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 8

post #281 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

As far as I'm concerned, if a ship date hasn't been at least publicly confirmed, then it's still in the realm of "speculation" and "could be". Heck, even your first paragraph above was caveated with "appears to be", "most likely", and "I'd say". These qualitative assertions of probability may be good enough for YOU, but I've seen too many slipping ship dates in the tech world - not to mention unexpected plug pulls - to put much credence in this kind of data. FWIW, I'm similarly skeptical of "leaks", "rumors", and "specs" related to unannounced Apple products as well. That even includes the Gizmodo "iPhone prototype"... although I must confess that the circumstances surrounding that particular story are far more compelling than your standard Apple scoop. :-)

Bottom line: whatever scarce info you can currently point to about the HP Slate doesn't really go very far in terms of proving the point that I was responding to, namely that Flash works just fine on the HP Slate without draining its battery. We really don't know that. There are plenty of existing devices that we can test on though. So why bother appealing to a "leak"?

Thompson

You know this started really simply. You said you doubted the Slate was even coming out and wondered what the battery life would be like.

"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."

Then I pointed out that its leaked specs from an internal presentation (most companies aren't in the business of lying to their own employees) listed it as having a 5 hour battery life. If HP would make official announcements about it I would link to that. You were wondering, so I supplied the current information available on the web. I appeal to a leak b/c the leaked device is the one being discussed. We could talk all day about how well Flash works on current netbooks and tablets, but that would still have no bearing on the Slate.

Other people brought the Slate up as a topic. I never stated that was proof of how well it would work, but at one point someone else on this thread had said the Slate would probably only have 1/5th the battery life of the iPad, which would be 2 hours. If their battery is rated for 5 hours, that would mean only 40%, which is extremely rare. If you don't like leaks, fine. I don't care really. I was just providing you with the currently stated information that people have been discussing for a month now. Personally, even if it does launch w/the stats provided, I doubt it will do half as well as the iPad.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

my iphone gets horrible battery life. Whatever you're attempting to imply, it's failing.

Is it jailbroken and multi-tasking or stock?
post #282 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

my iphone gets horrible battery life. Whatever you're attempting to imply, it's failing.

It would be twice as bad with Flash... assuming that your main use case is web surfing.

Thompson
post #283 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

According to Adobe's CEO, about 100 out of 200,000. You are being overly dramatic.

So you think that Adobe's flash is the ONLY developer tool excluded by the new Apple SDK agreement? And then accuse me of not being knowledgeable?

That's rich. And totally uninformed.

Are you really a software developer?
post #284 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

my iphone gets horrible battery life. Whatever you're attempting to imply, it's failing.

The iPhone is toward the top of battery life ratings, yet you still complain about it and still want Flash on the iPhone despite it making the battery suffer even more. Do you not see this helps supports Flash not coming to the iPhone and completely dissolves your argument?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #285 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by donarb View Post

Yea, your link to the alternative Flash Players was priceless. Apparently you didn't read it before you posted it. Even Stallman says that alternatives are not as good as Adobe's.



Except you do. You didn't mention Flash Media Server. Anybody can put a flash file onto their website, but if you need to do heavy duty media serving (like YouTube or Vimeo), video conferencing or live streaming, you need Flash Media Server.

red5 is open source and handles 95% of the media server needs. what now?
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #286 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The iPhone is toward the top of battery life ratings, yet you still complain about it and still want Flash on the iPhone despite it making the battery suffer even more. Do you not see this helps supports Flash not coming to the iPhone and completely dissolves your argument?

you're buying into the lie that flash reduces battery life which it's proven not to. also, my iphone is being replaced by a 4G EVO from sprint, a company not supersaturated with traffic and a phone that's not limited by a narrow view of what a phone should mean to the bottom line of a company.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #287 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

OK. So it's not 'pretend'. It's only vaporware. Let me know when it ships.

More importantly, let me know when they ship a version that EVEN ADOBE thinks will run on a 600 MHz processor like the iPhone 3GS or 400 MHz like the iPhone 3G.


