or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe exec: Apple's fight against Flash is a 19th century tactic
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe exec: Apple's fight against Flash is a 19th century tactic - Page 4

post #121 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silencio View Post

Reread your history books. Adobe has done the bare minimum to support the Mac platform for over a decade now and has done far more to promote their Windows products for a long time now.

- Late to deliver OS X native apps
- Late to deliver Universal binaries
- Late to deliver 64-bit apps (and most of CS5 is still only 32-bit!)
- Acrobat Pro on the Mac has always been watered down and overpriced
- Adobe's engineers and marketing people have long pushed the Windows versions of their apps over the Mac versions. Their Illustrator and Photoshop people have definitely done this.
- And on and ond...

Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.

CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?

Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?

If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.

Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.

Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.

Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?

Anyways, feel free to go back to your Kool-Aid
post #122 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, speaking at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco Wednesday, said Apple was engaged in a "legal game" in fighting Flash, suggesting the iPhone maker is more interested in playing politics than improving technology. He said Apple's approach embraces the walled garden, while Adobe wants to see software be written once and run on multiple devices.

That is an insane way to think. This guy needs a psychotherapist and should be fired for saying that. I sure as hell don't want my iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch running lowest common denominator Apps. That's why we buy Apple hardware because we know they are obsessive about making sure all Apps run better on their hardware than on anyone else's. Seriously the guy should have been bood off the podium and run out of the building for saying such nonsense. Adobe must be getting rally desperate wasting everyone's time and money over a ridiculous premise.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #123 of 178
post #124 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?

Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.

The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.

Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...

It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.

If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...

I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
post #125 of 178
Side light to the railroad gauge metaphor. My grandfather was a pattern-maker who worked for the railroad. His job was to make adapter links between one gauge of rail and another. He carved the link out of wood so that it could be used to make a sand casting mold. I suppose some rails were close enough in size that cars could go from one to another.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #126 of 178
I imagine they received a response from Steve like this:

"Here's how I see it, You know those handcars, the little machines that people stand on and pump to move along on the train tracks? That's Adobe. Apple is the steam train that owns the tracks."

And you know... Apple does own the tracks... so if Adobe doesn't like it maybe they should go build their own...

BTW, that is the response that Karelia claims that steve sent them.
post #127 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.

CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?

Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?

If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.

Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.

Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.

Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?

Anyways, feel free to go back to your Kool-Aid

I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.
post #128 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.

The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.

Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...

It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.

If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...

I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)

I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.
post #129 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.

It's a lose, lose situation.

Worst case scenarios:

Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes

Results: Apple leverages it's staff's experience in making 3rd party software [TIFFany 3.x] their deep knowledge of Desktop Publishing [plenty of staff that have worked on Framemaker, Quark, InDesign, even Lighthouse Design] and release a suite of tools, at half the price for the Mac.

Microsoft will be supporting the Canvas tag as they want to support WebGL.

Firefox will see it's share dwindled into oblivion.

Smartphone vendors will waste 18 months trying to work with Adobe to get that code base fixed and be that much farther behind Apple.

iAd will change the notion of what an Advertisement is and people will actually watch them.

APPL reaches 400-500 before splitting.
post #130 of 178
"If you look at what's going on now, it's like railroads in the 1800s," Lynch said. "People were using different gauged rails. Your cars would literally not run on those rails."

But Adobe is the one that wants to build freight cars with different gauged rails then Apple's tracks support... Do they expect Apple to build another set of rails for everyone that want to run a different runtime? Sounds like they are comparing a set of rails to an operating system and the freight cars to the application... This sounds like an analogy that Apple should be using rather then Adobe...
post #131 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! And a matter of opinion. Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say I once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.

Look to add! Apple feels very confident of their decission. The same way they were criticised of taking the floppy off the iMac and choosing to use USB. Its a business choice they made and if they are wrong it will only affect them. I like many believe it to be a good decision and i do own an iPhone. And the ones that are complaining about Apples decission I bet most if not all of you do not even own an iPhone. So why are yal complaining? And if you do. Leave the platform and stop bitching like Adobe is!! It's not like Apple all of a sudden stop supporting flash! THEY NEVER HAVE!!
post #132 of 178
I never realized Flash was that old...
post #133 of 178
And for those saying that this is a "control" or "money" issue for Apple! I say look at the interest Adobe has in this. The reality is mobile app development has exploded since the iPhone and is a huge money maker. Adobe spent a lot of money to monopolize the "creative suite" arena. And Adobe sees dollars in application development! Adobe does not make there own mobile OS but if they could somehow control the App Development spectrum! Well that means big bucks for Adobe and a lot of control as well!! Do we really want that? I for one don't. Hey Adobe! You want a piece of the pie? Make your own freaking OS and get off my OS!!
post #134 of 178
Let's see here...

