Commentary on a post about Adobe’s “Mobile Strategy”
December 26th, 2009 by scottjanousek
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...UPDATE 12/30/2009 : Mark A Doherty has posted some comments on his blog.
Aral recently made a post entitled: “Why Adobe’s mobile strategy is fundamentally flawed”. I wanted to post about this, not because I necessarily agree with all of it, but rather to open it open for discussion to the broader Flash community, and also to give Adobe a chance to respond to it.
I’d also like to take some time to post comments on some of his thoughts, some of which I share, and others which I think are worthy of commenting on (from the perspective of a US based mobile and device professional).
Adobe is causing a bit of confusion in the community as they attempt to bridge the gap between Flash Lite and Flash Player 10.1, as well as tempt developers into Mobile development with Adobe toolset with the Apps for iPhone endeavors (i.e. Flash CS5 native publishing to iPhone).
In the end, Adobe isn’t really providing any clear direction on what Flash professionals should be doing/taking on devices, other than waiting for 10.1 and Adobe CS5 these days. Hopefully, that’ll change in 2010 as 10.1 starts to appear.
Back to Aral’s post though … let’s discuss each section of his post:
Yep. The “1 billion” # smacks of McDonalds type marketing (i.e. “over 1 billion are served”). In the very early days of Flash Lite (circa 2005), this was always frustrating to hear because a good majority of devices were all in APAC (i.e. Japan).
Later when Flash Lite 2.0 and 2.1 hit (circa 2006-2007) and penetration grew, we had Verizon Wireless to look at in the US. However, we know how all that turned out (i.e. not as well as one would have hoped). 
Today, we have Flash Lite 3.x across a good amount of devices … and also look forward to seeing Flash Player 10.1 devices hitting market in 2010.
Scattered ecosystems are in place for Flash Lite, but yes, we have yet to see one specifically marketed towards Flash 10.1 based content, except perhaps Adobe with shibuya (we’ll have to wait for AIR on devices, though).
Since Adobe dropped the Adobe Mobile Packager earlier this year, it’s one less avenue for developers to potentially make money off of Flash Lite apps.
Incidentally, some OEMs will be adopting Flash Lite 4, if you hadn’t heard the news earlier this year. It’s most probable, that OEMs like Nokia with the OVI Store will look to adopt this in their services, as well as for internal use for ui on devices.
“Why did Flash Lite fail?” – I think Aral means “failed for a lot early developers”, as OEMS were/are using Flash Lite pretty well for various purposes (e.g. ui’s). Also, I think Aral means Flash Lite outside of Japan, because there Flash was a big hit for both OEMs and developers in their ecosystem (i.e. imode).
Well a few things come to mind here. In the early days, Adobe was primarily concerned with licensing the Flash Lite player to OEMs. They were pretty successful in this, especially in the handset realm. Early days with Flash Lite weren’t the days of Apps, like today with Android and iPhone (although they could have been). The market has changed *drastically* so it’s easy to look back and comment on what “could have been”. There’s always a bit of timing and luck associated with these things. 
Of course, the most important equation, developers … wasn’t fully addressed until Flash Lite 2.1. At that point, Adobe tried to push Flash Lite on Verizon Wireless. Unfortunately, it was the wrong partner. Verizon Wireless was too closed, and frankly expensive for most devs to get on board. Sadly, Verizon Wireless’s deck of content never really took off with Flash Lite.
Later, when Flash Lite hit globally, in Europe, for example, newer ecosystems sprung up … unfortunately, there was little demand of Flash Lite in these arenas. I guess when it came down to it, there were no interesting handsets, and yes, Flash Lite at that point was not full of great APIs that we find today on Android, iPhone … that’s not the fault of Adobe, directly though … from 2005-2007, the market changed A LOT in the mobile and wireless world, and much of that had to do with the capabilities of iPhone.
Personally, I think it’s not entirely correct to say “Flash Lite failed”. What really was missing were the monetization and distribution pieces of the ecosystem with Flash Lite in the early days. Even Apple didn’t get that right the 1st time (if you remember back!).
