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

  • Posted: 13 September 2011 12:38 AM #16

    Unique - 13 September 2011 03:27 AM

    Guess who’s back, back again shadys back, tell a friend

    Come on Brad, why do you even hang around here? Go back to engadget.com, with those 12 year old kids arguing about ios vs android on every apple related article.

    I was going to suggest BGR, as they seem to favor BlackBerry over there.  On the other hand, Bosco wouldn’t last 10 posts with that crowd.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 12:49 AM #17

    Unique - 13 September 2011 03:27 AM

    Guess who’s back, back again shadys back, tell a friend

    Come on Brad, why do you even hang around here? Go back to engadget.com, with those 12 year old kids arguing about ios vs android on every apple related article.

    +5!

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 01:13 AM #18

    Think about the iOS devices available at the time of Thoughts on Flash—iPhone 3G and 3GS and first-gen iPad. Can you play this game on those? They were the platform in question at that time. Of course hardware becomes more capable over time, and will even become good enough to run Flash on a mobile device eventually. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to try to support Flash now and maybe not ever, not if it’s dying or dead by then, except, perhaps, in emulators of old computers, although personally I’d prefer an Apple II emulator.

    Also, Apple didn’t say that this technology “would destroy the platform”. If you’re going to assert that, you should back it up with citations that clearly support your claim.

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 01:55 AM #19

    @Apple II+: There are a whole bunch of Flash/AIR games that you can play on iPhone 3GS, 4, and iPad (orig). I have pointed many out in these forums, especially at the beginning of the War on Flash. And actually, Steve Jobs did say that 3rd party APIs would cause significant problems for the platform. I think someone quoted that above. They repeated this line when DOJ and EU investigators looked into Apple’s practices concerning 3rd party tools, practices which Apple significantly changed 1 year ago, almost to the day.

    @libranca: The devices are cheap enough, with enough processing power and memory, that the designers of this game could ship it for these (and other devices) without having to be masters of a low level graphics engine and other gaming tricks. To me, having played in the computing industry for almost 1/4 century now, that is amazing, but then again, I don’t drink the Apple Kool-Aid.

    I think it is really neat that game design doesn’t require low-level bit flipping skills or even that much consideration any more. I think it is neat that game development is accessible to 3+ million professional Flash developers. That they don’t have to worry about reference counts or null pointers, like those who would implement directly in Cocoa Touch do. So we all get less expensive games, quicker updates, more possibilities that can be pulled together cheaper and quicker.

    And to those who wonder why I come here. It’s because I go back to the very beginning of this website, having advertised on its predecessor. I enjoy seeing how wrong the heard here is on technology, because you only look at one source. And I’m helping someone author a book on the AFB. It will be a must read for all the monkeys who think they can pick stocks based on what they like.

         
  • Posted: 13 September 2011 01:57 AM #20

    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

    My days are too short to continue reading this drivel any longer.  Author on ignore.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 02:04 AM #21

    I’m sooooo hurt Gregg. You can’t even consider that the Flash API might have some advantages for these kinds of applications, and that developers might want to take advantage of them rather than code to Apple’s API. You are very typical of the close-minded Apple fan that posts to this board. NIH (“Not Invented Here”) almost killed the company in the 90s. Know your history.

         
  • Posted: 13 September 2011 02:24 AM #22

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 04:55 AM

    @libranca: The devices are cheap enough, with enough processing power and memory, that the designers of this game could ship it for these (and other devices) without having to be masters of a low level graphics engine and other gaming tricks. To me, having played in the computing industry for almost 1/4 century now, that is amazing, but then again, I don’t drink the Apple Kool-Aid.

    I think it is really neat that game design doesn’t require low-level bit flipping skills or even that much consideration any more. I think it is neat that game development is accessible to 3+ million professional Flash developers. That they don’t have to worry about reference counts or null pointers, like those who would implement directly in Cocoa Touch do. So we all get less expensive games, quicker updates, more possibilities that can be pulled together cheaper and quicker.

