Steve Jobs has another mood swing

[d000hg]

If it was demonstrated Adobe's tool generated buggy code that caused problems then fair enough. But it wasn't released yet so I don't think comments about Flash being buggy has any relevance.

[VectraMan]

Wasn't the Adobe thing that was blocked a tool to emit Apple code from Flash - not something to run Flash or any other Adobe product on the iPhone? Blocking flash has some sort of logic - although letting users have the choice would be more sensible - but what about their code-generating tool? Maybe you can say it suffers similar quality problems (though since they dropped it pre-release IIRC how can you be sure) but on that basis I'm sure it's better than the code written for many apps in native Obj-C++ by useless developers.

Indeed. The Appstore people ensure a certain quality of product by judging the end results, which isn't unreasonable. Whilst it's quite possible to write bad software using the Flash packager thingy, it's also quite possible to write good software that's as good as anything done in Objective C. Conversely, it's quite possible to write tulipe in Objective C. It made no sense to block apps based on what the developer might have used if you're vetting the end results.

Adobe announced their iApp packager many months before the rules were changed, and Apple said nothing. Then with a couple of days to go before release, they came up with new restrictions. That's not a policy based on technical issues, that's being vindictive, that's being spiteful. I wonder to what extent this climb down is the Apple board overrulling Jobs. Maybe they feel the amount of negative publicity that he's generated, not to mention putting them at increased risk of anti-trust action, is not what's in the best interests of Apple.

[d000hg]

I don't blame Jobs for having a snit about Adobe, and the reasons he gave at the time were pretty sound and based on the principles underpinning much of the strategy for the App Store. The problem was the hypocrisy: Apple kept quiet about other frameworks, whether they translated stuff into Objective C source code and then compiled it, or not. The one about apps incorporating interpreters was also dodgy, given that many games rely on Lua.

(Aside: I kind of wish we'd had luxuries like that when I was writing games in the Eighties, but on reflection I'm glad we didn't: you can't beat spending a whole day wringing another twelve bytes out of an Amiga by finding a different way of implementing a carefully-selected subroutine with the additional constraint that it mustn't use any more clock cycles than its previous version.)

I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that Adobe has just finished dispersing to other teams or even laying off the employees that were responsible for their iPhone development thingy and, having found that out, Jobs has now allowed more sensible terms into the licensing agreement on the basis that it would cost Adobe too much effort to start the whole pseudo-Flash thing up again. It's a lot harder and more expensive to build or rebuild a team than it is to break it up.

Perhaps if Adobe showed any evidence of giving a tulip about the quality of their products they might have got a hearing. As long as they insist on shipping bug-ridden garbage, I doubt Jobs will be interested in letting them be part of the future that he envisions.

Even if Apple allowed Flash on iThings, I wouldn't let it be installed on mine. Flash as a concept doesn't suck per se but Adobe seems not to have the competence to implement a stable version on any platform other than Windows. Windows is the past. I don't want Adobe's shoddy products crashing my stuff. They should learn what "QA" means.

Wasn't the Adobe thing that was blocked a tool to emit Apple code from Flash - not something to run Flash or any other Adobe product on the iPhone? Blocking flash has some sort of logic - although letting users have the choice would be more sensible - but what about their code-generating tool? Maybe you can say it suffers similar quality problems (though since they dropped it pre-release IIRC how can you be sure) but on that basis I'm sure it's better than the code written for many apps in native Obj-C++ by useless developers.

[doodab]

Is it me or do others see a lack of enthusiasm about 64-bit capability there? Or even clutching at straws in their defence of not having it?

Nope, I see them saying they are working on a native 64 bit version, and pointing out that there isn't much point in creating a 64 bit plugin version specifically for IE 64 bit when that isn't even the default browser on 64 bit windows. IIRC the situation is similar for quicktime as well, so it's hardly an attitude unique to adobe.

[Sysman]

Perhaps if Adobe showed any evidence of giving a tulip about the quality of their products they might have got a hearing. As long as they insist on shipping bug-ridden garbage, I doubt Jobs will be interested in letting them be part of the future that he envisions.

