7 ms·

I think the article is unduly harsh but I think it makes a valid point. It's sort of a live by the sword, die by the sword thing. Adobe made the right business

I think the article is unduly harsh but I think it makes a valid point. It's sort of a live by the sword, die by the sword thing. Adobe made the right business decision in 2002 and I don't think you can fault them for that. But Apple's making the right business decision now and I don't think you can fault them for that. So I think the bottom line is that Adobe's falling victim to the same thing that they did to Apple back in 2002 and that's just the reality of the world.

csomar 17y ago
Adobe at that time could not support the development of an extensive platform for a small user base OS. But right now, there are no reason why limit the options to develop for the iPhone OS.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's just not true. As the recent OS4 demo showed Apple has put a lot of work into creating custom features on the iPhone. If developers start using Flash and developing one application for every platform they'll stop using those custom features. If developers stop using those custom features then they make the whole platform less valuable. If that happens then the iPhone no longer holds any advantages over say Google android at which point Apple loses its market share.
  - csomar 17y ago
    Not true, as the iPhone gets more popular, Adobe will take care of those custom features. There will be custom features for iPhone, Android or Windows Mobile. It'll make developing for mobile more fun, because you don't have to develop each application alone and use a specific machine/os for each phone.
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago
      Do you work for Adobe? If not I don't see how you make the claims that you're making right now. I certainly wouldn't bet my business on those claims. Which is what you're asking Apple to do.
      - halostatue 17y ago
        Or anyone who were to use Flash to create iPhone apps.
    - Perceval 17y ago
      Not true, as the iPhone gets more popular, Adobe will take care of those custom features. Adobe's history of failing to update their products to take advantage of OS X, of Intel processors, of Cocoa, or of the Mac platform entirely seems to give to lie your belief.
      - sorbus 17y ago
        But someone else could have.
      - vetinari 17y ago
        How is that? In 2001/2002, the way to move your code base from Classic to OSX was Carbon, not Cocoa. The switch to Intel was another big porting project. Now, if they want to switch to x64, they will be also forced to switch from Carbon to Cocoa. So in few years, Adobe had to port their codebase several times to meet the OSX moving target. Actually, I'm suriprised they did it at all, considering the lack of transparency on Apple side. If you are asking Adobe to throw away any frameworks used, that were later duplicated by Apple in OSX, and port to Apple provided frameworks, you have no idea how the project of the Creative Suite size is managed and developed. You may port your little OSX-only utility fast, but not CS. Other big projects had similar problems - Microsoft Office? Alias|Wavefront (today Autodesk) Maya? They have similar pain points for the exactly same reason.
        danudey 17y ago
        The thing is that yes, these were all pretty big porting projects, but they were also things that Adobe would have known about years in advance, and just never bothered to deal with until after it was an issue for most people. When they knew about an upcoming platform change a year or two in advance, and didn't bother to deal with it until a year or two after, I have to assume that they just never cared. That's why Apple doesn't want to deal with Flash - they don't want to rely on a company that doesn't care about Apple or its users, and they don't want to be beholden to Adobe's schedule of 'we'll support that next year when users are hurting for it'. When Apple announced location support in iPhoneOS 2.0, for example, including GPS for the iPhone 3G, would Adobe have had it ready for launch day? From their history, Flash would have waited until the next 'major release'. Flash-based apps would have had a reduced feature set, and the App Store would have been full of applications that couldn't support the latest and greatest features, distracting from applications that properly supported 2.0 from the start.
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      "There will be custom features for iPhone, Android or Windows Mobile." Are there examples of this happening consistently in other cross platform development environments? My understanding is that cross platform frameworks cater to a lowest common denominator among platforms, perhaps occasionally supporting a custom feature here and there. Even then, the people developing the app need to spend the necessary effort to take advantage of platform specific features, as opposed to just deploying the identical app to all platforms.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      > you don't have to develop each application alone and use a specific machine/os for each phone. Of course you do, developing with Flash on OS X is infeasible, the performance is laughable and the stability is worse (like the article says, Adobe's been neglecting Flash on OS X since forever). You have to use Windows to get any work done, and that is just as "specific" as having to use OS X.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    As a user, I'm not interested in the custom features. In-app buying? No thanks. Interactive ads? No. That stuff is good for Apple (who gets a cut), and the developer (who gets money), but it isn't good for users (who have to be annoyed with requests for their money). So fuck Apple's special features.
    - jstevens85 17y ago