    And to those who wonder why I come here. It’s because I go back to the very beginning of this website, having advertised on its predecessor. I enjoy seeing how wrong the heard here is on technology, because you only look at one source. And I’m helping someone author a book on the AFB. It will be a must read for all the monkeys who think they can pick stocks based on what they like.

    @Bosco: Being in computing industry for 1/4 century has not taught you enough.  “with enough processing power and memory” can work sometimes. That is no excuse for not using all of it especially in a popular app.

    For some a little coding skill is enough to get the job done. However for most outstanding or great software excellent coding skills are needed. Can you imagine google search engineers saying “don’t want to worry about reference counts or null pointers”? BTW I do consider Google has some very good engineers. My point is that the top developers would not shy away from “reference counts or null pointers”, they would master it.

    This app has made an exceptional achievement but it is not a “norm”.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 02:37 AM #23

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 04:55 AM

    @Apple II+: There are a whole bunch of Flash/AIR games that you can play on iPhone 3GS, 4, and iPad (orig). I have pointed many out in these forums, especially at the beginning of the War on Flash. And actually, Steve Jobs did say that 3rd party APIs would cause significant problems for the platform. I think someone quoted that above. They repeated this line when DOJ and EU investigators looked into Apple’s practices concerning 3rd party tools, practices which Apple significantly changed 1 year ago, almost to the day.

    @libranca: The devices are cheap enough, with enough processing power and memory, that the designers of this game could ship it for these (and other devices) without having to be masters of a low level graphics engine and other gaming tricks. To me, having played in the computing industry for almost 1/4 century now, that is amazing, but then again, I don’t drink the Apple Kool-Aid.

    I think it is really neat that game design doesn’t require low-level bit flipping skills or even that much consideration any more. I think it is neat that game development is accessible to 3+ million professional Flash developers. That they don’t have to worry about reference counts or null pointers, like those who would implement directly in Cocoa Touch do. So we all get less
    expensive games, quicker updates, more possibilities that can be pulled together cheaper and quicker.

    And to those who wonder why I come here. It’s because I go back to the very beginning of this website, having advertised on its predecessor. I enjoy seeing how wrong the heard here is on technology, because you only look at one source. And I’m helping someone author a book on the AFB. It will be a must read for all the monkeys who think they can pick stocks based on what they like.

    Please be sure to have some tables and graphs in the book to show how poorly the “monkeys” who picked Apple have done vs. Investing in ,say, Google, T-Bonds, the S&P 500, MSFT or about anything else over the past five years.

    Now, to repeat what has been said again and again ......the AFB is a financial analysis group. The investors here are interested in companies that grow profits. Profits make stock prices increase. Like Apple or hate it, people here invest in it because it grows profits insanely fast and appears ( for all the reasons spelled out) likely to continue to do so.  I think your emotions regarding technology’s desired direction has blinded you to what brings the ‘monkey’s’ here, and after performing the analysis, to add to their Apple positions.

    Signature

    AAPL: to boldly go where no stock has gone before

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 02:39 AM #24

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 04:55 AM

    @Apple II+: There are a whole bunch of Flash/AIR games that you can play on iPhone 3GS, 4, and iPad (orig). I have pointed many out in these forums, especially at the beginning of the War on Flash. And actually, Steve Jobs did say that 3rd party APIs would cause significant problems for the platform. I think someone quoted that above.

    Other apps are great. The more good apps in the app store, the better. If such iOS apps eventually make more revenue than non-Flash-developed apps, I think you’ll be vindicated.

    But on your assertions about third party tools, if you read what Jobs actually said in those other quotes above, he’s not saying that it “would cause” problems, as you put it, which is much more definitive than what Apple actually said. Rather, Apple said that in their experience they have observed problems ultimately arising from 3rd party abstractions which have the potential to leave out or delay developer access to features, the mere potential of which Apple wanted to avoid at that time (for strategic reasons, IMO).

    The iPad was brand new then, and Apple was working very hard to establish as big a market for it as possible. Part of that was getting developers committed to the platform with some degree of exclusivity. Once the iPad was proven in the market, it didn’t matter if third party tools were used to add more apps. The more good apps, the better. Having the same apps pop up on iPad and other tablets with the help of third party tools is no longer the same threat it might have once been to iPad hegemony.

