Author Topic: Apple Attacks Adobe (Read 17123 times)

Renegade · « **on:** April 13, 2010, 07:53 PM »

Has anyone been paying any attention to the Apple iPhone developer license 3.3.1 issue?

I've already posted a few of my own thoughts at my new blog, Microsoft 2 Apple. (NSFW warning: Contains profanity - no nudity or anything else.)

There's even a Facebook group about it: I'm With Adobe

Any thoughts on it from anyone?

For those not familiar with it already, Apple has restricted all iPhone development to Objective-C, C, and C++ (written/compiled in Xcode) (with some other allowances for HTML5 and JavaScript that have strict limitations). They are torpedoing a whole whack of technologies that people use for iPhone development:

Flash
MonoTouch
Unity3D
Lua
...and others...

The general reaction so far is pretty vicious against Apple.

Novell (makers of MonoTouch) have been very diplomatic saying that they are asking for "clarifications", or in other words, they're looking to see if Apple wants to screw everyone, or just Adobe.

Thoughts?

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2010, 07:59 PM »

i've been following it and just feeling like it's just one more reason not to want to code for apple products.

Eóin · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:06 PM »

Of course if Apple were a monopoly like MS then the EU would probably already be stepping in to prevent this nonsense.

Here's an interesting development. It seems HTML 5 offered enough scope for Google to finally develop a long desired Google Talk app for iPhone, an app which Apple consistently refused to allow into the App Store.

It'll be interesting to see Apples response, my guess is they'll move to disable this application and close the hole they left open.

Ehtyar · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2010, 08:57 PM »

Shouldn't the title for this thread be "Apple Attacks Everyone...Except Apple"? Seems to me the change affects everyone who's not Apple.

Ehtyar.

40hz · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2010, 09:06 PM »

I'm guessing Adobe and Microsoft will ultimately end up filing in federal court against Apple since there's really no compelling technical reason to require all iThingy development to use one toolkit.

What leads me to believe this is Apple's recent "acceptance" of the 'mini' Opera browser into the App Store.

Maybe Apple figures if they relent on some of their more blatant efforts to restrict web and media access on their devices, they can use that in court to argue they're really not trying to restrict trade. (Cuz that would be like illegal, man!)

Once it does go to court however, Apple can expect to see pressure from AT&T, the music & movie industry, cable and TV broadcasters, and the book publishers - all of whom most definitely don't want to wind up being dragged into court behind Apple where they may be asked to justify some of their own monopolistic behaviors.

With ACTA and related legislation on the burner, I'm sure Congress, the Senate, and the EU won't be long in weighing in too.

All in all, it's a situation ripe for speeches and grandstanding. Especially with elections not too far off.

Apple Attacks Adobe

Gonna be fun! Grab some popcorn - and plan on getting there early to watch the fur fly. Hooah!!!!

wraith808 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2010, 10:54 AM »

Has anyone been paying any attention to the Apple iPhone developer license 3.3.1 issue?
-Renegade (April 13, 2010, 07:53 PM)

I hadn't before now... thanks for the heads up.

For those not familiar with it already, Apple has restricted all iPhone development to Objective-C, C, and C++ (written/compiled in Xcode) (with some other allowances for HTML5 and JavaScript that have strict limitations). They are torpedoing a whole whack of technologies that people use for iPhone development:

MonoTouch

The general reaction so far is pretty vicious against Apple.

Novell (makers of MonoTouch) have been very diplomatic saying that they are asking for "clarifications", or in other words, they're looking to see if Apple wants to screw everyone, or just Adobe.

Thoughts?
-Renegade (April 13, 2010, 07:53 PM)

The thing is... I'm a windows developer. But in my house, I have 2 iPhones, and soon an iPod touch... and maybe... horrors... an iPad soon. (Some friends bought it, I played with it, and it's not just BAIT... It's a really good experience!)

One of the big reasons for my buy-in is MonoTouch- I've even been looking at getting a Mac because I was going to dual boot windows 7 and mac's os so I could work on my iPhone. But this... wow. MonoTouch would let me use my C# skills on my apps... but this would take that away.

As Eoin said,

Of course if Apple were a monopoly like MS then the EU would probably already be stepping in to prevent this nonsense.

