or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

I strongly agree with this.
Oh how selective you are in your recounting of history, and how extremely skewed your interpretation. When SJ returned to Apple it was a complete train wreck of a company. Failed incoherent strategy piled on top of failed incoherent strategy. You do a nice job of recounting many of those failed incoherent strategies, but without acknowledging (until you were called out on it) that those failures were not due to the current management. So what was Jobs and his band of...
The fact that Sue identifies with Joe Wilson is very revealing. First, it shows that she is probably not an astroturfer as some have claimed (or at least that she is a very bad one). No astroturfer would needlessly alienate half of the people who might potentially agree with her just to make a political point that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Second, it shows that she is a deeply bitter person, as is Joe Wilson.
I don't agree with the post you quoted, but I also don't agree that everyone who posts something that could be interpreted as "pro-Adobe" is a paid troll. But even if they are -- so what? It should be the content of what they write that matters, not their motivation for writing it or their identity. In this case, the content of what this person wrote makes no sense, and it doesn't take much to show that. Similarly, I really doubt that Sue is a paid troll. I think she is...
Put another way, Apple is a for profit company that is more interested in making money than they are in whether developers are happy. Apple sees developers as subcontractors more than they see them as lifelong soul mates. Apple also sees individual developers as disposable -- kind of like interchangeable parts. As unflattering as that may be, it's probably more or less true. There are undoubtedly costs to Apple's approach. You are correct that Apple is making iPlatform...
Adobe's management are responsible to shareholders, and shareholders are interested in profits, not the hurt feelings of Adobe employees. Walking away from the CS revenue from the Mac is not an option for Adobe. Heck, if they tried it, Apple might just fill the space themselves.
If it's an open spec, then your point makes even less sense. Apple can do whatever they want. In every post you make you are talking about this as if it were some kind of morality issue. If Adobe chose to make PDF an open spec that anyone can use however they want, then Apple is well within its rights to use PDF however they want. Apparently Adobe must have believed that this was a strategy that was in their best interests. Apple is choosing a rather different strategy...
Or, they can go, "I will pay a developer for weeks to write a better version for the iPhone that is customized to the platform, which makes sense to me because that is by far the largest and competitive platform out there. I'll use CSS to make a more cookie-cutter version of the same thing for all the other platforms out there that have far smaller marketshare and are less competitive." That is what Apple is trying to achieve. Makes perfect sense from their perspective.
Exactly. Adobe is doing what they think makes sense to make money off of their file format. Is it really surprising that Apple would not take a somewhat different approach when it comes to a computing platform? A file format and a computing platform are two rather different things.
You're looking at this from a some kind of fairness/morality perspective (and a fairly arbitrary one so far as I can tell), and that's not what it's about. Adobe had chosen to handle the PDF standard in a way that they think makes sense. Apple is choosing to handle the development of their iPlatform in a way that they think makes sense. The two companies have taken different approaches -- not surprising since a computer platform and a file format are two fundamentally...
New Posts  All Forums: