or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe-Apple war on Flash reminiscent of PostScript struggle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe-Apple war on Flash reminiscent of PostScript struggle - Page 2

post #41 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

My IIsi was an entry level machine when I bought it - at $2500.

Not to be unfriendly, but the Si was not entry level but a couple of steps up. Cheaper deals were available from gray market sources, but as regarding the SRP, the LC was introduced that same year at a price of $2,500. The entry level machine would be the Mac Classic, which was available for $1,000, and $1,500 with options. The Si was introduced at $3,770 and a $4,570 version also available.

One thing that Apple has been very good at over the past decade has been in increasing performance, storage, RAM and other goodies while keeping the price the same or lower. For example, the original 15" Bondi iMac (233 MHz PowerPC, 32 MB RAM, 4.0 GB HD, CRT display, CD only) sold for $1,300. Today the baseline iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 21.5" LED flat panel, superdrive) costs $1,199.
post #42 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by j234k View Post

Yeah, in addition to the Adobe/Apple spat, there are more similarities as well. Like the fact that a lot of the technologies in iPhone and iPad didn't come originally from Apple, but from Xerox, Palm, and others. And like Jobs taking technologies developed elsewhere and claiming that it is Apple innovation. And the fact that Apple is trying to use lawsuits to prevent other companies from using touch interfaces through lawsuits, just like they tried to keep other companies from using GUIs through lawsuits in the 1980's. And let's not forget what happened with Apple's own font technologies: they were just as bad and threatening towards others as Adobe was towards them.

It is an old canard that Apple "stole" technology from Xerox PARC. Steve Jobs visited PARC and immediately realized the commercial potential of the technology, which Xerox did not. Xerox and Apple came to licensing terms for the technology, which if memory serves was $ 1 million, which was a lot of money at the time considering the size of the market. Even if it was underpriced, that was Xerox's fault, not Apple's. Xerox saw a windfall for technology that they never planned to commercialize.

So while it's accurate that Apple did not invent the GUI, they recognized its importance, refined the concept and licensed it ethically.

And in 1984, when the Mac premiered with that GUI, it was laughed at by most of the industry. The attitude of programmers and developers was that "real men use command line interfaces" and Apple's competitors said it was a "toy". Almost no one recognized how important GUI interfaces would be. And when Microsoft finally recognized that they were important, their Windows 3.1 was a joke as compared to the Mac.

The reason why the font business was a disaster was because users, in essence, stole fonts. (A precursor to the stealing of MP3 music files.) Everything else, including different font formats, TrueType, PostScript, etc., was just a side show. That's why today, you have to dig pretty deep into Adobe's website to find anything about fonts. And in the case of fonts, since Apple doesn't sell them, but simply includes them with the OS, Apple was simply serving its users. Adobe didn't want to kill the "golden goose", but one of the reasons a LaserPrinter was $3000 was because of the licensing of Postscript. Would you be willing to pay $3K for a printer today? And that doesn't even include inflation.
post #43 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Additionally, unlike the market forces that are attracting both users and developers to Apple's iTunes App Store, there is no real compelling reason for mobile developers to flock to Flash, as there is no real marketplace for Flash apps other than the adware business model promoted by Flash games presented through Facebook and other online sites. That's not enough to generate widespread interest in creating sophisticated Flash titles.

Some of these final paragraphs seem to be one-sided. The fact Flash is a cross-platform development tool (by providing consistent rendering and behavior across browsers) makes it a very compelling reason for developers to adopt the technology. It will probably continue to be this way until web development cross-browser is not so difficult and/or time consuming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

On the other side, if Flash can manage to slowly gain share as a suitable cross-platform development tool for making titles that work across Android, ChromeOS, webOS, BlackBerry OS, and WP7, there will likely be efforts initiated by those vendors to promote native development over Flash, in order to prevent Flash from drowning out any proprietary advantage Google, RIM, HP/Palm, and Microsoft have attempted to create in developing their mobile platforms in the first place.

Many companies with mobile operating systems dont seem to be thinking about this problem exclusively as Flash vs. native applications. These are two different domains. Flash provides a consistent web experience while a native applications can take advantage of more advanced APIs available by running directly on the device. Besides, have we seen any anti-Flash reactions as virulent as Apples recently from other companies with mobile operating systems? I think recent news reveals the opposite.
post #44 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

..and neither do we have a ProSumer desktop i7 with 4-8 cores but instead just pro workstations made with some server parts and the harsh reality is the ProSumer market, less direct x, but for musicians and rising editor, the iMac can't cut it as it lacks the express slot for the ProSumer hardware devices like the fatso or high end reverbs on chips that takes a huge chunk of processing off the CPU.

