or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe to respond to Apple by giving employees Android phones with Flash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe to respond to Apple by giving employees Android phones with Flash - Page 3

post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

It no longer matters what Adobe does.

so you mean you are willing to throw away photoshop, indesign, illustrator updates and go back to stuff like Corel or Gimp? lol.
or if you are just referring to flash, then you are also aiding the death of firefox, opera or any crazy browser that still doesnt have support for the h264 codec. even if its not just about flash video, flash 10.1 has proved to be much more faster and efficient than html5. the only other problem with flash now is that there are too many people using flash that are doing stupid things with it(i'm not one of them, i optimize my flash projects very well and make sure that it uses as little cpu as much as possible while achieving a WOW experience to the user.)
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexbinary View Post

Hey I found this Android phone running Flash in a bar. Anyone want to buy it?

Great I am curious! What kind of bar, did you find flash running in a menu bar, or did you find it in a gogo bar? And how was the beer?
post #83 of 136
Is it just flash that behaves badly on Mac? Does anybody have problems with Divx, namely Divx Webplayer? I have quite a few probs when streaming a video on Firefox with Divx.. like the Beach Ball of Death appearing, the fan going crazy, the browser crashing..I'm on a Mac mini..
Mac Mini 2009
Reply
Mac Mini 2009
Reply
post #84 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwklam View Post

so you mean you are willing to throw away photoshop, indesign, illustrator updates and go back to stuff like Corel or Gimp? lol.
or if you are just referring to flash, then you are also aiding the death of firefox, opera or any crazy browser that still doesnt have support for the h264 codec. even if its not just about flash video, flash 10.1 has proved to be much more faster and efficient than html5. the only other problem with flash now is that there are too many people using flash that are doing stupid things with it(i'm not one of them, i optimize my flash projects very well and make sure that it uses as little cpu as much as possible while achieving a WOW experience to the user.)

Huh.
From both side's I didn't see any prove that is the hell or the heaven, maybe hellway to heaven.

Anyway, I would like to know what you mean with stupid things and who are the 'to many people'?
Are those the developers? Even if some developers develops something stupid, it shouldn't crash.

'You are not one of them' , of course every developer needs to optimize, But so should Adobe.
And you can't deny that they are behind with this, far behind where they should be now.
About you, show us your work, we can decide if it is true!
post #85 of 136
I don't understand Adobe's stubbornness. With Microsoft IE jumping on the HTML5 bandwagon it's pretty clear that Flash is moving fast towards the exit.
Now would be the perfect time to pull all efforts off from Flash and start thinking about a kickass WYSIWYG HTML5 development tool.
There lies Adobes future and major chance to shine again with bright glory.
But I'm afraid they'll going to let pass this opportunity as well.

Adobe's philosophy of looking backwards seems much better suited with the printing industry. Maybe they would be better off by selling their whole ex Macromedia "new media" division to someone with a more futuristic vision, and just stick to the old CMYK world instead. This is an area where Adobe is pretty much unchallenged, and where their conservative approach in fact is rather a plus.
Acrobat is pretty much settled as the backbone technology of the global printing industry. InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator are mature products that will not require huge innovation steps, but could greatly benefit from improved stability and speed.
There still are enough challenges for Adobe to master, after that dead horse called Flash...
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Perhaps the one good outcome of this will be at all of Adobe will now collectively see what a resource- and battery-hogging piece of software this is on mobile phones..

What evidence is there that HTML5 works on phones and is not a battery hog?

Tests of computers running Flash and HTML5 showed that there was no significant advantage to HTML5 over Flash 10.1. They couldn't even test HTML5 under Safari on a Windows machine because it wouldn't run.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php

I think Adobe is right about hardware acceleration. Apple won't allow anyone but themselves, access to HW acceleration on the iPhone or iPad, so even if HTML5 becomes ubiquitous, only Safari will run it well, Firefox and any other browser on those platforms will probably never perform any better with HTML5 than if they were running Flash - presuming Apple would allow them on, which is very unlikely.

I don't believe Steve Jobs' disingenuous utterances on this topic where they concern performance, he has another agenda entirely.

Quote:
Mozilla’s European president, Tristan Nitot, whether Firefox for mobile could ever grace the iPhone, and he straight out crushed our hopes and dreams of a rival for mobile Safari.

“The issue is more with Apple than with us because they control the App Store and because they refuse applications which compete with something that is already on the phone. It’s unlikely that we’ll see a version of Firefox running on the iPhone,” he told us.

Firefox 4: first look!

Mozilla’s so sure the iPhone is a dead end that it’s not even looking into developing a version just in case, he continued: “We’re not investing time and energy in this direction because we’re pretty sure it would be blocked by Apple, so we’re better off using our time in terms of development to do things on open platforms”.
post #87 of 136
So they're going to embarrass themselves further and punish their entire employed staff?

Adobe has lost it. They realize the only thing they had going for them at all was public perception, and as that begins to change, they begin to panic. Understandable, when your business has degrade to the point of producing almost nothing, but still appearing to be an active company.
post #88 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

What evidence is there that HTML5 works on phones and is not a battery hog?

