Steve’s flawed argument?

Are you serious?

Apple doesn’t want to support Flash. There’s no flawed argument here. Just many compelling reasons.

Ultimately, it’s Apple’s platform. Not mine, not yours, and certainly not Adobe’s. And ultimately, it is Apple’s responsibility for making it flourish. Not mine, not yours, and certainly not Adobe’s. I think Apple is choosing what they have compelling reasons to believe is the right path.

This is the entire basis of Steve Job’s flawed argument. You can write suck in any language as well as build a bad UI. In the off chance that HTML5 does kill flash, who will all the open source guys use as a scapegoat for all the crappy content still out there on the web?

Sorry, I’m just done with the voices who favor restricting popular web-content, and are down with limiting developer options/innovation.

Whether or not you intend to be represent yourself as such, to me you epitomize the mindset that gladly accepts section 3.3.1 of the Apple SDK agreement. You’re the bloke who’s ok with apps being rejected from the app-store regardless of the quality, & their merit. You’re that guy who’s cool with whole sections of the web not being accessible on capable devices because it happens not to affect you personally (this time around). On principle I hate that guy.

There are quite a few non-Adobe developer tools for Flash.

http://www.fdt.powerflasher.com
http://www.elementriver.com/sourcemate
http://www.flashloaded.com

In fact you can start developing Flash content for $0, using eclipse & the Flex SDK. This is what I did for several years. You’re not informed, you’re a small-minded, go back to your iPadded section of the web.

Name-calling and lashing out merely signal the weakness of your arguments.

While Adobe isn’t “locked into” Flash — everything can’t be in Flash, thank goodness — it surely prefers a web dominated by Flash. Any software company can try to sell a developer kit for HTML5/JS/CSS. Only Adobe can sell one for Flash. If the fact that I find this troubling that makes me “small-minded” in your view, fine. Maybe Adobe should make Flash open source.

I don’t want Adobe to have so much power over web users have a good web browsing experience. I happen to think that this is not at all small-minded.

I started blocking Flash on my browser long before this fight with Apple. Usually, when I click to Flash, it’s just for web video that can be delivered without being wrapped in Flash. It’s rare when Flash is used to do something that is truly “rich”, as you say. The vast majority of the time, it is unnecessary or, even worse, degrades the user experience.

“Its pretty clear that the change to the TOS was not to target 3rd party SDKs but to target Adobe specifically, because, with a massive developer base, it posed a massive threat to Apple, whereas Corona and Unity, while both successful, can be easily corralled by Apple and represent a tiny percentage of total apps.”

Agree with you that the move was targeted at Adobe and that the others are not much of a problem for Apple. I am not at all sure that these smaller SDKs are completely in the clear, however.

The point is that Apple does not want to be hostage to a major developer SDK for anything important. If it controls the developer environment for its own mobile devices, it does not have to wait for another SDK to catch up.

Apple would get the same App Store revenue from selling an app created in CS5 as is does from its own developer tools. What Apple gains when developers instead use Xcode is the ability to rapidly update apps in response to OS changes *and* the superior user experience that comes from using native tools.

Adobe has a track record here. On Snow Leopard, Apple had to amend Safari (a 64 bit app) to allow plug-ins to run in a separate process because Flash is still 32 bit. After many years, Adobe finally has Cocoa version of Creative Suite. And despite all the vitriol, there is still no shipping version of mobile Flash.

And Apple is supposed to think that Adobe will be able to keep up with the rapidly changing mobile device playing field?

MouseOver events work great on touch-devices like the Nexus One. Checkout the video demo Lee Brimelow made.

http://theflashblog.com/?p=2027

Flash is used extensively on the web, has been for over a decade, and continues to rapidly innovate faster than the standards committee. For the last two weeks I’ve been working on an HTML5/JS/CSS project. And I’ve been using Adobe Dreamweaver for much of it, clearly Adobe’s interest isn’t locked into only Flash. My vested interest is in having access to the absolute best tools for web-development. I don’t like any company placing restrictions on web-content, and from a principled position you shouldn’t either. But you’re small-minded, and the world is this vs that, one or the other, Flash must die for you to have your HTML5. I want both.

We want to target as many devices as possible, and still provide an engaging & high-end experience to our users. In your future that means using SilverLight on Windows Phone 7, Flash on Android, and HTML5/JS/CSS on iDevices.

Fortunately HTML will continue to provide at least a mostly adequate set of development tools to reach a broad range of devices. And I’m glad that there are more decent frameworks these days. But implementation is fractured, performance isn’t good, and going back to a splintered web is full of fail.

You’re ok with companies releasing web-based products that limit & confine the open-web we’ve all grown to share & love. That’s f*ck!nq lame.

Well, that would be true, except that its clearly not, given that Apple is continuing to allow Apps developed in Corona and Unity3d onto the iPhone, both of which, technically speaking, violate the new Agreement. Its pretty clear that the change to the TOS was not to target 3rd party SDKs but to target Adobe specifically, because, with a massive developer base, it posed a massive threat to Apple, whereas Corona and Unity, while both successful, can be easily corralled by Apple and represent a tiny percentage of total apps. Its about politics and business, not technology.