No, we have an iMac with 4 cores and 4 virtual cores, plus up to 16GB of RAM in a 27" screen for $2k. From what I can find trying to get solid info on the Fatso it looks like the outputs are XLR, 1/4" and RCA. Rack gear like this is intended for the studio, so it's likely being accessed by having the sound run to it thru a mixer's FX loop, then back to the computer. So no, the iMac doesn't need anything special for gear like that. Yes there are likely some things that use the ExpressCard slot that would be nice to be able to use, but I'd bet most of them have a similar Firewire variant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

You buy the express device for around $400 and it come with dime plug INS. Fatso hardware is $2000, the plug in that you could buy seperate and add is about $495. Then Apple could make pci express hardware helping the CPU drain cause the way GPU will one day. At the same time a MacBook with 4 cores isn't going to run that long.

Again, you're likely using this rack gear in the studio, so your laptop can be plugged in or you are using an iMac. The Mac Pro is lagging behind right now and has been aimed more strongly at scientific researchers than musicians. Current MBPs are dual cores with 2 virtual cores and seem to be lasting pretty well. Apple will stick quad core mobile chips in as soon as they are released, so long as they have made sure they have things worked out to keep battery life the same or better compared with the current machines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

I see Apple growing but they are missing those that they once targeted 100% and now rather cater to mom and pop iLife users. Heck, iWeb could be a killer program if they put sone time into it but I read the logic staff is tiny and Shake? Well that's over and it's to bad. Apple has the money to do both and I wish they would. Look at Pro Tools/Avid, they were smart enough to pick up maudio as prosumer hardware and software is big business. Gaming I read here is supposedly bigger than DVD and music combined. Hmm

Companies go where the money is, nothing new there. If Apple sees musicians as (example only) 5% of their base and of that 5% only 10% actually use a feature like an ExpressCard slot, .5% of your customer base using something is not going to encourage them to keep it. They can remove it, streamline the machine further and stuff that much more battery in the machine (if portable). I could see them making the top end 27" iMac slightly more prosumer, but they are long overdue for a Mac Pro upgrade and are likely worried that if they make the top end iMac any better they will never sell another Mac Pro. Lord knows if I was building a desktop music studio based on a Mac right now the iMac would be at the heart of it. I would have all my software and some extras bought too for the price the Mac Pro would run me
post #45 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYancy View Post

Not to be unfriendly, but the Si was not entry level but a couple of steps up. Cheaper deals were available from gray market sources, but as regarding the SRP, the LC was introduced that same year at a price of $2,500. The entry level machine would be the Mac Classic, which was available for $1,000, and $1,500 with options. The Si was introduced at $3,770 and a $4,570 version also available.

One thing that Apple has been very good at over the past decade has been in increasing performance, storage, RAM and other goodies while keeping the price the same or lower. For example, the original 15" Bondi iMac (233 MHz PowerPC, 32 MB RAM, 4.0 GB HD, CRT display, CD only) sold for $1,300. Today the baseline iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 21.5" LED flat panel, superdrive) costs $1,199.

sorry but that is bad example of keeping the price lower, since cost of manufacture, computer design, purchasing power and number of other facts of allowed Apple to lower their prices but still keep the 50-60% margins their work on. The margin of profit has actual gone up over the years and cost of goods has lowered, so overall probably Apple are having better margins, then in the past. I am happy to pay the price for the quality and support I am provided by Apple, but not blind to the fact that I am paying a premium.
post #46 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYancy View Post

Not to be unfriendly, but the Si was not entry level but a couple of steps up. Cheaper deals were available from gray market sources, but as regarding the SRP, the LC was introduced that same year at a price of $2,500. The entry level machine would be the Mac Classic, which was available for $1,000, and $1,500 with options. The Si was introduced at $3,770 and a $4,570 version also available.

One thing that Apple has been very good at over the past decade has been in increasing performance, storage, RAM and other goodies while keeping the price the same or lower. For example, the original 15" Bondi iMac (233 MHz PowerPC, 32 MB RAM, 4.0 GB HD, CRT display, CD only) sold for $1,300. Today the baseline iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, 21.5" LED flat panel, superdrive) costs $1,199.