    It was tactical.

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 02:53 AM #25

    Apple II+ - 13 September 2011 05:39 AM

    It was tactical.

    Well, you mis-spelled “bullshit”, but I understood your point. This stuff won’t really affect Apple on the surface, but it will continue to ruffle the undercurrent quite a bit. Apple’s approach to many content suppliers has been “we know best and we will take a high profit margin”. Many content suppliers know that Apple does not know best and do not see the value Apple provides being commensurate with the profits. See in-app purchase requirement, Financial Times, etc.

    You guys all say that content providers who don’t want to do it the Apple way are screwing up or doomed to fail, etc. We have one guy above arguing that this game should have been done in Cocoa Touch. FFS, if that were a requirement, I can guaran-freaking-tee you that it wouldn’t be available for iPad for a year, if ever. The shop that did the game is a Flash shop. That’s where their skills are. It is just the height of arrogance to suggest they should have gone the Apple preferred route. Where is your game that people want to buy?

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 03:04 AM #26

    libranca - 13 September 2011 05:24 AM

    For some a little coding skill is enough to get the job done. However for most outstanding or great software excellent coding skills are needed. Can you imagine google search engineers saying “don’t want to worry about reference counts or null pointers”? BTW I do consider Google has some very good engineers. My point is that the top developers would not shy away from “reference counts or null pointers”, they would master it.

    Actually, what you’re missing in your understanding of software development is the value and appropriate use of abstraction. I’ve taught programming languages at the college level and I can see why many would fail to appreciate the value of the concept.

    An application developer who today worries about null pointer dereferencing causing a hard crash or reference count semantics in more than very localized portions of his code is doing far too much work. Doing these correctly involves understanding them and doing them right every freaking time. Java hides the issues. Flash hides the issues. REALbasic (if you do desktop or web app development) hides the issues. By hiding the issues, they make it near impossible to screw up on those issues. They all do so with insignificant performance hits in the context of application tasks. For portions that has to run fast, yes, go native, write it in C, worry about memory and pointers, debug arcane crashes. Use that college programming training, and Mountain Dew, and immunity to common hygiene.

    Anyway, Flash/AIR as the basis for the best games will be more and more the norm. It delivers cross-platform and in the browser from a single source base. It lets more people contribute to development. It reduces the costs and time to market for very rich, interactive games. Of course, this is what I told you guys a year ago, but you didn’t believe then because Apple knows what’s best.

    [ Edited: 13 September 2011 03:06 AM by Bosco (Brad Hutchings) ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 03:19 AM #27

    I think Apple is happy to have Flash-developed apps now. That doesn’t make their former position B.S. They had to build the iPad market.

    I posted on some of this before including the FT, redux below:

    FT could release an app for subscribers which has no in-app purchasing/subscribing and no links to external purchasing/subscribing methods. Since users would have to subscribe outside the app to get a login for the app, FT would get all the revenue and the subscriber data. Although FT could provide this app for their subscribers, it appears as if FT is only interested in an app capable of unrestricted harvesting of personal subscriber data.

    This was from a year ago on Apple’s reversal on app development. Basically the tactics I mention above:

    Maybe it?s about marking their territory. Perhaps they decided to go one way at that time knowing full well they might face legal scrutiny, but then again they might not. They benefit in the interim from having had that policy in place, because they leverage their smartphone lead into more developers focused on xcode and iOS. There?s a lot to be gained from having more developers inside the tent, even if they alienated some by not letting them bring their toys to the sandbox.

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 13 September 2011 03:24 AM #28

    @Bosco: I am sure you are also waiting for developing AIR apps for your favorite game console Sony PS3 or Xbox Live or whatever.

    You are mixing up abstraction with cross platform development. Abstraction of API and programming languages happen as part of evolution. There would be more IDEs and tools that will make Cocoa Touch easier to use. Even Apple may come out with better and easier tools. But any middle layer that is cross platform will be less functional and poorer in performance. A cross platform tool will do a good job (abstraction) of common functionality only.

    Your contention is that developers may not need that functionality or substitute performance by higher specs of devices. That would be true when smartphones/ iOS become more staple and slow improvements instead of significant leaks every year.

