I think the main issue with Adobe was that they didn't handle the transition of Flash to 64bit platforms too well, this started back before 2004 when AMD introduced 64bit desktop processors, first it was users of 64bit Linux, then users of 64bit Windows betas and finally 64bit Mac users.
The first rumbles of discontent were happening over five years ago and now that is growing to a roar.
Adobe can't ignore it any more and have to come up with viable solutions
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
For the record, I want to point out that my primary beef with Adobe (and the community of Flash developers) is the current state of Flash as a defacto standard for delivery of multimedia content over the internet. That situation benefits the aforementioned parties and no one else. It is certainly within Adobe's rights to produce software applications that only run on Widows 7, but a product such as that imo has no business being promoted as, or adopted as a standard, defacto or otherwise.
I'll leave the discussion of Farmville to others and/or for another day.
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
Buy a PC, so you can use Flash, Hmm why did I not think of doing that. Spend couple hundred dollars so I can use Flash
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
why not leave this up to the consumer? If i don't want flash or i agree with steve's claim that it is old, slow and buggy, then i won't install it. But if i want flash, perhaps apple could allow them to sell a plugin or something at the app store. Flash may be old, but it is well established and has a lot of users. Some of us don't create entire sites out of flash, but rather use it to add hints of animation to our sites, in small increments.
If the 75-year-old church lady buys an ipad because it's an affordable alternative to a computer, i personally would prefer for her to be able to see her church's entire website, the way i designed it. Not just the parts that apple "approves" of.
Also, last i checked flash creation software is quite costly. Some of us have a lot of money, time and effort tied up in software and skill to produce flash content.
Changing and improving technology is very helpful and can offer great benefits -- but not when it comes at the expense of alienating the less capable users or perhaps designers with more modest budgets.
flash crippled my 3 yr AND my 5 yr old macs
click to flash saved them
dude your time is over
adobe fucked you by letting flash wallow in 7 yr old windows fat binary
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
This is the future, except that you can't see the forest for the trees. No vision.
You sure you don't live in Redmond, WA? Because that place is full of people that think like you.
I think the main issue with Adobe is that over the years they've become a POS company that relies on the dependence of the masses on its bloatware to keep afloat. Adobe is Microsoft, but in miniature form. Their Creative Suite software has become a set of headaches that designers - professionals and amateurs alike, can't wait to dump for better alternatives. But when design houses are already so dependent (from long ago) on Photoshop, InDesign and the like, and have so much invested in the platform, letting go might be just as painful (if not more painful) than living with the pain. It's a pretty abusive relationship.
Quark's incompetence just made things worse, and their current offerings might be too little, too late.
Adobe is getting EXACTLY what they deserve, and I wouldn't shed a tear of all their bloatware and lousy tech was vaporized tomorrow.
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
His post makes no sense, but that is trolling for you. The iPad, like the iPhone, can multitask. The iPad has USB connectivity, which is how you sync and charge the device. In an earlier post he calls a webcam innovative which he then claims makes the iPad not innovative. Of course reality and facts aren't important when you're trolling.
But the oddest part is him saying that the iPad runs an SDK beta. That makes absolutely no sense. If he, in his infinite ignorance, meant that iPhone OS SDK 3.2 was still in beta, you have no wonder why that is a problem. It was only released 3 weeks ago.
His post makes no sense, but that is trolling for you. The iPad, like the iPhone, can multitask. The iPad has USB connectivity, which is how you sync and charge the device. In an earlier post he calls a webcam innovative which he then claims makes the iPad not innovative. Of course reality and facts aren't important when you're trolling.
But the oddest part is him saying that the iPad runs an SDK beta. That makes absolutely no sense. If he, in his infinite ignorance, meant that iPhone OS SDK 3.2 was still in beta, you have no wonder why that is a problem. It was only released 3 weeks ago.