You can quibble about models (actually, the Classic is more like a predecessor to today's iMac while the LC (I forgot about that one) was more like the Mini. Either way, the result is the same - Apple has NOT increased the price of its systems as the first person claimed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

sorry but that is bad example of keeping the price lower, since cost of manufacture, computer design, purchasing power and number of other facts of allowed Apple to lower their prices but still keep the 50-60% margins their work on. The margin of profit has actual gone up over the years and cost of goods has lowered, so overall probably Apple are having better margins, then in the past. I am happy to pay the price for the quality and support I am provided by Apple, but not blind to the fact that I am paying a premium.

Apple has never had 50-60% margins on their computers. For their entire history, GROSS margins have been in the 30-40% range. Net margins have been 0 to about 15%.
"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 #47 of 109
And Out of the PostScript Came Quartz

Apple even integrated Adobe technologies in its own products!
post #48 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

I can't believe the number of people that are responding with "nice article." It is horribly distorted and inaccurate.

Apparently the goal was a "history repeats itself" type story, truth be dammed.

If you're going to make a statement like that , have the decency to point out the "horribly distorted and inaccurate" parts, otherwise you're just posting bullshit!
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

sorry but that is bad example of keeping the price lower, since cost of manufacture, computer design, purchasing power and number of other facts of allowed Apple to lower their prices but still keep the 50-60% margins their work on. The margin of profit has actual gone up over the years and cost of goods has lowered, so overall probably Apple are having better margins, then in the past. I am happy to pay the price for the quality and support I am provided by Apple, but not blind to the fact that I am paying a premium.


You say that as 'tho having "premium" prices and making strong profits are "bad things". The fact that Apple is growing like mad and inovating through its' research to bring exciting new products to the marketplace can only happen if there are strong profits in the first place. Two things to note: Do a quick study on failed businesses and I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases you'll find businesses that tried to compete on the lowest possible price, usually at the expense of R&D and, #2 a business that tries to be all things to all people.

Apple is a market leader in it's chosen areas ... what other company has redefined the marketplace in as many areas as Apple ... none, nada.

It has identified the areas that it wishes to competes and it, in most cases, proceeds to dominate in it's area of expertise. You cannot ask any more of any company. Apple is not for everyone and should not even try to be for everyone, IMHO, otherwise it will wind up looking just like any one of the thousands of other tired and uninspiring companies that, while they may make money, they seldom inspire the consumer the way Apple does.

If Apple is not for you, ... I'm sorry, get over it and move on..... it's for me and the millions of other satisfied consumers worldwide. I hope you find some company/product that does for you what Apple does for me. As a consumer we should all want and deserve value and satisfaction for our consumer spending.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #50 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It is an old canard that Apple "stole" technology from Xerox PARC. Steve Jobs visited PARC and immediately realized the commercial potential of the technology, which Xerox did not. Xerox and Apple came to licensing terms for the technology, which if memory serves was $ 1 million, which was a lot of money at the time considering the size of the market. Even if it was underpriced, that was Xerox's fault, not Apple's. Xerox saw a windfall for technology that they never planned to commercialize.

So while it's accurate that Apple did not invent the GUI, they recognized its importance, refined the concept and licensed it ethically.

And in 1984, when the Mac premiered with that GUI, it was laughed at by most of the industry. The attitude of programmers and developers was that "real men use command line interfaces" and Apple's competitors said it was a "toy". Almost no one recognized how important GUI interfaces would be. And when Microsoft finally recognized that they were important, their Windows 3.1 was a joke as compared to the Mac.

The reason why the font business was a disaster was because users, in essence, stole fonts. (A precursor to the stealing of MP3 music files.) Everything else, including different font formats, TrueType, PostScript, etc., was just a side show. That's why today, you have to dig pretty deep into Adobe's website to find anything about fonts. And in the case of fonts, since Apple doesn't sell them, but simply includes them with the OS, Apple was simply serving its users. Adobe didn't want to kill the "golden goose", but one of the reasons a LaserPrinter was $3000 was because of the licensing of Postscript. Would you be willing to pay $3K for a printer today? And that doesn't even include inflation.

Excellent post, having been in the business and closely involved with it throughout the period you so well explain I appreciate you enlightening those who repeat the same old rubbish and untruths.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #51 of 109
One of the reasons that other type technologies were developed was because, despite what Adobe seems to imply about their "open technology", Type 1 fonts were encrypted and kept secret for several years (the specs were released after several companies had cracked the encryption). That made it difficult for the clone companies (I ran one of them) to offer a true PostScript-compatible interpreter. We were one of the first companies to crack the encryption and Microsoft even approached us about licensing our technology because it was such a critical part of a PostScript interpreter.

Adobe never encouraged competition. They mocked the clones and used bullying techniques (in my experience) to keep us out of companies they were also doing business with.

