or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs slams Adobe Flash as unfit for modern era
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs slams Adobe Flash as unfit for modern era - Page 5

post #161 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

You managed to reply to my comment without confronting its central thesis. Steve Jobs claims that Adobe's Flash technology is proprietary. This is a fact. Flash IS proprietary. However, Steve also claims that HTML5 (which includes H.264 for video playback) is an "open standard". His words:

"...we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript all open standards."


This is undeniably false. H.264 is a proprietary codec which must be licensed from MPEG LA. It is not "open" in any sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs is, therefore, a liar.

HTML5 is an open standard. It includes other forms of playback as well as H.264. You are killing your own central thesis.

Thompson
post #162 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

... iAd is definitely a shot at Google ad revenue, ...

More like a full broadside.
post #163 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

I'm sorry but I always get a good laugh from his posts. Sometimes I wonder if he really believes the stuff he writes. If he does, that makes them that much funnier.

He reminds me of that one guy on every job that's a fanatical conspiracy theorist. Crazy as a bat, and you just can't seem to get enough of their amazing stories.


Looks like I´m right again, I touched a few nerves and people are trying to discredit me.

Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.


Steve had a decision, either make a tablet like the HP Slate and run Flash, or go without Flash and create a cheaper slimmer device with better battery life that would sell more units than the Slate.

So Steve chose the lower price and the war with Flash as to beat HP on price and gain market share.

Of course the war with Flash is really not with Adobe, but to get websites to make iPad versions of their sites so users of the iPad won´t complain to their friends thinking about getting one.

It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.
post #164 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

It reads like one of his keynote presentationsclear, sensible, and convincing.

Plus he takes little jabs at people who oppose him. That's another similarity.
post #165 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Apple are trying to kill the internet? Wow, that's a new one on me. You'll know it's happened when they take the i out of iMac

I don't think they're trying to kill it, I think they're trying to make it standards based. But standards are slow to change (due to committees) and can be lowest common denominator type stuff. If you can get the web to be standards based you will have an easier time keeping your apps an innovative step ahead. And therefore keep people in the apps viewing iAds and not on the web viewing Google adwords.
post #166 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I also don't agree with the assertion that the web is a competitor to iPhone apps. Web apps will never be able to integrate with the OS as well as native apps, so that isn't really a concern. If Apple were worried about web apps in general, they wouldn't be promoting tools like HTML5. I don't think Google really cares what the medium for their ads is, so long as the ads get served. iAd is definitely a shot at Google ad revenue, but that is a separate issue.

I don't regard these things as separate issues.

Cheers
post #167 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.

Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.

You are still wrong. H.264 is open, it just isn't free. Except actually it is free until 2015 (at least).

There is a glimmer of truth in what you say, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you're making out. There are no open and free codecs available for video that are without doubts in patent encumbrance. That creates an element of risk. Codecs developed by the MPEG currently appear to be the safe bet because of their prevalence and history, and the MPEGs standing in the industry. That they are not offered under the GPL or some other open source license is a problem, but it's a lesser evil than a proprietary Flash wrapper around a proprietary video codec; at least it takes one level of proprietary out of the equation. Apple have some measure of reassurance in backing h.264 because they are one of the license holders, so they can guarantee themselves of its future. They can't do so with Theora. Dirac is another possible, but has its doubters. H.264 is not doubted, and while it is being offered for free it seems to be the best option.

The possibility of Google releasing a codec from their On2 purchase as an open source web video codec may change this.

Whatever the case, it is not Apple's responsibility to police the web and promote it as an open platform, it is the w3cs remit. That Apple is doing so in its spat with Adobe is a side effect of many other technical and business reasons, as Jobs sets out in his letter.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #168 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post


The fees are only waived until 2016, where after sites serving H.264 internet video will have to pay MPEG LA $5 million. It is not "open" in any respect whatsoever. It is closed and proprietary, just like Flash. You're going from one closed standard in Flash to another in H.264. It's meaningless. And Steve Jobs is a liar. I am not an advocate of Flash or any other proprietary standard. Apple is Adobe is Microsoft, etc.

Oh and, Quadra 610...cute chart.

HTML5 and H.264 are NOT synonymous. Quit writing as if they are.

