or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 'We have never, ever abandoned Apple,' Adobe co-founder says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'We have never, ever abandoned Apple,' Adobe co-founder says - Page 4

post #121 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by err View Post

snip

You blindly bash at adobe, but they do lots of things right, and their dominance in those fields kind of proves my point.

snip

you're making assumptions. i've been using Illustrator and Photoshop since version 1.0 (well, version 88 in illustrator's case).
my living depends on adobe and having seen what they've done over the last ten years to my favourite tools allows me to bash them with my eyes wide open, thank you very much.

adobe's dominance in the market has more to do with them being allowed to acquire macromedia and scuttling their competition.

corel had their chance on the mac, but failed to release a version for so long that by the time they got around to it, nobody cared any more.

the competiton between freehand and illustrator was so productive that many graphic artists used both, myself included.

i've never used indesign since i've also been using quark xpress since 1.0, when the alternative was aldus pagemaker, widely regarded as second grade in the professional world. framemaker was one of the best tools for technical publishing and for long documents that xpress didn't handle well at the time.

the first version of indesign was not suitable for a production environment, since it had severe output problems (to postscript devices of all things! that's kind of a big deal when you're done with a project and need to deliver film).

live picture was a great tool and both a competitor and a complementary tool to photoshop. bought by adobe.

pagemaker is dead. freehand is dead. framemaker is dead.
all died at adobe's hands.
post #122 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeny View Post

With that logic all i need to do is disable all my plug-ins and my browsing experience magnificent

heck, if i dont use my browser at all it will never crash

lynx would be great too if enough sites actually offered text-only versions!
post #123 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I personally don't know very much on the subject of openGL ES, as none of my projects currently would ever use it, but if you google it, you'll find out that player 10.1 will support it. So if a project needs it now, don't consider flash.

But somehow, Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect you wouldn't consider flash player for a project anyway.

Fair enough. Below is a link to an app in development. Normally, I avoid animation, but sometimes it is the best way to get the job done. I started with a table drilldown, but this works and shows better.

This is an app for a friend who will [soon] publish her debut album.

The animation approximates Apple's CoverFlow (a private API). Instead, it is [mostly] OpenGL ES code with an Objective-C package.

Can Flash do this kind of application?

[http://web.me.com/dicklacara/Misc/SS...emo-iPhone.m4v

.
"...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 #124 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca-What-A-Wookie View Post

I wouldn't say that it's simply because HTML 5, CSS 3 and JavaScript are so new (and you probably didnt mean it that way). As a developer, it is very appealing to use a technology like Flash or Silverlight since they will render content and behave exactly the same across the multitude of browsers. Although it would be nice to just use HTML, CSS, JavaScript for building web applications, the idea of making the pages compatible across browsers is appalling. There are even rendering differences between the major web browsers for the new versions (HTML 5 and CSS 3).

This problem will likely be around for quite some time -- until the major web browsers render HTML, apply CSS and execute JavaScript exactly the same. Some of the standards the companies building browsers are trying to support are so complex that it is incredibly hard to have the exact same implementation.


Good post. The design of Flash is very Apple-like in one respect. Flash controls the entire experience inside of its stage. Just like Apple tries to control everything about the iPhone. It is the best way to manage the user experience, without potential undesired side effects from third party interactions. HTML5, JS and CSS are not self contained, they rely on a browser to render the desired result. And all browsers do that rendering slightly different, hence loss of control.

Eventually things will be sorted out with HTML5 but because it is designed by committee it will take a long time before a developer can really rely on it to render exactly the way they intended.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #125 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

In Adobe's defense, Apple is still using plenty of Arbon in their pro suites, iLife and iTunes.

I had assumed that iTunes 9.1 was converted to Cocoa when the list selection method went from unanchored to anchored (pretty sure this happened in 9.1 but I don't have older versions around to verify). Possibly this was just a change made specifically starting with the 9.1.x UI for consistency's sake (and it's still Carbon)?

