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
Whatever you're smoking, please save me some. I really need to get crazy this weekend.
The only railroad similarity I can see between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is running a stable system on a two rail system and Adobe is trying to balance on a monorail. This isn't about different gauges, it is about the basic design concept.
Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, compared the Web standards war between his company and Apple to the expansion of U.S. railroads in the 1800s, when different railways were incompatible with rival trains..."If you look at what's going on now, it's like railroads in the 1800s," Lynch said. "People were using different gauged rails. Your cars would literally not run on those rails."
The railroads were important to interstate commerce and the national expansion. It can't be argued that the failure of one computer/mobile device manufacturer with market share the size of apple's has any comparable significance for the nation. So let the company say, "it's time for something new" and take its chances.
Still, what if...?
What if a railroad innovator realized wide gauge rails proposed by an industry group increased stability and carrying capacity and decided--for purposes of speed and reliability and safety and thereby market share and profit--to build engines and cars that ran only on those new tracks?
What if the company said, "we believe with this new system we can make the experience of passengers and freight shippers the best in the country. We think by focusing on this standard gauge we can create a superior system. You can decide whether or not to start developing for that new standard instead, but we hope you do."
The company with the better plan would succeed.
What if the company that had developed lots of narrow-gauge railways wanted to continue to do so? Maybe it had millions invested in ties that wouldn't accommodate the new wider standard? Naturally it would resist the change. But the new standard is available to it, too.
What if that legacy company wanted to force the manufacturer to only build engines designed to run on its old tracks? Or to force it to offer wheelspan adapters that would allow the new wide-track engines to run on its old narrow gauge lines, but at the expense of all the benefits of the new standard?
Again, the company with the better plan would succeed.
I don't know who's being more honest in the apple/adobe brouhaha. But it does seem to me a company ought to be allowed to control what it sends out of the station. That's how the passengers (consumers) and freight shippers (media creators) ultimately will get the best product.
And I too agree with you. Everything should not come from Apple. But let's be honest where is the competition to Adobe's CS? is that why we pay so much for it. Because Adobe can get away with it. And don't you see how something like Flash locks developers into using "Creative Suites"? Adobe needs competition. If not from Apple than who? Who would be more loyal to the Mac platform than Apple themselves?
I would love to see a modern creative suite alternative, either from Apple or another developer, but as of right now, Apple has other priorities. Apple will only enter a market if they feel it is absolutely necessary and right now, it isn't. FC Studio and Logic Studio exist because the tools were really lacking before hand. Adobe was pushing their Windows versions and Apple saw that as a threat to the Mac platform, so they developed and acquired new applications. Lest we forget, Adobe at one point completely pulled Premiere from the Mac platform and had Soundbooth as a Windows only version up until a few years ago.
It's hard to compete with Photoshop & Illustrator (the only real applications that Apple would need to compete against) on a massive scale, mostly because of entrenched mindsets. Here's hoping somebody steps up and does.
And I too agree with you. Everything should not come from Apple. But let's be honest where is the competition to Adobe's CS? is that why we pay so much for it. Because Adobe can get away with it. And don't you see how something like Flash locks developers into using "Creative Suites"? Adobe needs competition. If not from Apple than who? Who would be more loyal to the Mac platform than Apple themselves?
Yes of course - I meant what you said above, but coming from the other side. And of course there are some promising developing programs like Acorn (PhotoShop alternative). Competition is great all around. When Adobe bought Macromedia I remember a sinking feeling in my stomach - for a long time those two companies were competitively fighting each other, which helped all of us...
Flash is free on the "user" end. But on the developer end it's a license fee! A fee that means developers are locked to having to use Adobe's CS. Am I wrong in this? And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4 html5 fail and slow. flash 10.1 really needs to be done soon. html5 canvas is too taxing to the cpu. other than that html5 is good lol.
I looked at your posting history, and your posts are really funny.
Is Adobe paying you on a per-post basis? If so, you'd better ramp it up a bit, buddy!
