Hasta La Gadget!

Adobe will no longer pursue its plans to bring Flash to Apple’s iPhone and the iPad.

Adobe on Tuesday evening said it is ceasing investment in a software tool that enables Flash developers to port software into native iPhone and iPad apps, according to Mike Chambers, Adobe’s principal product manager for Flash developer relations.

“The primary goal of Flash has always been to enable cross-browser, platform and device development,” Chambers wrote in a blog post. “This is the exact opposite of what Apple wants. They want to tie developers down to their platform, and restrict their options to make it difficult for developers to target other platforms.”

Adobe is reacting to a new rule in the iPhone developer agreement, which stipulates that iPhone and iPad apps must be coded with Apple-approved programming languages, such as C++ or Objective C. If enforced, the rule would effectively ban any apps coded with Adobe’s Packager for iPhone, a tool enabling Flash-coded software to be easily converted into native iPhone apps, released last week with Adobe CS5.

Faced with Apple’s new rule, Adobe pulled the plug on Packager for iPhone. That ends, for now, any hope that Flash apps (or apps that incorporate Flash) will ever be able to run on the iPad or iPhone.

Apple’s new app policy has been met with furious debate. Critics say Apple is depriving consumers of choice, because Flash apps that could have been on the iPhone will never see the light of day. Supporters of Apple’s decision, including Steve Jobs, say the move was necessary to retain quality of apps in the App Store and nimbleness of updating the platform.

Apple has been steadfast with its lack of support for Flash on the iPhone OS. Some customers have complained that without Flash, iPhone and iPad users are missing out on a big chunk of the internet. Jobs said during a staff meeting that Flash was not supported because it is “buggy” and frequently causes crashes on the Mac OS, according to a secondhand account first reported by Wired.com.

Rather than supporting Flash, Apple has reportedly pushed website creators to use alternative web standards, including HTML5, CSS and JavaScript, which are all supported by the iPhone and iPad browser.

Apple said Adobe was incorrect to accuse Apple of locking in developers by not supporting Flash.

“Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” an Apple representative said in a statement provided to CNET.

However, as simple as it may sound for web developers to switch to different standards, Wired.com’s Webmonkey editor Mike Calore said the transition to HTML5 for video playback would be complex. He explained that there’s no agreed upon video format for HTML5, and support varies greatly from browser to browser.

“Not to be overly critical of Apple — anyone pushing for open web standards deserves kudos — but the company seems more deeply concerned with digging Flash’s grave than it does with promoting semantic markup,” Calore wrote.

See Also:

• Adobe Reacts to New iPhone App Policy (Updated)
• Jobs: Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra is ‘Bullshit,’ Adobe Is Lazy
• Flash Lands on iPhone — One App at a Time
• Why Apple Won’t Allow Adobe Flash on iPhone
• As Apple Barricades Flash, HDTV Embraces It
• Adobe Apps: Easier to Pass Through the ‘i’ of a Needle?
• Google Fires at Apple, Integrates Flash Into Chrome Browser
• Steve Jobs Debates Developers Over Apple’s New App Policy

Be clear on this: if you’re not a jailbreak app developer then the redsn0w 0.9.5 beta release is not for you. The iPhone OS 4 jailbreak previously hinted at is for real and it’s for devs only so that they can prep their wares for the summer update. Don’t worry, it doesn’t reveal anything new to Apple and no, it won’t work on the iPad — it’s Mac OSX only, iPhone 3G only, and iPhone 4.0 beta 1 only for now. But hey, it’s early days, at least you know it’s out there and that people smarter than you are tending to things.

iPhone OS 4 jailbreak released to developers, not you originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:06:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink 9to5 Mac, @MuscleNerd (Twitter)  |  iphwn  | Email this | Comments

Plenty ink has already been spilled about the new restrictions in clause 3.3.1 of the new iPhone SDK terms of use. The new wording disallows developers to use third party, cross platform development tools (like Flash CS5) to build their apps, and plenty of folks (like Adobe) are angered by it. Now it seems Steve Jobs has chimed in as well. Developer Greg Slepak reached out to Steve, citing the large outpouring of negativity on the topic, including a post by John Gruber of Daring Fireball, who Greg calls Apple’s “biggest fan.” Steve apparently responded, citing a newer post by Gruber that explains Apple’s theoretical reasoning for locking down the platform like this. Steve called the post “very insightful.” When Greg replied, raising some very legitimate defense that highly popular, important apps like Mozilla Firefox are built with cross platform frameworks, Steve Jobs had a slightly less terse response:

We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.