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #126 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

I had assumed that iTunes 9.1 was converted to Cocoa when the list selection method went from unanchored to anchored (pretty sure this happened in 9.1 but I don't have older versions around to verify). Possibly this was just a change made specifically starting with the 9.1.x UI for consistency's sake (and it's still Carbon)?

I'm guessing that Apple plans on releasing many new apps this year under the 'X' designation. it is two-thousand-ten, but it also seems to be a way to easily market Apps that have been converted to both Cocoa and 64-bit.

iTunes just happens to be coming up to version 10 this year, so I full expect a full Cocoa/64-bit iTunes X to be showcased at the next iTunes/iPod Special Event around September. My only concern about that is the amount of work that is needed for this. It's just a recompile. Look at QT7 over QTX for an example. They will need to have iTunes X ready to play ball with relatively few issues and be very much the same as the current iTunes which is oft described as being too busy and excessive. They can rethink the whole concept but just like with the iPad UI over the iPhone UI, keeping the same familiar elements and functions are important. I think this is a much bigger challenge in many respects than the work they have to do with the iLife and Pro apps. I hope they release a developer Beta but Apple's desire for secrecy tells me that they won't unless they demo it at WWDC.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #127 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Fair enough. Below is a link to an app in development. Normally, I avoid animation, but sometimes it is the best way to get the job done. I started with a table drilldown, but this works and shows better.

This is an app for a friend who will [soon] publish her debut album.

The animation approximates Apple's CoverFlow (a private API). Instead, it is [mostly] OpenGL ES code with an Objective-C package.

Can Flash do this kind of application?

[http://web.me.com/dicklacara/Misc/SS...emo-iPhone.m4v

.

Nice stuff. I think I could write that in Flash but it would be difficult because there are no built in touch functions. Without that you have to write all your own behaviors dragging invisible objects and what not. Flash is definitely not an optimal platform for touch interfaces at this point.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #128 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Fair enough. Below is a link to an app in development. Normally, I avoid animation, but sometimes it is the best way to get the job done. I started with a table drilldown, but this works and shows better.

This is an app for a friend who will [soon] publish her debut album.

The animation approximates Apple's CoverFlow (a private API). Instead, it is [mostly] OpenGL ES code with an Objective-C package.

Can Flash do this kind of application?

[http://web.me.com/dicklacara/Misc/SS...emo-iPhone.m4v

.

from what I saw, yes. I've used coverflow effects in flash when a client requested it. In fact you can find source complete with the shadow effect on the web. I to hack one up to get tied to a drupal backend and spit dynamic text into each "album", instead of an image.

As far as openGL ES, and other features needed for a touchscreen, I can't comment, I have little to no experience in that.

But if you're targeting iphone, flash is a bit of a non starter no?
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 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Good post. The design of Flash is very Apple-like in one respect. Flash controls the entire experience inside of its stage. Just like Apple tries to control everything about the iPhone. It is the best way to manage the user experience, without potential undesired side effects from third party interactions.

snip

in theory that sounds great! in practice it never quite made it there, when 'undesired side effects' include serious problems on all platform but windows. \

i just don't think that adobe is up to the task to fulfill the promise that was flash. implementation on all platforms is too big a job.
post #130 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

If the company doesn't have their head in the sand and sees how the % of people still limited to IE 6 and 7 is eroding monthly, then why would they restrict themselves to those?

Like IE6's has been eroding for how many years now?

Any normal company will develop in the way it gets more of their client base, that's common sense. Even if the difference was 90% to 98%, they'd still develop to the 98%. Especially since flash is not a cancer like IE6 is. Lots of things can be done well in flash, even if you don't want to believe that.
post #131 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

in theory that sounds great! in practice it never quite made it there, when 'undesired side effects' include serious problems on all platform but windows. \

i just don't think that adobe is up to the task to fulfill the promise that was flash. implementation on all platforms is too big a job.

What I meant was undesired things like missing fonts, object not found, media incompatible, wrong format, wrong encoding, wrong color, etc. Things that are in the stage. There was no reference to controlling anything outside of the stage. Flash is a resource hog no argument there, even on underpowered Windows machines you do see dropped frames, slowness and delayed reactions.

