

Jobs makes a valid point: intermediate layers hinder progress of the platform - stevenwei
http://www.stevenwei.com/2010/04/11/jobs-makes-a-valid-point-intermediate-layers-hinder-the-progress-of-the-platform/

======
vannevar
The crux of the article is this quote:

"Vendors with slow release cycles (I’m looking at you Adobe) end up creating
an additional delay before developers on their platform can take advantage of
the latest and greatest features from Apple. This is no good if Apple wants to
be on the cutting edge."

The author makes the common mistake of assuming a static market, in which
developers on the intermediary platform are permanently fixed to that
platform. In a fluid app market, what is the likelihood that those
intermediary developers will stay loyal to their platform while developers on
Apple's platform eat their lunch?

Even if Apple didn't have a vendetta against Adobe, they would have a strong
interest in preventing a flood of ported apps that, regardless of the quality,
they simply aren't equipped to deal with given the current App Store workflow.

~~~
stevenwei
"The author makes the common mistake of assuming a static market, in which
developers on the intermediary platform are permanently fixed to that
platform. In a fluid app market, what is the likelihood that those
intermediary developers will stay loyal to their platform while developers on
Apple's platform eat their lunch?"

I would say it's pretty high, because if they wanted to learn Objective-C and
get on the iPhone platform, they already could have. The exact reason so many
Flash developers are pissed about this is because they want to use their
existing skillsets on the iPhone platform, but _can't_.

------
joecode
Job's point may be correct, but it is fairly obvious to even a casual observer
this is not the real motivation for Apple's actions. From the get-go, Apple
has done whatever it can to prevent Flash from getting on the iPhone. The
purpose, of course, is to keep development and apps locked into that platform,
giving Apple a major competitive advantage.

I don't see much use in all this over-analytical second guessing.

~~~
cmeranda
I think the reason there has been so much analysis is that not having Flash on
the iPhone affects the end user dramatically, and Apple is all about user
experience. If Apple wanted to "keep development and apps locked in that
platform", they could do so with their app store and still show Flash content
on the browser, in theory, to keep the end user happy. The meta-argument here
is twofold, really: 1) Does Apple have the "right", as a business, to ban
cross-compilers, which can be very efficient for developers and not necessary
lower coding standards, and 2) Does this represent a reckoning for Flash,
which has always been CPU-intensive at its own peril, when the GPU was the
proper place for its vector calculations, and will Flash/Adobe lose
marketshare and CS5 purchases as a result?

------
mooism2
Even so, there's a difference between disallowing frameworks and disallowing
bindings to other languages. Bindings are relatively simple to keep up to
date.

I find it difficult to believe Apple would add a language feature to
C/Objective-C/C++ that wouldn't essentially already exist in
Java/Python/Haskell/etc. Not because Apple wouldn't be willing to do it, but
because there aren't any game-changing language features waiting to be
incorporated into modern programming languages. Blocks already exist in most
languages as (more powerful) closures.

~~~
cmeranda
Bindings in themselves might be relatively simple to keep up to date, but
binding documentation, error handling, etc, are not. Take a look at the Python
bindings for Clutter (C graphics library w/Linux roots). Clutter is sponsored
by Intel and well-maintained, and yet the Python bindings are several versions
behind and the documentation is a mess. In a consistently evolving language
and/or framework, every linkage creates delays.

------
jerf
This argument only really flies in my mind if you implicitly accept that Apple
is the Font of All Features, and there are No Features but Apple's. If I have
an iPhone problem best solved by Erlang, I'm going to be twiddling my fingers
for a very long time; there's nothing like it when you need it, and it will be
a very long time before they offer anything remotely resembling it if we have
to wait for an Apple-Blessed version of the features. (Remember, Erlang is way
more than just "green threads", there's a lot of library support, cross-
process communication, OTP, etc. Nothing I know truly matches it, few things
(but not zero) come close.)

After all, the entire reason that someone wants to use these other languages
or frameworks is that they offer features Apple doesn't.

It's still naked self-interest by Apple at the expense of its developers.
Which they are welcome to. Frankly, if you knew the history of Apple the
company you shouldn't be surprised when they choose to do something in their
interest at your active expense; they have a _long_ history of this.

