Personally I hate Flash and appreciate Apple's jihad against it but if I was Adobe in this situation I would publicly offer Apple an agreement for Apple to develop their own implementation of Flash for the iPhone. A partnership, source exchange, developer exchange, etc. This would back Apple into a corner.
Personally what I think will happen is Apple will relent and allow a standalone Flash player application to run on the iPhone. Mobile Safari will simply launch the external Flash player as needed but will prefer HTML5 video/audio when available. It allows Apple to make a clear distinction between where their responsibility ends and Adobe's begins. The Flash app could be sand boxed or jailed to minimize security concerns.
I do wonder why it is entirely Adobe's issue to fix. Let's be honest, Apple has what, 7% of the computer market. So, theoretically Adobe should be required to spend large amounts of capital and effort to fix something for a small percentage of individuals?
There are many shades of grey in this debate.
The quick answer as to why it's Adobe's problem to fix is that Apple has something they want. That would be access to Apple's remarkably successful and growing mobile business. Adobe is on the outside looking in, Apple is in the driver's seat.
The more complex answer is that the ship has already sailed on "fixing" the performance issues in Flash. It might have been different if they had been fixed 5 or 10 years ago. But they weren't for whatever reasons. As it stands right now, Apple has a tidy new business in mobiles, and they have successfully implemented a sandboxed approach that enables them to more directly control the user experience by deciding what can be installed and to what levels the hardware can be accessed. So far, that approach has worked well for them.
I suspect they will continue along these lines, and of course they will promote industry standards such as H264 over proprietary solutions. It makes perfect sense really. Why would Apple want the user experience of iPhone or iPad controlled by Adobe or Google (or anybody else for that matter)?
I think it is dumb that SJ won't allow Flash on the iPad, but it does protect the revenue stream.
The processor on the iPad isn't strong enough to handle Flash, just like a lot of single core Atom netbooks can't handle it too well neither.
A point I was trying to make, that Flash wasn't originally built to be downsized to slower processors, but it was built with the intention that single core processors would get faster, which didn't happen of course. All these netbooks and iPads started coming out that can't handle it.
Quote:
I do wonder why it is entirely Adobe's issue to fix. Let's be honest, Apple has what, 7% of the computer market. So, theoretically Adobe should be required to spend large amounts of capital and effort to fix something for a small percentage of individuals?
Just iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users. Which most will have a computer anyway.
I feel Steve is bemoaning Flash is because he intends to replace the MacBook line with less processor performing iPads and his customers are going to be upset they can't get the whole web experience.
Adobe might have to respond with something, like a FlashLite version that runs for netbooks, smartphones and iPads.
No I am not a troll. It is all about making money. Is it in Adobe's corporate interest to spend the money to have Flash run efficiently on a Mac? I don't know the answer to the question, but given the relatively small market share that the Mac OS has, the answer may be no.
Is it in Apple's corporate interest to have Flash run on the iPad. The answer here is probably no. As pointed out by iBill, doing so would allow third parties to control the experience, which is not something Apple will let happen. It would also potentially hurt their revenue stream.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is not ALL about money. There are less tangible goods that need to be considered such as, the user experience, the good will of customers and the reputation for excellence in software engineering. A company that doesn't understand the importance of these intangibles --- and Adobe does not --- will slide downhill, slowly but inevitably.
The quick answer as to why it's Adobe's problem to fix is that Apple has something they want. That would be access to Apple's remarkably successful and growing mobile business. Adobe is on the outside looking in, Apple is in the driver's seat.
The more complex answer is that the ship has already sailed on "fixing" the performance issues in Flash. It might have been different if they had been fixed 5 or 10 years ago. But they weren't for whatever reasons. As it stands right now, Apple has a tidy new business in mobiles, and they have successfully implemented a sandboxed approach that enables them to more directly control the user experience by deciding what can be installed and to what levels the hardware can be accessed. So far, that approach has worked well for them.
