Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=Tulrin]
Wow, been drinking some Koolaid? Do you drones just repeat whatever Steve Jobs says word for word without a shred of independent thought? How exactly does a developer using cross-compilers harm a platform?
Wow--by watering it down at the user-facing level to lowest-common-denominator features, performance, and interface.
I would have thought that would be obvious but, apparently, not so...
I should know better than to argue with a fanboi. Again you are just repeating practically word for word what Steve Jobs says... but here goes:
Like iTunes on Windows? Or QuickTime on any other platform than Mac? Seems Steve is a hypocrite... but that is hardly news.
If an application does not fill a need users would not use it. Simple as that. If an application fills a need then it enhances a platform and does not detract from it.
That being said, there are quite a few applications out there that are painful to use (QuickTime definitely falls in that category) however there are others that are not, i.e. Eclipse, Firefox.
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
silvarios wrote:
Why does Adobe Photoshop fail as a Mac and a Windows app? The non native GUI hurts usability on both versions. The situation is even worse on the Mac as the refusal to use Cocoa actually degrades performance and feature integration because of Adobe's grand cross platform development scheme. Ever wonder why 64 bit PhotoShop came first to Windows. Sad really.
I think the concern on the iPhone OS is that Adobe's toolkit will always lag behind the native apps. I suppose Apple should ask Adobe to submit a CS5 compiled app and then run benchmarks against a similarly coded native app. I would be curious of the results.
Nathan
The Photoshop UI and actually the entire Adobe suite is annoying. It crashes on both platforms and it buggy... but would it improve either platform for their to be no Photoshop offering what so ever? No Illustrator? Per Steve Jobs argument it would be... what do you think?
As it currently stands if a competitor comes in and develops a better application then Adobe will have to respond, until then it is better to have Photoshop than not.
If the Mac platform had the same restrictions as has been applied to the iPhone and iPad then that is the way it would be.
As a side: Funny enough Adobe's cross-platform development strategy was adopted in response to Apple's complaints that the Mac releases were sometimes as much as 6 months after the Windows releases.
I would also be interested in seeing some side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks but you cannot count on Apple being honest with that based on past situations where they fudged benchmarks. I am sure someone will run benchmarks in the near future since anyone can do so, it does not take Apple to do it.
I still believe the real issue here is that if Apple lets Adobe bring its developer base to the iPhone using Flash to create iPhone apps they will lose some level of control. No company wants to give up that level of control to a third party... and given Apple and Adobe's history it makes sense.
If the issue really was about "quality" then Apple should remove about half of the current apps since many of them are pretty bad.
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
I don't know, I still don't find Firefox to be very platform friendly. It isn't terrible, just okay. Then again, I use Opera and it is far from native. Can't wait until Opera 10.5 so that I can finally have a Cocoa native version on my Mac.
QuickTime on Windows is pretty bad. iTunes is okay (I've seen worse apps from "Windows only" developers).
Adobe is an okay company, but they have their warts as well. The Adobe Reader installer on any platform is atrocious. Forcing MS not to bundle a PDF printing tool with Office? Strange, to say the least. The Flash experience isn't very good on any platform, but has gotten much better in the last couple years. My main frustration was that OS X, a platform that had long integrated the Flash plug-in as a component of the base installation, existed as a second class citizen, while Windows, a platform that made it a point of fact not to bundle Flash, was considered the primary development target. I would guess increased competition via Silverlight and HTML5 has encouraged Adobe to stop resting on their laurels. CS suite activation is onerous. I could go on, but what would be the point?
I could start a similar list regarding Apple, but again, what's the point. The bad Flash developers (as opposed to the good Flash developers) will continue to foist their crap upon the web, and the suffering will continue. I actually feel bad for the people who actually do a great job with their Flash content. I liken the situation to how JavaScript is actually as bad of an offender as Flash, but that doesn't mean that JS isn't incredibly useful when coded properly. The dearth of quality developers may be the true problem. What is the saying? When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Maybe that's the problem with developers who only understand one language or runtime.
My issues with Flash goes back at least 5, maybe 8 years. The more prevalent Flash became, the more my frustration with web browsing grew. This has nothing to do with Apple's corporate position because as I mentioned, Apple was actually a big Flash supported during that time frame.
Yet, I use Flash, especially on my Wii. That's how Wii transfer is able to stream my video files. I appreciate the functionality. I don't hate Flash. I want it to get a lot better, or I want it to be surpassed by better options. Simple really.
