or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe fires back at Apple with open letter, new ad campaign
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe fires back at Apple with open letter, new ad campaign - Page 4

post #121 of 448
Did you read Adobe's letter?

In it Adobe is accusing Apple of restricting people's "freedom" by not "allowing" Flash on their mobile devices, thus not enabling them the "choice" to access Flash content on the Internet.

Did you read my open letter?

In it I detailed my failed attempt to download Adobe's Flash Player software to an Android 1.6 device (HTC Magic) due to the platform being unsupported by Adobe.

Now if Adobe is accusing Apple of denying people "freedom" and "choice" by not allowing the Flash Player software on iPhone OS, what's Adobe doing by not allowing the Flash Player on my Android 1.6 device?

Aren't they denying me my "freedom" and "choice" under their own definition?

Remember it was Adobe defining these things in their letter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no. You made absolutely ZERO sense.

I want to know exactly, how adobe is preventing me, from choosing something. What devices is adobe not supporting, and how is this relevant.?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #122 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Apple has sold 85 million iPhones and Touches to people who knew in advance those devices didn't support flash.


You have no way of knowing what those people knew, or didn't know.

Your assertion is mere wishful thinking.
post #123 of 448
My experience with most Adobe products, Flash, Photoshop, Acrobat Pro, etc is that these apps take too long to load up, slow to render, and generally are bloated and buggy. I use a Mac Book Pro core 2 duo, and loathe when I need to use their products, so much so that I look for alternatives to their products where possible. So, when will Adobe demonstrate a working mobile version of Flash!? Honestly, I hope Flash and most Adboe products go away, that day couldn't come soon enough.
post #124 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

No is disputing adobe has been lazy, and are under pressure to produce and release a working player. But I keep hearing this thing about being "forced". Personally I see a lot of choices out there. But I'm curious about being "forced.

Forced to what?

What's this reference to 'forced'? There's nothing about being 'forced' in the post you quoted. Are you just inventing straw men to make points about things no one is discussing?
post #125 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Nah, they would get nowhere with Steve.

Steve would respond, "Drop Flash. Not a big deal."

Adobe is just pounding their head against a brick wall. Apple has shut out Flash from its mobile devices. End of discussion.

(It should be noted that most mobile technology companies also have shut out Flash. It's not just Apple.)

I agree, except for your last sentence.

Actually, hasn't Adobe been the one to shut out Flash from mobile devices by not providing any means to play Flash content on them?

.
"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 #126 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no. You made absolutely ZERO sense.

I want to know exactly, how adobe is preventing me, from choosing something. What devices is adobe not supporting, and how is this relevant.?

The only platform properly supported by Adobe with Flash (and even this is questionable) is Windows. On all other platforms, Flash is either unavailable or hopelessly buggy and poorly performing. They are "supporting" almost no platforms.
post #127 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

??? Meanwhile Steve Jobs' Disney website it chock full of FLASH.

Which is perfectly browsable on the iPhone/iPad. They just redirect you to a version that doesn't need flash to operate. Just like ANY decent site should do.

The internet's content should NOT be locked in a proprietary container. I do not insist that Flash disappear from the web. I simply would like sites to stop insisting that I need it to view any of their content. Do they really want to reach me or not?
post #128 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

There are quite a few porn sites that are re encoding their content to support H.264 video playback, I'm seeing more sites support HTML5 standards. I'm just curious though, if Adobe is so desperate to prove to the world they're not a proprietary standard, and they believe in open standards, when will they release the source code for Flash so it can be tweaked by the developer community into something more useful?

swf has been open for time. Anyone can develop their own player, in fact the compiler for actionscipt is open source.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #129 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The only platform properly supported by Adobe with Flash (and even this is questionable) is Windows. On all other platforms, Flash is either unavailable or hopelessly buggy and poorly performing. They are "supporting" almost no platforms.

that isn't rue based on adobe's recent -public- beta of flash player for mac, which runs extremely well.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #130 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atanner View Post

I tested all my favorite flash porn sites on an ipad at the Apple store. Every one of them worked.

Yeah... my local store has them all bookmarked, so they can easily demonstrate the....

.
"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 #131 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

What's this reference to 'forced'? There's nothing about being 'forced' in the post you quoted. Are you just inventing straw men to make points about things no one is discussing?

did you read the thread? There are several posts suggesting that adobe is against choice. So that infers, that you are being forced to do or use something. Or, if that's not what is meant, perhaps you can provide a better more detailed explanation of what is meant by adobe being against choice.

Speaking of strawman...
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #132 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

That's right, that's too funny! Try out this http://home.disney.co.uk/ with having clicktoflash or another flash blocker installed!


