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 6

post #201 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

oh yeah like that's kinda like when apple bought eMagic and said scrw you peecee users, getta mac or eat it.

It's not like it at all since Apple isn't falsely claiming it's the supporter of choice in cases where it's clearly not.
post #202 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

Android 2.1+ devices will be flash capable.

There's no way you can no whether this will actually be the case unless you are directly involved in the development, which I doubt. In which case, it's simply meaningless propaganda.
post #203 of 448
Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software? Are there any non-Adobe flash plug-ins? I recall one open source group that had to abandon such a plug-in due to threats from Adobe. Then what is this about openness? I have no problem with closed implementations of open standards, open standards means that other groups can make their own implementations.

Whatever. This whole fight looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If Adobe can have control over the Flash platform, then why can't Apple have their own control of the iOS platform? Those whose goal is to have open platforms, then their choice is something else entirely. That might be an Android device, but to be consistent, also disable and remove flash.
post #204 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's not like it at all since Apple isn't falsely claiming it's the supporter of choice in cases where it's clearly not.

pfffft.

Sure. Good for apple, bad for adobe right.

Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
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 #205 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software? Are there any non-Adobe flash plug-ins? I recall one open source group that had to abandon such a plug-in due to threats from Adobe. Then what is this about openness? I have no problem with closed implementations of open standards, open standards means that other groups can make their own implementations.

what threats.

It was said it wasn't open, and that's bullcrap. It is open, and anyone can develop their own.

This isn't about so much defending adobe, it's stating the truth. Adobe was a lazy sob in the world of mobile, and they're taking their lumps. They have a lot to prove, and we'll see how that plays out. I don't care if someone hates flash, that's their choice. But stop with the BS already.
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 #206 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

The FULL swf spec is NOT open. One of the things that open source players can't access is the verification portion. That has stopped them from accessing the BBC's iPlayer videos.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...01/bbc-iplayer

Another point: just publishing the SWF specs does not make it "open source" or "open".

Imagine developing a player for the "open" SWF specs, but then Adobe keeps changing them in ways you cannot predict or support ??

True open source involves a committee and a modicum of democracy.

That is why there are so few third-party SWF players. What a potentially colossal risk and waste of time.
post #207 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software?

Yes

Keynote 4 exports as Flash. I haven't upgraded yet but I'm sure the new one doesn't. Wonder why...

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #208 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosswell View Post

Another point: just publishing the SWF specs does not make it "open source" or "open".

Imagine developing a player for the "open" SWF specs, but then Adobe keeps changing them in ways you cannot predict or support ??

I think the purpose of publishing the spec is so developers can export as swf from their application and it will run in Adobe Flash player. The spec they published is Flash 6 I think something old though, certainly not Flash 9.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #209 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.

That's because you refuse to even listen to anyone who says anything against Adobe. I'll spell it out for you AGAIN:

1. Adobe says that Flash is needed for the 'Full Internet'
2. Only Adobe can write Flash plugins or other Flash software.
3. There is no Flash for mobile devices, and even if 10.1 comes out and meets expectations, it will only serve a tiny fraction of mobile devices - so the vast majority of mobile devices won't have flash.
4. Because of #2, Adobe is the only one who can address #3.

Therefore, Adobe is keeping people from accessing the full internet - by their own definitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

We get it... you love Flash and no doubt make a pretty penny 'developing' in it.

My point is that the only people who passionately 'need' Flash are those who
1) want their porn
2) want to bombard us with annoying jumping ads, and
3) want to play primitive games like Farmville.
.

You left out:
4. Pseudo developers who really don't know how to code, but have learned how to do Flash animations while refusing to learn html 5, Objective C, etc. This seems to be the loudest group in the whole issue, particularly with regard to the App Store. These 'developers' are too lazy to learn to code properly and want to create a Flash program and sell it on all platforms with no work on their part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvidal View Post

The whole web isn't going to change to HTML5 because of Steve Jobs, it'll change because of Flash. Flash has been a bad choice since the start of it,

Frankly, I don't think Apple cares if people stop using Flash because Jobs said so, or because it's an inherently bad technology, or because Jobs said it's an inherently bad technology. Apple simply wants people to migrate to open standards - regardless of their reason for doing so.
"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 #210 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

check my sig

I did,

Quote:
"It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash. They're mutually beneficial. The more important question is the freedom of choice on the Web."

a) They aren't mutually beneficial.

b) It's not about freedom of choice on the web. There has almost never been any freedom of choice on the web. Content providers choose what to provide, and content consumers consume what is provided. I'd like it if the New York Times provided a prominent link to Paul Krugman's column at the top left of their home page, but that's not my choice. It's also not my choice whether they start charging for content or not. Nor is it my choice what formats they make media available in. Trying to frame this issue as being about user choice is nothing but blue smoke and mirrors.
post #211 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

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.