Cheers,

Steve Kochan
Former President and CEO
Pipeline Associates, Inc.
Maker of the PowerPage PostScript-compatible interpreter
post #52 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by skochan View Post

One of the reasons that other type technologies were developed was because, despite what Adobe seems to imply about their "open technology", Type 1 fonts were encrypted and kept secret for several years (the specs were released after several companies had cracked the encryption). That made it difficult for the clone companies (I ran one of them) to offer a true PostScript-compatible interpreter. We were one of the first companies to crack the encryption and Microsoft even approached us about licensing our technology because it was such a critical part of a PostScript interpreter.

Adobe never encouraged competition. They mocked the clones and used bullying techniques (in my experience) to keep us out of companies they were also doing business with.

Cheers,

Steve Kochan
Former President and CEO
Pipeline Associates, Inc.
Maker of the PowerPage PostScript-compatible interpreter

Make this a sticky, if at all possible.

Ghostscript is another example that's taken decades to reach a solid level of capabilities, mainly due to such tactics by Adobe, so I also laugh when people claim Apple is draconian and Adobe is open.
post #53 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It is an old canard that Apple "stole" technology from Xerox PARC. Steve Jobs visited PARC and immediately realized the commercial potential of the technology, which Xerox did not. Xerox and Apple came to licensing terms for the technology, which if memory serves was $ 1 million, which was a lot of money at the time considering the size of the market. Even if it was underpriced, that was Xerox's fault, not Apple's. Xerox saw a windfall for technology that they never planned to commercialize.

So while it's accurate that Apple did not invent the GUI, they recognized its importance, refined the concept and licensed it ethically.

And in 1984, when the Mac premiered with that GUI, it was laughed at by most of the industry. The attitude of programmers and developers was that "real men use command line interfaces" and Apple's competitors said it was a "toy". Almost no one recognized how important GUI interfaces would be. And when Microsoft finally recognized that they were important, their Windows 3.1 was a joke as compared to the Mac.

The reason why the font business was a disaster was because users, in essence, stole fonts. (A precursor to the stealing of MP3 music files.) Everything else, including different font formats, TrueType, PostScript, etc., was just a side show. That's why today, you have to dig pretty deep into Adobe's website to find anything about fonts. And in the case of fonts, since Apple doesn't sell them, but simply includes them with the OS, Apple was simply serving its users. Adobe didn't want to kill the "golden goose", but one of the reasons a LaserPrinter was $3000 was because of the licensing of Postscript. Would you be willing to pay $3K for a printer today? And that doesn't even include inflation.

Very accurate post on all points.

I do remember around 1986 the attitude towards the Mac GUI. I was doing a PhD and typing up papers on a Mac -- my friend was doing a PhD and using an IBM with command line. And the attitude was definitely: "Real men use the Command Line." When Microsoft copied the mac GUI the new line was "Real men use Unix". When the Mac got Unix the dismissive line was...well it was pretty hard to come up with a dismissal at that point but my friend insisted on using a SPARC workstation and probably quietly assembling Linux on his laptop.

My friend also insisted on the excellence of plunger coffee and brewing one's own beer (both of which tasted like crap to me).

Pfft
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #54 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by skochan View Post

One of the reasons that other type technologies were developed was because, despite what Adobe seems to imply about their "open technology", Type 1 fonts were encrypted and kept secret for several years (the specs were released after several companies had cracked the encryption). That made it difficult for the clone companies (I ran one of them) to offer a true PostScript-compatible interpreter. We were one of the first companies to crack the encryption and Microsoft even approached us about licensing our technology because it was such a critical part of a PostScript interpreter.

Adobe never encouraged competition. They mocked the clones and used bullying techniques (in my experience) to keep us out of companies they were also doing business with.

Cheers,

Steve Kochan
Former President and CEO
Pipeline Associates, Inc.
Maker of the PowerPage PostScript-compatible interpreter

This fits in with what we have seen elsewhere. Adobe's attitude is to develop technology up to a certain point and then let it stagnate while they milk the profits. It is a dysfunctional company.
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #55 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by khurtwilliams View Post

What? I'm sorry but I couldn't follow anything you said. Coherent thought would be helpful.

Well if you were a musician or editor you would. First they took they express slots out of the 15", and the iMacs never had them. For mac Pros you can get full length express cards. The point is, the iMac or 15" without the mini express port won't cut it and Apple missing out on a large number of sales. Especially with the prosumer.

