Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'

1679111215

Comments

  • jareskogjareskog Posts: 7member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post


    i have had a love-hate relationship with adobe throughout the years. but realistically though, they won't be going away soon.



    if adobe would just put their d*cks back in their pants admit they've been resting on their laurels and say to apple, 'hey guys, we want to be at the forefront in software innovation and we'd like your help in getting us there because you guys are writing the book on forward thinking...' they could be a kick-ass company. probably won't happen.



    so...what are some good alternatives to photoshop, illustrator and indesign? and, please don't say quark.



    There is always Gimp for OSX, but that is just an X11 open source photoshop clone. It is capable, but not a full replacement. Why are you looking for alternatives? Because Steve tells you to? Truth be told Photoshop is still superior to any other photo editing software out there and will be for sometime. It is costly, but for it's functionality it is actually pretty reasonably priced. As an apple owner you should be used to paying for quality.



    As for flash, it will never be fully replaced by HTML5 as HTML5 is and will never be able to do what flash does. Developers will still continue to develop in flash, keep in mind the Iphone/iPad makes up an insignificant percentage of web traffic out there. With flash 10.1 coming out, hopefully flash will be far more usable in the mobile (android, webos) markets. As a Mac owner, flash is horrid on OSX, but that is not Adobe's doing, it is Apple not allowing Adobe access to OSX's GPU API's to use graphical hardware acceleration. Let the fanboy-ism stop. Jobs has always had an axe to grind and today it's adobe. He can ignore flash all he wants until you start seeing the commercials showing side by side comparisons of the iphone/ipad/ipod to any android/webos device, showing "look what websites I can see with my DROID/Palm phone". Then you will see the inquires rack up @ the apple stores and customers crying for flash even harder than they are today.
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    Since no one has been able to give an example in spite of the fact that I've asked at least a dozen times on this forum in the past 2 weeks, I guess it's safe to assume that you're lying.



    I've been asking just the opposite - I would like to find a program that does everything that Flash does but using just HTML 5. To answer your request for an example, how about the advanced IK and bone tools in Flash? Are similar tools available under HTML 5 that are just as easy to use as they are in Flash?
  • ndn2007ndn2007 Posts: 15member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    Wow, ok the Xerox 8010, a.k.a. "Star". went on sale in 1979.



    Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972, the first to do so. In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera.



    I wont even bother with the rest of what you said. Your credability is shot.



    P.S. Microsoft Liscensed the GUI from Xerox too.... Nobodys perfect, but Apple surly dosn't deserve credit for that invention.



    druble...post the entire reference you use...don't omit what doesn't suit you...



    http://inventors.about.com/library/i...italcamera.htm



    However, the early Mavica cannot be considered a true digital camera even though it started the digital camera revolution. It was a video camera that took video freeze-frames.



    Yes, I did notice your subtle use of the word "electronic" rather than "digital"...



    In 1991, Kodak released the first professional digital camera system (DCS), aimed at photojournalists. It was a Nikon F-3 camera equipped by Kodak with a 1.3 megapixel sensor.



    The first digital cameras for the consumer-level market that worked with a home computer via a serial cable were the Apple QuickTake 100 camera (February 17 , 1994), the Kodak DC40 camera (March 28, 1995), the Casio QV-11 (with LCD monitor, late 1995), and Sony's Cyber-Shot Digital Still Camera (1996).
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jareskog View Post


    As for flash, it will never be fully replaced by HTML5 as HTML5 is and will never be able to do what flash does. Developers will still continue to develop in flash, keep in mind the Iphone/iPad makes up an insignificant percentage of web traffic out there. With flash 10.1 coming out, hopefully flash will be far more usable in the mobile (android, webos) markets.



    Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah. Do you just pull this stuff off the Adobe blogs?



    Flash will absolutely be replaced completely, and in short order. Developers who continue to develop in Flash will find themselves out of work. Developers don't drive content formats, nor do users. The adoption of HTML5 and the abandonment of Flash will be driven by execs at content providers who don't want to hear that they can't reach consumers because Apple is being mean to Adobe. They don't give a damn. They just want the eyeballs, and they'll dump Flash in an instant when they realize they are losing them.



    Quote:

    As a Mac owner, flash is horrid on OSX, but that is not Adobe's doing, it is Apple not allowing Adobe access to OSX's GPU API's to use graphical hardware acceleration.



