or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe CEO dismisses Steve Jobs' comments on Flash as a 'smokescreen'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe CEO dismisses Steve Jobs' comments on Flash as a 'smokescreen' - Page 3

post #81 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

100 applications.

Wow! I'm impressed.

Aren't you guys impressed?


Any thing worth getting excited about?
post #82 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Jobs..... assertion is a bit disingenuous as the 10 hour spec is for wireless productivity at 50% screen brightness, and does not include watching a video. I sincerely doubt that you one would get 10 hours of movie watching on an iPad.

Hence, the comment from Adobe's Prez

Please stop with your utterly disingenuous BS.

Here's an example of a review (there are many more); this one's from David Pogue:

"Speaking of video: Apple asserts that the iPad runs 10 hours on a charge of its nonremovable battery but we all know you cant trust the manufacturer. And sure enough, in my own test, the iPad played movies continuously from 7:30 a.m. to 7:53 p.m. more than 12 hours. Thats four times as long as a typical laptop or portable DVD player."

post #83 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by xamian View Post

So...is this why my MacBook's CPU heats up an additional 30-40+ degrees fahrenheit & my system begins to crawl whenever I watch hulu or play flashbased games (usually on facebook)? Certainly has no effect on battery life at all, right?

Exactly. My MacBook Pro never even gets warm to the touch until I hit a Flash site. Then it gets hot enough that I can barely hold it in my lap. My CPU usages goes from 10-15% using a non-Flash site to 120% using a Flash site.

I guess all that extra heat comes from nowhere and those CPU cycles don't use any energy. Amazing. Flash generates heat and runs a CPU without depleting the battery. Adobe has solved our energy crisis.
"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 #84 of 172
Hey Shantanu . . . no one's listening. Apple already ate your lunch.
post #85 of 172
Adobe does not understand the internet, they always sold subpar internet apps starting With Adobe PageMill which was a disaster, then Adobe decided to buy CyberStudio which at the time was the best web development tool, Adobe called renamed it GoLive then it quickly bit-the-dust. Adobe, being out of options, decided to finally buy Macromedia and inherited DreamWeaver, which by then had very little competition. Now DreamWeaver seems to be heading in the same direction as GoLive, yes CS5 is WP friendly but like many developers, other apps such as Coda is much cleaner and quicker.

Having said that, Adobe does great when it comes to the print layout market, InDesign CS5 is amazing! Oh and Photoshop, is A+ too, although Pixelmator comes very close.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #86 of 172
Adobe's future doesn't look bright...
Perhaps John (Warnock) and Chuck (Geschke) should come back in charge...
post #87 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

My CPU usages goes from 10-15% using a non-Flash site to 120% using a Flash site.

Sad to say, AI's site is one of the worst offenders, in this regard.
post #88 of 172
Actually I do get 10 hours of video on my iPad. I luckily avoided the Iceland volcano and had a vacation in Scotland. Thanks to the iPad the flight both ways was much easier thanks to its superb battery life.
post #89 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundCity View Post

Oh these two guys, what are they like? It's like the aftermath of a bad relationship where they both tell there sides of there story, and neither will ever corroborate to the truth of the matter.

I do however agree on Steve on this one, in regards to poor flash performance, anecdotal or otherwise, even with latest 10.1 release its still poorly optimized (though a little better).

On the other hand I can understand a lot of adobe's arguments about cross-porting code, I guess it does make it easier for moving platforms. But at the end of the day how much do Apple Dev kits cost these days? $99? Dirt cheap if you ask me.

And when your treating mac users as second class citizens with said ported code thats fairly shoddy, why should Steve be servile to Adobes strategy.

At the end of the day, this whole pulava could be solved by somebody pulling there head out of the sand and making some cracking html5 development software, you could still have your web authoring Monopoly cake and eat it Adobe if you act now!

Either way its gonna be an interesting few months...

(My 3rd ever comment dont bite! eeek!)

I agree and you make a nice point about dev kits. How much does it cost to get Adobe's Flash authoring system? Apple's dev kit is free if you just want the dev kit. It's $99 to hook into the App Store ecosystem.

And Adobe really has used their tremendous market clout to screw Apple in the past. Their delays in porting were major reasons for people to delay moving over to OS X, and then to intel. Why is Apple supposed to ignore or forget, just because Adobe does?
post #90 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We have different views of the world," Narayan reportedly said of Adobe and Apple. "Our view of the world is multi-platform."

And yet they haven't ported the Adobe CS Suite to Linux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Narayen told the Journal that he views Jobs' letter as an "extraordinary attack," and questioned what Adobe did to deserve the letter.

