or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe clears up likelihood of Flash for iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe clears up likelihood of Flash for iPhone - Page 2

post #41 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.

Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.

So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?

I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.

In comparison, iTunes is a very simple program.
post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.


I never have any problems - maybe it is because I have 8 gigs of ram, dual xeons and over a terabyte of storage. People who run mismatched hardware and software are always going to have less than optimum results. If you are trying to run an older version of Photoshop on a new OS or the opposite, new version of Photoshop on an old OS it will not work as well as having everything current. In either case Photoshop is an expensive professional tool which needs plenty of resources to operate properly.

But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia. I think Adobe is making a lot of progress with the spec and extending it to Flex is a good start in getting serious web applications on the platform. Everyone hates the ads but, those are from the scum sucking advertisers not the innovative application developers. Once in a while you even see a cool Flash ad, but I grant you not very often.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.

So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?

I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.

In comparison, iTunes is a very simple program.

You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.

In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!

Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.

InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.

Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.
post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.


I guess you don't use layers, filters, masks, smart objects, paths, filmstrip and feather much, because they are all much improved, not to mention non-destructive editing like layers that don't clip on scaling. If you dislike Photoshop CS so much you'll really hate Photoshop Extended.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 of 86
What is the point of "improving" features, if it is just going to bring down the entire App and make it unstable and a pain to work with. I used to love working in photoshop, and the other Adobe apps for that matter, I've used BETA versions of Photoshop that where more stable than it is today. Now it's just a half baked pile of $#%^.
post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

But as far as Flash is concerned, people are giving Adobe a bunch of crap, but don't forget this is the first Adobe version of Flash, so if you don't like Flash then you should blame the old Macromedia.

Glad someone said it. Adobe hasn't added too much to Flash since they bought out Macromedia and aligned it with the CS3 look and feel. Granted, it doesn't feel much better either. :/

Flash should be implemented on the iPhone in Safari as well as a standalone flash player. It's used to some degree by just about everyone and the install base is huge. One can't ignore that many people and that much content, regardless of how poorly it can be implemented.

As mentioned before, there should be a choice in running it, perhaps something like flashblock.
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

What is the point of "improving" features, if it is just going to bring down the entire App and make it unstable and a pain to work with. I used to love working in photoshop, and the other Adobe apps for that matter, I've used BETA versions of Photoshop that where more stable than it is today. Now it's just a half baked pile of $#%^.


You might want to look at Photoshop Elements instead. It just may fulfill your needs, especially if you are mostly working in RGB and don't use a lot of channels, curves, etc. and it is a much lighter application in terms of system requirements.

I don't think we will see Photoshop on the iPhone so no worries there. As others have said here, Flash on iPhone will probably be available someday. And yes I will most likely keep it turned off until I need it for something specific.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

You know, there was a time when I could run almost every Adobe app I used at the same time. And it ran great. Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. That was probably on 2 Gigs of ram, 1GHZ G4. Then the fucking "CS" suite came along. Now I'm using a dual 2.7 G5, around 6gigs of ram, and when I run Photoshop, I have to shut everything else down. Over the last 8 years, none of these programs have added much in the sense of functionality. Photoshop has raw converter, but that's about it. Nothing much else that's useful in the real world.

In fact, the biggest improvement to Photoshop that's been added in the last 8 years is exposé - and it was Apple that added that. The next biggest leap before that was when they added multiple undos in Photoshop 5 - I think it was. I mean, crap, they can't even get the windows to work with exposé correctly when your in full screen mode!

Same with Illustrator, it's a frickin' VECTOR app, and it is so frickin' bloated! And what features have been added in the last 8 years? Like a frickin' vector lense flair effect.

InDesign - CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES, CRASHES. At the most opportune times to - during export and saving. Dumping the preferences for InDesign is really all that can be done.

Flash - OK I'm not going to talk a lot about this, cause I'm just going to get really mad here. But it's pretty much a pile of junk.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on any of that. Even on my old dual G4, I can run the entire CS3 suite without problems, though, naturally, it is a bit slow, but very usable.

On my dual G5, it all runs just fine.

On a dual 2 core Intel machine it runs very well.

Until Apple came out with ver 2.0 of Aperture, it didn't even run that well in the dual 2 core Intel machine. And now it cheats to do so.

I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years. If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed. Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.

