Apple puts legal knife into Adobe's CS5 - New iPhone Developer Agreement Bans the Use of Adobe’s Flash-to-iPhone Compile

[Tulrin]

Article Accelerator wrote:
No, I haven't "as much as admitted" I'm a "fanboi" but I absolutely admit to being an enthusiastic user of Apple's products and an admirer of the company itself. It's quite a business story, isn't it?

You did write: “Are you surprised to find a fanboi or fangurrrl on a site called MacResource Forum?” I took that to mean that you did not disagree with the moniker.

Article Accelerator wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps my own arguments have indeed been weak.
To make up for that, here are links to articles espousing positions on the topic that I heartily agree with. Their arguments are far stronger and more cogent efforts than I could ever make. Enjoy:

It seems we agree on two things.

Article Accelerator wrote:
You obviously know nothing about the publishing and pre-press industries, among others.

Photoshop alternatives:
http://psd.tutsplus.com/articles/top-5-a...mac-users/

Illustrator alternatives:
http://www.inkscape.org/
http://www.freeverse.com/mac/product/?id=6020

Alternatives to Dreamweaver:
http://alternativeto.net/desktop/adobe-d...atform=mac

(personally prefer just using eclipse.)

Flash alternative:
Not many however you can use the free plug-in for eclipse. Still makes it Adobe but the IDE is not and the plugin is free.

Alternatives for Acrobat:
Native to Mac, no need.

Alternative for Premiere and After Effects:
Final Cut

Alternative for InDesign:
Quark

No one is forced to use Adobe products. There are viable alternatives, granted some are more viable than others.

Article Accelerator wrote:
Exactly. And, as I said before, it's clear that we agree. So why the long, drawn out discussion?

Because we do not agree on one fundamental concept: I hold consumers should have a choice, you do not.

My position has been that it is better to have an application that fills a need regardless if it takes advantage of all of a platform's native advantages. You hold the position that such an application “harms” a platform by its very existence and so should be excluded from a platform.

Apple's EULA change for 4.0 will not affect me much since the programming language I started my career with is C. This just means I can keep billing higher rates for iPhone apps as long as the clients keep coming... it seems I am betting on Apple.

[Article Accelerator]

Tulrin wrote: No one is forced to use Adobe products

Yes, they are. That's my point. (BTW, I'm well aware that there are alternatives.)

Tulrin wrote: [quote=Article Accelerator]
Exactly. And, as I said before, it's clear that we agree. So why the long, drawn out discussion?

Because we do not agree on one fundamental concept: I hold consumers should have a choice, you do not.
What gave you that impression?

My position has been that it is better to have an application that fills a need regardless if it takes advantage of all of a platform's native advantages.

And my position is that people who feel that way have other choices.

This just means I can keep billing higher rates for iPhone apps as long as the clients keep coming...

The key is that last part, but good for you.