Inside Apple's iPad: Adobe Flash - Page 6

The original question was "if Apple's marketshare is so small, then why does Adobe care about Apple?" (paraphrased) The answer I gave is relevant.

When someone calls someone a liar directly to a preceding post why must one read the whole thread? No blood vessel bursting but between his calling people liars and trolls- like enough already.

Ok, but why? Is it really as simple that Flash does not work as well on Macs as it does Windows machines, and that some Mac users feel slighted/ignored?

Someone remarked that the only time you see people saying they hate a software company is on the Apple Boards. I don't know if that is true, but it is reminiscent of how some people talk about Sony on the Home Theater boards.

Not really. If the mobile market makes up a small percentage of the overall internet market (and I have no idea what the percentage is), then owning a big or small share of the mobile market is still irrelevant.

Yes read the entire thread and then comment.

There is no Creators and Designers who can use HTML5.
Flash is a Bridge of Creative people and WebMedia.
Code Creators can't make media contents.
Flash is not just a CPU Hog plugin, but a Huge Creative Culture.
Smartphone and TabletPC need appealing contents media.

Sorry no need to. Mac OSX has a small share and Adobe has no need to change for it and that's NO lie!

Tell that to Adobe.

If Apple is trying to force you into iTunes, then why are they embracing HTML5 and H.264? You can do all your video streaming and rich web stuff, sans Flash, right now on your iPhone or iPod touch.

I've said it a dozen ( and counting), that we, as Americans, have yet to enjoy TV non wifi on a mobile device going from #3 to #28 in terms of global speed. Some speculate flash accounts for 85% of the web but that's counting ads. I say more like 50%, or even 25% if talking about websites.

Where flash does rise to 85-100% are on network sites watching Lost or The Forgotten and some are moving toward other delivery methods but it's mosty flash.

Whom ever gets a portable device to show TV programming non WiFi will do very well. I am also curious as to see obamas 80 billion Internet funding as he wants the web to count as a utility, which it sort of is. I wouldn't be surprised to see free nation wide wifi someday but it's coming.

Againg, the device that has a great touch website and TV media like on a desktop or laptop, will do very well.

Apple are not asking them to. It you, iGenius and extremeskater are getting your knickers in a twist because apple people do not like Flash and prefer HTML5. As a consumer if a company is not supporting my choice of computer, then I have every right to use the apps, which gives me the best output for my computer.
As far as I concerned I really do not care for Flash until Adobe resolve the resource issues and btw Adobe do care as by their comments provided by Appleinsider in an earlier article.

I don't understand your comment, but what I said applies equally well to Adobe as it does Apple, because it is a simple market share issue.

As an arbitrary example, owning 50% of the mobile internet surfing market does not mean much if that market is only 1% of the ENTIRE internet surfing market.

You are very wrong. Why you may ask?.... Developers! Have you noticed how many apps there are on the iPhone? There will be even more coming especially now with the iPad. They want to be able to reach as many people as possible which means they want to use standards that work on the iPhone/Touch/iPad/blackberry.

For our businesses I make sure there is no flash used so people with blackberrys and iPhones can access our webpages. We are obviously not the only ones.

You are absolutely right. You have every right to use the apps that work best for your computer, and you have every right to find alternatives if you wish. You have the right to call for a boycott of a company that does not support your computer.

That is not the issue. The issue is that multiple posters want Flash to die.

In other words, multiple users want the rights that you want, and outlined above, and DENY those rights to others.

That is the issue.

I just wish Adobe would release a version for JB phones and be done with it. Those that want it can download it and those who don't, won't have to.

That is true on both sides, we have Apple haters and Adobe haters who both have flawed thinking on this matter. Do you really think SJ would support HTML5, if Adobe had really supported Mac in the past.
My opinion: Flash makes Mac computer seem to consumer to be slow and less efficient in running the content. To untrained eye, the comment would be, damn my computer is slow and have negative opinion of Apple computers, not knowing it is actual Flash.

I for one thought this until I talked to techie, who told me the real story.

Why shouldn't it die?

Flash is a solution to a problem that no longer exists, and now has become a problem in its own right. My view is that something as important as the delivery method for multimedia content over the internet should absolutely not be owned by any one company. Period.

The fact that Flash doesn't happen to work well on the Mac is really just an aside, but also amplifies the importance of fostering licensable industry standards that create a level playing field for competition and for consumers alike. Using the argument that Apple's marketshare doesn't entitle them or their customers to reasonable access to internet resources, aside from being specious, actually points out the flaw of allowing a company such as Adobe to arbitrarily decide who gets to play.

It's just wrong, and unless you're an Adobe shareholder, a Flash developer, or just simply hate Apple (or anybody else that isn't in Adobe's graces), then there is really no valid argument for Adobe to have such control over multimedia distribution.

Yes, it is true on both sides, and I have made the same comments to Apple haters.

If Adobe had supported Flash on a Mac, the situation would be different, and SJ would not be acting this way, IMO.

I fully understand why Mac users don't like flash, although it is not too bad on FireFox, on the Macs I have (MBP and iMac), particularly after I installed the Adobe beta.