      sigh. So this is the level of maturity we're to expect in the future from news.ycombinator? There are obviously features beyond in-app buying and iAd that differentiate iPhone OS from the rest of the smartphone market.
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        So this is the level of maturity we're to expect in the future from news.ycombinator? This is the level of maturity it's always had; as jrockway courteously points out, he's been foaming at the mouth in iPhone-related threads since before you signed up. More importantly, though, I'd recommend you spend some time reading through Clay Shirky's writings on online communities; the "once upon a time it was wonderful, now all the new people are ruining it" myth is pervasive and can be a sign of deep trouble (see, in particular, "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy").
        jrockway 17y ago
        Foaming at the mouth? I don't think so. I am just reminding people of how Apple harms them. Now, I agree that I comment on way too many Apple-related articles, but since HN has recently become "iPad News" and I haven't found another site to read, I don't really have a choice. I would love it if Apple was never mentioned here again. Who cares what they are up to?
        billswift 17y ago
        I was thinking a couple of days ago that maybe we need a plug-in or something that will ignore anything with Apple, iPhone, or iPad in the title or url.
noamsml 17y ago
> Apple's making the right business decision now and I don't think you can fault them for that. Yes, I can. Restricting developers' rights isn't a valid business decision. That's like saying Highway robbery is a respectable income source.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  Restricting developers' rights isn't a valid business decision. Why? Developers aren't a constitutionally protected special class.
  - shawndumas 17y ago
    legal and smart are two different things...
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    What does the constitution have anything to do with this? Why bring the Canadian Constitution into it? Finally, you have a misunderstanding of a right. It isn't something you need to be given via a law. A right is something you have despite laws. The US Constitution doesn't give you the explicit right to "think whatever you want," but you have it. As for rights, he's referring the right of a developer to use whatever programming language he wishes to developer software on different systems. A closed system prevents a developer from exercising that right. It's even worse when a system establishes itself with certain restrictions and freedoms, and then changes that later on. In fact, it's called Bait and Switch. Apple had certain rules and requirements, and certain people bought into that idea. Now they've changed that. You can argue with they are allowed to, but that doesn't diminish the criticism thrown at them. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something. There are a million examples to demonstrate that. For a long time, a lot of intelligent people were saying that Apple was inching closer and closer toward restricting rights of its users more and more. People disregarded us, and said "Hey, Apple can do this!" While they might be legally able to, this doesn't mean they should. They restrict the content. They restrict how you display that content. They restrict more and more. I have no pity for Apple supporters anymore. And when Apple restricts that thing you hold dear, you'll cry. Or you'll do what others have done: decide what you wanted was wrong, and you shouldn't have wanted it, and Apple was right.
WorkerBee 17y ago
I think the article is unduly harsh but I think it makes a valid point. It's sort of a live by the sword, die by the sword thing. I disagree. To me, assuming that the situation really is as described in this article, Apple's response come across as petty vengeance. Holding grudges. Childish and spiteful. That kind of behaviour is of very limited use in business.
philk 17y ago
The problem is that the article falsely connects the two (as though somehow Apple screwing over Adobe is justice for Adobe screwing over Apple historically) when it's just companies acting in their own self-interest each time.
Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
Sorry but this is bullshit. Adobe's decision was right because it could have made them loose tons of money to make a port for a platform which future was uncertain at best. At worst, you can say they were not supportive of a company with which they had a long business history. Apple on the other hand did take a measure that is not only detrimental to Adobe, but to any developpers on the planet working on Iphone/Ipad apps. That it is the right business decision, like you're saying without any justification, is less than clear. The only thing you can say for sure, is that it's gonna fuck up with the competition, and make them a lot of ennemies. You can also predict that this measure is just gonna drive innovation off the iPhone/iPad onto other platforms. This is less than certain, but it is just as much of a possibility. For me we're into "cold hearted common sense business decision" VS. "agressive revenge nebulous business decision that _may_ pay off". The tone of the article shows that very well in itself.
- protomyth 17y ago
  I think it comes down to people / companies are more willing to continue to work with people / companies who had faith in their future.
GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
Apple is making the wrong business decision now. However like adobe they have the right to make that decision. Note: Apple is doing the windows thing: Everyone developed for windows because that was the #1 platform. Then when people complain "oh there are no mac apps" guess why. Now the exact same thing is about the iPhone. The only difference is that Apple at some point decided that Microsoft was not evil enough and one-upped then with the app-approvals and the new TOS.

