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 6

post #201 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Yeah right. Whatever you say.

Yeah, I guess from your side of the discussion, there's really nothing left to say.

But, just in case anyone was wondering, this is exactly what SJ is talking about when he says Adobe is lazy. They want Apple to give them unfettered access to the hardware so they can take their Windows code and get it running on the Mac with as few changes as possible. They don't care that this could destabilize the OS or display subsystems -- i.e., they don't care that this might compromise the user experience -- all they care about is keeping their Flash empire alive with the minimal effort. So, the fact that Adobe is lazy and won't bother to rewrite Flash on the Mac using the more than adequate APIs provided, is exactly the sort of thing that SJ referred to as having been through before.

Adobe's behavior around Flash on the Mac is exactly the reason they are being kept off the iPhone. They can whine all they want about how it's unfair and that Apple is being mean to them, but everything that's happened is a consequence of their own actions, which they won't accept responsibility for. Typical alcoholic behavior from a company addicted to money for nothing.
post #202 of 282
HTML5 is the future. Flash will decay; it is a question of the rate of decay.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #203 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Yeah, only a few people have picked up on it so far, but how stupid is it that Google, the "champion of open source" is now the number one thing standing in the way of a completely open web. If they dropped Flash support on Android, Adobe would be forced to cave on making HTML 5 tools and Flash would be old news in a couple of years at most. Instead they chose to prop up proprietary software because it's in their financial interests to do so. Wow.

Way to "not be evil," Google.

Google also supports H.264 which is not open and full of patents. Hopefully, Apple will join Google in supporting the VP8 video codec that Google plans to make open.
post #204 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It's interesting to see Google begin to cave on open internet as well (embracing Flash on Android) . Their integrity and "do no evil" mantra seems to erode a bit more day by day.

Every application Google has is open standards and works in any modern browser on any platform. Google unlike Apple is just giving its users and developers and choice to also consume/develop flash.

I know, I know I mentioned that strange word "choice", unheard of in Apple universe. This is really "Apple vs. choice" and nothing else. Not Adobe, not Google etc. I for one don't like being locked and tied down by a single vendor be it Microsoft, Apple or anyone else. It seems Apple won't be happy until they are the only ones allowed to develop software for their phones or OS X. I think it's time to ditch Apple now, at least that's what I'm doing.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #205 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yeah, I guess from your side of the discussion, there's really nothing left to say.

But, just in case anyone was wondering, this is exactly what SJ is talking about when he says Adobe is lazy. They want Apple to give them unfettered access to the hardware so they can take their Windows code and get it running on the Mac with as few changes as possible. They don't care that this could destabilize the OS or display subsystems -- i.e., they don't care that this might compromise the user experience -- all they care about is keeping their Flash empire alive with the minimal effort. So, the fact that Adobe is lazy and won't bother to rewrite Flash on the Mac using the more than adequate APIs provided, is exactly the sort of thing that SJ referred to as having been through before.

Adobe's behavior around Flash on the Mac is exactly the reason they are being kept off the iPhone. They can whine all they want about how it's unfair and that Apple is being mean to them, but everything that's happened is a consequence of their own actions, which they won't accept responsibility for. Typical alcoholic behavior from a company addicted to money for nothing.

That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.

If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!
post #206 of 282
I'm with the guy who posted that Flash is much more than banner ads. It is a real programming and run time environment to do real work. I understand Apple being grumpy that the Flash runtime has poor performance on Mac OS. But the Flash development tools are worthwhile and professional grade. Blocking the cross-compiler is just petty. I hope Apple shoots themselves in the foot by also blocking very popular engines like Unity, MonoTouch, and others. And gets in some kind of legal trouble if they selectively enforce the "no cross-compiler" rule.

- Jasen.
post #207 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

Chambers: "Mr. Jobs tear down this wall !!!"
Jobs: "No - flarn filth flarn are better than yours so - flarn!"
Chambers: "I would flarn filth flarn ,
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momus View Post

What the Flarn.

LOL'ing at grahamw's edits!

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #208 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post

Why is firewire limited in use today?

