6 ms·

Adobe abandons iPhone code tools

23 points by blahedo 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tvon 17y ago
Nothing new here if you've read any of the other posts covering the story.
Qz 17y ago
Apple responded in a statement to technology news site CNet in which it described Flash as "closed and proprietary". Apple preferred to support more open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement. So heaped in hypocrisy that they can't even see it -- this is getting ridiculous.
- tvon 17y ago
  Who, Adobe? edit: call me when Adobe makes Flash an open spec that they do not control. The outrage over Flash is really starting to make me laugh. Adobe reaps what Adobe sows and they know it.
  - JeremyBanks 17y ago
    By criticizing Apple people aren't necessarily defending Adobe. This isn't a dichotomy, they can both be in the wrong.
    - tvon 17y ago
      Yeah I may have flown off the handle a bit on that one...
- tptacek 17y ago
  Can you be more specific about the hypocrisy you're seeing here? Apple is closed and proprietary for native applications. Flash is closed and proprietary for web applications. From my vantage point, whether or not you approve of Apple's restrictions on native app development (like most, I don't), their refusal to allow Flash on the platform is good for the Internet; it's driving companies towards HTML5.
  - statictype 17y ago
    Refusal to support Flash is good for the internet but its still hypocritical of Apple to talk about preferring to support more open standards. Perhaps qualifying it with "preferring to support more open standards on things we can't control anyway" or (less snarky) "preferring to support open standards on web-based apps" might have worked better.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The actual statement was: "Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," -- http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003006-264.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003006-264.html
  - Qz 17y ago
    Apple isn't interested in 'what's good for the internet' (and neither is Adobe). Closed and proprietary for X is still closed and proprietary, regardless of what you slot in for X. The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases, and frankly not uncommon in this sort of corporate competition. What I found funny was the sheer boldness of the statement. Basically what each is saying (and doing) is: "We support open standards for whatever isn't under our direct control (because if it was we would close it)." Substitute 'free markets' for 'open standards' and you have a pretty good description of what happens in the world economy on a larger scale.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases It isn't. That's why you were asked to clarify, which you haven't done. I'm even more uncertain of what you mean by all of this. It sounds like you think any company that uses both closed and open technology is hypocritical, but that's painting with such an incredibly broad brush that I find it hard to believe that that is what you really mean.
      - Qz 17y ago
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
schwit 17y ago
Good.Adobe should have in its flash licensing a prohibition against having tools that convert to video formats viewable on an iphone.
elblanco 17y ago
This is actually really bad for Apple. For people that don't know what this is all about, but know who Adobe and Apple are (my parents), it may appear that the iPhone is becoming a failing platform and Adobe is jumping ship (actual conversation I just had about this).
- catch23 17y ago
  Doubtful -- those who don't know the underlying reasons will still look at one thing: their stock price / market cap. Adobe has an unstable stock price over 2yrs with a 20bn market cap and Apple has a hockey stick stock price over 2yrs with a 250bn market cap.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I did not realize that my parents were stock investors, who look up Price:Cap ratios when deciding what phone to buy. Not to be snarky, but most people don't care about a company's stock value or market cap. They tend to care about less meaningful things like "is it popular?", "is it pretty?", "is it easy to use?", "is it affordable?"...if they are particularly shrewed "what's the return/replacement policy?" and/or "can I get this on sale?". Not everybody in the world cares about the latest tech news or stock market reports. In fact, most people don't care about those things. They heard about Adobe and Apple, and they know vaguely that Adobe makes things that allow people to make things that work on computers, and that Apple makes computers and iPods and iPhones (they don't yet know about the iPad). In their minds, their question was "if a company that makes things that allow people to make things for computers isn't going to make those things for Apple, it must really be a powerful signal that Apple isn't worth Adobe's time. Should I get an Android for my next phone?" I filled them in on the details, and Apple's rationality for causing the issue, but not every person has somebody who can lay it out for them because honestly, most people don't care enough. If I hadn't done that, their next phone would not have been an iPhone.
Tycho 17y ago
Was this part of Apple's game plan all along - to turn Android into a Flash ghetto?