Which has always been my argument against doing the things to MS that have been done... you don't just kick the big guy, because the little guys are doing the same thing too... and right is right and wrong is wrong. Apple has been a mini MS in their marketing for a while now, and IMO they should be policed in the same manner as MS. In fact, their Market Cap is about to pass MS.. so who is the little guy now?

zridling · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2010, 07:51 PM »

Aren't Apple's "i-devices" virtually a monopoly with regard to marketshare? Surely iPods and iPhones are. How simpler the world would be if open source hardware and software were the law of the land. Instead we get:

- I am Apple.
- I have a gated community, and
- You may not enter!

With the money I saved/never spent on those devices, I just remodeled and renovated my bathroom. Hey, and no monthly fees! Feels good.

The worst part is that Apple gets 30% off the top for every app sold in its App Store and 100% off of free apps. Phuck you, Apple.

Daleus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2010, 09:24 PM »

I'm surprised by Apple's stance - they have a long history of being a "closed shop" and extreme control freaks.

As for Adobe, I've less and less impressed with their products. They are good in conception but more and more Adobe products are becoming bloatware, buggy and when seeking customer service, they have become less and less responsive.

I am happy to see two angry rip each other apart. Perhaps the resulting legal costs will make them both take a step backwards and in doing so allow lessen known and superior products step in the fill the gap.

This is strictly my end-user point of view. I'm not a programmer like a lot of you here, and I'm sure there are good technical arguments on both sides of the fence. But I just can't sympathize with either side in this case.

Cheers!

Darwin · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2010, 10:32 PM »

Ryan - I just read your blog

I've missed you.

My new credo in life is: GSD!

You could be the next Anthony Robbins!

zridling · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2010, 05:19 AM »

I am happy to see two angry rip each other apart. Perhaps the resulting legal costs will make them both take a step backwards and in doing so allow lessen known and superior products step in the fill the gap.
-Daleus (April 14, 2010, 09:24 PM)

Problem is, unless Adobe had a specific agreement with Apple to use/run Flash, Adobe has no case to bring. The courts have long found in favor of closed industries unless they're breaking prior contractual agreements. (I'm no fan of Adobe either, but you get what you deserve when playing with proprietary software and hardware.)

wraith808 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2010, 07:24 AM »

(I'm no fan of Adobe either, but you get what you deserve when playing with proprietary software and hardware.)
-zridling (April 15, 2010, 05:19 AM)

Get what you deserve? That's sort of harsh language... like blaming the victim for being mugged just because they were walking through a bad neighborhood. Some people prefer working with closed systems that just work... do they deserve to be gimped by the product maker whims? It might be legal, but I wouldn't say it's ethical...

f0dder · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2010, 08:49 AM »

(I'm no fan of Adobe either, but you get what you deserve when playing with proprietary software and hardware.)
-zridling (April 15, 2010, 05:19 AM)
Get what you deserve? That's sort of harsh language... like blaming the victim for being mugged just because they were walking through a bad neighborhood. Some people prefer working with closed systems that just work... do they deserve to be gimped by the product maker whims? It might be legal, but I wouldn't say it's ethical...
-wraith808 (April 15, 2010, 07:24 AM)

+1

Gwen7 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2010, 10:17 AM »

i don't think it's so much you get what you deserve with proprietary software and hardware.

It's more like you just get what you get.

It's their clubhouse. Your only real choice is to go elsewhere if you don't want to play by their rules. So be sure to read the EULA and terms of service before you hand anybody your credit card.

The only vote you have is your pocketbook when you're dealing with somebody like Apple or ATT.

zridling · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2010, 04:59 PM »

What Gwen7 said.

Thing is, if you build, sell, and make your money from closed, proprietary software (or hardware), don't be surprised when the tables are turned on you. Your favorite monopoly won't last forever, and as Apple is demonstrating, the industry can shift on a dime when the time is right. With open standards and open source, you sidestep that entire mess. But you're "free" to pay a corporation to rip you off over and over and over and over and over and over -- just like Apple does its own customers. (And they're happy for the beatdown!)

wraith808 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2010, 05:32 PM »

With open standards and open source, you sidestep that entire mess.
-zridling (April 16, 2010, 04:59 PM)

Like with SMF? OSS is not the Holy Grail. It has its ups and downs just like anything else, and when people start making money off of it, all bets are off. You might have the source to one version, but that source isn't necessarily the next version that's put out there.