    More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out.
  • drubledruble Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You forgot the Mac Mini at $599 (or less if you buy refurb).







    Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between supporting open internet standards and being happy when someone steals your intellectual property?



    Open standards is in no way inconsistent with intellectual property rights.







    I've been trying for weeks to get someone to say what can be done with Flash that can't be done with open standards. You keep making that statement - how about an example?



    Oh, and before answering, look at the Toy Story iAd to get an idea of what html 5 is capable of.



    Since no one has been able to give an example in spite of the fact that I've asked at least a dozen times on this forum in the past 2 weeks, I guess it's safe to assume that you're lying.







    Oh, and Apple is doomed.



    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+vs+html5+technical+review
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member


    Wow, that is pretty cool. Powered by HTML 5?
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post




    More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out.



    One man's tired nonsense is another man's facts:



    http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...erform-html-5/



    Sorry I don't know how to do the cool thing that druble did with his link.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    As many around here know, I like Flash, but just for kicks I thought I would see if I could really overwhelm the canvas tag to spike the CPU. Sure it was easy but it didn't involve the canvas tag as much as Javascript. Many developers have probably seen the confirm box "Script is running Slow. Cancel, Continue" well that is easy to do with bad code. Sure anyone one can inadvertently send JS into really long loop which is what I did. Much like the Flashcrash site I can make the browser crash as well " Safari not responding" in RED!.



    But with well written code I have to admit I could not overload Safari with the canvas tag. With six canvas tags on one screen all refreshing as fast as possible, rotating an image with a precision of 20 significant figures, the worst damage I could inflict on a quad core Mac Pro was 77% CPU, so Kudos to HTML5 and Safari. Now if I could only make HTML5 actually do what I want.
  • tulkastulkas Posts: 3,691member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    Wow, ok the Xerox 8010, a.k.a. "Star". went on sale in 1979.



    Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972, the first to do so. In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera.



    I wont even bother with the rest of what you said. Your credability is shot.



    P.S. Microsoft Liscensed the GUI from Xerox too.... Nobodys perfect, but Apple surly dosn't deserve credit for that invention.



    Could you provide some evidence that Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? Xerox sued Apple for patent infringement and lost. Why would the sue them for a patent that Apple licensed from them?



    TI did patent it but never produced jack, not even a prototype. Xerox had the first demonstrable working digital camera. The 1981 Sony Mavica was not a digital camera. It was the first electronic camera for sale, but electronic doesn't make it digital. My old VCR was electronic, but that doesn't make it digital either. You are right that it probably wasn't Apple that was first to market.



    Forgot about the star. You are right on that one. But firewire certainly originated with Apple.
  • nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ilogic View Post


    Droid is the Creative Zen that competed with the iPod early on. I was once such user, who thought a more feature fitted device would trounce Apple's offering readily. When I finally sat down with an iPod, I then came around, soon after I made my / - and I never bought Creative again.



    This is where Droid is eventually headed.



    Except that Zen was never selling as good as Android is.



    I was actually curious about sales numbers and was looking around a bit. This came out:



    http://industry.bnet.com/technology/...ching-iphones/



    If data is accurate, 1 year after it's introduction (end of 2009) Android was selling 5.4 million per quarter.



    1 year after iPhone introduction, highest quarter was 2.3 million... that was actually 3rd quarter, 4th was only 1.7 million but one can argue sales were going down due to 2nd iPhone launch. As per following graph:







    If you consider that iPhone had no competition (in the same league) while Android has mighty iPhone to compete against... I'd say Android will do so much better than Zen did relative to iPod. So much better.
  • drubledruble Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ndn2007 View Post


    druble...post the entire reference you use...don't omit what doesn't suit you...



    http://inventors.about.com/library/i...italcamera.htm



    However, the early Mavica cannot be considered a true digital camera even though it started the digital camera revolution. It was a video camera that took video freeze-frames.



    Yes, I did notice your subtle use of the word "electronic" rather than "digital"...



    In 1991, Kodak released the first professional digital camera system (DCS), aimed at photojournalists. It was a Nikon F-3 camera equipped by Kodak with a 1.3 megapixel sensor.



    The first digital cameras for the consumer-level market that worked with a home computer via a serial cable were the Apple QuickTake 100 camera (February 17 , 1994), the Kodak DC40 camera (March 28, 1995), the Casio QV-11 (with LCD monitor, late 1995), and Sony's Cyber-Shot Digital Still Camera (1996).