Firewire was mostly used for external hard drives, cameras and music equipment. With the advent of USB2 the speeds got to the point where they were close enough that for most people it didn't matter. Only a few computer companies (Sony's IEEE1394 ports come to mind) besides Apple ever really got behind Firewire much. As USB has spread so much, the number of products sold with Firewire still included have shrunk even more. Music interfaces can use USB2 and ASIO drivers to achieve 0 latency, so its even becoming less needed in one of its last few holdouts.
post #209 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

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.

As a musician, the main advantage that FireWire has over USB is that -- by design -- USB "steals" CPU cycles from the rest of the system to move data around.

The result is that a USB-based audio interface is far more likely to introduce noise (i.e.: those Rice Krispy "krackles") encoding a complex audio stream (or streams) on-the-fly while simultaneously moving the encoded digital data to storage.

FireWire handles data transfer to storage by itself, instead of depending on the CPU to do it, which is what makes it so much more reliable. And also more expensive to implement.

You get what you pay for.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #210 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yeah, I guess from your side of the discussion, there's really nothing left to say.

When your contruibution to this disussion is stuff like "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah" it is not a "discussion" - you are just trolling. So yes, there is nothing left to say to you.
post #211 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.

If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!

No, it's just being lazy. How's that "working smarter" working out for them?

As far as APIs go, they have access to the APIs they need, they just don't want to use them. This whole Adobe doesn't have access to the APIs they need is just a Big Lie from Adobe, a lie which you and others seem to have been taken in by. It's basically the same as me telling a system administrator that I can't check my email because I don't have root access to the mail server, when I have a perfectly good mail client available to use.
post #212 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

When your contruibution to this disussion is stuff like "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah" it is not a "discussion" - you are just trolling. So yes, there is nothing left to say to you.

Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.

Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will jog your memory:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=165
post #213 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think you guys are both just making arbitrary distinctions that don't mean very much. Also, the implication that Steve Jobs or Apple agrees with these distinctions is wrong.

The iPad is most definitely a computer in the technical sense and colloquially, it's a computer to most people who use/buy it.

Of course it is a computer, but so is the iPhone and iPod Touch. They are sub $500...not to mention awesome, and not even close to being "junk".

If the iPad had additional things that gave it a traditional computer form, such as a keyboard, mouse, and hard drive, and a more complex enclosure including a hinge, it would quickly become a $1k computer. Removing alot of these traditional features allows them to bring an excellent "computer" to market at $500 (depending on features).
post #214 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jocknerd View Post

Google also supports H.264 which is not open and full of patents. Hopefully, Apple will join Google in supporting the VP8 video codec that Google plans to make open.

The patents to H.264 are well understood and easily licensed. Which is what's important to a manufacturer.

H.264 is also widely hardware accelerated, all the way down to mobile devices, while VP8 isn't. Which is what's important to users.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #215 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.

If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!

Flash is the most unstable application on my Macs, by a long shot.

And you want the Flash team at Adobe to have access to OSX at the kernel level?

Not just "no", but "hell no!"

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #216 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.

Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will job your memory:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=165

There is nothing dishonest about the quote - you notice the '...' - those signify that part of the quote was left out. What was left out did not materially affect the point I was making that you had brought nothing of value to the 'conversation' and your latest little rant (quoted in full for you) just affirms that.
post #217 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

Of course it is a computer, but so is the iPhone and iPod Touch. They are sub $500...not to mention awesome, and not even close to being "junk".

If the iPad had additional things that gave it a traditional computer form, such as a keyboard, mouse, and hard drive, and a more complex enclosure including a hinge, it would quickly become a $1k computer. Removing alot of these traditional features allows them to bring an excellent "computer" to market at $500 (depending on features).