Nathan
Posts: 21,452
Threads: 243
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
0
Tulrin wrote: The Photoshop UI and actually the entire Adobe suite is annoying. It crashes on both platforms and it buggy... but would it improve either platform for their to be no Photoshop offering what so ever? No Illustrator? Per Steve Jobs argument it would be... what do you think?
I would be fine, but I am not a creative type, well that's not fair. I have limited creative output, but I tended to use non Adobe tools anyway. I had a copy of Freehand and a few versions of Canvas. Oh my, truly sad how the latter was slowly destroyed, and even sadder, I thought the last couple versions were starting to get good again (9 and X I think?). I still wish their was a nice Cocoa rewrite of Canvas for OS X. I would have forsaken the upgrade price and paid full retail for such a beast. Then again, the Freehand decline was almost equally heart wrenching.
I forgot an app, SuperPaint, loved it, I think I had a copy when Aldus took over the reigns. RIP SuperPaint.
Tulrin wrote: As a side: Funny enough Adobe's cross-platform development strategy was adopted in response to Apple's complaints that the Mac releases were sometimes as much as 6 months after the Windows releases.
I can believe that, but I still think Adobe chose the wrong tactic to speed up Mac development. They needed to bite the bullet and push for a full rewrite. I know, I know, the Mac CS users would have howled in protest at the limited functionality of the first Cocoa version, but version 2 or 3 would have gotten better and that would have shut up the haters. Maybe.
Nathan
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 175
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Tulrin wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=Tulrin]
Wow, been drinking some Koolaid? Do you drones just repeat whatever Steve Jobs says word for word without a shred of independent thought? How exactly does a developer using cross-compilers harm a platform?
Wow--by watering it down at the user-facing level to lowest-common-denominator features, performance, and interface.
I would have thought that would be obvious but, apparently, not so...
I should know better than to argue with a fanboi.
Are you surprised to find a fanboi or fangurrrl on a site called MacResource Forum? Are you surprised that a Mac user would prefer software that makes the most of his or her chosen platform?
Like iTunes on Windows? Or QuickTime on any other platform than Mac? Seems Steve is a hypocrite... but that is hardly news.
Hypocritical? I don't think so. Users of other platforms are free to choose devices that don't require iTunes for sync/update. On the Mac, at least, some users are not free to choose alternate software to fulfill their needs. See below.
If an application does not fill a need users would not use it. Simple as that.
Not quite--it's not "simple" at all.
Apple has already been down this road and suffered the consequences of having its Mac competitive advantages erased by ported or cross-compiled lowest-common-denominator applications. Users may still use those applications because industry practices and standards demand they do so (e.g. Photoshop, InDesign) but they feel the pain of the non-optimal performance and foreign interface nonetheless.
Apple is not going to make the same mistake and get similarly boxed in and jerked around with its new touch platform. Capisce?
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Nathan, I agree completely. There is always going to be annoying stuff out there and as development moves more towards the web it probably will get more frustrating... but there will also be more cool stuff out there. Seems the 80/20 rule applies to this as well, 80 percent garbage, 20 percent worthwhile.
There will always be good developers and bad developers. The bad deserve to fail. The market will decide. It always does. In regards to Flash on the iPhone/iPad Apple and Steve Jobs have made their choice so it is a moot point to argue it further (doubt it will change since he has dug his heels in on this one. It does remind me of his "no games on the Mac" position however time will tell.)
I do wish Adobe would fix their issues with the Adobe suite however I am not expecting it. They are currently fighting for their life... that usually does not leave room or money to go revisit past mistakes. Netscape tried it and disappeared from the face of the earth...
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Article Accelerator wrote:
Are you surprised to find a fanboi or fangurrrl on a site called MacResource Forum? Are you surprised that a Mac user would prefer software that makes the most of his or her chosen platform?
Nope, just don't normally argue with your type since you rarely have an original thought, only spout the party line and instantly think if someone does not entirely agree with your inane statements they are somehow "against" your favorite product/company/person... etc.
Article Accelerator wrote:
Hypocritical? I don't think so. Users of other platforms are free to choose devices that don't require iTunes for sync/update. On the Mac, at least, some users are not free to choose alternate software to fulfill their needs. See below.
That pretty much meets the definition of hypocritical.
The last half of your argument supports my position rather than refute it. If there is no alternative then the platform is definitely benefiting from the application being on the platform since it is filling a need that is otherwise not addressed.