I think Apple was just making their stance clear once and for all. Flash is not going to be supported ever on their mobile platform and it's not a short-term disagreement while Adobe fix it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Jobs accused Flash of being closed and proprietary to Adobe. Narayen, again, disagreed with Jobs, calling his comments "amusing" and stating that Flash is an "open specification."

Still stands that you can't feasibly author Flash content on anything other than Adobe software though. Some apps do SWF export but it's just the animation. If an open system is too complex to use in any significant way then it's almost as bad as a closed system. Plus, if it was open enough, mobile developers would be able to build their own Flash decoders for their mobiles instead of waiting for Adobe to build a plugin for each platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"It doesn't benefit Apple, and that's why you see this reaction," he said.

And it doesn't benefit Adobe to go HTML 5 Canvas alone as people can opt out of having to pay Adobe's extortionate prices to author cross-platform web video and animation.

Both sides of the argument have valid points but ultimately, Apple has a stronger case and Adobe has proven time and time again that Flash just isn't good enough in security, stability and performance.

I don't think Adobe are looking at the big picture though. They have the best content creation suite out of any company. Think how much resources they'd save by not having to care about supporting browser plugins and being able to integrate Dreamweaver and Flash. If they merged in Fireworks, they'd have the ultimate web authoring tool. They have very little to lose here if they make the right decisions and all the people with Flash sites would suddenly realise they needed to fix them and go out and buy the new software.

Adobe will have invested a lot in their Flash platform but it's not as if they are going to have to throw it all away. They just transition their Flash program to use Javascript like Adobe After Effects does. Autodesk added open Python to Maya beside proprietary MEL in one or two revisions.
post #91 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by danmonterey View Post

And I fully support Adobe's contention that cross-platform tools will often be seen as a preferable alternative to proprietary development environments and languages. Small developers can't afford to program in multiple tools and environments unless they manage to create a blockbuster best-seller. The member above who snidely remarked that Apple developer tools are just $99 conveniently overlooks the fact that the cost of the tool is a minor noise issue compared to the time cost of running and learning multiple development environments.

Well, the tools aren't so much cross-platform, but I agree that it's a nice idea. I tend to think that it makes sense for the people who write the code to dictate the underlying architecture rather than vice-versa - in particular it seems like a no-brainer that compiler developers (and hard-core assembly programmers) should dictate how CPUs work because they're the ones who are using them! Basically that means that everything should be written in Java (or rather on top of the JVM), and that's not a totally abhorrent concept, because Java actually runs quite efficiently nowadays. But Java has already had a shot at the mobile devices market, and failed.

And Flash isn't Java. While Sun have always been a bit odd about it IIRC, Java is open source nowadays and Flash is firmly closed. Having a single cross-platform system just doesn't work well if there's a bottleneck (Adobe) between the many end developers and the few OS implementors, as that's pretty much the same as having a bottleneck at the OS implementor (eg. Microsoft).

Getting your software into as many hands as possible is a completely reasonable goal, of course, but for it to actually happen, everybody in the chain needs to be basically aligned to the purpose of you getting your software onto the platform. Adobe isn't. If they wanted to support Flash developers on the iPhone, they could make Flash CS5 produce Javascript+canvas+audio+video for the iPhone. Just to cover the basics, you know, to get the animations and the clicking (tapping) and the typing working. But they don't, because then they'd lose the lock-in and you, the developer, could use standard and probably free tools instead of the ones they want to sell you for ridiculous sums of money.
post #92 of 172
Fuck it. Apple doesn't want flash. End of story. Adobe can focus on other platforms.

Why is this such a big fucking deal!? Some people want it, some people don't. If it's really that much of a deal breaker, don't buy an apple product (computer OR iphone OS device.)

I personally have always been very pleased with how Flash runs, but that's just me, and having a phone NOT run flash definitely isn't what I consider a deal breaker (just a mild annoyance if it's shown to be possible.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Hey Shantanu . . . no one's listening. Apple already ate your lunch.

Who would eat 30 bagged lunches?
post #93 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I am stating that when/if Flash is released on future Android releases (2.2 is supposed to have it) and it doesn't kill battery life, doesn't crash (well it will crash at times, but nothing is 100% crash proof IMHO) and doesn't cause the issues that Apple believes that it will, what will be Apple's excuse then?