Flash is free on the "user" end. But on the developer end it's a license fee! A fee that means developers are locked to having to use Adobe's CS. Am I wrong in this? And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
Actually Adobe licenses it to companies like Swish that do a better job than their own product.
I don't know if you know this but MAC software is approximately 50% of Adobe's revenue. So, you can add to your scenario, Adobe drops revenue by 50% and stock crashes!!!! :-)
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
Flash is free on the "user" end. But on the developer end it's a license fee! A fee that means developers are locked to having to use Adobe's CS. Am I wrong in this? And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
That's absolutely correct. A lot of people forget that Adobe is trying to sell the Creative Suite. All this crap about Flash has nothing to do with the end-user or even developers. Responsible developers don't think "code once, deploy everywhere". It is about Adobe lining its coffers with overpriced CS licenses. It's about Adobe making Flash an OS substitute and locking people into their development tools.
The Macromedia buyout was one of the worst things to happen in the creative industry (all the companies Autodesk bought is right up there). It should have been blocked. The Creative Suite is insanely bloated and continues to get worse with each release.
Great analogy. Except Apple has built a Maglev railway and Adobe wants to run its diesel electric trains on them. You might be able to make an adapter to make it work, but wouldn't really be a maglev, would it?
Great analogy. Except Apple has built a Maglev railway and Adobe wants to run its diesel electric trains on them. You might be able to make an adapter to make it work, but wouldn't really be a maglev, would it?
I think that's all Apple's lawyers need to say in their response to the FTC.
I looked at your posting history, and your posts are really funny.
Is Adobe paying you on a per-post basis? If so, you'd better ramp it up a bit, buddy!
The reality is there are cases where HTML5 is slow and uses far more CPU then Flash 10.1. There are alot of advantages to Flash 10.1 over the current version the problem is you simply don't understand how the technology works.
Using Chrome under with Windows Flash 10.1 is about 55 to 60% more efficient then HTML5.
Firefox cpu with Windows is about 6% Funny how Safari for Windows using Flash 10.1 is using about 7-8% cpu.
Apple and OSX are the problem not Flash. This entire siuation at this point is nothing more then Steve Job as always attempting to control content.
Whats going to be best is when they get hit with the anti trust.
The reality is there are cases where HTML5 is slow and uses far more CPU then Flash 10.1. There are alot of advantages to Flash 10.1 over the current version the problem is you simply don't understand how the technology works.
Using Chrome under with Windows Flash 10.1 is about 55 to 60% more efficient then HTML5.
Firefox cpu with Windows is about 6% Funny how Safari for Windows using Flash 10.1 is using about 7-8% cpu.
Apple and OSX are the problem not Flash. This entire siuation at this point is nothing more then Steve Job as always attempting to control content.
Whats going to be best is when they get hit with the anti trust.
First off, performance is insanely variable. Apple (Steve Jobs) has come out and said that Adobe has a poor performing version of Flash on the Mac (10.1 is better but that only exists because of the pressure Adobe has been feeling) and they don't have a publicly available, high performance version for ANY mobile platform. They are supposedly going to release a BETA of it at Google I/O but we'll see. The iPhone has been out for 3 years and there is still no version for any other mobile OS.
As far as Steve controlling content, HTML is a open standard that I can use any text editor to develop for. Where is Flash in that argument? You need to buy Adobe's developer tools in order to develop a full Flash site. If other software companies want to develop anything related to Flash (Swish, etc.), they have to license technology from Adobe. Who's controlling more here?
Apple has every right to control THEIR OWN platform. Adobe wants to control EVERY platform. With Lynch's comments, it's even more clear that there won't be any anti-trust lawsuit.
The licence for Media Player 1.0, released this week almost a year after its first announcement, states that it cannot be run on “any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system”, a proviso which effectively forbids its use with the “black box” dedicated media-player hardware that many networks prefer to PCs for space and security reasons.
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
See last sentence of first paragraph of Steve's letter.
Comments
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
Whatever you're smoking, please save me some. I really need to get crazy this weekend.
Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, compared the Web standards war between his company and Apple to the expansion of U.S. railroads in the 1800s, when different railways were incompatible with rival trains..."If you look at what's going on now, it's like railroads in the 1800s," Lynch said. "People were using different gauged rails. Your cars would literally not run on those rails."
The railroads were important to interstate commerce and the national expansion. It can't be argued that the failure of one computer/mobile device manufacturer with market share the size of apple's has any comparable significance for the nation. So let the company say, "it's time for something new" and take its chances.
Still, what if...?
What if a railroad innovator realized wide gauge rails proposed by an industry group increased stability and carrying capacity and decided--for purposes of speed and reliability and safety and thereby market share and profit--to build engines and cars that ran only on those new tracks?
What if the company said, "we believe with this new system we can make the experience of passengers and freight shippers the best in the country. We think by focusing on this standard gauge we can create a superior system. You can decide whether or not to start developing for that new standard instead, but we hope you do."
The company with the better plan would succeed.
What if the company that had developed lots of narrow-gauge railways wanted to continue to do so? Maybe it had millions invested in ties that wouldn't accommodate the new wider standard? Naturally it would resist the change. But the new standard is available to it, too.
What if that legacy company wanted to force the manufacturer to only build engines designed to run on its old tracks? Or to force it to offer wheelspan adapters that would allow the new wide-track engines to run on its old narrow gauge lines, but at the expense of all the benefits of the new standard?
Again, the company with the better plan would succeed.
I don't know who's being more honest in the apple/adobe brouhaha. But it does seem to me a company ought to be allowed to control what it sends out of the station. That's how the passengers (consumers) and freight shippers (media creators) ultimately will get the best product.
And I too agree with you. Everything should not come from Apple. But let's be honest where is the competition to Adobe's CS? is that why we pay so much for it. Because Adobe can get away with it. And don't you see how something like Flash locks developers into using "Creative Suites"? Adobe needs competition. If not from Apple than who? Who would be more loyal to the Mac platform than Apple themselves?
I would love to see a modern creative suite alternative, either from Apple or another developer, but as of right now, Apple has other priorities. Apple will only enter a market if they feel it is absolutely necessary and right now, it isn't. FC Studio and Logic Studio exist because the tools were really lacking before hand. Adobe was pushing their Windows versions and Apple saw that as a threat to the Mac platform, so they developed and acquired new applications. Lest we forget, Adobe at one point completely pulled Premiere from the Mac platform and had Soundbooth as a Windows only version up until a few years ago.
It's hard to compete with Photoshop & Illustrator (the only real applications that Apple would need to compete against) on a massive scale, mostly because of entrenched mindsets. Here's hoping somebody steps up and does.
And I too agree with you. Everything should not come from Apple. But let's be honest where is the competition to Adobe's CS? is that why we pay so much for it. Because Adobe can get away with it. And don't you see how something like Flash locks developers into using "Creative Suites"? Adobe needs competition. If not from Apple than who? Who would be more loyal to the Mac platform than Apple themselves?
Yes of course - I meant what you said above, but coming from the other side. And of course there are some promising developing programs like Acorn (PhotoShop alternative). Competition is great all around. When Adobe bought Macromedia I remember a sinking feeling in my stomach - for a long time those two companies were competitively fighting each other, which helped all of us...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4 html5 fail and slow. flash 10.1 really needs to be done soon. html5 canvas is too taxing to the cpu. other than that html5 is good lol.
I looked at your posting history, and your posts are really funny.
Is Adobe paying you on a per-post basis? If so, you'd better ramp it up a bit, buddy!
Flash is free on the "user" end. But on the developer end it's a license fee! A fee that means developers are locked to having to use Adobe's CS. Am I wrong in this? And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
Actually Adobe licenses it to companies like Swish that do a better job than their own product.