If you don't need the features, perhaps you don't need a professional program. Stick with Aperture, as it's an in between program. Great for Amateurs, and pros who don't need to do much to their work.

And yes, Rarely InDesign will have a problem, but I'd still rather use it than Quark.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbanshee View Post

One can't ignore that many people and that much content, regardless of how poorly it can be implemented.

Really?
Words to live by. (If you have Windows on your machine.....)
I don't, so i wont' luive by those words.

And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)
post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

Really?
Words to live by. (If you have Windows on your machine.....)
I don't, so i wont' luive by those words.

And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)

One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.

Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.

When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.

Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.

Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
post #51 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbanshee View Post

One has to be careful not to speak in absolutes. As easy as it is to bash Windows and Flash (especially in a Mac-centric forum), they both play an important role in some service most of us use on a daily basis.

Not all flash implemented on the web is bad either and one certainly has to consider the time period in which it sprang. When people were creating multiple versions of the same html site during the browser wars, no web programmer or designer could win. It took a looong time for some reasonable web standards to get here.

When Flash (FutureSplash) entered the picture, some new possibilities began to emerge and it offered some interesting alternatives at the time. It also helped fuel some of the commercial interest in the web since one could offer something better than image maps, slices and animated gifs.

Granted, most people who build flash sites nowadays often miss the big picture, but let's not totally brand it as a innately bad thing. It works really well as a video delivery platform for instance. It's also something that web clientele ask for to some degree in a whole slew of web projects.

Ultimately, having flash implemented on the iphone could offer an experience more closely related to what we see on the average desktop. That seems to be something most people want (including Apple), but as always, YMMV.

When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.

I would specifically like Apple to keep the crap out that is implemented really badly and survives because people want it.

There's a reason I run no spyware, malware or virus protection on my MACs.....

...... and if Flash gets better, I'd consider it.

The idea that Apple should bend to the Flash world is just not to my way of thinking.
They dug in, and Steve basically said it ain't happening.
Adobe came out after looking at the SDK and said they now have enough to go forward.
(a statement they had to retract, as I said they would have to do)
If they want into the iPhone badly enough to put out a statement so wrong, then when the 3G is out selling really hot and the developers load iTunes with apps.... they'll rework flash into something friendlier. (and still many will want a way to disable it on the iPhone like some browsers allow)
post #52 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

When someone says, if people want it Apple should support it "No Matter How Poorly It Is Implemented", I draw the line.

That's certainly a fair assessment and I agree with you. It appears I've not made myself clear with the use of the word "implementation".

What I mean is, I expect Adobe to deliver solid and intuitive Flash capability for the iPhone and Apple should work with them to get it just right since it offers a large value to users. I don't see any reason why this can't be made possible.

What I'm railing against, is the notion that Flash as a platform is the next big evil and should be avoided. Flash plays a bigger role than a lot of people want to give it credit for (banner ads, etc.). Ignoring it would be unwise.
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


And let's please not live by those other imortal words...
"When you need an app really bad.... we have a really bad app."
FLASH! (ouch)

That's actually very funny.
post #54 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post


...... and if Flash gets better, I'd consider it.

The idea that Apple should bend to the Flash world is just not to my way of thinking.
They dug in, and Steve basically said it ain't happening.
)

But, Steve never said that.
post #55 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've used PS and the rest of the programs professionally in my own company for many years.

There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.

Quote:
If you don't understand what Adobe has done and added, then you don't use the program for the purpose it was designed.

BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.

Quote:
Those of us who have been commercial users, and those of us who have been part of the beta program have ASKED for many of those features, and Adobe responded. Previously, we had to buy many of them as plug-ins.

Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But don't ever think that one company "owes" something to another. It doesn't.

Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.
post #57 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, Steve never said that.

What?

Steve never said what?
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.

I'm not sure about the printing part because I always print from the exported PDF, but I routinely work on 40+ page super complicated brochures that are in the 1+ gig files size range and I usually have a couple of those types of documents open at the same time. I never have any problems or crashes so I would guess you need more computing power.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.

And let's not forget that Adobe exists today because of Apple, how could Adobe have become Adobe if not for the GUI brought fourth by Apple? And what would MS have done without it either?

Haaaa, but yes, the oposing argument is that Apple really didn't create anything new and is not really directly responsible for Adobe's existence because somewhere, somehow, by some inevetably chances of this and that, with some bla-bla's thrown in just to prove that Apple did nothing really, this GUI innovation would have made it's way into the computer world anyway. I'm sure!