Apple wants to conform to HTML specification. That would be like running on the standard tracks.

Adobe wants everyone to use their Flash, which only they can make. Just like custom gauge rails.


Sounds like Adobe's argument backfired to me...
post #135 of 178
Here's the actual video of the interview over at youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBzVG...om=PL&index=16
post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sausage&Onion View Post

Its apple's trains. They can run on whatever tracks they want. Forcing another company to support your proprietary standards is hardly an 'open' strategy. Fuck these fools.

Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids
post #137 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids

Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!

And when Apple adds more "cars" and "cargo" to it's trains. Will Adobe be there to "beef" up it's engines?! I think NOT!!
post #139 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernielm View Post

I don't know if you know this but MAC software is approximately 50% of Adobe's revenue. So, you can add to your scenario, Adobe drops revenue by 50% and stock crashes!!!! :-)

You forgot the bit where Adobe stock crashes and Apple swallows them whole on the cheap heh.
post #140 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.

But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.

the closest thing i could find to an 'official' number from adobe is John Nack's response to a post from 2008 (a boatload of comments about adobe announcing no 64bit for the mac in CS4):

[The Mac is closer to 50% of our (Photoshop's) market share. --J.]
at http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04...hop_lr_64.html

it's clearly not half of adobe's revenue, but probably half of their CS business. i'm asuming that's a big chunk nonetheless. adobe has over 70 'products' (i gave up trying to count them in the popup menu). no wonder they appear a little unfocused at times.
post #141 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rider View Post

yeah you gotta use 19th century tactics to fight a 19th century technology , common Adobe get over it .

THe analogue with 19th century railways is fault. Flash is not a different guage. Its a passenger in the Apple's cabose and they are saying that they own the cabose
post #142 of 178
post #143 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

Message to Adobe: FYI, running off to ask the FTC to fix your problems and provide protection for your business is a 19th century tactic. Protection only delays the inevitable whilst insulating your business from reality.

What, hasn't Apple already run to FTC to stop HTC phones being imported to US? \
post #144 of 178
post #145 of 178
Quote:

Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #146 of 178
If Adobe has the capability to deliver a great looking, high performance, cross platform development kit that everyone adores, they should do so ASAP with or without Apple. Adobe should stop trying to leech out of the iPhone's popularity.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #147 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

This whole farrago is getting embarrassing for Apple and Adobe and they need to stop this idiotic back and forth. I've been a fan of both of these companies and think they should work together to amicably settle the matter.

This statement reminds me of an scene in an old Tex Avery cartoon "First Bad Man" with two cavemen:

Caveman1: Howdy (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Howdy (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: How you all? (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
Caveman2: Why fine. How you all? (hits Cavemen1 in head with club)
Caveman1: Fine, thank you. (hits Cavemen2 in head with club)
fade to black

That in a nutshell how "amicably" Apple and Adobe will be in this manner.
post #148 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomMcIn View Post

The only railroad similarity I can see between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is running a stable system on a two rail system and Adobe is trying to balance on a monorail. This isn't about different gauges, it is about the basic design concept.

Actually I can seen other railroad similarity--Peabody's Improbable history--Peter Cooper with Flash being the 50% tunnel (half finished) and Flash 10.1 being the 50% bridge (the plans for which are half finished)
post #149 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Yea... they are really starting to grasp...

Apples iPhone = 18 century train tracks?

Ummm...

- INTERNET = Train Tracks
- iPhone = One (of many) different trains you can use to ride the tracks.

Yes...

And going to HTML5 helps avoiding Flash-related crashes (or "train wrecks").
post #150 of 178
What a bunch of sore losers adobe is...
post #151 of 178
Is that the company that makes the sorry pdf reader and the expensive photo editor? Is that the company like Microsoft that introduce security vulnerabilities into all their products? Sorry, It's been so long since I removed all their products, I've forgotten the bad experiences I had.
post #152 of 178
This comparison is more like the AC vs. DC argument than railroads. His argument would suggest that HTML5 is proprietary to Apple and not matching the rest of the standards when in fact Flash is the one not playing well with others. I find it funny that Adobe is defending Flash to the point they are, considering they themselves did not develop it. And have really done little to advance it beyond what Macromedia did.

