

Adobe on Iphone: Will Apple allow it? - jeremychone
http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-apple-allow-it/

======
rubymaverick
Had to stop reading at this:

"Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the
software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies like Microsoft and Adobe
look like nonprofit open source organizations in comparison"

<http://opensource.apple.com/>

~~~
jeremychone
Are you really falling for this marketing scam? Every company does open source
or have something prefixed with "open" nowadays.

Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and
hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore
market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where
they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute.

I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore
system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft,
Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world
where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more
Skype.

~~~
tjogin
They're really not that different if you look at a wider perspective than just
mobile phones. Microsoft's Xbox is as closed a system, if not even more so.
Not so coincidentally, their Xbox is also far more robust and less bug prone
than their PC counterpart. That's the nature of closed systems.

Apple are not interested in doing anything lackluster — from _their_
perspective and according to _their_ priorities, that is. It's just not in
their nature to compromise with quality, hence you get a bunch of other
compromises instead, all of which are well-known.

~~~
jeremychone
Not exactly. The console market was already closed.

The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the
way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices
as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service
providers wanted to charge for everything.

And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that
we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what
application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should
have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a
gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry.
But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget
that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.

~~~
tjogin
Do you seriously think that "cute bouncing pixels" is what made the iPhone the
fastest selling piece of consumer electronic of all time? No, of course not!
That's just silly.

Clearly, the iPhone has a number of very attractive attributes, as is evident
not only from the fact that it's selling _unprecedentedly_ well, but also from
the fact that it's changed the direction of the entire industry.

Apple made a number of choices with the iPhone, and certainly they can't be
all that bad, given the phenomenal success they've had. Even if you just limit
the argument to the AppStore, the fact that they've also had _unprecedented_
success in bringing developers on board should give you a hint or two that
it's not as one-sided as you make it out to be.

Before you can bring anything constructive to a discussion on this subject,
you really need to stop lying to yourself. Take a sober look at the choices
Apple has made, and realize that each of them has both advantages and
disadvantages.

~~~
jeremychone
Ok, not only "cute bouncing pixels." I think that 3 things made Apple the kind
of the smart phone market:

1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore
though).

2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the
PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market
players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold
and smart).

3) Steve Jobs genius.

Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary
way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living
proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology
based markets.

So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for
years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad
precedence to the software industry.

I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows
application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish
a mobile application.

I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not
required.

~~~
tjogin
> I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not
> required.

I agree completely. My hope is that AppStore will become optional, rather than
the exclusive way to get apps on the iPhone.

But I do think it was a wise decision to _start out_ with the AppStore as the
one exclusive way to get on it, and judging from their phenomenal success in
both sales and attracting developers, it was probably a smart choice.

Lest not forget, the AppStore makes it extraordinarily easy to buy and
download apps. Only by making it the _exclusive_ way to get apps on the iPhone
were they able to make sure that users found the experience of buying and
downloading apps so effortless that it makes impulse purchases super simple.
And, safe! iPhone users do not worry about anything on the AppStore containing
viruses or malware.

Now, as what they refer to as a "power user", I'd like to be able to just
download any app from anywhere and take my chances. But I understand that
Apple has to take more than just _my_ preferences into consideration. I
believe it is actually _not_ in their best interest to do that — even though
it would suit _me_ better. If I were Apple, I'd keep the AppStore the
exclusive way to get apps on the AppStore. I'd work on continuously improving
the experience and interaction with developers, of course, but I'd keep it a
walled garden, approval process and all.

Pleasing power users such as you and me simply doesn't make sense in the big
picture, because it would fracture the developer community. Some apps would be
on the app store, some on the web. Users would feel safer getting apps from
the AppStore, but as recommendations come from friends using apps from the
web, soon enough you'd have regular users downloading apps from the web too.
And following that you'd have viruses and malware. While users could still
just stick to downloading from the AppStore if they wanted to be safe, Apple
would still have to deal with malicious apps, problems and trust issues. This,
they just don't need, and pleasing the relatively few power users just doesn't
make any sense, considering the sacrifice.