This whole $500 thing is just fodder for trolling. But, just for perspective, consider the context of Jobs' comments. He was asked if Apple were going to introduce a netbook. In the context of his comments, computer == netbook. So he engaged in a little misdirection. It's not like he was going to say, "No, you can't make a decent traditional laptop-style computer like a netbook for $500 that isn't junk. But, we have this really cool tablet we are calling an iPad under development. Can't tell you any more right now, but it's going to be insanely great."
post #218 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

There is nothing dishonest about the quote - you notice the '...' - those signify that part of the quote was left out. What was left out did not materially affect the point I was making that you had brought nothing of value to the 'conversation' and your latest little rant (quoted in full for you) just affirms that.

Fabulous. More dishonesty by omission. What about the part of my post you didn't indicate you left out? Did that also, "not materially affect the point [you were] making?"

You have no response because, from your position, there is no rational response possible, not because I was sarcastic.
post #219 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think you guys are both just making arbitrary distinctions that don't mean very much. Also, the implication that Steve Jobs or Apple agrees with these distinctions is wrong.

The iPad is most definitely a computer in the technical sense and colloquially, it's a computer to most people who use/buy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Not true. Apple has been annoying enough lately that I might switch to the Droid next time I upgrade. I'm an adult and I don't need Steve Jobs telling me what apps I can and can not load onto my device, or what apps I can and cannot develop. Apple's approach is good for the timid and the elderly. It's like the Jitterbug of smart phones.

The jitterbug of smartphones? Oxymoron much? It is interesting how you relate the jitterbug, perhaps the dumbest of all dumbphones, with one of the smartest phones of all time? I certainly won't argue that the iphone is the most open handset on the market, but a jitterbug it is not in any form of reality.

This conversation of open vs. closed is kindof ridiculous. I have never felt my iPhone was limited just because flash doesn't work or because I can't load on a million different custom apps. I could care less. And I don't remember ever seeing the little missing flash white box on a website that I navigated to. Maybe I don't go to the same sites as you.

Not only can I do everything I need to with my iPhone, but there are tons of apps and other web-based features/abilities that I haven't even tried yet, but could do so at any given time if I have the need. Lack of flash doesn't limit me at all. Personally I like that Apple keeps the iPhone ecosystem running like a well-oiled machine. If there were no back end approval process, then I could download some bogus virus enabled app from some site in Peru and hose my phone. No thanks. Adding inefficient crapware that drains my battery and causes crashes are not features I need, not to mention viruses.

I think this all really comes down to some people's dislike and defiance of authority. The minute they are told they cannot do something, they suddenly need to have it so badly that they do whatever necessary to achieve it, even if it means resorting to illegal practices.
post #220 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Jobs & Co refer to the iPad as a mobile device. It's not a computer. It's a tablet built primarily for consumption of media.

Thompson

What they want to call it and spin it for PR and what it actually is are two wholly separate things.
post #221 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Every application Google has is open standards and works in any modern browser on any platform. Google unlike Apple is just giving its users and developers and choice to also consume/develop flash.

Q. How many Android phones ship with Flash support?

A. Zero.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #222 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Adobe had better pray that there is never an iPhone on Verizon because the Droid is the only reason why Android has any market share.

It's not a crappy 3g network like AT&T is the one actually. The only reason AT&T has any market share, is because of the iPhone.

I'm somewhat bemused by Apple's closed and proprietary comment regarding Flash, while HTML5 is open, it's not finalized, and the H.264 video codecs aren't open either, Apple wants to control that down the road.

My only beef with the Apple vs Flash argument, is that it's stupid - I would say what's the harm in giving users choice, but that would break Apple's locked system. I just got a Pre Plus on Verizon, and Web OS will be getting Flash this year - I don't know how often I'll use it, but I'll have the option to install it. This is just a bunch of billion dollar companies, fighting over who gets to control content, the user never wins. Screw Apple, screw Adobe, screw Google, MS, etc...Apple is not your friend, just like Adobe isn't.

But I don't like Apple's approach of just saying screw it, wait for HTML5...
post #223 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Fabulous. More dishonesty by omission. What about the part of my post you didn't indicate you left out? Did that also, "not materially affect the point [you were] making?"

You have no response because, from your position, there is no rational response possible, not because I was sarcastic.