On Greg’s blog he breaks down some of Gruber’s claims and makes a pretty compelling case for third party toolkits — important examples of which can be found all over the Mac and Windows landscape. We get the feeling his impassioned pleas, and the oft-bandied threat of developer migration, will fall on deaf ears at Apple as always, but at least he helps shape this debate somewhat, which will no doubt rage on for months and years to come. Check out the full conversation between Greg and Steve, including Greg’s final response, after the break.

Continue reading Steve Jobs responds directly to developer over new iPhone SDK rules, cites blog for explanation

Steve Jobs responds directly to developer over new iPhone SDK rules, cites blog for explanation originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:48:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Mashable  |  Tao Effect Blog (Greg), Daring Fireball (Gruber)  | Email this | Comments

If you make an app for the iPhone, it has to be done Apple’s way or the highway.

That’s the upshot of new iPhone developer rules, released Thursday without fanfare, even as Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced myriad details of the company’s new mobile operating system to a packed room of reporters.

The changes affect the so-called developer’s agreement required to access tools for building apps for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. They add significant new restrictions to software makers hoping to create products for Apple’s mobile devices, which happen to be among the most sought-after in the world. More than a billion apps have already been downloaded so far from Apple’s App Store, creating a billion-dollar software business nearly overnight. It’s also led media companies, including Wired.com owner Condé Nast, to make big bets on emerging platforms such as Apple’s iPad tablet.

With so much at stake, some software developers on Thursday bristled at the new agreement, which for the first time appears to bar any app built using “intermediary translation” tools, such as those made by Adobe, from running on its various mobile devices. Instead, apps must be written directly in Objective-C and other approved languages.

“So much for programming language innovation on the iPhone platform” said Joe Hewitt, developer of the Facebook iPhone app, via Twitter. “I’m upset because frankly I think Objective-C is mediocre and was excited about using other languages to make iPhone development fun again. It’s so hard to reconcile my love for these beautiful devices on my desk with my hatred for the ugly words in that legal agreement.”

Apple has exercised tight control from the start over the iPhone platform, at first refusing to provide a software developer kit, or SDK, of any kind. Under pressure, Jobs ultimately relented, spawning a massive outpouring of creativity. More than 150,000 apps have made their way to the App Store so far.

But Apple’s grip over the iPhone has not loosened — and on Thursday appeared to tighten considerably.

While the long-term implications of the policy change are not certain, immediate losers appear to be providers of software that translates applications built originally for other platforms, like the web, to run natively on the iPhone OS.

A number of companies have created tools offering flexibility to developers who wish to code in different languages and port their software into native iPhone apps. The best-known example of such a tool is Adobe’s Packager for iPhone. The tool lets people build apps using the company’s Flash development tool, then export those apps to an iPhone-native format so they can run on Apple’s mobile devices, which don’t support Flash.

The Packager for iPhone is in public beta now, but will be a part of Adobe Creative Suite 5 when it’s released later this spring.

Adobe’s Creative Suite is widely used by the publishing industry and by videogame designers, and Apple’s new rule throws a wrench into their plans to publish iPad and iPhone versions of their magazines, newspapers and games using Adobe’s tools.

Other cross-compilers (as they’re known) are made by smaller companies like Appcelerator, which are scrambling at the news of Apple’s latest curveball.

“It seems like it will be difficult for Adobe to get around this restriction,” said Ross Rubin, an NPD analyst, regarding the updated iPhone developer agreement. “Apple wants to ensure developers use the technologies exposed in its tools and wants to avoid being an assimilated platform. It extends the Flash ban and says Apple is willing to risk doing without certain content rather than ceding control to Adobe.”

Apple did not return e-mails or phone calls seeking comment.

“We are aware of the new SDK language and are looking into it,” an Adobe spokesman said in a statement e-mailed to Gadget Lab. “We continue to develop our Packager for iPhone OS technology, which we plan to debut in Flash CS5.”

The policy change comes amid a chilling in relations between Apple and Adobe. Addressing his staff shortly after announcing the iPad, Jobs railed against Flash, calling it buggy. He also threw barbs at Adobe for being “lazy,” as first reported by Wired.com.

In the past, Apple’s agreement stipulated that applications “may only use documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple” and barred the use of private APIs.

The same portion of the new iPhone Developer Program License Agreement now reads:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

Additional reporting by Wired.com’s Michael Calore.