23 points by blahedo 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

tvon 17y ago

Nothing new here if you've read any of the other posts covering the story.

Qz 17y ago

Apple responded in a statement to technology news site CNet in which it described Flash as "closed and proprietary". Apple preferred to support more open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement. So heaped in hypocrisy that they can't even see it -- this is getting ridiculous.

tvon 17y ago
Who, Adobe? edit: call me when Adobe makes Flash an open spec that they do not control. The outrage over Flash is really starting to make me laugh. Adobe reaps what Adobe sows and they know it.
- JeremyBanks 17y ago
  By criticizing Apple people aren't necessarily defending Adobe. This isn't a dichotomy, they can both be in the wrong.
  - tvon 17y ago
    Yeah I may have flown off the handle a bit on that one...
tptacek 17y ago
Can you be more specific about the hypocrisy you're seeing here? Apple is closed and proprietary for native applications. Flash is closed and proprietary for web applications. From my vantage point, whether or not you approve of Apple's restrictions on native app development (like most, I don't), their refusal to allow Flash on the platform is good for the Internet; it's driving companies towards HTML5.
- statictype 17y ago
  Refusal to support Flash is good for the internet but its still hypocritical of Apple to talk about preferring to support more open standards. Perhaps qualifying it with "preferring to support more open standards on things we can't control anyway" or (less snarky) "preferring to support open standards on web-based apps" might have worked better.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The actual statement was: "Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," -- http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003006-264.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003006-264.html
- Qz 17y ago
  Apple isn't interested in 'what's good for the internet' (and neither is Adobe). Closed and proprietary for X is still closed and proprietary, regardless of what you slot in for X. The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases, and frankly not uncommon in this sort of corporate competition. What I found funny was the sheer boldness of the statement. Basically what each is saying (and doing) is: "We support open standards for whatever isn't under our direct control (because if it was we would close it)." Substitute 'free markets' for 'open standards' and you have a pretty good description of what happens in the world economy on a larger scale.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases It isn't. That's why you were asked to clarify, which you haven't done. I'm even more uncertain of what you mean by all of this. It sounds like you think any company that uses both closed and open technology is hypocritical, but that's painting with such an incredibly broad brush that I find it hard to believe that that is what you really mean.
    - Qz 17y ago
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

schwit 17y ago

Good.Adobe should have in its flash licensing a prohibition against having tools that convert to video formats viewable on an iphone.

elblanco 17y ago

This is actually really bad for Apple. For people that don't know what this is all about, but know who Adobe and Apple are (my parents), it may appear that the iPhone is becoming a failing platform and Adobe is jumping ship (actual conversation I just had about this).

catch23 17y ago
Doubtful -- those who don't know the underlying reasons will still look at one thing: their stock price / market cap. Adobe has an unstable stock price over 2yrs with a 20bn market cap and Apple has a hockey stick stock price over 2yrs with a 250bn market cap.
- elblanco 17y ago
  I did not realize that my parents were stock investors, who look up Price:Cap ratios when deciding what phone to buy. Not to be snarky, but most people don't care about a company's stock value or market cap. They tend to care about less meaningful things like "is it popular?", "is it pretty?", "is it easy to use?", "is it affordable?"...if they are particularly shrewed "what's the return/replacement policy?" and/or "can I get this on sale?". Not everybody in the world cares about the latest tech news or stock market reports. In fact, most people don't care about those things. They heard about Adobe and Apple, and they know vaguely that Adobe makes things that allow people to make things that work on computers, and that Apple makes computers and iPods and iPhones (they don't yet know about the iPad). In their minds, their question was "if a company that makes things that allow people to make things for computers isn't going to make those things for Apple, it must really be a powerful signal that Apple isn't worth Adobe's time. Should I get an Android for my next phone?" I filled them in on the details, and Apple's rationality for causing the issue, but not every person has somebody who can lay it out for them because honestly, most people don't care enough. If I hadn't done that, their next phone would not have been an iPhone.

Tycho 17y ago

Was this part of Apple's game plan all along - to turn Android into a Flash ghetto?