Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Oooh! you naughty boy! And I did follow Cramer... Floyd Cramer! Remember him? 'Last Date' and other smoochy piano songs, the local hop, lights low... a head on the shoulder (hopefully not mine) and expectations rising...
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
NOBODY HAD A CLUE WHAT THE DEMAND WOULD ACTUALLY BE. There were no models to use, nothing like this had ever been launched before. Apple's demand estimates were MUCH higher than the carriers' estimates, but were themselves much lower than the way it turned out. Apple was new to this game, then. They've said they didn't know as much as they would have liked.
You say 'Verizon iPhone comes loaded with VCast software'.
Wrong. Think again. Apple does not permit Verizon to add ANY software to iPhone. Period. For good reason: Verizon's crapware pisses users off. Apple figures if a user is going to get pissed off using an Apple product, it will be because he or she elected to go that route. It's called choice actually.
Verizon is free to make its software available to download from the AppStore, subject to it being approved, but it isn't on the phone out of the box. Period.
You really have no idea do you? With each pronouncement you display the yawning chasm between your own worldview and what the rest of us see as the real world.
Apple doesn't need Verizon to survive! In fact, it doesn't even need iPhone at all to survive (the Mac is a $22 BILLION business on its own!). Apple has embraced Verizon because it opens up a market that is loyal to Verizon (or contractually tied into Verizon, or both). Verizon has done a great job building its own customer loyalties (despite its crapware!), and full marks to it for doing so. Apple would be daft not to covet a share of that market. Everywhere else Apple has multiple carriers on iPhone, now the US can share the joy. Apple's a business seeking to win customers one wallet at a time. In the mobile market it needs carriers with which to partner.
You seem to live in your own dreamworld where 'millions of Flash programmers are working to destroy Apple' (when in fact maybe a fraction of that number exist and I would hazard a guess that most are actually working to put bread on their table the best way they know how, rather than trying to kill Apple). You see a world where Apple is facing destruction unless Verizon sells some phones to people who, in your opinion have been conned and should really have bought Android.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Brilliant insight again. This time into Verizon's decision making process (excuse the sarcasm, my mother warned me it was the lowest form of wit. I should have listened to her).
Partnerships occur (usually) when both parties find their objectives overlap sufficiently to give them a fighting chance of mutual success. Who knows where the disconnect occurred when Apple first started talking to Verizon.
My guess is that the key point would have been Apple's requirement for assurances about sufficient network capacity being added so the entirely new iPhone experience would not be crippled at launch by network failures. Seems ATT were prepared to make the investments to come some way to meet Apple's forecasts for bandwidth demand, and Verizon were not. Remember, nobody had ANY idea of how much bandwidth iPhone users would demand once they got their hands on the phone and its apps. Apple was forecasting a massive increase based on their experience of how rich apps get used on Macs, the carriers were much more conservative, based on their prior experience of smartphones.
As it turned out, even Apple under-estimated demand for bandwidth.
I think Apple's perception that positive user experience for their new product absolutely required a carrier to enhance their existing network (requiring large investments in infrastructure) is indicative (again) that Apple understands customer satisfaction and loyalty is earned one wallet at a time. ATT stepped up to the plate and Verizon didn't. That's my analysis, for what it's worth.
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Good point. But don't mistake their 'generosity' at giving away Android for charity. A price IS paid. It is NOT free. Google's objective is to generate millions of mobile ad targets which will be shotgunned by ads for stuff you don't want 24/7. Users will have no choice but to put up with this. Developers won't be able to turn it off 'cos it's right there in the OS.
Just like the intensely irritating nagware Verizon pre-installs on many of its current (not so smart)phones.
Notice how Apple will not permit Verizon to pre-install this crapware on its Verizon iPhone.
This really does encapsulate a crucial difference in company objectives: Google wants ads everywhere with no customer choice (if possible) because that's where it makes its moolah.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to create insanely great products with rich and rewarding customer experiences, so customers tell their friends, AND come back for the next great product. The consumer will decide which approach appeals and vote with their wallets accordingly.
