Originally Posted by 9secondko
Hard to argue with Adobe on this.
Hard for you does not imply hard for everyone.
On the one hand, Apple's stance is forcing Adobe to make Flash better.
However, apple is deliberately trying to kill Flash and to harm Adobe.
Hmm... no. Although Apple is taking a hard line on just how pants Flash really is, Adobe know that even if it performed almost as well as native apps, Apple would still not want it. Unlike the Mac, Apple are not in any way constrained by PC hardware or software conventions with their iP* devices. That lets them move fast and make a product that's innovative (relatively speaking) and distinct from the competition. If Apple had allowed any-old-software in the first place, do you think that answering a call when you were in an app would work? Would most of your software be usable without a keen eye, a steady hand, and a stylus? So Apple are a bit fussy about what to accept, they have their complicated HIG, and they reject outright anything which was made without due consideration for the usability in the device's context and the functionality of the user's device itself.
I doubt Apple has any strong interest in killing Flash; they'd be quite happy if it just wasn't relevant to their users, for example HTML5 which falls back to Flash if you've got an older browser. No problem there.
I have been a fan of Apple and it's decisions for a while. Bought my first Mac in 2005. Love it. bought the iPhone when it came out as I saw a winner from the beginning. Was VERY disappointed it couldn't run flash, which means I could not enjoy half the websites I frequented.
I've had Macs since 2001, and I wouldn't say that makes me "a fan for a while". There's nothing wrong with criticising Apple, but owning Apple products for a few years doesn't make you more entitled to do so.
Flash is ubiquitous across the web. The extra interactivity it provides far exceeds even the video h.264 integration in HTML5 as you can have much more interactivity with a video and causing it to start and stop and transition just as you like. Since the iPhone, many have rushed to make their sites compatible an the once interactive slideshows have become simply static pictures moving from right to left. Much of the extra interactivity and content presentation is lost.
I think that sounds like you have great interactivity with your videos. Not really stuff I'd use though - I'm more a play, pause, scrub man. All of that works just fine in YouTube's HTML5 beta. I think interactive transition control sounds fun, but I think video is fine without it.
The lack of presentation you're talking about is because the slideshows in question are HTML4, not HTML5, and the developers are unimaginative. Even in HTML 4 you can do more than just one-direction movement. Interactivity in HTML5 can be much higher, of course, because it integrates directly into the page, but that doesn't mean everyone will do a good job of it.
Flash is an amazing technology. Sure, it isn't always implemented in the best way, but the solution to that is to educate, not eradicate. Now, one of the best things about the web is marginalized simply because one company who does many things well is making the devices most people want - and they are abusing that power to force their will upon the entire workings of the internet.
Stop Apple. just stop. and make Flash work.
Wow. You really love Flash don't you? But that doesn't mean everyone else does. In fact, most users probably have no clue that it even exists. They just go to "the YouTube" and click on something, and a video starts playing. If you want to suggest that Flash is great, that's okay, but it'd be nice to have technical arguments for why that is necessarily the case.
Apple do not, at all, make devices that most people want. It might be true that most people own mobile phones, but if most people wanted iPhones, most people - or a very significant proportion thereof - would have them. They don't. Lots of people like iPhones. Not most, just lots.
You can argue that Apple are abusing their power if you want (although you should explain why it is abuse and not use), but to suggest that they are trying to manipulate the entire internet - or even would be able to do so, after all Microsoft never really managed it - is quite without foundation. I should hope that it is also retrospectively obvious to you that it's not Apple's job to make Flash work (and thus make Adobe richer) in any context.
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
If you're going to assert that Adobe was a white knight to Apple in the past, you should at least vaguely allude to the matter you're thinking of. I imagine you mean that Adobe continued to sell their software to people who wanted to buy it?
As for the amazing influence that Adobe CS somehow has on people to make them buy a Mac (and then pay as much again for Adobe's software) instead of a Windows computer, please provide evidence of this. Even anecdotes will do! I can say that I know six people who have definitely had a Mac in recent years, none of whom have had Adobe CS. So there's a number for you: 0% take-up rate.