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
i'm beginning to suspect these people work for Adobe, Google or Microsoft
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
They are switching Flash to the GPU in 10.1 - Mac support is lagging as usual though. The HTML 5 graphics seem to use both CPU and GPU, though it's hard to tell how much of each as OS X uses the GPU for lots of things. The OpenGL driver monitor on the desktop shows the same when scrolling a web page as drawing an HTML 5 animation. There are varying results across different platforms and browsers. It will depend on how developers implement the Javascript drawing calls.
There's no doubt it has a big advantage over Flash in that each company has control over the performance and can make it as fast as they want, they don't have to wait for Adobe to get it done. But, the fact that HTML 5 demos can be made in such a way that use lots of CPU suggests that it won't be a significant benefit over Flash for everything.
Most of what makes Flash slow is the Actionscript language running through lots of code. This is the same for Javascript. An old benchmark showed that the Actionscript bytecode interpreter was much faster (up to 100x) at some tasks than Javascript:
In fact various engines have vastly different performance in specific areas of testing.
Javascript engines keep improving but interpreted code is slow and using it to control animation is slow. HTML 5 animation on a mobile platform may use the GPU but if it also uses the full CPU for the code running the animations, then your mobile is at full load and can't be prevented.
Like I say, it's an improvement as Apple now have control over how fast they can make the APIs and aren't dependent on lazy Adobe but I can see it taking a wrong turn where we suddenly get advertisers using heavy HTML 5 demos on websites that can't be blocked and that suck down resources that weren't being used at all.
Hardware-accelerated video decoding will be good but it won't always work.
Apple already touts Safari as the fastest browser for Javascript and it worries me that these HTML 5 demos are still maxing out at least one core of a Core 2 Duo processor. I'm also concerned that bad coding in the API will crash the display driver and force a reboot. Browser crashes were bad enough with Flash.
Just curious ? do you know there are other browsers? Camino, Chrome, Omniweb, Opera and SeaMonkey are the ones I mix up. Seems the only ones I see discussed are Safari and Firefox.
Are you serious? Camino? Opera? Are we stuck in 2003? People are STILL using those? The type of person who uses those browsers is the same type of person that installs a CB radio in their Prius. I personally use Chrome, but Firefox and Safari are pretty much the de facto browser standards.. Everything that happens in web browser development is centered around those platforms (with Chrome quickly joining the party.)
Personally, I'm not going to use a browser like Omniweb or SeaMonkey because I know the developer and testing community for Fox, Safari and Chrome is going to be massive compared to niche/hobby browsers and personally, I don't care that much about my web browser other than: it works, my workflow is intuitive and security is reasonable.
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
another stupid comment, I see the replies have already taken care of you. You wonder why people call you a troll!
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
You are very, very wrong on that front. Most people may not actively think they are using multi-tasking, but take it away from them and they will know pretty damn quickly
How many people do you think like to browse the web while using an IM client at the same time? Or maybe Skype? They switch back and forth between Word and Firefox instantly, and think nothing of immediately reading an IM while Firefox downloads in the background or plays a Flash movie from iPlayer or YouTube.
Not to mention how shocked they will be when they cant plug their digital camera in through USB without having to drive to the Apple store to buy an adaptor.
The iPad is seemingly designed to frustrate users as much as humanly possible. If you think Netbooks are bad, the iPad is going to be on an entirely different level.
So buy a PC and stop complaining. Flash works fine on them.
Seriously. These guys whining that their Macs don't work well should look towards practical solutions rather than looking to "kill" content that their machines are not capable of accessing.
Comments
The first rumbles of discontent were happening over five years ago and now that is growing to a roar.
Adobe can't ignore it any more and have to come up with viable solutions
For the record, I want to point out that my primary beef with Adobe (and the community of Flash developers) is the current state of Flash as a defacto standard for delivery of multimedia content over the internet. That situation benefits the aforementioned parties and no one else. It is certainly within Adobe's rights to produce software applications that only run on Widows 7, but a product such as that imo has no business being promoted as, or adopted as a standard, defacto or otherwise.