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Characterizing Apple as offering a 'closed ecosystem' is a simplification which may appeal to simpletons, but falls down upon inspection.
The demand for Android results partly (mainly?) from dozens of second tier manufacturers wanting a share of the smartphone market but lacking the smarts to build their own OS. So they grab a 'free' OS off Google. That's great for them, they can shift their (sometimes junky) hardware now onto an unsuspecting public. The fact that tons of Android devices are shipping should come as no surprise as they are chiefly running on cheap devices. There's always a market for cheap.
But a piece of hardware and an OS has been shown to be only part of what mobile users need and want. Users will figure out what's missing and the next time they buy, they'll be better educated and they may well look for a 'proper' solution that fills all their needs. If they do, Apple will be there with the benchmark solution. So it could well be that the initial surge of Android actually creates a bigger market for Apple down the pike.
It's no simple matter to build a resilient, responsive eco-system in the mobile market. Ask Palm. And ask a leader (RIM) who have to face the daunting task of building out their own ecosystem to include apps.
I suspect that what appears to be 'free' comes at a cost. Google isn't giving away Android out of charity! It's objective is to get millions of devices out there (which it controls through its OS) through which it can push endless advertising, polluting the Internet with the drivel which now has a stranglehold on mainstream TV and radio. Having their mobile device swamped in this way could drive many users nuts, not least because of the bandwidth used for delivery of this crap, bandwidth they are paying for every month. Still think Android is free?
There's another thing. Apple right now has a business strategy that has resulted in the most vibrant mobile device eco-system on the planet. Part of this offering is a curated AppStore, which means Apple validates all apps residing therein. It has good business and social rationales for this aspect of its business, and so far you would have to say the market goes along with Apple's position.
It seems this is the area where Mr. Denninger and his ilk consider Apple to be 'closed'. Do you imagine that if it should ever come to pass that the average consumer starts to reject Apple because of this, that Apple would not respond? It will be much easier for Apple to relax its conditions (if it ever proves necessary) than for the Android community to tighten theirs up (as many think they will be forced to as fraudulent and malicious apps proliferate on an 'open' Android): the horse will have long bolted by then.
There is another closed area, Apple's mobile iOS which no outside party has access to. Thankfully. The idea of allowing hackers to freely tinker around with the OS running my mobile device is something to be feared, not welcomed.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Yes, Flash 10.2 is the same everywhere. And eveywhere it is, it still eats battery life, still presents an unnecessary overhead in cases where HTML5/CSS3 works perfectly well, still is proprietary which device makers support at their peril since their hardware/OS deployments will depend on an external party's (Adobe in this case) ability to execute. You need to stop deluding yourself, the party's over for Flash developers being able to charge an arm and a leg for stuff any competent HTML coder can now deliver. The world has moved on. I'm tired of listening to your rants. I keep thinking of your comment that you 'and 3,000,000 Flash developers are going to take Apple down'. In your dreams.
Remember King Knut? He thought he could command the waves to retreat: he has gone down in history as a (k)nutcase (excuse the pun).
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Well now! If it's important who wrote the original software, let's look at Adobe's stellar record, shall we? Photoshop? No, written by the Knoll brothers and sold to Adobe. Flash maybe? Nope, that's from Macromedia. Dreamweaver? Ditto... need I go on?
Apple's software is a joke? You mean OSX? iOS? Aperture? iMovie? Keynote? Pages? Numbers? Some joke! This stuff is world class.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Nothing is ever free, except bad advice and promises from politicians.
Subsidized products with ad-laden content delivery is one business model.
Apple's quality product and quality service offering, with some user-requested advertising is another business model.
