Of course you would, there is nothing wrong the feature in itself and even if the applications compiled with it get rejected it will still cause a headache and put apple under pressure to change their decision.
At this point, there are plenty of Objective C developers. Apple doesn't need to change its minds. A few years ago perhaps. There will continue to be a steady stream of great apps.
What could happen is that a developer might get permanently banned for using the Adobe tools, thus locking themselves out of the iPhone market.
Yeah, that's exactly the scenario that has me really thinking that it is not good to be the test subject. Maybe they start banning people instead of Apps.
You do realize that Windows Mobile 7 has similar policies as the iPhone. Apps need to be written in Silverlight (a Flash competitor), XNA (games), or .NET. I'm not sure if Adobe can manage yet another cross-compiler (if that's how CS5 works). Also, Microsoft will approve each and every app, and I don't think that side-loading is allowed either. Now, I don't think that Microsoft will care as much about the cross-compiling, but if the Apple camp is to be believed that multi-tasking support is the technical reason for the ban, you might be surprised by Microsoft's support too.
>ou do realize that Windows Mobile 7 has similar policies as the iPhone. Apps need to be written in Silverlight (a Flash competitor), XNA (games), or .NET. I'm not sure if Adobe can manage yet another cross-compiler (if that's how CS5 works).
You're confusing two different types of restrictions.
The restriction on using silverlight/.net stems from the how the platform was designed.
If you were to write, say, a compiler that takes O'Caml code and spits out .NET IL instructions, then you could use that to write your apps.
Apple is saying you have to use whatever higher level languages they approve of regardless of what the final binaries look like.
And Android requires thing to be written in Dalvik/java. Apple requires thing to be compiled with their tool chain, which means that you needed to compile to C or objective c first.
Each of the platforms has their preferred languages.
With android, you can just include a jar for your language (jython, scala, etc). But it has to be supported by the dvm. Same with .NET IL.
My point being, that if your language isn't the main one, you'll be a second class citizen. Now, if accept the current apple line (not that I do), that the restriction is because of their multitasking requirements, you can see how either Microsoft of Android could implement similar restrictions. Not that they would... Because they are vm machines, they don't have the same restrictions that Apple does (dealing with straight c code).
Given that Adobe are working with MS to get Flash on WP7 - proper Flash, not cross-compiled Flash, your comment is... to be diplomatic, wishful thinking. If Adobe can generate working SL apps then MS wont be bothered how they did it.
As for the multi-tasking 'technical reason' - well, people need something to believe in I guess.
Now just because Microsoft worked with Adobe on getting Flash to work in the web browser doesn't meant that they will be as helpful when moving developers away from their tool chain and towards flash for their main app development.
I'm not saying that I believe the Apple party line, but I can see how Apple is at a disadvantage in program inspection to Android and Microsoft in that their dev language isn't vm based.
Really, if Adobe wants to remain relevant, I think they have only one option...go html5 and go all in.
"So, what's all the fuss about the Apple proposed revised SDK license?
Yesterday Apple released some proposed changes to their SDK license restricting the technologies that developers can use, including Adobe software and others such as Unity and Titanium.
First of all, the ability to package an application for the iPhone or iPad is one feature in one product in Creative Suite. CS5 consists of 15 industry-leading applications, which contain hundreds of new capabilities and a ton of innovation. We intend to still deliver this capability in CS5 and it is up to Apple whether they choose to allow or disallow applications as their rules shift over time.
Secondly, multiscreen is growing beyond Apple's devices. This year we will see a wide range of excellent smartphones, tablets, smartbooks, televisions and more coming to market and we are continuing to work with partners across this whole range to enable your content and applications to be viewed, interacted with and purchased."
Apologies if this is off topic, but I found this particular quote worrying, with regards to whether the Content Aware Filter would be included:
...you can find out on Monday whether these have made the cut for Photoshop CS5.
As the most popular new addition and selling point of CS5, I feel a bit mislead that there's a possibility it won't even make the cut. It's essentially the only thing I would upgrade for.
I guess you would think that if you only read the title of the HN article and the part pertaining to the iPhone capabilities. I was commenting on the hype surrounding CS that Adobe is perpetuating in that blog entry.
Still, your post was essentially "CS is overpriced", but more verbose. If you have some analysis of their pricing (and why it might be wrong), share it, but to just state your personal opinion like that is kind of pointless.
When is a valid opinion considered distasteful? They hardly mention ANY of the features that are new in CS5 and yet they are putting out a new product and hyping it up considerably (e.g. "In 3 short days, we will be launching what is arguably the most compelling release of Creative Suite to date. I don't want to spoil any surprises, but I feel this release is going to thrill designers and developers."). Maybe it will be great, but I've had buggy/dodgy experiences with all of the CS products through the years (non-hardware related), and pretty much all of them stay broken until they put out a major release.
For example, Dreamweaver has 0 FTP threading capability. Also in Dreamweaver, you cannot drag-and-drop files to upload to the remote site. Dreamweaver also has some trouble when you drag-and-drop files to the local site with putting it in the right folder. There are just a ton of things I "put up with" when I have no viable option but to use them.
I think you got downvoted because you're assuming that they're doing it on purpose just for maintaing the price tag, and you're comment seems to be more personal rather than objective, thus off-topic.
I made another reply to bdr concerning the first point, but I do not see how personal vs objective is not relevant. They're creating an illusion that their software is better than (for example) Windows 7 by 4x if looking at the price. That is a pretty hefty thing to claim. (And that is only for one piece of the CS puzzle - not all 15 pieces.)
Yes, and their development cycle for the CS products revolve around selling the next copy with features and fixes that should have been release freed or at least way less than $200 per product.
I think the HYPE in this post without any juicy details whatsoever is disheartening to me. I think that an OS that has a kernel that has tons and tons of hardware communication, software interaction, thread processing, APIs, and allows other software like CS to run is a bit more complicated. The price does not reflect that, despite both being great products.