Tests of computers running Flash and HTML5 showed that there was no significant advantage to HTML5 over Flash 10.1. They couldn't even test HTML5 under Safari on a Windows machine because it wouldn't run.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php

I think Adobe is right about hardware acceleration. Apple won't allow anyone but themselves, access to HW acceleration on the iPhone or iPad, so even if HTML5 becomes ubiquitous, only Safari will run it well, Firefox and any other browser on those platforms will probably never perform any better with HTML5 than if they were running Flash - presuming Apple would allow them on, which is very unlikely.

I don't believe Steve Jobs' disingenuous utterances on this topic where they concern performance, he has another agenda entirely.

This entire post is utter nonsense. First of all Mozilla has nothing to do with HTML5 vs. Flash, secondly, ham-handedly lumping together two different ways of attacking Apple in the same paragraph reeks of troll behavior.

Firefox is not on the iPhone because Mozilla cannot create it. They can't use the development tools that Apple provides to create a Mobile version of their browser. Even if they could, extensions are out of the question. There is no need or purpose for it, which is why it doesn't exist, and never will.
post #89 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwklam View Post

so you mean you are willing to throw away photoshop, indesign, illustrator updates and go back to stuff like Corel or Gimp? lol.
or if you are just referring to flash, then you are also aiding the death of firefox, opera or any crazy browser that still doesnt have support for the h264 codec. even if its not just about flash video, flash 10.1 has proved to be much more faster and efficient than html5. the only other problem with flash now is that there are too many people using flash that are doing stupid things with it(i'm not one of them, i optimize my flash projects very well and make sure that it uses as little cpu as much as possible while achieving a WOW experience to the user.)

You sound like yet another Flash developer, with no real argument, just the fact if Flash goes, so does your work.
post #90 of 136
I'm guessing there is a ton of money in this debate for Abobe, why else put some much negative effort into something, that appears to be heading out the door?

So, if they can get it work, and work great, just how much money does this mean for Adobe? And hey, I'm not against them making money, I'm just saying

They'll need to make a boatload just to off-set all of the bad press they are getting. And hey, why aren't the stock holders up in arms. All of the money they are spending is coming from somewhere.


Skip
post #91 of 136
I'm poised to dump Adobe stock.

Buying Macromedia sucked and now this.
post #92 of 136
The "Droid Does Nothing" to the entire Adobe gang... classic. And really pathetic move by Adobe.
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #93 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

I may be preaching to the choir here, but I don't get the big deal with having Flash on mobile devices. I was trying to convince some friends that even if you had the option of Flash, you probably would want it disabled. Security, resource hogging and stability issues are a given. But perhaps more importantly is *how* Flash is used on the web:

1) Video. Almost all video uses some sort of Flash player. Some articles continue to tout that since 90% of video uses Flash, it therefore won't work on mobile devices without Flash. I did some testing on my iPhone and was pleasantly surprised to find that all the video sites I could think of simply work great on the phone as it downgraded gracefully to a native format that uses hardware decoding.

2) Flash ads. OK, Flash ads suuuck! Boy they are annoying. Enough said.

3) Site navigations. How do you hover to drop down a menu on a touch interface? You can't. Pretty much all decent sites that use Flash navs fall back to conventional navs when Flash isn't available, which is perfect for mobile devices.

4) Games. Most of the better Flash games have free, native app-store equivalents which run better than the Flash version. Games requiring pointers and keyboards to interact would be awkward on a mobile device.

Being a developer, I totally see Jobs' point about not wanting a third party middleware shoe horned into the development environment. Something some folks don't understand is that Flash wouldn't be an alternative to Apple's APIs, it goes on top of it. So as Apple adds features, a Flash developer would have to be at the mercy of Adobe to provide an update to pass that feature through. Lastly, knowing Adobe's track record of security and stability problems with Flash, you know they will have to issue important updates down the road. What would happen to all those apps approved before that update? Would Apple have to pull hundreds/thousands of apps each time an update is issued so the developer can rebuild their app and resubmit it? What about people who already bought those apps? It would be a mess.

One last point. I think it's smart to not even offer the *option* of Flash for a couple reasons: First of all, if its anything like how it works on OS-X, it will crash occasionally and then users will complain and blame Apple. Crashing on a laptop is one thing, but crashing on a mobile device can be especially frustrating. Also, if Flash were optional, it would give developers an excuse for not making native versions of content. So you'd see things like "enable Flash to continue" which would be lame. Don't even make it an option unless it is really going to be 100% useful and stable.

OK, that's my rant I've used on my Android friends. :') Interestingly, they really still want the option of Flash even if the experience may suck. For a while I was in the same boat, but for the reasons outlined above, I think even having the option of something half-baked would be bad news.

Great post. I was especially interested to read points 1 and 3, in that sites revert to non-flash equivalents where flash isn't available. I'd always thought hover-over menus and flash videos fell over (or would fall over) but on your testing it sounds like that is not the case at all.
post #94 of 136
One thing that Flash does is help keep Linux available as a desktop computing option. All web content is available to Linux users in part thanks to Flash.

