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 9

post #321 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're the one claiming it's proven so we want you to prove it. Pretty fraking straightforward.

No one here has made claims about unannounced products so we wouldn't say that the next iPhone or iPad will or won't be better.

Most of here like to use facts that are backed up. You should try it sometime.

fraking eh. Well here's the post that tells me you're just screwing around.

Show where I said it was "proven". I have tried telling you too many times, that all I have now, is what I've seen, and hear from other developers.

All you do is continually call me a liar. Intelligent eh?

Sorry.
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 #322 of 448
Adobe have got some cheek.

Really.

Flash, for me, starting life as an animation too. For cheap ads. It's proprietary. And it's irritating to go to a website. Be told you need to download flash from Adobe's site. Download it. Install it. Then watch it take a lumbering stab at your system's resources. It's a rickety old program. And the ads are largely annoying 'look at me now - click go way BS.' I don't see this 'liberating' argument Adobe are pressing for. H.264 seems a better codec to me.

Apple's site works just well without flash.

I like going to a website that just works...with out being have to install flash.

Adobe could have made flash about authoring. Creative tools. But, the hypocrisy in their 'bleat' is that it isn't about flash as a creative tool, for me. It's about flash being a 'standard.'

Adobe. Get off your lazy ass. Get back to authoring tools (the ones that are currently riddled with bugs or are sub par to the pc versions. And make flash an authoring tool that supports an open standard like HTML 5 rather than needing a proprietary plug in like flash to play.

Times are a changing. Adobe had 3 years to make flash 'lite' for the iPhone. But what have they done? Where is it? Why are they bleating over vapourware? I don't want their middleware. I want developers to use Apple tools and code directly and optimise for Apple's kit. The days of crap game ports, crap Adobe ports are coming to an end. The old Microsoft/Adobe treat Mac users like 2nd class citizens desktop hegemony is over. It's about at an end.

Take a good, loooong look at the iPad, Adobe. It's going to blow you, Microsoft and Google away.

Microsoft. Don't need office. I use iWorks. Expensive program versus a far better, cheaper and easier to use and more powerful program in my mind. Oh. And it doesn't have an irritating quagmire of an interface.

Adobe. Don't need Photoshop. Will use Manga Studio. Painter. Lightwave. Pixelmator. All of them far cheaper than buying the Design Extended 'up myself' rip off price suite...for the mere few 'big' features that are buggy or don't work as well as expected. With Digital Printing, the need for Photoshop is less pressing. I like Photoshop. But Adobe have sat on it's creative monopoly for far to long. Just as they did with flash.

It's time for change. Adobe and Microsoft thought they could just transfer their desktop monopoly into the 'true' mobile age. They were wrong. They're going to have to earn it. Unfortunately for them. That means innovating. Something neither company has done very well.

Adobe say they want middleware democracy at the same time they give the Mac crap ports.
They insinuate that Apple is a monopoly while they bought Macromedia and pulled Freehand, a program many argued was far better than Illustrator. The lack of competition has led to high prices and slow progress.

Why should Apple support Adobe when Adobe has taken 10 years to get around to supporting Apple's Cocoa? F*ck Adobe. All the while, Mac users treating as the ginger haired step child with feature omission, pulled software of slow to port bug riddled versions.

Apple created 'Funhouse' with Gpu accelerated features/filters. Didn't Adobe incorporate it? No. That was years ago. No. Because there policy isn't even keeping things equal. They don't take advantage of Apple's initiatives because they're a windows shop and have been for some time.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #323 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToomeyND View Post

Except crash your mac. The open standards can't do that. SO THERE!

I've never had flash crash my Mac before, it has crash Safari several times, but never my Mac. But then again, I have had the HTML5 version of YouTube crash Safari several times as well.
post #324 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

oh I think with this person reasonable discussion clearly isn't possible. This one called me a liar and adobe shill some time ago.

If someone wants to have some reasonable discussion I'm all good for it.

well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.
post #325 of 448
Hey it's Adobe's definition, not mine.

It's right there in their whiny, self-pity filled letter.

Adobe can go f**k themselves for this latest idiotic stunt.

Maybe you should read their letter, it's pretty obvious you haven't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #326 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.

when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.

He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.

This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
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 #327 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Hey it's Adobe's definition, not mine.

It's right there in their whiny, self-pity filled letter.

Adobe can go f**k themselves for this latest idiotic stunt.

Maybe you should read their letter, it's pretty obvious you haven't.

you like the letter put out by your fav company.

I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)

Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
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 #328 of 448
Why is it better?

Adobe can go f**k themselves.

I've been sick of dealing with their s**t software since I installed 64 bit Linux in 2004.

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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #329 of 448
post #330 of 448
So what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

In the context of this thread regarding Adobe's whiny, self serving claptrap, which they are heavily promoting across the media and the web. it's irrelevant.

I saw their banners before I even came to this site, even though I use click to Flash on my Mac, you see even Adobe understands that to reach more people YOU DON'T USE FLASH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

you like the letter put out by your fav company.

I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)

Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #331 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

could you look at the source code if it were flash?

You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.