Eg. http://www.rme-audio.de/en_index.php

with regard to One To One it used to come bundled with Pro care all for 99$ and most trainers taught logic, shake, motion, final cut. Now it's all iLife. It's as if Apple forgot who kept them afloat until the iPhone came out then Apple turned all consumer, non prosumer.
post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

Well if you were a musician or editor you would. First they took they express slots out of the 15", and the iMacs never had them. For mac Pros you can get full length express cards. The point is, the iMac or 15" without the mini express port won't cut it and Apple missing out on a large number of sales. Especially with the prosumer.

Eg. http://www.rme-audio.de/en_index.php

with regard to One To One it used to come bundled with Pro care all for 99$ and most trainers taught logic, shake, motion, final cut. Now it's all iLife. It's as if Apple forgot who kept them afloat until the iPhone came out then Apple turned all consumer, non prosumer.

Actually you're hurting your argument. Every product on that front page you linked to has a USB2 interface, so they work fine with both products. The products that are external express products listed in the upper left still have equivalent products with different interfaces. Lots of companies produce breakout boxes. Again, "large number" in this case is a very minor amount compared with their yearly revenue.
post #57 of 109
Apple have almost completely erradicated it's dependence on M$ and Adobe.

Mac users should be rejoicing. Instead we're still get the after glo of stockholm legacy effects.

Sure, vets may still be using Photoshop and Word. But for the consumer, Pixelmator does a bang up job of 90% of imaging needs. Painter too. Word? Meh. 90% of Word can be done on Pages. And both apps are a lot sexier and easier to use than the opposition. Notice the trend? It's about the consumer.

Not the '10%' of the market saying you need a 'Mac Pro' or a 'desktop PC' for all the common stuff you do. All that baggage. All the bloat. All the file/folder paradigm of 1984. All the security issues. The virus. The obtuse finder navigation. All of it. Swept away with the iPhone/iPad.

Apple did that. Not Google. Not M$. Not Adobe. Not RIM. Not Nokia.

Apple.

Apple's moving into clear consumer electronics computing territory. And in this new future, we're asking, 'Do I need all the feature bloat crap?' Not when a simple iPad does 9/10 things I need a computer for. The 'cheapest Mac' you can buy! Including its own screen and keyboard. This truly IS 1984 and the 'computer' that delivers 'computing' for the 'rest of us.'

Apple have no excuses this time. This is their shot. As the Mac just missed out on critical mass and replace the Lisa before it... I'll give the iPhone/iPod/iPad five years tops to completely eclipse the Mac's market share. Oh. They already have. And this new 'platform' is just the beginning. I'd argue that sales of the iPhone haven't truly taken off yet. Or for iPad. And I'm guessing new screen sizes will be added to the mix. And that halo will give kick backs to Mac sales.

Do I need the command line? 3D power apps? A bloated chicken M$ word? Photoshop just to do 'some' image work? The perception that you need a 'computing metaphor' from 1984/1995 to fulfull that? The end game of that scenario is on the horizone.

M$ and Adobe have had their ten year role in the hay. It's over.

Apple could pull the Mac tomorrow. And the iPod/iPhone/iPad 'start up' company' and 200k of apps would make any company from the original .com explosion look like a bad bet compared to where Apple can go with this. Luckily for Mac users, Jobs will squeeze it for all it's worth before he lets go. ie Mac users aint going anywhere and we haven't lost the desktop/laptop OS war yet either. Mac users are on the wise. We still need them as part of the iPhone, iPad eco system. Heh. Clever that.

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 #58 of 109
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skochan
One of the reasons that other type technologies were developed was because, despite what Adobe seems to imply about their "open technology", Type 1 fonts were encrypted and kept secret for several years (the specs were released after several companies had cracked the encryption). That made it difficult for the clone companies (I ran one of them) to offer a true PostScript-compatible interpreter. We were one of the first companies to crack the encryption and Microsoft even approached us about licensing our technology because it was such a critical part of a PostScript interpreter.

Adobe never encouraged competition. They mocked the clones and used bullying techniques (in my experience) to keep us out of companies they were also doing business with.

Cheers,

Steve Kochan
Former President and CEO
Pipeline Associates, Inc.
Maker of the PowerPage PostScript-compatible interpreter
This fits in with what we have seen elsewhere. Adobe's attitude is to develop technology up to a certain point and then let it stagnate while they milk the profits. It is a dysfunctional company.

Y'see, skeletons in the closet, Adobe. It's all coming out in the wash now.

With their 'open' competition in the creative monopoly they have (it's not like the took out Macromedia and killed the competition in the creative market?) They killed a better product in 'Freehand.'

Adobe. Such hypocrites.