I'm not sure Apple is obliged to stockpile excuses based on elaborate hypotheticals, however, you'll note that performance issues are just a part of what Jobs addressed in his letter. He also spoke (cogently, I thought) about Apple's desire to control its own development environment, and how, in the past, they were left to wait on Adobe while Adobe serviced their PC market first, with the Mac getting less later.

IMO, even if Adobe manages to make a version of Flash that runs efficiently on widely available mobile hardware and does a credible job of handling existing Flash content, Apple is still wise to reject the Flash cross-platform development trap. There's no reason to expect Adobe to keep their tools up to date enough to take advantage of any particular functionality on the iPhone/iPad. I think we can expect the Adobe "cross-development" environment to in effect mean that if Android can't do it it can't be done, and that's bad for Apple's customers.
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 #94 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sad to say, AI's site is one of the worst offenders, in this regard.

LOL! Isn't that ironic?

It'll all soon change though, according to everyone here. EXPECT HTML5 TO TAKE OVER THE INTERT!
post #95 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Having said that, Adobe does great when it comes to the print layout market, InDesign CS5 is amazing! Oh and Photoshop, is A+ too, although Pixelmator comes very close.

As much as I hate Flash, I'm eagerly waiting for my Ps CS5 upgrade to show up at the house. And I'll do the same for Lightroom 3 as soon as I can pre-order the upgrade.

I just can't understand why Adobe can't realize that they have a loser in Flash.

   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 #96 of 172
deleted
post #97 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

It'll all soon change though, according to everyone here.

Actually, I am quite optimistic that it will. (I realize you were trying to be sarcastic, however, and not be taken literally).
post #98 of 172
Wow, there's plenty of applications that run just fine on OSX. BTW, Flash is a hog on Windows too.
post #99 of 172
Deleted (but replaced; see below).
post #100 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

deleted

These people saying that the iPad doesn't do 10 hours of video - you must not have an iPad. I do. It does do 10 hours of video. Tiresome.
post #101 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

deleted

Oh, sad one, here's a cut-and-paste of the actual couple of paras from your link:

"Four hours and 15 minutes later, I checked the battery level and saw that it had gone down by 30 percent. I checked back every couple of hours to restart the movie, and finally, after a full 11 hours and 25 minutes, the iPad stopped the movie, briefly showed the home screen and then shut down.

Usually, when a company makes a claim of battery life, you expect that claim to be a best-case scenario based on a hard-to-recreate situation that’s nearly impossible to recreate. In this case, it appears that Apple’s claims were conservative, as I was able to exceed the claim by 85 minutes in a power-hungry scenario."

You're not funny. Just sad. Give it up.

PS: I noticed that he quickly deleted his ignorant post. Darn. Should have cut-and-pasted it. It was priceless.
post #102 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sad to say, AI's site is one of the worst offenders, in this regard.

AI doesn't put flash on their site, advertisers do (via google).

The only thing that ever crashes on my Macs, which routinely has 20+ apps running at a time, is flash, and it crashes every single day.

And is Adobe really highlighting that a whole 100 out of 200,000 apps were built with their technology instead of cocoa?
post #103 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post

These people saying that the iPad doesn't do 10 hours of video - you must not have an iPad. I do. It does do 10 hours of video. Tiresome.

Seems like he deleted his post.

I read the article he linked and the tester played over 11 hours of video and not the 'five' the post had claimed.
post #104 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Jobs did not make the assertion in the letter, but in the past he has said that Flash on the iPad would drain the battery from 10 hours to approximately 1.5 hours or so.

Yes, I'm sure you're right - although the Adobe guy is messing with the context a bit to get that in. The 10 -> 1.5 claim (that was in the Q&A at the end of the iPhone OS 4 announcement, wasn't it?) will have been hyperbole; the much more reasonable "5 hours" claim regarding video in the open letter was probably made after actually testing it.

Quote:
that assertion is a bit disingenuous as the 10 hour spec is for wireless productivity at 50% screen brightness, and does not include watching a video. I sincerely doubt that you one would get 10 hours of movie watching on an iPad.

Well, yes, all battery life estimates are based on highly artificial criteria. C'est la vie, particularly in the case of the iPad, as no-one really knew in advance what the common usage pattern would be. I'm not sure people even know now. But in this case Apple do actually claim that it applies to video. I'm sure there's someone out there dedicated/crazy enough to, say, try to watch all six Star Wars movies until his battery drains, and then we'll know if the ten hours claim is realistic. Until then... well, it's as true as marketing usually is.
post #105 of 172
Check this out for Adobe more craftsmanship, Adobe PDF major threat to PCs

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...fixed_PDF_flaw
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #106 of 172
That's exactly what I thought when I read the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

And yet they haven't ported the Adobe CS Suite to Linux.
post #107 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aybara View Post

Seems like he deleted his post.