I suspect they will continue along these lines, and of course they will promote industry standards such as H264 over proprietary solutions. It makes perfect sense really. Why would Apple want the user experience of iPhone or iPad controlled by Adobe or Google (or anybody else for that matter)?
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
I made an analogy to iTunes and some said if one doesn't like it then buy a zune. Same logic applies if one is that upset with flash on mac then turn I off or buy a pc.
So, if it is Proprietary, closed and a hog, then it must die?
Then we need to kiss iTunes goodbye, because on a Windows machine, that is a pretty good description of iTunes.
iTunes is not a Plug-in
iTunes is not pretending to be a standard
iTunes does not use limit playback to proprietary formats.
iTunes is not needed for anything out of the iPod/iPhone/iPad ecosystem. Currently anyone who wants to visit an interactive site MUST have flash installed.
While definitely not resource-efficient, iTunes for Windows is not even as nearly as bloated than Flash: Mac or otherwise. One is a frickin plug-in, the other is a full program on its own.
You know how I know this? Because I have a W7 partition for games. I use iTunes on both OS X and W7.
Bad analogy. Bad troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palm4
Strong CPU & GPU, longlife-battery and fast network comes day by day.
That because smartphone and tablet pc is coming out.
What about contents? HTML, CSS, ... These are old technology.
"We don't spend a lot of energy on old mind."
Steve knows everything Adobe will controll everything by Flash & Air.
He also wants everything controll by iTunes & App store.
That is some upside down thinking. And HTML5 is newer than Flash... Bye bye logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Not a troll at all. At my lab, which is all mac, I probably own $25-30K worth of Apple computers. I have an iPhone, and have had several iPods in the past. I like their products.
Then why are you behaving like a troll?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl
Wait, isn't H.264 the one that is patented and requires licensing?
Wait, who said H.264 is the only alternative? As far as I know, there is also HTML5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
1Ghz. Care to explain what that means to this graduate degree holding system designer? Why is 1Ghz underpowered? What is the difference between the 1Ghz snapdragon and the A4?
Do you know what you're talking about? I would guess not. Mere 1Ghz, do you know that the P4s went up to 3+ Ghz and yet their performance absolutely sucked? Ghz means nothing by itself. Comments like this drive me up the wall.
Or the 867Mhz G4s that beat the hell out of those 1.6GHz P4s... And the Itanium. And that Sun processor
Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is not ALL about money. There are less tangible goods that need to be considered such as, the user experience, the good will of customers and the reputation for excellence in software engineering. A company that doesn't understand the importance of these intangibles --- and Adobe does not --- will slide downhill, slowly but inevitably.
with all due respect everything you talked about is there to sell computers. If apple could have the same good will and fanatical fan base and sell crappy but cheaper to make computers they would
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
Using this logic, please explain the rationale for Adobe to spend money developing Flash for Linux and Solaris.
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
The worldwide marketshare of Mac OS X is less than half the 7% you mentioned, but that isn't the reason why Flash is downright awful on all systems. it's also not a reason why Adobe wouldn't want to make it better on Mac OS X.
Just look at WebOS and the Flash 10.1 they are trying to build for it. The installed base for those devices are very low compared to Mac OS X. There are more than enough Macs out there to warrant Adobe's attention, and that is even before you consider the price that Adobe as a company gets from their professional products from Mac users. Even back in 2004 it was about 25% of their revenue. Apple now sells 3M Macs a quarter when they only sold 836k Macs in Q4-2004. They only sold 2M iPod back then.
Flash is a problem as it's just not designed for a mobile platform and HTML5 video tags are better in every way, but an additional issue with Flash on Mac OS X, according to Adobe, is the inability of them to access deeper into the core OS like they can on Windows. This would explain why Flash on Windows is better, but don't read that Flash only being a resource hog on Macs as that is not the case.