I also do understand why SJ doesn't want Flash on the iPhone, iTouch and iPad.

What I don't really understand is why those reasons are sufficient to call for Flash's death, and the denial of other users' rights to use software and programs they want.

Why same mobile Andorid and Palm allows Flash?
It's not about technology. It's all about Money.

"Hey Adobe, This is my world, my country,
If you want do something in here, just pay Money!"

Just like iPhoneSDK...

"Hey Developers, This is my world, my country,
If you want make apps in here, just pay Money!"

Flash and Air will be Freeway of publish apps in Steve's Shiny&Tiny world.
That's because He hates Flash.

Then maybe you should go back and read the original post that my response was answering. The point is that Adobe DOES care that Flash doesn't work on iPhone, iPod Touch, and now iPad. The reason is that Apple is selling millions of these devices every quarter, and Flash advertising does not reach those devices.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. The argument that Apple's marketshare is so small that Adobe doesn't need to care that Apple shuns Flash is bogus.

Ok, you can have your opinion, and I am trying to understand this.

First, why not let the market sort this out? If Flash is such a problem, then some company should be able to come in and develop a better alternative.

Second, who is going to decide what the new standard is? SJ? As much as I admire the guy, he has an agenda, and why wouldn't he pick standards that would benefit Apple and hurt MS and everyone else.

Third, let us say some standards body comes along, decides Flash is evil and can no longer be used. Who and how is Adobe to be compensated for their loss? Essentially, some entity will have come along and eliminated a large chunk of their revenue stream. If they are not to be compensated, then you are punishing success, and if you can do it to Adobe, then it can be done to any company, Apple included, at a later date.


First, it does not seem to be an aside, as poor performance seems to be the MAIN gripe leveled against flash. To me, it seems to be the main reason for calling for Flash's death.

Second, I may be confused, but how are Apple or Apple users in any way denied access to internet resources? I surf and use the net everyday from my MBP, including flash sites. I am in do way denied access to any resources.

Third, again, I may be confused, but how does Adobe decide who gets to play?

Lastly, what kind of computer do you own. Like I said above, if you are REALLY concerned about open standards, etc, then the consistent position is to be for open source, and hence you should be running Linux, and associated software.


Again, how does Adobe control this? I am not trying to be difficult. People buy Adobe's products, people use Adobe's products. Adobe cannot force people to buy and use their software.

I find your comment as very short sighted. I do not use ClicktoFalsh only to remove ads. There are issues with Flash and by disabling it I don't miss much on the web.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Flash did serve a good purpose when there were many issues playing video on the web. It provided developers ability to create nice UI with animations with relative ease. And Adobe made good money on selling development tools. But it is getting a bit behind curve with some of the expectations/ requirements for mobile computing.

Now regarding the iPhone/iPad support for Flash. So far it has helped Apple significantly. Lack of Flash has made the developers use iPhone SDK to develop iPhone specific Apps. Sometimes an easy way out is not the best way. With Flash support on iPhone a lot of these developers would have chosen that route and actually missed on the rich features of iPhone OS (touch, etc).

For Adobe, it is in their interest to keep building the Flash based ecosystem rich and making more features for developers easily. As long as that exists developers will keep using it. Not every developer thinks about following the standard but more about getting the project done quick with less effort. But they have nothing to play hardball with. It would be a big gamble and potentially a huge loss for them.

IT DOES NOT Require a 2.66ghz processor to show flash well on the Mac. My Mac Mini 2.0 GHz worked extremely well.... Just stating the truth....

The issue here is that Adobe refuses to relinquish ownership over internet delivery of multimedia content to licensable internet standards oversight. It would appear, as well, that they are trying to sabotage the HTML5 approval process, although this fact is disputed.

I personally have no problem with Adobe developing and maintaining a propriety programming runtime, just so long as it is not any kind of "defacto" standard for internet functionality. The fact that its performance is inconsistent (to be kind) makes it all the more egregious that they seem unwilling to relent and allow standards to prevail.

Short of Adobe acting like a good corporate citizen, what is left but for other companies to try to kill Flash?

However, the H.264 codex that Apple is pushing IS proprietary and your argument is again moot...

Now if Apple would also stated H.264 is proprietary and we should not use it in conjunction with HTML5 you might have a logical leg to stand on....

Of course they were NOT billed as the best web experience ever.....

I understand your point. I could easily be wrong, but my feeling that the reason Adobe cares about Apple is damage control. Apple and SJ get LOTS and LOTS of press. If SJ goes around saying that your product sucks, etc. Then Adobe has to respond to protect its image and its product.

H.264 is licensable, and the HTML5 spec will be open for anybody to develop for. That's the difference. FLASH is a proprietary runtime that afford device vendors no control over the implementation on their products. They are simply at the mercy of Adobe.

It's beyond me why people don't see the problem with this scenario.