I read the article he linked and the tester played over 11 hours of video and not the 'five' the post had claimed.

Ditto here.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #108 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

AI doesn't put flash on their site, advertisers do (via google)

I hadn't noticed. Flashblock FTW.

   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 #109 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

deleted

Just an FYI, we all make mistakes from time to time, but when we do it with a smarmy post it's usually best to point out how you were wrong, oft with a "mea culpa' or "my bad" to diffuse any additional responses you get from posters. Remember, your post will go instantly to everyone who has subscribed to this thread who has accessed the site since the previous post.
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 #110 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrumble View Post

Yes, I'm sure you're right - although the Adobe guy is messing with the context a bit to get that in. The 10 -> 1.5 claim (that was in the Q&A at the end of the iPhone OS 4 announcement, wasn't it?) will have been hyperbole; the much more reasonable "5 hours" claim regarding video in the open letter was probably made after actually testing it.



Well, yes, all battery life estimates are based on highly artificial criteria. C'est la vie, particularly in the case of the iPad, as no-one really knew in advance what the common usage pattern would be. I'm not sure people even know now. But in this case Apple do actually claim that it applies to video. I'm sure there's someone out there dedicated/crazy enough to, say, try to watch all six Star Wars movies until his battery drains, and then we'll know if the ten hours claim is realistic. Until then... well, it's as true as marketing usually is.

I have an iPad that I use for college, and with constant use (by which I mean brightness at 2/3, WiFi on and loading webpages, occasionally downloading apps and movies in the background, and playing the occasional high-end game), I have averaged 12-15 hours every day for the last four weeks. I have never had the battery die before 11 hours and only charge it at night. The battery life claims are real, and unbelievably so. There is nothing artificial about my use, or the many others who have posted reviews.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #111 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

I completely agree with Steve Jobs in that Adobe should make an HTML5 software. It's a golden opportunity. I hope they realize it in time, for their own good.

Knowing Adobe, they'll spend so long throwing their toys out of the pram on no-flash-on-iPhone that they'll completely let the opportunity bypass them.
post #112 of 172
Flash is an open specification?!?!?

Really? I never knew that.

<end sarcasm> */
post #113 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Still stands that you can't feasibly author Flash content on anything other than Adobe software though. Some apps do SWF export but it's just the animation. If an open system is too complex to use in any significant way then it's almost as bad as a closed system. Plus, if it was open enough, mobile developers would be able to build their own Flash decoders for their mobiles instead of waiting for Adobe to build a plugin for each platform.

Microsoft has a few "open" specifications also. For all practical purposes they are closed because of their sheer complexity and the fact that any third-party implementations have to deal with Microsoft's implementation's quirks (and details that aren't in the specification). Flash is much the same: you can produce Flash files using open source software, but they can't remotely compete with CS, presumably because the spec tracks Adobe's own implementation and (also presumably) because there are many implementation details which have nothing to do with the file format or the way it's decoded but rather the way it's built (eg. common libraries included in the flash file, specific techniques to compile developer input to working code).

Quote:
Adobe will have invested a lot in their Flash platform but it's not as if they are going to have to throw it all away. They just transition their Flash program to use Javascript like Adobe After Effects does. Autodesk added open Python to Maya beside proprietary MEL in one or two revisions.

They could have already started that if they had any such interest. I think Abode have a monopoly mentality, and that's got them trapped in their current everything-must-be-Flash cycle. Consider the bad old days of Microsoft Internet Explorer (versions 5-6) by way of analogy: Microsoft could have embraced web standards and so stopped having to emulate their own historical bugs and avoided adding fancy features that no-one would use, but they wanted their browser to be quirky and use proprietary features to lock in web sites, which in turn would lock in users. Adobe would very probably make a fine sum of money if CS produced Javascript content instead of/as well as Flash, but they're just too scared that they might end up with anything below an overwhelming majority of the market.
post #114 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by danmonterey View Post

As a long-time fan of Apple technology and a lone developer, I can see some merit to both sides' arguments about developer tools and platforms here.

I fully support Apple's decision not to deploy Flash Player on its mobile platforms for all the good reasons cited by Steve Jobs and arm-waved by Adobe's CEO.

