Steve Jobs wanted to ban the most popular game on the iPad

  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 September 2011 09:55 PM

    Most popular game on iPad is made with Flash.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 September 2011 09:57 PM #1

    Oh, by the way, if you go back a year, you’d see me discussing how Flash as an API is makes development more economical for many types of applications, including games. And you’d see the usual suspects here saying I didn’t know what I was talking about with my heresy. #JustSayin

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 10:12 PM #2

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 12:55 AM

    Most popular game on iPad is made with Flash.


    Brad

    Once again… What’s your point?

    Of course you won’t answer, because you have none.

    Your point is that fragmented is better than integrated? I know you consider it open vs. closed (we don?t). If so, better for whom?

    This is the AFB. Here we are interested in the ?F? for ?finance? so that members can profit from all things related to Apple.

    Since the introduction of Android, Apple has grown their profits more than any other competitor in the entire mobile phone industry to the point that Apple is making two thirds of the industry?s profits on approximately 5% market share.

    This has resulted in finacial gain for Apple shareholders and will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

    How has Android?s market share gains contributed to profitable investing opportunities? Isn?t Microsoft making more off of Android via patents than Google? In any event, Android does not move the profit needle enough for either to make it an investable opportunity based on Android.

    Therefore, aren?t you missing the point? We are focused on making profits while you are focused on the market share of a fragmented platform.

    In other words, you are continually making the wrong argument in the wrong forum.

    Jeffi

    PS. Please see the latest John Gruber post. It does a great job explaining what you fail to see.

    “Winning”
    http://daringfireball.net/2011/09/winning

    Signature

    Inflation robs from the past, deflation robs from the future. Pick your poison.

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 10:23 PM #3

    jeffi - 13 September 2011 01:12 AM
    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 12:55 AM

    Most popular game on iPad is made with Flash.


    Brad

    Once again… What’s your point?

    Of course you won’t answer, because you have none.

    Your point is that fragmented is better than integrated? I know you consider it open vs. closed (we don?t). If so, better for whom?

    This is the AFB. Here we are interested in the ?F? for ?finance? so that members can profit from all things related to Apple.

    Since the introduction of Android, Apple has grown their profits more than any other competitor in the entire mobile phone industry to the point that Apple is making two thirds of the industry?s profits on approximately 5% market share.

    This has resulted in finacial gain for Apple shareholders and will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

    How has Android?s market share gains contributed to profitable investing opportunities? Isn?t Microsoft making more off of Android via patents than Google? In any event, Android does not move the profit needle enough for either to make it an investable opportunity based on Android.

    Therefore, aren?t you missing the point? We are focused on making profits while you are focused on the market share of a fragmented platform.

    In other words, you are continually making the wrong argument in the wrong forum.

    Jeffi

    PS. Please see the latest John Gruber post. It does a great job explaining what you fail to see.

    “Winning”
    http://daringfireball.net/2011/09/winning

    +1.  The fact there is no AFB-equivalent for Android speaks volumes.

    [ Edited: 12 September 2011 10:27 PM by ByeTMO ]      
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 10:23 PM #4

    Bosco bored?

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 September 2011 10:33 PM #5

    My point is simple. Steve Jobs and his henchmen banned the technology used to create this app. They capitulated when faced with the EU coming down like a ton of bricks on them for their policies (September 2010). And now, this technology that Steve said would destroy the platform is used to create the most popular game on the iPad.

    I think that’s interesting.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 September 2011 10:58 PM #6

    Gruber’s latest post goes to the iOS and Android competition, so I’ll post it here.
    http://daringfireball.net/


    Thoughts, Brad?

    Signature

    AAPL: to boldly go where no stock has gone before

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 11:03 PM #7

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 01:33 AM

    My point is simple. Steve Jobs and his henchmen banned the technology used to create this app. They capitulated when faced with the EU coming down like a ton of bricks on them for their policies (September 2010). And now, this technology that Steve said would destroy the platform is used to create the most popular game on the iPad.

    I think that’s interesting.

    Yes, interesting to you and meaningless to us. Apple’s products are not for everyone. Certainly not for you. Competitors products sometimes better serve the needs of some. That’s OK. Apple does not need 100% market share or 100% profit share.

    Net/ net, there is no company that has a better mobile strategy than Apple. In this case, that makes us money (shareholders) and you uncomfortable.

    Signature

    Inflation robs from the past, deflation robs from the future. Pick your poison.

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 11:33 PM #8

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 12:57 AM

    Oh, by the way, if you go back a year, you’d see me discussing how Flash as an API is makes development more economical for many types of applications, including games. And you’d see the usual suspects here saying I didn’t know what I was talking about with my heresy. #JustSayin

    It’s cheap and easy for developers.  It eats batteries and it’s a messy, slow, crappy user experience.  Steve was right.  The EU was wrong.

    You need to get over your grudge against Jobs and Apple.  Just because your product was once rejected doesn’t mean Apple is evil.  It simply means you can’t seem to get over adversity.