I don't know if you know this but MAC software is approximately 50% of Adobe's revenue. So, you can add to your scenario, Adobe drops revenue by 50% and stock crashes!!!! :-)
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
Flash is free on the "user" end. But on the developer end it's a license fee! A fee that means developers are locked to having to use Adobe's CS. Am I wrong in this? And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
That's absolutely correct. A lot of people forget that Adobe is trying to sell the Creative Suite. All this crap about Flash has nothing to do with the end-user or even developers. Responsible developers don't think "code once, deploy everywhere". It is about Adobe lining its coffers with overpriced CS licenses. It's about Adobe making Flash an OS substitute and locking people into their development tools.
The Macromedia buyout was one of the worst things to happen in the creative industry (all the companies Autodesk bought is right up there). It should have been blocked. The Creative Suite is insanely bloated and continues to get worse with each release.
Great analogy. Except Apple has built a Maglev railway and Adobe wants to run its diesel electric trains on them. You might be able to make an adapter to make it work, but wouldn't really be a maglev, would it?
I think that's all Apple's lawyers need to say in their response to the FTC.
I looked at your posting history, and your posts are really funny.
Is Adobe paying you on a per-post basis? If so, you'd better ramp it up a bit, buddy!
The reality is there are cases where HTML5 is slow and uses far more CPU then Flash 10.1. There are alot of advantages to Flash 10.1 over the current version the problem is you simply don't understand how the technology works.
Using Chrome under with Windows Flash 10.1 is about 55 to 60% more efficient then HTML5.
Firefox cpu with Windows is about 6% Funny how Safari for Windows using Flash 10.1 is using about 7-8% cpu.
Apple and OSX are the problem not Flash. This entire siuation at this point is nothing more then Steve Job as always attempting to control content.
Whats going to be best is when they get hit with the anti trust.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/
IE9 Blog
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/201...evelopers.aspx
- INTERNET = Train Tracks
- iPhone = One (of many) different trains you can use to ride the tracks
- INTERNET = Train Tracks
- iPhone = One (of many) new diesel trains you can use to ride the tracks
- Flash = that old wooden water tower designed to cater to steam engines
The reality is there are cases where HTML5 is slow and uses far more CPU then Flash 10.1. There are alot of advantages to Flash 10.1 over the current version the problem is you simply don't understand how the technology works.
Using Chrome under with Windows Flash 10.1 is about 55 to 60% more efficient then HTML5.
Firefox cpu with Windows is about 6% Funny how Safari for Windows using Flash 10.1 is using about 7-8% cpu.
Apple and OSX are the problem not Flash. This entire siuation at this point is nothing more then Steve Job as always attempting to control content.
Whats going to be best is when they get hit with the anti trust.
First off, performance is insanely variable. Apple (Steve Jobs) has come out and said that Adobe has a poor performing version of Flash on the Mac (10.1 is better but that only exists because of the pressure Adobe has been feeling) and they don't have a publicly available, high performance version for ANY mobile platform. They are supposedly going to release a BETA of it at Google I/O but we'll see. The iPhone has been out for 3 years and there is still no version for any other mobile OS.
As far as Steve controlling content, HTML is a open standard that I can use any text editor to develop for. Where is Flash in that argument? You need to buy Adobe's developer tools in order to develop a full Flash site. If other software companies want to develop anything related to Flash (Swish, etc.), they have to license technology from Adobe. Who's controlling more here?
Apple has every right to control THEIR OWN platform. Adobe wants to control EVERY platform. With Lynch's comments, it's even more clear that there won't be any anti-trust lawsuit.
So if this is the case then is the following not also true?
- Google might NOT be killing Adobe (whenever they release Froyo)
- RIM might NOT be killing Adobe (sometime later in 2010 ... maybe)
- Microsoft Xbox is killing Adobe?
- Sony PSP is killing Adobe?
- Nintendo Wii is killing Adobe?
- Nintendo DS is killing Adobe?
Also Adobe seems to also have some odd positions...
Adobe bans its Media Player from digital-signage devices
The licence for Media Player 1.0, released this week almost a year after its first announcement, states that it cannot be run on “any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system”, a proviso which effectively forbids its use with the “black box” dedicated media-player hardware that many networks prefer to PCs for space and security reasons.
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
See last sentence of first paragraph of Steve's letter.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/