None of this is really that important, I just find interesting that a company whose existance was brought fourth by another now finds alright to diss that very same company. Ain't life sweet.
post #60 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

There is no question that the Adobe CS suite is adequate for the small business. But I've just finished a 60 page catalogue, and that project gave InDesign an absolute shit kicking. There's a bug in InDesign on intel macs when you print a document 50 times, it spools the entire document 50 times to the printer, instead of just sending it once. My pages panel wouldn't display any pages last week. It crashes when you use spotlight for re-linking. It is a complete mess.



BS. What new features? The 3 patch tools they have? Sure, some things have been improved, but only because they were so poorly implemented when they where introduced.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but if you are not having serious issues with the Creative Suite, then you are not doing pro level work in any great volume. If all you are doing is touching up a photograph one at a time, no doubt it's smooth sailing.



Wrong again. Adobe as thrown in a pile of features to hop on the amateur photography bandwagon, and it has come at a hell of a price. All the fundamental tools are pretty much the EXACT same. But we have gone from a time when Adobe apps rarely crashed or hung (except Illustrator which was famous for it) to now where you can expect a crashes unless you are doing little pamphlets and such.

Nothing is perfect. Have you ever used Quark?

But, basically, I disagree.
post #61 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Adobe owes EVERYTHING to Apple. Adobe's 2 biggest hits where suites which had to be re-written for OSX, and then again of Intel. 2 transitions that brought VERY few new features, but had blockbuster sales regardless. PDF - Apples implementation of Preview is the ONLY reason it's even usable.

That's nonsense. Apple owes just as much to Adobe, if you want to think the past is relevant to today, which it isn't.

What Adobe and Apple did, was done to help their own companies.

When Apple was foundering, Adobe, and quite a few other companies did what was right for them, they moved their programs to Windows as well. If I were a stockholder, or employee of those companies I would have wanted that, as would you.

Apple has done plenty to cross Adobe up over the years.

Companies work together to further their own aims.
post #62 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

What?

Steve never said what?

What you said:

Quote:
and Steve basically said it ain't happening.

What he did say was that the software currently wasn't usable on the phone. That's very different. At one point, when asked, he did say that Flash was possible sometime.
post #63 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

And let's not forget that Adobe exists today because of Apple, how could Adobe have become Adobe if not for the GUI brought fourth by Apple? And what would MS have done without it either?

Haaaa, but yes, the oposing argument is that Apple really didn't create anything new and is not really directly responsible for Adobe's existence because somewhere, somehow, by some inevetably chances of this and that, with some bla-bla's thrown in just to prove that Apple did nothing really, this GUI innovation would have made it's way into the computer world anyway. I'm sure!

None of this is really that important, I just find interesting that a company whose existance was brought fourth by another now finds alright to diss that very same company. Ain't life sweet.

It's also been said that if it weren't for Adobe and Aldus, the Mac would have died, and that's likely true as well.

And if the Mac had died, the way the Apple III and Lisa did, would Apple be here today?
post #64 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What you said:



What he did say was that the software currently wasn't usable on the phone. That's very different. At one point, when asked, he did say that Flash was possible sometime.

You're right.
Steve did not say QUOTE(it ain't happening)UNQUOTE

I said he basically said it ain't happening.
I didn't say he said "It Ain't Happening".

I'll stick with my point.

Steve said the current version out today for Flash, is NOT coming to the iPhone.
Period.
If you have a quote where he said the current version of Flash IS IN FACT, coming to the iPhone I'll listen.
I think people who BELIEVE Apple is about to reverse course and build a Flash addon into their iPhone version on that screen for Flash have zero clue about the culture at Apple.
They aren't MicroSoft, they aren't going to bend their sensbilities to third party software that can melt your cpu and drain your battery.
I'll sit back and wait for the quote from Steve that says it's coming......
(*taps foot, rolls eye, waits.... and waits..... and waits.....*)
post #65 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

You're right.
Steve did not say QUOTE(it ain't happening)UNQUOTE

I said he basically said it ain't happening.
I didn't say he said "It Ain't Happening".

I'll stick with my point.