The consumer will decide which he or she prefers on an individual basis. I, for one, will always prefer to pay more for quality and especially if by so doing I can avoid heavy advertising drivel for crap I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
I don't know if you need Adobe more than they need you, or the other way round. On the Flash issue, seems to me you both need help. Face facts, the boondoggle is over for most of Flash development on the web. It's over. It had its day, but now it's over. Now that browsers are smarter, they can do a lot of the work previously requiring a plug-in architecture such as Flash. Rendering video is just one example. You won't last long if you charge for Flash implementations when your competitors quote based on much faster to develop HTML5 that they can guarantee will run on every platform, including iOS. (this is why you're pissed off with Apple, because your solutions cannot give this guarantee... get over it, embrace the future and stop throwing your toys out of the pram).
However, what do I know? I simple have to concede that as a Time Lord, along with Doctor Who, you know more than I, so perhaps you're right after all. When you did your work for Adobe in June 2011, had Apple disappeared yet?
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
If you surveyed 1000 car owners in 1900 about their biggest concern, I'm guessing the requirement for a guy with a red flag walking in front would have figured.
There are ALWAYS early issues when a superior technology replaces one that's had its day.
Fact is, the early black holes with Flash sites not rendering completely in the period after iPad launch are mostly gone now. Developers quickly jumped on the HTML5/CSS3 standards. Here's an informed comment from one such developer who switched from Flash to HTML5:
"Every mobile phone, e-reader, computer, tablet, and pocket watch can display HTML"
There ARE some beautiful Flash sites that still do not (and may never) offer HTML5/CSS3 versions. These can still be rendered by iOS through 3rd party apps. So in effect, there is no issue here at all.
By voting with their wallets, consumers say this Flash issue is not important to them. Granted, it's still important to Adobe and to isolated souls like flexengineer.
They're upset and determined to 'take Apple down'. Just like the red flag makers were determined to take the car industry down for working to get rid of little men walking in front with flags.
You can't stand up to progress. It's the way the world works. I was at IBM when the punched card eventually went to the great shredder in the sky. We HATED that. Punched cards, you see, had become indispensable as coffee coasters and convenient pocket note recorders. We couldn't imagine life without them.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Flexengineer seeks to enlighten we folks currently floundering in the dark about how the world runs:
"[Jobs] made a huge mistake because we developers run the show, not device makers, not platforns, not carriers, not software vendor but developers. "
Nuts. Nobody 'runs the show'. This guy's paranoia about 'control' is self-evident. I'm just guessing here, but maybe flexengineer's hatred of Apple in particular stems from some personal trauma in the past. Did he get something caught in a Clamshell lid perhaps?
Fact is, everyone makes a contribution and the consumer decides. Nobody is in control. Ask Microsoft today about Windows on mobiles. Or ask Intel about chips on tablets. Ask Google about the pressure on their business model from StumbleUpon, Twitter and Facebook (they are eating huge chunks into Google's 'search traffic driving ad impressions' business model (FACT not opinion, see analysis from StatCounter). Ask Apple about Firewire.
" Guess what, there are 100,000 iOS developers, we are 3,000,000 Flash developers and we are all telling Apple to go screw itself with one voice, we are standing behind Adobe and Google and we will take Apple down. "
I have to say this exhibition of paranoia really takes the biscuit. The only people who could 'take Apple down' are consumers who vote everyday with their wallets. Fact is, many, many sensible and competent developers have shared in $BILLIONS from Apple's curated App Store. Think we're going to jump off the gravy train to follow blatherings from folks like flexengineer? Think again.
Spewing absolute nonsense that says 90% of developers reject Apple is a measure of this guy's detachment from reality. It's pretty clear now for MANY developers that the only way to make money from the Android platform is most probably via ads. It seems the Android customer simply isn't willing to pay for apps. I am personally sick of ads polluting TV and radio and hate their incursion into every aspect of the Internet. I'd prefer to pay for an app that has no (or minimal advertising) running on iOS than a free app on Android peppering me at every turn with 'wait, there's more!', but that's just me I guess. Google's entire Android free OS model is based on their perception that Android everywhere will create massive opportunities for them to push ads at users constantly. A sort of freedom I suppose... the freedom to be driven nuts. Apple's iOS is designed to empower them to make insanely great products which they hope the customer will buy.. it's an entirely different approach and objective, and it shows.