In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

but you'd need to support all of them. It seems like things have gotten worse here as a developer.

No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.

Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

oh so you finally admit, that things aren't worked out, it's a draft.

Do you have a timeline as to when developers can use this to target all browsers at once? When will this actually "kill flash" on the desktop?

Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.

Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).

I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Code:



-webkit-animation-name: x-spin;
-webkit-animation-duration: 7s;
-webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;
-webkit-animation-timing-function: linear;



What part of this code is not webkit proprietary code. Like I said LOOK at the source code it is webkit only all over the place

Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.

The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Q, is html5 a standard yet? no

is CSS3 a standard yet? no

....

nd then, in the next breath, you complain that flash player isn't out of beta. It's a stupid flawed arguement.

http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-technology-drafts

Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.

Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no

As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.

Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.
post #332 of 448
Truth is like a Trillion candle watt power spot light on a moonless night.

iGrumble, your post just lit up the night!
post #333 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.

He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.

This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'

i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.

you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).

i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.

you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.

by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.

if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.
post #334 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrumble View Post

You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.

In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.



No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.

Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.



Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.

Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).

I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.



Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.

The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.



http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-technology-drafts

Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.

Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no

As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.

Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.

what's your point really? You are reiterating things we already know.

What I'm driving at, is the ones saying html5 is killing flash. present tense. Generally they back right quickly, because all that's currently happening is some high profile sites are turning to html5 video instead of flash video. Not surprising really.

Im well aware of the timeline, which why I brought it up. I've been reminded 500 times that flash is beta atm, yet html5 is ready for primetime? Oh then we get to s-some- of html5 is ready. But when is te flash killer stuff, you know, beyond the video tag ready fro prime time across all major borwsers (who the hell uses lynx anyway???)

It's like playing telephone in here for god's sake.
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 #335 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

When it does finally drop — 3+ years after Adobe said they have Flash for iPhone ready — won't it only work on just two phones, the Nexus One and Droid Incredible?

Sprint EVO 4G will be eligible as well, which comes out June 4th.


Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

yep. but what I really love is Adobe's stance that Apple is taking a step back, restricting the web etc.

And yet they love Apple. they are willing to 'dance with the devil', going for the money instead of saying that they feel so strongly about what they perceive as a cult of censorship that they are halting all Mac development and updates until Apple reverses their opinion.


Considering that CS5 has a lot of problems with the Mac build (as stated in several threads I've read about this topic recently), Adobe would be opening themselves to a massive classaction lawsuit if they said they were going to stop supporting the Mac side of their software effective immediately.
post #336 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.

you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).

i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.

you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.

by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.

if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.

noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.

I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
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 #337 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.

I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.

oh goody...

now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.

i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?

would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
post #338 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Fearing View Post

Elitist? That if you work in technology you might want to learn, like, programming? And just maybe a variety of languages? So learning things and being educated and having the ability to work at a lower level on a system is elitist?

Weird. I'd say it;'s the opposite. It supports those who are most able to compete. It's only elitist if you consider competition elitist.

No, my point was that it's elitist (and arrogant) to assume that everyone should switch to programming in Objective C just because Apple doesn't think your final product is good enough. Or because their time commitment should equal your time commitment. Developers may already be proficient in HTML and Javascript and want to continue using those technologies because they are web developers.

In other words, there's more than one way to make an iPhone/iPad app and it's silly to presume that people don't do so in Objective C because they are ignorant or uneducated. Time and comfort level with the tools at hand are huge factors. When I went to school in the 80's I was taught Pascal, yet I would be ridiculed if I went around saying people should program in Pascal only. I mean hell, why not go teach yourself assembly language if you really want to work on a lower level of the system?
post #339 of 448
deleted
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
post #340 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

I'm so glad I bought a new 13" MacBook Pro that plays flash rather than an iPad that doesn't.
For $300 more I got the whole kit and kaboodle.

Wow you said "for $300 more", sounds like you got a great deal on your new MBP 13". As of May 13th, 2010 the MBP 13" starts at $1199 and the iPad starts at $499.

$1199-499 = $700 difference.

How do you figure it was only $300 more for a 13" MBP then a iPad?

Also, how are you comparing a 1.5 lb 9.5"x7.5" touch screen device to a 5.6 lb 14"x10" fully loaded laptop?
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
Mac Fantatic & web designer: http://www.modernmagic.com
http://www.about.me/jeffmayland http://www.modellabs.comhttp://www.primocraft.com2.53/4GB Macbook Pro 15", Mac Mini HTPC, iphone4,iphone1
Reply
post #341 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solar View Post

Adobe Plays the Porn Card..

LOL! Thanks for the link. I think it's funny but now I see where all the comments about porn are coming from
post #342 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

obviously, you don't run a web shop.

Why don't you link to some of your better sites...

... 2-3 should should showcase your work?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #343 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

oh goody...

now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.

i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?

would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?

Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.
post #344 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.

i realise that. but if you develop in flash, it's your responsibility to make that happen, correct? if you make the choice to use flash for a complete site, you have to jump through a few extra hoops to make it behave as expected by a client, ie. show up in a google search. it doesn't happen by itself through adobe magic...
post #345 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

oh goody...

now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.

i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?

would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?