If that content switches to HTML 5 and H.264, then Linux users won't be able to view it with an open-source browser. The only option would conceivably be Google Chrome, once that version comes out of beta for Linux.
post #95 of 136
. . .if Warnock and Geschke were still calling the shots.

Warnock's more of a geek than Jobs, but I think he'd at least have more appreciation for the "aesthetics" of the iPhone ecosystem and respect it. He'd probably also have the chutzpah to eat some crow on the Flash acquisition and recognize its limitations and be able to simply move on.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #96 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee View Post

I'm guessing there is a ton of money in this debate for Abobe, why else put some much negative effort into something, that appears to be heading out the door?

Of course there's a lot of money involved. Just think how much Adobe must be paying all the shills on this forum for starters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

One thing that Flash does is help keep Linux available as a desktop computing option. All web content is available to Linux users in part thanks to Flash.

If that content switches to HTML 5 and H.264, then Linux users won't be able to view it with an open-source browser. The only option would conceivably be Google Chrome, once that version comes out of beta for Linux.

Do you really expect that html 5 in Webkit won't make it to Linux? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if there isn't a beta already available.
"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 #97 of 136
Sold my iphone and bought a Nexus one, best upgrade ever. It's only a matter of time before people realise there are much better alternatives to the iphone.
post #98 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

so they admit they don't have flash available for phones yet, just like Steve said?

People keep using this as a talking point, as if it's got such an eye opening message about this whole situation. Flash is in development, and Steve Jobs is flat out saying he doesn't want it on his device, all before he's even seen it work.

So the point is simple: While people think it's some amazing point to make that there isn't a device with flash yet, they completely fail to see the irony in that Steve Jobs has no problem dismissing it entirely when HE HASN'T SEEN IT WORK. He simply says he doesn't even want them to even develop for it.


Adobe giving away Android devices with flash to their employees sends a message: They've got it working and can't wait to show Steve Jobs is wrong.
post #99 of 136
I have owned the original iPod touch 1g, an iPhone 2g, and an iPhone 3GS. Back in November I was able to sell my iPhone 3GS to a friend and pick up a Motorola Droid. I now use the Skyfire browser on Android 2.1, which can take flash videos and convert them to HTML 5 viewable in the browser. This really works well and I should be able to get 2.2 with actual flash support by the end of summer. Although I'll probably just disable it, however its good to have it when needing to view a flash page.

This is the main problem with the iPhone platform. Apple doesn't give it's users enough choices. As a former iPhone user, I wouldn't like being spoon feed the "correct" software from Apple. HTML 5 is a great video standard but does not replace all the features of flash. And you can support HTML 5, like Google, while also allowing flash players on your mobile platform. Apple should of allowed a flash player to be installed through an app, and if costumers thought is was buggy or drained their battery life they wouldn't have to use it.

The openness of Android is great, but also a weakness as stability and seamlessness is not quite the same as the iPhone platform. However the amount of control Apple keeps over the OS only hinders its growth and development. To me the iPhone is still only and iPod while my android device is more a computer. If Apple opens up and give more developer freedom, and more aggressively updates the iPhone's hardware, it could really be a great proprietary competitor to android. Until then I think Android is really the superior platform as Apple simply cannot keep up with the innovation of multiple companies producing handsets for android. Apple really needs give their customers what they want, not tell them what they want, then maybe my next phone will be another iPhone.
post #100 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

I have owned the original iPod touch 1g, an iPhone 2g, and an iPhone 3GS. Back in November I was able to sell my iPhone 3GS to a friend and pick up a Motorola Droid. I now use the Skyfire browser on Android 2.1, which can take flash videos and convert them to HTML 5 viewable in the browser. This really works well and I should be able to get 2.2 with actual flash support by the end of summer. Although I'll probably just disable it, however its good to have it when needing to view a flash page.

This is the main problem with the iPhone platform. Apple doesn't give it's users enough choices. As a former iPhone user, I wouldn't like being spoon feed the "correct" software from Apple. HTML 5 is a great video standard but does not replace all the features of flash. And you can support HTML 5, like Google, while also allowing flash players on your mobile platform. Apple should of allowed a flash player to be installed through an app, and if costumers thought is was buggy or drained their battery life they wouldn't have to use it.

The openness of Android is great, but also a weakness as stability and seamlessness is not quite the same as the iPhone platform. However the amount of control Apple keeps over the OS only hinders its growth and development. To me the iPhone is still only and iPod while my android device is more a computer. If Apple opens up and give more developer freedom, and more aggressively updates the iPhone's hardware, it could really be a great proprietary competitor to android. Until then I think Android is really the superior platform as Apple simply cannot keep up with the innovation of multiple companies producing handsets for android. Apple really needs give their customers what they want, not tell them what they want, then maybe my next phone will be another iPhone.

