'Adobe is lazy' says Steve Jobs

[.hooligan]

Yeah I saw that here too http://www.devwebpro.com/apple-forbi...Comment.net%29

[Incrue]

hey, its actually not something that unusual, its made by all sorts or companies creating all sorts of devices.

If you uses XNA, Bill Gates cares about the lybraries you use? Like you are forbidden to make your own flixel?

Some things made with some technologies are probably more difficult/ time consuming to test and approve for Apple

Tom, the reason why i cant buy that is, unity was doing the same for ages, how could this never been a problem untill now?

By the other hand, what i can understand is apple hate for 2d games that runs slower than 3d ones, that can make users think i phone is crap, but if thats the case, the way the choose to oppose it was very bad either

[tomsamson]

If you uses XNA, Bill Gates cares about the lybraries you use? Like you are forbidden to make your own flixel?

You already sorta answered this question yourself, though there is sort of a misunderstanding:
Of course you can write something like flixel in XNA, just like you also can when creating an iPhone app.
This Apple rule is not about that side.
Its about which technologies are used and which languages.
And limiting that side, even if not nice by itself, yes, is very common accross various platforms/ devices.
For example as you mentioned the xbox 360, yeah, for that you can only develop when you´re an approved developer and for that you can only use the tools/middleware/languages endorsed by Microsoft.
So for example when you go the way of becoming an indie community games developer then you can only use XNA and therefore only code in C# using the framework and api set approved by MS.
Just like that the PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, Zune and many other devices have a similarly closed setup and similar rules.
With Apple the outcry is just so big now because
A) this change in policy is introduced a few years after the devices first came out so many, many have already invested a lot into it and meanwhile were used to being able to have a wider selection of languages and middleware to use
B)This change was made only a few days before Adobe wanted to announce CS5 (on Monday) and with that its main feature for Flash CS5, deploy to iPhone, so the timing adds extra heat to the debate.

Some things made with some technologies are probably more difficult/ time consuming to test and approve for Apple

Tom, the reason why i cant buy that is, unity was doing the same for ages, how could this never been a problem untill now?

even if many unity made iPhone games came out that is probably a small number compared to the huge load of apps made using the flash solution one could expect when CS5 would hit and apps made that way allowed on the app store. There is just a way bigger amount of flash content creators out there. Next to that unity is actually among the best performing
middleware solutions for the iPhone meaning its more likely that a higher percentage of the made apps will actually run well on the devices than when a middleware solution is used that leads to lots of content not running at all or being quite crash prone or just running at unsatisfying performance.
Next to that Unity and some other middleware solutions actually create an xcode project which is then used to compile and link things to get the actual resulting app in more apple standard procedure manner. Which i imagine is again less error prone and easier to test next to accept for Apple.

Overall all these points would very likely mean that allowing flash onto the iPhone no matter in which way would indeed cost Apple support staff a lot of time and Apple a lot of money. Maybe that could be earned back with possible high sales for flash made apps, dunno, that´s a different point

[Incrue]

when you go the way of becoming an indie community games developer then you can only use XNA and therefore only code in C# using the framework and api set approved by MS.

What i was saying was more like, if i use _________ to make the c# code.Like if tomorrow unity could spit XNA games.

I know they have reasons to not want flash.What nobody likes is HOW they choose to ban it

“Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.”

If unity does this, and runs fast, then how can this be the problem? Adobe can say Apple cant use that as an excuse against flash and let unity and others stay, IF its the case
I guess the only thing to do is wait for Apple to clarify what the hell they mean

[tomsamson]

yeah, the clarification is needed and there will be lots more going on in the next few days, so let´s just see how it unfolds with the next firmware update and before that with the Adobe presentation on monday.

[Incrue]

I have never liked or disliked Apple on my entire life, but this is insane
http://mashable.com/2010/04/10/steve-jobs-adobe/
IF thats his true answer than SJ is a dumb or a lier
'...produces sub-standard apps...'
Some of the best selling i phone games that were made with unity are sub standard then?
Or maybe SJ is dumb enough so he cant understand the difference?
And i blame Adobe for many things, but they are right on that one.
Apple stinks.

[scheletro]

Is that for real? are we sure thats his answer?

I agree "ayanoor"

You ur so correct but if Apple was as honest as they claim to be they should have informed Adobe from the begining that they will not allow other programming languages; adobe didnt come up with this idea yesterday and must have worked clearly and closely with apple to make this work. Surley Apple played it dirty and pulled Adobe into a trap.

[dandylion13]

Is that for real? are we sure thats his answer?

There's absolutely no evidence that that's Steve Jobs.

[tomsamson]

I think what Apple wants is forbid things which don´t deploy via an xcode project but rather like the Adobe solution for example create an IPA via their own crosscompiler.
So when one interpretes the agreement´s clause like that that would mean something like unity is seen as preprocessor (still allowed) and what Adobe does as cross compiler (forbidden).
Again, this is just how i see it and it will take a while till we know for sure.

to Scheletro:
That quoted bit is way off. No, Adobe has not worked closely with Apple to create their solution, the opposite, they did it without letting Apple know and then surprised everyone at their previous presentation by announcing they sneaked some apps made with their solution into the app store, a few minutes after showing a video mocking Apple.
So yeah, one may like what Apple does or not, i totally understand when one doesn´t like the rule itself, but yeah, Adobe should be more honest and blame themselves for upsetting Apple, not act like the innocent ones who were hit out of nothing.
Other developers affected can be surprised, Adobe knowingly doing something they should be well aware of that Apple doesn´t like it, well, is dishonest or naive at least when they act surprised. So regarding that i see a clear difference between Adobe and all other (maybe) affected developers.
If anything Adobe´s moves are why Apple changed that clause and therefore i see them equally as cause for the situation as Apple while they seem to want to get all developers into thinking thyey are in the same boat of unguiltily punished ones.