The actual platform, although not as successful as iPhone (especially today), and still remains a decent platform for OEMs to adopt to do custom user interfaces, and provide other needs (e.g. widget development, etc).
Fragmentation has and will continue to be the bane of mobile and device developers.
The best one can hope for is reduced fragmentation. In the very very earliest days of Flash Lite, I do recall a lot of Macromedia and Adobe folks talking about eliminating fragmentation. However, it quickly became apparent that as Flash Lite was adopted, the “certification” of certain OEMs was kind of loose.
After a while, developers realized that the best one could achieve was to reduce fragmentation and not eliminate it. This isn’t just true of Flash, though, it’s across all mobile and device platforms … and yes, it will even be so for iPhone.
Just take a look at the move from SDK 2.0 to 3.0, and also the recent rumored requests from Apple looking for content that dynamically scales across newer screen sizes (i.e. for their rumored iSlate/Magic tablet). The good thing is that as Aral pointed out, Apple controls the whole deal, so fragmentation will be limited as much as possible.
No question that Apple’s done a good job in providing a closed development system that seems to work.
Ah, good old Microsoft. Yep, I don’t think we’ll see much until Windows Mobile 7 in 2010.
As for “who cares when you run the same crappy experience on every handset” comment. Well, no one said you had to target all the handsets out there. Smart developers target the top selling devices and forgo the rest. We learned this in Flash Lite 2.x days.
Typically developers target one platform to focus on with Flash. No one said that you need to create experiences for all devices and limit yourself by LCD.
It’s best to take the approach of targeting one device platform, developing there. If it’s possible to take the experience to another platform where it might be successful, then go for it, otherwise stick to what you know and what you believe in (in terms of devices/platforms).
It’s true that the Open Screen Project is a lot of marketing … you have to read through that, and understand what’s going on in the mobile and device realm to be successful.
My personal recommendation is to target top selling devices which are easy to develop for and have established and viable ecosystems (i.e. ways to monetize and distribute content easily and successfully). You figure it out from there.
Wow. Wonder who Aral is referring to when he says “they are not competitive when it comes to user experience”? I assume he means Adobe, but is Adobe creating the experiences? I’ve seen far too many great experiences done with Flash on devices, despite some of its early limitations! I disagree with this assessment.
In terms of hardware support, there’s no disagreeing there. OEMs who make their own tools and roll in their own APIs are always going to win out.
However, if one takes the time to look at the AS3 API support for devices in 10.1, you can see at least Adobe is giving it thought.
4 years ago with Flash Lite they weren’t even interested in providing Device API support (I know, because I asked numerous times for support to tap GPS, bluetooth, etc in Flash Lite).
It’s very true that interpreted code will never be fast as native in terms of speed (even with JIT). But there are other things to consider, portability is one. We all know that WORA is a big loft dream that’s never been achieved, but I do think that Flash can save considerable time in porting code and experiences across platforms. I know because I’ve done it multiple times.
When it comes to providing native compilation, I can’t see Adobe doing this for more than a few device platforms … not unless OEMs would be willing to help. Question then is, why would OEMs want to provide tools for Flash Developers to do native compiles when they can just provide native tools? Answer is, they probably wouldn’t.
So, unless Adobe takes it onto themselves, I don’t think we’ll see much native compiling other than Adobe’s effort with the iPhone … and with that, I think it’s primarily a way for Adobe to get early Flash-like experiences on the iPhone, with developers using AS3 and Adobe tooling.
It’s basically Adobe’s way of waking Apple to take a look at Flash again for browser implementation.
I still see it a hard road to try to sell Apple on the idea of Flash Player in browser. I think we’ll likely see another year of native iPhone apps before Apple even takes another look at adopting Flash in their browser (even with the improvements to battery, performance and other factors found in Flash Player 10.1).
Yep, the Flash Community was talking about compiling to iPhone using AS for a LONG time. It’s finally here, or should I say, it’s now public knowledge that it’s coming in CS5 from Adobe (previous Flash to iPhone excited in private beta from other 3rd parties … only Open Plug went public with this Ellipsis technology, earlier this year).