...

Certainly not there yet. You may already be aware of this, however, regarding OSX HW acceleration for H.264 (HW decoder), Adobe's Tinic Uro outlines the status and limitations (including the frame stuttering) in the beta that was released yesterday here.

Quote:
Tinic: We are well aware that we need to accelerate the display and scaling of video. CAOpenGLLayer is the vehicle for that. We are looking at how we can get this implemented soon, but its simply too late to include this into Flash Player 10.1.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #288 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Steve Jobs talking about "Open Standards" is just a load of rhetoric. Neither Apple nor Adobe is an "open" company, but both have elements of an open platform in their closed business model - Adobe in the fact that it's not platform specific, and there's no "big brother" watching what you do with their product a la Apple, while Apple supports a few open standards (but not in the realm of Audio. In that area, they only support their own proprietary format + mp3s.)

Incidentally, Flash isn't competing with HTML5, since that's just a markup language. It's actually competing with h264. But, since that's an "old" codec, Steve is highlighting HTML5, since that's the "future", at least that's what he wants us to believe. I remember when XHTML2.0 was the future?

By denying Flash, Apple is eliminating the possibility of people writing apps in flash, and then porting them to both the iPhone and Android. Jobs knows that the strongest selling point of the iPhone is the app store, and he wants to protect it's exclusivity. Instead, he strategically makes it more difficult to write for both platforms at the same time.

I think the real kicker in Steve's essay is that he's implying the PC era is in the past, while the mobile era is the future... I guess that's why Apple has been shafting the professional end of the market with slow and toned down MacbookPro and MacPro updates... Slowly fazing out of computers and putting the emphasis on consumer electronics, I guess...

This is the most informed and savvy post i've read on this whole troll spam filled thread
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #289 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

You know this started really simply. You said you doubted the Slate was even coming out and wondered what the battery life would be like.

Well, fair enough. My apologies. This is one of those things that happen on message boards sometimes. You see, from my perspective, that post is NOT how it started. But now I can more easily see where you are coming from, since that's where you jumped in.

If you want more context, go back and look what I was responding to at that point. "SpotOn" had just offered the HP Slate as PRESENT TENSE evidence that Flash is not a problem. You came in just in time for my facetious response, and I (mistakenly) took your information as a continuation of the earlier debate. I honestly thought you were holding up the HP Slate as a valid example of a mobile device that suffered no performance degradation from Flash. I couldn't fathom that conclusion from the evidence you offered, but there it was (or so I thought).

Note: FWIW, I still have my doubts about the HP Slate hitting the market any time soon, if ever, and I also question how good its battery life REALLY will be under the load of Windows and Flash. HP has to realize that if the battery life is only 5 hours and the OS is too "filesystem like", that it will get laughed out of the contest just like earlier tablets have been.

And, note to self: don't be facetious in print. It doesn't come through.

Thompson
post #290 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

you're buying into the lie that flash reduces battery life which it's proven not to.

Show us this proof that using more power doesn't require power. We'll all be waiting right here in reality for you to return.

You can test this yourself so lying isn't going to win any favour. Unplug a laptop, any laptop, then open up Chrome or Safari. Play a YouTube video using HTML5. Check the battery time remaining. Then play that same YouTube video using Flash. Check the battery time remaining. Repeatable, empirical evidence.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #291 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Show us this proof that using more ]power]doesn't require power. We'll all be waiting right here in reality for you to return.

You can test this yourself so lying isn't going to win any favour. Unplug a laptop, any laptop, then open up Chrome or Safari. Play a YouTube video using HTML5. Check the battery time remaining. Then play that same YouTube video using Flash. Check the battery time remaining. Repeatable, empirical evidence.

Mr Gilbert's mind is made up, don't distract him with the facts.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply
post #292 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

See for yourself, two videos here, there is another floating around too.

http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/Voodoo-...C0ABD6FFD08BE8

Quote:
This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

Here we go again. What we have is a carefully edited video of some prototype that doesn't actually exist in the retail channel, and, isn't our stuff going to be sooooo cool someday in the future?