Here's a comment from a successful developer running his apps on both platforms:
"Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective, they have gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots. Android is growing, but it’s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem. So many different shops, so many different models. The carriers messing with the experience again. Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android."
That's the owner of the Angry Birds app. He's making millions. Good luck to him. I'll take his word over the mutterings from the oh! so bitter flexengineer.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
I suppose you're an elite Adobe customer and count yourself among the 'professionals'. And where does that leave all the hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of designers, photographers architects, writers, scientists etc. who choose Apple for its elegance, power, consistency and reliability? I suppose we're all 'a chunk of the masses'. Your comments are arrogant and ill-informed.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
I don't understand why people characterize Apple's refusal to run Flash on mobile devices as reflecting the company's dislike for Adobe. This seems to me to be simply untrue.
Tons of ex-Apple employees work at Adobe, and vice versa, and so far as I've been able to see when they meet up at the local watering-holes, there's no animosity. Indeed, Apple is a firm endorser of many Adobe products and works effectively with Adobe to ensure their products work well together for the benefit of their mutual users (use of graphics acceleration for example). And Adobe has enthusiastically promoted the Mac platform for its power and elegance in the creative fields.
Apple's problems with Flash are TECHNICAL. It's got nothing to do with egos.
Apple has defined two main problems with Flash. The first is its drain on battery life, which may not matter too much on a desktop or a laptop, but it's crucial on a mobile device. Anecdotally, anyone who runs Flash on a laptop should know this is very likely to be true because the computer's fan will come on and run for some time whenever Flash content is being played, which is a sign the processor is being worked hard and is therefore heating up.
The second problem is reliability. I don't have much evidence of this, as I have my machines with Flash turned off as a default. (it seems to me most Flash content is ads and I hate ads anyway.. they simply pollute the Internet the same way they've polluted TV and radio). Apple says it has the stats to back up its claim and I, for one, do not think Apple would make up a story like this. It would be too easy to disprove, and anyway, in my experience, Apple doesn't go around lying and slagging off the competition.
Apple would, I am sure, permit Flash on its mobile devices the moment both these problems are solved. They've said so publicly. All Adobe has to do is present a version of Flash that doesn't gobble up CPU cycles needlessly and doesn't crash and the problem is resolved.
However, the reality is, HTML5 and CSS3 now permit a whole range of formerly Flash-only facilities to be implemented, without the developer having to shell out a ton for the Flash development environment, and with almost no learning curve required (Flash ain't easy... in fact, it's quite challenging,) This being the case, one can expect a large number of instances where sites choose to focus on the HTML5 and CSS3 standards and give Flash a miss entirely. This will mean that in all likelihood, Flash will end up being reserved for those instances where its undoubted power and impressive functions cannot be provided by HTML5 and CSS3, or where the development team is already familiar with Flash. (in this regard, I agree this means that those Flash houses will have to develop HTML5/CSS3 versions for their Flash ads, if they want to serve Apple's mobile devices, but this is not a new problem. Any web developer will tell you of the historic need to provide multiple versions of sites, especially to account for Microsoft's Internet Explorer non-standard behaviours. So the problem is not new.)
The idea the reality that HTML5/CSS3 can replace a lot of hitherto Flash facilities, will still result in Flash being implemented on several billion mobile devices is, to put it mildly, somewhat unlikely.
Let's get away from characterizing this issue in terms of Apple's ego.
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
You say 'Verizon iPhone comes loaded with VCast software'.
Wrong. Think again. Apple does not permit Verizon to add ANY software to iPhone. Period. For good reason: Verizon's crapware pisses users off. Apple figures if a user is going to get pissed off using an Apple product, it will be because he or she elected to go that route. It's called choice actually.
Verizon is free to make its software available to download from the AppStore, subject to it being approved, but it isn't on the phone out of the box. Period.