For comparison, note that people have been complaining about Flash not being on the iPhone for over 3 years, since January 2007, and yet here we are at the end of Winter of 2010 with Flash still not on any Android, WinMo or WebOS platforms. You can't blame Apple for that and there is no other possibility here expect that Adobe was lazy by not proactively streamlining Flash sooner. Hell, the only reason they added H.264 and HW acceleration was because MS Silverlight was doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
Wait, who said H.264 is the only alternative? As far as I know, there is also HTML5:
HTML5's video tag spec allows for H.264 and Ogg Theora codecs to be used.
The processor on the iPad isn't strong enough to handle Flash, just like a lot of single core Atom netbooks can't handle it too well neither.
ARRRRGH not THIS again!
Do your Atom processors use the same architecture as A4's?
Do your Atom processors sport either 3-4 cores or the same tradeoffs a G4 processor had (less frequency for less pipeline stages?). One of these two is sure to be found on the A4.
Can your Atom processors play 720p video without a hitch? Instantly?
Can your Atom processors power OpenGLS games?
No. No, no and no.
Quote:
A point I was trying to make, that Flash wasn't originally built to be downsized to slower processors, but it was built with the intention that single core processors would get faster, which didn't happen of course. All these netbooks and iPads started coming out that can't handle it.
Just iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users. Which most will have a computer anyway.
Excuses. HTML5 runs fine on these "slower processors", and as some stated, Adobe itself said they are targeting mobiles.
Quote:
I feel Steve is bemoaning Flash is because he intends to replace the MacBook line with less processor performing iPads and his customers are going to be upset they can't get the whole web experience.
Not only you continue on this dumb assumption that iPad has a weak processor, you show that you are among the people that really think iPad is meant to replace ALL computers. No further commentaries necessary.
Quote:
Adobe might have to respond with something, like a FlashLite version that runs for netbooks, smartphones and iPads.
Flash (no pun intended) news! FlashLite exists! It sucks!
In other news, even if it supported iPad, iPad wouldn't support it.
Flash wasn't a hog on my Macs until Adobe took Macromedia over Flash went down hill fast. Plus take a look at the news about Adobe's Flash/Acrobat bugs. This proprietary format needs to go and HTML5 (demonstrated in the Sublime HTML5 video) for video ASAP.
Lastly why does Flash suck on my 2008 Dual 2.8 Mac Pro as well as on my Mac Book Pro 2.16. Face it Flash just plain sucks. However it won't go away because what will all those add server serve up there adds and Flash seems their only answer. That is why I use ClickToFlash.
Steve Jobs NEVER said iPhone wouldn't get an SDK. Nor that he didn't want one. WebApps were only a warm-up and it took them 8 months to do it because Apple is just like Blizzard: they take their time to do things right.
I see. According to Wikipedia, Ogg Theora is open and free.
I think it's "openness" is sometimes under debate. You know, how something can be used for years and then someone comes out of the blue to sue you once it becomes popular.
Most importantly, Only Mozilla is supporting it in their browsers. A few of the supporters for H.264: Google in their videos, Apple in WebKit, Intel in HW acceleration, MS in Silverlight, Adobe in Flash [...] Blu-ray Consortium and many. many more. It's just too many to fight against.
Google even came out saying that Ogg would kill the internet compared to H.264. While it seems a bit hyperbolic right now, the benefits of H.264 increase as quality of the video increases.
Comments
Jony: You don't have to change yourself, It's fits you.
Consumer: Hi Steve & Jony. I can't see web pages correctly...
Steve: It's Flash.
Consumer: What's that?
Steve: It's 'CPU hog'.
Consumer: CPU what?
Jony: You don't have to change yourself, It's fits you.
Consumer: Ok, OK Steve. Why?
Steve: It's about future.
Consumer: About what?
Steve: It's about future.
Consumer: Come on! I am an American. I don't care about future!
Consumer: I just want to see web pages and movies now!
Steve: No, You Can't.
Consumer: Ok Steve. I bought a new blu-ray disk form Kmart. Can I ...
Steve: No, You Can't.