And, of course, we're all waiting for the Palm/WebOS version, you know, since HP is now "all in" with that technology.

OMG, I'm prescient!

iPad Competitors Begin to Disappear Even Before Being Released

Quote:
Silicon Alley Insider yesterday noted that HP appears to be putting its "slate" tablet computer on hold as it looks to complete its acquisition of Palm. The move appears to be related to HP needing to make decisions about how exactly it will integrate Palm's webOS smartphone operating system into its product roadmap.

An analyst asked what HP would be doing with its iPad-rival. HP's Todd Bradley responded, "We haven't made roadmap announcements," but that HP will explain its Slate plans in more detail when the Palm deal closes.

That's at least a few months away: HP expects the deal to close during its fiscal third quarter, which ends at the end of July. And building Palm's WebOS operating system into HP tablets could take much longer -- perhaps even a year or more.
Quote:
HP's slate, previously destined to use Microsoft Windows, was demoed by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in early January, several weeks before Apple introduced the iPad. The following month, HP indicated that it was refining the final specs of the slate in response to the iPad and looking to price it competitively with Apple's tablet device.

Quote:
Today, Gizmodo reports that Microsoft has cancelled its own "Courier" booklet-style tablet device.
Quote:
We're told that on Wednesday, Microsoft execs informed the internal team that had been working on the tablet device that the project would no longer be supported. Courier had never been publicly announced or acknowledged as a Microsoft product.

The cancellation was confirmed in a response from a Microsoft representative, who noted that it Courier was one of the company's creative explorations of new form factors and interfaces, but that it is not planned to go into production. The Courier concept offered two touch-sensitive screens in a foldable format and incorporates touch, stylus, and handwriting recognition input.

"SpotOn, please pick up the white courtesy phone."

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply
post #293 of 348
I think I am going to print some copies of this document and take it with me to the Apple store. So when people are looking at the iPad and talk trash about it not supporting Flash I can educate them with it.
post #294 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by bytor View Post

Hmmmm...

Which iPhone is he using where there is 10 hours of video playing?

One that hasn't been released, just yet. Or the iPad? Or an unreleased iPod Touch?
post #295 of 348
Flash for Windows is actually not half bad. Flash on the Mac has, for a long time, been terrible. Very recently (under a year) Adobe began ramping up the speed of development for mac with flash 10.1 and Gala apple is getting some pretty good Flash builds for the first time. This is, of course, mostly because Adobe is finally feeling the heat.

That said, if h.264 becomes the standard it should be licensed for free for organizations like Opera and Mozilla, and if possible free for all. The tools to code and manipulate h.264 could be sold for a fee, but the distribution and playback should become absolutely free. Only then we can start talking about a free and open web. If you want to have flash, and if flash lets you do something html tags don't let you do, or don't do as easily go ahead, but the standards should be free and open (at least for playback).
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #296 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

So you think that Adobe's flash is the ONLY developer tool excluded by the new Apple SDK agreement? And then accuse me of not being knowledgeable?

That's rich. And totally uninformed.

Are you really a software developer?

I thought you were speaking to the plight of Adobe's Flash hopes for iPhone (because that is the topic of this thread). But since you were being more inclusive, let's just be honest: neither of us can get exact numbers. But I am certain that the lion's share of the Apps available at the App Store were written using the iPhone SDK in XCode. And for those Apps that were created some other way, everything I said before holds true: it is simple enough to write them using XCode, and if they really have a market, they will be rewritten. (And no, not by me.)

You just keep finding little things to nitpick to extend your argument. The fact is that I have experienced the very pain that Steve talked about at the end of his missive. Third-party developer tools prevent rapid response to technology changes, especially if they have ties to multiple platforms. You present the flip-side of the argument, but you have not once demonstrated that you even understand THIS side of the argument, let alone given a decent rebuttal to it.

