5 ms·

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

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.

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.