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 #59 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

You say that as 'tho having "premium" prices and making strong profits are "bad things". The fact that Apple is growing like mad and inovating through its' research to bring exciting new products to the marketplace can only happen if there are strong profits in the first place. Two things to note: Do a quick study on failed businesses and I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases you'll find businesses that tried to compete on the lowest possible price, usually at the expense of R&D and, #2 a business that tries to be all things to all people.

Apple is a market leader in it's chosen areas ... what other company has redefined the marketplace in as many areas as Apple ... none, nada.

It has identified the areas that it wishes to competes and it, in most cases, proceeds to dominate in it's area of expertise. You cannot ask any more of any company. Apple is not for everyone and should not even try to be for everyone, IMHO, otherwise it will wind up looking just like any one of the thousands of other tired and uninspiring companies that, while they may make money, they seldom inspire the consumer the way Apple does.

If Apple is not for you, ... I'm sorry, get over it and move on..... it's for me and the millions of other satisfied consumers worldwide. I hope you find some company/product that does for you what Apple does for me. As a consumer we should all want and deserve value and satisfaction for our consumer spending.

Sometimes people need to take a breath and read exactly what people have wrote. You must have read my comments in 5 seconds and gone on a emotional reply. I think I said I am happy to pay for Apple products because there are reliable and of good quality. I have shares in Apple and very happy with company, but I am a business man and understand the business culture. So you in your mind interpreted what my words were saying and took them in negative light not me!

Your last paragraph tells me you misunderstood my words, did not read my comment properly and basically need to chill and take more time to review my comments before going on emotional reply. Read my comments again, but more slowly and think maybe this person was being positive to Apple and just being a realist!

I did say I do not mine paying a premium to get quality and reliable service, so please explain your comments especially last paragraph!

Peace

P.S. I do not put hypocritically smiling face on the end of sentences.
post #60 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You can quibble about models (actually, the Classic is more like a predecessor to today's iMac while the LC (I forgot about that one) was more like the Mini. Either way, the result is the same - Apple has NOT increased the price of its systems as the first person claimed.



Apple has never had 50-60% margins on their computers. For their entire history, GROSS margins have been in the 30-40% range. Net margins have been 0 to about 15%.

you are correct I am using the iPhone/iPod Gross margins, but my point was that it was bad example, since the similar price of older model with new model will happen, since technology has improved, manufacturing capabilities become more efficiency etc., allowing Apple to keep its prices at steady level majority of the time for new products being released to replace old stock, still allowing gross margins to increase from year to year. see for yourself in link below, going from ~39.9% gross margin to ~41.7.

http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_e.../20results.pdf
post #61 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

you are correct I am using the iPhone/iPod Gross margins, but my point was that it was bad example, since the similar price of older model with new model will happen, since technology has improved, manufacturing capabilities become more efficiency etc., allowing Apple to keep its prices at steady level majority of the time for new products being released to replace old stock.

Apple never had 50-60% gross margins on iPods or iPhones, either.

The rest of your argument simply supports what I said.

The original poster claimed that Apple used to have lower cost computers and no longer does that. The fact is that Apple's prices have declined over time (AS WELL AS offering better computers for the same price as before) so the person making that claim was wrong.
"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 #62 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple never had 50-60% gross margins on iPods or iPhones, either.

The rest of your argument simply supports what I said.

The original poster claimed that Apple used to have lower cost computers and no longer does that. The fact is that Apple's prices have declined over time (AS WELL AS offering better computers for the same price as before) so the person making that claim was wrong.

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...no_Pushing_50/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...0_percent.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...fit-an-iphone/
http://www.financeoid.com/calculatin...4q08-3067.html more detailed look at gross margins for iPhone 3GS.

P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...no_Pushing_50/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...0_percent.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...fit-an-iphone/
http://www.financeoid.com/calculatin...4q08-3067.html more detailed look at gross margins for iPhone 3GS.

P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.

Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.

The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.
"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 #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYancy View Post

Another example is Maya. Alias used to promote the heck out of it and it was the top application of its kind, then AutoDesk bought Alias and, while AD continues to tweak Maya, it does absolutely nothing to promote it (as with Adobe and Director). As a result sales dropped precipitously, just as with Adobe and Director. As for Maya, this is a mixed blessing. While you no longer have to pay $8 K for Unlimited, the value of Maya on a resume has been greatly diminished and it is extremely rare to see Maya on a job posting.

