
Why Apple did what they did - KevinBongart
http://blog.alexandretestu.com/post/510585558/why-apple-did-what-they-did
======
mrkurt
Why Apple did what they did: to hurt Adobe, to hurt Android.

Why they're not concerned about the collateral damage: because they really
don't care whether small developers have access to the platform or not,
they're more interested in having more AAA titles.

I'm pretty sure everyone who thinks it was arrogant, hostile, and stupid of
them to do such a thing understands _why_ Apple did it. Everyone also
understood _why_ Microsoft spent a great deal of time forcing OEMs to offer
only their software.

~~~
rimantas
I get the point about Adobe, but Android?

~~~
jamesk2
Flash could have made it easy to target iPhone and Android with very similar
code bases.

Now, developing for one, doesn't making porting to the other so simple.

It forces small developers to ask: bigger market or open market?

~~~
binspace
I really hope the open market (Android) wins this. I'm not looking forward to
Steve Job's (similar to Bill Gates') vision of the marketplace.

------
frederickcook
The author hints that apps built on third-party compilers are of lower
quality, without explaining how/why.

This blog is a commentary on the high number of apps in the app store and
Apple's desire to try to maintain quality, with a few opening sentences about
the current TOS changes as link-bait.

~~~
stcredzero
This little flash game has very high production values for artwork, music, and
sound. In fact, I think its quality is on a par with anything Apple ever did.
The interface would be a natural for a touch interface like the iPad.

Little Wheel: <http://www.kongregate.com/games/fastgames/little-wheel>

There are many Flash games of comparable quality. It is a shame that such
excellence will never be allowed on the iPad under the current policy.

 _How to kill off Flash using Market Forces_

If I were Apple, I would develop a toolset to convert flash apps to an iPad
compatible target along with an outreach program to _encourage_ the migration
of such apps to the iPad and the Apple App Store. If HTML5 is not robust
enough, then Apple should develop a target based on Javascript or other
advanced VM, taking care to ensure that a subset of the target is nearly
isomorphic to Flash/Actionscript. This could be done defensibly by drawing on
prior art in programming languages, and a near 1 to 1 correspondence would
make most of the conversion work possible through automated translation. As a
standard, HTML5 is in a better position to be the target, however.

License such an SDK stipulating that the app and its derivative works can only
be published on web sites in a manner which is compatible with Mobile Safari.

The effect of such a program would be to harness a _profit motive_ towards
killing off Flash! Using such a carrot is going to work better than the stick
of legal action. The latter has the side effect of making many developers like
Apple and the App Store less. The former would be an opportunity to reach more
users and make more money.

You can catch more flies using honey than vinegar. You can kill more of them
that way as well.

~~~
sid0
And Little Wheel, good as it is, is nothing compared to the likes of
Machinarium (which is $20 for PC, and worth every penny). Guess what
Machinarium is written in? _Flash_.

~~~
stcredzero
I was also going to mention Machinarium. Like Little Wheel, the game interface
would make for an _ideal_ multitouch game. Solving puzzles involves tapping
and dragging things in your environment.

------
Zak
Apple risks driving away anyone who was considering iPhone development as
their primary source of income; it's pretty risky to put all your eggs in one
basket when the owner of that basket has a habit of spilling a large portion
of its contents.

What I think I'd do if I was Apple is to provide a two-tier app store. Tier 2
apps would be only be checked to see that they're not malicious or
destructively buggy. Tier-1 apps would be strictly reviewed for quality and
performance, and would presented to the user as such. There would be a
submission fee to get an app verified as Tier-1.

------
rbarooah
It would be a better post if you explained how each piece of your advice would
help the situation for apple.

For example - the $100 per year fee means that a lot of the most useless apps
will disappear from the store if their authors don't want to keep paying for
them to exist.

------
ilike
Author's points would have been valid if Apple didnt charge developers for App
approval process.

But there is a developer fee, which obviously go towards approval/rejection of
submitted apps. Apple's existing app approval process is more than enough to
not let in crappy apps.The fee will cover extra cost arising from influx of
new developers.

------
blue1
One thing I do not understand. The graphic design crowd is the biggest force
behind Mac popularity. And "graphic design software" and "Adobe creative
suite" are synonims. So Adobe has the power to inflict huge damage to the OS X
platform if it wants. Isn't Apple even slightly scared of this?

------
naner
When you submit an iPhone app for approval, do Apple techs look at the code?
Because this restriction would make their job much easier.

I wonder if someone submits obfuscated C code, will they reject it?

------
ARR
I would actually like to know if there is a real difference in performance
between the apps compiled from flash and those written in objective-C ?

------
chmike
If it was about quality, why allowing C++ ? Why disabling GC ?

------
binspace
Apple's approval process makes the apps worse because they circumvent the
iteration cycle. Companies cannot change their product to their customers'
wishes without approval from Apple.

Besides, there are other solutions to the quantity/quality problem. For
example, user feedback seems to work very well, and it scales!!!

------
hackermom
Unlike the raging Adobe employee and his blog post we all debated two days
ago, this guy has his head straight on, managing to see farther than his own
nose and managing to keep a perspective covering more than just his own
interests.

~~~
watty
How does he know this? It seems like a MAJOR stretch to me. If they only want
to increase quality of apps why aren't they more strict in the review process?
Why have they allowed 60+ fart apps? To say all Flash/Unity/Appcelerator apps
are of lower quality is silly. There will be low quality and high quality
Flash apps submitted but that's the whole point of the review process.

From Apple's perspective

* (+) Hurts Flash and reduces Adobe CS CS5 sales

* (+) Requires devs to purchase Apple hardware

* (+) Requires devs to develop specifically for iPhone - no ports and no develop once, deploy anywhere

* (+/-) Reduces apps submitted (includes good and bad apps)

* (-) Hurts projects like Unity3D, Appcelerator, etc

* (-) Overall negative press from software developers (my opinion)

You can pick any one of these from above and write an entire blog article. I
think the main reason for this decision is that it will hurt Adobe much more
than it hurts Apple. Who cares if they lose a small number of developers?