Yawn. I'll give you the last rant.
post #224 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Someone has it backwards -- it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," Apple's Miller said in the statement.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And, H.264 is not open. IMHO neither will JS after Oracle is done.

Also, everything Jobs said about advertising being "lame" on the iPhone is because there is no flash support. Everything he showcased can be performed with Flash on the web, and the multitasking was primarily included to add iAd support. Everyone would be furious if an iAd closed your app to run. Why else wait 4 years for something that everyone requested in the first installment. The latest update is simply to let Apple cash in on the advertising money.

I'm with guinness, these companies are not your friends, but I prefer Google's approach, which is open, closed, proprietary, free; we will support it all and will let the consumer decide.
post #225 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by masqu3rade View Post

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And, H.264 is not open. IMHO neither will JS after Oracle is done.

What does Oracle have to do with JavaScript? JavaScript (well ECMA script) is standard, open scripting language and has nothing to do with Java the platform/language which Oracle has acquired with purchase of Sun, other than they both have the word "java" in their names.

However, before Sun got bought by Oracle, they open sourced Java implementation, so Oracle can't screw it up. Also, Java the platform is just too important to a lot of players including IBM that it simply can't fail no matter what Oracle tries to do with it.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #226 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

What does Oracle have to do with JavaScript? JavaScript (well ECMA script) is standard, open scripting language and has nothing to do with Java the platform/language which Oracle has acquired with purchase of Sun, other than they both have the word "java" in their names.

However, before Sun got bought by Oracle, they open sourced Java implementation, so Oracle can't screw it up. Also, Java the platform is just too important to a lot of players including IBM that it simply can't fail no matter what Oracle tries to do with it.

Three words: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...

No one thought that Microsoft could hijack HTML either, but almost two decades later I still cannot completely remove IE from my computer because of some business related websites like the Department of Revenue and Wachovia's business site.
post #227 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

I think this all really comes down to some people's dislike and defiance of authority. The minute they are told they cannot do something, they suddenly need to have it so badly that they do whatever necessary to achieve it, even if it means resorting to illegal practices.

You so hit the nail on the head. Most of our differences are wetware based, not hardware or software.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #228 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Q. How many Android phones ship with Flash support?

A. Zero.

At least until Android 2.2 is released, currently said to be mid-May
post #229 of 282
I guess Apple will ditch their Dock Connector and replace it with end-to-end USB connections then? And scrap Quicktime along the way?
post #230 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.

If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!

That is, of course, nonsense. Apple has APIs to enable hardware acceleration and Adobe refuses to use them in Flash. They want access to the hardware itself - which is forbidden for very good reasons.

Think about it this way. Adobe Photoshop can sling around multiMB images with 16 or 24 bit color depths in fractions of a second. Why is it that Flash can't even put up a 640x480 8 bit image without maxing out the CPU and stuttering? Obviously, Adobe's Flash and Photoshop teams have access to the same APIs. Why can the Photoshop team do something far more demanding than the Flash team if Apple is blocking all the important APIs?

The same thing is true of other (non-Adobe) software packages. There are a ton of packages that do a lot more than Flash that get by just fine with the public APIs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

{No flash on Android} At least until Android 2.2 is released, currently said to be mid-May

Not quite true. You'll need Android 2.2 AND a version of Flash 10.1 for Android - which isn't due until June at the earliest.

In any event, it's irrelevant. Adobe isn't whining about Apple not supporting FUTURE products, they're whining about Apple not supporting Flash today. Since there IS no full version of Flash for mobile devices today, Adobe's whining is misguided.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #231 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

This will be taken care of next year is presume.

Tim Cook (I believe) all but said that there are only 3 areas where the iPhone has single carrier exclusity (Spain, US and another country). He mentioned that they had already made of their mind about the US market.