In fact, I'll find some numbers on the interweb for you. Adobe says in a recent quarterly earnings release
that they took about $800M in "products" in one quarter. It looks like CS is in the region of $1800 each. 800M / 1.8K = 444K, which suggests "up to" 444,000 instances of CS sold in the quarter (Adobe do sell other things!); meanwhile, Apple's quarterly report
says that they sold 2.94M computers in a quarter. So there's a take-up rate for you: an estimated maximum of 444K/2.94M = 15% of new Mac buyers also bought CS, assuming that no Windows users bought CS at all and Adobe sold no other software. I think you can be reasonably sure that the actual number will be close to 5%.
Originally Posted by rcfa
Adobe is totally backwards. Just got CS5: you can't install it on a case-sensitive file system. What?
That's very random! I suppose it shows that they're all really Windows-heads. Admittedly I don't think you get a case-sensitive filesystem by default on a Mac, so they can get away with it.
In programming, there is no laziness, only deadlines. If Adobe were aware of this (and it does seem like the kind of thing that someone would bug-report), they would have made a quick decision about whether the number of people involved was consequential, not so much to examine a straight cost/benefit ratio as to draw a line below which are features and fixes which are considered beyond the scope of the budget. Yes, the budget will have been far far below the expected profit, but they are a business after all, they're here to take developers' money.
And they say something about 19th century? Their code is still written as if we all were using teletypes...
You've seen their code? In my experience, everyone writes bad code (even relatively high-profile software); as long as it isn't shocking, it's acceptable. Bad code in itself isn't really related to performance, that's more about lack of good code.
I wish Apple would set up a team to create some serious competition to the Creative Suite software. $40bn should go a long way towards writing a decent layout software, drawing program, web site creation software and photo editor.
If Apple wants to do that, they'll just buy Adobe's biggest competitor. It's much easier to buy in a bunch of people who already know what they're doing and already have a working product than to whip something up from scratch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility for professional image editing (Photoshop) and vector graphics (Illustrator), but they would still need a Dreamweaver and a Flash, and you should keep in mind that Apple are not a software company - they really only produce software to improve the Mac owning experience where it would otherwise be deficient. I can imagine the only reason Keynote exists (and Pages and Numbers) would be, hypothetically, a rant from SJ about how terrible Powerpoint is.
Originally Posted by foad
- Adobe won't stop updating a product suite on a platform that comprises of 50% of their annual sales. Their shareholders would lose their collective minds.
Specifically, any CEO who tried that would be fired by their own board. Their job is to act in the shareholders' interests, always.
- If Microsoft doesn't support the canvas tag, they will be relegating IE to a second class browser. They are trying to push IE 9 as a standards based browser and if they can't at least match the main browsers, they will continue to lose market share.
Somewhat like the iPhone with Flash, Microsoft will probably only be interested in <canvas> once everyone else (ie, web sites) are commonly doing it. There's not really any risk for them until that happens, and that's relatively unlikely as long as MSIE remains in the majority.
- Firefox will most likely cave in and support H.264. Regardless of the fact that Firefox is free, the Mozilla Foundation makes a ton of money. Their reported revenue for fiscal 2008 was almost $79 million. That was a pretty sizable increase compared to their fiscal 2007 revenue. They have assets in the 9 figures.
I seem to recall that H.264 usage won't require actual money up-front. Their concern will strictly be the pure-open-source kind; probably they will end up putting support in, disabling it by default in the build, but bundling it in all the binary versions. It's actually pretty stupid that it doesn't support H.264 now!
- As of right now, no mobile phone supports Flash and when they do, we'll see how they perform. Until then, it's all talk from Adobe.
I think there are "mobile flash" versions around, but I gather they are cut-down versions.
- There are no grounds for the Feds to sue Apple. They are only looking into potentials and I am pretty sure Apple's legal team thought the changes to the terms pretty thoroughly.
Yes, I've noticed the "Feds starting antitrust proceedings, maybe, in the future" stories and wondered what qualified them as "news". Surely any time anything has even the slightest possibility of being an antitrust matter (as reported by some complainant) they have to at least pursue an initial inquiry to see if there's any merit to the allegation and so decide whether to start court proceedings? I'm sure Microsoft get that all the time. It's certainly not the end of the world.
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Adobe certainly knows about that 19th century. That's how old the code is in their software.
You know, there probably are a handful of 19th-century algorithms in common use in modern software (algorithms intended for manual use at the time, of course). I have no idea what they'd be, but the idea of 19th-century code isn't as ludicrous as it sounds! Consider the humble "for" loop: I'm sure that there will be precedent for that kind of set-state, do-work, alter-state, go-back-if-something-is-true algorithm in written instructions, going back centuries.