Thompson
post #169 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.

He's the CEO of a major company, I should damn well hope his public statements are orchestrated!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #170 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.

Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.

And where does Adobe fit into this? If they had it there way, you would need Flash to play any video, regardless of codec, and it better be one it decides to support.

So. Flash or H264?
Big businesses who are willing to spend money on quality are pushing for H264 to become the standard. The HTML5 definition of <VIDEO> needs to be widely accepted to take any meaningful hold over Flash. H264 which has great hardware support and is used in a very large variety of consumer products is the best way to go at this point. It is a great quality codec. I don't see the problem with standardizing it with the open standard of HTML5 at all.
post #171 of 348
.

Edited by agl82 - 8/7/14 at 5:06am
post #172 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Only in your world does Steve Jobs decide where you are going and maybe a few others on this forum. The rest of us understand if we don't like where Steve Jobs is going we have a choice to move to another option.

You always have that choice. You can also go right ahead and build yourself a square wheel. Maybe certain novelty shops sell them. You always have options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

For the exception of the iPod Apple doesn't control any market with a #1 product and even though their revenue is way up that fact remains because there are people like you that are willing to pay an insane markup for every product they produce.

Apple either controls the market with a #1 product or they set the standard. Apple's influence in this industry is astronomical. Of course, you won't see that if your head is in the sand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

With the attitude Jobs has Apple is in for a major fall from grace. And the retards here can joke all they want about Apple is doomed but they may want to watch what they joke about, they just may have their wish come true. Apple is starting to act alot like the old Microsoft. And we all know how well they are doing.

I think we all know where to put your "predictions."
post #173 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

[SIZE="2"]

Apple only embraces open source when it benefits them. They are truly the most proprietary company on the face of the planet.

Apple failing to understand open source

http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2...rstand_op.html

Another post of nonsense from you. Goodbye.
post #174 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

Keep buying into the lies. SHEEPLE!

Third party IDE's NOT from adobe include:
FlashDevelop
Eclipse with AIR / Flex SDK (Flex is open source and free)
swfmill
swish
SWFTool
haxe
etc...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_F...rd-party_tools

And if you're talking about alternatives to flash player:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Playback

You don't need adobe to exist to keep flash rolling, they're just the main company behind the momentum of flash and for obvious reasons. They have the best creative suites and they sell like crazy because they are the best. AIR runs with webkit and HTML5 included. Flash is far less closed than Objective C. Flex is open source. AMF is open source. Eclipse is open source. I'd say Adobe is taking a seriously unjust pounding by a bunch of people who don't know crap about crap.

Your rant fails to address the several good points regarding why Flash sucks for the mobile (and touch) world.

Thompson
post #175 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Your rant fails to address the several good points regarding why Flash sucks for the mobile (and touch) world.

Thompson

Some day phones will be able to measure when a finger is hovering over the screen
post #176 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post


It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.

The 3G model isn't weeks away. In fact, mine arrives tomorrow.

Impact? Most of us have used iPhones since 2007. And we also employ Click2flash on our Macs. The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPads are selling like 13 yr olds in Thailand.

You read AI frequently, surely you've stumbled upon last quarter's results.

Face it, these devices are hits, despite the lack of flash.
post #177 of 348
I'll put this in perspective for those who do not understand.

It is like driving a car, most all cars use gas to get to one place or another. Most car companies all make propriety cars since you can not take parts from every car to put them on any car.

Now everyone agrees the best way to get one place or another is using hydrogen cars, but the Oil companies insist on selling you gas at their stations and continue to slam the auto industry for making hydrogen cars when gas also works. Oh the gas companies are more than happy to sell you a translator to use gas to make hydrogen

Adobe is doing everything they can to maintain a revenue stream just like the Oil Companies would do if everything was moving to hydrogen
post #178 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

We get it, Jobs doesn't like Flash. Push Adobe to improve it. Push them to improve their design products.

Read the letter again: Apple HAS been pushing Adobe for improvements for years now. We've heard this before in other forums too, so it's not like this letter is the first mention of Apple working with Adobe to make Flash better for mobile devices (and to stop crashing Safari).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

But for Pete's sake, I wish he'd stop poking them in the eye so publicly every chance he gets. All that will do is put their professional design customers in the middle of an unnecessary beef.