Device APIs were a missing part very early in the evolution of Flash Lite. That’s not to say Macromedia/Adobe wasn’t think of them, but that they are just “late to the game”, so to speak. The market changed heavily from 2005-2007, and by 2008, developers understood the possibilities will tapping into location, camera, and things like multitouch, local storage, etc.
If you take a look at the OEMs adopting Flash Lite 3.x out there, a large number of them have added Flash Lite Device API integration into their platforms. Unfortunately, yes, fragmentation exists.
With Flash 10.1 coming to devices in 2010, however, we (hopefully) see more consolidation of Device APIs, especially in multitouch, location, accelerometer support (3 APIs which are *public* knowledge that should be supported in AS3 when Flash 10.1 hits devices).
Yes, (most of) Adobe’s revenue is driven by their Products (e.g. Creative Suite). However, I think we’re beginning to see more emphasis on services, which looks promising. In terms of native compilation from Adobe tools. Yes, we’re going to see native iPhone compilation in Flash CS5 in 2010.
I guess Aral is suggesting that Adobe takes this convention to other platforms as well. This is something I had thought of as well.
In some sense, this would be like Adobe following in the footsteps of Unity, except for 2-D instead of 3-D use cases. I see problems with this approach though. Take a look at some of the major device platforms: Android, RIM, Symbian, Maemo, webOS, BREW, Windows Mobile.
Do any of these make any sense? Let’s explain them on a very high level, quickly:
- Android: Probably not. It’s too open and the fragmentation across OEMs is very high. What does native compilation get developers? They can already tap into device APIs via SDK, etc. Speed and Performance, sure, but what else? I have a hard time believing that Adobe would extend native compiles into this platform, it’ll be much easier for them to support Flash inside the browser, and adopt Adobe AIR using Flash 10.1.
- RIM: Well, I’m not too sure here. The market is a good one in the US and abroad. RIM is mostly business apps. Frankly Blackberries are a bit foreign to me as a development platform, but with the recent announcement earlier this year, I can see this platform as a potential candidate for native compilation, if RIM continues to grow their marketshare.
- Symbian: Nope. If you hadn’t heard the news, Symbian will be a legacy platform as Nokia works to make Maemo their new platform. This platform is dying, and my understand is, only low end feature phones will be supporting it in the future. I think it’s pretty evident that Nokia and Adobe won’t be doing native compile with Symbian … they are going to do Flash Lite 3.x and 4.x and that may be it (i.e. 10.1 will be supported on Maemo).
- Maemo: This platform might make sense. It’s fairly new, and it could be ripe for Nokia to work with Adobe to make it happen. I can see Nokia working with Adobe to make this happen. However, it’s a costly and timely investment. My guess is that Nokia will do 10.1 inside the browser, and do AIR for standalone apps across Maemo.
- webOS: I can see the case made for this venture. The market is just getting started and the tools available to make webOS apps right now is fairly limiting. Adobe might do well here, especially if they retooled Adobe Dreamweaver to compile webOS apps and allow developers to test inside of Device Central. Eclipse is not for everyone, especially designers who work creating *experiences*. I think there is a lot of value here for native compilation from inside Flash CS5 and/or Dreamweaver … especially when Adobe and Palm have made it pretty clear that the implementation of Flash Player on webOS will be *browser* based. Compiling natively would be interesting here. Haven’t heard Adobe AIR mentioned with webOS, but that might be another potential road Adobe may travel.
- BREW: What’s interesting, and that a lot of developers might not know is that Flash Lite 2.1 was able to compile natively to BREW. In fact, the newer iPhone native compilation is similar to what was possible with Flash Lite 2.1 publish to BREW format. I haven’t heard much from Qualcomm recently, but last I heard they had their custom own Flash Player, and the BREW Mobile Platform tied around it. I really haven’t heard their 10.1 plans, but compiling natively from Flash CS5 to BREW would not surprise me at all, if they were working on such a thing … one problem is, their “Get it Now” deck was always so closed and restrictive. Again, not sure what they are up to here, as I have not worked under BREW for at least one year. iPhone Platform is the “new BREW” (closed and controlled, but this time from juggernaut Apple).
