Please, please, please use your noggins for some thinking. Adobe would NEVER quit their main products for the Mac which make up an ever bigger slice of their revenue. They would be killing themselves...a company losing more than 50% of its market in one stroke. I'm sure shareholders would love that. And as other more nimble thinkers here have pointed out, others would step in.
Like losing Premiere was a loss to anyone? All it did was allow FInal Cut to take over the industry.
Adobe just needs to shut up about it and move on. If they are right, they have NOTHING to worry about because Apple will fail. They will win because everyone in the world needs to have Flash....which seems a bit of a reach when millions don't have access on any non-beta platforms now and seem to do very well.
Adobe's corporate higher-ups may want to Think Different soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
Just ship a great product and show everyone how great it is and the argument is over.
But perhaps...perhaps they can't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim
Adobe' is losing the PR war here. Their only chance is to execute well on Flash for Android and Apple will be forced to include it in Safari. All this talk is getting them no-where. They need to create a working product.
Check out Daring Fireballs link to the new mobile device that plays flash. Just as presenter says he is glad he didn't get ipad because it doesn't have flash ... he clicks a utube video and crashes out of the browser
Both just need to come together and fix it once and for all. It can be done, but egos are always going to get in the way. No matter what anyone thinks, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I bet Apple ends up quoting this guy to the FTC. He just argued that Apple is but one of many players in a competitive market, and that Adobe can do just fine without Apple. If that's true, then how is there an anti-trust concern?
"We have already done a great job - technically - of getting Flash applications to run on the iPhone," Lynch said today during a question and answer sessions at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco. "There are already a bunch in the [Apple App] Store that have already gone through the approval process. The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
This is a good one. Flash already runs great on the iPhone, but Apple won't let us deploy it because, like, you know. I've yet to hear any, logical reason from Adobe why Apple would not deploy Flash if it performed up to Apple's standards. What is Apple protecting other than performance standards? Are they promoting their own competing product? No. So then what, Kevin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I bet Apple ends up quoting this guy to the FTC. He just argued that Apple is but one of many players in a competitive market, and that Adobe can do just fine without Apple. If that's true, then how is there an anti-trust concern?
If we want to use the 19th century railroads as a metaphor for the current "delivery system" wars," the tracks and trains would represent the various hardware that can deliver the "goods" -- web pages, ebooks, music and various other deliverables.
The containers that held the products in the 18th century could be likened to the various software programs that hold the deliverables and ensure their safe delivery to the users.
No one expected a "standard" gauge track and a narrow gauge track to use the same trains. It was left to competition (and a little chicanery) to let the market place decide which trains would be used in the long run. (note: all track is still not the same gauge; there are special uses for unusual gauges).
The packaging had a part to play in the competition too. RR lines that delivered the products on time and in good condition were likely to beat out lines that did not comparable delivery records. In our modern struggle, we might one "line" chooses not to allow one packaging method on its "trains" while others embrace such a method, then competition should select which "line" provides the best service to its customers.
In this case Apple is choosing not to use the "Flash" packaging, while, apparently other platforms will. Instead of complaining, we should be embracing real competition.
Just as the 19th rail barons could choose how to store good & people on their rail journeys, todays smartphone, pad/table manufacturers and computer manufactures have the freedom to select their own method(s) of information delivery. That is called competition.
If we want to use the 19th century railroads as a metaphor for the current "delivery system" wars," the tracks and trains would represent the various hardware that can deliver the "goods" -- web pages, ebooks, music and various other deliverables.
The railroad metaphor isn't inherently flawed, but only applies if someone owns enough of the railroad tracks that competition is limited. This same argument was used against Microsoft for good reason because in fact Microsoft does own most of the railroad tracks in the PC market, so what they allow to run on those tracks can have a significant impact on competition. As blastdoor pointed out, by Adobe's own admission, they still have a big market for Flash without access to Apple's mobile devices.
Simply put, they are protecting their lead in the battle. Allowing third party code generators means that applications created with such generators are no better on the Apple platform than on the Nokia platform, than on the Google platform. etc.etc.
Which part of least common denominator computing don't you get?
If you have a product that kicks ass, do you want programmers to use a tool that can't kick?
One problem with Adobe's argument is that they forget, these are Apple devices. Apple created them, did the R&D, spent the money, etc. They have every right to decide what is on these devices, and how they are written to be sure they get the most effective return on their investment. (Not only that, they supply the developers with the tools to create programs for their device.)
Part of the problem with Flash is that you can export from too many programs, creating code that is messy, bulky and crash-prone.
"He said Adobe would create "the best tools in the world" for those looking to make content via HTML5."
Oh? Where are these tools? Is it going to take five or ten years for Adobe to produce them? Will it be too little, too late by then, and will a whole new standard supersede them, causing this whole debate to be repeated?
Adobe needs to put up or shut up.
This, for those of you confused about the usage of the word, is good old traditional FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Adobe is trying to a) keep content providers on the Flash train, b) discourage others from investing in the development of competing HTML5 tools,because Adobe will be coming out with them real soon now, and c) discourage content creators from investing in HTML5 tools not from Adobe.
The railroad metaphor isn't inherently flawed, but only applies if someone owns enough of the railroad tracks that competition is limited. This same argument was used against Microsoft for good reason because in fact Microsoft does own most of the railroad tracks in the PC market, so what they allow to run on those tracks can have a significant impact on competition. As blastdoor pointed out, by Adobe's own admission, they still have a big market for Flash without access to Apple's mobile devices.
You don't understand the metaphor. The goal of the railroads was to have freight shippers and passengers PAY for their service. To do so the rail roads CHOSE how to ship good and transport passengers. Apple is choosing NOT TO USE Flash & third party code generators.
It is their choice. They are competing with Google, etc. etc. and have a large (though not dominant market share). They are choosing -- they are the consumer in this case. If their product is inferior, then the consumer of digital information will choose another method.
And didn't I read somewhere that there are already a few hundred apps that were compiled through the Adobe app? That's a pretty small percentage of the over 200,000 apps on the store already. Seems as if a few programmers were able to create their apps without the help of Adobe.
They only talk about getting the desktop version of Flash working on the iPhone. What about the security issues and the battery life and performance? It is a three part situation here Adobe and that's why it should not be on the iPhone now. Also Steve Jobs never said that it would never be used it's just that the problems he talked about have never been fixed yet (plus there still is no mobile version).
Simply put, they are protecting their lead in the battle. Allowing third party code generators means that applications created with such generators are no better on the Apple platform than on the Nokia platform, than on the Google platform. etc.etc.
Which part of least common denominator computing don't you get?
If you have a product that kicks ass, do you want programmers to use a tool that can't kick?
Are you responding to me? If so, yes, I get "least common denominator computing." I also get that Apple doesn't want that to be the user's experience with their products.
Adobe can't very well complain about Apple trying to protect the market for their own products, when that's exactly what Adobe is doing.
Both just need to come together and fix it once and for all. It can be done, but egos are always going to get in the way. No matter what anyone thinks, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
This whole farrago is getting embarrassing for Apple and Adobe and they need to stop this idiotic back and forth. I've been a fan of both of these companies and think they should work together to amicably settle the matter.
On the one hand, Apple's stance is forcing Adobe to make Flash better.
However, apple is deliberately trying to kill Flash and to harm Adobe.
i don't like this Apple.
I have been a fan of Apple and it's decisions for a while. Bought my first Mac in 2005. Love it. bought the iPhone when it came out as I saw a winner from the beginning. Was VERY disappointed it couldn't run flash, which means I could not enjoy half the websites I frequented.
