Adobe CEO dismisses Steve Jobs' comments on Flash as a 'smokescreen'

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    Jobs..... assertion is a bit disingenuous as the 10 hour spec is for wireless productivity at 50% screen brightness, and does not include watching a video. I sincerely doubt that you one would get 10 hours of movie watching on an iPad.



    Hence, the comment from Adobe's Prez



    Please stop with your utterly disingenuous BS.



    Here's an example of a review (there are many more); this one's from David Pogue:



    "Speaking of video: Apple asserts that the iPad runs 10 hours on a charge of its nonremovable battery ? but we all know you can?t trust the manufacturer. And sure enough, in my own test, the iPad played movies continuously from 7:30 a.m. to 7:53 p.m. ? more than 12 hours. That?s four times as long as a typical laptop or portable DVD player."



  • Reply 82 of 171
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xamian View Post


    So...is this why my MacBook's CPU heats up an additional 30-40+ degrees fahrenheit & my system begins to crawl whenever I watch hulu or play flashbased games (usually on facebook)? Certainly has no effect on battery life at all, right?



    Exactly. My MacBook Pro never even gets warm to the touch until I hit a Flash site. Then it gets hot enough that I can barely hold it in my lap. My CPU usages goes from 10-15% using a non-Flash site to 120% using a Flash site.



    I guess all that extra heat comes from nowhere and those CPU cycles don't use any energy. Amazing. Flash generates heat and runs a CPU without depleting the battery. Adobe has solved our energy crisis.
  • Reply 83 of 171
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Hey Shantanu . . . no one's listening. Apple already ate your lunch.
  • Reply 84 of 171
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,475member
    Adobe does not understand the internet, they always sold subpar internet apps starting With Adobe PageMill which was a disaster, then Adobe decided to buy CyberStudio which at the time was the best web development tool, Adobe called renamed it GoLive then it quickly bit-the-dust. Adobe, being out of options, decided to finally buy Macromedia and inherited DreamWeaver, which by then had very little competition. Now DreamWeaver seems to be heading in the same direction as GoLive, yes CS5 is WP friendly but like many developers, other apps such as Coda is much cleaner and quicker.



    Having said that, Adobe does great when it comes to the print layout market, InDesign CS5 is amazing! Oh and Photoshop, is A+ too, although Pixelmator comes very close.
  • Reply 85 of 171
    Adobe's future doesn't look bright...

    Perhaps John (Warnock) and Chuck (Geschke) should come back in charge...
  • Reply 86 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    My CPU usages goes from 10-15% using a non-Flash site to 120% using a Flash site.



    Sad to say, AI's site is one of the worst offenders, in this regard.
  • Reply 87 of 171
    Actually I do get 10 hours of video on my iPad. I luckily avoided the Iceland volcano and had a vacation in Scotland. Thanks to the iPad the flight both ways was much easier thanks to its superb battery life.
  • Reply 88 of 171
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SoundCity View Post


    Oh these two guys, what are they like? It's like the aftermath of a bad relationship where they both tell there sides of there story, and neither will ever corroborate to the truth of the matter.



    I do however agree on Steve on this one, in regards to poor flash performance, anecdotal or otherwise, even with latest 10.1 release its still poorly optimized (though a little better).



    On the other hand I can understand a lot of adobe's arguments about cross-porting code, I guess it does make it easier for moving platforms. But at the end of the day how much do Apple Dev kits cost these days? $99? Dirt cheap if you ask me.



    And when your treating mac users as second class citizens with said ported code thats fairly shoddy, why should Steve be servile to Adobes strategy.



    At the end of the day, this whole pulava could be solved by somebody pulling there head out of the sand and making some cracking html5 development software, you could still have your web authoring Monopoly cake and eat it Adobe if you act now!



    Either way its gonna be an interesting few months...



    (My 3rd ever comment dont bite! eeek!)



    I agree and you make a nice point about dev kits. How much does it cost to get Adobe's Flash authoring system? Apple's dev kit is free if you just want the dev kit. It's $99 to hook into the App Store ecosystem.