Excellent post
post #101 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrumble View Post

That's a great story, but I don't think it's reflected in reality. Google's integrating Flash into Chrome will be all about getting rid of Adobe's crappy code (from Google's perspective; I doubt they would bother with something that's fine on its own) while accepting that users actually do currently want to run Flash. Google's interest in Flash on Android will also be strictly pragmatic, just about users' demands. There's no marriage or alliance of any kind there, and in fact I think Chrome was conceived by Google as a way to push modern (eg. HTML5) standard features to Windows users, since Gears was not effective at doing so. If Google were at all interested in courting Adobe, then Google Maps would use Flash.

You're extrapolating "marriage of convenience" too far. They don't have a contract or a formal alliance, but they are cooperating. Right now, Google tolerates Adobe as Flash is a competitive vector to iPhoneOS and Windows, but they know just as much as anybody that Adobe wants to make their platform spread far and wide. Adobe wants the majority of application development to be done with Flash, including websites, desktop applications and mobile applications. Any promotion of Flash only strengthens the ecosystem around it, and that's what Google is doing. I don't think Google will tolerate that if they see this happening, and they are treading a fine line right now as they see Apple being a bigger enemy than Adobe.

Google's and Adobe's deal for Flash on Chrome appears to be just Google shipping the plug-in with every Chrome install. I haven't seen word that Google will rewrite the plugin or have native support for it.

Quote:
In fact, at the moment, it's much more the other way around: Adobe doesn't want to risk any browser with more than a few percent market share not having Flash, because then people would be inclined to make their content "backwards compatible" and so lessen the motivation for users to have Flash in the first place. They also desperately want to be competitive in the mobile phone market because that's where the money is nowadays, and if the nigh-omnipresent WebKit on smartphones actually gets people developing major website features in HTML5, then Microsoft will move to implement those features, then content-heavy web sites will start to move to HTML5 and fewer web site developers will need to buy Adobe CS.

True, but it goes further than just web browser plug-ins. Adobe wants to own the websites and applications. Their vision for a website appears to going to the site and the whole site is Flash. They want to go even further and have applications be developed in Flash. They want to own that space too.

Every Adobe Acrobat Reader install comes with the Air runtime. Adobe will ship an Air runtime for Android. Adobe ships an Air runtime for Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. They will eventually leverage their Flash environment into a platform for developing applications. Google will not tolerate this just as they don't tolerate MS wanting to own the application and web space with .Net.
post #102 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

People keep using this as a talking point, as if it's got such an eye opening message about this whole situation. Flash is in development, and Steve Jobs is flat out saying he doesn't want it on his device, all before he's even seen it work.

So the point is simple: While people think it's some amazing point to make that there isn't a device with flash yet, they completely fail to see the irony in that Steve Jobs has no problem dismissing it entirely when HE HASN'T SEEN IT WORK. He simply says he doesn't even want them to even develop for it.

Bull. Jobs has seen Flash 'work' on Macs and it's not acceptable. When my Core 2 Duo with 3 GB of RAM and 2.33 GHz processor hits 120% CPU utilization on a simple Flash page without animation, there's no way in h#ll that it's going to work on a mobile.

Adobe has been promising it for 3 years and it still hasn't appeared. AND, the miracle version which is due this summer (after multiple delays, it MIGHT come out some time) requires an 800 MHz A8 so won't work on today's iPhones, anyway.

What rational basis would there be for supporting Flash?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Adobe giving away Android devices with flash to their employees sends a message: They've got it working and can't wait to show Steve Jobs is wrong.

If it's working, why is there no mobile phone out there with full Flash?

The funny thing is the article which says that only a tiny percentage of Android users upgrade their OS because it's such a pain due to fragmentation. So Adobe is giving its employees a phone today that doesn't run Flash with the hopes that they'll upgrade it some day - and they probably won't if history is any guide.
"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 #103 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Why would an Adobe employee tell its own employer how much their products stinks (if it does)?

If Adobe wants to stay in business, they better have at least a small fraction of employees who are willing to speak honestly about the problems with their products.

Thompson
post #104 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

One thing that Flash does is help keep Linux available as a desktop computing option. All web content is available to Linux users in part thanks to Flash.

If that content switches to HTML 5 and H.264, then Linux users won't be able to view it with an open-source browser. The only option would conceivably be Google Chrome, once that version comes out of beta for Linux.

I thought that one of the beauties of Linux is that if a situation like this emerges (i.e. missing a very desired capability) then solutions will come out of the woodwork from the armies of open source developers. If that's not the case, then one of the advantages I always attributed to Linux is gone, and now I'm even less likely to buy into it.

Thompson
post #105 of 136
I'm just happy to see all the companies who treated Apple and its users like red headed stepchildren (Adobe, Intuit, Microsoft, etc.) getting beat up a little now that Apple has some clout. It's been a long time coming.
post #106 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

This is the main problem with the iPhone platform. Apple doesn't give it's users enough choices. As a former iPhone user, I wouldn't like being spoon feed the "correct" software from Apple. HTML 5 is a great video standard but does not replace all the features of flash. And you can support HTML 5, like Google, while also allowing flash players on your mobile platform. Apple should of allowed a flash player to be installed through an app, and if costumers thought is was buggy or drained their battery life they wouldn't have to use it.