Thompson
post #297 of 348

I wish I could line up all the "Ha ha this vaporware I saw on the gadget site will totally kick Apple's ass game over man LOL" folks and just slap 'em. They never learn, and lunge at every concept video and leak as if it were shipping hardware. People have been talking about Courier like it made the iPad irrelevant, and pointing out that it wasn't anything more than rendered concept videos didn't seem to dissuade them.

Not that any of this will shut 'em up next time someone has some pretty pictures to peddle...... I really like that Apple doesn't do "concepts." They do shipping products.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #298 of 348

OMG
OMG
YOU ARE
YOU ARE

How magnificent you must feel

Kudos and thanks for finding that, it's going to be a fun day for me, armed with that information

BTW it's the start of my day here 7:00am.
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
post #299 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes-99 View Post

It's going too far for a U turn. I'd really hoped this would get sorted... As the spec of handsets gets better and better they're far more able to run flash easily

That's a worthless argument. Adobe has had almost 3 years to make Flash usable on mobile devices (more if you count pre-iPhone time). Why should Apple base their plans on Adobe's oft-delayed promises?

In addition, 'our software is slow, but hardware will catch up' has NEVER been a winning strategy. Software tends to bloat at a rate comparable to CPU improvements.

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. 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.

Adobe has had years and hasn't fixed Flash. Apple was happy to let it go at that, but have you seen all the Anti-Apple sentiment being drummed up and all the whining from Flash developers and Adobe? Does 'screw you, Apple' ring a bell?

Then look at these forums. Dozens of people who never posted to the forum before suddenly show up defending Adobe - even though most of them don't know anything about Macs or Mac OS X. Can you say 'Adobe shill'?

The noise was getting loud enough that Apple was right to defend itself by getting some facts on the table to try to counteract all the lies being spread. As just one simple example, how many times have you heard that Apple blocked Flash on the iPhone? Hundreds? Thousands? More? And, yet, there IS no version of Flash that is capable of running on the iPhone. NONE. And it's not just the iPhone - it's EVERY mobile device. There are no mobile devices that run full versions of Flash today - and even the beta only runs on the tiniest percentage of current phones. Yet Apple is being accused of blocking Flash. It was about time for Apple to set the record straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Apple doesn't need to tell developers how to write apps.

Apparently, they do. Some 'Developers' are apparently content to make crappy apps that don't work well. I believe I read that the largest reason for AppStore rejection was apps that just wouldn't run - something like 30% of rejections. Now, that's not all of them. There are some great developers - but they're already using Obj-C and don't have any complaints.

Apple's users expect a certain quality and want Apple to deliver it. If something works badly and their phone has a short battery life, Apple gets the blame - so Apple is entirely within its rights to set standards. You may not like the standards, but that's too bad. Go build your own mobile device. It's more important to Apple to keep CUSTOMERS happy than the small number of whiny developers who can't be bothered to learn any more than Flash scripting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

The truth is Apple is going down a road of producing underpowered devices with less features with huge margins and is attempting to convert the entire web to fit their business model.

I wonder what planet you've been living on. When the iPhone 3GS came out, it was widely regarded as the fastest phone available. Some of the new Droid phones are starting to catch up, but side-by-side tests say that they're not ahead. And Apple has a new phone coming out in a month or so.

Less features is partially true, I guess. Apple focuses on the user experience. They made an iPad to be light, efficient and usable. If you think that a tablet is better with 4 USB ports, SD slot, CF slot, a few more memory card slots, VGA, DVI, parallel port, maybe a serial port, full blown desktop OS, and 3 pound battery, go ahead and buy one. That's not the objective for Apple. Apple is focused on providing the best user experience - and sometimes that does mean less features - so it's not a negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

PM me your username and login and I will play the game to test it. Otherwise link to an example that doesn't require payment to view. The demo is Flash with a lot of animations. Your first statement was that the page used NO animations, So does the game use animations or not?

You've already proven that you're a liar by claiming to have run the application when you didn't. Why should I give you my daughter's ID - so that she can find her entire platform erased?