I think of Flash as being capable of doing just about anything, not saying there aren't trade offs. It is just a matter of whether you accept the trade offs or not. It has its place and in instances where something else can do the job cheaper or better then in that case you should use the best tool for the job.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #132 of 188
Every comment err makes is laughable. It gets pretty pointless to respond to a poster when you have to correct every word they write. Good luck!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #133 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Every comment err makes is laughable. It gets pretty pointless to respond to a poster when you have to correct every word they write. Good luck!

errr...

wait, what?

you mean, "correct" with made up numbers and truisms that make no sense to anyone but those that close their eyes and say "yes it is, yes it is, yes it is"?

So, you in your opinion someone should cater to what you consider best even if they are missing 20-40% of their potential costumers because "they'll erode in a few years"?

Allow me to laugh
post #134 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by err View Post

I wonder, do you know that if someone has 35%, another 30, another 20%, the one with 35% is still a majority?

It's not a majority, being less than 50% +1. It would be a plurality, which is just the largest entity of a group of entities.
post #135 of 188
IE is no longer, a majority. Even if you combine 6,7 -and- 8.

Firefox and chrome is far ahead of them.
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 188
2hout that you have to write all your own behaviors dragging invisible objects and what not. Flash is definitely not an optimal platform for touch interfaces at this point.[/QUOTE]
Jed's Other Poem (Beautiful Ground)

Thanks for the info! That's important to know.

Based on another post I googled Flash CoverFlow! I found several that appear to do the job, except:

1) they don't say if they are (or will be) supported on Mobile Flash.

2) To get around the lack of touch, they use a slider at the bottom that you can drag with a mouse (or a finger if/when touch is implemented).

It is interesting that Apple uses the same technique, a slider, in some versions of their iPod app.

I believe the implementation I show is much more intuitive (touch the object rather than a slider} and a better UX the images on the screen are bigger and more readable.

.
"...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 #137 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

from what I saw, yes. I've used coverflow effects in flash when a client requested it. In fact you can find source complete with the shadow effect on the web. I to hack one up to get tied to a drupal backend and spit dynamic text into each "album", instead of an image.

As far as openGL ES, and other features needed for a touchscreen, I can't comment, I have little to no experience in that.

But if you're targeting iphone, flash is a bit of a non starter no?

1) are any of these CoverFlow packages supported or planned on Mobile Flash.

2) Obviously there is no text on the album covers... there are no album covers

Your suggestion 'spit dynamic text onto each ""album"' is precisely what I try to avoid... while it may be cool for the first few minutes, it is distracting and gets old, while adding nothing.

At some point, the client may want to reach other than iPhones... I am just testing the water,

However, if we use Flash for Android, it appears we will need to dumb-down the touch interface to use a slider.

.
"...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 #138 of 188
Flash sucks. Slow, crash prone and would be dead a long time ago if it wasn't for YouTube.
post #139 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

However, if we use Flash for Android, it appears we will need to dumb-down the touch interface to use a slider.

Yeah that is the beauty of having a real touch API verses rolling your own. For example there is no good way I know to do things like pinch in Flash. Overlapping controls can get tricky when one object is used to drag and another needs to receive a click and release event. But anything is doable if you try hard enough.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #140 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

1) are any of these CoverFlow packages supported or planned on Mobile Flash.

2) Obviously there is no text on the album covers... there are no album covers

Your suggestion 'spit dynamic text onto each ""album"' is precisely what I try to avoid... while it may be cool for the first few minutes, it is distracting and gets old, while adding nothing.

At some point, the client may want to reach other than iPhones... I am just testing the water,

However, if we use Flash for Android, it appears we will need to dumb-down the touch interface to use a slider.

.

1) no idea, you'll have to contact the developers on that.

2) if you scope out the coverflow thing, by album covers, I mean the images that get placed in the little squares. So call them what you wish, images I guess. I didn't suggest text, it was something I had to code for a requirement. I ended up creating something else from scratch, I dislike using pre built code.

For touch, there's a fair amount of stuff out there on the new multi touch support.