Boy do you have it backwards!

Adobe, the media, and stock analysts have been lampooning Apple incessantly about the lack of Flash on their mobile devices. Most of we've heard from Steve about Flash before now came from either internal e-mails that were leaked out or snippets from closed door meetings.

If anything, this letter that actually EXPLAINS the reasoning is long overdue.

Thompson
post #179 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

There is no evidence of that at all. In fact, it appears to be the other way around.

You should read the replies in this thread.

Now developers aren't vowing to leave in mass but its pretty obvious that there's a lot of discomfort associated with the new SDK agreement.

I really believe that users are smart enough to figure out the good apps from the bad. IMO, when you have a robust platform like the iPhone/iPad currently enjoys these restrictions seem unnecessary. I can understand Apple's concerns but they are fighting an imaginary enemy. The iPhone platform enjoys success that the Mac never had. Apple just needs to create the best possible tools they can and the developers will use them. They aren't stupid either.
post #180 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."

Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!

You were in such a hurry to post that you couldn't read a paragraph or two further on? Fail.
post #181 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I appreciate this letter and it's all true, but I don't think Adobe should be chastised for just going to Cocoa when so many of Apple's own apps are still running in Carbon....

Except that Mac OS-X does "fully support" Cocoa and has been actively removing it's Carbon elements with each release. It isn't the black and white situation you make it out to be, and it depends mostly on the parsing of that "fully.".

Steve said Adobe only "fully" supports Carbon with it's CS5 release, but everyone knows that CS5 is hardly a 100% Cocoa application. Half the interface is still drawn on the screen with Flash for cripes sake. Steve's "fully" in that context just means "They've finally decided to convert to Cocoa." By that metric Apple was "fully" Cocoa when they made the decision to move away from Carbon all those years ago.

No one expects Adobe to be 100% compliant and 100% Cocoa anytime in the next five or ten years, but they have started the process and are apparently making some kind of half-hearted effort to change. Apple started doing that years ago and is almost finished with the conversion.

That's a big difference and indicative of a much more nuanced picture than you paint.
post #182 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Steve had a decision, either make a tablet like the HP Slate and run Flash, or go without Flash and create a cheaper slimmer device with better battery life that would sell more units than the Slate.

So Steve chose the lower price and the war with Flash as to beat HP on price and gain market share.

That's largely irrelevant. Apple decided not to use Flash in 2007 when the original iPhone came out. At that time, it wasn't even Apple's decision - because there was no full version of Flash for mobile devices. Wait....there STILL isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Of course the war with Flash is really not with Adobe, but to get websites to make iPad versions of their sites so users of the iPad won´t complain to their friends thinking about getting one.

It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.

I wish people would get their facts straight. There IS no Flash war with Adobe. Even if Apple WANTED to put Flash on the iPhone, there is no full version of Flash available. The version that's only been delayed half a dozen times and may come out this summer requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it won't run on the iPhone, anyway. The war ended when Adobe failed to show up.

The 3G model is weeks away? That's funny, my tracking number says it will be here tomorrow. No, it won't be available in all areas, but it WILL be available tomorrow - please stop making up lies.

Furthermore, your statement that supplies have been constrained on purpose is a pretty serious accusation. The CEO of one of the top companies in the world said they were making them as fast as possible and supplies were limited because demand exceeded expectations. If you're calling him a liar, you'd better have evidence -- or a pretty good lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I like living in the Adobe fantasy world where every mobile device but Apple's runs Flash fine with no degradation of battery life and excellent performance. It's obviously trivially easy to do, since Adobe has had the technology ready to go since the beginning of '09 I mean mid '09 I mean late '09 I mean early '10 I mean mid '10 I mean late '10.

Come on, Apple, get with the program!

You forgot - in Adobe's fantasy world, EVERY mobile device has an 800 MHz A8 or faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The lie is a blank Flash document uses 120%.

Nice of you to accuse me of lying without bothering to check the facts. I was the one who claimed that Flash shot my CPU to 120%. I never claimed it was a blank document. I said it was a document that had no video or animation. You can check it for yourself - if you have an ounce of integrity - rather than simply calling people a liar. MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz. Go to www.webkinz.com and log in. Then check the CPU usage.