See Also:

• Flash Lands on iPhone — One App at a Time
• HTML5 for iPad Won’t Kill Flash, But Could Change Apps
• Apple Video Shows iPad Flash Support, But Don’t Believe It
• Why Apple Won’t Allow Adobe Flash on iPhone
• 5 Features the Apple Tablet Definitely Won’t Have — But Should
• Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra is ‘Bullshit,’ Adobe Is Lazy: Apple’s Steve Jobs

The iPhone community has reacted strongly to the Wired.com report that some app-review sites have pay-to-play policies.

Last week Gadget Lab reported on payola practices prevalent at several websites dedicated to reviewing iPhone apps. At least two authors of one site, TheiPhoneAppReview.com, recently required money from iPhone developers in exchange for reviews.

Those demands were at odds with TheiPhoneAppReview.com’s stated policy, which says that it only requires a fee for “expedited” reviews — those that are reviewed sooner than others.

Several developers responded to our story by promising to avoid sites with such policies. Jeff Campbell, owner of Tapestry Apps, pledged to blacklist pay-to-play websites and urged other developers to do so as well. Alexandra Peters, community manager of Firemint, which develops the popular iPhone game Flight Control, also said she would avoid sending news releases to pay-to-play sites.

“I encourage fellow developers to publicly pledge their intent to not support these sites by succumbing to their pay-to-play schemes,” wrote Jeff Campbell, owner of Tapestry Apps, in a blog post this week. “The sooner that well of income dries up, the sooner these guys might move on to more journalistically sound practices. Tapestry is willing to make that pledge.”

Paid reviews are not illegal, but critics of the practice say requiring money in exchange for reviews inevitably creates a conflict of interest and brings a publication’s credibility into question. Rich Cleland, a member of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told Wired.com last week that he frowns on the practice because a paid review can very easily be the same as a paid advertisement. Payment can induce a more favorable evaluation, and consumers, as a result, may be misled into purchasing a product based on a falsely positive review that was bought, he explained.

The FTC in October 2009 issued guidelines requiring bloggers to provide disclosure on reviews whenever goods, such as money or gifts, are exchanged. TheiPhoneAppReview.com and other sites covered by Wired.com disclose their “expedited review” fees in FAQs.

Some app-review websites responded to Wired.com’s coverage as well. Nine new websites have signed up to become part of the Organization for App Testing Standards (OATS), a set of ethical guidelines that rejects payment for reviews, according to Jeff Scott, owner of the app-review site 148Apps and co-creator of OATS.

Apple news publication Macworld, which owns an app-review website called AppGuide, is the latest OATS member. Jason Snell, editorial director of Macworld and a former journalism teacher at UC Berkeley, said the publication already follows “old-school journalistic practices,” so it was easy to join OATS.

“In the end, it’s all about being as transparent as possible so readers can make up their own minds about who to trust, and about not posing as something you’re not,” Snell said. “Readers need to know that true editorial reviews are fair, and aren’t the product of any quid pro quo involving money or any other favors…. People need to know where the opinions they’re reading are coming from.”

Wired.com’s article also sparked some debate among review websites. Michael Vallez, owner of the app-review site Crazy Mike’s Apps, said he charges for reviews, and he does not guarantee positive ratings.

“I provide more than a paid review, and I do not guarantee any positive reviews and have returned developers’ monies, because frankly their apps were horrible,” Vallez said.

Vallez added that websites that charge for advertising of iPhone apps, or benefit from affiliate links to iPhone apps, have financial ties as well.

In response to that argument, Macworld’s Snell said traditional media businesses build walls between editorial and advertising departments so advertising clients cannot influence coverage. He also said the actual dollar amounts from affiliate links are tiny, and that information is also walled off from editorial operations.

“I think it’s a ridiculous, slippery-slope argument — but hey, the payola sites have to find some way to try and hide their shame,” Snell said. “Maybe they should argue that any site that takes advertising is fundamentally compromised. But let’s visit reality: We live in a society with commercial media businesses. The way we’ve traditionally solved this conflict is by building walls between editorial and business, so that sales people can sell ads endlessly but the editors don’t even know who the advertisers are, and don’t care.”

In the journalism industry, the ethical debate surrounding pay-to-play operations has been longstanding, said Kenneth Pybus, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at Abilene Christian University. However, he said undisclosed paid reviews are indisputably unethical because they manipulate the public.

“I don’t think it’s defensible to fail to disclose that,” Pybus said. “That’s an easy call to say it’s ethically wrong because that is a disservice to readers. It ought to be information that applies to readers and not information that advances yourself financially.”

See Also:

• Pay to Play: Some iPhone App Sites Demand Money for Reviews
• iPhone Developer May Be Bribing Reviewers
• Ad Exec: Payola Can Save Webcasters, Music Business
• FCC, Broadcasters Agree to Anti-Payola Guidelines

Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com