I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.

Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.

Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.

Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.

I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.
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 #346 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Why don't you link to some of your better sites...

... 2-3 should should showcase your work?

.

after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.
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 #347 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofino View Post

well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.

+++++++ qft
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #348 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrumble View Post

Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.

Thank you for your informative reply. I guess the reason it doesn't work in FF is because it is "vendor specific" to webkit not proprietary as I may have misspoken. Nevertheless, since that code as written, is not recognized universally, in order for it to work in other browsers, a developer would have code redundantly using the equivalent vendor specific prefixes for any other browsers they wish to target, assuming that the targeted browser does in fact implement the desired feature.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #349 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.

He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.

This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'

Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!

Let's see do we know of anyone here who:

1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above

If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #350 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!

Let's see do we know of anyone here who:

1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above

If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?

.

yes you've said this before. However, you've never actually pointed how, I'm a troll. Trolls aren't limited to new members, on another mac site I have been a member of since 2003, there's a number of trolls, who have been there for quite sometime.

The guy you just love read has consistently, misrepresented what I said many times over, and has asserted several times I said something, when I didn't I asked several times to point out where, never to get a response.

That sir, IS A TROLL.

And here is a good example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're the one claiming it's proven so we want you to prove it. Pretty fraking straightforward.

No one here has made claims about unannounced products so we wouldn't say that the next iPhone or iPad will or won't be better.

Most of here like to use facts that are backed up. You should try it sometime.

I asked him where I said that. He comes up with all these things I apparently said, but I never said them. I said all along, I saw the beta player on a phone, it looked good to me, and beyond that and hearing reports from other developers, I have no proof. And I never hear back. Funny.

That, is a TROLL.
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 #351 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.

Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.

Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.

Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.

I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.

... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...

the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.

i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?

i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.

that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.
post #352 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...

the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.

i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?

i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.

that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.

ok, say you're presented with the project.

How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?

And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.
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 #353 of 448
What a load of crap. "Freedom" on the web, I got two issues with that:
1. They are appealing to american core "value" of freedom even though this issue has nothing to do with freedom.
2. The web is only free if there is a free or at least open standard like HTML5 to serve content.

The way I see this is just trying to make an issue about freedom and make uninformed people believe that this is some sort of moral issue. In fact this is a technology issue. One technology is closed and proprietary, another more open (h.264 is still proprietary, but not HTML tags). One technology has fallen behind and is a resource hog, another is forward looking with a lot of potential and is less resource intensive.

Just like my signiture says Adobe has 2 options - drastically improve flash and FAST or get out of the internet to be replaced by an internet standard.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #354 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube

obviously, you don't run a web shop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.

I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Why don't you link to some of your better sites...

... 2-3 should should showcase your work?

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.


Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."

And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."

But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.

If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!

Is that unreasonable?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #355 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."

And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."

But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.

If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!

Is that unreasonable?

.

since you've worked in the industry, or have, you know very well the reason. I don't think they would appreciate being highlighted in the middle of a ridiculous forum spate in public. I speak for myself, not them.

I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.

I don't think though, being a little dismissive, is the same as asserting someone said something over and over again when obviously, they didn't.

Do you?
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 #356 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

ok, say you're presented with the project.

How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?

And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.

i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...

in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).

now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...

i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.

flash is on its way out. no big deal.

oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.
post #357 of 448
"Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen responded by saying that Adobe views the world as multi-platform and open, while Apple does not. He also said that Mac OS X crashes involving Flash are the fault of "the Apple operating system,"

If you read about how deeply the Flash plug-in hooks into the OS - WAY different from any other browser plug-in - then you realize that this CEO is full of $hit!

Also, read about how the Adobe Creative Suite also does the same. It's the only 3rd party software that Apple allows access to EFI and launchd.
post #358 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

snip

I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.

snip?

i do invite you to go back to post you dismissed, and tell me where that applies...
post #359 of 448
I'm getting tired of this. Apple should just put up the five billion and take control of Adobe.
post #360 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...

in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).

now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...

i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.

flash is on its way out. no big deal.

oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.

ok granted, it's your opinion. I don't personally know of anyway to recreate that though there are likely ways you possibly could, I don't know.

But, putting that question aside, why not flash is their question. I was able to produce it pretty quickly, and under budget, and gave them a hell of a presentation. Their target are people with flash on their desktops, and they've indicated interest in a mobile version down the road. If I'm asked, I will suggest NOT flash, that I can assure you.

Issues facing me, are not only just what technology and what's cool to use or not, but which one offers me the best platform to do it efficiently and on budget. Often with requirements like those ones, I'm afraid flash often will fit that bill. It isn't like I use flash just cause I wanna...

I'll use whatever the hell works and gets me a paycheque. And, at the end of the day, regardless of all the banter here, and on other forums, that's what will drive developers like myself to either use, or not use flash, not cause we -think- it's cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta View Post

I'm getting tired of this. Apple should just put up the five billion and take control of Adobe.

you know I had said once that I thought that would be a really really bad idea. But after all this crap and hellabaloo, perhaps that would be the best thing.

Yeah I just said htat.
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
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