If Adobe is trying to sabotage HTML 5, that would be wrong. The fact that Flash's performance is inconsistent sucks, and is a pain in the ass, and is a valid reason for Apple to push an alternative. But again, if they make a business decision not to optimize the code for a Mac if they do not want to, why shouldnt that be their decision? Should Apple be forced to open the iPad to Flash?

what makes flash the "defacto" standard is that so many people use it. By any common definition, that means it is a defacto standard because it was successful. So, if they give it up, will the licensing fees be fair, which seems to be the main issue in the Nokia / Apple dispute.

I'm not a programmer...but flash does seem to be a resource hog, buggy and for lack of a better term, 'old technology!' (from what I've read)


I think this debate is pretty much settled...Apple/Jobs is cutting edge and every other CEO seems lame in comparison...or is it just me?

Too much 'Foresight'=Jobs

Other CEO's=Too much 'Foreskin!'


clicktoflash FTW!

I think people see the problem with the scenario. However, there are always two sides to every issue. Like I said above, having Flash die or removed by some industry standards board, is depriving Adobe of a revenue stream.

Agreed! But what if Flash is indeed 'sloppy' and archaic? Just because it is ubiquitous does not in of itself justify its 'survival!'

No offense, but if that were the case, we would all still be watching black and white TV's. No?

I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.

Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.

Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?

Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.

Now you are using logic and reason. I have notice that this is not recieved well on this board unless of course Steve Jobs says it is ok...

I agree that If Flash is so bad it will die on its own and there is absolutely no rational reason to keep it off of Apple mobile products. Now personally I think that the new Android phones that will soon support Flash will make many of the arguments against including on Apple products pointless....

I do have one question for the Apple fan boys ( by the way I do like the Mac )

If the new Android phones work well with Flash 10.1 enabled. What are you going to use as your technical justification for hating it so much?????

Gazoobee had it right, you really are a troll. You will likely go on my ignore list soon. I'm definitely not going to spend the rest of my Saturday night arguing this.

The market WILL decide. Apple will sell more and more mobile devices with each and every quarter, and one by one, websites that rely on Flash will convert to alternatives.



Look it up for yourself. Do a websearch for HTML5 and you can read up on who is working on it, and you will also likely find articles talking about Adobe's (alleged) sabotage of the development of that spec.


No compensation is warranted, that's life, some win, some lose. What about Apple and MacOS9? Did they ever get compensated when Win 95 took off? No, they didn't. Another example? Was Apple compensated when QuickDraw was trumped by OpenGL? No again.


Poor performance is why Mac users are pissed. The fact that Flash is a proprietary runtime is why Apple doesn't want to use it because they have no way to optimize it's performance on their products. SDK states NO THIRD PARTY RUNTIMES.


Huh? iPhone doesn't have access to PROPRIETARY FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. My own desktop experience trying to access FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT is very poor. I use clicktoflash in order to minimize browser crashes and sluggishness.


How do they not? The Flash plugin is Adobe software. The code is not available for third parties to implement in their products in a way that they can optimize the performance. It only works on any given platform as well as Adobe's engineers are allowed to make it work.

The rest of your post is nonsense. What computer I use is not relevant, and I'm not going to use Linux, sorry. What you're trying to say is "it's not the road, it's your car". I just don't buy that argument.

It's 2010. HTML and multimedia codecs have evolved to the point where the proprietary Flash technology for distributing multimedia is no longer necessary, and can be handled in HTML with licensable codecs. Nobody has a sound argument for why this technology shouldn't be standardized and available for everybody to have equal access to.

I see your points...I too remember WordPerfect, blue background and white letters!

And I take your point about 'Boards' but is the consensus not that Flash is 'Sloppy.'

Snow leopard certainly was a successful attempt at reducing 'bloat!' I don't see the same attempts to curb 'bloat' from MS or Adobe....I think this is what Stevo is getting at.

This is why Steve-no is mad. Adobe is evolving Flash right onto his lunch. www.openscreenproject.org, and view the developer interviews that describe how 10.1 is taking the full Flash player down to all the smartphones.

Steve could be one of the CEOs in the interviews saying he is on board. Instead, Steve is NOT on board, not because Adobe is 'old,' but because they are too-new for his own margin of safety. He is flying around the country trying to derail Flash before they can release 10.1. But as others have pointed out, it takes a long time to stop a juggernaut like Flash.

I think that disingenuous is a better description than arrogant, but otherwise, I agree.

While I appreciate what Apple is trying to do with Flash (not accept sub-par software), that does not necessarily mean they aren't robbing users of a full web experience on the iPad.

What's good for the iPhone is not necessarily going to be acceptable for the iPad. That's quite a leap in faith. Web usage on the iPad is going to be different from how iPhone users use the web. It'll be a lot closer to desktop web browsing patterns. And this is why users will expect and want Flash integration.

The average Apple fan may think Flash is junk and that it shouldn't be polluting his device. But the average user will want a $500 internet appliance to let him surf the whole internet. He could not care less for Apple's politics with Adobe. That won't stop them from buying an iPad or surfing the web on it. But they are going to look at it as a defect and an annoyance. No question about that. And I am wondering if they'll blame Apple for it.

Because Steve hates Adobe. The rest is just boring details.