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

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 171
    alandailalandail Posts: 757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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



    AI doesn't put flash on their site, advertisers do (via google).



    The only thing that ever crashes on my Macs, which routinely has 20+ apps running at a time, is flash, and it crashes every single day.



    And is Adobe really highlighting that a whole 100 out of 200,000 apps were built with their technology instead of cocoa?
  • Reply 102 of 171
    aybaraaybara Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post


    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.



    Seems like he deleted his post.



    I read the article he linked and the tester played over 11 hours of video and not the 'five' the post had claimed.
  • Reply 103 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    Jobs did not make the assertion in the letter, but in the past he has said that Flash on the iPad would drain the battery from 10 hours to approximately 1.5 hours or so.



    Yes, I'm sure you're right - although the Adobe guy is messing with the context a bit to get that in. The 10 -> 1.5 claim (that was in the Q&A at the end of the iPhone OS 4 announcement, wasn't it?) will have been hyperbole; the much more reasonable "5 hours" claim regarding video in the open letter was probably made after actually testing it.



    Quote:

    that 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.



    Well, yes, all battery life estimates are based on highly artificial criteria. C'est la vie, particularly in the case of the iPad, as no-one really knew in advance what the common usage pattern would be. I'm not sure people even know now. But in this case Apple do actually claim that it applies to video. I'm sure there's someone out there dedicated/crazy enough to, say, try to watch all six Star Wars movies until his battery drains, and then we'll know if the ten hours claim is realistic. Until then... well, it's as true as marketing usually is.
  • Reply 104 of 171
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    Check this out for Adobe more craftsmanship, Adobe PDF major threat to PCs



    http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...fixed_PDF_flaw
  • Reply 105 of 171
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    That's exactly what I thought when I read the article.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


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



  • Reply 106 of 171
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aybara View Post


    Seems like he deleted his post.



    I read the article he linked and the tester played over 11 hours of video and not the 'five' the post had claimed.



    Ditto here.
  • Reply 107 of 171
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alandail View Post


    AI doesn't put flash on their site, advertisers do (via google)



    I hadn't noticed. Flashblock FTW.
  • Reply 108 of 171
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    deleted



    Just an FYI, we all make mistakes from time to time, but when we do it with a smarmy post it's usually best to point out how you were wrong, oft with a "mea culpa' or "my bad" to diffuse any additional responses you get from posters. Remember, your post will go instantly to everyone who has subscribed to this thread who has accessed the site since the previous post.
  • Reply 109 of 171
    smiles77smiles77 Posts: 668member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGrumble View Post


    Yes, I'm sure you're right - although the Adobe guy is messing with the context a bit to get that in. The 10 -> 1.5 claim (that was in the Q&A at the end of the iPhone OS 4 announcement, wasn't it?) will have been hyperbole; the much more reasonable "5 hours" claim regarding video in the open letter was probably made after actually testing it.







    Well, yes, all battery life estimates are based on highly artificial criteria. C'est la vie, particularly in the case of the iPad, as no-one really knew in advance what the common usage pattern would be. I'm not sure people even know now. But in this case Apple do actually claim that it applies to video. I'm sure there's someone out there dedicated/crazy enough to, say, try to watch all six Star Wars movies until his battery drains, and then we'll know if the ten hours claim is realistic. Until then... well, it's as true as marketing usually is.



    I have an iPad that I use for college, and with constant use (by which I mean brightness at 2/3, WiFi on and loading webpages, occasionally downloading apps and movies in the background, and playing the occasional high-end game), I have averaged 12-15 hours every day for the last four weeks. I have never had the battery die before 11 hours and only charge it at night. The battery life claims are real, and unbelievably so. There is nothing artificial about my use, or the many others who have posted reviews.
  • Reply 110 of 171
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palegolas View Post


    I completely agree with Steve Jobs in that Adobe should make an HTML5 software. It's a golden opportunity. I hope they realize it in time, for their own good.



    Knowing Adobe, they'll spend so long throwing their toys out of the pram on no-flash-on-iPhone that they'll completely let the opportunity bypass them.
  • Reply 111 of 171
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Flash is an open specification?!?!?



    Really? I never knew that.



    <end sarcasm> */
  • Reply 112 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    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.



    Microsoft has a few "open" specifications also. For all practical purposes they are closed because of their sheer complexity and the fact that any third-party implementations have to deal with Microsoft's implementation's quirks (and details that aren't in the specification). Flash is much the same: you can produce Flash files using open source software, but they can't remotely compete with CS, presumably because the spec tracks Adobe's own implementation and (also presumably) because there are many implementation details which have nothing to do with the file format or the way it's decoded but rather the way it's built (eg. common libraries included in the flash file, specific techniques to compile developer input to working code).



    Quote:

    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.



    They could have already started that if they had any such interest. I think Abode have a monopoly mentality, and that's got them trapped in their current everything-must-be-Flash cycle. Consider the bad old days of Microsoft Internet Explorer (versions 5-6) by way of analogy: Microsoft could have embraced web standards and so stopped having to emulate their own historical bugs and avoided adding fancy features that no-one would use, but they wanted their browser to be quirky and use proprietary features to lock in web sites, which in turn would lock in users. Adobe would very probably make a fine sum of money if CS produced Javascript content instead of/as well as Flash, but they're just too scared that they might end up with anything below an overwhelming majority of the market.
  • Reply 113 of 171
    madivanmadivan Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danmonterey View Post


    As a long-time fan of Apple technology and a lone developer, I can see some merit to both sides' arguments about developer tools and platforms here.