You're making up lies again. I said that the page uses no animations - which is true. But the demo is quite different than testing it on the real thing. For example, my daughter's Webkinz world has 85 different animals and thousands of items in nearly 100 different rooms. Obviously, that's going to be a little different than running a demo. I guess the fact that you don't understand that means that you're incompetent - as well as a liar.

Regardless, it has now been established that you are a liar. You said that you ran the Webkinz game when all you did was run a game. Yet you used that silly 'test' to accuse me of lying because you only got 58% CPU usage (on a more powerful system than mine) when I got 120% running the full game. Sounds like you need to collect your check from Adobe and crawl back into your hole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKWalsh4 View Post

I would like everyone to read Adobe's CEO response to this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/...ith-adobe-ceo/

While Steve is confident in his company, this guy just sounds arrogant. There is a difference.

He's not just arrogant, he's dishonest and slimy. A company the size of Adobe should be embarrassed to have him making that kind of response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I've no gripe with keeping Flash off the iPhone.

I simply contend that the new SDK agreement, limiting the way apps are developed, is wrong. Some tools which are used to develop good iPhone apps are excluded which may lead to some good apps being rejected.

I don't doubt that.

But it will keep a much larger number of crappy apps off the platform. If 99% of Flash apps are crap, I don't mind losing the 1 good app in order to keep the 99 lousy ones off the platform. Especially since the good app developer is free to write his app in code that will work even better than the Flash code. If he wants to make money off the app store, he will do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

you're buying into the lie that flash reduces battery life which it's proven not to.

OK, then maybe you can explain to me how Adobe managed to break the laws of physics.

When I run Safari and stay away from Flash sites or use clicktoflash, my computer never gets hot and CPU usage for Safari is 10-20% max. As soon as I go to a Flash site, the CPU usage shoots over 100% and the bottom of the computer gets very hot.

Now, if the computer is getting hot and the CPU is doing much more work, where is that coming from if not from the battery? I'm really interested in the mechanism they're using to create heat and power CPU cycles that doesn't use the battery.
"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 #300 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

I thought you were speaking to the plight of Adobe's Flash hopes for iPhone (because that is the topic of this thread). But since you were being more inclusive, let's just be honest: neither of us can get exact numbers. But I am certain that the lion's share of the Apps available at the App Store were written using the iPhone SDK in XCode. And for those Apps that were created some other way, everything I said before holds true: it is simple enough to write them using XCode, and if they really have a market, they will be rewritten. (And no, not by me.)

There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard (muster) under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

You just keep finding little things to nitpick to extend your argument. The fact is that I have experienced the very pain that Steve talked about at the end of his missive. Third-party developer tools prevent rapid response to technology changes, especially if they have ties to multiple platforms. You present the flip-side of the argument, but you have not once demonstrated that you even understand THIS side of the argument, let alone given a decent rebuttal to it.

Thompson

I have given a rebuttal but you refuse to acknowledge and/or understand it. For the last time, Apple do not have to restrict the tools developers use. They just need to make tools available that leverage the strengths of iPhone OSX. Developers aren't stupid. If Apple's tools are the best, ( and produce the best apps), then developers will naturally gravitate to them. If Apple's tools produce apps that leverage new technologies that result in better apps, users will buy them. The iPhone platform is very robust and shitty apps written for the 'lowest common denominator' (SJ's words) simply will not survive.

The current SDK prevents developers from suing Flash to develop iPhone apps. It also prevents, at least under the strictest interpretation, developers from using Unity and monotouch or other assembly languages. At least that is the fear that developers have who use those tools.

I have faith that developers will try to make the best apps that they can and therefore will use the proper tools for the job. Maybe not every developer, but enough that the platform will continue to flourish. Developers have to remember that if they don't utilize the latest and greatest technologies that Apple promotes for the iPhone platform, someone else will. The barriers to entry for developing iPhone apps are very low. A single person can and has developed successful iPhone apps. This isn't like developing for the Mac where apps tend to be more complicated, have different HW to support, more complicated testing is usually needed and there are hurdles for distribution to overcome.