You really have no idea do you? With each pronouncement you display the yawning chasm between your own worldview and what the rest of us see as the real world.
Apple doesn't need Verizon to survive! In fact, it doesn't even need iPhone at all to survive (the Mac is a $22 BILLION business on its own!). Apple has embraced Verizon because it opens up a market that is loyal to Verizon (or contractually tied into Verizon, or both). Verizon has done a great job building its own customer loyalties (despite its crapware!), and full marks to it for doing so. Apple would be daft not to covet a share of that market. Everywhere else Apple has multiple carriers on iPhone, now the US can share the joy. Apple's a business seeking to win customers one wallet at a time. In the mobile market it needs carriers with which to partner.
You seem to live in your own dreamworld where 'millions of Flash programmers are working to destroy Apple' (when in fact maybe a fraction of that number exist and I would hazard a guess that most are actually working to put bread on their table the best way they know how, rather than trying to kill Apple). You see a world where Apple is facing destruction unless Verizon sells some phones to people who, in your opinion have been conned and should really have bought Android.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Partnerships occur (usually) when both parties find their objectives overlap sufficiently to give them a fighting chance of mutual success. Who knows where the disconnect occurred when Apple first started talking to Verizon.
My guess is that the key point would have been Apple's requirement for assurances about sufficient network capacity being added so the entirely new iPhone experience would not be crippled at launch by network failures. Seems ATT were prepared to make the investments to come some way to meet Apple's forecasts for bandwidth demand, and Verizon were not. Remember, nobody had ANY idea of how much bandwidth iPhone users would demand once they got their hands on the phone and its apps. Apple was forecasting a massive increase based on their experience of how rich apps get used on Macs, the carriers were much more conservative, based on their prior experience of smartphones.
As it turned out, even Apple under-estimated demand for bandwidth.
I think Apple's perception that positive user experience for their new product absolutely required a carrier to enhance their existing network (requiring large investments in infrastructure) is indicative (again) that Apple understands customer satisfaction and loyalty is earned one wallet at a time. ATT stepped up to the plate and Verizon didn't. That's my analysis, for what it's worth.
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Just like the intensely irritating nagware Verizon pre-installs on many of its current (not so smart)phones.
Notice how Apple will not permit Verizon to pre-install this crapware on its Verizon iPhone.
This really does encapsulate a crucial difference in company objectives: Google wants ads everywhere with no customer choice (if possible) because that's where it makes its moolah.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to create insanely great products with rich and rewarding customer experiences, so customers tell their friends, AND come back for the next great product. The consumer will decide which approach appeals and vote with their wallets accordingly.
DISCLOSURE I've already made my decision on this.
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
Android to Lose From Verizon iPhone? [View article]
The demand for Android results partly (mainly?) from dozens of second tier manufacturers wanting a share of the smartphone market but lacking the smarts to build their own OS. So they grab a 'free' OS off Google. That's great for them, they can shift their (sometimes junky) hardware now onto an unsuspecting public. The fact that tons of Android devices are shipping should come as no surprise as they are chiefly running on cheap devices. There's always a market for cheap.
But a piece of hardware and an OS has been shown to be only part of what mobile users need and want. Users will figure out what's missing and the next time they buy, they'll be better educated and they may well look for a 'proper' solution that fills all their needs. If they do, Apple will be there with the benchmark solution. So it could well be that the initial surge of Android actually creates a bigger market for Apple down the pike.
It's no simple matter to build a resilient, responsive eco-system in the mobile market. Ask Palm. And ask a leader (RIM) who have to face the daunting task of building out their own ecosystem to include apps.
I suspect that what appears to be 'free' comes at a cost. Google isn't giving away Android out of charity! It's objective is to get millions of devices out there (which it controls through its OS) through which it can push endless advertising, polluting the Internet with the drivel which now has a stranglehold on mainstream TV and radio. Having their mobile device swamped in this way could drive many users nuts, not least because of the bandwidth used for delivery of this crap, bandwidth they are paying for every month. Still think Android is free?