Runs fine. CPU at 5 -14%.

Win 7.
post #133 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Did you read Adobe's letter?

In it Adobe is accusing Apple of restricting people's "freedom" by not "allowing" Flash on their mobile devices, thus not enabling them the "choice" to access Flash content on the Internet.

Did you read my open letter?

In it I detailed my failed attempt to download Adobe's Flash Player software to an Android 1.6 device (HTC Magic) due to the platform being unsupported by Adobe.

Now if Adobe is accusing Apple of denying people "freedom" and "choice" by not allowing the Flash Player software on iPhone OS, what's Adobe doing by not allowing the Flash Player on my Android 1.6 device?

Aren't they denying me my "freedom" and "choice" under their own definition?

Remember it was Adobe defining these things in their letter.

this is your definition of choice? Really? That adobe has been working on a player it's in beta right now and that is against choice?

Oh come on that's just ridiculous. I guess the iphone 2Ger's might be mighty pissed at no iphoneOS4 though eh. What a ridiculous premise.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #134 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no. You made absolutely ZERO sense.

I want to know exactly, how adobe is preventing me, from choosing something. What devices is adobe not supporting, and how is this relevant.?

So. Adobe is on the record as either opposing html 5 (early-on) or trying to emasculate it as a robust and functional open standard because they rightly recognized that it would have an impact on Flash installed base - especially if Canvas is included. Can you say passive-agressive behaviors??

Then, Adobe has demonstrated that they cannot effectively support the installed base of Flash users, based on the feedback in their own forums around resource utilization - in most reported cases on the Mac and Linux platforms.

Then they trot out a pre-beta builder paltform which they claim will allow developers to develop once release across all platforms - which is, I think where you get your questions.

So the Adobe business model is to lock-in developers to their own product (Flash) and compromise any competing system, standard (open or otherwise) or toolset that would prevent them from functionally owning webdevelopment for the mobile device space. You as a developer would be wholly dependent on Adobe to maintain a proprietary, non open standard supporting toolset. Worse, your code would have an overhead of additional code that must remain in place to allow you to release across platforms. So instead of a spartan and robust application framework, you have all this additional overhead which makes it convenient to do your cross-platform dev, but, depends solely on Adobe staying out in front of multiple platform development, and gives Adobe additional control to retard platform OS development because they will set the pace of updating not the platform owners. This is where Google and Android are puzzling. They don't or haven't recognized the obvious - that while embracing Adobe's tool will help them build app space, it will adversely impact their own advancement of the OS as they become dependent on Adobe making timely updates to the tool. Therefore, once they implement, they will no longer be free to make ad hoc updates to Android as freely as they have over the last couple of years - in fact this last year, several updates during the course of the year.
post #135 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

So. Adobe is on the record as either opposing html 5 (early-on) or trying to emasculate it as a robust and functional open standard because they rightly recognized that it would have an impact on Flash installed base - especially if Canvas is included. Can you say passive-agressive behaviors??

Then, Adobe has demonstrated that they cannot effectively support the installed base of Flash users, based on the feedback in their own forums around resource utilization - in most reported cases on the Mac and Linux platforms.

Then they trot out a pre-beta builder paltform which they claim will allow developers to develop once release across all platforms - which is, I think where you get your questions.

So the Adobe business model is to lock-in developers to their own product (Flash) and compromise any competing system, standard (open or otherwise) or toolset that would prevent them from functionally owning webdevelopment for the mobile device space. You as a developer would be wholly dependent on Adobe to maintain a proprietary, non open standard supporting toolset. Worse, your code would have an overhead of additional code that must remain in place to allow you to release across platforms. So instead of a spartan and robust application framework, you have all this additional overhead which makes it convenient to do your cross-platform dev, but, depends solely on Adobe staying out in front of multiple platform development, and gives Adobe additional control to retard platform OS development because they will set the pace of updating not the platform owners. This is where Google and Android are puzzling. They don't or haven't recognized the obvious - that while embracing Adobe's tool will help them build app space, it will adversely impact their own advancement of the OS as they become dependent on Adobe making timely updates to the tool.

you seem to conveniently to have left out that adobe wasn't the only company developing well known platforms for accomplishing the same thing. Despite some claims here, adobe isn't the only development platform in town and there are other choices.

As fr the html5 wrangling, I believe adobe isn't the only one trying to pull and tug at things during the process, I'm sure apple has some technologies they'd be pushing as well to their advantage, as anyone familiar with this process knows, it is indeed a small bit a wrangling on the part of -all- companies involved. You're just simply singling out adobe to demonize them to support your flawed stance.