Steve said the current version out today for Flash, is NOT coming to the iPhone.
Period.
If you have a quote where he said the current version of Flash IS IN FACT, coming to the iPhone I'll listen.
I think people who BELIEVE Apple is about to reverse course and build a Flash addon into their iPhone version on that screen for Flash have zero clue about the culture at Apple.
They aren't MicroSoft, they aren't going to bend their sensbilities to third party software that can melt your cpu and drain your battery.
I'll sit back and wait for the quote from Steve that says it's coming......
(*taps foot, rolls eye, waits.... and waits..... and waits.....*)

I see that you're now trying to hedge your bets, and are misquoting me. I never said that the "current" version of Flash was coming to the iPhone. in fact, I said that Jobs said that the two current versions were "not" coming to the iPhone.

What I did say, is that Jobs made it pretty clear that it was the performance of the current versions that was keeping them off the phone. He NEVER said that Flash would never come to the iPhone. Never!

He had said earlier, that while Java would not come to the iPhone (as opposed to Javascript, which IS on the iPhone), Flash might, though he couldn't say when. I wish I could find that interview, but it was around the time of the iPhone announcement.

He, or someone else from Apple, also said right after the March 6th event, that is, in the hall where the event was just held, in response to a question, that Flash might come to the phone.

People are so blinded by their hatred for this that they aren't paying attention.

Find where Jobs said that Flash would never come to the iPhone. You can't, because he never said it!

At some point, I will find one of those interviews, and bookmark it.
post #66 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I see that you're now trying to hedge your bets, and are misquoting me. I never said that the "current" version of Flash was coming to the iPhone. in fact, I said that Jobs said that the two current versions were "not" coming to the iPhone.

What I did say, is that Jobs made it pretty clear that it was the performance of the current versions that was keeping them off the phone. He NEVER said that Flash would never come to the iPhone. Never!

That's exactly what he said.
Flash. This Flash. The way Flash works.
This Flash working this way is never going to run on this phone.
That's what he said.
Can't, it's a performance problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He had said earlier, that while Java would not come to the iPhone (as opposed to Javascript, which IS on the iPhone), Flash might, though he couldn't say when. I wish I could find that interview, but it was around the time of the iPhone announcement.

He, or someone else from Apple, also said right after the March 6th event, that is, in the hall where the event was just held, in response to a question, that Flash might come to the phone.

People are so blinded by their hatred for this that they aren't paying attention.

Find where Jobs said that Flash would never come to the iPhone. You can't, because he never said it!

At some point, I will find one of those interviews, and bookmark it.

I'm not hedging my bets, or anyone esles.
Apple is on record, that Flash... the flash out there now, the flash we all understand when we say "Flash" is not going to run on the iPhone. (and clearly, it would melt the cpu and drain the battery)
And I listen to underlings carefully say they may support Flash if things change.
I say carefully, because if you parse their words, you'll see they are saying when Flash works really well and won't cook their phone, of course they'd support it.
But that's not Flash.
That's some new product to replace Flash.
And when some new product comes out, that isn't such garbadge, it will be more successful.
(even might cause browsers makers to stop making features to diable it!)

Flash is not going to come to the iPhone until something Drastic happens.
And the people running the show at Flash central are so clueless they actually announced they could use the iPhone SDK to implement a solution.

Can't, won't.

And if you really think Apple is "going to support it soon" as you seem to say, how in the world do you think they can stand up and make such a big deal about not going down that ugly path?

You'll know a solution to the problem is on th way when the APple folks start working behind the scenes on how flash works.

Since they have enough to do, and Flash support is about 47th on the list of things that are really important for improving in their portable device platform business unit.... don't hold your breath.

You think it's coming soon?
You're wrong, you'll see.
post #67 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

That's exactly what he said.
Flash. This Flash. The way Flash works.
This Flash working this way is never going to run on this phone.
That's what he said.
Can't, it's a performance problem.

I don't know what your argument is then, you're not disagreeing with me. Possibly you aren't aware of that?


Quote:
I'm not hedging my bets, or anyone esles.
Apple is on record, that Flash... the flash out there now, the flash we all understand when we say "Flash" is not going to run on the iPhone. (and clearly, it would melt the cpu and drain the battery)
And I listen to underlings carefully say they may support Flash if things change.
I say carefully, because if you parse their words, you'll see they are saying when Flash works really well and won't cook their phone, of course they'd support it.
But that's not Flash.
That's some new product to replace Flash.
And when some new product comes out, that isn't such garbadge, it will be more successful.
(even might cause browsers makers to stop making features to diable it!)

