yeah you gotta use 19th century tactics to fight a 19th century technology , common Adobe get over it .
THe analogue with 19th century railways is fault. Flash is not a different guage. Its a passenger in the Apple's cabose and they are saying that they own the cabose
Message to Adobe: FYI, running off to ask the FTC to fix your problems and provide protection for your business is a 19th century tactic. Protection only delays the inevitable whilst insulating your business from reality.
What, hasn't Apple already run to FTC to stop HTC phones being imported to US? \
Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.
If Adobe has the capability to deliver a great looking, high performance, cross platform development kit that everyone adores, they should do so ASAP with or without Apple. Adobe should stop trying to leech out of the iPhone's popularity.
This whole farrago is getting embarrassing for Apple and Adobe and they need to stop this idiotic back and forth. I've been a fan of both of these companies and think they should work together to amicably settle the matter.
This statement reminds me of an scene in an old Tex Avery cartoon "First Bad Man" with two cavemen:
Caveman1: Howdy (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Howdy (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: How you all? (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Why fine. How you all? (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: Fine, thank you. (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
fade to black
That in a nutshell how "amicably" Apple and Adobe will be in this manner.
The only railroad similarity I can see between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is running a stable system on a two rail system and Adobe is trying to balance on a monorail. This isn't about different gauges, it is about the basic design concept.
Actually I can seen other railroad similarity--Peabody's Improbable history--Peter Cooper with Flash being the 50% tunnel (half finished) and Flash 10.1 being the 50% bridge (the plans for which are half finished)
Is that the company that makes the sorry pdf reader and the expensive photo editor? Is that the company like Microsoft that introduce security vulnerabilities into all their products? Sorry, It's been so long since I removed all their products, I've forgotten the bad experiences I had.
This comparison is more like the AC vs. DC argument than railroads. His argument would suggest that HTML5 is proprietary to Apple and not matching the rest of the standards when in fact Flash is the one not playing well with others. I find it funny that Adobe is defending Flash to the point they are, considering they themselves did not develop it. And have really done little to advance it beyond what Macromedia did.
With the world relying so heavily on the power of search engines, Adobe has to realize that once people see the power of HTML5, they'll be dumping Flash anyway. Flash isn't searchable, that has ALWAYS been a sticking point, and with the number of touch devices being developed by EVERYONE, HTML5 lends itself better to that.
If Adobe has the capability to deliver a great looking, high performance, cross platform development kit that everyone adores, they should do so ASAP with or without Apple. Adobe should stop trying to leech out of the iPhone's popularity.
I'm not sure they know how to...after all, this was Macromedia's product.
I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.
That is not true.
The video hardware API that Adobe asked for only accelerates video - not all the other little animations, menus, and gadgets in Flash. On my Mac (and there are countless reports from others of the same thing), a simple Flash page without video can shoot the CPU usage to 120% and make the fans jump to high speed. The same thing doesn't happen on Windows. The h264 hardware API will have no impact on that, so Adobe can't blame that lousy performance on Apple.
Furthermore, Adobe has always had access to hardware acceleration APIs (OpenGL, OpenCL, CoreVideo), but chose not to use them - because in their 'lowest common denominator' strategy, they don't want to write software for different operating systems. They want to write software for Windows and then do a lousy port to the Mac and Linux.
I suspect that Apple's compliance was a trap for Adobe. "OK, we've given you the API you requested. Why does Flash still suck so bad?"
"The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
That smells like a brain fart to me. Since when is Flash working (as it does on the desktop) on any platform? He is mixing up two things here: Flash as a plugin, and as a multi-platform development environment. The end result (output) of the development environment is supposedly a native iPhone app, and has nothing to do with Flash anymore. So Flash doesn't run on the iPhone any way you look at it.
It's about Apple not wanting to rely on third party "Proprietary" tools on its OS
The issue has nothing to do with Apple relying or not relying on anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance
. Apple has an interest to its consumers an interest that makes them money which is good for the well being of the company. One of the "Big" success to the iPhone is its App ecosystem! An ecosystem that is very important to Apple. To Apple along with its slick OS (which everyone has now copied) the Apps are a very important feature. So you damn right Apple wants to control that space.
The underlying issue has nothing to do with Apple wanting to control the quality of the Apps it sells. There is abundant evidence that Apple sells dreck app every day.
The issue is instead that Apple wants to control whether and how apps are made for other devices. Their stance is that if an iPhone app, whatever its merits, is made in a manner so that the code can be compiled to other devices, then the App will not be sold.
Their tactic seems to NOT be a way to ensure good iPhone apps, but instead to leverage the success of the App Store in a manner to unfairly decrease competition to the app store.
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
It is more like Adobe making engines that run on both Apple's tracks and other tracks, but Apple will allow engines that run ONLY on its tracks, for no reason other than to disadvantage the owners of the other tracks.
Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.
The concerns are not about Apple beating up the competition in fighting with Adobe. Apple and Adobe do not compete in any market in which Apple has market power.
Instead, what Apple is doing is using its strength in the mobile app market to disadvantage other sellers of mobile devices.
Adobe is just collateral damage.
And whether or not Apple can do this with impunity has yet to be determined. It is entirely possible that Apple has insufficient power in any relevant market, and therefore cannot illegally abuse market power to stifle competition.
