6 ms·

So, there are a couple things here that jump to my mind. 1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. They're pretty close to a monopoly on their type of software and

• ilike 17y ago
  Adobe doesn't restrict the creation of swf players or swf creation tools. Gnash,Swfdec are free open source alternatives to Adobe Flash Player.
  • mdasen 17y ago
    There is some debate about whether the Adobe/Macromedia Flash EULA can be considered binding, but Gnash developers prefer to avoid the issue by not installing Adobe/Macromedia tools, and thereby not accepting the EULA. We can use tools like Ming to generate Flash testcases, and we rely on the efforts of volunteers to run our testcases on commercial software and report the result. http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/64 http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/64 Other implementations do exist, but Adobe has taken action to hamper those efforts. EDIT: Other people can argue for as long as they like about what is considered hampering, but Adobe isn't exactly free and open with flash.
    • ilike 17y ago
      I know i will get downmodded for saying this, but the blog entry is from 2008 and and the faq you linked to speaks only of a debatable possibility of possible restrictions in Adobe's then EULA. See http://www.openscreenproject.org/about/faq.html http://www.openscreenproject.org/about/faq.html to see how much Adobe has opened up since. Also, it is worth noting that Adobe has never gone after these open source swf player projects.While i agree that Adobe is not as open as it should be, i dont see any reason not to appreciate a good gesture from a powerful company.
      • ramchip 17y ago
        > I know i will get downmodded for saying this I hate when people say this. It's like saying "my point is valid, but people on HN are too stupid to get it".
        • mbreese 17y ago
          Or you could look at it as someone saying that they know saying something will cost them karma, but they feel it's important enough to say anyway.
          • stcredzero 17y ago
• abstractbill 17y ago
  It's also in Apple's interest to get people using Objective-C and their toolkit. It brings developers to the Mac by forcing them to buy one. I'm not convinced Apple is trying to force developers to buy Macs, and I'm far from convinced that such a strategy would actually work.
  • tcdent 17y ago
    While I agree that Apple isn't forcing developers onto the Mac from a financial perspective, I think it's in their best interest to promote it from a holistic one. Indie Mac developers think a little differently than any other, and it's a direct result of the influence from Apple's UX aesthetic. There is immense respect for the conventions that have been established, and any feature that breaks away from them better have a damn good reason. I just can't see a developer that chooses Windows XP as their main operating system completely understanding the platform and putting the same amount of care into their work.
    • abstractbill 17y ago
      While I agree that Apple isn't forcing developers onto the Mac from a financial perspective, I think it's in their best interest to promote it from a holistic one. The funny thing is, Apple has been promoting their platform to developers for years by making it a Unix that just works. And now they're un-promoting it by having a bunch of developer-hostile policies.
      • deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  • barrkel 17y ago
    I bought a Mac Mini with my iPod touch solely so that I could potentially write applications for it. I never did get around to it - my girlfriend went farther than I did - and so it sits, gathering dust, under my desk. But if I had a toolkit that let me develop iPhone apps without having to buy a Mac Mini, then I'd be much more likely to develop an iPhone app. So take me as a data point: the existing practical restrictions forced me to buy a Mac.
• mrkurt 17y ago
  > Jobs wanted web apps. Developers balked. Web apps would have been cross-platform (at least with Android and webOS). Apple responded to developers and now they've seen their chance to lock users and developers to their system. Jobs didn't want web apps, he wanted no apps. Web apps would have been more than useful given the right js APIs. It wouldn't have done a thing for games, but there's a great deal of stuff you could technically build in html + js if it were a true first class development environment.
  • sunchild 17y ago
    Go back and watch the first iPhone keynote. It was all about web apps.
    • rortian 17y ago
      Probably because that was the only thing possible at the time.
      • sunchild 17y ago
        Not really. Native third party apps were originally a concession to demands from users/developers by all accounts I've heard. Regardless, the original strategy was to encourage web-based apps.
        • micampe 17y ago
          Do you really think they are that stupid and applications were not planned since day one? Come on. They even have games on plain old iPods.
          • sunchild 17y ago
            Well, since there was an SDK since day one, of course they anticipated third party development. The point is that they were pointing developers at web apps at launch. Why am I explaining this to you? It's public record. Look it up.
• Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  >1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. Who cares about a company being "innocent" ? What does that even mean ? >(their Creative Suite costs as much as a MacBook Pro) Do you have a serious study saying that Creative Suite is overpriced ? Because it doesn't look that way to me. And what does that even have to do with anything ? >I'm sure they don't want to deal with developers using up their support time over things that are the fault of Adobe's Flash SDK or Novell's C# one. So they could have added a clause to the dev agreement saying they won't support the dev choosing to go with other SDK's or languages. That would have been a TOTALLY different story no ? > 3. It's also in Apple's interest to [...] Of course it's in Apple's interest. The way they're ready to alienate a non negligible part of their partner's base (because that's what devs should be, partners) for their short term interrest is kind of scary though. I even really doubt it's a clever strategy if you consider Apple's interest alone. >Do I like Apple's stance? No. As a user and a developer, it's bad for me. However, Apple's the market leader and getting people to use their API gives them control However what ? You know the problem isn't even the fact that the platform is closed to others languages. If it has been like that from the beginning of the IPhone/Ipad, it wouldn't be the same problem at all. The real problem in this story is that Apple is ready to screw other peoples businesses. It reminds me of the Playstation3/Linux story, in some ways. People have invested time and money in this platform, and yet Apple decides to change the terms of the game and screw them over completely. The fact that they have the right to do it doesn't make it right. It's immoral and wrong. > Adobe isn't known for being open. Given the chance, Adobe seems to wall itself off as much as Apple. Examples please. I may have forgotten some things, but on the top of my mind, i can't find anything even remotely similar to this.
  • 0x44 17y ago
    People have invested time and money in this platform, and yet Apple decides to change the terms of the game and screw them over completely. Investing in a platform does not guarantee you'll profit from your investment, nor does it oblige the provider to continue providing you the means to recoup your investment.
    • Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
• rbanffy 17y ago
  > It brings developers to the Mac by forcing them to buy one No. Thanks. I have no urge to develop for iPhone, iPod or iPad, much less in Objective C. I think I am gonna pass this one. ;-)
  • rbanffy 17y ago
    I will assume the down-voter thinks Apple is forcing him to buy a Mac. If you want a Mac, go buy one. You don't need Apple as an excuse. They are very good computers, very well built and have an OS that, IMHO, is second only to a decent Linux box as a development platform. It's so good it breaks my heart to install Linux on top of it. So much in fact I never did it. Except once, when I installed MkLinux on a Power 9500. Very nice X terminal, BTW.
    • steveklabnik 17y ago
      Nope, you're getting downvoted because your comment doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. Snarky replies aren't (generally) considered valuable here.
      • rbanffy 17y ago
        Well then, rephrasing the first comment for those who didn't get it, I see no reason to think developers are being forced one way or the other. As a developer, you choose the platform you intend to use to deliver your application. Nobody is being forced anything. There is a huge potential market outside the App Store. If you bet the company on Apple's good mood, it's only your fault they pull your app, change the rules of the game and drive you out of business. They own the clients. If you want to sell to their clients, you better be ready do jump when they tell you to. Actually, it's no different than selling to a telco on a platform like Brew. As a dominant player, Apple not only has to foster the development of killer apps for their platform, they cannot afford killer apps evolving on other platforms. Unless they change course, that's what will happen.
        • kelnos 17y ago
• stcredzero 17y ago
  Companies tend to go for openness insofar as it's in their interests. I've been developing this metaphor while reading and posting to other threads: - Companies are like states. - Ownership is like sovereignty - Open Source licenses are like constitutions and the rule of law - Community processes are like democracy Totalitarian states can also discover that being open to commerce can be in their interest, but still act coercively when doing so suits them more. Constitutional democracies can be considered safer for business, since it disallows arbitrary actions and ensures due process. By analogy, Open Source platforms can be considered safer for business. (This doesn't mean that I won't publish on the App Store. But it does mean that I'm going to look at platform diversification as a safety measure! I guess this move by Apple has had the opposite from desired effect in my case.)
• Qz 17y ago
  The Flex SDK is free, you can develop and compile Flash apps and web apps without buying any of their software. And they don't require a $99 fee just to have the opportunity to sell your work, or take 30% of the cut.
  • wanderr 17y ago
    Clearly, they are evil.
  • zorro 17y ago
    And you don't have to buy a whole computer (if you don't already have a mac) just to compile you app! Did you know also the $99 fee is per year??
  • petsos 17y ago
    And they also don't provide hosting, credit card transactions and millions of users that can buy your app with one click. I too don't like what Apple did, but you are comparing different things.
    • Qz 17y ago
      They don't provide that, but it's not like there aren't plenty of companies that will provide all of those things. The main factor here is that with Flex or (almost) any other platform, you have the choice of how you want to go about selling and distributing your work.