used for unsanctioned distribution?

Tiger

As I’ve read, and I do admit I maybe wrong, you don’t have to agree to the Apple Developer Agreement, you can use CS5 to create an App from Flash, but it will result in unsanctioned marginalization, useful only to those people who jailbreak their phones.

Apps done in this manner won’t be approved for use in the iTunes App Store (ok, we need a better acronym than iTAS). It is apparently very easy for Apple to tell how an app was written and going this route will automatically get it tossed from consideration.

There is obviously a LOT more going on here between what is being played out in the press between Apple and Adobe (and Google). What I find fascinating is Microsoft’s apparent willingness to sit back and let this play out without making comment one so far. Has nobody else realized this?

How is it Steve Ballmer has had nothing to say publicly about this whole war? Is he hoping for implosion on one or more of the companies? Maybe he thinks it’s a way to better position Microsoft?

I still think Apple could end up buying Adobe straight up. An estimated $48 billion in the bank and Adobe’s market cap yesterday was $18 billion.

Flash could be gone…in a flash! (or better yet, bought, retooled to be less buggy and power hungry and then reintroduced for the world to enjoy)

Bryan Chaffin

There is obviously a LOT more going on here between what is being played out in the press between Apple and Adobe (and Google). What I find fascinating is Microsoft?s apparent willingness to sit back and let this play out without making comment one so far. Has nobody else realized this?

How is it Steve Ballmer has had nothing to say publicly about this whole war? Is he hoping for implosion on one or more of the companies? Maybe he thinks it?s a way to better position Microsoft?

That’s a great question, Tiger!

Tiger

And plenty of sites have found a way to survive commercially sans Flash.

Ready for iPad

Joe

@Tiger:
“How is it Steve Ballmer has had nothing to say publicly about this whole war? Is he hoping for implosion on one or more of the companies? Maybe he thinks it?s a way to better position Microsoft?”

Or maybe it doesn’t involve Microsoft and Microsoft has no business saying anything. If it involved Microsoft, they would undoubtedly say something.

You don’t go sticking your nose into other people’s battles.

chippwalters

This is clearly Jobs extending a middle finger to Adobe and others in the development community.

One reason Apples gives is they want to try and increase the quality of apps for iPhones/iPads. Since when have Obj C and C++ programmers owned the mantle on delivering great apps? Seriously, high school kids download Xcode and release ridiculous apps at the app store. Heck, I can’t believe some of the interfaces and ridiculous features I’ve seen on both my iPhone and iPad apps. I paid 7 bucks for an app which looks like it belongs in Windows 3.0. I mean, has anyone really looked at most of the lame-o apps in the app store for iPad? There are those which can access any device, storage medium, webserver, mail slots, but do zippo with the data, then there are those which can fully edit PDF’s as long as you’re physically tethered to you desktop device. Yep, real geniuses those C programmers. We can certainly discount THAT reason.

Another reason is to keep apps from performing slowly or becoming bloated. Well, I do have a number of 100+ Mb apps on my iPhone and iPad—so much for bloat. And the fact Apple still allows for Javascripted apps, like PhoneGap, shows they aren’t all that concerned with speed either. Another myth debunked. The simple fact they even included the word “Javascript” in their Terms and Conditions is a huge slap to Adobe.

And of course Apple tells us the app store “protects us” from harmful apps. Tell that to the owner of the blog, “Just another iPad blog” where he downloaded iDisplay and it ended up costing him his laptop Mac. He had to reformat it, then when it still wouldn’t boot, go to Apple store geniuses to help him figure it out. Again, doesn’t seem like the app store covered him very well? Myth three up in flames.

This latest Developer Agreement shuts out Flash, as well as Titanium, Unity3D, Ansca, MonoTouch, RevMobile and others. Can you imagine working so hard for months, man-years on an iPhone development platform to have Apple yank it “because they can,” and Steve Jobs has a vendetta to prove?

Face it, you may love Apple’s products, but you have to raise an eyebrow at their business practices. Remember when the literally stole Desktop Widgets from Konfabulator without as much as a ‘Thank-you?’ I’m sorry, but that is not the way to do business—especially if you’re a big player like Apple.

I appears someone stepped on and broke Steve Job’s toy when he was a kid and he’s still mad at the rest of the world. You would think a near death experience like having a liver transplant would lend some live perspective to individuals—guess again. The most arrogant man in America needs to grow up.