Flash is not going to come to the iPhone until something Drastic happens.
And the people running the show at Flash central are so clueless they actually announced they could use the iPhone SDK to implement a solution.

Can't, won't.

And if you really think Apple is "going to support it soon" as you seem to say, how in the world do you think they can stand up and make such a big deal about not going down that ugly path?

You'll know a solution to the problem is on th way when the APple folks start working behind the scenes on how flash works.

Since they have enough to do, and Flash support is about 47th on the list of things that are really important for improving in their portable device platform business unit.... don't hold your breath.

You think it's coming soon?
You're wrong, you'll see.

All you're saying now, with a great many words, is what several of us have been saying, which, as I again will repeat, is that the two versions of Flash out there will not be coming to the iPhone. That Adobe (possibly with Apple's help or encouragement), will need to write a Flash product that is more able to meet the needs of Apple's, and possibly other's, devices.

If Apple is working behind the scenes with Adobe on this, we will NOT know that, until they are ready to produce a product.

This is all we've been saying, and is pretty much what Jobs has been saying as well.

I never said that it would be soon. We don't know how long it might be. It could take 6 months, it could take a year. Possibly, it will not happen at all. We'll just have to wait and see.
post #68 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know what your argument is then, you're not disagreeing with me. Possibly you aren't aware of that?




All you're saying now, with a great many words, is what several of us have been saying, which, as I again will repeat, is that the two versions of Flash out there will not be coming to the iPhone. That Adobe (possibly with Apple's help or encouragement), will need to write a Flash product that is more able to meet the needs of Apple's, and possibly other's, devices.

If Apple is working behind the scenes with Adobe on this, we will NOT know that, until they are ready to produce a product.

This is all we've been saying, and is pretty much what Jobs has been saying as well.

I never said that it would be soon. We don't know how long it might be. It could take 6 months, it could take a year. Possibly, it will not happen at all. We'll just have to wait and see.

Correct.
Flash is not coming to the iPhone.
Don't be looking for it......
post #69 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

Correct.
Flash is not coming to the iPhone.
Don't be looking for it......

Since you're clearly being impossible, I'll leave this alone.
post #70 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Since you're clearly being impossible, I'll leave this alone.

First you say we're basically agreeing, and then you say it could take 6 months... maybe a year.

You will not see flash on the iPhone in the next year.
And Adobe can't come up with something new to call flash in that time.
You need a lot longer timeframe, and the idea that Apple would lend any resources to help Adobe when they clearly don't need flash, well, it's just silly.

Steve said flash won't perform and that's why it's not on the phone.
If and when it does, it could go on the phone.
It can't, it won't, forget it.
They were late on Leopard because of the iPhone.
They were late on the SDK, because it's a lot.
They are still late, because it's not ready.
If anyone thinks they're going to put "Flash" of all things, ahead of iPhone enterprise features, of the devlopers community on the iPhone, you're adsly mistaken.

The only effort that could keep the flash movement alive for the iPhone has to come from Adobe. They clearly don't know what they're doing so forget it......
post #71 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's also been said that if it weren't for Adobe and Aldus, the Mac would have died, and that's likely true as well.

And if the Mac had died, the way the Apple III and Lisa did, would Apple be here today?

Huh? What a mind twist.

First... Sure, Apple, or any group, person or entity for that matter, is dependent not only upon self for it's survival but also upon others. What's your point? What does that have to do with Adobe's lack of friendliness towards the Mac specially when Adobe owes it's very existence to the Mac community in the first place? Yes, I can understand that Adobe had to survive therefore seek a market outside of the Mac OS, but why go so far as to alienate us? Why go so far as to abandon the ideology of the Mac and replace it with a Windows centric ideology? Adobe has abonded the Mac user long ago. Back in the days when honor meant something this would have been classified as betrayal. But apperently this in meaningless now days.

Second, the Mac evolved from the products you mention. Neither did the Apple III nor Lisa "die", they evolved into the Mac. What does Apple's evolutionary product history have to do with the discussion at hand?
post #72 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

First you say we're basically agreeing, and then you say it could take 6 months... maybe a year.

You will not see flash on the iPhone in the next year.
And Adobe can't come up with something new to call flash in that time.
You need a lot longer timeframe, and the idea that Apple would lend any resources to help Adobe when they clearly don't need flash, well, it's just silly.

