or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary' - Page 5

post #161 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

You really don't get it do you?
By your definition the iPhone is also a computer, but then so is a Sony Playstation or an XBox or a Wii.

It is a computer in the sense it has some of the same components, but is purpose is defined by its USE, not by what it is made from.

Once you understand the difference between an iPad and the device that have come before it, you will probably have grown up.

My iPad and iPhone have HP48 GX emulators on them. They are computers. It is just that simple.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #162 of 282
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.
post #163 of 282
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?
post #164 of 282
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).
A proud owner of Apple stock since my Apple IIe
Reply
A proud owner of Apple stock since my Apple IIe
Reply
post #165 of 282
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.
post #166 of 282
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
post #167 of 282
Quote:

Wow, that is pretty cool. Powered by HTML 5?
post #168 of 282
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.
post #169 of 282
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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #170 of 282
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.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #171 of 282
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.
post #172 of 282
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.
post #173 of 282
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.
post #174 of 282
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!
post #175 of 282
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.
post #176 of 282
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.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #177 of 282
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.
post #178 of 282
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.
post #179 of 282
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.
post #180 of 282
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.
post #181 of 282
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.
post #182 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

The resources and processing power needed for media creation (At least business grade) is well beyond the abilities of the current iPad. You could be right about 2013. Technology changes at a rapid pace, and in 3 years. mobile technology should be catching up to what desktop technology is now. So I would have to say that by then, you could be right. Some competitors like HP though are already ahead of the game developing a product with a full OS on it. Other manufactures developing similar devices will also go the full OS route. This will trigger hardware developers to increase efforts on mobile technologies that drive slate devices and netbooks. It is already possible to get netbooks with power equal to entry level gaming machines, and the slates with tegra 2 processors that are coming out very quickly will already be powerful enough for the likes of Photoshop or CAD. It's going to get interesting.

Yeah. HP Slate reference right? Running Win7 , "which has the touch interface". Yep saw demo's of that. Not the best implementation of touch I've ever seen but hey - it's a great effort for a full desktop OS crammed into a simple tablet form factor. which also means that unless HP comes up with an uber battery it will barely see half of the iPad battery charge life. Tegra 2 processors? You mean the ones with such bad stability issues that they have been delayed in production and are pushing back the first wave of 2010 tablets until nearly 3Q? And yeah running all those full OS apps in a virtual keyboarded interface is going to go swimmingly - I'm just sure of it. Fortunately I'm betting Intel rushes to build more power into it's Atom lineup to give the full Win7 OS install the power it needs to deliver for the user. Hope they do the same for the battery technology which will be needed to run that more than 2.5 hours at a time.
post #183 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Wizard View Post

I find that a very funny statement coming from Apple. Didn’t they just squelch a company for selling hardware with Apple OS on them. They also have no open market for software developers within the IPhone only what they approve of. Pot calling the Kettle black I would say...

The difference is Apple dictates full control over their platforms. Adobe tries to dictate full control over other peoples platforms. Apple follows open standards for the web because it is not their platform. I think the bigger reason is just that Flash is old technology. Apple is a very forward looking company, they like to be at the next step before everyone else. I also thing that they don't believe in web plugins in general. They put up with them on OS X, but I'm sure they would like to get rid of anything that can render to a web page.
post #184 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

No...Adobe needs to offer a pound of flesh at this point. Outside of the publishing industry their reputation amongst Mac users is poor. Much like Microsoft, many Mac users today are actively looking to rid themselves of Adobe software.

I'm going with Aperture as soon as I get my Canon DSLR. Probably would never need Photoshop for my basic needs.

Flash is undoubtedly cool for some needs but the neglect that Adobe offered to Mac users isn't something that's going to be forgotten anytime soon.

what do you mean by 'outside the publishing industry'? that's where the most frustration is among mac users who have to put up with adobe's neglect all day long. you don't know pain until you have slowly watched your favourite software degrade into a buggy, bloated mess over the years.
post #185 of 282
What an idiot. He should have just kept his mouth shut. Apple have no credibility on this issue any more.

Adobe were moving away from their proprietary plug-in and toward natively supporting the iPhone whilst leveraging their IDE and the experience of Flash developers. Next step was the support of a HTML5 export from the Flash IDE.

Apple blocked it because they know being a bunch of aggressive tools won't affect their bottom line as long as they keep on top of the competition.

It reminds me of Microsoft in the 90's.
post #186 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" - Steve Jobs

Price of an iPad - $499

Puhleeze. iPad is not a computer. Jobs was speaking of a computer with a keyboard, hard disk, USB, etc. ala "netbook". Rather than try to build some cheap netbook, Apple defined a new space where a high quality device could play at a low price point. Have you seen a teardown of the iPad? There is no dispute about the build quality of Apple's products, it's unparalleled by any manufacturer in the field.