I also have faith that users will support the best app available for a given task.
post #301 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82 View Post

Please, kind Sir, tell me what I don't understand. I understand that Steve Jobs conveniently failed to mention that Apple will make money when a content provider pays the $5 million license fee since they hold patents on the technology. I understand that their "open" industry standard H.264 is just as closed and proprietary as Flash. I understand that Steve Jobs is an egomaniac and a control freak who can't stand the thought of using truly "open" and "free" standards.

I think SJ is more of an hypocrite then liar.

Liar is the one who has stolen apple and claims he hasn't done it.

Hypocrite is the on who has stolen apple and accuses another apple thief, failing to mention that he has stolen apple too.

SJ didn't say h.264 is free, he simply missed to mention it isn't free.

In my book, that is the finest example of hypocrisy. Not that he is the only one in the business, mind you, but he seems to be the most exposed one.
post #302 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Bad form Steve. Part of your new job as "the man" is that once you've gone on a head kicking mission you can't turn back. You're not the "good guy" anymore, nor can you ever be again.

Just go back to making good products and leave the commentary to those with some credibility.

Since when was Steve Jobs ever the 'good guy'? He has always been a shrewd business man who has been right more than he's been wrong.

I honestly don't know if Steve, or Apple's position on Flash, is right or wrong. But, I applaud Apple for staking out their position publicly instead of letting the press and blogasphere endlessly speculate on Apple's motives...
post #303 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.

Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.

Did you mean, "pass muster"?

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

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

Reply
post #304 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!

There is nothing wrong about what he stated, the facts. If Steve would have claimed Apple is different but admits where they are close and where they are open. They even go as far to adopt open standards and support them. I think confusing the two issues is a basic argument at best.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #305 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.

Did you mean, "pass muster"?

Yes.
post #306 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

The thing is loads of tablet computers supporting flash running on android and win7 will make it to the market soon. If Steve is right then those devices will have short battery life and multi-touch flash apps will suck. If not the ipad is going to be in trouble.

Well with the amont of AAPL stocks I have he better be right

Well, there was desktop comparative between Flash video playback and HTML5... not sure if it was here or on Anandtech.com, though. Anyway, much as I recall, HTML5 was doing better on Mac but results (CPU utilisation etc.) were almost identical on Windows, where Flash is hardware accelerated for some time already.

If that can translate to mobiles, I would expect that Flash can be as efficient... if done properly. But we yet have to see how well is Flash going to be executed on Android and WP7
post #307 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Yes.

Don't be embarrassed. Most people make this mistake because we're also familiar with

"cut muster" and "cut mustard" both being used.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_the_muster
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
post #308 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

You believe Flash is open? Really?


You think any of the Flash phones are going to have anything approaching acceptable battery life for a phone? Really?

To proceed in your spirit:

You think you are that funny? Really?

How about we wait and see Flash on Android before we make any conclusion?
post #309 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

BusinessWeek/Bloomberg http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

AP http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qNrvgD9FCPK8O2

within an hour of posting on Apple.

Apple is the number 3 company in the U.S., a company that 100's of millions of people own either stock or product. Steve is the face of the company (Can you picture the CEO of Exxon? Does Ballmer show up on Time Magazine when WinPhone7 is released?

Geeks 'care' about this letter, however, 'everyone' in the U.S. will be exposed to the news about this letter.

Should it be national news. no (is the catfight between 2 companies a big deal, when AZ is effectively legislating racial profiling?, U.S. soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?, Tea Partiers are attracting racist and militarist elements, in the name of 'taking our country back' [from whom? the people whose majority vote elected the current congress and president?].

Is it natinal news. definitely.

WP7 is not released yet. I would not be surprised to see Balmer on front pages when that happens. Not that it would be sexiest front page ever
post #310 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

For the last time, Apple do not have to restrict the tools developers use. They just need to make tools available that leverage the strengths of iPhone OSX. Developers aren't stupid. If Apple's tools are the best, ( and produce the best apps), then developers will naturally gravitate to them. If Apple's tools produce apps that leverage new technologies that result in better apps, users will buy them. The iPhone platform is very robust and shitty apps written for the 'lowest common denominator' (SJ's words) simply will not survive.