    I fully support Apple's decision not to deploy Flash Player on its mobile platforms for all the good reasons cited by Steve Jobs and arm-waved by Adobe's CEO.



    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.



    The Web is the future. Proprietary apps -- even for Apple's iThings -- will always have a place but that place will shrink in coming years. On the Web, HTML5 and its supporting cast are destined to emerge as the winner over proprietary technologies like Flash. Adobe should focus on building great tools to support the new Web standards rather than defending an outmoded technology.



    The web may be the future, but (hopefully) web browsers are not. Proprietary applications with embedded web services provide a vastly superior user experience, and that matters. For the record, I was developing 'web applications' in the 90s when it was CGI+Perl and then Java applets. I will be happy the day that the web browser as an application platform finally goes away, even though I know that probably won't happen. Browsers are great for discovering new content and services, but not for user interactions.



    As far as cross-platform development, it is not all that and a bag of chips. If it was really such a great idea, Java would be the dominant platform and Sun would not have been bought by Oracle. Which is more profitable to learn, POSIX or .NET? Most developers would do well to build exceptional apps targeted to specific platforms where they can leverage the unique capabilities of that platform. Successful multi-platform apps are rare, and the best ones have seperate code bases and don't try to be identical on each platform. Everyone who makes a platform wants to control the game and have their platform be the development target of choice, whether it's Cocoa, .NET, or Flash.



    Adobe's cross-platform claims are disengenuous at best. Flash is a platform, it's just not a low-level OS. They want their platform to run on as many devices as possible because it increases their market reach. Lipstick on a pig and all that.
  • Reply 114 of 171
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    No, he was responding to SJ's original assertion that if they had allowed Flash on the iPad the battery would have gone from 10 hours to about 1.5 hours.



    Huh? From the article:



    "Mr. Narayen calls accusations about Flash draining battery power "patently false." Speaking about Mr. Jobs's letter in general, he says that "for every one of these accusations made there is proprietary lock-in" that prevents Adobe from innovating."



    I see no mention in reference to the iPad. These were general accusations levered against Flash which he was obviously lying about.
  • Reply 115 of 171
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Shantanu Narayen = teckstud?





    Lol. I do want to say that Adobe sped up development for the Mac recently, and they are about to ship some pretty nice versions of flash, but it does almost look like it might be too late.



    On the other hand google is building flash into Chrome (and consequently into Chrome OS), which could mean that flash for mobile devices is not totally dead, even if it is on iPhone OS. If Google manages to help adobe deliver a fairly good mobile flash plugin and html5 not working on Firefox, the pressure on apple to give Adobe a second change will increase.



    Don't get me wrong though I would love to see Flash disappear and be replaced by html5 with Theora.ogg or free h.264, just to clarify.
  • Reply 116 of 171
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    It's also interesting how Narayen conveniently ignores to respond to Symantec's claim of 'Flash having one of the worst security records in 2009.'



    yep



    then lets see.



    of the "Adobe made" apps that I've seen, which is about a dozen, they were all crap. No real loss if the folks don't want to get rid of that janky code before 4.0 comes out.



    let's talk about how much of Adobe's software is just the Windows version with some porting code slapped on it. Or how Adobe resisted Cocoa and basically forced the whole Carbon thing on Apple.



    Let's talk about how those Flash apps wearing an Apple coat would be way fatter than they need to be which is no good on a device with very limited storage.



    and so on



    why not give us some responses to those 'charges' instead of some lame "Apple is mean, this is all about money" (like what Adobe does isn't?)
  • Reply 117 of 171
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    I'll take stupefying hypocrisy over incoherent, duplicitous bullshit.



    Quote:

    Speaking about Mr. Jobs's assertion that Adobe is the No. 1 cause of Mac crashes, Mr. Narayen says if Adobe crashes Apple, that actually has something "to do with the Apple operating system."



    Right. Apple needs to fix their OS so that a notoriously crashy app isn't so crashy. It's out of Adobe's hands. This stuff just makes Narayen just sound like a pissy little dick. You can disagree with Apple's position, but at least Jobs isn't saying patently insane things.
  • Reply 118 of 171
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    uh, never mind
  • Reply 119 of 171
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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?



    So you want me to speculate on why an app which doesn't exist today might possibly get better in some hypothetical future time frame?
  • Reply 120 of 171
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MadIvan View Post


    The web may be the future, but (hopefully) web browsers are not. Proprietary applications with embedded web services provide a vastly superior user experience, and that matters. For the record, I was developing 'web applications' in the 90s when it was CGI+Perl and then Java applets. I will be happy the day that the web browser as an application platform finally goes away, even though I know that probably won't happen. Browsers are great for discovering new content and services, but not for user interactions.



    Enough people have been drawn to the "browser as an application platform" concept over the years that Javascript has become not only quite efficient but fairly well-specified and reliably implemented also. CSS never really achieved all it could, and HTML is much as it always was, but together with Javascript it does make for quite reasonable applications.



    Run the SunSpider benchmark in your browser (for this purpose it doesn't matter much if you bias the result by doing other things at the same time) and take note of some of the things it tested, and how quickly it did them. While you're doing that, why not look at the SproutCore demos as an example of a UI toolkit for javascript.



    Among other things, SunSpider claims to test ray tracing and AES encryption. And gets them done (although it's not clear exactly what it does for each) in some tens of milliseconds. I'd say that puts it well within the realms of reasonable desktop application performance.
Sign In or Register to comment.