Though _I'd_ be just fine with it, I understand very well why Apple does not
prioritize _my_ needs in this.

~~~
jeremychone
I am going to stop arguing against Apple, I am loosing all my karma ;)

~~~
tjogin
I don't think its about arguing against Apple, I sure as hell don't feel I'm
arguing _for_ Apple. Just allow yourself to see that there are many many
aspects to this, it's not as simple as you made it out to be (and it's not
just about _your_ preferences, it's about balancing everybody's). If you write
fawning fanboy posts you'll be voted down just the same.

~~~
jeremychone
Again, I give lot of credits to Apple, but having the Device/OS provider
exclusively owning what can get distributed or not on this OS is a big step
backwards. True, consoles and closed devices have this model, but Mobile was
opening up.

If you step back and look at the consequence of having iStore model (exclusive
control on application distribution) in the software industry, you cannot
conclude that this is a good step forward.

The fact that Apple made the iStore the only way to distribute application is
not about maintaining quality, experience, ..., it is about controlling the
distribution. And this control does not exist in the PC world, and was going
to disappear in the mobile world.

But point taken, I will be more diplomatic in my answers.

~~~
tjogin
It's called the AppStore.

And of course it's _also_ about controlling quality, are you kidding? Don't
reduce this to only being about either one thing or the other — like you
apparently _love_ to do — it's obviously a multifaceted issue.

Quality has got to be one of the very primary concerns, Apple would absolutely
hate for the iPhone to become a malware infested platform which consumers are
afraid to download apps for, always on the look out for viruses, wondering if
every unexpected behaviour is the fault of a trojan — like on a certain other
platform.

Don't get me wrong, Apple don't just want quality because they're knights in
shining armor — they want to make money. And how do you make money? First,
make sure your customers feel _completely_ secure and don't hesitate about
downloading a new app for even a _second_. You cannot do that without _very_
high quality apps, distributed in a _very_ secure way. It's not malice, it's a
win-win strategy. As has been proven in a plethora of ways.

While the walled garden of AppStore can definitely and be seen as a step
backwards, don't you think that the unprecedented amount of apps AppStore
makes available for a mobile phone — and the unprecedented amount of
developers finally being able to make a living from developing mobile apps —
represent a gigantic step forwards?

Once again it's ridiculous to reduce this complex setup to being _just_ one of
two things.

Don't be diplomatic. Be open to the fact that things aren't that simple.
You'll never understand another's perspective if you don't even make an
_attempt_ to.

~~~
jeremychone
Ok, we are getting nowhere with your "not as simple & multifaceted" counter
arguments. In an argument, don't patronize your opponent, just focus on
defending and making your points.

Obviously things are not as simple as they look, otherwise, we would not be
talking about it.

Now that this is out of the way. I think that quality is a pretext. Apple
could have let developers distribute their application by other mean, and keep
the same AppStore quality. The fact that AppStore is the only way to
distribute an iPhone app does not make it higher quality. I would actually
argue the opposite. If developers had other means to distribute their mobile
application, Apple could fairly refuse the "iFart" type of applications and
accept only applications that have real entertainment or productivity value.

Also, I know people developing iPhone apps, and while they welcome the
additional income, it is not that easy to make a living out of it. Some might,
but I do not think it is as big as people think it is.

~~~
tjogin
If you don't think the AppStore approval process squashes bugs then you're
simply ignorant about the feedback developers get from them.

Sure, not everybody doing iPhone apps are bathing in cash. But before the
iPhone came along, there _was no_ mobile development business to speak of. It
barely even _existed_. Now it's huge. That's not a step forward in your
single-faceted view?

~~~
jeremychone
ok, this is getting nowhere. You are not reading my comments. You are still
stuck with your "multifaceted" counter argument.

Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts, they were very insightful , in a
multifaceted way.

------
jsz0
"Developers also must get the application approved by Apple in order to
distribute it. Microsoft would not have even dared to dream of such a market
scheme."

Yes they would. It's called Xbox and Zune HD.

~~~
jeremychone
Interesting you did not mention Windows Mobile. It is not healthy to have the
OS maker deciding what application can or cannot be distributed for its OS.

~~~
tjogin
Why is it so much less healthy for mobile phones than it is for consoles?

I mean, the difference is staggering: Apple gets cussed out daily because of
how closed their iPhone app distribution system is — but nobody is wasting a
single breath about Microsoft's Xbox equivalent.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's just because were used to one,
and not the other.