The current SDK prevents developers from suing Flash to develop iPhone apps. It also prevents, at least under the strictest interpretation, developers from using Unity and monotouch or other assembly languages. At least that is the fear that developers have who use those tools.

I also have faith that users will support the best app available for a given task.

And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.

If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.

Thompson
post #311 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

... But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. ...

Thompson

You seem to see this as just an 'Adobe' problem.

You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?

Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?
post #312 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

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).

Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.

If Apple was honest about this, they could have let Adobe create (hardware accelerated) Flash for iPhone, do comprehensive public testing, publish results and then decide if that technology is going to Apps Store or to Trash.

But to my knowledge, they haven't.

So to me - and I do believe I'm reasonably unbiased, having MS Windows PC and Apple iPhone (and enjoying both) - it still seems major grudge SJ has against Flash is, in a nutshell, his attempt to limit interactivity on the web (kill Flash games and apps) and boost importance - and exclusivity - of Apps Store.
post #313 of 348
I believe it is only fair to hear another side:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/...ith-adobe-ceo/

Mr. Adobe responding to SJ's letter.
post #314 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You seem to see this as just an 'Adobe' problem.

Nay, I am simply using Adobe as the particular example that happens to be relevant to this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You do understand it affects development tools OTHER than Adobe. Right?

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, considering I gave another example from a completely different tool (CodeWarrior), time, and circumstance, I believe it should be clear that my understanding is generic in nature. How is it possible that you are still missing my point? It is exactly as Steve said in the sixth point of his letter: letting a third party put a layer between the developer and the platform (any third party!) is to invite these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Its fine with me if we disagree on this but I want to know what your feelings are towards Unity and MonoTouch. Should developers be allowed to use these tools? Do you think they are allowed under Apple's new SDK agreement?

Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."

It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.

Thompson
post #315 of 348
.

Were curious if a "Ghost Writer" may been in on this


.

Bet you the Mortgage

Some Staffer(s) may helped with info, facts, details, yada yada ... but

Steve wrote it



.
post #316 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

This may have already been said but, at first glance the two most important complaints of Adobe's Flash is it is not modern and a resource hog...

Stevo does not want his Apple platform infected with inferior code! Simple as that!

So, why is most of the code written in C? With reference to previous comment, C is certainly not 'modern', but it is not a resource hog because it does not do mandatory checks to save us from things like viruses, etc.

This is because C came out of a low-level telecommunications mindset, rather than a 'modern' high-level programming mindset. Oh well.
post #317 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Well, since I've never used those particular tools I suppose it depends on whether an abstraction layer is added or Apple's APIs are obscured. Over at the MonoTouch web page, they claim that their tools satisfy the spirit of the new language. The relevant part: "We believe that several bloggers and journalists have misjudged MonoTouch by characterizing it as an abstraction with disregard for its actual features. As MonoTouch does not hide native APIs and is not an abstraction layer, we continue to believe that MonoTouch conforms to the spirit and intent of the terms spelled out in the developer agreement."

It looks to me like MonoTouch is trying to conform and doesn't anticipate a problem. Perhaps Apple will agree. I don't know enough about that particular tool to give a worthy opinion. Regarding Unity, the part that develops your (pre-compiled) XCode project for you seems nifty and most likely not a problem. But everything else? The bottom line is that Apple needs to look at whether these tools add new abstraction layers or hide the Apple APIs. That is not for me to decide, but I support Apple's reasoning in general.

Thompson

Fair enough.

I admit that there is still some uncertainty as to whether these tools are in compliance with the new SDK agreement.

But from the strictest interpretation they would appear to not be in compliance as the SDK requires code to be written in the original language of either Obj C, C, C++ or JS.

I think you underestimate the turmoil this will create but time will tell.
post #318 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Nope, can't pass the mustard, because the site uses Flash.