Lee Dronick

See this blog by Lee Brimelow, Adobe’s Flash Evangelist

“Speaking purely for myself, I would look to make it clear what is going through my mind at the moment. Go screw yourself Apple.”

Tiger

As it turns out, Microsoft is pursuing an agenda of its own in fact via Silverlight.

It’s an all out free for all, winner take all, who’s going to dominate and drive the next digital millenium.

One thing that’s pretty obvious, it’s not Adobe. I think Apple, Microsoft, and Google will be the big players. The question before us is will the consumers lose?

MacGnome

For the iPhone, iPad, Apple is the only one with the ball on this playground.

It is Apple’s ball and no one else can play with it unless they agree with Apple’s rules. If you don’t like these rules, there are other guys, e.g. Google, Nokia, RIM, that you can go to play with.

Apple is not the end all or be all of portable platforms. Apple just controls how and what you use on their platform.

So you want to play with Steve Jobs’s toys. You bow to his wishes and his rules. You piss off Steve Jobs, you don’t play with his toys. If more people become pissed off with Steve Jobs, there will be less people developing for Apple’s platforms, but right now, Apple has a great toy and many people want to play with it.

Adobe pissed off Steve Jobs…. no iPhone for you Adobe Flash programmer.
You want to play on Apple’s platform, go learn Object C.

Every company, from MS, Sony, Nintendo, makes programmer conform to their own rules.

Why not Apple?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It is Apple?s ball and no one else can play with it unless they agree with Apple?s rules. If you don?t like these rules, there are other guys, e.g. Google, Nokia, RIM, that you can go to play with.

In a legal sense, (qualified) perhaps. Psystar has jerked Apple around for the better part of 2 years, and that situation still isn’t totally resolved. I wonder how Apple would fair against 1000 small developers who just ignored their rules or maybe an Adobe or Google who directly challenged them. I am afraid that Apple will need to be challenged in an unconventional way to have the opportunity to learn that its behavior has been unacceptable. Funny how it started this week with publishing and criticizing their NDA’s developer agreement.

In a moral and ethical sense, owning the playground and having the ball doesn’t give Apple a right to act like a d-bag and not be called out for it. Enablers like you MacGnome, are just fine with Steve Jobs calling out Adobe over alleged crashing and performance, but want to squelch discussion of Apple’s gawdawful business practices. Another playground rule you might have learned as a kid is that bullies are not allowed to get away with bullying. They get confronted, because the cost of not confronting them is continued bullying, which is only marginally better than getting your ass kicked.

chippwalters

I wonder how Apple would fair against 1000 small developers who just ignored their rules or maybe an Adobe or Google who directly challenged them.

My other thought, as a card carrying Mac nut in 1984, is that we are seeing that same thing, deja vu, all over again.

Apple is there first…with the best. The iPad, while not complete, is so very cool and engaging, and represents a new paradigm in computing. But, unless Apple releases restrictions on it’s closed environment, and ups the ante appwise, we can expect to see the exact same things happen all over again, this time with Google as the one who benefits.

This will happen because folks will migrate as soon as there’s a tablet platform which:

-has a decent file system (iPad has none)
-allows for developers to promote and update their apps without draconian oversite.
-allows for developers to use RAD tools to create cross platform solutions
-allows for more than a single source supplier of hardware
-allows for tablets to not have to be tethered to existing hardware to transfer files, update the OS, etc..
-has critical mass in applications available. This is critical, and based on my *EXHAUSTIVE* review of utilities and productivity apps in the appstore for iPad, is not very hard to do. In fact there’s such a paucity of professional iPad apps in the app store for things other than gaming, it shouldn’t be difficult for a group of Flash, MobileRev, Titanium, Unity3D, Ansca, MonoTouch programmer to eclipse it in literally no time at all.

I’m serious—any of you iPad owners just try and figure out how to load a PDF onto your iPad, mark it up and send it out without having to tether to your desktop or laptop. Simple, but impossible as of now.

Bryan Chaffin

Bosco, the mental midgets at Psystar didn’t get into trouble for violating Apple’s rules, they broke the law of the U.S. of A. 1000 more criminals and thieves won’t fare any better.

And I scoff at your characterization of that company jerking Apple around. Their legal efforts were pathetically bad, and Apple had them dancing at the end of a rope the whole time.