The openness of Android is great, but also a weakness as stability and seamlessness is not quite the same as the iPhone platform. However the amount of control Apple keeps over the OS only hinders its growth and development. To me the iPhone is still only and iPod while my android device is more a computer. If Apple opens up and give more developer freedom, and more aggressively updates the iPhone's hardware, it could really be a great proprietary competitor to android. Until then I think Android is really the superior platform as Apple simply cannot keep up with the innovation of multiple companies producing handsets for android. Apple really needs give their customers what they want, not tell them what they want, then maybe my next phone will be another iPhone.

You think you really know what customers want? You know what you want, but you think you know what everyone else wants, as a whole?

So, the basic trade off with Android is that it allows users to do more things like Skyfire, lots of Google services, and other things like that, but also will have less stability and seamlessness. How do you know customers would value stability and seamlessness less than the things that the iPhone doesn't have?

That's the bet isn't it. Apple is betting that mainstream customers will value the benefits of Apple's walled garden over the "wild west" of Google's Android, all other things being equal. It's clear in Apple's marketing that battery life, ease-of-use, stability, elegance, and lots of apps is what they think customers want. We'll see how it goes.

And Apple will be fine with yearly update cycles. The semiconductor industry moves on 12 to 18, perhaps 24, month cycles. They are fine as long as they always update to next-gen components on a yearly basis. It'll be the typical ebb and flow. They'll have leading hardware the first 6 months, trailing hardware the next 6 months.

What they are currently missing is a sub $100 subsidizing product that they actually can market (the 8GB iPhone 3G seems more like an experiment to me). I don't think they can really do that and have a iPod nano like successful prodcut until they can convince a carrier to sell iPad-like service plans: $20/month for 1 GB/month or data plans that are contract fee, such as the $15/month for 250 MB/month, and a reduction in voice minute costs (300 min/month for $20/month). As long as data plans are $30/month on contract and voice plans are $40/month, every device is basically on level ground.
post #107 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

People keep using this as a talking point, as if it's got such an eye opening message about this whole situation. Flash is in development, and Steve Jobs is flat out saying he doesn't want it on his device, all before he's even seen it work.

So the point is simple: While people think it's some amazing point to make that there isn't a device with flash yet, they completely fail to see the irony in that Steve Jobs has no problem dismissing it entirely when HE HASN'T SEEN IT WORK. He simply says he doesn't even want them to even develop for it.


Adobe giving away Android devices with flash to their employees sends a message: They've got it working and can't wait to show Steve Jobs is wrong.

From the article:

Quote:
Adobe plans to formally introduce Flash 10.1 for Android at Google's I/O conference in May. Google also reportedly has plans to give every attendee either a Motorola Droid or a Nexus One, two high-profile handsets running Android.

The Google I/O conference is scheduled for May 19-20, 2010.

http://code.google.com/events/io/2010/sessions.html

So, we will know if (and how well) they have it working in 18 days... Ta Dah!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #108 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

People keep using this as a talking point, as if it's got such an eye opening message about this whole situation. Flash is in development, and Steve Jobs is flat out saying he doesn't want it on his device, all before he's even seen it work.

So the point is simple: While people think it's some amazing point to make that there isn't a device with flash yet, they completely fail to see the irony in that Steve Jobs has no problem dismissing it entirely when HE HASN'T SEEN IT WORK. He simply says he doesn't even want them to even develop for it.


Adobe giving away Android devices with flash to their employees sends a message: They've got it working and can't wait to show Steve Jobs is wrong.

As others have, Steve Jobs has seen Flash at work: in OS X. Perhaps the mobile Flash will have all the power of its desktop counterpart without any of the problems (and without sapping away the battery), but so far, we have seen no evidence for that. Steve Jobs isn't the kind of person who'll go: "Well, Adobe says it'll be totally awesome even though their versions for much more powerful computers are awful, and we know they have no reason to lie."

Yes, it is an eye-opening message that Flash isn't on a phone yet, especially when one of the main arguments against the iPhone is that it doesn't have Flash. Neither does the Droid or Nexus One! "But that'll all change later this year." Well, Adobe has never missed a deadline, especially when it's come to Flash on mobile phones.

Adobe planning to give Android devices with Flash does not mean that Flash is working and is awesome. What it means is that they want people to think they'll have Flash working and working well. It's a PR gesture and is completely irrelevant to whether or not Flash will work well or not (if it is actually released this year and not delayed yet again).
post #109 of 136
So will mobile Flash put Flash cookies on your phone just like Flash does to your computer? If so, how do you get rid of them?
Flash cookies are super evil. Flash cookies in Google's hands even more so.
- I sure wish Apple would buy Adobe and just kill Flash.
post #110 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwklam View Post

so you mean you are willing to throw away photoshop, indesign, illustrator updates and go back to stuff like Corel or Gimp? lol.
or if you are just referring to flash, then you are also aiding the death of firefox, opera or any crazy browser that still doesnt have support for the h264 codec. even if its not just about flash video, flash 10.1 has proved to be much more faster and efficient than html5. the only other problem with flash now is that there are too many people using flash that are doing stupid things with it(i'm not one of them, i optimize my flash projects very well and make sure that it uses as little cpu as much as possible while achieving a WOW experience to the user.)