Unity has nothing to do with Flashit's strictly 3D.
post #319 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

There are 600 games developed using Unity. Will they pass mustard (muster) under the new SDK? It seems like that is still unknown.

Yes, it's unknown, but Unity thinks they're in compliance AND you haven't seen Apple publicly attacking Unity. That's not definitive, but it is certainly suggestive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Apple has just released what is required for hardware accelerated Flash. How's that pushing Adobe for years? It is more like not letting them for years.

That is not correct. You've been able to use hardware acceleration on the Mac for many years - as long as you use the correct APIs (CoreVideo, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc). Other companies did just fine using Apple's proper APIs.

Adobe refused to do so because they would have had to hire some real Mac programmers, and demanded that Apple give them direct access to the hardware - which is ALWAYS a bad idea, particularly for a product like Flash which is so full of security holes, anyway.

Furthermore, hardware acceleration affects only video playback. If that was the only area where Flash sucked, you might have a point. But Flash sucks CPU cycles and battery life and crashes and opens security holes even on sites that don't play back video, so Flash's problems go far deeper than this.
"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 #320 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

And for the last time, if Apple allows development tools with cross-compile capability to take root, many developers will absolutely use it because they see it as a quick, easy solution. Perhaps at first, it would be. But the next time Apple wants to change the platform to a different processor, or make some API change, or update the operating system, the Apps that had been cross-compiled from Adobe's processor might break, and developers that rely on Adobe's system may have to wait some time for them to bring new capabilities forward. Such apps would languish and become stagnant. And the logistics involved with any change become magnified tenfold, just as I experienced with Metrowerks CodeWarrior throughout the OS 9 to OS X transition and then the PPC to Intel transition. With how fast the hardware and OS landscape is changing now, Apple simply can't saddle themselves with the extra baggage of the third party SDKs. This is not hypothetical. It would absolutely happen.

If the worst price to be paid for the user is the loss of a few crummy Apps (because the popular ones would get ported) and the price to the developer is learning XCode, then I'd say that's a good bargain.

Thompson

The hardest most costly solution is always better? No pain no gain? Why do you think an app is automatically crappy because it may have been written via compiler? I don't think users give a rat's a-- about the code. All they care about is whether or not what it does is useful, fun, or both, and if it works. The apps "written by hand" in native code from scratch are not immune to breaking. There are a ton of bad reviews for buggy apps on the app store right now, I doubt all of those apps were written via 3rd party compiler. Besides, the phrase "so what" comes to mind. Any company with an investment in a popular money making app will promptly update their product by whatever means (further motivated by an opportunity to sell it again to existing customers maybe throw in a feature or two and call it an upgrade). If they choose not to update their apps, again, so what. The user has the use of the original app until it's broken by an OS change. On average they paid all of a few bucks, vs never having the opportunity to use the app at all because it was excluded in the first place. If the app is on the expensive side, again, more incentive for the developer to update their product if it is selling well. If not enough people are buying it to make it worth keeping it running, again, so what if it dies. Do you think users's feel grateful to Jobs if their favorite app disappears from the store because Jobs chose to yank it at his discretion (as can happen no matter what) vs. it dying away because it was broken by an OS update? What's the difference from the users' point of view?

Frankly, I think you're letting yourself be suckered into buying Jobs' BS on this one. I don't believe this is about managing tightly controlled hardware specs tuned to their OS to maintain an optimal "user experience" as is the legitimate model Apple applies to it's computer business. I don't think it's about protecting the user by keeping them safe from sub-par apps or ensuring they won't break in the future (which can't done, no matter how the code was generated). It's about Jobs proclivity towards exclusion to a degree that goes a bit beyond rationality. It's about competition through trying to force developers to create products exclusive to the Apple mobile platform, betting on Apple as the 800 pound gorilla in the mobile market making developers who can't afford the investment in developing separately for multiple platforms chose Apple. It may be an approach that is better for Apple, but it's not an approach that's better for their customers, or developers who want to support their platform. Ironically in the long run, what is not in the best interest of the latter two is probably not the best for Apple either.
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