- Windows Mobile: I see a lot of potential here. Unfortunately I don’t think Adobe will get any cooperation from Microsoft, so they’d be doing this venture all by themselves, as they are with Apps for iPhone project. Would Adobe invest into developing “Apps for Windows Mobile” (i.e. native compilation of SWF byte code into Windows Mobile binaries?) … I doubt it … or at least not unless Microsoft delivers some really really cool devices with Windows 7 when it ships in 2010. I won’t count this out entirely, but I think this platform is unlikely to target for native compilation.
I like the idea of Adobe Dreamweaver for webOS … probably because I thought of it earlier this summer, as well. Not sure on Adobe’s plans, but will be interesting to see if there’s a market for Adobe to take action on providing an IDE to supplement Eclipse available for the developer crowd working under webOS.
As for adding on native compile support for device platforms other than iPhone going forward … I don’t see this happening, but would welcome it on platforms where it makes sense. Android would only make sense, if Adobe *wasn’t* going to do AIR on Android devices … to my knowledge, they haven’t really disclosed that info one way or the other.
All in all, I don’t think Adobe’s mobile strategy is “flawed” as Aral put it, but it’s quite clear that their future depends heavily on the success of Flash Player 10.1 on devices, both in browser, as well as leveraging AIR for standalone apps, as well as potentially Flex when/if they become available for developers to use in 2010.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:28 am
Great analytical review. I think Aral is deep into an opinion but not deep enough into research. I remember when he bought his iPhone and raved about it way too long. Here we are a year later and he wrote his first app and now wants native compiling on all mobile platforms? He has no idea what he is asking for or how complicated that would really be. I am glad Adobe is pimping a faster better plugin in 10.1 and promoting monitization via AIR. That is the future. Eventually apple will need to open up or be left behind.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hi Scott, I’m not sure what the question is. (I saw Aral’s headline, but his text didn’t seem to support it.)
“In the end, Adobe isn’t really providing any clear direction on what Flash professionals should be doing/taking on devices, other than waiting for 10.1 and Adobe CS5 these days. Hopefully, that’ll change in 2010 as 10.1 starts to appear.”
It’s a transition time, that’s true. In late 2008 there was internal re-organization to unite the workstation, smartphone and wall-screen runtimes, and during 2009 the Player team has been working like demons to bring it all about. First fruits should be seen early in 2010, as partners start introducing these next-generation of devices at Consumer Electronics Show and Mobile World Congress.
What should developers do now? That’s a tricky question for a tools vendor to answer during times of linear growth, much less during times of non-linear growth. A lot of the answer would depend on the business environment of the individual developer.
Is this the type of response you were hoping to see? Or…?
jd/adobe
December 28th, 2009 at 7:11 am
@Steve, AIR so far has provided near zero “monetization” to pretty much anybody that has used it, what make you think it will change when it will eventually reach mobiles?
What exactly you mean with “Eventually apple will need to open up or be left behind”? Apple is already open to anybody that wants to create application using the free tools they provide, I still find difficult to understand the prospective Flash developers always have when Flash is not available for some platforms and they think “it is closed”.
Aral analysis of Flash on mobile is well informed and realistic and beside the “1 billion” claim, the Open Screen funding and many initiatives to fuel Flash mobile market I still see around the same content of 5 years ago (check Ovi store), this eventually proves that market, customers and even developers are not that interested in Flash mobile content at all.
Check the history of FlashCast for hints.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:32 am
First off, thank you Scott for your excellent post. I’m glad my post has sparked debate on this issue.