There's another thing. Apple right now has a business strategy that has resulted in the most vibrant mobile device eco-system on the planet. Part of this offering is a curated AppStore, which means Apple validates all apps residing therein. It has good business and social rationales for this aspect of its business, and so far you would have to say the market goes along with Apple's position.
It seems this is the area where Mr. Denninger and his ilk consider Apple to be 'closed'. Do you imagine that if it should ever come to pass that the average consumer starts to reject Apple because of this, that Apple would not respond? It will be much easier for Apple to relax its conditions (if it ever proves necessary) than for the Android community to tighten theirs up (as many think they will be forced to as fraudulent and malicious apps proliferate on an 'open' Android): the horse will have long bolted by then.
There is another closed area, Apple's mobile iOS which no outside party has access to. Thankfully. The idea of allowing hackers to freely tinker around with the OS running my mobile device is something to be feared, not welcomed.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Remember King Knut? He thought he could command the waves to retreat: he has gone down in history as a (k)nutcase (excuse the pun).
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Apple's software is a joke? You mean OSX? iOS? Aperture? iMovie? Keynote? Pages? Numbers? Some joke! This stuff is world class.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Subsidized products with ad-laden content delivery is one business model.
Apple's quality product and quality service offering, with some user-requested advertising is another business model.
The consumer will decide which he or she prefers on an individual basis. I, for one, will always prefer to pay more for quality and especially if by so doing I can avoid heavy advertising drivel for crap I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
However, what do I know? I simple have to concede that as a Time Lord, along with Doctor Who, you know more than I, so perhaps you're right after all. When you did your work for Adobe in June 2011, had Apple disappeared yet?
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
There are ALWAYS early issues when a superior technology replaces one that's had its day.
Fact is, the early black holes with Flash sites not rendering completely in the period after iPad launch are mostly gone now. Developers quickly jumped on the HTML5/CSS3 standards. Here's an informed comment from one such developer who switched from Flash to HTML5:
See www.scribd.com/doc/309...
"Every mobile phone, e-reader,
computer, tablet, and pocket watch
can display HTML"
There ARE some beautiful Flash sites that still do not (and may never) offer HTML5/CSS3 versions. These can still be rendered by iOS through 3rd party apps. So in effect, there is no issue here at all.
By voting with their wallets, consumers say this Flash issue is not important to them. Granted, it's still important to Adobe and to isolated souls like flexengineer.
They're upset and determined to 'take Apple down'. Just like the red flag makers were determined to take the car industry down for working to get rid of little men walking in front with flags.
You can't stand up to progress. It's the way the world works. I was at IBM when the punched card eventually went to the great shredder in the sky. We HATED that. Punched cards, you see, had become indispensable as coffee coasters and convenient pocket note recorders. We couldn't imagine life without them.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
"[Jobs] made a huge mistake because we developers run the show, not device makers, not platforns, not carriers, not software vendor but developers. "
Nuts. Nobody 'runs the show'. This guy's paranoia about 'control' is self-evident. I'm just guessing here, but maybe flexengineer's hatred of Apple in particular stems from some personal trauma in the past. Did he get something caught in a Clamshell lid perhaps?
Fact is, everyone makes a contribution and the consumer decides. Nobody is in control. Ask Microsoft today about Windows on mobiles. Or ask Intel about chips on tablets. Ask Google about the pressure on their business model from StumbleUpon, Twitter and Facebook (they are eating huge chunks into Google's 'search traffic driving ad impressions' business model (FACT not opinion, see analysis from StatCounter). Ask Apple about Firewire.
" Guess what, there are 100,000 iOS developers, we are 3,000,000 Flash developers and we are all telling Apple to go screw itself with one voice, we are standing behind Adobe and Google and we will take Apple down. "
I have to say this exhibition of paranoia really takes the biscuit. The only people who could 'take Apple down' are consumers who vote everyday with their wallets. Fact is, many, many sensible and competent developers have shared in $BILLIONS from Apple's curated App Store. Think we're going to jump off the gravy train to follow blatherings from folks like flexengineer? Think again.