Scott: You just... do!
Personally what I think will happen is Apple will relent and allow a standalone Flash player application to run on the iPhone. Mobile Safari will simply launch the external Flash player as needed but will prefer HTML5 video/audio when available. It allows Apple to make a clear distinction between where their responsibility ends and Adobe's begins. The Flash app could be sand boxed or jailed to minimize security concerns.
I do wonder why it is entirely Adobe's issue to fix. Let's be honest, Apple has what, 7% of the computer market. So, theoretically Adobe should be required to spend large amounts of capital and effort to fix something for a small percentage of individuals?
There are many shades of grey in this debate.
The quick answer as to why it's Adobe's problem to fix is that Apple has something they want. That would be access to Apple's remarkably successful and growing mobile business. Adobe is on the outside looking in, Apple is in the driver's seat.
The more complex answer is that the ship has already sailed on "fixing" the performance issues in Flash. It might have been different if they had been fixed 5 or 10 years ago. But they weren't for whatever reasons. As it stands right now, Apple has a tidy new business in mobiles, and they have successfully implemented a sandboxed approach that enables them to more directly control the user experience by deciding what can be installed and to what levels the hardware can be accessed. So far, that approach has worked well for them.
I suspect they will continue along these lines, and of course they will promote industry standards such as H264 over proprietary solutions. It makes perfect sense really. Why would Apple want the user experience of iPhone or iPad controlled by Adobe or Google (or anybody else for that matter)?
I think it is dumb that SJ won't allow Flash on the iPad, but it does protect the revenue stream.
The processor on the iPad isn't strong enough to handle Flash, just like a lot of single core Atom netbooks can't handle it too well neither.
A point I was trying to make, that Flash wasn't originally built to be downsized to slower processors, but it was built with the intention that single core processors would get faster, which didn't happen of course. All these netbooks and iPads started coming out that can't handle it.
I do wonder why it is entirely Adobe's issue to fix. Let's be honest, Apple has what, 7% of the computer market. So, theoretically Adobe should be required to spend large amounts of capital and effort to fix something for a small percentage of individuals?
Just iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users. Which most will have a computer anyway.
I feel Steve is bemoaning Flash is because he intends to replace the MacBook line with less processor performing iPads and his customers are going to be upset they can't get the whole web experience.
Adobe might have to respond with something, like a FlashLite version that runs for netbooks, smartphones and iPads.
No I am not a troll. It is all about making money. Is it in Adobe's corporate interest to spend the money to have Flash run efficiently on a Mac? I don't know the answer to the question, but given the relatively small market share that the Mac OS has, the answer may be no.
Is it in Apple's corporate interest to have Flash run on the iPad. The answer here is probably no. As pointed out by iBill, doing so would allow third parties to control the experience, which is not something Apple will let happen. It would also potentially hurt their revenue stream.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is not ALL about money. There are less tangible goods that need to be considered such as, the user experience, the good will of customers and the reputation for excellence in software engineering. A company that doesn't understand the importance of these intangibles --- and Adobe does not --- will slide downhill, slowly but inevitably.
Why would Apple want the user experience of iPhone or iPad controlled by Adobe or Google (or anybody else for that matter)?
That's what it really comes down too actually. Google Voice?
Opera made a web browser app for the iPad/iPhone, haven't submitted it to Apple yet.
There are many shades of grey in this debate.
The quick answer as to why it's Adobe's problem to fix is that Apple has something they want. That would be access to Apple's remarkably successful and growing mobile business. Adobe is on the outside looking in, Apple is in the driver's seat.
The more complex answer is that the ship has already sailed on "fixing" the performance issues in Flash. It might have been different if they had been fixed 5 or 10 years ago. But they weren't for whatever reasons. As it stands right now, Apple has a tidy new business in mobiles, and they have successfully implemented a sandboxed approach that enables them to more directly control the user experience by deciding what can be installed and to what levels the hardware can be accessed. So far, that approach has worked well for them.