Is it really better to have nothing at all? That seems to be what you are arguing.
Article Accelerator wrote:
Not quite--it's not "simple" at all.
Apple has already been down this road and suffered the consequences of having its Mac competitive advantages erased by ported or cross-compiled lowest-common-denominator applications. Users may still use those applications because industry practices and standards demand they do so (e.g. Photoshop, InDesign) but they feel the pain of the non-optimal performance and foreign interface nonetheless.
Everyone has to suffer with Adobe CS. It is buggy and odd no matter what OS you use but applications with weird UIs is hardly new. Just think of Zbrush, any product by Autodesk, Poser... the list goes on. No one is forced to use them no matter what platform they use. No one is forced to use Adobe products and there are alternatives on both Windows and Mac.
So I have to ask again; Is it really better to have nothing at all? If there is no alternative to these applications you mention then certainly it is a benefit to users to have something that fills a the need rather than nothing at all.
There is always a choice. Don't like Adobe, don't install it on your computer. End of problem for you.
Article Accelerator wrote:
Apple is not going to make the same mistake and get similarly boxed in and jerked around with its new touch platform. Capisce?
Now you are just repeating things I wrote earlier.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 175
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Tulrin wrote:
...don't normally argue with your type since you rarely have an original thought, only spout the party line...with your inane statements
My "type," Tulrin? Just your seventh posting here at macresource forum and already boldly going where no one has gone before...
Here's another inane comment for you: Go fsck yourself.
No one is forced to use Adobe products
You didn't read my post, did you?
Article Accelerator wrote:
Apple is not going to make the same mistake and get similarly boxed in and jerked around with its new touch platform. Capisce?
Now you are just repeating things I wrote earlier.
So you really do understand and appreciate Apple's position then?
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Article Accelerator wrote:
My "type," Tulrin? Just your seventh posting here at macresource forum and already boldly going where no one has gone before...
Here's another inane comment for you: Go fsck yourself.
You as much as admitted you are a fanboi and thus far your arguments have been really weak.
Like some character out of a Kundera story you repeat the party line over and over with the conviction that it must be fact. Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will become true.
Article Accelerator wrote:
You didn't read my post, did you?
I did read the post. Your argument does not hold water.
The assertion that Mac users are forced to use Adobe products is ridiculous. They use them because they are the best choice available to fill a certain need. There are alternatives to almost every single Adobe product; many Open Source and all much cheaper... and everyone always has a choice when it comes to a product. Don't like it; don't use it.
Since the Adobe suite fills a certain need it enhances the platform by its very existence regardless of their crappy UI.
Article Accelerator wrote:
So you really do understand and appreciate Apple's position then?
I have a good idea where they are coming from, though I don't think it is a smart move... but then again I have not successfully created a computer company out of my garage... so take that for what it is worth. Let me repeat what I wrote earlier:
"Apple does not want any other company to define the framework for native iPhone applications. By allowing third-party meta-frameworks Apple runs the risk of one of them becoming the de facto development standard... as would surely happen if Adobe Flash could compile iPhone apps ( There are 2 million plus Flash developers as opposed to 100k plus iPhone developers). Apple would lose control of their own platform. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective and is well within their rights. If developers don't like it they can vote with their feet."
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 175
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Tulrin wrote:
You as much as admitted you are a fanboi and thus far your arguments have been really weak.
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?
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:
http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2...world.html
http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/04/11/the...flame-war/
http://counternotions.com/2010/04/13/suicidal/
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_ap...ection_331
http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2010/04...-yourself/
http://www.devwhy.com/blog/2010/4/12/its...ework.html
The assertion that Mac users are forced to use Adobe products is ridiculous.
You obviously know nothing about the publishing and pre-press industries, among others.
I have a good idea where they are coming from, though I don't think it is a smart move... but then again I have not successfully created a computer company out of my garage... so take that for what it is worth.
I already have. Thanks for your permission.
Let me repeat what I wrote earlier:
"Apple does not want any other company to define the framework for native iPhone applications. By allowing third-party meta-frameworks Apple runs the risk of one of them becoming the de facto development standard... as would surely happen if Adobe Flash could compile iPhone apps ( There are 2 million plus Flash developers as opposed to 100k plus iPhone developers). Apple would lose control of their own platform. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective and is well within their rights. If developers don't like it they can vote with their feet."
Exactly. And, as I said before, it's clear that we agree. So why the long, drawn out discussion?
|