40hz · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2010, 07:04 AM »

Unless Adobe had a specific agreement with Apple to use/run Flash, Adobe has no case to bring. The courts have long found in favor of closed industries unless they're breaking prior contractual agreements.

That legal argument didn't work too well for Microsoft.

Once you reach a certain mass, the various trade commissions start to view your actions in a different light.

Apple is used to playing the underdog. Now that it's becoming more and more obvious they're not, I think they're going to gain a better appreciation of what Microsoft is going through being current King of the Hill.

zridling · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2010, 08:13 AM »

Here's more in an "open letter" by John Battelle.

Dear Apple:
We miss you. Once upon a time, back before you got real popular, you used to take part in the public square. You may have been less forthcoming than most, but at least your employees would speak at industry events, have unscripted conversations with journalists, and engage in the world a bit here and there. But over the past few years, things seem to have changed. You pulled out of MacWorld and began hosting your own strictly scripted events. You forbid any of your executives from speaking at any public conferences (save one victory lap with Bill Gates a few years ago). Employees blogging, posting to social networks, or offering academic papers for public comment is actively discouraged. In the words of an employee of your one of your former partners: Apple essentially bans “things that we at companies with an open culture take for granted.”

more...

mouser · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2010, 08:40 AM »

i don't know.. that open letter is not so much about apple opening up its products/APIs/etc., it seems more about people wanting press access.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2010, 09:25 AM »

i don't know.. that open letter is not so much about apple opening up its products/APIs/etc., it seems more about people wanting press access.
-mouser (April 18, 2010, 08:40 AM)

I think it's being presented as an Iceberg tip.

TheQwerty · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2010, 10:12 AM »

I've been wondering since all this started if a class action lawsuit from a number of developers who have either:
1) Had their apps approved and then without warning removed from the App Store
2) Had apps approved that make use of the frameworks that are now 'illegal' from section 3.3.1
... would stand up in court.

I'm sure Apple's dev TOS gives them the ability to do all this, and change the rules of the game during the game, but has such an agreement really been tested?

I struggle to understand how any developer is willing to work in Apple's prison (wall-garden is too positive a name) when they show so little respect for developers as a whole and have no problem secretly killing off your business at any time even if you were following their asinine rules.

As an aside, I'm not very familiar with the various options for mobile ads, but perhaps 3.3.1 is also about pushing developers into adopting iAds over AdMob or others?

cmpm · « **Reply #20 on:** April 18, 2010, 10:26 AM »

Seems to me Apple wants to lock out all cross platform software.

It's been the consumers that have kept some because they would not be able to sell Macs without it being able to run some essential Windows type programs.

wraith808 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2010, 09:55 AM »

http://arstechnica.c...tive-code-change.ars

But the changes still don't address the part that I want... MonoTouch! What's the problem with MonoTouch?

Eóin · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2010, 10:26 AM »

I heard about this, I really don't get it to be honest. I mean by allowing some to use non-native code they effectively discredited all there previous excuses for why it wasn't allowed before, but by limiting it's use to only those with written permission they've gone and made themselves more guilty of anti-competitive behavior than ever.

My understanding though is probably limited, perhaps even backwards, but as it's stands I just don't follow how developers think this is a good thing.

40hz · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2010, 12:32 PM »

Looks like it's official. The FTC will be looking at some of Apple's business practices after all.

http://online.wsj.co...301242754089172.html

-----------------
NOTE: I'd like to quote some of the article. But it's published on Murdoch's Wall Street Journal website and I'd rather not risk exposing DC to a possible DMCA take-down notice from those guys.

Because even though I'm sure it would be well within the limits of "fair use," it doesn't really matter. Even a bogus take-down notice is a hassle nobody needs. And WSJ's legal department is getting more and more aggressive as time goes on.

wraith808 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2010, 03:12 PM »

Apple's market cap passes Microsoft's... and now their legal woes do too.

Mo' money, Mo' problems.