In addition, Psystar sold only a few hundreds of units - they were a threat to Apple in theory, not in any sort of practical way.

And, had they been successful, Mac OS X would have gone away as we know it, making your question about being challenged by a 1000 Psystars moot.

Also, what behavior are talking about on Apple’s part for which they need to be punished?  If it’s having a proprietary hardware and software model, you’re just plain wrong. I’ll submit yet again that you seem unable to grasp that Mac/iPhone/and now iPad owners want an experience that doesn’t suck and don’t care about tinkering. The tinkerers market is being met quite ably by Google, Microsoft, and others.

If it’s trying to keep Flash off iPhone OS, you have a slightly better argument, but one I personally think is much ado about nothing, at best.  Flash sucks, and good riddance.

If there’s some other behavior you’re referencing, let me know.  They certainly have a hodgepodge of things to choose from. smile

Bryan Chaffin

Chippwalters, these sound like the same kinds of arguments tried against the iPhone and the Mac before that, as you alluded to yourself - perhaps more than you realized! smile

What caused Apple to lose the PC market in the 90s is not material in today’s market. For the near and medium term future, the only thing that will be a threat to Apple’s health is for another company or group of companies to invent a better software and hardware solution than Apple can.

My position is that this is impossible without a proprietary solution from a company with immense resources who is willing to do what they want to do, and who is able to set their own rules in the process.

The entire rest of the PC, gadget, and smartphone industries has always and only produced good-enough solutions. I see no reason to expect this to change.

There’s one caveat/sidebar to that: I fully expect there to eventually be more Android phones in use than iPhones at some point. I also fully expect that even when that day comes to pass that it will be Apple making the big profits, setting the rules, and calling the media events to which the media flocks. Being successful and profitable does not necessarily equate to being number one in market share.

To more directly address your bullet points, the only one that has any merit (in terms of being something that most people will ever care about) is the first one. The iPad does need a file system, but I fully expect Apple to deliver one sooner, rather than later.

#2 and #3 have been proven by the marketplace to be irrelevant.
#4 is just dead wrong - note my arguments about proprietary solutions being better able to offer the best user experience in the post above.
#5 is silly, at best - the iPad is not a standalone device (yet). Look elsewhere for such.
#6 should be judged after more than a week of availability. If you insist on doing otherwise, I’d hazard that even with the initial paucity of dedicated productivity apps, the iPad still has more than the other platforms. To wit: iWork for iPad.

And besides, I personally don’t feel that the iPad’s strength will be in productivity in terms of how it’s used.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, some folks get mired down in predicting the iPad’s demise because it doesn’t adequately address what they envision doing with it.  The iPad’s success will (continue to) hinge on what it can do, not what it can’t.

mrmwebmax

+

To Bryan’s excellent points I will also add: Customer service, and the Genius Bars.

Perhaps one reason why Apple ranks so high in customer service, and why the Genius Bars are so highly praised, is again the very locked-down, closed, and proprietary ecosystem that everyone’s debating. Think of it this way: In addition to customer satisfaction, is there any way to provide the level of customer support that Apple provides without controlling the whole widget? All anyone has to do is look at the historical customer support nightmare on the Windows side of things, or the very recent (and ongoing) customer support nightmare with Android/Nexus One (“call HTC, not our problem” “call Google, not our problem”) to see what happens when you have different and significantly uncoordinated suppliers making up a hardware/software platform.

Apple is all about customer experience and customer support. I expect nothing less than a seamless user experience when I use their products, and am so used to it (indeed, I expect it), that I am shocked with what my Windows-using colleagues put up with whenever I have to use a Windows machine. The same will no doubt plague different mobile platforms that sacrifice customer experience and support in the name of some vague “freedom” that really amounts to their freedom from providing their paying customers with the best experience possible.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@mrmgraphics: Do an experiment for me today. Set up a printer on Mac OS X for duplex printing. Now have someone who is as knowledgeable about printers on Windows as you are about printers on the Mac do so on Win7. The biggest support problem I have right now is Macs and printers. It used to be XP and printers. Customer base is 75% Windows if that matters. Bonus exercise… Set up your iPad for any printing.