Spewing absolute nonsense that says 90% of developers reject Apple is a measure of this guy's detachment from reality. It's pretty clear now for MANY developers that the only way to make money from the Android platform is most probably via ads. It seems the Android customer simply isn't willing to pay for apps. I am personally sick of ads polluting TV and radio and hate their incursion into every aspect of the Internet. I'd prefer to pay for an app that has no (or minimal advertising) running on iOS than a free app on Android peppering me at every turn with 'wait, there's more!', but that's just me I guess. Google's entire Android free OS model is based on their perception that Android everywhere will create massive opportunities for them to push ads at users constantly. A sort of freedom I suppose... the freedom to be driven nuts. Apple's iOS is designed to empower them to make insanely great products which they hope the customer will buy.. it's an entirely different approach and objective, and it shows.
Here's a comment from a successful developer running his apps on both platforms:
"Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective, they have gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots. Android is growing, but it’s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem. So many different shops, so many different models. The carriers messing with the experience again. Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android."
That's the owner of the Angry Birds app. He's making millions. Good luck to him. I'll take his word over the mutterings from the oh! so bitter flexengineer.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]
Tons of ex-Apple employees work at Adobe, and vice versa, and so far as I've been able to see when they meet up at the local watering-holes, there's no animosity. Indeed, Apple is a firm endorser of many Adobe products and works effectively with Adobe to ensure their products work well together for the benefit of their mutual users (use of graphics acceleration for example). And Adobe has enthusiastically promoted the Mac platform for its power and elegance in the creative fields.
Apple's problems with Flash are TECHNICAL. It's got nothing to do with egos.
Apple has defined two main problems with Flash. The first is its drain on battery life, which may not matter too much on a desktop or a laptop, but it's crucial on a mobile device. Anecdotally, anyone who runs Flash on a laptop should know this is very likely to be true because the computer's fan will come on and run for some time whenever Flash content is being played, which is a sign the processor is being worked hard and is therefore heating up.
The second problem is reliability. I don't have much evidence of this, as I have my machines with Flash turned off as a default. (it seems to me most Flash content is ads and I hate ads anyway.. they simply pollute the Internet the same way they've polluted TV and radio). Apple says it has the stats to back up its claim and I, for one, do not think Apple would make up a story like this. It would be too easy to disprove, and anyway, in my experience, Apple doesn't go around lying and slagging off the competition.
Apple would, I am sure, permit Flash on its mobile devices the moment both these problems are solved. They've said so publicly. All Adobe has to do is present a version of Flash that doesn't gobble up CPU cycles needlessly and doesn't crash and the problem is resolved.
However, the reality is, HTML5 and CSS3 now permit a whole range of formerly Flash-only facilities to be implemented, without the developer having to shell out a ton for the Flash development environment, and with almost no learning curve required (Flash ain't easy... in fact, it's quite challenging,) This being the case, one can expect a large number of instances where sites choose to focus on the HTML5 and CSS3 standards and give Flash a miss entirely. This will mean that in all likelihood, Flash will end up being reserved for those instances where its undoubted power and impressive functions cannot be provided by HTML5 and CSS3, or where the development team is already familiar with Flash. (in this regard, I agree this means that those Flash houses will have to develop HTML5/CSS3 versions for their Flash ads, if they want to serve Apple's mobile devices, but this is not a new problem. Any web developer will tell you of the historic need to provide multiple versions of sites, especially to account for Microsoft's Internet Explorer non-standard behaviours. So the problem is not new.)
The idea the reality that HTML5/CSS3 can replace a lot of hitherto Flash facilities, will still result in Flash being implemented on several billion mobile devices is, to put it mildly, somewhat unlikely.
Let's get away from characterizing this issue in terms of Apple's ego.
Things I Would Do if I Were Apple CEO Steve Jobs [View article]