If you want a sub-$500 piece of junk, Apple is clearly not your brand. Apple is to Audi as Dell is to Ford.
post #187 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Well, there is Corel... sort of...

that actually made me laugh. thank you!
post #188 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Not to mention that the whole purpose of Android is to allow Google to collect personally identifiable information on users.

people tend to forget that, don't they?
they call apple 'big brother' while they're being monitored by an advertising company...
post #189 of 282
i wanna ask, why is there such a flash big CPU usage on safari mac and normal CPU usage on firefox mac
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
post #190 of 282
Where are you getting this statistic from. It performs better in Safari over Firefox in Mac OS X.... other way around on Windows.
post #191 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

OTOH, this could be a tactic Apple is pulling to devalue Adobe to the point where it becomes a nice takeover target.

Yes, I had thought of this as well. It's a pity then that Adobe didn't do a complete "dummy spit" and yank support for all their Mac based products. That would have played directly into Apples open arms, by rapidly sinking share price, when half of their revenue dried up immediately.

Apple would have said, hmmm, "Adobe for $8B -$10B, well have that", and pick it like a plum.

Bt then, what do I know, ever since Apple Computer became Apple Inc and a CE company, I've always thought 51% of Sony would be a good pickup too. It would have only cost them about $25B. Sony with Apple software all over their products, now there is another, hmmmm!

Cheers
post #192 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I totally agree on the "try before you buy" Lite versions help but are not always offered. I think the whole 80/20 rule here applies (groan) 80 % of any store is going to be blah. I'm always looking for that cream. The top 20% that are worth the money.

I'd also like having an App Store Marketplace. Say I buy Omnifocus and find that it's just not working for me. I'd love to be able to transfer my license via iTunes to another user for store credit. We're talking about digital data here which almost by definition is portable. I don't think users should have to pour money into apps that become essentially worthless because there's no way to transfer them without exposing your Apple ID and Password.

There are many many many improvements that need to happen to online stores sooner rather than later. We are simply not leveraging digital data in a manner that's beneficial for developers and end users IMO.

The AppStore Marketplace is an awesome idea!
post #193 of 282
as a web developer i had a love hate relationship with flash -

it's pro's were many - large movies and animations and custom interfaces could be built quickly and streamed at a decent pace on the internet. Also, flash was more wysiwyg than html and css.

Also, it also offered a better cross platform experience for developers in the sense that when i designed a flash site it would look the same irrespective of browser or platform

superflous use of flash annoyed me and still does - clients still request flash anim intros... nevermind music in websites *groan*

---

now that i don't do much web work anymore i can truly say i loath the flash experience on my mac. Apple's latest updates to safari have been created to isolate the bugs that crash the browser and it's always flash that causes the problems. I don't care to wait for a flash site to load in spite of the faster connections. the truth is that flash on a mac and on a pc are not the same experience. For all progress adobe has made in increased performance, it still lags behind and it appears to have become more unstable with every new iteration.
post #194 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" - Steve Jobs

Price of an iPad - $499

But the iPad is not a piece of junk. So you are not really saying anything.
post #195 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

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.

Why is firewire limited in use today?
post #196 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Very Tiny Violin for Adobe.

My heart bleeds for them. Really.

Rip off prices for the CS5 Suite for verrrrrrrrry little new stuff.

Flash. Slow. Buggy. Insecure. They can't even release the software they're criticising Apple for not supporting.

Trudy is quite correct. Apple supports open source tech'.

It IS Adobe that is proprietary. Flash is old. News. Bye.

I hope Apple plop the iphone on Verizon. Then android is dead meat.

Google. They're the microsoft of their day. Crapy 'lego brick' windows style interfaces. All tech and no heart.

Good on Apple's P.R. Adobe has been shooting their mouth off a plenty. 'bout time someone shut them up and gave them a fat lip.

Guess that person...had to be Apple.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Nice to hear your voice on these pages 'o apple warrior !!


Adobe has all the chances to be ONE OF top contenders like aapl msft goog. But its code is so 1990's bloated . ADODE is still a fine company . it simply has too find a way to add value to APPLE and its clients .ITS APPLES BALLGAME ...APPE EVEN OWNS THE BALL AND THE STADIUM AND THE AIR RIGHTS ABOVE .ADODE can score millions in sales if it simply worked with apple and lost its ego . STEVES EGO is enough for one solar system as it is ,,

peace

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #197 of 282
Why hit back saying Flash is a closed system when the iPhone is to, its just pointless.