Steve: Actually, the technologies we need to make implementing JIT easier are already there. LLVM for one is rather revolutionary as an enabler for this. And we are already seeing other platforms (like Unity, for example) take this approach with great success. I’m not saying it’s not difficult but Adobe isn’t a mom and pop shop either and mark my words: the future is in native compilation and/or open web technologies not running a proprietary VM on mobile devices.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“… mark my words: the future is in native compilation and/or open web technologies not running a proprietary VM on mobile devices.”
That’s the part that confuses me… the core of these blogposts seems to be “I believe that writing directly-to-the-metal for each device, along with cross-runtime HTML instructions, are the most important directions of growth.”
Each of us should arrive at our opinions, and if you’ve arrived at the above one, then that’s your prerogative, not subject to debate. So I’m not sure what you’re seeking.
In case you’re seeking “Adobe must agree with me”, then the company will reach its own decision, and I’m not sure which points of persuasion in the above essays should be highlighted to change minds within the company.
(Me, I remember how the old Director Player for Windows/SGI/3DO etc created multiple files for multiple devices, and how things only really took off once Director evolved to using the same file across operating systems… each of us has our own history, and reaches our own beliefs.)
jd/adobe
December 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I think about how PHP, .NET, and ColdFusion, to name a few are all running with assistance from a VM of sorts. Saying that VMs are not the future doesn’t seem to be based in any real trend. Where is that idea coming from?
If anything, the world seems to be going CRAAAAZY with VMs and Frameworks. Of the worlds programming languages and capabilities there are far fewer that are truly locally compiled into native binary system code and simply provide a lightweight layer of calling APIs.
I wouldn’t argue with Aral that running native code would result in faster code. In most cases that will be technically true, if not require a micronometer to measure the speed difference. I think the issue here is specifically the speed of a Flash VM running on a mobile device. As this inevitably improves, this conversation will fade into a faint memory.
Apple is really the exception in my opinion. I would hate to imagine that it become the rule. If Adobe invests in any direction, my hope is that they continue to invest in improving the speed of the VM rather than getting spread thin in an attempt to create less-than-comparable platform-specific native code compilers. VMs can be updated with relative ease. Imagine updating compilers everywhere with the same level of ease?
As for Apple getting left behind… there was an article this year about the iphone loosing market sharing in the years to come:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173601/symbian_and_android_to_lead_mobile_os_market_in_2012.html
As for monetizing AIR applications… read about:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/shibuya/
Adobe has an AIR Marketplace and if you include their SWC then it can timebomb the AIR application limiting the trial period and hooking the potential sale into a standardized purchasing model. This is new, but again, it matches much of what is already out there and is a part of a measurable trend.
This conversation actually reminds me of one I had with a niece. She noticed my grandmother’s watch. She said “What is the nob on the side for, grandma?” My grandmother told her about how people used to wind up watches. Now, of course we use little batteries in our watches, but my niece imagined the value of winding up a watch manually… “So, I wouldn’t have to buy new batteries for my watch? That seems like the future.” Everyone near the conversation giggled.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I still marvel at how very few people get the fact that Flash Player everywhere != market for Flash content everywhere. Apple has built an ecosystem where the iPhone represent just a part of it.
It starts with the delivery mechanism, whether it is iTunes/AppStore on PC and the very important icons on the iPhone: I don’t need a computer to buy/install/content and I don’t need to download/install/update a dedicated application to buy other applications (see the disaster of the Ovi store for indications on how these things can go bad).
That fact that AIR has a market place has been just un-noticed by the vast majority of the potential customers, since there is no direct access to it from desktop: you got to know where it is in oder to buy content from it. AIR on mobile is competing not just with native applications but with very establish alternatives, check the runtimes available on Symbian for an indication.
Flash VM is getting more and more complex, that in turn makes it very difficult to debug and tune completely for every platform; If the year just ending by is of any indication, just check how many “security update versions” we had to install to keep our systems safe. Who is going to provide those updates to devices: carriers, manufacturers, Adobe? And what is going to be their incentive in doing that? Too many Flash developers are thinking that as Adobe has called the mobile version of the player with the same name of the desktop one, that they are going to be the effectively the same.