Or, you could check Engadget's web site for tests of the new beta. The release version (which I am using) goes as high as 140% - on a system that's a lot more powerful than mine, although they were using a more complicated task.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/a...sults-may-var/

So stop accusing people of lying - especially when you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes-99 View Post

@ solipsism

Fair enough, reasoned and valid points. Especially about flash lite. I accept defeat.

The only point I'm trying to make is that Android has stated they will be including full flash (I think in 2.2?) and the pace that the specs of handsets have been increasing in my opinion it will not be an issue in the future, and I had hoped for the possibility of a U turn in the future, this is looking less and less likely.

Apple was supposed to have made a decision in 2007 based on Adobe's promises for the future (promises which they've repeatedly broken)? And based on Adobe's horrible history of supporting the Mac over the past 10 years? Even today, there are no cell phones on the market that support full versions of Flash and we only have Adobe's word that we'll have them sometime this year. AND, a number of reports on the beta say it's slow and choppy, as well. So Apple should have put all their iPhone plans on hold in 2007 waiting for Adobe to release Flash? And given up many billions of dollars in revenues? I'm glad you're not running any company I'm invested in.
"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 #183 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I disagree with this.

Apple doesn't need to tell developers how to write apps. Let the USERS decide the winners and losers as far as apps on the iPhone goes. If developers use inferior tools and produce inferior apps, compared to apps written with proper tools leveraging all the APIs, they will be rejected by users. This is how it ought to be IMO.

Photoshop is unique in that it has no competitors and has been allowed by Adobe to languish on the Mac platform. I don't think that'll happen with the iPhone because the app environment is too competitive. How many iPhone apps have no competitor?

Telling developers how to write their apps just pisses them off. It may have the undesired effect of driving them to other platforms.

Oh, Apple is definitely right on this one, and I speak from the experience that I think Steve is talking about.

Back before the transition to OS X, most developers used Metrowerks CodeWarrior to build Mac OS applications. This system was certainly nice, but it included a bunch of extra layers on top of the Mac OS APIs. The result was a horribly slow transition over to Carbon. Ultimately, Apple had to release and promote XCode over CodeWarrior for CoCoa development. It sucked for us developers at first, but ultimately we got accustomed to the differences, and then the OS upgrades (and switch to Intel) went a hell of a lot more smoothly.

Thompson
post #184 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

The possibility of Google releasing a codec from their On2 purchase as an open source web video codec may change this.

Not unless there is a groundswell of hardware acceleration (mobile and desktop) for it...

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

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

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

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #185 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

Isnt iTunes still Carbon based? I agree that Adobe drags its feet at best, but if the heart of your media empire hasnt "fully" adopted Mac OS X then....
iTunes performs reasonably on most of my Macs but I do have to say that it can freeze the system at will when it decides it needs to. I guess it being their main cross-platform effort limits them as much as it limits Adobe.

retract my comment if I am wrong about iTunes.

Plus most people choose to ignore the fact that Apple promised 64 bit carbon and then a year later decided they weren't going to do it after all. If Apple had said carbon was dead when they promised a 64 bit version, CS4 probably would have been done in cocoa.

There was a screwed up version of a Sun Tzu quote that I hear from time to time, "Never press a desperate enemy," which is exactly what Steve Jobs is doing.

"But what can Adobe do?" you ask, simple, make Flash open source. Its coming, and probably sooner rather than later.

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #186 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

By the way, the HP Slate, which looks like a iPad, just a tiny bit thicker, happens to run Flash just fine.

You mean the product that Ballmer kind of demonstrated but that isn't going to hit the market now? Wonder why? Wonder what the battery life would have been like on that thing.

Thompson
post #187 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Fearing View Post

Adobe started this war. WHY didn't they quietly work on this. Work with Apple at a high level. Why did they go public with the midget-evangelist-hit men who started throwing tantrums?

This is a SERIOUS corporate issue for Adobe and they have been totally clueless how to deal with this. You WORK with a company, especially when you are the smaller, weaker one.They seemed thrilled to go public and have a hissy fit like an upset 3 year old.