I'll leave the discussion of Farmville to others and/or for another day.
I wouldn't call it a difference in opinion.
No, but there again, you don't appear to be capable of civil discussion.
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
http://www.openscreenproject.org/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...os_fp10.1.html
So buy a PC and stop complaining. Flash works fine on them.
So buy a PC and stop complaining. Flash works fine on them.
Buy a PC, so you can use Flash, Hmm why did I not think of doing that. Spend couple hundred dollars so I can use Flash
Yep, should work with openCL.
WOW
Buy a PC, so you can use Flash, Hmm why did I not think of doing that. Spend couple hundred dollars so I can use Flash
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
why not leave this up to the consumer? If i don't want flash or i agree with steve's claim that it is old, slow and buggy, then i won't install it. But if i want flash, perhaps apple could allow them to sell a plugin or something at the app store. Flash may be old, but it is well established and has a lot of users. Some of us don't create entire sites out of flash, but rather use it to add hints of animation to our sites, in small increments.
If the 75-year-old church lady buys an ipad because it's an affordable alternative to a computer, i personally would prefer for her to be able to see her church's entire website, the way i designed it. Not just the parts that apple "approves" of.
Also, last i checked flash creation software is quite costly. Some of us have a lot of money, time and effort tied up in software and skill to produce flash content.
Changing and improving technology is very helpful and can offer great benefits -- but not when it comes at the expense of alienating the less capable users or perhaps designers with more modest budgets.
flash crippled my 3 yr AND my 5 yr old macs
click to flash saved them
dude your time is over
adobe fucked you by letting flash wallow in 7 yr old windows fat binary
adobe once again stabbed apple in the back
adobe will be small soon
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
This is the future, except that you can't see the forest for the trees. No vision.
You sure you don't live in Redmond, WA? Because that place is full of people that think like you.
I think the main issue with Adobe . . .
I think the main issue with Adobe is that over the years they've become a POS company that relies on the dependence of the masses on its bloatware to keep afloat. Adobe is Microsoft, but in miniature form. Their Creative Suite software has become a set of headaches that designers - professionals and amateurs alike, can't wait to dump for better alternatives. But when design houses are already so dependent (from long ago) on Photoshop, InDesign and the like, and have so much invested in the platform, letting go might be just as painful (if not more painful) than living with the pain. It's a pretty abusive relationship.
Quark's incompetence just made things worse, and their current offerings might be too little, too late.
Adobe is getting EXACTLY what they deserve, and I wouldn't shed a tear of all their bloatware and lousy tech was vaporized tomorrow.
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
His post makes no sense, but that is trolling for you. The iPad, like the iPhone, can multitask. The iPad has USB connectivity, which is how you sync and charge the device. In an earlier post he calls a webcam innovative which he then claims makes the iPad not innovative. Of course reality and facts aren't important when you're trolling.
But the oddest part is him saying that the iPad runs an SDK beta. That makes absolutely no sense. If he, in his infinite ignorance, meant that iPhone OS SDK 3.2 was still in beta, you have no wonder why that is a problem. It was only released 3 weeks ago.
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
His post makes no sense, but that is trolling for you. The iPad, like the iPhone, can multitask. The iPad has USB connectivity, which is how you sync and charge the device. In an earlier post he calls a webcam innovative which he then claims makes the iPad not innovative. Of course reality and facts aren't important when you're trolling.
But the oddest part is him saying that the iPad runs an SDK beta. That makes absolutely no sense. If he, in his infinite ignorance, meant that iPhone OS SDK 3.2 was still in beta, you have no wonder why that is a problem. It was only released 3 weeks ago.
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
i'm beginning to suspect these people work for Adobe, Google or Microsoft
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
They are switching Flash to the GPU in 10.1 - Mac support is lagging as usual though. The HTML 5 graphics seem to use both CPU and GPU, though it's hard to tell how much of each as OS X uses the GPU for lots of things. The OpenGL driver monitor on the desktop shows the same when scrolling a web page as drawing an HTML 5 animation. There are varying results across different platforms and browsers. It will depend on how developers implement the Javascript drawing calls.