@Bryan… Psystar sucked up far more in Apple’s time and legal effort than any damage they did, could do, would do. They also proved that it could take upwards of 2 years to get a joke of an operation shut down. What would happen if a company were seriously hell bent on challenging enforceability of Draconian shrink-wrap licenses? Hypothetically, what would happen if Adobe lawyers took a whack at the App Store situation based on disqualification of their compiled Flash apps? The stakes are in the tens of billions of dollars over the next 4-5 years.

You ask for more examples. Over the past year, I have cited many. It’s Saturday morning, and I won’t feel like digging for all of them until the third mug of coffee sets in. But I can tell you one quality of all of them that explains why they are a big deal to me and other developers and some long-time Apple fans, but might not be a big deal to you. They are marginal, i.e. they strongly affect the margins of things. So, for example, the clause in Apple TV license that prohibits reselling, renting, gifting, loading a modified box. VARs have always been able to do that with every other computing device during the whole span of this industry since the mid 70s. Now, under Apple TV license, I am allowed to write original software, install it replacing the Finder (a technique Steve Jobs touted at WWDC for Mac devices in 2001), and use it in my living room. Open source roots and components of Mac OS X guarantee that right to tinker, I cannot then give, sell, loan, etc. that device to a customer. Shortly after its 2007 release, iSuppli estimated a 20% profit margin on each device, so this is not loss-leader protection. Imagine how much of a hobby that device would not be as an appliance signage device or appliance web/file/print server. The license terms preclude the market from acting on that discovery. It’s not like it forced people to buy Macs either—the $300 price point has been rich with XP based appliance platforms for the past 3 years. As a (small) AAPL shareholder, that ought to piss you off.

And so it is with section 3.3.1 of the iPhone developer agreement. As I mentioned elsewhere, REAL Software (makers of REAL Studio, n?e REALbasic), have publicly expressed intentions of targeting iPhone in the future and made concrete steps toward that eventual goal, including current transition to the LLVM compiler back-end. While I have the chops to use XCode to write an iPhone app, my Dad doesn’t. He is, however, a pretty capable programmer with REAL Studio. Apple has shut him out, and he has a lot of nifty things he’d like to put on iPhone. Educational things. Things he’s learned helping students with college level math over the past 20 years. He and I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on Apple products through the years, and directed spending on millions of dollars of Apple products, even in times when it wasn’t cool. And I mention that because it’s a perfect example of how Apple is creating vociferous haters. But the funniest part of all is when the newly minted vociferous hater tries Windows 7 and finds that after a couple weeks of adjustment, its feels better than Snow Leopard, runs on a much wider range of devices, and if you dig, you might find one that’s just a real pleasure to use like it was made just for you. For me, that device is the ASUS t91mt.

Another Apple dick move is the Snow Leopard license term prohibiting recording of generated speech. 20 years they actively encourage developers to do thing just like that. Then they prohibit it to protect a silly feature on the iPod Shuffle. Again totally marginal, and something few Mac users would ever knowingly bump into. But really damned important in one of my little niches of developing kids’ (many on Native American reservations and inner city schools) literacy skills.

And all of these roadblocks combined with other arcane roadblocks, they make your closed system which makes it possible for all the people who could never use a computer or a phone to do so. How did any of you manage to get anything done, visit a web site, write an email, make a phone call before 2007? It truly befuddles me.

Tiger

I’m still wondering what all this whining is about? You are OBVIOUSLY not a target market for Apple. You better get back to HP or Dell quick.

Apple makes three, count them 1, 2, 3, mobile phones.
They make 3 model laptops.
They make an All in One Desktop iMac.
They make a TV device, barely.
They make an entry level Mac for the sub 1k market
They make a Pro Tower for the over 2k market
And now they make an iPad.

That’s it. Yet with 3 laptops, a tower, a Mini, and an iMac, the BULK of their revenue stream, they control now 5.3% of the computer market.

Worldwide the three models of iPhone have sold 50 million in two and a half years. Nokia alone sold 93.2 million handsets in the last quarter. Read that again. Nearly double in 3 months what Apple sold in almost 3 years.

And all this whining and being worried about their rules on development? You are obviously in the wrong place. Closed systems exist everywhere. It’s not unique.

I have a 2007 Mitsubishi with GPS. An update is available. Maps are all out of whack. But I can’t program my GPS for my car. Neither can you, or any other developer for that matter.

Mitsubishi is the only source for the upgrade software, even though they don’t actually write it. They require that they are the sole source. The company that writes it actually refers you right back to Mitsubishi! And what I thought should have been a $49 upgrade was actually $350! And I found out why. Because hack developers could actually insert code that would shut down my car’s computer.

