3 ms·

Yeah, I'm saying that from what I'm reading they must have intentionally been looking to create a completely native app that is worse than the Flash-compiled on

Yeah, I'm saying that from what I'm reading they must have intentionally been looking to create a completely native app that is worse than the Flash-compiled one. That or the descriptions of the app are somewhat overcritical.

kevinelliott 16y ago
To entertain your reasoning: Adobe certainly could have intentionally created a "sucky native app" to contrast their "awesome Adobe iPhone OS compiler" but they mostly left out features and released a bloated (size) app. If they truly made a native app with HTML-based text and image optimization, or use their compiler, they could have equally reduced the size of this app and increased the functionality beyond what they have done here. Thus, the current implementation does NOT do a good job of proving that their compiler could have been better than a native Objective-C app. Even so, if Adobe did want to throw a laughing cog at Apple via their clients, they're doing Wired a disservice, and frankly, that's terribly insane. They just couldn't throw a high profile partner/client under the bridge just to amuse some tantric executive war between Adobe and Apple. Lastly, although hard to believe a company fairly technology agnostic as Wired would use their financial line (their money making product) as a way to experiment with dissing a technology giant, let's pretend Wired and Adobe both wanted to stick it to Apple for the 3.1.3 clause. They would be simply shooting themselves in the foot, as their customer is who really loses out here, not Apple. It just make any sense at all, although I will give you that it's a romantic idea. More likely, they rushed a replacement implementation, since they couldn't use Adobe's compiler. Conde Naste clearly upholds Wired to the same deadlines as their other high end properties, and want to see a ROI for all the R&D they've had, perhaps. Becausethis certainly looks like a rushed implementation, or at a minimum, one done by amateurs.

kevinelliott 16y ago

To entertain your reasoning: Adobe certainly could have intentionally created a "sucky native app" to contrast their "awesome Adobe iPhone OS compiler" but they mostly left out features and released a bloated (size) app. If they truly made a native app with HTML-based text and image optimization, or use their compiler, they could have equally reduced the size of this app and increased the functionality beyond what they have done here. Thus, the current implementation does NOT do a good job of proving that their compiler could have been better than a native Objective-C app. Even so, if Adobe did want to throw a laughing cog at Apple via their clients, they're doing Wired a disservice, and frankly, that's terribly insane. They just couldn't throw a high profile partner/client under the bridge just to amuse some tantric executive war between Adobe and Apple. Lastly, although hard to believe a company fairly technology agnostic as Wired would use their financial line (their money making product) as a way to experiment with dissing a technology giant, let's pretend Wired and Adobe both wanted to stick it to Apple for the 3.1.3 clause. They would be simply shooting themselves in the foot, as their customer is who really loses out here, not Apple. It just make any sense at all, although I will give you that it's a romantic idea. More likely, they rushed a replacement implementation, since they couldn't use Adobe's compiler. Conde Naste clearly upholds Wired to the same deadlines as their other high end properties, and want to see a ROI for all the R&D they've had, perhaps. Becausethis certainly looks like a rushed implementation, or at a minimum, one done by amateurs.