one more thing i have to say, from here: http://www.9to5mac.com/Flash-html5-canvas-35409730 , you can see that flash can export to html5 canvas. so if all works well..........then i wouldnt mind getting rid of the flash player itself, but then keeping the flash IDE to make html5 would be awesome.
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
Visit http://www.vancouver2012.org: Vancouver, Canada - Proud Host City of WorldMUN 2012
Reply
post #111 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

You think you really know what customers want? You know what you want, but you think you know what everyone else wants, as a whole?

So, the basic trade off with Android is that it allows users to do more things like Skyfire, lots of Google services, and other things like that, but also will have less stability and seamlessness. How do you know customers would value stability and seamlessness less than the things that the iPhone doesn't have?

That's the bet isn't it. Apple is betting that mainstream customers will value the benefits of Apple's walled garden over the "wild west" of Google's Android, all other things being equal. It's clear in Apple's marketing that battery life, ease-of-use, stability, elegance, and lots of apps is what they think customers want. We'll see how it goes.

And Apple will be fine with yearly update cycles. The semiconductor industry moves on 12 to 18, perhaps 24, month cycles. They are fine as long as they always update to next-gen components on a yearly basis. It'll be the typical ebb and flow. They'll have leading hardware the first 6 months, trailing hardware the next 6 months.

What they are currently missing is a sub $100 subsidizing product that they actually can market (the 8GB iPhone 3G seems more like an experiment to me). I don't think they can really do that and have a iPod nano like successful prodcut until they can convince a carrier to sell iPad-like service plans: $20/month for 1 GB/month or data plans that are contract fee, such as the $15/month for 250 MB/month, and a reduction in voice minute costs (300 min/month for $20/month). As long as data plans are $30/month on contract and voice plans are $40/month, every device is basically on level ground.

Customers should have a choice to install flash so those who would like flash can, and those who don't want to risk stability or battery life can choose not to. But is flash buggy? Does it drain battery life? Or does Apple just want to close a potential back door to the App Store? We can't tell for sure unless it is actually made available for the phone, then customers can decide for themselves. Apple should not restrict features and development for the iPhone platform, its just letting competitors like android catch up.
post #112 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Customers should have a choice to install flash so those who would like flash can, and those who don't want to risk stability or battery life can choose not to.

Nope. Apple's strategy is to kill Flash. Why should they even offer the option? This is anti-consumer, but such is capitalism and the consumer doesn't always get what they want. In many ways, Apple is one of the few companies that actually gives consumers what they want, but I digress. If Flash is so important, Apple will be punished for it and will have to backtrack.

All companies have a strategic vision. Anything that goes against that, they will do their best to eliminate it. Google's strategic vision for Android and ChromeOS is really to bring about broad adoption of Google services and hence more sales of advertising. Never mind that Apple will be a casualty in that vision. Was it necessary for them to come up with Gmail? Buzz? Maps? Navigation? Picassa? News? Shopping? Books? ChromeOS? Android? If I were Apple would seriously consider using non-Google services in the iPhone.

Same deal with Adobe Flash. Their vision is to have Flash be the dominant application and web platform. They've poured in a lot of money into making the Air runtime available everywhere. This is why the installation of Acrobat Reader is a gigantic mess. When Adobe decided to pursue this course of action, yeah, Adobe should know that companies will fight back and they'll be knifed in the back by their presumed allies.

Quote:
But is flash buggy? Does it drain battery life? Or does Apple just want to close a potential back door to the App Store? We can't tell for sure unless it is actually made available for the phone, then customers can decide for themselves. Apple should not restrict features and development for the iPhone platform, its just letting competitors like android catch up.

Jobs specifically stated it. They do not want a 3rd party platform to even control a minority of the apps on the iPhone OS platform. It's their strategic vision to have the platform as Cocoa as possible. Developers can whine all they want. They can leave the platform in droves. As long as Apple's ecosystem continues to be the market leader in moving money from consumers' pockets to developer pockets, they'll be more than fine.
post #113 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

Customers should have a choice to install flash so those who would like flash can, and those who don't want to risk stability or battery life can choose not to. But is flash buggy? Does it drain battery life? Or does Apple just want to close a potential back door to the App Store? We can't tell for sure unless it is actually made available for the phone, then customers can decide for themselves. Apple should not restrict features and development for the iPhone platform, its just letting competitors like android catch up.

Actually, I view it just the opposite. By banning Flash (and its known weaknesses) Apple is preserving the quality of its mobile platform.

If Android allows Flash, it jeopardizes its entire platform... possible preventing it from gaining on Apple's lead.

We're talking about satisfying the millions of general consumers, here, not a few thousand techies.

Should Adobe be able to deliver a proven mobile Flash that performs, is secure, reliable and exploits the Apple hardware, APIs and multitouch UI...
then Apple should consider allowing it on its platform.