I suspect they will continue along these lines, and of course they will promote industry standards such as H264 over proprietary solutions. It makes perfect sense really. Why would Apple want the user experience of iPhone or iPad controlled by Adobe or Google (or anybody else for that matter)?
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
I made an analogy to iTunes and some said if one doesn't like it then buy a zune. Same logic applies if one is that upset with flash on mac then turn I off or buy a pc.
Sent from my iPhone
So, if it is Proprietary, closed and a hog, then it must die?
Then we need to kiss iTunes goodbye, because on a Windows machine, that is a pretty good description of iTunes.
iTunes is not a Plug-in
iTunes is not pretending to be a standard
iTunes does not use limit playback to proprietary formats.
iTunes is not needed for anything out of the iPod/iPhone/iPad ecosystem. Currently anyone who wants to visit an interactive site MUST have flash installed.
While definitely not resource-efficient, iTunes for Windows is not even as nearly as bloated than Flash: Mac or otherwise. One is a frickin plug-in, the other is a full program on its own.
You know how I know this? Because I have a W7 partition for games. I use iTunes on both OS X and W7.
Bad analogy. Bad troll.
Strong CPU & GPU, longlife-battery and fast network comes day by day.
That because smartphone and tablet pc is coming out.
What about contents? HTML, CSS, ... These are old technology.
"We don't spend a lot of energy on old mind."
Steve knows everything Adobe will controll everything by Flash & Air.
He also wants everything controll by iTunes & App store.
That is some upside down thinking. And HTML5 is newer than Flash... Bye bye logic.
Not a troll at all. At my lab, which is all mac, I probably own $25-30K worth of Apple computers. I have an iPhone, and have had several iPods in the past. I like their products.
Then why are you behaving like a troll?
Wait, isn't H.264 the one that is patented and requires licensing?
Wait, who said H.264 is the only alternative? As far as I know, there is also HTML5.
1Ghz. Care to explain what that means to this graduate degree holding system designer? Why is 1Ghz underpowered? What is the difference between the 1Ghz snapdragon and the A4?
Do you know what you're talking about? I would guess not. Mere 1Ghz, do you know that the P4s went up to 3+ Ghz and yet their performance absolutely sucked? Ghz means nothing by itself. Comments like this drive me up the wall.
Or the 867Mhz G4s that beat the hell out of those 1.6GHz P4s... And the Itanium. And that Sun processor
Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is not ALL about money. There are less tangible goods that need to be considered such as, the user experience, the good will of customers and the reputation for excellence in software engineering. A company that doesn't understand the importance of these intangibles --- and Adobe does not --- will slide downhill, slowly but inevitably.
with all due respect everything you talked about is there to sell computers. If apple could have the same good will and fanatical fan base and sell crappy but cheaper to make computers they would
Jony: You don't have to change yourself, It's fits you.
:endless troll babbling begins:
The device does not change yourself, it bends the industry to its knees so that it can fit you.
You lose. Adobe loses. Apple wins. Consumers win.
Just like iPhone SDK.
HA HA HA...
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
Using this logic, please explain the rationale for Adobe to spend money developing Flash for Linux and Solaris.
I completely understand why apple doesn't want flash. But the question is whether adobe wants or needs apple enough to make the effort. Adobe has what 75% of web based video. Apple has what 7 percent of the desktop market and the mobile market, while growing, is still smallish if I remember correctly. So in a nutshell does it make economic sense for adobe to thus.
The worldwide marketshare of Mac OS X is less than half the 7% you mentioned, but that isn't the reason why Flash is downright awful on all systems. it's also not a reason why Adobe wouldn't want to make it better on Mac OS X.
Just look at WebOS and the Flash 10.1 they are trying to build for it. The installed base for those devices are very low compared to Mac OS X. There are more than enough Macs out there to warrant Adobe's attention, and that is even before you consider the price that Adobe as a company gets from their professional products from Mac users. Even back in 2004 it was about 25% of their revenue. Apple now sells 3M Macs a quarter when they only sold 836k Macs in Q4-2004. They only sold 2M iPod back then.