    And Adobe really has used their tremendous market clout to screw Apple in the past. Their delays in porting were major reasons for people to delay moving over to OS X, and then to intel. Why is Apple supposed to ignore or forget, just because Adobe does?
  • Reply 89 of 171
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,377moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "We have different views of the world," Narayan reportedly said of Adobe and Apple. "Our view of the world is multi-platform."



    And yet they haven't ported the Adobe CS Suite to Linux.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Narayen told the Journal that he views Jobs' letter as an "extraordinary attack," and questioned what Adobe did to deserve the letter.



    I think Apple was just making their stance clear once and for all. Flash is not going to be supported ever on their mobile platform and it's not a short-term disagreement while Adobe fix it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Jobs accused Flash of being closed and proprietary to Adobe. Narayen, again, disagreed with Jobs, calling his comments "amusing" and stating that Flash is an "open specification."



    Still stands that you can't feasibly author Flash content on anything other than Adobe software though. Some apps do SWF export but it's just the animation. If an open system is too complex to use in any significant way then it's almost as bad as a closed system. Plus, if it was open enough, mobile developers would be able to build their own Flash decoders for their mobiles instead of waiting for Adobe to build a plugin for each platform.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "It doesn't benefit Apple, and that's why you see this reaction," he said.



    And it doesn't benefit Adobe to go HTML 5 Canvas alone as people can opt out of having to pay Adobe's extortionate prices to author cross-platform web video and animation.



    Both sides of the argument have valid points but ultimately, Apple has a stronger case and Adobe has proven time and time again that Flash just isn't good enough in security, stability and performance.



    I don't think Adobe are looking at the big picture though. They have the best content creation suite out of any company. Think how much resources they'd save by not having to care about supporting browser plugins and being able to integrate Dreamweaver and Flash. If they merged in Fireworks, they'd have the ultimate web authoring tool. They have very little to lose here if they make the right decisions and all the people with Flash sites would suddenly realise they needed to fix them and go out and buy the new software.



    Adobe will have invested a lot in their Flash platform but it's not as if they are going to have to throw it all away. They just transition their Flash program to use Javascript like Adobe After Effects does. Autodesk added open Python to Maya beside proprietary MEL in one or two revisions.
  • Reply 90 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danmonterey View Post


    And I fully support Adobe's contention that cross-platform tools will often be seen as a preferable alternative to proprietary development environments and languages. Small developers can't afford to program in multiple tools and environments unless they manage to create a blockbuster best-seller. The member above who snidely remarked that Apple developer tools are just $99 conveniently overlooks the fact that the cost of the tool is a minor noise issue compared to the time cost of running and learning multiple development environments.



    Well, the tools aren't so much cross-platform, but I agree that it's a nice idea. I tend to think that it makes sense for the people who write the code to dictate the underlying architecture rather than vice-versa - in particular it seems like a no-brainer that compiler developers (and hard-core assembly programmers) should dictate how CPUs work because they're the ones who are using them! Basically that means that everything should be written in Java (or rather on top of the JVM), and that's not a totally abhorrent concept, because Java actually runs quite efficiently nowadays. But Java has already had a shot at the mobile devices market, and failed.



    And Flash isn't Java. While Sun have always been a bit odd about it IIRC, Java is open source nowadays and Flash is firmly closed. Having a single cross-platform system just doesn't work well if there's a bottleneck (Adobe) between the many end developers and the few OS implementors, as that's pretty much the same as having a bottleneck at the OS implementor (eg. Microsoft).



    Getting your software into as many hands as possible is a completely reasonable goal, of course, but for it to actually happen, everybody in the chain needs to be basically aligned to the purpose of you getting your software onto the platform. Adobe isn't. If they wanted to support Flash developers on the iPhone, they could make Flash CS5 produce Javascript+canvas+audio+video for the iPhone. Just to cover the basics, you know, to get the animations and the clicking (tapping) and the typing working. But they don't, because then they'd lose the lock-in and you, the developer, could use standard and probably free tools instead of the ones they want to sell you for ridiculous sums of money.
  • Reply 91 of 171
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Fuck it. Apple doesn't want flash. End of story. Adobe can focus on other platforms.



