
Adobe, 2008: "It’s entirely Apple’s call about what’s best for the Mac OS" - barredo
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html
======
chc
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.

------
smackfu
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
Not sure how much Steve Jobs has really changed his opinion: iBooks is a
separate install.

~~~
protomyth
This is probably more to do with the likelihood that it won't be available in
all markets.

------
benologist
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.

------
barredo
_"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#>

------
pyre
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

      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
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.

~~~
rimantas

      in a way that invalidates an Adobe product a few days
      before that Adobe product is set to launch.
    

You can look at it this way: Adobe's product would invalidate Apple's product
it is about to launch: iPhone OS 4 (and iPhone experience in general).

I think Jason Snell put it rather well:
[http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2010/04/apple_world.h...](http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2010/04/apple_world.html)

~~~
pyre
> _Adobe's product would invalidate Apple's product it is about to launch:
> iPhone OS 4_

Adobe can't 'invalidate' iPhone OS 4 unless you're claiming that Flash CS5's
Flash-to-iPhone cross-compiler _prevents_ developers from using Apple's own
development environment.

> _(and iPhone experience in general)._

You can't 'invalidate' the iPhone experience. If everything about the iPhone
is so micro-managed by Apple to be perfectly what they want, then explain to
me how 'fart apps' fit into Steve Jobs' grand plan for the iPhone. People
don't need Flash CS5 to create crappy apps for the iPhone. In any case, I
thought that the AppStore approval process was there to keep out crappy apps.
Apple is the gatekeeper for _all_ apps that are allowed in to the walled
garden, so why should they care how the app is created so long as it meets
their standards?

> From your link: _Apple doesn’t want Flash-created apps on the App Store for
> a simple reason: It reduces the iPhone to a lowest-common denominator
> platform, and at that point Apple loses all control over the iPhone OS
> experience._

This is a false statement. Apple has supreme ultimate control over the
iPhoneOS experience. Every application that is allowed to run on the iPhoneOS
has to be approved by Apple through their AppStore approval process.

It's already been proven that 3rd-party developer tools like MonoTouch can
work. 10 of the top 100 apps on the AppStore were built with MonoTouch, and
there are hundreds of other apps approved by Apple that are on the AppStore as
well. The idea that allowing developers to step outside of Apple's ivory tower
of developer tools to use something else is a guarantee of lower quality
products is a joke.

------
radley
(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.