    By your own reference you see Kodak releasing the first one to market in 1991. It says aimed at photojournalists, but that does not mean it was not available to the entire market. The difference between consumer and a profesional market such as this is Quality of equipment, and who the product is marketed to. All Apple did in 1994 was release one targeted at the consumer market years after other cameras were released.
  • ibillibill Posts: 375member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah. Do you just pull this stuff off the Adobe blogs?



    [..]





    More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out.



    Flashtards will believe anything that suits them it would seem. And my ignore list has some new inhabitants.
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iBill View Post


    Flashtards will believe anything that suits them it would seem. And my ignore list has some new inhabitants.



    There is a way to ignore such lucid and erudite postings?



    Update: Just found it and you are on it!
  • ibillibill Posts: 375member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    There is a way to ignore such lucid and erudite postings?



    Update: Just found it and you are on it!



    And you as well. Good Bye.
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,945member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    Yep....Fanboy responses...Love how they get so irrational. It's one heck of a coping mechanisim to help look past possible shortcomings or flaws....I'll just have a glass of water please.



    You're here just for the laughs, right? Why else do you feel the need to draw negative attention to yourself by attacking people you don't know with thoughtless, petty commentary. It's a very boring game you're playing, so go play with yourself somewhere else.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    One man's tired nonsense is another man's facts:



    http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...erform-html-5/



    Sorry I don't know how to do the cool thing that druble did with his link.



    Sorry, that doesn't prove your point at all. It does prove that Flash performance sucks on Macs, but it doesn't prove they don't have access to APIs required to make it not suck. Just because they don't have access to the ones they say they want doesn't mean they don't have access to the ones that would do the job for them if they only used them.
  • ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    However, there were computers prior to 1983 that were using non-standardized midi interfaces. I don't think you are going to find a pre 1983 source, sorry. As far as Firewire (Apple's name for IEEE 1394) it was a joint development with major contributions made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). As an additional note, hardly anyone uses firewire. That is not something for Apple to hang their hat one. It was never that successful outside of niche markets. The same could be said for midi.



    Midi wasn't proposed until 1981 (Dave Smith of Sequential Circuits). The first keyboards with MIDI were introduced at Winter NAMM 1983, followed by the Yamaha DX7, which had a very basic and poor MIDI implementation. I'd be curious to know what was a pre-1983 MIDI interface as I can't find evidence of any public use prior to Bob Moog hooking one of his synths to a Prophet 600.



    Yes the use of Firewire is limited today. There are still a large number of musicians who prefer Firewire over USB (even USB2) due to the way it operates, particularly that it has less latency. Of course MIDI is a niche market, it was developed entirely for electronic keyboard/synth instruments. It is highly important in its own area tho.
  • masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post


    Yes, similarly, I made the mistake of setting my work computer up with a different iTunes account than my home computer. Now some of my app purchases show up as being associated with my work iTunes ID, and some show up as being associated with my home iTunes ID. Apparently there's no way for me to consolidate my accounts, so forever more I have to juggle these two different ID/password combinations on my iPhone, or re-purchase the apps. What a bunch a bunk.



    All you need to do is contact iTunes support and ask them to consolidate your accounts. Did it, worked fine. They transferred all my apps from one to the other, confirmed that I could see them and use them and closed the empty account. Ask and ye shall receive. Sit with a thumb up yer butt and squirm. The standard consumer choice.
  • bulk001bulk001 Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Sorry, that doesn't prove your point at all. It does prove that Flash performance sucks on Macs, but it doesn't prove they don't have access to APIs required to make it not suck. Just because they don't have access to the ones they say they want doesn't mean they don't have access to the ones that would do the job for them if they only used them.



    Yeah right. Whatever you say.
  • successsuccess Posts: 1,039member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post


    What a cop out. He IS right. And you are wrong.



    Don't talk about his emotions. Stick to the facts.



    The iPad is a computer.



    While you may be correct, most everything is a computer these days. My new refrigerator that can do this and that is a computer too. Is it an amazing user experience seen as a normal computing device LOL Hardly not.



    All of that aside, even if you are 100% correct and Job's is going back on a speech he made long ago, so what? Does that change anything for you other than being right in a forum? Nope. Does it mean Flash is no longer garbage? Nope.



    Move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.