    Why is this such a big fucking deal!? Some people want it, some people don't. If it's really that much of a deal breaker, don't buy an apple product (computer OR iphone OS device.)



    I personally have always been very pleased with how Flash runs, but that's just me, and having a phone NOT run flash definitely isn't what I consider a deal breaker (just a mild annoyance if it's shown to be possible.)







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Hey Shantanu . . . no one's listening. Apple already ate your lunch.



    Who would eat 30 bagged lunches?

  • Reply 92 of 171
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    I am stating that when/if Flash is released on future Android releases (2.2 is supposed to have it) and it doesn't kill battery life, doesn't crash (well it will crash at times, but nothing is 100% crash proof IMHO) and doesn't cause the issues that Apple believes that it will, what will be Apple's excuse then?



    I'm not sure Apple is obliged to stockpile excuses based on elaborate hypotheticals, however, you'll note that performance issues are just a part of what Jobs addressed in his letter. He also spoke (cogently, I thought) about Apple's desire to control its own development environment, and how, in the past, they were left to wait on Adobe while Adobe serviced their PC market first, with the Mac getting less later.



    IMO, even if Adobe manages to make a version of Flash that runs efficiently on widely available mobile hardware and does a credible job of handling existing Flash content, Apple is still wise to reject the Flash cross-platform development trap. There's no reason to expect Adobe to keep their tools up to date enough to take advantage of any particular functionality on the iPhone/iPad. I think we can expect the Adobe "cross-development" environment to in effect mean that if Android can't do it it can't be done, and that's bad for Apple's customers.
  • Reply 93 of 171
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Sad to say, AI's site is one of the worst offenders, in this regard.



    LOL! Isn't that ironic?



    It'll all soon change though, according to everyone here. EXPECT HTML5 TO TAKE OVER THE INTERT!
  • Reply 94 of 171
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    Having said that, Adobe does great when it comes to the print layout market, InDesign CS5 is amazing! Oh and Photoshop, is A+ too, although Pixelmator comes very close.



    As much as I hate Flash, I'm eagerly waiting for my Ps CS5 upgrade to show up at the house. And I'll do the same for Lightroom 3 as soon as I can pre-order the upgrade.



    I just can't understand why Adobe can't realize that they have a loser in Flash.
  • Reply 95 of 171
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    deleted
  • Reply 96 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    It'll all soon change though, according to everyone here.



    Actually, I am quite optimistic that it will. (I realize you were trying to be sarcastic, however, and not be taken literally).
  • Reply 97 of 171
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Wow, there's plenty of applications that run just fine on OSX. BTW, Flash is a hog on Windows too.
  • Reply 98 of 171
    Deleted (but replaced; see below).
  • Reply 99 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    deleted



    These people saying that the iPad doesn't do 10 hours of video - you must not have an iPad. I do. It does do 10 hours of video. Tiresome.
  • Reply 100 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    deleted



    Oh, sad one, here's a cut-and-paste of the actual couple of paras from your link:



    "Four hours and 15 minutes later, I checked the battery level and saw that it had gone down by 30 percent. I checked back every couple of hours to restart the movie, and finally, after a full 11 hours and 25 minutes, the iPad stopped the movie, briefly showed the home screen and then shut down.



    Usually, when a company makes a claim of battery life, you expect that claim to be a best-case scenario based on a hard-to-recreate situation that’s nearly impossible to recreate. In this case, it appears that Apple’s claims were conservative, as I was able to exceed the claim by 85 minutes in a power-hungry scenario."



    You're not funny. Just sad. Give it up.



    PS: I noticed that he quickly deleted his ignorant post. Darn. Should have cut-and-pasted it. It was priceless.
Sign In or Register to comment.