Steve said flash won't perform and that's why it's not on the phone.
If and when it does, it could go on the phone.
It can't, it won't, forget it.
They were late on Leopard because of the iPhone.
They were late on the SDK, because it's a lot.
They are still late, because it's not ready.
If anyone thinks they're going to put "Flash" of all things, ahead of iPhone enterprise features, of the devlopers community on the iPhone, you're adsly mistaken.

The only effort that could keep the flash movement alive for the iPhone has to come from Adobe. They clearly don't know what they're doing so forget it......

My position has been very clear.

Reading what Jobs has said, shows that he never said that Flash would not be coming at some point in time, and at one time, though I can't find it now, he said that while JAVA was out, Flash might show up.

His complaints about Flash have been carefully limited to the current products. The full Flash product, according to him, not being able to be run properly with current handheld devices, and Flash Lite not giving a proper internet experience.

Therefore, I believe that there is a possible role for Flash on the iPhone/itouch. If, and when Adobe, possibly in cooperation with Apple, has a product that alleviates Job's concerns, we might very well see Flash on Apple's devices.

How long could that take? I don't know, nor does anyone else here. I'm saying that it could take 6 months to a year, based on the size of the program, which would not be large, and is not something that is totally new to Adobe after all.

Maybe, it will never happen. That's possible as well.

But Jobs doesn't seem to be opposed to it in principle, he just doesn't seem to feel that the current products are useable, or useful.

You said that the current products would never arrive on the iPhone, and I agreed.

But, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Most of them are not verifiable, and some are even fishy.

You have no idea how long it could take Adobe to do this product. It isn't a big product, and some code from current products would be reusable. You can't assume that Apple won't help. They may, and they may not.

Jobs says that 10.5 was late because of the iPhone, possibly that's true in the strict sense. But it really just shows that Apple didn't have the proper number of people working on the projects in the first place, and even, possibly, that they were having problems with BOTH products. something that seems very probable, looking at the problems with both when they first came out.

I said, many times, from the very beginning, reinforced by quotes from Jobs, that I thought Apple was going to come out with an SDK, though I didn't know when. The fact that a very big project like this might be late isn't surprising. But, other than the beta being a bit late, we really don't know if Apple intended for it to arrive in February, full sprung. I doubt that very much, considering how much work is being done on it. I'm pretty sure that the developers conference was the intended date.

Who said that Apple was going to put Flash ahead of the other solutions? I didn't. End of June is when those solutions will be available. As far as my arithmetic goes, 6 months comes 3 months later, and that's just a guess about the earliest possible date.

It's nice that you know so much that you can so easily say that Adobe doesn't know what they are doing. I guess your developers skills are vast, and your inside knowledge of their operations are so detailed that they can allow such an opinion.
post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

Huh? What a mind twist.

First... Sure, Apple, or any group, person or entity for that matter, is dependent not only upon self for it's survival but also upon others. What's your point? What does that have to do with Adobe's lack of friendliness towards the Mac specially when Adobe owes it's very existence to the Mac community in the first place? Yes, I can understand that Adobe had to survive therefore seek a market outside of the Mac OS, but why go so far as to alienate us? Why go so far as to abandon the ideology of the Mac and replace it with a Windows centric ideology? Adobe has abonded the Mac user long ago. Back in the days when honor meant something this would have been classified as betrayal. But apperently this in meaningless now days.

Second, the Mac evolved from the products you mention. Neither did the Apple III nor Lisa "die", they evolved into the Mac. What does Apple's evolutionary product history have to do with the discussion at hand?

It's not a mind twist at all. It's the truth. There has been much writing about how each company supported the other. Without Apple, it's possible that Aldus and Adobe wouldn't have gone anywhere. It's also true that their products shored up the faltering Mac line, which, after several high profile failures from Apple, was the future of the company.

What I'm saying is that one company can't look back to some rosy past, and out of the kindness of its heart, throw large amounts of money down, what looks to be an endless hole.

At the end of 1995, after the fiasco by Michael Spindler, many companies, both large and small, were getting rid of their Macs by the thousands. To much of the outside world, it looked as though Apple had a short time left.

Adobe, Quark, and many other Mac only companies quickly ported their software over. This is something they had to do as a matter of survival.

As more users moved to the PC platform, these companies began to put more resources into that side of it. Again, that's natural.