Flash is ubiquitous across the web. The extra interactivity it provides far exceeds even the video h.264 integration in HTML5 as you can have much more interactivity with a video and causing it to start and stop and transition just as you like. Since the iPhone, many have rushed to make their sites compatible an the once interactive slideshows have become simply static pictures moving from right to left. Much of the extra interactivity and content presentation is lost.
Flash is an amazing technology. Sure, it isn't always implemented in the best way, but the solution to that is to educate, not eradicate. Now, one of the best things about the web is marginalized simply because one company who does many things well is making the devices most people want - and they are abusing that power to force their will upon the entire workings of the internet.
Stop Apple. just stop. and make Flash work.
Apple is going to get in trouble doing these kinds of things.
I have always defended Apple as I believed they have been doing what is right.
Not in this case. and not in any case where they have become the bully they claim to fight against.
Comments
Like losing Premiere was a loss to anyone? All it did was allow FInal Cut to take over the industry.
Adobe just needs to shut up about it and move on. If they are right, they have NOTHING to worry about because Apple will fail. They will win because everyone in the world needs to have Flash....which seems a bit of a reach when millions don't have access on any non-beta platforms now and seem to do very well.
Adobe's corporate higher-ups may want to Think Different soon.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
Just ship a great product and show everyone how great it is and the argument is over.
But perhaps...perhaps they can't?
Adobe' is losing the PR war here. Their only chance is to execute well on Flash for Android and Apple will be forced to include it in Safari. All this talk is getting them no-where. They need to create a working product.
Check out Daring Fireballs link to the new mobile device that plays flash. Just as presenter says he is glad he didn't get ipad because it doesn't have flash ... he clicks a utube video and crashes out of the browser
Adobe shut up and get it to work!
More Lynch quotes:
"We have already done a great job - technically - of getting Flash applications to run on the iPhone," Lynch said today during a question and answer sessions at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco. "There are already a bunch in the [Apple App] Store that have already gone through the approval process. The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
This is a good one. Flash already runs great on the iPhone, but Apple won't let us deploy it because, like, you know. I've yet to hear any, logical reason from Adobe why Apple would not deploy Flash if it performed up to Apple's standards. What is Apple protecting other than performance standards? Are they promoting their own competing product? No. So then what, Kevin?
I bet Apple ends up quoting this guy to the FTC. He just argued that Apple is but one of many players in a competitive market, and that Adobe can do just fine without Apple. If that's true, then how is there an anti-trust concern?
Bingo. You win a cookie.
The containers that held the products in the 18th century could be likened to the various software programs that hold the deliverables and ensure their safe delivery to the users.
No one expected a "standard" gauge track and a narrow gauge track to use the same trains. It was left to competition (and a little chicanery) to let the market place decide which trains would be used in the long run. (note: all track is still not the same gauge; there are special uses for unusual gauges).
The packaging had a part to play in the competition too. RR lines that delivered the products on time and in good condition were likely to beat out lines that did not comparable delivery records. In our modern struggle, we might one "line" chooses not to allow one packaging method on its "trains" while others embrace such a method, then competition should select which "line" provides the best service to its customers.
In this case Apple is choosing not to use the "Flash" packaging, while, apparently other platforms will. Instead of complaining, we should be embracing real competition.
Just as the 19th rail barons could choose how to store good & people on their rail journeys, todays smartphone, pad/table manufacturers and computer manufactures have the freedom to select their own method(s) of information delivery. That is called competition.
If we want to use the 19th century railroads as a metaphor for the current "delivery system" wars," the tracks and trains would represent the various hardware that can deliver the "goods" -- web pages, ebooks, music and various other deliverables.
The railroad metaphor isn't inherently flawed, but only applies if someone owns enough of the railroad tracks that competition is limited. This same argument was used against Microsoft for good reason because in fact Microsoft does own most of the railroad tracks in the PC market, so what they allow to run on those tracks can have a significant impact on competition. As blastdoor pointed out, by Adobe's own admission, they still have a big market for Flash without access to Apple's mobile devices.