If the shoe fits, you should wear it, Adobe shill.
post #212 of 448
Adobe should be ashamed of themselves, they never responded to any of the key points presented in the letter Steve Jobs wrote on the Apple website. They did not offer any solutions, they only used smokes and mirrors to appeal to the ignorant masses that have no real technical clue as to why things are in their current mess. I really do not see any good outcome of this debacle for Adobe, they will be left behind by technology that is moving forward in media presentation/delivery.
post #213 of 448
And this from a company that over charges for the likes of Photoshop, makes it almost impossible to transfer a license because their "customer non-service" staff is almost impossible to understand and unhelpful. It must be a strategy to prevent legal exchanges and force people to buy full versions. Sound like a bazaar and not a modern business practice. There was so much discord internally with many staff members disgusted that Adobe deemed CS4 a new release with minimal benefits.

I think I'll toss my vote to Apple.
post #214 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

If the shoe fits, you should wear it, Adobe shill.

yeah that's pretty much about the only response I've seen.

If you can't present facts, call 'em an adobe shill eh?
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 #215 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

pfffft.

Sure. Good for apple, bad for adobe right.

Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.

Choice is a red herring, but Adobe is the one trumpeting their support for choice when their history is the contrary. The fact is, Flash isn't open, using it or not has nothing to do with choice for users, and it's entirely dishonest of Adobe or anyone to suggest that it does.
post #216 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

The 10.1 Beta is out, or will be very soon. They are working.

w00t! any day now it will be in beta!
post #217 of 448
Okay, I love the banter back and forth. People see a word and get stuck on it. Then the whole argument derails on both sides because people take it personally for some strange reason.

Anywhooo....


Adobe seems to have the position that they want a product that is easy to write for multiple platforms and not be "stuck" or "limited" based on your "choice" of what you bought.

All the arguments here seem to indicate that Flash does not in fact meet or reach this goal. Does it run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - no. Does HTML5 run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - seems to (I could be wrong).

People claim Flash works on platform X. So what. Many are proving that it doesn't, or has major issues. The point is that Adobe seems to be claiming that their clearly proprietary Flash is the "java" of the web. Write once and it just works on whatever you have.

The truth seems to be that it does not in fact do this and people in droves are trying, or moving to alternatives.

Am I totally off in this?

There are many nuances of this whole debate and I know you trolls like to try and focus on just one or two. I chose to focus on the overall in my statement here. Adobe claims to be multi-platform and device independent, but I am not seeing that.


As for Apple being proprietary, yes they are and no they are not. Apple has created a lot of closed environments for sure. And they maintain those as they see fit. 100% support from me on their choice to do this. I can choose not to buy it if I don't want to.

They have also turned over a multitude of technologies to Open Standards boards. In a few cases they have even released it back to Open Source (a totally different term for those that can not differentiate between the two). More than we know. Some of it has been adopted and some of it has been shunned. Regardless, they still released it from their "proprietary" control. Prove that statement wrong.

To me that clearly makes an attack on them being labelled "closed" a little childish. Be specific and I can agree with you. Otherwise you are just proving how obtuse you are.
post #218 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

That is like Toyota saying "We love the American National Highway Association." What we don't love is someone interfering with your right to experience uncontrolled acceleration while on fire.

Best

Analogy

Ever!

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #219 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcat View Post

A major British newspaper's (the Independent) website not only uses flash
throughout but also embeds advertising links in the text every so
often so you can't copy and paste the text into Mail (you have to pay
to be able to e-mail an article from their website)

And that's why I just don't read the independent! I wish the BBC would get rid of Flash though
post #220 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgav View Post

I use clicktoflash on my MacBook Pro, the only problem I see with the more and more website adopting HTML5 and abandoning Flash is I won't be able to block banner ads as easily in Safari.

The creators of Click2Flash detect requests for Flash content and immobilize them. They do this by examining the HTML code and requests to the server.

It is a little more difficult, but not impossible, to do the same with non-Flash content...

It's called "harvesting" or "screen scraping"!

If HTML5 sites become inundated with undesirable/intrusive content, someone will, likely, create a "Click2Block" tool for that content.