At the nadir of Apple's low point, only 27% of Adobe's customers for the imaging products were Mac users.

While Apple did come out with some technologies during the late 90's, they were confused, poorly implemented, and often withdrawn as soon as third parties began to come out with products for them. Corel was a big supported of Apple's object oriented additions to their OS, and was severely burned. These third parties learned to stay away from Apple's "innovations", because they rarely lasted more than a year or two. Remember Game Sockets?

During that time, Apple tried to kill Adobe's cash cow, the Type 1 font technology, in conjunction with MS. They succeeded to a large extent.

Nevertheless, during that period, having used both Adobe's PC product, and their Mac product, I never felt as though Adobe was putting more resources into the PC versions.

In fact, the Mac versions always maintained a better usability factor.

I don't find any "unfriendliness" toward Apple's lines from Adobe. What you are expecting is that Adobe put more effort into products for the Mac than they do for the PC, but thats not sensible at this time. If, sales to Mac users ever gain a very large percentage of their business, we may see more of that, but otherwise no.

We've seen Adobe products for the Mac being discontinued, and that's sad. But it is directly related to sales. If a product's sales fall below what's required to make a profit, it gets discontinued. Then people howl. but most of them never bought the product in the first place, and the number of those who did, clearly wasn't enough to support it.

I really don't see how you can argue with what I've said.
post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What I'm saying is that one company can't look back to some rosy past, and out of the kindness of its heart, throw large amounts of money down, what looks to be an endless hole.

This is probably the only part we can agree on.

There is no way Apple is going to look back on Adobe and throw any cash down that hole, let alone use any of Apple's strapped resources to fix flash.

Again, they were late on Leopard because they had to redirect resources.
Then, the iPhone work was delayed as they pushed Leopard through after the iPhone was out.
You're expecting Apple to have some kind of quiet effort going on behind the scenes to help Adobe figure out how to fix ther "performance problem" Jobs described that keeps flash off the phone.
That's just stupid.
For Apple to "lend" or help out Adobe when they have so much more valuable things for those resources to work on makes no sense at all.
And as you said, looking back at some way they helped each other in some other time-frame just won't happen.
This is busness, and flash performs badly and Adobe either can't figure out how to fix the problem or doesn't think it's important enough.
Clearly, the iPhone won't suffer at all if flash is never fixed.
And Adobe has shown in recent statements that THEY KNOW NOTHING! (as cramer would say) about the iPhone.
So if they don't want to deal with their performance problems, and make it public knowledge they have no idea how the iPhone works, then clearly Apple isn't going to try to resolve the problem despite Adobe's lack of capability to deal with it.

As you said, looking back at prior history at a happier time makes no sense.
So.... Apple has moved on.
You should too.....
post #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

This is probably the only part we can agree on.

There is no way Apple is going to look back on Adobe and throw any cash down that hole, let alone use any of Apple's strapped resources to fix flash.

Again, they were late on Leopard because they had to redirect resources.
Then, the iPhone work was delayed as they pushed Leopard through after the iPhone was out.
You're expecting Apple to have some kind of quiet effort going on behind the scenes to help Adobe figure out how to fix ther "performance problem" Jobs described that keeps flash off the phone.
That's just stupid.
For Apple to "lend" or help out Adobe when they have so much more valuable things for those resources to work on makes no sense at all.
And as you said, looking back at some way they helped each other in some other time-frame just won't happen.
This is busness, and flash performs badly and Adobe either can't figure out how to fix the problem or doesn't think it's important enough.
Clearly, the iPhone won't suffer at all if flash is never fixed.
And Adobe has shown in recent statements that THEY KNOW NOTHING! (as cramer would say) about the iPhone.
So if they don't want to deal with their performance problems, and make it public knowledge they have no idea how the iPhone works, then clearly Apple isn't going to try to resolve the problem despite Adobe's lack of capability to deal with it.

As you said, looking back at prior history at a happier time makes no sense.
So.... Apple has moved on.
You should too.....

We obviously have very different views on this, so we should just leave it at that, and part as friends.
post #76 of 86
Just curious what kind of developing iPeon and wbrasington do? Are you just consumers expressing your opinion or do you really have a point to make? Melgross is bringing up some good points and you guys are turning fanboi on him... It seems like every argument fanboys get involved in there is some comparison to Microsoft in the argument...
post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I really don't see how you can argue with what I've said.