Flash is a problem as it's just not designed for a mobile platform and HTML5 video tags are better in every way, but an additional issue with Flash on Mac OS X, according to Adobe, is the inability of them to access deeper into the core OS like they can on Windows. This would explain why Flash on Windows is better, but don't read that Flash only being a resource hog on Macs as that is not the case.
For comparison, note that people have been complaining about Flash not being on the iPhone for over 3 years, since January 2007, and yet here we are at the end of Winter of 2010 with Flash still not on any Android, WinMo or WebOS platforms. You can't blame Apple for that and there is no other possibility here expect that Adobe was lazy by not proactively streamlining Flash sooner. Hell, the only reason they added H.264 and HW acceleration was because MS Silverlight was doing it.
Wait, who said H.264 is the only alternative? As far as I know, there is also HTML5:
HTML5's video tag spec allows for H.264 and Ogg Theora codecs to be used.
The processor on the iPad isn't strong enough to handle Flash, just like a lot of single core Atom netbooks can't handle it too well neither.
ARRRRGH not THIS again!
Do your Atom processors use the same architecture as A4's?
Do your Atom processors sport either 3-4 cores or the same tradeoffs a G4 processor had (less frequency for less pipeline stages?). One of these two is sure to be found on the A4.
Can your Atom processors play 720p video without a hitch? Instantly?
Can your Atom processors power OpenGLS games?
No. No, no and no.
A point I was trying to make, that Flash wasn't originally built to be downsized to slower processors, but it was built with the intention that single core processors would get faster, which didn't happen of course. All these netbooks and iPads started coming out that can't handle it.
Just iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users. Which most will have a computer anyway.
Excuses. HTML5 runs fine on these "slower processors", and as some stated, Adobe itself said they are targeting mobiles.
I feel Steve is bemoaning Flash is because he intends to replace the MacBook line with less processor performing iPads and his customers are going to be upset they can't get the whole web experience.
Not only you continue on this dumb assumption that iPad has a weak processor, you show that you are among the people that really think iPad is meant to replace ALL computers. No further commentaries necessary.
Adobe might have to respond with something, like a FlashLite version that runs for netbooks, smartphones and iPads.
Flash (no pun intended) news! FlashLite exists! It sucks!
In other news, even if it supported iPad, iPad wouldn't support it.
Lastly why does Flash suck on my 2008 Dual 2.8 Mac Pro as well as on my Mac Book Pro 2.16. Face it Flash just plain sucks. However it won't go away because what will all those add server serve up there adds and Flash seems their only answer. That is why I use ClickToFlash.
Using this logic, please explain the rationale for Adobe to spend money developing Flash for Linux and Solaris.
Ooh, much better than my WebOs example.
HTML5's video tag spec allows for H.264 and Ogg Theora codecs to be used.
I see. According to Wikipedia, Ogg Theora is open and free.
Steve will change his mind.
Just like iPhone SDK.
HA HA HA...
WhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWh yWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhyWhy
Steve Jobs NEVER said iPhone wouldn't get an SDK. Nor that he didn't want one. WebApps were only a warm-up and it took them 8 months to do it because Apple is just like Blizzard: they take their time to do things right.
I see. According to Wikipedia, Ogg Theora is open and free.
I think it's "openness" is sometimes under debate. You know, how something can be used for years and then someone comes out of the blue to sue you once it becomes popular.
Most importantly, Only Mozilla is supporting it in their browsers. A few of the supporters for H.264: Google in their videos, Apple in WebKit, Intel in HW acceleration, MS in Silverlight, Adobe in Flash [...] Blu-ray Consortium and many. many more. It's just too many to fight against.
Google even came out saying that Ogg would kill the internet compared to H.264. While it seems a bit hyperbolic right now, the benefits of H.264 increase as quality of the video increases.