A Flash in the plan?

Can Apple learn a lesson from its tech nemesis Microsoft? Photo / Getty Images

Apple's new iPad was being criticised for lacking the capacity to render interactive content built using Adobe's Flash platform, but Apple showed no sign of reversing course once the device was released.

The iPhone debuted in 2007 without any support for Flash, so Adobe revitalised a campaign to breathe interest back into the software framework. This included a new series of Flash 10.1 runtimes for Windows Mobile, Nokia S60/Symbian, Palm WebOS and Android.

This uptake should have resulted in a situation wherein not having Flash support would become a problem for the iPad, but Apple's CEO Steve Jobs stayed adamant.

He had a point, to an extent - lack of Flash certainly annoyed some, especially those developers who could imagine their Flash apps would be great on smartphones, or those whose Flash content on websites could not be viewed on Apple devices (except Macs). Meanwhile, others dismissed Flash as buggy and difficult, and not the way of the future.

Whatever the truth of any argument, Jobs' stance appeared to have little, if any, impact on iPhone, iPod touch and iPad sales.

A Flash Player on iPhone and iPod Touch would have helped fulfil Adobe's cross-platform programming ambitions. When Apple refused it, Adobe sidestepped the restriction by debuting software that would convert Flash apps into native iPhone apps as part of Flash Professional CS5, around the time Apple released the iPad.

So in April Apple changed the terms of its iOS developer agreement to block these Flash-derived apps.

Ch-change!

But all that just changed. At the CreativeTech conference, Mike McHugh from Adobe was very pleased to be able to announce that a just-released Apple developer license agreement had flipped the stance. Apple's statement said "We are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code."

This also allows other Adobe technologies be used to code apps for iOS, and hopefully means Adobe will go back to its porting project it had to shelve in April.

Adobe isn't the only company happy at the prospect - it makes life easier for Unity Technologies, also. Unity sells cross-platform developer tools to let programmers reach iOS and other devices.

Cue queues

I see at least one major ramification, apart from the obvious - even more apps. Exactly - resulting in again-lengthening queues for app approval.

When Apple first launched the App Store and development eco-system, the queues for getting your app approved were long. After several weeks you were quite likely to get a rejection on grounds that were vague, if not terse. Sometimes, finding the source of the rejection was a very lengthy process, and sometimes the only way to find out whether you had effectively rectified the situation was to resubmit and wait again...

Complaints of Apple's system were legion, and have been reported here before.

Apple, to its credit, created a much better and faster workflow and released guidelines with handy checklists, but some areas are still, reportedly, pretty vague.

But now a flood of new apps has suddenly been enabled. There could be more developer grumpiness on the horizon. Add to that Apple's stance on certain kinds of apps - an app may fit all the coding guidelines, then be rejected for Apple's even vaguer 'ethical' reasons.

Competition

The upcoming Windows Phone 7 could also be a major threat. Apart from the fact Microsoft seems to have a very healthy and responsive relationship with its developers, quite unlike the arrogance Apple routinely exhibits to anyone who seems to want to promote or otherwise assist the firm, the new devices are manufactured to a fairly rigid set of guidelines (unlike PCs) that should lead to a cohesive end-user experience.

Sound familiar? It should.

Except that as long as you adhere to the hardware rules - screen resolution and aspect ratio, plus the four (only) buttons Microsoft is deploying - any manufacturer can make a phone for Windows. There will be a lot of handsets out there a lot cheaper than Apple's very hard-to-get iPhone (I just can't seem to get an iPhone 4! It's been six weeks! I'm on the damn list!). Plus, both main NZ cell carriers are avidly (so I hear) negotiating to have the Windows phone in their stables.

I can't imagine Microsoft screwing the carriers down quite so hard as Apple likes to (but I may be wrong).

But perhaps more worryingly for Apple is the fact Microsoft is already assisting developers to port apps across to the Windows phone platform. And not just around the world, but right here in New Zealand.

Microsoft has an office here. Apple doesn't. Microsoft is active in the developer community here, while Apple can't really seem to be bothered, despite some very high quality development going on in Aotearoa.

Microsoft is vowing that the process for getting applications approved and available will be more transparent than Apple's App Store. Not that it would be difficult.

Another advantage for developers enticed by Microsoft is the company's Silverlight platform. It's not as widespread as Flash, sure, but it's a not dissimilar product, and it does have a worldwide developer community. Silverlight is very close to (if not the same as) the platform the new phone will use.

This begs a final question: will Silverlight developers now also be able to port their apps to iPhone?

"We are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code. This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need," Apple said.

But would any Silverlight developers bother, once Microsoft's phone enters the market? To me, it looks like Microsoft may have learnt a few things from Apple. It's time Apple learnt a few things from Microsoft.

- Mark Webster mac-nz.com