When I see some balanced stuff perhaps I'll take it a bit more seriously.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #136 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Flash is not 'the full internet'... its a proprietary cul de sac.

CLASS!!!
post #137 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

LOL! Good article. Things are heating up between the two companies.

I personally see merit in both sides, but what I don't think is wise is for Steve to have dismissed flash as a possibility in the future of iphone.

Think of it. Is the WHOLE web going to change to html5 JUST because of Steve Jobs? The fact is, if these devices get advanced enough so the experience on a mobile device is as good as on a computer, then it'll be the iphone that doesn't have the full internet.

You guys thought I was crazy when I said iphone would get multitasking but look what happened. Now I'm saying it will get Flash some day.

HMM... Seems like it would only get Flash when the devices are powerful enough to not affect the experience. Since Flash 10.1 will only work on iPhone 3GS and Nexus One level devices as a minimum, Adobe has had no real argument for Apple not including Flash yet.

Many problems with the limitations of technology can be overcome by waiting for the technology to improve. That doesn't discount the limitations that existed before, and Adobe should recognize that.

And the whole web doesn't have to change, just the most important bits. I don't object to having Flash on the web. I object to it being the only way to view the content. That's generally bad web design.
post #138 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

First of all, here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k

I'm game. I fully accept any new standard that wants to step up to the plate, and that companies are willing to make an effort to make work on mobile. The fact remains, however, the web as it is today makes use of flash a lot, so ultimately a mobile device supporting it seamlessly is ideal for a "full web experience."

Well iPhone and palm etc have been around for a while. Like steve job's said, I ain't holding my breath that they can get it to work.

If they do, no problem, I want flash on my phone and ipad if it works and is optimized. The problem with html5 is that it is not on IE yet and IE is 60% of browser traffic is not running html5. I can never design exclusively with html 5 until IE has the numbers when they release new version. This could take years.
post #139 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Again with the porn/ad comment?



Jeesh

Adobe Plays the Porn Card..
post #140 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I doubt it for mobile. It's pre-alpha quality code currently, for one device. They might put out something called a beta, but there likely won't be beta quality code this calendar year, and, again, that's just on one device. Adobe are so far behind in supporting mobile platforms that it's not possible they will ever catch up.



You have no basis for those statements. They are mere conjecture.
post #141 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

Really ? Which one's- Virgin airlines?
Hulu hasn't , NY Times hasn't, porn most definitely hasn't .

If your browser doesn't support HTML5 it falls back to HTML4.01/XHTML1.0 versions of quite a few major sites on the Net.

It's called serving the present and future.
post #142 of 448
I'm no software engineer, but why is it so difficult for Adobe to adhere to the rules that all the other dev's follow that engineer Apps for Apples store products?
post #143 of 448
What a bunch of losers. Adobe? No, the retarded posters in this thread.

Here is how to deal with Flash.

iPhone/iPad = no worries no Flash (STFU)

Mac Book = install click to flash or uninstall Flash plugin (STFU)

Mac Pro = see above (STFU)

Windows = no problem (STFU)

Android = go to the AndroidInsider website (STFU)

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #144 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

[Disney] just redirect you to a version that doesn't need flash to operate. Just like ANY decent site should do.

The internet's content should NOT be locked in a proprietary container. I do not insist that Flash disappear from the web.

I simply would like sites to stop insisting that I need [Flash] to view any of their content. Do they really want to reach me or not?

Fair point, maybe they're just a bunch of lazy buggers?
post #145 of 448
When it comes to allowing Flash apps to be compiled cross-platform, including for iPhone, I am 100% with Apple on this one. Reliance on 3rd party development tools is why it took for-freakin-ever for Adobe's apps to come to Mac OS X. And it's why so many of the basic freebie OS X features that Cocoa apps can tap into didn't exist in Adobe apps forever (and still don't in some cases). And it's why it took them years again to transition their apps to Intel processors, where had they listened to Apple four years before that when they were highly recommending everyone build their apps with xCode, it would have been a relatively quick and painless transition.

When Apple rolls out new iPhone/iPad APIs like multitasking, I don't want to have to wait 18 months before any of my apps can use it because it takes 12 months for the 3rd party tools they depend on to implement the APIs.

Apple introduces new features at a keynote, and the developer tools are available that afternoon. I'd prefer it stayed that way.
post #146 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

I'm no software engineer, but why is it so difficult for Adobe to adhere to the rules that all the other dev's follow that engineer Apps for Apples store products?


We're not talking about apps. Apps ain't got nothing to do with the situation.

That is the answer to your question.
post #147 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

that isn't rue based on adobe's recent -public- beta of flash player for mac, which runs extremely well.