~~~
jsz0
Exactly. I don't want to argue one way or another if it's a good thing (let
the market decide) but I am getting ever more annoyed at people who buy an
iPhone, knowing fully well it's a closed platform, when open alternatives
exist. It's not only hypocritical but its hurting the open alternatives too.
If you buy any closed system, you support closed systems. No number of
outraged blog posts can change that fact.

~~~
jeremychone
wow, 200% agree. Technologist that promotes open system should not buy iPhone.

------
ptomato
"Just for my curiosity, I would love to understand how Adobe managed to get
the specs of the iPhone byte-code."

It isn't bytecode, it is a binary on a commonly used platform (ARM).

But in general, somewhat a moot point seeing that Flash apps compiled using
this method are already in the app store at present, as well as a variety of
other applications made using things that aren't Apple's SDK. As long as you
abide by their restrictions it doesn't look like apple cares what you program
in.

~~~
jeremychone
Ok, fair enough. I got confused about the bytecode.

BTW, John's comment is interesting: [http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-
on-iphone-will-appl...](http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-
will-apple-allow-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4494)

------
GHFigs
The author doesn't seem to be aware that there are _already_ applications
created this way that have been approved for sale by Apple. Given that it does
not trigger any of the objections Apple has previously had about Flash on the
iPhone--which universally revolve around the Flash runtime, specifically in
the browser--I don't see why anybody should be surprised by that. It only
seems improbable if you make a lot of second-guessing about their motives
rather than taking them at their word.

~~~
jeremychone
To my understanding most non-XCode iPhone solution requires XCode at some
point. Adobe is the only one that goes directly to .ipa.

See John's comment: [http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-
appl...](http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-apple-allow-
it/comment-page-1/#comment-4494)

~~~
GHFigs
How is that relevant to what I said? Why would Apple have a problem with
people not using Xcode? As long as you're delivering an appropriately signed
binary, I don't see how it would make any difference to them what IDE you
used.

~~~
jeremychone
Time will tell. Right now Adobe is bypassing entirely Apple workflow to
_produce_ a iPhone Apps. Other tools play along. Will see what will happen.

I would be happy to be wrong on this one.

~~~
GHFigs
You _are_ wrong, that's what I'm saying. Apple has _already_ approved
applications built with Flash CS5. I don't understand what your basis for
thinking they would have a problem with it is. Adobe is producing native ARM
code, not including a separate runtime, you still have to be in Apple's
developer program, and still have to use Apple-issued code signing
certificates. You're not bypassing anything that Apple actually cares about.

------
tlrobinson
"iPhone bytecode", eh?

Guess that's what happens when "Enterprise Web 2.0 Experts" talk about things
that aren't "Enterprise Web 2.0"...

~~~
jeremychone
Ok, fair enough, I removed the reference about the bytecode. I have been too
long in the Adobe, Java, and Microsoft world and think that everything is
bytecode.

Nice joke about the "Enterprise Web 2.0 Experts." Ironically, I was very
involved in 2000 in the mobile space, before the "enterprise Web 2.0" stuff.

------
SamAtt
I think people over-dramatize this issue. I think everyone, at Apple and
Adobe, knows Flash/Air will eventually be on the iPhone. I don't think there's
any doubt.

What Apple's doing now is trying to drag their feet as long as possible.
Because the longer they can hold out the more momentum they get. Both in Apps
written specifically for the iPhone and video on the web (Quicktime gains more
and more marketshare as more people use the iPhone to view video)

That's the beauty of the situation. Apple can drag their feet for a few more
years and if the Adobe mobile platform starts to gain momentum they can
support it and have all the advantages in an instant.

~~~
bdotdub
On the contrary, I don't think Flash/Air will ever be on the iPhone.

They have the upper hand over the whole situation and have invested a lot in
Flash alternatives including HTML5 (via WebKit) and video with MP4. In
addition, the battery suck will ruin the (already short) battery life, and I
don't think they will compromise the user experience for Flash

~~~
SamAtt
Your logic only works if (a) Flash begins to fade and (b) Apple remains far
ahead of all its competitors indefinately. Because in the end every other
phone is going to support Flash and Apple is going to have to explain to
iPhone users why phones from Windows Mobile and Google can view the entire web
while iPhone users can't.

As for alternatives like HTML 5 we're at least a decade away from widespread
use of those (since there are people who wait forever to upgrade their
browser). So I don't see Apple being able to stall for that long.

