5 ms·

Adobe, 2008: "It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS"

20 points by barredo 17y ago

barredo 17y ago
"Now let me be very clear about something: It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles. Like any development team, they have finite resources & need to spend them judiciously. They’ve decided that Carbon 64 doesn’t belong on their roadmap, and we respect their decision. It’s up to Adobe to adapt to the new plan." Saw it here http://www.davidkaneda.com/post/518711266/its-up-to-adobe# http://www.davidkaneda.com/post/518711266/its-up-to-adobe#
benologist 17y ago
I don't think it's a fair comparison. While it inconvenienced and cost Adobe and probably others a lot it didn't broadly shut out anyone building on their platform.
smackfu 17y ago
Expecting any company to be consistent is foolish. Steve Jobs, 2008: "It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore."
- swannodette 17y ago
  Not sure how much Steve Jobs has really changed his opinion: iBooks is a separate install.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    This is probably more to do with the likelihood that it won't be available in all markets.
- MichaelGG 17y ago
  "My job title is Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop." Why would you expect the PM of Photoshop, commenting on a completely different scenario, would be consistent with anyone involved with Flash?
pyre 17y ago
The article is talking about Apple choosing not to devote development time to porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit. It's completely different from the terms of service change. Porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit takes time, effort and money. Apple probably didn't feel there would be enough of a ROI. Changing the legal wording of a document to kill off specific types of third-party developer tools is a completely different beast. Also, there's a difference between being controlling about your platform, and invalidating another company's business plans days before launch. The fact that Apple changed their terms of service without notice to Adobe (or others) right before the planned release of Flash CS5 is a total dick move. At the very least, Apple could have told Adobe that they plan to block them if they go forward with their Flash-to-iPhoneOS plans, but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and money into the development of the product only to rush in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that."
- rimantas 17y ago
  but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and money into the development of the product only to rush in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that." Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple? Does Apple owe something to Adobe? So now if I own a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are going to do something, they should approach me and discuss it.
  - pyre 17y ago
    I didn't say that Apple is required to notify Adobe. I said that it was a 'dick move.' I find it highly unlikely that Apple would just happen to change the TOS right in a way that invalidates an Adobe product a few days before that Adobe product is set to launch. I'm not claiming that Apple needs to ask everyone on their platform for permission to change the TOS, but it seems to me that Apple planned this in some way to 'stick it to Adobe.' > Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple? No, there is no requirement that people discuss their business plans with Apple before targeting their platform. Is everyone that creates products targeting the iPhone/iPad platform supposed to ask Apple permission before even starting? I'm curious for you to try and defend this position, especially with the AppStore approval process already in place. Also take into account that this move seems to block Unity3D. Keep in mind that Unity3D won an Apple Design Award given to them by Apple themselves. I would take that as a tip of the hat by Apple to the creation of 3rd-party developer tools for the creation of iPhone/iPad apps. > So now if I own a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are going to do something, they should approach me and discuss it. So, when I want to develop a piece of software for MS Windows, I should be required to ask Microsoft permission? The point in my original post was that I'm fairly sure that Apple knew about Adobe's product and purposefully timed their change to the TOS to the maximum amount of damage. If Apple knows that Adobe is developing a product that they will do everything in their power to block, why not be civilized about it and tell Adobe outright that they will not let that product into their platform? The only way that you can frame this as "Adobe should have fallen before the throne of Apple and begged for permission," is if you think that creating a tool to aid in the development if iPhone/iPad apps is something that Apple will try to block. I think that it was a reasonable assumption to think that Apple would not try to block such things.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
chc 17y ago
This isn't applicable to the current situation. What Apple did with Carbon, though it was inconvenient for Adobe, didn't artificially limit Adobe. Apple simply didn't build in support for something that Adobe was hoping for. It's the difference between refusing to lend a friend your last $20 for a cab because you need it and putting a gun to his head and ordering him to march. Nack said, "It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles." Conversely, it should be entirely OUR call what's best for OUR software and how to spend OUR engineering cycles, and this is what Apple opposes. Even if we can find a way to make something work, Apple will still stop us.
radley 17y ago
(karma farming) same article: "If it bleeds, it leads," however, and writers looking to drive ad impressions will try to fabricate a grudge match. Please don't let them.