csomar 17y ago

Adobe at that time could not support the development of an extensive platform for a small user base OS. But right now, there are no reason why limit the options to develop for the iPhone OS.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. As the recent OS4 demo showed Apple has put a lot of work into creating custom features on the iPhone. If developers start using Flash and developing one application for every platform they'll stop using those custom features. If developers stop using those custom features then they make the whole platform less valuable. If that happens then the iPhone no longer holds any advantages over say Google android at which point Apple loses its market share.
- csomar 17y ago
  Not true, as the iPhone gets more popular, Adobe will take care of those custom features. There will be custom features for iPhone, Android or Windows Mobile. It'll make developing for mobile more fun, because you don't have to develop each application alone and use a specific machine/os for each phone.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Do you work for Adobe? If not I don't see how you make the claims that you're making right now. I certainly wouldn't bet my business on those claims. Which is what you're asking Apple to do.
    - halostatue 17y ago
      Or anyone who were to use Flash to create iPhone apps.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    Not true, as the iPhone gets more popular, Adobe will take care of those custom features. Adobe's history of failing to update their products to take advantage of OS X, of Intel processors, of Cocoa, or of the Mac platform entirely seems to give to lie your belief.
    - sorbus 17y ago
      But someone else could have.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      How is that? In 2001/2002, the way to move your code base from Classic to OSX was Carbon, not Cocoa. The switch to Intel was another big porting project. Now, if they want to switch to x64, they will be also forced to switch from Carbon to Cocoa. So in few years, Adobe had to port their codebase several times to meet the OSX moving target. Actually, I'm suriprised they did it at all, considering the lack of transparency on Apple side. If you are asking Adobe to throw away any frameworks used, that were later duplicated by Apple in OSX, and port to Apple provided frameworks, you have no idea how the project of the Creative Suite size is managed and developed. You may port your little OSX-only utility fast, but not CS. Other big projects had similar problems - Microsoft Office? Alias|Wavefront (today Autodesk) Maya? They have similar pain points for the exactly same reason.
      - danudey 17y ago
        The thing is that yes, these were all pretty big porting projects, but they were also things that Adobe would have known about years in advance, and just never bothered to deal with until after it was an issue for most people. When they knew about an upcoming platform change a year or two in advance, and didn't bother to deal with it until a year or two after, I have to assume that they just never cared. That's why Apple doesn't want to deal with Flash - they don't want to rely on a company that doesn't care about Apple or its users, and they don't want to be beholden to Adobe's schedule of 'we'll support that next year when users are hurting for it'. When Apple announced location support in iPhoneOS 2.0, for example, including GPS for the iPhone 3G, would Adobe have had it ready for launch day? From their history, Flash would have waited until the next 'major release'. Flash-based apps would have had a reduced feature set, and the App Store would have been full of applications that couldn't support the latest and greatest features, distracting from applications that properly supported 2.0 from the start.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    "There will be custom features for iPhone, Android or Windows Mobile." Are there examples of this happening consistently in other cross platform development environments? My understanding is that cross platform frameworks cater to a lowest common denominator among platforms, perhaps occasionally supporting a custom feature here and there. Even then, the people developing the app need to spend the necessary effort to take advantage of platform specific features, as opposed to just deploying the identical app to all platforms.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    > you don't have to develop each application alone and use a specific machine/os for each phone. Of course you do, developing with Flash on OS X is infeasible, the performance is laughable and the stability is worse (like the article says, Adobe's been neglecting Flash on OS X since forever). You have to use Windows to get any work done, and that is just as "specific" as having to use OS X.
- jrockway 17y ago
  As a user, I'm not interested in the custom features. In-app buying? No thanks. Interactive ads? No. That stuff is good for Apple (who gets a cut), and the developer (who gets money), but it isn't good for users (who have to be annoyed with requests for their money). So fuck Apple's special features.
  - jstevens85 17y ago
    sigh. So this is the level of maturity we're to expect in the future from news.ycombinator? There are obviously features beyond in-app buying and iAd that differentiate iPhone OS from the rest of the smartphone market.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      So this is the level of maturity we're to expect in the future from news.ycombinator? This is the level of maturity it's always had; as jrockway courteously points out, he's been foaming at the mouth in iPhone-related threads since before you signed up. More importantly, though, I'd recommend you spend some time reading through Clay Shirky's writings on online communities; the "once upon a time it was wonderful, now all the new people are ruining it" myth is pervasive and can be a sign of deep trouble (see, in particular, "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy").
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Foaming at the mouth? I don't think so. I am just reminding people of how Apple harms them. Now, I agree that I comment on way too many Apple-related articles, but since HN has recently become "iPad News" and I haven't found another site to read, I don't really have a choice. I would love it if Apple was never mentioned here again. Who cares what they are up to?
        billswift 17y ago
        I was thinking a couple of days ago that maybe we need a plug-in or something that will ignore anything with Apple, iPhone, or iPad in the title or url.