Adobe is responsible for this reply. They needed to chill. RIght now, what's wisest for them is to keep quiet and actually ship a decent Flash mobile product. But stop the war.

How can you say Apple shouldn't respond to what has amounted to months of antagonism from the Adobe and their minion (usually employed by Adobe).

I'm not sure Adobe started this "war" but Jobs is certainly doing his part to keep it going, and that aint good for both company's customers.

How do you know what Adobe has or hasn't attempted in efforts to "work quietly on this"?

Look, I perfectly get the desire of any company to control it's own product and limit the ability of 3rd parties to develop for competitors' products as well as their own. It's a completely rational approach, but there is a point where it becomes self-defeating.

Apple not only bans .sfw from the iPhone and iPad, but it changes the developers agreement to ban aps that run natively on both if they were authored in Flash, then published through it's new compiler to Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript (which was a major addition to CS5 and presented one of the biggest reasons to upgrade for many people). It also puts in question whether or not 3D games published from tools like Unity 3D are in violation as well. There is no reason for such a punitive stance on Apple's part. This only punishes professionals who support both companies. Humans are capable of generating bad code all on their own. Banning Adobe's compiler from Flash is no guarantee of a "controlled user experience" any more than Apple is going to inspect every line of code written natively from scratch by any coder. Why not at least work out an agreement between the two companies in which Apple can work with Adobe to ensure Flash generated content running in the iPhone/iPad native language is acceptable, instead of cutting Adobe off at the knees from the start? Again, if Jobs doesn't like .sfw, fine. But it's nothing but bad for designers and users for Jobs to extend his dislike of Flash to areas that impact the ability of those who use/rely/develop on/for both companies' products. What's next for Jobs in his beef with Adobe -- an Apple EULA that says no web site maybe viewed through Safari if it was generated in DreamWeaver or the Apple police will show up, bust down your door, and confiscate your computer if it's a Mac?
post #188 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Looks like I´m right again, I touched a few nerves and people are trying to discredit me.

Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.


Steve had a decision, either make a tablet like the HP Slate and run Flash, or go without Flash and create a cheaper slimmer device with better battery life that would sell more units than the Slate.

So Steve chose the lower price and the war with Flash as to beat HP on price and gain market share.

Of course the war with Flash is really not with Adobe, but to get websites to make iPad versions of their sites so users of the iPad won´t complain to their friends thinking about getting one.

It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.

Tell me honestly which would you prefer to use? You really have a great conspiracy driven imagination
but since you have never built a product like the iPad and sold about million the first few weeks I don't give your point of view much weight.
post #189 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPads are selling like 13 yr olds in Thailand.

Hmmm...seems you disclosed something about yourself I should report to the authorities.



Quote:
Face it, these devices are hits, despite the lack of flash.


The lack of Flash on the iPod Touch and the iPhone is understandable, they have lower performance processors because the nature of the device fits into small places.

The iPad is a different story, it could have been just a hair thicker with a slightly larger processor and have Flash support, just like the HP Slate does, but Apple decided to basically create a large screen iPod Touch instead.
post #190 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.

Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.

hi new troll user.
Code:

"Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead"

Too bad he never said H.264 is "open". I see this same lie repeated several times by new users. Is this the new Microsoft/Adobe/Faux News talking point?
post #191 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacYeah View Post


Who wants a blu ray player in his computer. Blu-ray is COPYRIGHT/DRM disaster.


Well, if we let reality be our guide, millions and millions of people want a BluRay player in their computers..
post #192 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

[SIZE="2"]I just enjoy pointing out the irony of Steve Jobs calling Flash a closed standard when every aspect of the entire Apple ecosystem is closed, proprietary, and anti-competitive.

But you are pointing out two irrelevant things. The article is about Flash, not comparing Flash to the Apple "ecosystem".
Adobe called Flash open. It's not.
Quote:
You can't develop iPhone applications without using XCode. You can't sell your app for the iPhone unless it's approved by der Führer Jobs himself. You can only use iTunes to transfer your media onto an iPod, iPad, or iPhone. You can't have Flash on your iPad. You can't have an HDMI port or Blu-Ray player on your Mac.