How did I get anything done before 2007? Easy. I’ve been using Macintoshes since 1984. I have had email since 1991 when VM mail was still king. We had terminals for visiting the first online websites. I had a Samsung phone before my iPhone. A Motorola before that, and three Nokias before that.

Times change. So does technology. And the experience. Thankfully, it’s getting much better. I have a beautiful new iMac to go with my laptop at home. I have a MacPro tower and a Mac Mini in my office. And one day, I may get an iPad. I’m no fan of the AppleTV and IMHO it will disappear as a “tried it and decided it wasn’t worth our effort” experiment by Cupertino.

But I also know Apple isn’t done creating, improving, and partnering with others.

So head back over to Windows 7. And good luck. We’ve already found a HUGE glitch in the system when using it on an Campus network with laptops and it failing to authenticate. So bad in fact that it fails to find the user profile and creates a whole new one. And no, it’s not a one time thing. It’s a repeatable problem we’ve seen with every laptop we have running Windows 7.

Lee Dronick

they control now 5.3% of the computer market.

On the other hand they have about 95% of the media attention, or a least is seems that way.

Tiger

Possibly, but I think that has more to do with Adobe claiming victimhood than anything. As readers on other blogs have pointed out, Flash isn’t even working properly on MOST mobile phones. And considering they’ve dragged their heels for more than ten years even porting their software to native APIs, does anybody really feel sorry for Adobe? TEN YEARS????????

(read here, it’s a great take!)

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/04/10/five-tremendous-apple-vs-adobe-flash-myths/

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And what the fanboy at Roughly Drafted does not tell you is that in those same 10 years, Windows has had exactly one browser plugin canvas API to support, while Apple currently has 4 if you want to reach back to 10.4 customers. If you are Andrew Stone, you can support every revolutionary API that Apple touts every WWDC, and you can be so cool that Steve Jobs might send you a printed Christmas card. It certainly isn’t a business model that puts millions in your bank account. If you are Adobe, with billion dollar software products, maybe you’re a little more cautious.

Seriously Tiger, aside from reading this stuff on a fanboy site, do you even know what an API is? Do you have any insights into cross-platform development? Can you think of any reason why a developer might not dive face first into doing things exactly the way the platform vendor prescribes? Since Adobe’s software sucks so badly on the Mac (allegedly), can you figure out why creative pros disproportionately buy Macs to run Adobe software?

furbies

Since Adobe?s software sucks so badly on the Mac (allegedly), can you figure out why creative pros disproportionately buy Macs to run Adobe software?

Che Bosco
I don’t think the folks here have said “All” Adobe software is Evil/Bad/Sucks.
It’s just Flash some of us have a problem with.

Now if Adobe was to sort out Flash so it wasn’t a CPU/Resources Hog then maybe it would be treated better.

I mean; on my Mac Pro Quad 2.66, just by looking at XRG I could tell when a webpage with Flash embedded in it was open. It uses enough CPU/Resources to be noticable.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I don?t think the folks here have said ?All? Adobe software is Evil/Bad/Sucks. It?s just Flash some of us have a problem with.

Tiger wrote this: And considering they?ve dragged their heels for more than ten years even porting their software to native APIs, does anybody really feel sorry for Adobe? TEN YEARS????????

Adobe has owned Flash for 5 years. Please explain what Tiger is talking about.

ScottD
final public class Apple extends EarlyMicrosoft implements IMachiavelli
{
  
public function praise () {
    _stevej
.ego++;
  

  
public function pay (exorbCosts:int{
    _stevej
.ego++;
  
}
  
public function criticize (comment:Stringsource:*) {
    _fanboyList
.generateNonsenseResponse(comment);
    
_legalCouncil.initVendetta(source);
    
_stevej.strokeEgo();

    throw new 
BetterThanEveryoneError("Illegal operation encountered.");
  
}
  
// TODO Generate additional red herrings to further divert
  // media attention from major revenue losses resulting
  // from Flash-enabled iProducts.
flashfellow

And plenty of sites have found a way to survive commercially sans Flash.

Ready for iPad

If the iPad is the “ultimate browsing experience,” why should anyone need to make themselves “iPad ready”? Shouldn’t it just work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr4pPAn-m5g

Log-in to comment