However, based on Adobe's track record, this is not very likely.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #114 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

I have owned the original iPod touch 1g, an iPhone 2g, and an iPhone 3GS. Back in November I was able to sell my iPhone 3GS to a friend and pick up a Motorola Droid. I now use the Skyfire browser on Android 2.1, which can take flash videos and convert them to HTML 5 viewable in the browser. This really works well and I should be able to get 2.2 with actual flash support by the end of summer. Although I'll probably just disable it, however its good to have it when needing to view a flash page.

This is the main problem with the iPhone platform. Apple doesn't give it's users enough choices. As a former iPhone user, I wouldn't like being spoon feed the "correct" software from Apple. HTML 5 is a great video standard but does not replace all the features of flash. And you can support HTML 5, like Google, while also allowing flash players on your mobile platform. Apple should of allowed a flash player to be installed through an app, and if costumers thought is was buggy or drained their battery life they wouldn't have to use it.

The openness of Android is great, but also a weakness as stability and seamlessness is not quite the same as the iPhone platform. However the amount of control Apple keeps over the OS only hinders its growth and development. To me the iPhone is still only and iPod while my android device is more a computer. If Apple opens up and give more developer freedom, and more aggressively updates the iPhone's hardware, it could really be a great proprietary competitor to android. Until then I think Android is really the superior platform as Apple simply cannot keep up with the innovation of multiple companies producing handsets for android. Apple really needs give their customers what they want, not tell them what they want, then maybe my next phone will be another iPhone.

See you are exactly missing the consumer POV - and using your geek POV instead. Apple has the market proof that the average consumer doesn't care about openness, control, rabid innovation, and multiple hardware platforms. Consumers want that stability and seamlessness that you dismiss so lightly, they are willing to trade the rabid innovation for careful and calculated innovation on a longer time-scale. In fact if you took the time to move out of your geeky milieu and talk to the average consumer you would find that they are not entirely comfortable with Apple doing YEARLY updates to the hardware! Apple is giving their customers substantially what they want - you just aren't an Apple customer - and that's OK.

Android will be fantastic for the the geeks and bloggers and wannabe geeks to play around with and mess up and jail-break and load any old software on. Android won't be the superior platform until it can address the average consumer needs of stability and seamlessness together with all the geek qualities that you love so dearly. When Android commands a parity marketshare with the iPhone, that is when you can say that Android is, in fact a superior platform.
post #115 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Adobe to respond to Apple by giving employees Android phones with Flash

That's REALLY going to put the hurt on Apple.
post #116 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

I have owned the original iPod touch 1g, an iPhone 2g, and an iPhone 3GS. Back in November I was able to sell my iPhone 3GS to a friend and pick up a Motorola Droid. I now use the Skyfire browser on Android 2.1, which can take flash videos and convert them to HTML 5 viewable in the browser. This really works well and I should be able to get 2.2 with actual flash support by the end of summer. Although I'll probably just disable it, however its good to have it when needing to view a flash page.

This is the main problem with the iPhone platform. Apple doesn't give it's users enough choices. As a former iPhone user, I wouldn't like being spoon feed the "correct" software from Apple. HTML 5 is a great video standard but does not replace all the features of flash. And you can support HTML 5, like Google, while also allowing flash players on your mobile platform. Apple should of allowed a flash player to be installed through an app, and if costumers thought is was buggy or drained their battery life they wouldn't have to use it.

The openness of Android is great, but also a weakness as stability and seamlessness is not quite the same as the iPhone platform. However the amount of control Apple keeps over the OS only hinders its growth and development. To me the iPhone is still only and iPod while my android device is more a computer. If Apple opens up and give more developer freedom, and more aggressively updates the iPhone's hardware, it could really be a great proprietary competitor to android. Until then I think Android is really the superior platform as Apple simply cannot keep up with the innovation of multiple companies producing handsets for android. Apple really needs give their customers what they want, not tell them what they want, then maybe my next phone will be another iPhone.

Great Post. It doesn't come close to convincing me to shift away from the iPhone, but some of the points are valid.

As I've said in other posts, I personally detest sites that make heavy use of Flash, and avoid them. In those cases, I certainly don't miss Flash on my iPhone. But, on rare occasions, I have been frustrated by the inability to play a video. It would be nice to have it as an option, with a warning about the drawbacks to enabling it. I would keep it off most of the time.

Steve Jobs says that Flash is the most common reason for crashes on the Mac. I have found that distinction belongs to Microsoft Word.

For the Adobe employees, I say SCORE! I would love to have my company give me a free Droid! Once I sold it on eBay, I would have the cash for my next iPhone upgrade!
post #117 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

See you are exactly missing the consumer POV - and using your geek POV instead. Apple has the market proof that the average consumer doesn't care about openness, control, rabid innovation, and multiple hardware platforms. Consumers want that stability and seamlessness that you dismiss so lightly, they are willing to trade the rabid innovation for careful and calculated innovation on a longer time-scale. In fact if you took the time to move out of your geeky milieu and talk to the average consumer you would find that they are not entirely comfortable with Apple doing YEARLY updates to the hardware! Apple is giving their customers substantially what they want - you just aren't an Apple customer - and that's OK.