I know I'd buy it!


One macro approach would be to isolate and immobilize (with a gray box) any server requests to a different server than the one where the current page resides. Most ad content is delivered from 3rd party servers. That's one reason that a page with lots of ads loads slowly:


1 request-respose (client-server) to load the page*

multiple request-response pairs to load all the ads

Depending on bandwidth, connection speed, and web traffic a request-response pair can take as little as 1/2 second or many, many seconds.


* It's a bit more involved, as request-response pairs are also used to load images, JavaScript and CSS. But, sans ads, most well-designed pages can be fully loaded with 2-3 request-response pairs plus a couple more for images.


It's ironic, that these sites with ads are wasting our time, (battery and data minutes on cell), costing us money-- so they can deluge us with unwanted advertising.


...It is like paying to watch commercials!


If i visit a site that takes more than a few seconds to display, or contains a lot of unrelated cruft... I just move on.

I particularly avoid those tech sites with the slide shows of "15 ways that whatever will change the web".

I really enjoy the calm and serenity of a Click2Flash page render... and I can easily determine whether the motivation is only to get me to buy something!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #221 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

Postulant- dude I have no idea what you're talking about.

So are you saying that Apple supports Flash for the web now and just not for mobile devices?

Yep, in a nutshell. That's pretty much it. You got it right
post #222 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's because you refuse to even listen to anyone who says anything against Adobe. I'll spell it out for you AGAIN:

1. Adobe says that Flash is needed for the 'Full Internet'
2. Only Adobe can write Flash plugins or other Flash software.
3. There is no Flash for mobile devices, and even if 10.1 comes out and meets expectations, it will only serve a tiny fraction of mobile devices - so the vast majority of mobile devices won't have flash.
4. Because of #2, Adobe is the only one who can address #3.

Therefore, Adobe is keeping people from accessing the full internet - by their own definitions.



You left out:
4. Pseudo developers who really don't know how to code, but have learned how to do Flash animations while refusing to learn html 5, Objective C, etc. This seems to be the loudest group in the whole issue, particularly with regard to the App Store. These 'developers' are too lazy to learn to code properly and want to create a Flash program and sell it on all platforms with no work on their part.



Frankly, I don't think Apple cares if people stop using Flash because Jobs said so, or because it's an inherently bad technology, or because Jobs said it's an inherently bad technology. Apple simply wants people to migrate to open standards - regardless of their reason for doing so.

I have said things 'against adobe' myself. But you can't read, can you.

I'm for fair balanced discussion based on facts, not a bunch shrieking flash haters who can't get their story straight. If you don't like what is said, then you just call people adobe shills.

Intelligent.

I'm sorry I listen to people who have relevant facts on the issue. Not someone who just keeps repeating the same Bs over and over like any cares.
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 #223 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by dick applebaum View Post

yeah... My local store has them all bookmarked, so they can easily demonstrate the....

.

I, for one, am all about demonstrating.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #224 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Yep, in a nutshell. That's pretty much it. You got it right

it is if you have head shoved up your backside for the last few months with the coverage on how adobe is close to releasing their first player for mobile I guess.
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 #225 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

it is if you have head shoved up your backside for the last few months with the coverage on how adobe is close to releasing their first player for mobile I guess.

They've been "close" for years. Until it's released, and shown to work flawlessly, without sucking the life out of the battery, it's vaporware.
post #226 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They've been "close" for years. Until it's released, and shown to work flawlessly, without sucking the life out of the battery, it's vaporware.

no they haven't. That's a lie.

They've been lazy as hell and never started developing a good mobile player until much later. See you can't have it both ways.
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 #227 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

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.

until we have a public beta and people can see for themselves how it runs, we really got nuffin'.
post #228 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

One macro approach would be to isolate and immobilize (with a gray box) any server requests to a different server than the one where the current page resides. Most ad content is delivered from 3rd party servers. That's one reason that a page with lots of ads loads slowly:

What ever you do to try to block ads, there will be a workaround developed by the people who have a different agenda. Example: Gordon.js can run Flash ads even on an iPhone and is not detected by Click to Flash, not that many are using that method presently.

Once advertising income is being lost due to blocking, they will just come up with another even more insidious method of delivering them. Kind of makes you wonder how prevalent Flash blocking really is, since the advertisers don't seem to be showing any signs of moving away from Flash to HTML5.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #229 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

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

just because you own stock in a company does not make you the RULER of it SHEESSSSSHHH!@!!