noamsml 17y ago

> Apple's making the right business decision now and I don't think you can fault them for that. Yes, I can. Restricting developers' rights isn't a valid business decision. That's like saying Highway robbery is a respectable income source.

glhaynes 17y ago
Restricting developers' rights isn't a valid business decision. Why? Developers aren't a constitutionally protected special class.
- shawndumas 17y ago
  legal and smart are two different things...
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  What does the constitution have anything to do with this? Why bring the Canadian Constitution into it? Finally, you have a misunderstanding of a right. It isn't something you need to be given via a law. A right is something you have despite laws. The US Constitution doesn't give you the explicit right to "think whatever you want," but you have it. As for rights, he's referring the right of a developer to use whatever programming language he wishes to developer software on different systems. A closed system prevents a developer from exercising that right. It's even worse when a system establishes itself with certain restrictions and freedoms, and then changes that later on. In fact, it's called Bait and Switch. Apple had certain rules and requirements, and certain people bought into that idea. Now they've changed that. You can argue with they are allowed to, but that doesn't diminish the criticism thrown at them. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something. There are a million examples to demonstrate that. For a long time, a lot of intelligent people were saying that Apple was inching closer and closer toward restricting rights of its users more and more. People disregarded us, and said "Hey, Apple can do this!" While they might be legally able to, this doesn't mean they should. They restrict the content. They restrict how you display that content. They restrict more and more. I have no pity for Apple supporters anymore. And when Apple restricts that thing you hold dear, you'll cry. Or you'll do what others have done: decide what you wanted was wrong, and you shouldn't have wanted it, and Apple was right.

WorkerBee 17y ago

I think the article is unduly harsh but I think it makes a valid point. It's sort of a live by the sword, die by the sword thing. I disagree. To me, assuming that the situation really is as described in this article, Apple's response come across as petty vengeance. Holding grudges. Childish and spiteful. That kind of behaviour is of very limited use in business.

philk 17y ago

The problem is that the article falsely connects the two (as though somehow Apple screwing over Adobe is justice for Adobe screwing over Apple historically) when it's just companies acting in their own self-interest each time.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago

Sorry but this is bullshit. Adobe's decision was right because it could have made them loose tons of money to make a port for a platform which future was uncertain at best. At worst, you can say they were not supportive of a company with which they had a long business history. Apple on the other hand did take a measure that is not only detrimental to Adobe, but to any developpers on the planet working on Iphone/Ipad apps. That it is the right business decision, like you're saying without any justification, is less than clear. The only thing you can say for sure, is that it's gonna fuck up with the competition, and make them a lot of ennemies. You can also predict that this measure is just gonna drive innovation off the iPhone/iPad onto other platforms. This is less than certain, but it is just as much of a possibility. For me we're into "cold hearted common sense business decision" VS. "agressive revenge nebulous business decision that _may_ pay off". The tone of the article shows that very well in itself.

protomyth 17y ago
I think it comes down to people / companies are more willing to continue to work with people / companies who had faith in their future.

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago

Apple is making the wrong business decision now. However like adobe they have the right to make that decision. Note: Apple is doing the windows thing: Everyone developed for windows because that was the #1 platform. Then when people complain "oh there are no mac apps" guess why. Now the exact same thing is about the iPhone. The only difference is that Apple at some point decided that Microsoft was not evil enough and one-upped then with the app-approvals and the new TOS.