Android will be fantastic for the the geeks and bloggers and wannabe geeks to play around with and mess up and jail-break and load any old software on. Android won't be the superior platform until it can address the average consumer needs of stability and seamlessness together with all the geek qualities that you love so dearly. When Android commands a parity marketshare with the iPhone, that is when you can say that Android is, in fact a superior platform.

The same could be said about macs in the 90s, it turned out consumers moved on the the cheaper and more quickly evolving windows computers. Also a lot of what you would call non tech-savy consumers base their purchases on recommendations by knowledable friends. The iPhone came out when the market was ruled by blackberries, but because of RIM's lack of innovation the iPhone took a good portion of the market share. The same thigh is happening now with apple. Denying flash support and other developemets have only left a huge hole for android to take advantage of. Flash could easily be made avaliable through and app, and for those who choose not to download it, their user experiance would of been complety uneffected. By completely banning flash, apple risks losing the "geeks" who have been premoting their product the entire time. Most normal "consumers" when buying a high end device such as a smart phone will base their decicions on what more tech savvy people recommended. It used to be the iPhone, but if apple keeps intentionaly hindering its development, both the "geeks" and the consumers will move on to a platform that will give them much more. Currently that platform is android and so far it has offered a lot of things apple has denied on the iPhone.

That said android is open source, which does have it weaknesses. I think apple has the biggest opertunity to create a killer proprietary phone OS to really dominate the market like windows Sid for PC's (except work better of course), but they need to loosen their control a little.
post #118 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogmudbone View Post

The same could be said about macs in the 90s, it turned out consumers moved on the the cheaper and more quickly evolving windows computers. Also a lot of what you would call non tech-savy consumers base their purchases on recommendations by knowledable friends. The iPhone came out when the market was ruled by blackberries, but because of RIM's lack of innovation the iPhone took a good portion of the market share. The same thigh is happening now with apple. Denying flash support and other developemets have only left a huge hole for android to take advantage of. Flash could easily be made avaliable through and app, and for those who choose not to download it, their user experiance would of been complety uneffected. By completely banning flash, apple risks losing the "geeks" who have been premoting their product the entire time. Most normal "consumers" when buying a high end device such as a smart phone will base their decicions on what more tech savvy people recommended. It used to be the iPhone, but if apple keeps intentionaly hindering its development, both the "geeks" and the consumers will move on to a platform that will give them much more. Currently that platform is android and so far it has offered a lot of things apple has denied on the iPhone.

That said android is open source, which does have it weaknesses. I think apple has the biggest opertunity to create a killer proprietary phone OS to really dominate the market like windows Sid for PC's (except work better of course), but they need to loosen their control a little.

Here's the thing: the "geeks" have ALWAYS hated the iPhone: they complained about the lack of a removable battery, lack of multitasking, lack of Flash (even though no other phone has had it), etc. since it was released. Either the layman consumer does not blindly follow the recommendations of the tech community or there's a much bigger demographic of us Apple nerds within it. The iPad received even more scorn than the iPhone did, and it's doing quite well too.

Wasn't this same argument made for Linux as well? "My family and friends will eventually use Linux because I'm the computer guy and I recommend it; therefore, Microsoft is doomed!"

Consumers don't care how open a platform is for developers; they don't care about licenses; they don't even care about Flash. What most consumers want is a product that works and does everything they need it to do. If what they want can be done without Flash, most will not care, and many will not even notice its absence.

I do think history will repeat itself, but it will not be the failure of the Mac, but the success of the iPod, which has also received plenty of scorn from the tech community since its inception.
post #119 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Kool View Post

Sold my iphone and bought a Nexus one, best upgrade ever. It's only a matter of time before people realise there are much better alternatives to the iphone.

but you did find a buyer. that's saying something.
post #120 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia View Post

Here's the thing: the "geeks" have ALWAYS hated the iPhone: they complained about the lack of a removable battery, lack of multitasking, lack of Flash (even though no other phone has had it), etc. since it was released. Either the layman consumer does not blindly follow the recommendations of the tech community or there's a much bigger demographic of us Apple nerds within it. The iPad received even more scorn than the iPhone did, and it's doing quite well too.

Wasn't this same argument made for Linux as well? "My family and friends will eventually use Linux because I'm the computer guy and I recommend it; therefore, Microsoft is doomed!"

Consumers don't care how open a platform is for developers; they don't care about licenses; they don't even care about Flash. What most consumers want is a product that works and does everything they need it to do. If what they want can be done without Flash, most will not care, and many will not even notice its absence.

I do think history will repeat itself, but it will not be the failure of the Mac, but the success of the iPod, which has also received plenty of scorn from the tech community since its inception.


Totally agree. Apple was very clever to market the iPod as "1000 songs in your pocket" and not "XXX GB HDD storage".
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe to respond to Apple by giving employees Android phones with Flash