If a criminal reforms, does that erase all of his past crimes? Adobe's recent work on the Mac version seems to be in response to all the negative attention it's gotten lately. Their development history has been terrible. Just read the comments from users on software download sites.

And try asking Linux users about Adobe's support for their platform.
post #148 of 448
Any time any company ever trots out the phase "this is about freedom for our customer" or any slight variation thereof, you have to turn in the opposite and run away. It is a lie, plain and simple, and a cynical one to boot.

Additionally, Adobe is the same company that (for its reasons) killed off Framemaker on the Mac, forcing people who use it on a daily basis initially to run it in Classic. CLASSIC. This farce went on for some time until the product completely disappeared. Those who use it were not given the "freedom of choice" between it and InDesign: they were *forced* into the freedom of using InDesign.

Puh-leeze.
post #149 of 448
Just saw Abobe's self-serving ad on the back page of today's L.A. Times Business section. Just for yuks I went to the web address they published. As I suspected there was no way for me to respond there. The meta message is this: listen to what we are telling you, we don't want to hear what you have to say back.

As for the so-called freedom of choice they espouse: I choose to use Apple products because they are free from cheap-ass one size fits all apps that you promote with your "code only once" philosophy.

If you don't like the rules in Apple's game, play a different game.

Let the marketplace decide who's ultimately right and wrong in this debate.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #150 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac View Post

wow this must be hurting adobe

funny, there are taking away my rights the experience the web!... need i mention xp64,vista64, windows7 64bit plugins?... where are they? (and how about the full plugin on any other phone product?)

if we are to trust adobe to honour "the freedom to produce, view and experience" the web GODs that are adobe... I WANT THE 64 BIT PLUGINS... if adobe can not do that they should fade and blow away!

btw the only thing worth while for flash is "farm ville" the rest is video (x263) (which i'm sure adobe wants a fee from apple if it was placed on the pod devices...

so just fade and blow away!.
post #151 of 448
An entire ad campaign about how they want Apple to support Flash?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You have no way of knowing what those people knew, or didn't know.

Your assertion is mere wishful thinking.

I think we can be pretty sure most of them knew. Most people aren't that stupid.
I am the Great Bug

:-P
Reply
I am the Great Bug

:-P
Reply
post #152 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

??? Meanwhile Steve Jobs' Disney website it chock full of FLASH.

Uhhh...Millions of people on Mac and Windows computers surf to Disney. It starts with the iPhone OS. PC's later.
post #153 of 448
@Steve/chronster/Groovetube

You're the one guy Adobe has hired to work on Flash for Mac aren't you? Shouldn't you stop playing around on AI and go back to work? Hummm?
post #154 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

If a criminal reforms, does that erase all of his past crimes? Adobe's recent work on the Mac version seems to be in response to all the negative attention it's gotten lately. Their development history has been terrible. Just read the comments from users on software download sites.

And try asking Linux users about Adobe's support for their platform.

oh now you're going to tell us adobe is a criminal. First we heard that adobe is against choice and is forcing you, to something, not sure what, and now we're comparing them to a criminal.

Well certainly adobe has been pretty lazy in regards to the mac platform. If people don't want to give them another shake, well, that's their choice.

it's called uninstall the plugin. clap your hands, yer done.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #155 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac View Post

wow this must be hurting adobe

This should be considered counter terrorism.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #156 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicMac View Post

@Steve/chronster/Groovetube

You're the one guy Adobe has hired to work on Flash for Mac aren't you? Shouldn't you stop playing around on AI and go back to work? Hummm?

yeah see it all comes down to that doesn't it. When you can't discuss the issue head on, just either call them a liar, or adobe shill.


classic.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #157 of 448
Translation of Adobe's new anti-Apple campaign: We are now officially scared.
post #158 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

Any time any company ever trots out the phase "this is about freedom for our customer" or any slight variation thereof, you have to turn in the opposite and run away. It is a lie, plain and simple, and a cynical one to boot.

Additionally, Adobe is the same company that (for its reasons) killed off Framemaker on the Mac, forcing people who use it on a daily basis initially to run it in Classic. CLASSIC. This farce went on for some time until the product completely disappeared. Those who use it were not given the "freedom of choice" between it and InDesign: they were *forced* into the freedom of using InDesign.

Puh-leeze.

oh yeah like that's kinda like when apple bought eMagic and said scrw you peecee users, getta mac or eat it.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #159 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Did you read Adobe's letter?

In it Adobe is accusing Apple of restricting people's "freedom" by not "allowing" Flash on their mobile devices, thus not enabling them the "choice" to access Flash content on the Internet.