    And BTW, your title is misleading.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 September 2011 11:38 PM #9

    Well Zeke, this is one you can test for $5, with the benefit that Apple gets $1.50 from you. Get the game and see how long it plays on your iPad 2 with a full charge. Report back to us.

    @RSE: Well, that’s tangential, but Gruber said this: When I say Android isn?t ?winning? I don?t mean it isn?t doing well or isn?t growing, I mean that it isn?t relegating iOS to a ?90s Mac-sized slice of the market.

    Yet.

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 11:43 PM #10

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 02:38 AM

    Well Zeke, this is one you can test for $5, with the benefit that Apple gets $1.50 from you. Get the game and see how long it plays on your iPad 2 with a full charge. Report back to us.

    @RSE: Well, that’s tangential, but Gruber said this: When I say Android isn?t ?winning? I don?t mean it isn?t doing well or isn?t growing, I mean that it isn?t relegating iOS to a ?90s Mac-sized slice of the market.

    Yet.

    It’s not running the Flash plugin.  It’s recompiled for iOS.  Aside from that, it’s not primarily the battery life and immediate user experience that are the main problems. 

    Steve explains it this way:

    We know from painful experience that letting a third-party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in substandard apps, and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third-party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

    This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 11:53 PM #11

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 02:38 AM

    Well Zeke, this is one you can test for $5, with the benefit that Apple gets $1.50 from you. Get the game and see how long it plays on your iPad 2 with a full charge. Report back to us.

    @RSE: Well, that’s tangential, but Gruber said this: When I say Android isn?t ?winning? I don?t mean it isn?t doing well or isn?t growing, I mean that it isn?t relegating iOS to a ?90s Mac-sized slice of the market.

    Yet.

    Yet?  Don’t make me laugh so hard.  You’ve been saying Apple was going to fail since the stock price was at $60, if I remember correctly from places like Yahoo Finance.  I learned many years ago that there is a class of customer who expects everything for nothing.  They will suck you dry and never produce a penny of profits.  Android is welcome to that portion of the market.  Apple will take the cream off the top and leave Android to service the cheapskates.

         
  • Posted: 12 September 2011 11:59 PM #12

    Bosco, I assumed that you’re too lazy to read John Gruber’s comment, so I repost it here for your convenience,

    But at a technical level, is this really something Adobe should be crowing about? The game requires an iPad 2 for performance reasons, even though the animation is 2D, not 3D. The game was originally written in Air for play on the PC, so I have little doubt it was less work to port it to the iPad within Air rather than rewriting it natively in Cocoa Touch. But it doesn?t seem right to me that this game doesn?t run on first-gen iPads. Commenters on Brimelow?s post seem to agree.

    UPDATE: The game?s description on the App Store includes this: ?NOTE: If the game crashes, RESET your iPad, the problem does not have to be on our side!? Such instructions are not unique to games built using Adobe Air, but still, it doesn?t speak well regarding the game?s resource consumption.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 12:05 AM #13

    if I remember correctly from places like Yahoo Finance.

    Zeeke, you spelled “making shit up” wrong, because I never spent time on Yahoo finance.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 12:09 AM #14

    weipeng - 13 September 2011 02:59 AM

    Bosco, I assumed that you’re too lazy to read John Gruber’s comment, so I repost it here for your convenience,

    Did you provide a link to it? Did anyone above? No and no. I don’t read Gruber. If you’d have provided a relevant link to where he wrote that, I would have read it. Quit being an apphole.

         
  • Posted: 13 September 2011 12:27 AM #15

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 01:33 AM

    My point is simple. Steve Jobs and his henchmen banned the technology used to create this app. They capitulated when faced with the EU coming down like a ton of bricks on them for their policies (September 2010). And now, this technology that Steve said would destroy the platform is used to create the most popular game on the iPad.

    I think that’s interesting.

    I think it is credible that Adobe developed a good enough cross platform tool for developers. It is even more incredible that it is the most popular game app.

    However your points for dissing SJ or his henchmen are still not valid.
    “..developer ultimately results in substandard apps”
    The same app using Cocoa touch is likely to be better in terms of performance. For developers it is good to have that option but not for games that are performance intensive.

    Such apps will now have to depend on Adobe to update their tools once iOS upgrade is out. With many platforms fighting for attention of developers it is also in Adobe’s interest to keep it up to date with iOS releases at the earliest. With iOS APIs evolving fast, Apple would want least amount of baggage to move forward (innovation). This is also in consumer’s interest to move technology forward and benefit from it. Apple is trying hard to keep as many users on the latest platform.

    The real balance will be the efforts for such developer to develop in X-platform tool vs Specific tools.

    SJ did mention “ultimately”, to me that signifies that sometimes there could be advantages for such an intermediate layer.

    One last thought… it also proves that design of app/software is more important than the tools or language used. This company definitely decided to spend more effort in the right places.