With the world relying so heavily on the power of search engines, Adobe has to realize that once people see the power of HTML5, they'll be dumping Flash anyway. Flash isn't searchable, that has ALWAYS been a sticking point, and with the number of touch devices being developed by EVERYONE, HTML5 lends itself better to that.

Hopefully this spat is over soon.
post #153 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

If Adobe has the capability to deliver a great looking, high performance, cross platform development kit that everyone adores, they should do so ASAP with or without Apple. Adobe should stop trying to leech out of the iPhone's popularity.

I'm not sure they know how to...after all, this was Macromedia's product.
post #154 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.

That is not true.

The video hardware API that Adobe asked for only accelerates video - not all the other little animations, menus, and gadgets in Flash. On my Mac (and there are countless reports from others of the same thing), a simple Flash page without video can shoot the CPU usage to 120% and make the fans jump to high speed. The same thing doesn't happen on Windows. The h264 hardware API will have no impact on that, so Adobe can't blame that lousy performance on Apple.

Furthermore, Adobe has always had access to hardware acceleration APIs (OpenGL, OpenCL, CoreVideo), but chose not to use them - because in their 'lowest common denominator' strategy, they don't want to write software for different operating systems. They want to write software for Windows and then do a lousy port to the Mac and Linux.

I suspect that Apple's compliance was a trap for Adobe. "OK, we've given you the API you requested. Why does Flash still suck so bad?"
"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 #155 of 178
Did RealPlayers Exec kick and cry this much when Flash took over the dominance Real Player had?
post #156 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

It was badly misquoted. He said:

"The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."

That smells like a brain fart to me. Since when is Flash working (as it does on the desktop) on any platform? He is mixing up two things here: Flash as a plugin, and as a multi-platform development environment. The end result (output) of the development environment is supposedly a native iPhone app, and has nothing to do with Flash anymore. So Flash doesn't run on the iPhone any way you look at it.
post #157 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

It's about Apple not wanting to rely on third party "Proprietary" tools on its OS

The issue has nothing to do with Apple relying or not relying on anything.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

. Apple has an interest to its consumers an interest that makes them money which is good for the well being of the company. One of the "Big" success to the iPhone is its App ecosystem! An ecosystem that is very important to Apple. To Apple along with its slick OS (which everyone has now copied) the Apps are a very important feature. So you damn right Apple wants to control that space.

The underlying issue has nothing to do with Apple wanting to control the quality of the Apps it sells. There is abundant evidence that Apple sells dreck app every day.

The issue is instead that Apple wants to control whether and how apps are made for other devices. Their stance is that if an iPhone app, whatever its merits, is made in a manner so that the code can be compiled to other devices, then the App will not be sold.

Their tactic seems to NOT be a way to ensure good iPhone apps, but instead to leverage the success of the App Store in a manner to unfairly decrease competition to the app store.
post #158 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplaisance View Post

Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!

It is more like Adobe making engines that run on both Apple's tracks and other tracks, but Apple will allow engines that run ONLY on its tracks, for no reason other than to disadvantage the owners of the other tracks.
post #159 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Somewhat interesting, and some good points made, but in the end also extremely hyperbolic. Adobe is not trying to prevent Apple from competing with them. Apple is not competing with Adobe at all, or even attempting to do so. In fact that is one of the points about this entire business which is so peculiar. Adobe can't make the case that Apple is thwarting competition when they are not even in competition.


The concerns are not about Apple beating up the competition in fighting with Adobe. Apple and Adobe do not compete in any market in which Apple has market power.

Instead, what Apple is doing is using its strength in the mobile app market to disadvantage other sellers of mobile devices.

Adobe is just collateral damage.

And whether or not Apple can do this with impunity has yet to be determined. It is entirely possible that Apple has insufficient power in any relevant market, and therefore cannot illegally abuse market power to stifle competition.
post #160 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.

The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.

Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...

It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.

If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...

I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)

Sure. Suppose I want to buy Photoshop extended, InDesign, and Illustrator. How much will this cost me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe exec: Apple's fight against Flash is a 19th century tactic