Summary: As Apple pulls the switch on many developers, towards Linux/Android they begin to march
ADOBE was blocked by Apple due to Apple's infinite arrogance (Adobe also ditched Windows Mobile, but that's another story). Other developers state publicly that they are sick of Apple, announcing that they will ditch Apple for future development. Meanwhile there's Adobe's other side, which has already warmed up to the Linux Foundation and even to LiMo. Perlow said that Adobe should rely on Linux to spread its binaries and Microsoft's booster Tim Anderson says that "Adobe [is] no longer investing in Flash compiler for iPhone, sings Android praises" (Android and Linux may soon be re-merged at the kernel level).
Chambers spends much of his post saying how well Flash runs on Android – though Flash Player 10.1 and AIR 2.0 for Android are still in beta – and suggesting that Flash developers target Android instead.
"The fact that Apple would make such a hostile and despicable move like this clearly shows the difference between our two companies,"
wrote one of Adobe's employees, whose even ruder words generated some bad-looking headlines that had Adobe distance itself from his statements quite quickly. He spoke passionately and that's just fine. That was a few weeks ago.
It is possible that the
Mono boosters will also aim their Microsoft wares at Android now that Android is growing faster than any other mobile platform (depending on the source/s of the claim). We already know that they are doing this [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9].
Given the continued stream of news about Apple's exclusion of Mono [
1,
2,
3,
4], focus on this strategy may be inevitable, but Novell's Microsoft MVP is still fighting to control Apple platforms with Microsoft APIs.
Novell VP and Mono project lead Miguel de Icasa isn't worried that MonoTouch might fall under Apple's new restrictions that banned Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone compiler. He just announced the release of MonoTouch 3.0, which adds support for iPhoneOS 4.0's new APIs. MonoTouch compiles C# to C and XCode (the iPhone IDE), unlike the Flash CS5 compiler, which compiles to machine code. Still, MonoTouch apps are originally written in a language other than the ones listed in the new iPhone terms, so like any iPhone app, it just depends on the whim of Apple. MonoTouch 3.0 was quick to add support for Multitasking, iAds, Game Center, and enterprise data protection.
As
The Source points out, there are almost no Mono applications that use MonoTouch anyway. To quote:
After the whole Apple 3.3.1 “Can’t develop with non-approved toolchains” debacle a lot of people set up a Google Docs spreadsheet to list the tons of amazing apps that would be impacted by this rule change.
[...]
The numbers are even less impressive if you wished to focus on a single toolchain of interest, like say – oh I don’t know – MonoTouch, which can boast almost a whole dozen entries on the spreadsheet.
Over at the
SD Times (which loves Microsoft and has Microsoft as a prominent advertiser based on what the PDFs of the magazine show), professional Microsoft booster Larry O'Brien has
this new piece defending Microsoft and Mono while denouncing Apple. This is typical. We have seen just about any proponent of Microsoft doing this and only a week ago we saw
David Worthington and O'Brien chatting with one another about how horrible it is that Apple blocks Mono. It's very unprofessional when two writers from the same magazine quote one another when both basically hold the same position.
Anyway, MonoTouch is being blocked [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7] and the future of it seems uncertain. On the desktop, the situation is similar, but a Canonical employee has
this application which is one among others that make people dependent on Mono. As we noted yesterday,
Canonical's CTO is at least aware of the problems with Mono.
⬆
Comments
uberVU - social comments
2010-04-24 13:09:01
This post was mentioned on Identica by schestowitz: #Adobe Turns to !Linux After #Apple Snub http://techrights.org/2010/04/21/linux-android-win-after-apple-block/...
Yuhong Bao
2010-04-23 01:36:35
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-04-23 01:39:47
your_friend
2010-04-22 00:28:39
Yuhong Bao
2010-04-22 01:41:03
Charles Oliver
2010-04-22 11:30:59
It may not be a player but it enables the playing of video. Without get_iplayer (http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer, now discontinued), which used rtmpdump or flvstreamer (until the BBC added the flash pings to stop flvstreamer working) I've had no easy way to watch iPlayer content.
It does seem like the sweet spot for viewing content without the problems associated with flash has gone.
I should point out that I have nothing against flash, as such, it's allowed rich media on web pages years before the talk of html5 and when used in moderation can be useful but it doesn't play videos very well down my connection, which means I needs a method of buffering the video and rtmpdump works for that.
Charles Oliver
2010-04-22 12:01:40
Which I guess shows the advantage of FLOSS. Wonder what would happen if Adobe went down.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-04-22 13:50:56
Adobe is one company Microsoft never managed to kill.
your_friend
2010-04-23 22:54:38
If Adobe would take down RTMP Dump, they will take down any free software player. Technically, RTMPDump is not a free software Flash player, it is the vital component of any such beast. Like DeCSS is the vital component of any free software DVD player, RTMP stream handling is fundamental to Flash playing with or without encryption. Adobe has viciously attacked RTMP Dump as a tool for "piracy" using the nasty laws they helped establish in the US.
Adobe should not be forgiven because the project can thrive in countries with more reasonable laws. Adobe works hand in glove with companies like Microsoft that are trying to push ACTA, a law that's even worse than the DMCA, on everyone.
Adobe's Flash player has always been a form of malware. It has been used to track users for advertisers, forces users to watch advertisement, and eradicates fair use of media played through it. Non free flash players are obnoxious vehicles for advertising and intrusion.
It is shameful to grovel at Adobe's feet for their malware. Adobe, Apple and Microsoft have perverted web standards away from free software alternatives for nearly a decade. It is time for independent publishers to do what Wikipedia has done.