To anyone actually developing content there's no difference to developing for Flash and developing in HTML5. The actual developer can't control either one irrespective of if one's open source or not. In both instances you can use multiple development tools so to a developer there really is no difference.

Developing for the iPhone as we now know really is a completely closed system with contracts to say you have to write code in Apple program and also no ports allowed. Then sign a contract to sell your app through apple and leave it up to them if it actually makes it onto the store or not. Everything about its closed in ways that actually affect developers.

Who really cares that HTML5 is open source apart from the people involved in it?
post #198 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

I truly hope that this is not the case....Either companies will have to develop for all the possibilities, or some of us just won't get to see websites in their full glory anymore. Flash bridges so many gaps between browser compatability it's not even funny, but if Steve dosn't like it, I guess we can reset ourselves to the 90's again. With all the different browsers now days, it will take quite a bit of coding to compensate for the differences between browsers. Anyone who has wrote W3C compliant sites knows all about how different browsers display things differently. At least with flash, you could expect the same results from browser to browser.

flash is fantastic
the flash movie player for ABC and HULU are TOP of the line viewing .. extremely close to BD quality .
SADly flash is also the banner ad of choice
so every f ing time i surf flash ads cripple my slower macs />>>/UNTIL I INSTALLED CLICK TO FLASH !!!!!
ANYWAY
>> steve told ADODE to move on to HTML5 faster rather than later . THE world has waited 5 yrs now .
SO apple with its tiny screens and the need for low power and long battery charges has to kill flash and use a fast stream line way to sell its wonderful devices .
I saw the ipad on the subway and it was fucking screaming fast and cool and wonderful and its TIMES pages looked great and the guy who owned IT had a subway car full of people fighting hard not too stare /
Soon we will see many more ipads on the subway
and all the flash less devices will increase
And aperture will get better and better

and adode will choose to serve its master or move aside to backwater mode

HTML5 IS 100 PERCENT OPEN SOUTSE CODE
FLASH IS PAY AS YOU GO CLOSED FAT BLOATED SW

apple wins again
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #199 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Why hit back saying Flash is a closed system when the iPhone is to, its just pointless.

To anyone actually developing content there's no difference to developing for Flash and developing in HTML5. The actual developer can't control either one irrespective of if one's open source or not. In both instances you can use multiple development tools so to a developer there really is no difference.

Developing for the iPhone as we now know really is a completely closed system with contracts to say you have to write code in Apple program and also no ports allowed. Then sign a contract to sell your app through apple and leave it up to them if it actually makes it onto the store or not. Everything about its closed in ways that actually affect developers.

Who really cares that HTML5 is open source apart from the people involved in it?

flash is code
iphone is hard ware
HTML5 is the world wide hand shake that allows info to move freely between devices and worlds.

no one forces you join apple's love train
go buy the zune palm pre android dell hp acer whatever and enjoy monster cpu's that can barley keep up with the over loaded flash garbage ads .

APPLE HAS 350000 non flash apps and counting . versus under 20000 flash apps world wide combined for the rest of the field .

duh


peace


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #200 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Why hit back saying Flash is a closed system when the iPhone is to, its just pointless.

To anyone actually developing content there's no difference to developing for Flash and developing in HTML5. The actual developer can't control either one irrespective of if one's open source or not. In both instances you can use multiple development tools so to a developer there really is no difference.

Developing for the iPhone as we now know really is a completely closed system with contracts to say you have to write code in Apple program and also no ports allowed. Then sign a contract to sell your app through apple and leave it up to them if it actually makes it onto the store or not. Everything about its closed in ways that actually affect developers.

Who really cares that HTML5 is open source apart from the people involved in it?

I think there's a bit of confusion here.

If you are developing in HTML5 for the iPhone -- i.e., Web Apps -- you don't have to sign any contracts with Apple or have their approval for anything, and you can optimize your website for any platform or browser you wish.

If you are developing native iPhone apps using Cocoa Touch, then the restrictions you mention apply, but they have nothing to do with Flash/HTML5.

So, I don't see how the 3rd paragraph in your post has anything to do with the topic, or the rest of your post.

I will also point out that this issue really has little or nothing to do with developers, their preferences, or their comfort zone. It's about 2 things: the user experience and reaching eyeballs/wallets. In other words, the WWW, the iPhone, the Mac, even Windows, aren't there to serve developers. Developers are there to serve these ends. So, what you are comfortable or enjoy working in is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is, does the work you do add or detract from the user experience and does it allow content providers to reach eyeballs and wallets?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'