Reading between the lines I see iPhone on Verizon Q1 of 2011.


hardly. Verizon is a totally different tech than the iphone.

the iphone could be unlocked but still GSM and with a radio that can cover the right bands T-Mobile could pick it up. and thus no single carrier in the US.

but no Verizon (which is CDMA)

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

that statement was also 3 years ago. which is a lifetime in tech.

plus they haven't made a computer so much as the Ipad is a mobile internet device. it actually is closer to a 'netbook' than most computers with that name. because they focused on the net, not on being a mini laptop.

also keep in mind that the ipad starts at $499 and goes up. for most 'netbook' lines, $500 is the max you'd pay.

and few folks call the ipad 'a piece of junk' even with only the wifi currently out and only in the US for another 4 weeks. sales have been 500k+, colleges are looking to give them to students, hospitals are talking use, major artists are out in the wild drawing and such and tweeting about it. just today I saw a youtube of a piano virtuoso Lang Lang walking out for an encore during a concert perhaps 3 days ago, ipad in hand and using it to perform a major piece (Flight of the Bumblebees I believe it was)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #232 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is, of course, nonsense. Apple has APIs to enable hardware acceleration and Adobe refuses to use them in Flash. They want access to the hardware itself - which is forbidden for very good reasons.

Think about it this way. Adobe Photoshop can sling around multiMB images with 16 or 24 bit color depths in fractions of a second. Why is it that Flash can't even put up a 640x480 8 bit image without maxing out the CPU and stuttering? Obviously, Adobe's Flash and Photoshop teams have access to the same APIs. Why can the Photoshop team do something far more demanding than the Flash team if Apple is blocking all the important APIs?

The same thing is true of other (non-Adobe) software packages. There are a ton of packages that do a lot more than Flash that get by just fine with the public APIs.

All of course very true. However, now it's really time for Adobe to put up or shut up:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/libra...10/tn2267.html No more excuses. No more whining.
post #233 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Meh, Adobe dosn't need Apple. They have over 90% of the computers in the world using Flash.

sorry but you are wrong. Because Adobe isn't just about Flash. It's a small part of their business. And an easy half of the sales of their software are to Mac users. Many of those users are Flash developers among other things. Lose them and Adobe could find themselves in a world of hurt.

Quote:
You can do many of the things Flash does with current standards, but you don't see anyone doing it. Why? because Flash is better.

Not really. Flash is equal in terms of quality.

Most folks will continue to use Flash because those 'current' standards are new and require starting over from scratch. That's time and money. So until they are forced to change they won't.

I see this all the time. AVID was an awesome non linear editing solution and a lot of folks learned it and it was THE thing. Then Final Cut came along. Just as good, perhaps even better in terms of being cheaper and running on standard equipment etc. But the old regime refused to switch because they didn't want to go back to school and lose time they could be making money. Final Cut was the young pups program and as more and more youngsters came out of film schools and such, FCS has become the thing. Not the old school is being forced to learn it because no one wants to pay the higher costs of going with AVID running companies.

Same thing with Flash v HTML5, same thing with digital downloads and SD cards v pressed disks, and so on.

Quote:
Apple dosn't seem to have tried to help them up to this point, and then they want to complain and say it dosn't work well and they won't use it

Apple hasn't helped Adobe because the latter has been clear that their Mac OS tactic with the desktops was to wrap the Windows version in a translation layer rather than a native code bottom up version.

Also Flash isn't a native touch tech. It's a mouse tech. Again to really function well, it needs a bottom up coding. Adobe hasn't shown interest in doing that much work.

Quote:
They have an agenda.

and so does everyone else.

Quote:
They tried to stall others like HTC with lawsuits to try to buy time to get their next product to market before the competition.

you really think that's why. I suppose the first shot suits by HTC, Nokia etc were just an attempt to stall Apple so they could get their stuff out first.

Quote:
They will not allow flash on their products because it ruins their monoply of control.

a 'monopoly' that is completely legal and benefits the customers in this case because Apple's further development of the mobile OS wouldn't be hampered by concerns of breaking potentially 1000s of Flash cored apps

Interesting thing is that companies that created Flash based online games aren't so bothered by this. Only in the last couple of days was it announced that Farmville will soon be released as an ipad app and you can bet that the companies other games will soon follow. probably still linked to facebook so you can keep your 'neighbors' and leaderboards and such

Quote:
Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post

whats the problem with flash? It might not be perfect, but it's everywhere on the web

the major problem, admitted by more than one Flash developer,is that Flash is not a native touch tech. you would have to rewrite it,which Adobe hasn't and doesn't seem to want to do, or add a a translation layer, which means bloat and more changes for bugs.