Do you have actual sales data to back up the claim that Maya "sales have dropped precipitously"? As a Mac-based Maya user, I haven't gotten a sense that Maya sales have significantly declined. It's always been a niche product with a significantly smaller user base than, say, C4D. Nor have AD's updates been quasi-maintenance releases. Director was all-but-left for dead once Adobe got Flash, but Maya has prospered under AD. Re: Freehand vs. Illustrator, I suspect which one is superior is much more akin to the constant Max/Maya/XSI/C4D/Houdini debates. I always vastly preferred Illustrator for the workflow and integration with Photoshop. If I had started with Freehand, I might feel differently, but the only thing I find significantly missing in Illustrator is robust scripting (relative to Maya, all Adobe products are weak sauce).
post #65 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by j234k View Post

Yeah, in addition to the Adobe/Apple spat, there are more similarities as well. Like the fact that a lot of the technologies in iPhone and iPad didn't come originally from Apple, but from Xerox, Palm, and others. And like Jobs taking technologies developed elsewhere and claiming that it is Apple innovation. And the fact that Apple is trying to use lawsuits to prevent other companies from using touch interfaces through lawsuits, just like they tried to keep other companies from using GUIs through lawsuits in the 1980's. And let's not forget what happened with Apple's own font technologies: they were just as bad and threatening towards others as Adobe was towards them.

Wow, you are really stretching your similarities there. You see the phrase "Xerox Park" and can't wait disparage Apple with it. The reference to Xerox Park for Adobe was about Post Script. Apple's "Xerox Park" moment came (30 years ago) when Steve saw a GUI and said "Eureka, that's the future", we are going to make computers with GUI's, and we are going to use our expertise and attention to detail and commitment to the end user to make the best GUI out there. Who is being copied now.... that's right, Xerox Park.

Of course, Steve went on to found Next himself, which became the basis for OS X. So really, Steve's companies can hardly be said to be similar to those (without naming names) whose corporate culture is all about conquer/embrace and extend. Apple's OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes platform, Stores and hardware really do not rely in any way on Xerox Park. Seems like you and a few others would love to think that Apple didn't do one thing for itself, ever. For fans of other companies, however, I can see how they would make those assumption since their favorites are less inclined to think ahead and innovate for themselves (to put it politely).

Yet, Flash did come to Adobe via Macromedia. And Apple was able to compete with PostScript with its own TrueType. So, if Adobe was a true innovator, they would have no problem in making Flash work on mobile devices, or retooling some creative tools to create HTML5 media instead of the dinosaur that is Flash. If there really were some true similarities between these two companies, Adobe wouldn't be protesting so loudly and would be 5 years ahead of Apple instead of 5 (10) years behind.
post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca-What-A-Wookie View Post

Some of these final paragraphs seem to be one-sided. The fact Flash is a cross-platform development tool (by providing consistent rendering and behavior across browsers) makes it a very compelling reason for developers to adopt the technology. It will probably continue to be this way until web development cross-browser is not so difficult and/or time consuming...

I think Daniel's point is correct. Developers are being compelled to take a fresh look at the web and the direction web technologies are moving. The browser wars are pretty much over -- even MS is feeling compelled to support standards (though admittedly very gradually). But this is not really about desktop browsers. It is about the increasing importance of the mobile space.

Apart from the fact that there IS NO successful implementation of Flash on ANY mobile device, Apple does not want to be dragged down to waiting on intermediary platforms that promote a lowest-common-denominator approach. Adobe has repeatedly proven it is a laggard and will not keep up with Apple advances. Why should Apple wait around for Adobe's closed system to attempt to take over iPhone OS development? Looked at this way, what is this Adobe "technology" that developers would be expected to find compelling enough to adopt? Full Objective-C output? Apparently it's dumbed down (doesn't support all of the 1000s of Apple's latest APIs) and apparently it produces loads of junk code -- like the "HTML" rubbish that MS Front Page produces, as it throws in loads of tables (not best practice by any means) and inline styling.

Maybe what is compelling to developers is the iTunes/App Store phenomenon! Of course, Flash "developers", who are used to writing once and compiling for a number of platforms, find the App Store compelling -- they would love to have their apps in the iTunes App Store.

If cross-platform compiling of Flash to other languages is the selling point of Adobe's new CS, then they must hope it is "compelling" to someone. Do Flash developers even fell "compelled" to upgrade. I get the feeling from these boards that Adobe CS users really are not holding their breath for the latest bloat-ware upgrade that takes them to the cleaners! But I suppose someone committed to Flash development will feel compelled to have the latest and greatest.