DUMAzz
post #230 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse;

They've been "close" for years. Until it's released, and shown to work flawlessly, without sucking the life out of the battery, it's vaporware.

By the time it's actually released, Apple will have already released Gianduia - burying flash for good.
post #231 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

it is if you have head shoved up your backside for the last few months with the coverage on how adobe is close to releasing their first player for mobile I guess.

adobe pushed back the release of flash for mobile from the beginning of 2009 to later in 2009, to early 2010 to later in 2010. they have claimed that they're getting there for quite some time.
post #232 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

If the shoe fits, you should wear it, Adobe shill.

++

The whole reason Adobe is telling all these lies, and dodging all these questions, is because the only reason they bought Macromedia was for Flash. How much did they pay? 3.4 Billion.

So on one side, you have Apple trying to protect the user experience, and on the other, you have Adobe trying to protect their investment, and their cash cow.

Simple as that.
post #233 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

no they haven't. That's a lie.

They've been lazy as hell and never started developing a good mobile player until much later. See you can't have it both ways.

Well, they say Apple's been keeping them off the iPhone since 2007. You can't have it both ways.
post #234 of 448
It will be interesting moving into 2011 when iPhone OS version 5 will be coming out, the 2nd generation iPad showing its full stride, and Adobe/Flash will be nowhere to be seen on the most popular mobile devices aka iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad.
post #235 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

++

The whole reason Adobe is telling all these lies, and dodging all these questions, is because the only reason they bought Macromedia was for Flash.

And Dreamweaver which is much more widely used than Flash. But you are right about Flash as well. I think the warning shot was Macromedia releasing FlashPaper which converted PDF to Flash.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #236 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookforandrew View Post

Okay, I love the banter back and forth. People see a word and get stuck on it. Then the whole argument derails on both sides because people take it personally for some strange reason.

Anywhooo....


Adobe seems to have the position that they want a product that is easy to write for multiple platforms and not be "stuck" or "limited" based on your "choice" of what you bought.

All the arguments here seem to indicate that Flash does not in fact meet or reach this goal. Does it run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - no. Does HTML5 run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - seems to (I could be wrong).

People claim Flash works on platform X. So what. Many are proving that it doesn't, or has major issues. The point is that Adobe seems to be claiming that their clearly proprietary Flash is the "java" of the web. Write once and it just works on whatever you have.

The truth seems to be that it does not in fact do this and people in droves are trying, or moving to alternatives.

Am I totally off in this?

There are many nuances of this whole debate and I know you trolls like to try and focus on just one or two. I chose to focus on the overall in my statement here. Adobe claims to be multi-platform and device independent, but I am not seeing that.


As for Apple being proprietary, yes they are and no they are not. Apple has created a lot of closed environments for sure. And they maintain those as they see fit. 100% support from me on their choice to do this. I can choose not to buy it if I don't want to.

They have also turned over a multitude of technologies to Open Standards boards. In a few cases they have even released it back to Open Source (a totally different term for those that can not differentiate between the two). More than we know. Some of it has been adopted and some of it has been shunned. Regardless, they still released it from their "proprietary" control. Prove that statement wrong.

To me that clearly makes an attack on them being labelled "closed" a little childish. Be specific and I can agree with you. Otherwise you are just proving how obtuse you are.

Nice 1st post... welcome to the snake pit!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #237 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

The fanboi has no motive to fabricate his own version of truth after the entire webz laughed at him? Seriously?


that's not a valid argument at all. There's nothing that indicates this guy is a "fanboy" or that the prototype DIDN'T have button placement as he described.

What we CAN confirm is that Android gives dialogs when apps crash, and there wasn't one in the video. Why are you ignoring that fact?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

T
So by your definition, mobile users do not have the Full Internet - and it's Adobe's fault for not releasing a version that works on mobile devices.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Ugh. I know you think you've just made some awesome point here, but you didn't.

It's not by "my definition" that users don't have the full internet, it's just a reality that everyone lives with. If you're on an ipad and you're navigating the web, you simply won't see everything (even though Jobs said it's "the best browsing experience of any device" and that includes laptops.)

What I see now is the fruits of Adobe's labor. It's coming together, and no matter how many times people around here want to post the SAME SINGLE video as proof it "crashes" (when in fact, it did not) it seems to be running very well, which flies right in the face of what Steve Jobs told everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

We get it... you love Flash and no doubt make a pretty penny 'developing' in it.