As for testing the water, I'd suggest waiting til we see this flash player released. That's my opinion.
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 #141 of 188
This whole thing makes both companies look bad.
post #142 of 188
Flash is crap. And it is one of the most annoying and vulgar plug-ins ever. On the usability side it interferes with the normal user experience you cannot navigate and reference Flash content using the standard browser controls. And on the power efficiency side, it is a terrible piece of software that works against the trend of mobile computing. IMHO, in its present idiotic implementation, Flash does not have any future unless a major breakthrough in the design of the compact batteries is made.

Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.
post #143 of 188
Quote:
Flash is crap.

Yep.

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 #144 of 188
Quote:
This whole thing makes both companies look bad.

It makes Adobe look bad. They're the ones doing the whining. And they don't have a product out yet. Which kind of highlights Apple's argument. They've been slow to support he Mac and Apple's OS X initiatives. A decade dragging 10 years.

Yeh, Apple should hand over control of their iPhone platform to Adobe and see how long it takes for Adobe to trash it with slow, tardy feature support and buggy apps. And all those nifty features that people squealed for in each OS iPhone update... See Adobe pick and mix what they can be arsed to support. Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?

The whole iPhone, 200k apps explosion and the pending iPad storm all happened without Adobe folks. Apple did this. Not Adobe. What were Adobe doing? We know what Apple was doing because it's out there in the market! Adobe? Still thinking its the mid-90s and Windows 95 when they leapt into bed with the Micros$ft whore. Because I don't see a flash lite player that can play all that slugware desktop internet flash. But I do know I can get an iPhone that has 200k apps that pass Adobe and their ponderous and 'immovable' product cycles. They had 3 years to get on board the iPhone. Where were they? Why didn't they? Because they're Adobe. Simply? They had 3 years to compete. Where is it?

Any Mac user who supports Adobe's Flash must have serious Stockholm syndrome issues in light of Adobe's track record over the last 10 years.

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 #145 of 188
Adobe payed billions of dollars for a proprietary 'standard' that is on it's way out.

They'll have to 'get over it.'

Just as Apple had to 'get over' giving M$ the Mac OS for free.

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 #146 of 188
Quote:
And it is one of the most annoying and vulgar plug-ins ever. On the usability side it interferes with the normal user experience — you cannot navigate and reference Flash content using the standard browser controls. And on the power efficiency side, it is a terrible piece of software that works against the trend of mobile computing. IMHO, in its present idiotic implementation, Flash does not have any future unless a major breakthrough in the design of the compact batteries is made.

Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.

A succinct version of what Steve Jobs said. Or in other words, a succinct trashing of Flash.

Works for me.

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 #147 of 188
Quote:
Flash sucks. Slow, crash prone and would be dead a long time ago if it wasn't for YouTube.

Yeah. Flash sucks TM. That might catch on. Maybe Apple should use it in their 'We hate Adobe and 'flash sucks' adverts...

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 #148 of 188
I expect Adobe to defend their products, but I'm disappointed that they've just flat out lied on several occasions since this whole thing started. It's different people doing the lying too so it must be some kind of PR "strategy".
post #149 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Everytime I read an article and thread like this which seem to dominate this forum lately I start to wonder one thing. What if Apple and Adobe actually put as much energy trying to get a good mobile version of Flash instead of putting all their energy into bashing each other and taking the time to write stupid letters.

With a little effort on the hardware end from Apple and some effort on the optimization end from Adobe this just doesn't seem like a massive issue.

Yes, Flash for OSX is a major CPU hog which impacts Windows users far less, but some of that appears to be resolved in 10.1.

Its really annoying because it seems like both these companies wants to bitch about who is right on this issue rather then working together to fix it. Which in the long run benefits their customers.

Apple are tired of waiting for Adobe to catch in terms of supporting OSX. It is not Apple requirement to develop Flash with Adobe, for Adobe to make money. Apple have been co-operating with Adobe for years in trying to provide a Flash product that was optimized for OSX and Adobe have not supported this initiative. Now iPhone/iPod/iPad platform is a great success, Adobe are saying now, hey we will support Apple and give you a product that will integrate smoothly with above mentioned respective platform. Yeah right Adobe still have not provide a mobile version of Flash that is not CPU and battery hog for other platforms. Why should Apple put its innovation/productivity initiatives dependent on Adobe to develop its software in term with Apple's development needs. This did not happen before and it will not happen now.