Which part of least common denominator computing don't you get?
If you have a product that kicks ass, do you want programmers to use a tool that can't kick?
Part of the problem with Flash is that you can export from too many programs, creating code that is messy, bulky and crash-prone.
"He said Adobe would create "the best tools in the world" for those looking to make content via HTML5."
Oh? Where are these tools? Is it going to take five or ten years for Adobe to produce them? Will it be too little, too late by then, and will a whole new standard supersede them, causing this whole debate to be repeated?
Adobe needs to put up or shut up.
This, for those of you confused about the usage of the word, is good old traditional FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Adobe is trying to a) keep content providers on the Flash train, b) discourage others from investing in the development of competing HTML5 tools,because Adobe will be coming out with them real soon now, and c) discourage content creators from investing in HTML5 tools not from Adobe.
The railroad metaphor isn't inherently flawed, but only applies if someone owns enough of the railroad tracks that competition is limited. This same argument was used against Microsoft for good reason because in fact Microsoft does own most of the railroad tracks in the PC market, so what they allow to run on those tracks can have a significant impact on competition. As blastdoor pointed out, by Adobe's own admission, they still have a big market for Flash without access to Apple's mobile devices.
You don't understand the metaphor. The goal of the railroads was to have freight shippers and passengers PAY for their service. To do so the rail roads CHOSE how to ship good and transport passengers. Apple is choosing NOT TO USE Flash & third party code generators.
It is their choice. They are competing with Google, etc. etc. and have a large (though not dominant market share). They are choosing -- they are the consumer in this case. If their product is inferior, then the consumer of digital information will choose another method.
its about selling not flash but their expensive software to end run develope apps for the iphone.
adobe is trying to control the development of the apps using their overpriced big dollar software.
Simply put, they are protecting their lead in the battle. Allowing third party code generators means that applications created with such generators are no better on the Apple platform than on the Nokia platform, than on the Google platform. etc.etc.
Which part of least common denominator computing don't you get?
If you have a product that kicks ass, do you want programmers to use a tool that can't kick?
Are you responding to me? If so, yes, I get "least common denominator computing." I also get that Apple doesn't want that to be the user's experience with their products.
Adobe can't very well complain about Apple trying to protect the market for their own products, when that's exactly what Adobe is doing.
Both just need to come together and fix it once and for all. It can be done, but egos are always going to get in the way. No matter what anyone thinks, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
This whole farrago is getting embarrassing for Apple and Adobe and they need to stop this idiotic back and forth. I've been a fan of both of these companies and think they should work together to amicably settle the matter.
On the one hand, Apple's stance is forcing Adobe to make Flash better.
However, apple is deliberately trying to kill Flash and to harm Adobe.
i don't like this Apple.
I have been a fan of Apple and it's decisions for a while. Bought my first Mac in 2005. Love it. bought the iPhone when it came out as I saw a winner from the beginning. Was VERY disappointed it couldn't run flash, which means I could not enjoy half the websites I frequented.
Flash is ubiquitous across the web. The extra interactivity it provides far exceeds even the video h.264 integration in HTML5 as you can have much more interactivity with a video and causing it to start and stop and transition just as you like. Since the iPhone, many have rushed to make their sites compatible an the once interactive slideshows have become simply static pictures moving from right to left. Much of the extra interactivity and content presentation is lost.
Flash is an amazing technology. Sure, it isn't always implemented in the best way, but the solution to that is to educate, not eradicate. Now, one of the best things about the web is marginalized simply because one company who does many things well is making the devices most people want - and they are abusing that power to force their will upon the entire workings of the internet.
Stop Apple. just stop. and make Flash work.
Apple is going to get in trouble doing these kinds of things.
I have always defended Apple as I believed they have been doing what is right.
Not in this case. and not in any case where they have become the bully they claim to fight against.