My point is that the only people who passionately 'need' Flash are those who
1) want their porn
2) want to bombard us with annoying jumping ads, and
3) want to play primitive games like Farmville.

And the constant meme from the pro-Flash crowd is that Apple forces you to use a 'crippled internet' (again the hubris) because it doesn't agree with the definition of "The Internet" as the 3 features above.

Do you see what you're doing right now? You're searching for my hidden motives for wanting flash on the iphone OS. You're ignoring the most obvious motive, which is simply to be able to view websites with flash on something like the ipad. Gosh I'm evil! My sinister motives!

As far as porn goes, who cares what someone does in their free time? You really want to use PORN as a reason not to have flash on an ipad? What's the matter with you?

And with games, a lot of them are quite fun time wasters. What's wrong with that?

I see a lot of arguing for the sake of arguing here. That doesn't make a very good discussion does it?.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Actually they did give it a chance. Back when the iPhone first came out Jobs said that they tried to work with Adobe on getting Flash to work and it didn't work. Adobe has taken too long and Apple has moved on to bigger and better.

Well to Adobe's credit, they have admitted an 800mhz cpu is needed, so if they knew then what they know now, they might have told Jobs "some day" and their relationship would have been better for it.

Got a link to anything talking about this attempt at a collaboration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvidal View Post

The whole web isn't going to change to HTML5 because of Steve Jobs, it'll change because of Flash. Flash has been a bad choice since the start of it, just because the ease of use. But Flash is bad to the client, it works horrible with the machine resources and Adobe haven't done anything to optimize it, maybe because it is impossible to make it better just because of its core malfunction. I guess Flash will never work well in mobile devices. It worked horrible in Desktops from 800MHZ under, complete machines with video cards, more RAM and capabilities than those in the Smartphones of today. The Adobe Flash intentions are just an utopia, they can't make it work, and even if they release a full mobile version it will be buggy, crashy and a big drainer, a big bad experience for the end user. And above all that you have that Flash content isn't possible to be indexed, and the efforts to do it are very disappointing, on the other hand HTML5 content is almost full indexable, and that is a really big plus. If I was Adobe I better re-create Flash as the best HTML5 animation compiler, to create banners and export is as HTML5 with JavaScript, that's the job they must have to do RIGHT NOW. Any time they expend trying to justify Flash on the Web is a waste. What could happen is that Apple creates a HTML5 Banner Creator Suite or something like that. Then, Adobe will REALLY, REALLY CRY OUT. Or maybe Apple decides to buy Adobe to straighten things up, who knows, but I don't think so, Adobe represents too many distractions for Apple. Anyway, forget about Flash, the time to begin a switch has come to a start.

Assumptions. You assume it will be bad. I say lets wait and see how it runs before we dismiss it.

The fact remains, however, Jobs is speaking about something he can't possibly know about. If no mobile flash exists, how can Jobs say it will be a battery drain? If Flash works great in Windows, but not in OSX, how can Jobs automatically dismiss it as a resource hog when it's proven it can be far from it?

Think of it this way: Imagine if Jobs left Flash out of OSX because he said it will always be a resource hogging battery drain, but every Windows machine runs it just fine. What would YOU think? That was just coincidence? That Adobe really doesn't know what they're doing but they LUCKED OUT when it came to Windows?

I can't wait to see how it runs in Android so we can finally put this debate to rest. I've never once said it will be great, or horrible, only that it shouldn't be discarded with hopes that everyone on the web will migrate to HTML5. How can anyone not see the logic in that? If Steve Jobs said "Maybe some day" this entire discussion wouldn't be taking place lol
post #238 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You left out:
4. Pseudo developers who really don't know how to code, but have learned how to do Flash animations while refusing to learn html 5, Objective C, etc. This seems to be the loudest group in the whole issue, particularly with regard to the App Store. These 'developers' are too lazy to learn to code properly and want to create a Flash program and sell it on all platforms with no work on their part.

I'm sorry, but are you a software developer? How many programming languages are you comfortable in? How many different platforms could you write software for if that was your task at hand?

I look forward to your response and learning about you.
post #239 of 448
Flash is the Future for web content delivery... always has been, always will be...


That said, let's talk about the present!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #240 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi View Post


Seems to be working pretty well...

That's interesting. So they default to flash on desktop, and html5 for iphone OS. Why didn't they just get rid of Flash? I guess they figured they invested all that time and money, may as well make some use of it.

How does the site handle in OSX? Does it default to html5?
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