[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is the article that Jobs himself pointed out as pretty spot-on:

Daring Fireball: Why Apple Changed Section 3.3.1

Do you have a reference for that?

[Spheric Harlot]

Tao Effect Blog � Blog Archive � Steve Jobs’ response on Section 3.3.1

[Simon]

Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich offers his opinion on Apple and antitrust

"Apple's supposed sin was to tell software developers that if they want to make apps for iPhones and iPads they have to use Apple programming tools. No more outside tools (like Adobe's Flash format) that can run on rival devices like Google's Android phones and RIM's BlackBerrys. What's wrong with that? Apple says it's necessary to maintain quality. If consumers disagree they can buy platforms elsewhere.

Apple was the world's #3 smartphone supplier in 2009, with 16.2 percent of worldwide market share. RIM was #2, with 18.8 percent. Google isn't exactly a wallflower. These and other firms are innovating like mad, as are tens of thousands of independent developers. If Apple's decision reduces the number of future apps that can run on its products, Apple will suffer and presumably change its mind."

Robert Reich (Apple Isn't the Problem. Wall Street's Big Banks are the Problem.)

[turtle777]

Amen to that.

For years and years, people have been commenting Apple's decisions, saying it will lead to people leaving Apple products.
Alas, Apple's market share in computers, MP3 players and mobile phones has been steadily rising.

Looks like most people think that Apple's decisions yield much better products than the competition.
Nonetheless, there is enough competition left to accommodate the perpetually disgruntled.

-t

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Like has been said before, if Apple wants to restrict by interface guidelines and quality, then they should restrict by interface guidelines and quality.

They are not worried about the interface, they are worried about the sloppy coding bogging things down. Why you think they are only doing it with OS4? Because they added multitasking.

If you ever made any flash file ever in your life you would know that the code it puts out is a sloppy mess. Apple cannot allow multitasking and have some flash port app hogging 100% of the CPU in the background for the allowed 10 minutes just for having some simple app open but doing nothing. A simple animation loop running in the background on a button could easily monopolize the CPU. FLASH WAS NOT MADE FOR THIS. Even "Flash lite" which was made for phones years ago doesn't do much and is used more for custom UI's on Sony phones. No video, no banners no websites.

Now if Adobe can somehow make the ports 100% up to Apples guidelines for multitasking then yes I agree that Apple should allow it. I know apple has better things to do than to beta test adobe's work though and Adobe will never be able to do it in the first place. If they could where is all the amazing flash on other tablets/phones?

Apple has always said Flash is a CPU hog. We all know it is and have bitched for years with no action from Adobe.

With iPhone 4.0 Apple is giving us the most requested feature since 2007; Multitasking without killing your battery. As such Apple has to put its foot down, if apps are to run in the background they can't be those awful CPU hungry messy ports.

If Apple wasn't looking out for OUR best interest and if not you would have a thread on MacNN within 5 minutes posting to reviews of "iPhone 4.0 brings multitasking at a dramatic battery cost".

You decide which is more important to you. Developers having to work harder for your money (or to give you stuff for free) or your iPhone being slow and less battery?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

And before anyone says that somehow the mess CPU intensive code is magically changed to play nice when ported read this as they can't even get it to run well on a netbook with Atom CPU.

"Drew wouldn't tell ZDNetexactly what had triggered the delay but said there was "lots of heavy lifting" involve in getting it to work. As an Internet-dependent notebook, it was important that Flash work well enough to be useful.

ARM blames Adobe Flash for smartbook delays | Electronista

Adobe is also not even shipping a proper mobile version of flash until later this year. How can iPhone 4.0 shipping in June be expected to handle something Adobe hasn't even worked out yet? Should they wait 2 years and hold off on any new OS just so they can add that "flash support and ports" checkbox?

Please.

[Spheric Harlot]

Analogue: you're somewhat missing the point. Background apps that aren't explicitly compliant with one of the six or what services they need access to can easily be halted entirely by the OS when not the front app.

The point is the platform becoming dependent upon programming frameworks that are beyond Apple's control and can thus hold the OS developer hostage.

Read the John Gruber (daringfireball) article referenced several rimes above.

Louis Gerbarg, former Apple developer IIRC, cites specific examples of where the Mac was crippled due to issues like this, and specifically Adobe doing some extortion.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Analogue: you're somewhat missing the point. Background apps that aren't explicitly compliant with one of the six or what services they need access to can easily be halted entirely by the OS when not the front app.

Either way doesn't matter. I don't think Apple will allow any apps that don't play nice to be "4.0 approved" as how the heck can the consumer know which are multitasking apps and which aren't?
That aside they are still CPU hogs even when in foreground and a native 3meg app can swell to 80megs just cuz of a port.

Not interested in even being offered crap like that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

how the heck can the consumer know which are multitasking apps and which aren't?

The user doesn't really need to - apps have extremely restricted access to ONLY a small handful of explicitly supplied services whilst in the background.