I don't disagre with you on this. What I disagree with is this: If you have used Adobe's apps from back in the days when the Mac was the only platform they coded for, and I know you have based on your postings, you will notice a big change. Today Adobe's apps have taken on a flovor of a Windows like paradigm (an example serving as a model; pattern.) Bloated, buggy, incomplete, with UI elements that comes from a Windows like paradigm.

That was my point. Now, this view-point is defenetely a subjective view-point. Some get what I'm saying, some won't. Some don't see the diference between Windows and the Mac. "It's just a computer, and they both do the same thing.", one often reads in these forums. Truth is, there's a HUGE diference between the two in how work gets done and what we Mac users expect from an app is very much diferent than what a Windows user expects from an app.

Do I feel confident that Adobe knows what they are doing? Hell no. That's all I'm saying.
post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

I don't disagre with you on this. What I disagree with is this: If you have used Adobe's apps from back in the days when the Mac was the only platform they coded for, and I know you have based on your postings, you will notice a big change. Today Adobe's apps have taken on a flovor of a Windows like paradigm (an example serving as a model; pattern.) Bloated, buggy, incomplete, with UI elements that comes from a Windows like paradigm.

That was my point. Now, this view-point is defenetely a subjective view-point. Some get what I'm saying, some won't. Some don't see the diference between Windows and the Mac. "It's just a computer, and they both do the same thing.", one often reads in these forums. Truth is, there's a HUGE diference between the two in how work gets done and what we Mac users expect from an app is very much diferent than what a Windows user expects from an app.

Do I feel confident that Adobe knows what they are doing? Hell no. That's all I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. I don't think it's exactly what's happened though,

Over the years, programs tend to get bigger as they add features and capabilities. You might call this bloat, but it isn't.

The same thing happens to all programs. If you look at FCP, you'll see what I mean. When I first used it in ver. 1.0, it was a fairly lean machine. Now it's pretty complex, part of a suite that MUST be purchased, unlike before, and one might even say—bloated!

Of course there will be those here, who will, because it's an Apple program, deny that, but it's true. I'm not saying that it's bad, but many have bitterly complained about having to buy the whole thing when they don't want to.

So it's not really Adobe's fault. They are giving the majority of their customers what they want, like Apple is, and at the same time making some unhappy. That's the way of the world.

I you don't need all of PS, then there are options from Adobe. You can buy Lightroom, or Elements 6.

I also don't find them to be any buggier than any other programs, and usually less buggy. But the bigger programs get, the more bugs they tend to have. look at Apple's OS. The past two versions were riddled with bugs compared to earlier versions.

Look at Aperture. It was a disaster when it first came out, and took months to become usable in any serious way. Over time, you'll see Apple continue to add features until several years from now, assuming its still around, it will be twice the size.

As far as the Windows UI elements, well, Apple has taken some of those for itself as well. All companies "borrow" from others. Aperture just took several significant features from CR 4. But I don't see anyone here protesting.
post #79 of 86
Adobe QA and user friendliness has dropped of the face of the earth. Sure CS3 streamlined the UI and now most of the apps really work well together, but the Install process takes longer thna an OS install, and the update process is TEH FAIL. Add to that unpublicized updates for things like the DWG/DXF plugin--only available through a forum post, and the manually installed by dragging into the plugins folder. Won't even discuss the Catastrophic License Failure issue. Nice software to use, utter crap to maintain.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #80 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowerd View Post

Adobe QA and user friendliness has dropped of the face of the earth. Sure CS3 streamlined the UI and now most of the apps really work well together, but the Install process takes longer thna an OS install, and the update process is TEH FAIL. Add to that unpublicized updates for things like the DWG/DXF plugin--only available through a forum post, and the manually installed by dragging into the plugins folder. Won't even discuss the Catastrophic License Failure issue. Nice software to use, utter crap to maintain.

The install will take some time vbecause there are a number of programs to install. I would be surprised if it didn't rake some time.

As for the updates, they always go smoothly, I just did the latest early this evening, and as usual, there was no problem.

As for some plug-ins and other small add-ons that most people won't be wanting, sure, you have to take the entire minute it takes to install them, if you really want them. I thought you were a pro. You're using pro apps. You can't take a bit of time to install something that just a few people will want?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe clears up likelihood of Flash for iPhone