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
Sure. Suppose I want to buy Photoshop extended, InDesign, and Illustrator. How much will this cost me?
Comments
yeah you gotta use 19th century tactics to fight a 19th century technology , common Adobe get over it .
THe analogue with 19th century railways is fault. Flash is not a different guage. Its a passenger in the Apple's cabose and they are saying that they own the cabose
Message to Adobe: FYI, running off to ask the FTC to fix your problems and provide protection for your business is a 19th century tactic. Protection only delays the inevitable whilst insulating your business from reality.
What, hasn't Apple already run to FTC to stop HTC phones being imported to US?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...against-apple/
Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.
This whole farrago is getting embarrassing for Apple and Adobe and they need to stop this idiotic back and forth. I've been a fan of both of these companies and think they should work together to amicably settle the matter.
This statement reminds me of an scene in an old Tex Avery cartoon "First Bad Man" with two cavemen:
Caveman1: Howdy (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Howdy (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: How you all? (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Why fine. How you all? (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: Fine, thank you. (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
fade to black
That in a nutshell how "amicably" Apple and Adobe will be in this manner.
The only railroad similarity I can see between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is running a stable system on a two rail system and Adobe is trying to balance on a monorail. This isn't about different gauges, it is about the basic design concept.
Actually I can seen other railroad similarity--Peabody's Improbable history--Peter Cooper with Flash being the 50% tunnel (half finished) and Flash 10.1 being the 50% bridge (the plans for which are half finished)
Yea... they are really starting to grasp...
Apples iPhone = 18 century train tracks?
Ummm...
- INTERNET = Train Tracks
- iPhone = One (of many) different trains you can use to ride the tracks.
Yes...
And going to HTML5 helps avoiding Flash-related crashes (or "train wrecks").
With the world relying so heavily on the power of search engines, Adobe has to realize that once people see the power of HTML5, they'll be dumping Flash anyway. Flash isn't searchable, that has ALWAYS been a sticking point, and with the number of touch devices being developed by EVERYONE, HTML5 lends itself better to that.
Hopefully this spat is over soon.
If Adobe has the capability to deliver a great looking, high performance, cross platform development kit that everyone adores, they should do so ASAP with or without Apple. Adobe should stop trying to leech out of the iPhone's popularity.
I'm not sure they know how to...after all, this was Macromedia's product.
I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.
That is not true.
The video hardware API that Adobe asked for only accelerates video - not all the other little animations, menus, and gadgets in Flash. On my Mac (and there are countless reports from others of the same thing), a simple Flash page without video can shoot the CPU usage to 120% and make the fans jump to high speed. The same thing doesn't happen on Windows. The h264 hardware API will have no impact on that, so Adobe can't blame that lousy performance on Apple.
Furthermore, Adobe has always had access to hardware acceleration APIs (OpenGL, OpenCL, CoreVideo), but chose not to use them - because in their 'lowest common denominator' strategy, they don't want to write software for different operating systems. They want to write software for Windows and then do a lousy port to the Mac and Linux.
I suspect that Apple's compliance was a trap for Adobe. "OK, we've given you the API you requested. Why does Flash still suck so bad?"
It was badly misquoted. He said:
"The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
That smells like a brain fart to me. Since when is Flash working (as it does on the desktop) on any platform? He is mixing up two things here: Flash as a plugin, and as a multi-platform development environment. The end result (output) of the development environment is supposedly a native iPhone app, and has nothing to do with Flash anymore. So Flash doesn't run on the iPhone any way you look at it.
It's about Apple not wanting to rely on third party "Proprietary" tools on its OS
The issue has nothing to do with Apple relying or not relying on anything.
. Apple has an interest to its consumers an interest that makes them money which is good for the well being of the company. One of the "Big" success to the iPhone is its App ecosystem! An ecosystem that is very important to Apple. To Apple along with its slick OS (which everyone has now copied) the Apps are a very important feature. So you damn right Apple wants to control that space.
The underlying issue has nothing to do with Apple wanting to control the quality of the Apps it sells. There is abundant evidence that Apple sells dreck app every day.
The issue is instead that Apple wants to control whether and how apps are made for other devices. Their stance is that if an iPhone app, whatever its merits, is made in a manner so that the code can be compiled to other devices, then the App will not be sold.
Their tactic seems to NOT be a way to ensure good iPhone apps, but instead to leverage the success of the App Store in a manner to unfairly decrease competition to the app store.
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
It is more like Adobe making engines that run on both Apple's tracks and other tracks, but Apple will allow engines that run ONLY on its tracks, for no reason other than to disadvantage the owners of the other tracks.
Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.
The concerns are not about Apple beating up the competition in fighting with Adobe. Apple and Adobe do not compete in any market in which Apple has market power.
Instead, what Apple is doing is using its strength in the mobile app market to disadvantage other sellers of mobile devices.
Adobe is just collateral damage.
And whether or not Apple can do this with impunity has yet to be determined. It is entirely possible that Apple has insufficient power in any relevant market, and therefore cannot illegally abuse market power to stifle competition.
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
Sure. Suppose I want to buy Photoshop extended, InDesign, and Illustrator. How much will this cost me?