20 points by barredo 17y ago

"Now let me be very clear about something: It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles. Like any development team, they have finite resources & need to spend them judiciously. They’ve decided that Carbon 64 doesn’t belong on their roadmap, and we respect their decision. It’s up to Adobe to adapt to the new plan." Saw it here http://www.davidkaneda.com/post/518711266/its-up-to-adobe# http://www.davidkaneda.com/post/518711266/its-up-to-adobe#

benologist 17y ago

I don't think it's a fair comparison. While it inconvenienced and cost Adobe and probably others a lot it didn't broadly shut out anyone building on their platform.

smackfu 17y ago

Expecting any company to be consistent is foolish. Steve Jobs, 2008: "It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore."

swannodette 17y ago
Not sure how much Steve Jobs has really changed his opinion: iBooks is a separate install.
- protomyth 17y ago
  This is probably more to do with the likelihood that it won't be available in all markets.
MichaelGG 17y ago
"My job title is Principal Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop." Why would you expect the PM of Photoshop, commenting on a completely different scenario, would be consistent with anyone involved with Flash?

pyre 17y ago

The article is talking about Apple choosing not to devote development time to porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit. It's completely different from the terms of service change. Porting the Carbon APIs to 64-bit takes time, effort and money. Apple probably didn't feel there would be enough of a ROI. Changing the legal wording of a document to kill off specific types of third-party developer tools is a completely different beast. Also, there's a difference between being controlling about your platform, and invalidating another company's business plans days before launch. The fact that Apple changed their terms of service without notice to Adobe (or others) right before the planned release of Flash CS5 is a total dick move. At the very least, Apple could have told Adobe that they plan to block them if they go forward with their Flash-to-iPhoneOS plans, but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and money into the development of the product only to rush in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that."

rimantas 17y ago
but instead Apple decided to let Adobe invest time and money into the development of the product only to rush in at the last minute and say, "sorry, you can't do that." Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple? Does Apple owe something to Adobe? So now if I own a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are going to do something, they should approach me and discuss it.
- pyre 17y ago
  I didn't say that Apple is required to notify Adobe. I said that it was a 'dick move.' I find it highly unlikely that Apple would just happen to change the TOS right in a way that invalidates an Adobe product a few days before that Adobe product is set to launch. I'm not claiming that Apple needs to ask everyone on their platform for permission to change the TOS, but it seems to me that Apple planned this in some way to 'stick it to Adobe.' > Uhm, did Adobe even ask Apple about its plans before starting to working on the product? Did they discussed "business plans" with Apple? No, there is no requirement that people discuss their business plans with Apple before targeting their platform. Is everyone that creates products targeting the iPhone/iPad platform supposed to ask Apple permission before even starting? I'm curious for you to try and defend this position, especially with the AppStore approval process already in place. Also take into account that this move seems to block Unity3D. Keep in mind that Unity3D won an Apple Design Award given to them by Apple themselves. I would take that as a tip of the hat by Apple to the creation of 3rd-party developer tools for the creation of iPhone/iPad apps. > So now if I own a platform and have plans for it, should I go around asking all the guys "hey do you plan to do something on my platform"? If they are going to do something, they should approach me and discuss it. So, when I want to develop a piece of software for MS Windows, I should be required to ask Microsoft permission? The point in my original post was that I'm fairly sure that Apple knew about Adobe's product and purposefully timed their change to the TOS to the maximum amount of damage. If Apple knows that Adobe is developing a product that they will do everything in their power to block, why not be civilized about it and tell Adobe outright that they will not let that product into their platform? The only way that you can frame this as "Adobe should have fallen before the throne of Apple and begged for permission," is if you think that creating a tool to aid in the development if iPhone/iPad apps is something that Apple will try to block. I think that it was a reasonable assumption to think that Apple would not try to block such things.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

chc 17y ago

This isn't applicable to the current situation. What Apple did with Carbon, though it was inconvenient for Adobe, didn't artificially limit Adobe. Apple simply didn't build in support for something that Adobe was hoping for. It's the difference between refusing to lend a friend your last $20 for a cab because you need it and putting a gun to his head and ordering him to march. Nack said, "It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS and how to spend their engineering cycles." Conversely, it should be entirely OUR call what's best for OUR software and how to spend OUR engineering cycles, and this is what Apple opposes. Even if we can find a way to make something work, Apple will still stop us.

radley 17y ago

(karma farming) same article: "If it bleeds, it leads," however, and writers looking to drive ad impressions will try to fabricate a grudge match. Please don't let them.