Quote:
and i don't see anyone paying royalties to use it?

no royalty payment is publicly declared for anything but you can bet money was paid. if only for the software to build Flash. which is not cheap. Adobe is known for using their dominance in many realms to jack up their software prices to very high prices.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #234 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Apple tries to do things like sue people for using multitouch and then technologies that drive it, when other companies own those technologies and Apple dosn't even pay them for stealing the technology.

I supposed you have the patent numbers and dates to back that up. Probably not since you don't actually do any research on your 'facts'

Quote:
Cisco owns the name iPhone by the way. Look it up.

i did. which is why I know you are full of crap about the whole thing.

Trademarks require use to keep them. Cisco bought the mark and device and discontinued it. they wait until their last extension to restart use was almost up and when they found out Apple wanted to grab the mark when it lapsed, they announced a new product that wasn't released until months after the iphone. The courts deemed that the announcement and delayed release didn't qualify as use. But Apple was nice enough to let them use the name on the released device without fear of lawsuit. But if that device was ever dropped, Cisco couldn't release anything new with the name.

Suppose you also think that Microsoft 'bailed out' Apple rather than the truth which was that they lost a suit over a 'look and feel' violation

Quote:
They tried to delay competetion from releasing products with false lawsuits.

Name one suit where Apple was faulted with filing a bogus suit. Compared to say Psystar that tried to file an Anti-trust suit claiming that Macs are a market in and of themselves. Which by the by was a reaction to being served a suit for creating unauthorized clones

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Your post is amazingly devoid of outstanding options in software. Pray tell what Photoshop competitors should I be looking for on a PC.

None, because there aren't any. Not on a professional use level. Same as the Mac.

Adobe cornered the market through creating the best product at that time and buying out smaller companies. Everyone in graphic designed flocked to Photoshop, Illustrator etc and now Adobe has such a stronghold that they can do what they want. they 'update' and provide only a handful of new tricks and toys and people buy. And pay. Photoshop is great but is it really worth $700 an upgrade. Not really. But folks are so invested in that world that they will pay.

And yet I don't see a lot of rants against this. but Apple does the same thing with hardware prices, using their legal right to tie the OS to their stuff and it's like Steve Jobs is Satan Incarnate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

Except now, advertisers have to advertise through iAd. How is that good for advertisers?

Now is it not good. iAd gives app developers a native way to put in ads without fear of bugs and crashes. Plus they get a cut of the money, thus encouraging them to put in ads. increasing the potential for views. On several million iphones and ipod touches and almost a million ipads (before 3g hits the US and anything hits the rest of the world). for the advertisers, that's freaking awesome

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #235 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

all of course very true. However, now it's really time for adobe to put up or shut up:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/libra...10/tn2267.html no more excuses. No more whining.

Quoted for truth! (AI didn't like my original reponse: QFT)

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #236 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

All of course very true. However, now it's really time for Adobe to put up or shut up:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/libra...10/tn2267.html No more excuses. No more whining.

But, doesn't that imply that Adobe hasn't then had access to hardware acceleration until now? I recall people here claiming that Adobe has had access and was lying when they said that this HW access is what allows 10.1 on Windows to run so well.

It is time now for Adobe to put up or shut up about this. Flash on the Mac sucks. But it probably also time for those that put all of the blame on Adobe's shoulders for the performance to acknowledge that there was at least a kernel of truth to their statement that they needed access to the hardware. This appears to have now been provided.

"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 #237 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But, doesn't that imply that Adobe hasn't then had access to hardware acceleration until now? I recall people here claiming that Adobe has had access and was lying when they said that this HW access is what allows 10.1 on Windows to run so well.