Did you read my open letter?

In it I detailed my failed attempt to download Adobe's Flash Player software to an Android 1.6 device (HTC Magic) due to the platform being unsupported by Adobe.

Now if Adobe is accusing Apple of denying people "freedom" and "choice" by not allowing the Flash Player software on iPhone OS, what's Adobe doing by not allowing the Flash Player on my Android 1.6 device?

Aren't they denying me my "freedom" and "choice" under their own definition?

Remember it was Adobe defining these things in their letter.

Android 2.1+ devices will be flash capable. Updates are slowly coming out, but they're coming out for those older android devices to bring them up on the new android releases. It's not a great system, but it's better than no flash ever which is the system apple's playing by.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #160 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I'm game. I fully accept any new standard that wants to step up to the plate, and that companies are willing to make an effort to make work on mobile. The fact remains, however, the web as it is today makes use of flash a lot, so ultimately a mobile device supporting it seamlessly is ideal for a "full web experience."

Ideals, and hopes for "ultimately" or "eventually" are well and good ... if the reality support them. Or, if the history of the company provides any guidance that it will be so. I doubt that may become the case for Adobe.

One reality. How long had mobile devices been around? How come until now Adobe has not yet created a Flash that by now should have been already optimized for mobile devices?

If I understood the reports correctly, Adobe had been working on a mobile version of Flash that should come out in 2009. If I have to speculate, this move by Adobe was prompted mainly by the decision of Apple/Steve Jobs to exclude Flash completely. Before that obviously, Adobe completely ignored the research and innovations to create Flash that would work with mobile devices. That would mean writing the script for the ARM technologyl something that supposedly has not done more than likely prior to Apple's gambit.

Now, trying furiously to catch up for its neglect, Adobe;s Flash for mobile devices has been delayed again, perhaps later this year, and that may be a big if. They are still in beta version. The long delay in upgrades, if it will do it at all is typical of Adobe. I should know, I am a victim of such neglect by Adobe. Many Mac users have their own stories to shares, albeit anecdotally.

You bet Steve Jobs and Apple have issues with Adobe and its conscious neglect of the needs of Apple productsl; simply because it was not big enough for Adobe which concentrated its effort on Wintel compatibility and upgrades. If it ever created or upgraded any of its Mac-centric products, they were at best suited for second-class citizens.

Steve Jobs is determined not to be at the mercy of Adobe again, especially now that Apple has the upperhand. It is a risky gambit that Apple/Steve Jobs is playing. If it fails, Apple may again suffer the fate it had with the desktop computing.

But, if Steve Jobs had to choose between "Control" and "market share", it will always choose more "Control" to steer the direction Apple had to navigate, from hereon. And so far, even if it is a significant but still a "minority" (as opposed to a monopoly), Apple remains the game changer in every market it has entered so far, since Steve Jobs came back to Apple.

As such, Apple can and will try to define how the direction of mobile computing and consumer products in the near future, at least. So far, the companies and movers in the industries that matter seem to be following or at least conceding to Apple's/Steve Job's view. This time, it is either for Adobe to follow the rules or be left behind. Adobe cannot dictate, as it seems it is trying to do.

And contrary to your assertion that beta version when demonstrated in public by the Adobe evangelist himself crashed the Android Nexus One. He could have chosen a better example, or even better chosen several example; but was not prepared for such a possibility. This may be emblematic of how Adobe, or at least some of its staff, an evangelist at that tackle the challenges they must deal with.

One more thing, Adobe Flash is not universal as being bandied. The mobile phones and other mobile computing devices are a good subset of where it is not at present, not a participant. Even in browser-based internet, many sites do not employ Flash. And, to reiterate, many of the more influential sites are gradually conceding to provide alternatives to Flash -- because Steve Jobs/Apple mobile computing devices (customers) mandated that it be so.

Is it fair? Steve Jobs and many Mac users believe so.

And for many companies, including the porn industry, and developers, the main question they had to ask was: Is it profitable? Many acted accordingly.

Obviously, companies that would wish to derail Apple are trying their best to come up with a counter strategy. If Adobe will serve their goal to derail Apple, they will grasp this option to do so.

However, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that companies like Google, plan to provide Flash for reason of fairness, openness or some other more altruistic reasons. Very convincing argument: Google and many tech companies did not even blink to trample on the rights of many Chinese and citizens of other countries -- to be abke to do business in these countries. If Google changed its mind recently and shut down its internet offices in China, it is most likely not because of seeing the light. for one thing, it still maintains its offices in Hongkong, which is still China, not just mainland China,

CGC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe fires back at Apple with open letter, new ad campaign