What does this have to do with whether Flash is open or not?
post #193 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

You're delusional if you think I support Adobe. I just enjoy pointing out the irony of Steve Jobs calling Flash a closed standard when every aspect of the entire Apple ecosystem is closed, proprietary, and anti-competitive. You can't develop iPhone applications without using XCode. You can't sell your app for the iPhone unless it's approved by der Führer Jobs himself. You can only use iTunes to transfer your media onto an iPod, iPad, or iPhone. You can't have Flash on your iPad. You can't have an HDMI port or Blu-Ray player on your Mac. It seems Mr. Jobs loves dishing out punishment and his followers are some seriously brainwashed masochists! ...

No personal offence meant, (seriously!), but I find it hard to pay attention to your posts. I feel like anyone who posts on a forum like this and insists on changing the font size or colour or posting in stanzas etc., just kind of lacks credibility.

It makes me wonder more about the personality of the person posting than what they are trying to say, an in that light, is indicative (to me), of the kind of mind that thinks they know better than everyone else and isn't really open to other people's ideas. I hope this isn't true of you, and it's not an accusation, I just wanted to say that it's hard to take you seriously when you do that kind of thing.
post #194 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post


I'm still waiting to see any shipping version of mobile Flash... Until then it's all pretend stuff made up by the Adobe "evangelists".


You know it is not pretend stuff.

Adobe now taking beta testers for Flash Player 10.1 and AIR 2.0

http://www.betanews.com/article/Adob...oid/1271687589
post #195 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

A few 3 minute news videos per day will do nothing appreciable to battery life.

If that's all you're using Flash for, then it's no great loss, is it? Not long before those same videos will be available in something more mobile-friendly, and then we can all look back and wonder why we argued over this.

Thompson
post #196 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nice of you to accuse me of lying without bothering to check the facts. I was the one who claimed that Flash shot my CPU to 120%. I never claimed it was a blank document. I said it was a document that had no video or animation. You can check it for yourself - if you have an ounce of integrity - rather than simply calling people a liar. MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz. Go to www.webkinz.com and log in. Then check the CPU usage.

I went all over that site and never saw the activity above 58% for a second or two peak most of the time is was in the low teens and even single digits even with all the animations. So I don't know what might be wrong with your set up but I certainly don't see the same CPU usage you report.

But yeah try to program that site in HTML5 good luck.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #197 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

...There was a screwed up version of a Sun Tzu quote that I hear from time to time, "Never press a desperate enemy," which is exactly what Steve Jobs is doing.

"But what can Adobe do?" you ask, simple, make Flash open source. Its coming, and probably sooner rather than later.

Sun Tzu also said, "The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting or pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep."


And, relative to recent events, "If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before its time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told."
post #198 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Oh, Apple is definitely right on this one, and I speak from the experience that I think Steve is talking about.

Back before the transition to OS X, most developers used Metrowerks CodeWarrior to build Mac OS applications. This system was certainly nice, but it included a bunch of extra layers on top of the Mac OS APIs. The result was a horribly slow transition over to Carbon. Ultimately, Apple had to release and promote XCode over CodeWarrior for CoCoa development. It sucked for us developers at first, but ultimately we got accustomed to the differences, and then the OS upgrades went a hell of a lot more smoothly.

Thompson

From reading your post it seems that you agree with me. If Apple provide developers with good tools for wring iPhone apps they'll naturally gravitate to them.

But I think there is another agenda here at work. Apple wish to make it difficult to write apps that can easily be ported to several platform in order to blunt the the success of Android. IMO, if they wish to blunt the success of Android they need to make the iPhone available to ALL US carriers. They are plenty of users who simply will not choose ATT as a a carrier, regardless of the device.

Adding the other US carriers will solve that problem.
post #199 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

... By the way, the HP Slate, which looks like a iPad, just a tiny bit thicker, happens to run Flash just fine. ...

And it gets roughly one fifth of the battery life of the iPad.
post #200 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Because there is a great deal of angst in the community,... My kids want to know why they can't play on their "Poptropica" accounts. ... I certainly appreciate the decision more now, and I wasn't even that much against it to begin with.


Did the letter quell your kid's angst?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs slams Adobe Flash as unfit for modern era