Let’s see how PaperVision or anything else more complex than a few dynamically modified movieclips will perform in there, shall we?
December 28th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Cipolloni:
If the Flash VM exists on a platform, why else would it be there other than for the purpose of expanding the market? Nobody is going to take the time to put it on there unless they intend to use it. Now, there will always be a market for Flash-haters. I could agree with that one. It is always true that simply opening a door doesn’t mean anyone will step through it. Likewise, building an app in Flash or in XCode doesn’t mean anyone will actually buy it.
After iPhone version 2 and 3 there were a series of “dot” updates to the whole OS and then the iPhone app store updates about 1/3 of my apps every 3rd week ever since. So I think we are apples to apples on complaining about the inconvenience of updating the Flash player versus updating the iPhone OS or all of my apps. I have owned my iPhone for a long time now (a first generation device) so I have watched it all update over time here.
In fact, in terms of Apple XCode development for iPhone: Under the original SDK Apple made all developers sign a non-disclosure agreement claiming they can’t explain what happens inside iphone app development. I think we are now in version 3 of the SDK and they finally removed that part of the license for their “free” software.
Someone jump in here? Flex has been on the market for how many years now? And you can completely develop Flash content using the Flex SDK with FlashDevelop, including creating AIR Applications and now with Elips you can create iPhone apps with that Open Source software? Just because Adobe wants to charge people for their development tools does not mean that they aren’t making strides toward an open source reality in the Flex framework. I recall when my company wanted to setup a linux server. They could have downloaded some vanilla version that was “free” but they opted for buying “red hat” with support. Makes sense to me!
As for marketing… Apple is snipping 1/3 of your profit if you sell in there store? Compare that to the Android Marketplace? Compare that to the AIR Marketplace? My best guess is that mac fanboys will pipe up and defend the way it is simply because its mac (worth mentioning that I work on PCs in the office and have for 10 years but I own macs at home.)
Is Objective-C an open framework? Or are we confusing free with open source when people can contribute?
“Flash VM is getting more and more complex, that in turn makes it very difficult to debug and tune completely for every platform” – I think this is case and point for getting the VM on as many platforms as possible. If it is complex to maintain a VM, it is equally as complex to keep a bunch of OS-specific compilers updated and error free.
I think most people will acknowledge openly that the AIR Market place is in its infancy. Hey, everything has to start somewhere. And I think it is a great and brilliant move. I would keep an eye on it rather than bash it. The whole reason it is there is to help folks like us build better income streams. We can suddenly find clients thanks to the Adobe mothership. That is good stuff and no different than what Apple is doing. More importantly it really looks like Adobe will be promoting AIR and the “try and buy” SWC for mobile installations as well. But this is all new and very hopeful stuff.
The one thing we will definitely agree on is waiting to see how Flash-based projects perform on a device like the iPhone. I might be sensing a bit of skepticism in the tone of your question, but I think the hesitation to imagine that it will perform great is reasonable. I guess I would rather be pleasantly surprised rather than taking the time to imagine that it will be a huge failure. But not matter our concerns or hopes, alas we must wait and see!
December 29th, 2009 at 6:04 am
What puzzles me here is the notion that Speed and Performance isn’t important. These days, it’s all I want from the Flash Player no matter the hardware platform. Give me Speed and Performance and I’ll be a happy camper
J
December 29th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Steve,
I believe a few things you list are actually a bit confused. First of all, criticizing Flash or its mobile strategy is not bashing or hating it, probably Flash developers would be more of help to Adobe if they openly admit the limits and suggest what to change rather than applauding at every move. Developers thinking that Flash is going to be the solution for all their problems, will face a huge wall, if the past 6 years of FlashLite have been of any indication.
More on your thoughts:
“Likewise, building an app in Flash or in XCode doesn’t mean anyone will actually buy it.”
True, but if you are prevented or it is extremely difficult to publish it/sell it on devices you are a very big step behind reaching the market.