Even if Apple allowed Flash on iThings, I wouldn't let it be installed on mine. Flash as a concept doesn't suck per se but Adobe seems not to have the competence to implement a stable version on any platform other than Windows. Windows is the past. I don't want Adobe's shoddy products crashing my stuff. They should learn what "QA" means.

Having a 64 bit Windows PC at work I looked at Adobe's take on 64-bit systems

Why doesn't Flash Player come in a 64-bit version?

64-bit software is coded differently from 32-bit software. Generally, programs built on and integrated with other software must have the same architecture (e.g., 32-bit or 64-bit). In many cases, a compatibility layer allows 32-bit software to run on 64-bit operating systems. For example, most browsers on Windows are 32-bit (such as Internet Explorer 32-bit, Firefox, and Chrome), and they run well on 64-bit Windows with Flash Player today. Accordingly, Flash Player currently runs well on Windows 7 64-bit using any of these 32-bit browsers. Similarly, 64-bit browsers like Safari on Mac OS Snow Leopard run Flash Player using a transparent compatibility layer.

Will Flash Player come in a 64-bit version soon?

We are actively working on the release of a native 64-bit Flash Player for the desktop, and we will provide native support for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux 64-bit platforms in an upcoming major release of Flash Player.

Is it me or do others see a lack of enthusiasm about 64-bit capability there? Or even clutching at straws in their defence of not having it?

A pertinent feedback comment there:

notagain123 July 20, 2010

I have removed all programs that use flash from my website.
I cannot risk that somebody using a 64bit browser will visit my site and not realise that flash does not work.

They will miss everything that I am trying to show without realising it, so I have had to go to a photo slider that shows photo's without flash.

Incidentally, the latest version of Flash on my ancient iBook running Tiger tells me I need to upgrade it, yet it works OK in Opera . On the Windows 7 side I was also chucked off by Adobe's inclusion of McAfee Security Scan Plus by default.

None of this inspires confidence in Adobe, and on this occasion I will back Jobs.

[xoggoth]

Not got your expertise but that comment on Adobe looks about right to me. Always hated their stuff.

[NickFitz]

I don't blame Jobs for having a snit about Adobe, and the reasons he gave at the time were pretty sound and based on the principles underpinning much of the strategy for the App Store. The problem was the hypocrisy: Apple kept quiet about other frameworks, whether they translated stuff into Objective C source code and then compiled it, or not. The one about apps incorporating interpreters was also dodgy, given that many games rely on Lua.

(Aside: I kind of wish we'd had luxuries like that when I was writing games in the Eighties, but on reflection I'm glad we didn't: you can't beat spending a whole day wringing another twelve bytes out of an Amiga by finding a different way of implementing a carefully-selected subroutine with the additional constraint that it mustn't use any more clock cycles than its previous version.)

I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that Adobe has just finished dispersing to other teams or even laying off the employees that were responsible for their iPhone development thingy and, having found that out, Jobs has now allowed more sensible terms into the licensing agreement on the basis that it would cost Adobe too much effort to start the whole pseudo-Flash thing up again. It's a lot harder and more expensive to build or rebuild a team than it is to break it up.

Perhaps if Adobe showed any evidence of giving a tulip about the quality of their products they might have got a hearing. As long as they insist on shipping bug-ridden garbage, I doubt Jobs will be interested in letting them be part of the future that he envisions.

Even if Apple allowed Flash on iThings, I wouldn't let it be installed on mine. Flash as a concept doesn't suck per se but Adobe seems not to have the competence to implement a stable version on any platform other than Windows. Windows is the past. I don't want Adobe's shoddy products crashing my stuff. They should learn what "QA" means.

[Durbs]

So i could've used MonoTouch after all! Ah well, its been fun learning Obj-C. Sob, sniff, etc.

[VectraMan]

I'm sure half the reason is the increasing popularity of Android, which is in itself a reaction to Apple's "evil empire" business practices. That and the rumours of an anti-trust investigation.

[xoggoth]

Saw this in an email from Appcelerator. Typical the barsteward does it just as my Android app is in final testing.

[VectraMan]

Statement by Apple on App Store Review Guidelines

In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code. This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need.

That would appear to let Adobe Flash's iPhone App packager back in.