There's no doubt it has a big advantage over Flash in that each company has control over the performance and can make it as fast as they want, they don't have to wait for Adobe to get it done. But, the fact that HTML 5 demos can be made in such a way that use lots of CPU suggests that it won't be a significant benefit over Flash for everything.
Most of what makes Flash slow is the Actionscript language running through lots of code. This is the same for Javascript. An old benchmark showed that the Actionscript bytecode interpreter was much faster (up to 100x) at some tasks than Javascript:
http://oddhammer.com/actionscriptperformance/set4/
Just found a more recent one here that puts the fastest engines similar to AS3:
http://jacksondunstan.com/articles/232
In fact various engines have vastly different performance in specific areas of testing.
Javascript engines keep improving but interpreted code is slow and using it to control animation is slow. HTML 5 animation on a mobile platform may use the GPU but if it also uses the full CPU for the code running the animations, then your mobile is at full load and can't be prevented.
Like I say, it's an improvement as Apple now have control over how fast they can make the APIs and aren't dependent on lazy Adobe but I can see it taking a wrong turn where we suddenly get advertisers using heavy HTML 5 demos on websites that can't be blocked and that suck down resources that weren't being used at all.
Hardware-accelerated video decoding will be good but it won't always work.
Apple already touts Safari as the fastest browser for Javascript and it worries me that these HTML 5 demos are still maxing out at least one core of a Core 2 Duo processor. I'm also concerned that bad coding in the API will crash the display driver and force a reboot. Browser crashes were bad enough with Flash.
Just curious ? do you know there are other browsers? Camino, Chrome, Omniweb, Opera and SeaMonkey are the ones I mix up. Seems the only ones I see discussed are Safari and Firefox.
Are you serious? Camino? Opera? Are we stuck in 2003? People are STILL using those? The type of person who uses those browsers is the same type of person that installs a CB radio in their Prius. I personally use Chrome, but Firefox and Safari are pretty much the de facto browser standards.. Everything that happens in web browser development is centered around those platforms (with Chrome quickly joining the party.)
Personally, I'm not going to use a browser like Omniweb or SeaMonkey because I know the developer and testing community for Fox, Safari and Chrome is going to be massive compared to niche/hobby browsers and personally, I don't care that much about my web browser other than: it works, my workflow is intuitive and security is reasonable.
-
bd
soundcloud.com/briandear
Additionally. the IT guys where I work prohibit Flash from running on our PCs.
That tells me Jobs is right and not just when it comes to Apple machines.
Well you could do worse. You could spend 500.00 on a device that runs a mobile OS, that can't multi-task, has no USB ports, no webcam and runs an SDK beta. Damn that would be silly.
another stupid comment, I see the replies have already taken care of you.
all of which 99% of the people on earth don't care about.
You are very, very wrong on that front. Most people may not actively think they are using multi-tasking, but take it away from them and they will know pretty damn quickly
How many people do you think like to browse the web while using an IM client at the same time? Or maybe Skype? They switch back and forth between Word and Firefox instantly, and think nothing of immediately reading an IM while Firefox downloads in the background or plays a Flash movie from iPlayer or YouTube.
Not to mention how shocked they will be when they cant plug their digital camera in through USB without having to drive to the Apple store to buy an adaptor.
The iPad is seemingly designed to frustrate users as much as humanly possible. If you think Netbooks are bad, the iPad is going to be on an entirely different level.
So buy a PC and stop complaining. Flash works fine on them.
Seriously. These guys whining that their Macs don't work well should look towards practical solutions rather than looking to "kill" content that their machines are not capable of accessing.
I wouldn't shed a tear of all their bloatware and lousy tech was vaporized tomorrow.
But what about the rest of us?