It is time now for Adobe to put up or shut up about this. Flash on the Mac sucks. But it probably also time for those that put all of the blame on Adobe's shoulders for the performance to acknowledge that there was at least a kernel of truth to their statement that they needed access to the hardware. This appears to have now been provided.

They already have had access to other APIs that should allow them to do graphics programming that runs at something other than a crawl. Pretending that they didn't and that only this would do (even though no other 3rd party had it either and most graphics software, including Photoshop, on OSX did not suck like Flash) was pretty much a lie. Also, regardless, the code they do currently have crashes constantly, which isn't related to this. However, there's not really much they can complain about at this point. They have no excuses to hide behind anymore.

Looks like it was released on 3/29/2010.
post #238 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They already have had access to other APIs that should allow them to do graphics programming that runs at something other than a crawl. Pretending that they didn't and that only this would do (even though no other 3rd party had it either and most graphics software, including Photoshop, on OSX did not suck like Flash) was pretty much a lie. Also, regardless, the code they do currently have crashes constantly, which isn't related to this. However, there's not really much they can complain about at this point. They have no excuses to hide behind anymore.

Looks like it was released on 3/29/2010.

The other APIs would not expose H.265 video hardware acceleration. That is why Apple posted this tech note. There was no need for them to pretend that didn't have it since they did not have access, nor did any other app that would have benefitted from hardware acceleration for H.264 video...except Quicktime. Access to any other API obviously would not provide the same advantages, which is why Apple used them for Quicktime. If they weren't advantageous, do you think Apple would have wasted the effort in creating and then using them?

As I said, it is now time for Adobe to put up or shut up. No more excuses....but that doesn't mean the excuses had no merit. Obviously, they did.

"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 #239 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The other APIs would not expose H.265 video hardware acceleration. That is why Apple posted this tech note. There was no need for them to pretend that didn't have it since they did not have access, nor did any other app that would have benefitted from hardware acceleration for H.264 video...except Quicktime. Access to any other API obviously would not provide the same advantages, which is why Apple used them for Quicktime. If they weren't advantageous, do you think Apple would have wasted the effort in creating and then using them?

As I said, it is now time for Adobe to put up or shut up. No more excuses....but that doesn't mean the excuses had no merit. Obviously, they did.

It's not obvious that their excuses had merit at all. In fact, their excuses were and are without merit. No 3rd party had access to these APIs previously, yet, it's hard to find graphics software on OSX that sucks as much as Flash. This also doesn't excuse all the Flash related crashes, which this has nothing to do with. So, while there might be advantages to this API, Adobe's lack of access to it doesn't explain the problems with Flash on OSX. But, now, their excuses just got pulled out from under them.

I also don't think Apple created this API "just for them". It's probably an existing private API that they felt could now be published. Although, I would not be surprised to learn that the motivation for publishing it at this time was to put an end to the excuses. Now, of course, Adobe will no doubt say that they have to "study" the API, and there will be more excuses about why it will take them years to incorporate it, if history is any guide.
post #240 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Every application Google has is open standards and works in any modern browser on any platform. Google unlike Apple is just giving its users and developers and choice to also consume/develop flash.

I know, I know I mentioned that strange word "choice", unheard of in Apple universe. This is really "Apple vs. choice" and nothing else. Not Adobe, not Google etc. I for one don't like being locked and tied down by a single vendor be it Microsoft, Apple or anyone else. It seems Apple won't be happy until they are the only ones allowed to develop software for their phones or OS X. I think it's time to ditch Apple now, at least that's what I'm doing.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations...oid_platf.html

How is AIR and Flash fostering open standards Mario? "Are your content are belong to us" is what proprietary runtimes like Flash offer. Yes choice seems good to a liberty loving human but it's abstract from whether choice is good or not overall.

Though your point is fallacious on multiple levels. There are a multitude of "choices" in which to develop iPhone apps. Flash just so happens to be not one of them. I do think it's time for you to ditch Apple. Success always brings carpet baggers who fly in like locust looking to capitalize.

Apple's success didn't come on the backs of Flash or its minions and I for one will not be sorry to see them pack up and move their half baked crap to Android.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
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'