    You keep bringing your experience as a techy however your reasoning does not reflect that.

    “Anyway, Flash/AIR as the basis for the best games will be more and more the norm.” It has taken more than one full year for a game to be popular for a short period. Your dream has a long way to go.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 13 September 2011 03:43 AM #29

    libranca - 13 September 2011 06:24 AM

    But any middle layer that is cross platform will be less functional and poorer in performance. A cross platform tool will do a good job (abstraction) of common functionality only.

    Just because you read that on Gruber’s blog doesn’t make it true. On performance, with more graphics done by GPU, the things that perform worst in an application based on a cross-platform tool will be marginal.

    Less functional? See, this is where you seem to have no grasp of development economics. None of those “functions” come for free, even in Cocoa Touch. Devs still need to consciously design and code to support them. And take a full-screen game. What Cocoa Touch functions do you want? Maybe spell checking in the edit field for entering your initials for the high score board?

    Besides, let’s say they made a game which has no iPad-esque feel to it all. And then let’s assume it tops the paid apps in the store. Who is hurt by that? Basically, nobody except whoever at Apple is religious about the iPad HI. Now, let’s assume they have to comply with it, and as a result, the game is less functional, comes out later, more expensive. Who is hurt by that? Well, the developer, the customers, etc.

    Look, Apple tried to run a nice protection racket for Objective-C coders, and if you were a beneficiary of that, I can see why you’d have irritable bowel syndrome over other technologies that make software development cheaper making their way onto the platform. I can see why you’d thump your chest about the “right way” to make software, even as the wrong way makes something really freaking compelling and successful. But you’re fighting a losing battle based on a complete misunderstanding of development economics. To an outsider, it’s like watching a Jackass movie, except I don’t feel an urge to cringe when reality kicks you in the nuts. You should know this stuff.

         
  • Posted: 13 September 2011 10:35 AM #30

    Bosco (Brad Hutchings) - 13 September 2011 06:43 AM
    libranca - 13 September 2011 06:24 AM

    But any middle layer that is cross platform will be less functional and poorer in performance. A cross platform tool will do a good job (abstraction) of common functionality only.

    Just because you read that on Gruber’s blog doesn’t make it true. On performance, with more graphics done by GPU, the things that perform worst in an application based on a cross-platform tool will be marginal.

    Less functional? See, this is where you seem to have no grasp of development economics. None of those “functions” come for free, even in Cocoa Touch. Devs still need to consciously design and code to support them. And take a full-screen game. What Cocoa Touch functions do you want? Maybe spell checking in the edit field for entering your initials for the high score board?

    Besides, let’s say they made a game which has no iPad-esque feel to it all. And then let’s assume it tops the paid apps in the store. Who is hurt by that? Basically, nobody except whoever at Apple is religious about the iPad HI. Now, let’s assume they have to comply with it, and as a result, the game is less functional, comes out later, more expensive. Who is hurt by that? Well, the developer, the customers, etc.

    Look, Apple tried to run a nice protection racket for Objective-C coders, and if you were a beneficiary of that, I can see why you’d have irritable bowel syndrome over other technologies that make software development cheaper making their way onto the platform. I can see why you’d thump your chest about the “right way” to make software, even as the wrong way makes something really freaking compelling and successful. But you’re fighting a losing battle based on a complete misunderstanding of development economics. To an outsider, it’s like watching a Jackass movie, except I don’t feel an urge to cringe when reality kicks you in the nuts. You should know this stuff.

    Marginal? I say substantial unless the rapid change in APIs that is happening today slows down. I did state that earlier but you did not get it. May be you don’t want to.

    “What Cocoa Touch functions do you want? Maybe spell checking in the edit field for entering your initials for the high score board?” Your lack of imagination is not shared by many. Just go to app store and check many of the available games. At this time most are developed using Apple supplied tools.

    And now you are cornering to a small functionality in the game by removing iPad as a potential market for the developer.  I don’t want to get into your views about iPad. I think it is a diversion because you don’t have any standing for the issue being discussed.

    Thanks. I consider this debate closed.