Real app developers, though? Sounds like they can already deal with Objective-C or take steps to learn something new and make a leap... why, because they actually do feel compelled to make the best app they can and take advantage of the latest advancements. And they feel compelled to look at the markets and make a decision as to where to invest their time and energy and money. I think they feel compelled to focus on their app and a viable business plan. This doesn't really have to involve paying thousands for Adobe products and then spraying out loads of mediocre versions of their app for every possible platform out there. Since Adobe doesn't feel compelled to get its act together, I think developers feel compelled to make some hard, clear, rational, well-informed choices.
post #67 of 109
I don't understand all the freaking out and arguing about Flash, and I especially don't understand people denouncing Apple for it. Beyond Postscript, we've seen this time and time again in tech. Flash would be on its way out with or without Steve Jobs writing open letters about it and Apple refusing to put it on their mobile gadgets. It's the way things work. Any tool that languishes the way Flash has under Adobe is dead. Couple that with the coming of HTML5, and Flash's demise is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Apple has simply identified yet another direction the industry is going and has decided to go that way full force without apology. They've done it many times before.
post #68 of 109
"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 #69 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

But there's no decent Flash that will run on mobile devices. Now that Apple has made that pointedly clear, Adobe is working on a version and, last I heard, it crashes the phone every time in the demo. Not exactly what we're looking for, is it?

Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.

The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...
post #70 of 109
Next time anybody claims that internet types can't do journalism, here's the rebuttal. Not that the journalism label and solid factual reporting hides the author's attitudes.

A couple amplifications, please:

Another history suggested that TrueType's ability to do on-screen font rendering had to wait until AFTER Adobe opened up the PostScript format, and ATM, with on-the-fly on-screen character rendering was created. TT was originally released as a printer-only technology. Izzat so? (Minor point)

The article says, Jobs gave a maybe for Flash at the debut of the iPhone. Can you provide a cite? (Kinda important here in defining when/why maybe turned into, no.)

A suggestion: greed gets tossed around a lot in articles about Apple, and an over-emphasis on the writer's emotional take can serve to distract from actions. I have previously commented elsewhere about my dislike for the high cost of Adobe fonts where they held a de facto monopoly, so I'm with the argument but the motivation is NOT known to be greed more than any business's goal of profits.

A related story: BusinessInsider.Com has an interesting story, too, about the way that Adobe canned Macromedia's Flash efforts to expand onto phones, at precisely the worst possible time: 2006, as Apple must have been working feverishly to get the iPhone into production. Adobe's statements from the time, if available, might make it clear that Adobe saw no future for Flash on phones. Kinda like the little red hen story, now, it would seem.

Finally, although it wasn't your intent to get into the can of worms around the Mac/Photoshop issues, this article might here or there enjoy a mention of the various interactions. A history of that scope might be a hoot, too.
post #71 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

My friend also insisted on the excellence of plunger coffee(which tasted like crap to me).

Pfft

There's taste and there's quality of execution. I happen to like a nice, strong dark roast, and a press pot is the next-best way to consume coffee (after espresso).

Maybe he was using the wrong kind of plunger?
post #72 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.

Look up the definition of the word 'beta'. Flash 10.1 has not been released yet. And the beta has crashed in every demo that Adobe has done so pardon me if I assume that your standards for 'works just fine' must be awfully low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...

You're even more confused than I thought. Flash has NEVER been an open standard, nor has it ever been possible for anyone to write their own Flash player.
"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 #73 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.

The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.

I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.
post #74 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is now focusing entirely on open standards

is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.
post #75 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.

Wow. I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you launch into some bizarre (and ungrammatical) rant. Go figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireblaze View Post

is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.


That doesn't mean it can't be an open standard. Open is not the same as free.
"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 #76 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by gt1948 View Post

As far as I m concerned Adobe and their over priced produts and upgrades can go to blazes.

Clickto Flash keeps my computer from crashing in Safari. Will be glad to see the final transition to HTML5.

I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
post #77 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?

I use Opera and Firefox instead on Snow Leopard to avoid crashes. Safari Mobile crashes without flash on the iphone.
post #78 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Wow. I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you launch into some bizarre (and ungrammatical) rant. Go figure.




That doesn't mean it can't be an open standard. Open is not the same as free.

I suggest that jragosta should read the post before responding to them: Here is a link:
http://socialmediagraphics.posterous...ash-and-h264-1
H.264 is not an open standard.
post #79 of 109
That's Flash lite and does not run all of Flash, so it does not use 100% of the internet either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
post #80 of 109
Open does not mean free. H.264 is an open standard in that it is not controlled by any one company. H.264 is a collective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireblaze View Post

is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe-Apple war on Flash reminiscent of PostScript struggle