Peace.
post #150 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by err View Post



Android is the majority and it is getting flash.
....

They are both wrong. Flash was the key piece in the introduction of web 2.0 (or is it 3.0 already?). There are things you can do with flash that you can't do with HTML5, or not as well.

Android is the MAJORITY? - Apple sold 9M phones last quarter. Android sold a million? there are 80M devices out there running iPhoneOS.

Sure, there are tons of things that Flash can do, that HTML5 can't.. but how do you do a mouse over on a device with no mouse or pointer? mouseovers are pretty fundamental UI elements in Flash.

...so if you have to recode to support the latest flash player that somehow knows where your finger is when it's not on the screen.. great, but

SHOW ME.
post #151 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

Android is the MAJORITY?

Haven't you heard, self-reported surveys are now somehow hard sales fact. Not sure how this got instantly touted as the news it has.
post #152 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What I meant was undesired things like missing fonts, object not found, media incompatible, wrong format, wrong encoding, wrong color, etc. Things that are in the stage. There was no reference to controlling anything outside of the stage. Flash is a resource hog no argument there, even on underpowered Windows machines you do see dropped frames, slowness and delayed reactions.

I think of Flash as being capable of doing just about anything, not saying there aren't trade offs. It is just a matter of whether you accept the trade offs or not. It has its place and in instances where something else can do the job cheaper or better then in that case you should use the best tool for the job.

you're right of course. as a graphic artist i used to get excited about all the things flash promised. Finally some fonts! Animation!

Unfortunately the reality of its implementation, particularly on the mac, has dampened my enthusiasm as a user quite considerably since then.

I'm particularly annoyed by the use of Flash for video delivery, where (at least on the mac) it was never as good as Quicktime. It did (unfortunately) offer web developers the perfect alternative to Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real Video (which it thankfully put out of its misery).
post #153 of 188
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.

If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
post #154 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmmy View Post

Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.

If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...

Have you seen what Adobe has been doing Flash on Macs for the past decade? They had pretty much done that and yet Macs are selling better than ever. The iPhone and iPads are selling well, too.

Adobe is more likely to hurt Mac sales by not producing their professional apps than by continuing to ignore Flash.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmmy View Post

Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.

If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...

Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.

Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.

It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.

Plus, Adobe would have to stop their whining.
"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 #156 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Adobe payed billions of dollars for a proprietary 'standard' that is on it's way out.

They'll have to 'get over it.'

Just as Apple had to 'get over' giving M$ the Mac OS for free.

Lemon Bon Bon.

i think they paid to kill it

adobe a long time ago went insane and has floated on down those rapid's with no paddles at all .

in the end who cares ??
apple os is simply great

peace

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #157 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.

Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.

It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.

Plus, Adobe would have to stop their whining.

silver light ??

apple is doomed


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #158 of 188
Looks like the public isn't as gullible as Adobe apparently thinks they are:

http://www.loopinsight.com/2010/05/1...ck-the-battle/



Although it is rather odd that Apple sentiment has dropped since the iPad was released.
"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 #159 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

...Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?

As a content supplier, I frankly don't *care* how special the iPhone is. A "write once, run everywhere" solution is *exactly* what I'm interested in.

It allows us to cater to all our potential customers equally, offering the same experience to everybody without the headache of having to deal with multiple different development teams implementing different features using different techniques, potentially creating different sets of bugs to track and squash on different platforms.

It is counterproductive for me to single out any one group of customers to receive preferential treatment at the expense of other customers feeling like second class citizens or, worse, being left totally unsupported.
post #160 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

As a content supplier, I frankly don't *care* how special the iPhone is. A "write once, run everywhere" solution is *exactly* what I'm interested in.

Fortunately, Apple is more concerned about providing a great user experience to customers than to giving in to every demand from lazy developers.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 'We have never, ever abandoned Apple,' Adobe co-founder says