As for iPhone OS updates, users just need to connect iphone to PC and iTunes will check and suggest to download/install the newer version of the OS. Last time I checked Nokia handsets (disclosure: I have been developing for Nokia handsets since 2002), requires a lot more efforts to do that, so chances that average users will actually update their phones at all are very scarce (read: fragmentation among the very same model of phone). And still on updates, I prefer one company that can control the destiny of all the components of the os rather than relying on a myriad of external suppliers. Unless you think that manufacturers will actually put on line a new version of the OS overtime Adobe or others thinks player/VM/whatever should be updated.
“In fact, in terms of Apple XCode development for iPhone: Under the original SDK Apple made all developers sign a non-disclosure agreement claiming they can’t explain what happens inside iphone app development. I think we are now in version 3 of the SDK and they finally removed that part of the license for their “free” software.”
The NDA was only active when the iPhone SDK was not released to public. Unless you can point me to any blog/web site that details and comments about Flash CS5, I think Adobe is doing exactly the same. And yes XCode is free even if not open sourced, while Flash Professional is not free and not open sourced.
“ And you can completely develop Flash content using the Flex SDK with FlashDevelop, including creating AIR Applications and now with Elips you can create iPhone apps with that Open Source software?”
More confusion here: the company is called OPEN-PLUG and even if the word “OPEN” appears in their name, they don’t make open source software (or at least Elips is not); pretty much in the same way “Open Screen” does not make Flash open source….. Flashdevelop is a good editor and project manager for code only projects, there is no visual editor, no integrated debugger and so on, comparing it to Flash Professional hardly makes any sense.
“As for marketing… Apple is snipping 1/3 of your profit if you sell in there store? Compare that to the Android Marketplace? Compare that to the AIR Marketplace?”
Sorry Steve, you should really check facts before writing: Google charges Android developers 30% exactly like Apple, AIR Market place is only for free applications at the moment, Shibuya, when it will be available, will allow for try/buy mechanism (as you mention), but if the buying action will be handled by Adobe itself, instead of the developer, they will charge a percentage of the sale price; they have to, as payments/credit card processing is not free. The 30% charged by Apple/Google is not for marketing only: they free developers from the need of creating their own selling cart/website, paying hosting fees, handling credit card transactions/rejection/verification and ultimately to deal with all the taxes/bureaucracy in nearly every country in the world, so that 30% is very well spent. By the way, other distributors like Handango were charging a minimum of 40% and most frequently up to 60% of the sale to developers. Apple and Google charging fee sound like a good deal to me and to the several hundred thousands of iPhone developers.
“Is Objective-C an open framework? Or are we confusing free with open source when people can contribute?”
I believe you are confusing frameworks and languages. Objective-C is a LANGUAGE, Cocoa and CocoaTouch are FRAMEWORKS (built using Objective-C). By definition, frameworks can be extended (i.e.: I can create my own animated button class if I want) with either free or closed source software modules. One very important limitation of VM based environments (like Flash) is that developers can only use features provided by the VM developer (Adobe in Flash case) as it is impossible to extend the functionalities of the VM in any way. For example, Adobe has said already it will be impossible to use the Camera or native UI controls in AS3 projects exported for iPhone: should we consider this a limitation imposed by who? In latest release of the constantly updated AIR runtime and after much resistance, Adobe has introduced the ability of interacting with native OS processes, sounds like Adobe had to adapt here rather than others had to follow them (like you were suggesting for mobile). Interestingly enough, Adobe has disabled CANVAS handling in the WebKit distribution used by AIR (WebKit is maintained by Apple, among others) I wonder why they did it.
Adobe original wet dream was to make hardware/software differences between various handsets irrelevant as long as they had Flash (and Adobe was collecting fees for it). But since nobody wanted another Microsoft, no manufacturer wanted to make Flash prominent on their own handsets and keep it only as a “feature”.
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
What’s up, I just found your blog – thank you for writing. Just wanted to let you know that it’s not showing up properly on the BlackBerry Browser (I have a Bold). Anyway, I’m now on your RSS feed on my laptop, so thanks!