And I fully support Adobe's contention that cross-platform tools will often be seen as a preferable alternative to proprietary development environments and languages. Small developers can't afford to program in multiple tools and environments unless they manage to create a blockbuster best-seller. The member above who snidely remarked that Apple developer tools are just $99 conveniently overlooks the fact that the cost of the tool is a minor noise issue compared to the time cost of running and learning multiple development environments.

The Web is the future. Proprietary apps -- even for Apple's iThings -- will always have a place but that place will shrink in coming years. On the Web, HTML5 and its supporting cast are destined to emerge as the winner over proprietary technologies like Flash. Adobe should focus on building great tools to support the new Web standards rather than defending an outmoded technology.

The web may be the future, but (hopefully) web browsers are not. Proprietary applications with embedded web services provide a vastly superior user experience, and that matters. For the record, I was developing 'web applications' in the 90s when it was CGI+Perl and then Java applets. I will be happy the day that the web browser as an application platform finally goes away, even though I know that probably won't happen. Browsers are great for discovering new content and services, but not for user interactions.

As far as cross-platform development, it is not all that and a bag of chips. If it was really such a great idea, Java would be the dominant platform and Sun would not have been bought by Oracle. Which is more profitable to learn, POSIX or .NET? Most developers would do well to build exceptional apps targeted to specific platforms where they can leverage the unique capabilities of that platform. Successful multi-platform apps are rare, and the best ones have seperate code bases and don't try to be identical on each platform. Everyone who makes a platform wants to control the game and have their platform be the development target of choice, whether it's Cocoa, .NET, or Flash.

Adobe's cross-platform claims are disengenuous at best. Flash is a platform, it's just not a low-level OS. They want their platform to run on as many devices as possible because it increases their market reach. Lipstick on a pig and all that.
post #115 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

No, he was responding to SJ's original assertion that if they had allowed Flash on the iPad the battery would have gone from 10 hours to about 1.5 hours.

Huh? From the article:

"Mr. Narayen calls accusations about Flash draining battery power "patently false." Speaking about Mr. Jobs's letter in general, he says that "for every one of these accusations made there is proprietary lock-in" that prevents Adobe from innovating."

I see no mention in reference to the iPad. These were general accusations levered against Flash which he was obviously lying about.
post #116 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Shantanu Narayen = teckstud?

Lol. I do want to say that Adobe sped up development for the Mac recently, and they are about to ship some pretty nice versions of flash, but it does almost look like it might be too late.

On the other hand google is building flash into Chrome (and consequently into Chrome OS), which could mean that flash for mobile devices is not totally dead, even if it is on iPhone OS. If Google manages to help adobe deliver a fairly good mobile flash plugin and html5 not working on Firefox, the pressure on apple to give Adobe a second change will increase.

Don't get me wrong though I would love to see Flash disappear and be replaced by html5 with Theora.ogg or free h.264, just to clarify.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #117 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

It's also interesting how Narayen conveniently ignores to respond to Symantec's claim of 'Flash having one of the worst security records in 2009.'

yep

then lets see.

of the "Adobe made" apps that I've seen, which is about a dozen, they were all crap. No real loss if the folks don't want to get rid of that janky code before 4.0 comes out.

let's talk about how much of Adobe's software is just the Windows version with some porting code slapped on it. Or how Adobe resisted Cocoa and basically forced the whole Carbon thing on Apple.

Let's talk about how those Flash apps wearing an Apple coat would be way fatter than they need to be which is no good on a device with very limited storage.

and so on

why not give us some responses to those 'charges' instead of some lame "Apple is mean, this is all about money" (like what Adobe does isn't?)

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 #118 of 172
I'll take stupefying hypocrisy over incoherent, duplicitous bullshit.

Quote:
Speaking about Mr. Jobs's assertion that Adobe is the No. 1 cause of Mac crashes, Mr. Narayen says if Adobe crashes Apple, that actually has something "to do with the Apple operating system."

Right. Apple needs to fix their OS so that a notoriously crashy app isn't so crashy. It's out of Adobe's hands. This stuff just makes Narayen just sound like a pissy little dick. You can disagree with Apple's position, but at least Jobs isn't saying patently insane things.
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 #119 of 172
uh, never mind
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 #120 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I am stating that when/if Flash is released on future Android releases (2.2 is supposed to have it) and it doesn't kill battery life, doesn't crash (well it will crash at times, but nothing is 100% crash proof IMHO) and doesn't cause the issues that Apple believes that it will, what will be Apple's excuse then?

So you want me to speculate on why an app which doesn't exist today might possibly get better in some hypothetical future time frame?
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe CEO dismisses Steve Jobs' comments on Flash as a 'smokescreen'