Adobe fires back at Apple with open letter, new ad campaign

1246723

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 447
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Postulant View Post


    I'm enjoying rich HTML5 content on my iPad from the NY Times website - exactly as I stated. Nice attempt at deflection, though.



    How can you enjoy the NYT in any format?



  • Reply 62 of 447
    atanneratanner Posts: 36member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post


    Really ? Which one's- Virgin airlines?

    Hulu hasn't , NY Times hasn't, porn most definitely hasn't .



    I tested all my favorite flash porn sites on an ipad at the Apple store. Every one of them worked.
  • Reply 63 of 447
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


    I'm not trying to defend Adobe here, but isn't it simply appropriate for these guys to respond to Steve Jobs? I mean, Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple after all.



    Nah, they would get nowhere with Steve.



    Steve would respond, "Drop Flash. Not a big deal."



    Adobe is just pounding their head against a brick wall. Apple has shut out Flash from its mobile devices. End of discussion.



    (It should be noted that most mobile technology companies also have shut out Flash. It's not just Apple.)
  • Reply 64 of 447
    wingswings Posts: 261member
    [QUOTE="No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."[/QUOTE]



    Mr. & Mrs. Adobe, does that also include malware?



    No thank-you. I'll take a "closed" system any day.
  • Reply 65 of 447
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,186member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post


    .

    "Now you'll release ALL your Software for FREE ?



    What does that have to do with reality?
  • Reply 66 of 447
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    /crying on the inside...



  • Reply 67 of 447
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post


    NY TImes still uses Flash on the web:



    http://video.nytimes.com/video/playl...115/index.html



    and you were trying to say?



    @yesiCan, are you being obtuse on purpose?



    The url you provide plays fine on an ipad. There is this thing called browser detection, you know.



    Also, where did you purchase an $800 13" macbook pro? I needz to get me one. Assuming you purchased it new and recently.
  • Reply 68 of 447
    inklinginkling Posts: 731member
    Personally, I'd like to be free to choose to experience a web not dominated by Flash's many woes. If Steve Jobs can make that happen, more power to him.



    Safari on my iMac used to crash about twice a week. Hearing that Flash was the cause, I got the free ClicktoFlash extension. Now, rather than run whether I like it or not, Flash only plays when I choose to play it. Safari hasn't crashed since that happy day.



    I'd also like to be free to experience an Adobe InDesign that isn't cluttered with Flash-hyping features, precisely what happened with CS5. The worst of that is that the new features don't let users repurpose existing content to add Flash animation. They simply turn InDesign into a third-rate PowerPoint.



    I asked someone at Adobe if those new features would let me page through an InDesign document, simply panning and zooming, Ken Burns fashion, on specific content. That'd be a good way to turn a paper or a book into a presentation, I thought. No, he said, for that I'd need to export the pages as jpegs and use a full-featured Adobe Flash application. "Why would I want to do that," I thought to myself. "If I export the pages to jpegs, I can use iPhoto, which is free, to do the same thing and do it much better."



    Adobe did the world a great service by creating and promoting PDFs as a fixed-appearance document interchange format. It might do the world another service if it got fully behind ePub and turned it into something that's actually useful for complex reflowable content. But Adobe is doing no one any good by continuing to push Flash down our throats in the name of "choice." For animation and video, something better is needed.
  • Reply 69 of 447
    johnnykrzjohnnykrz Posts: 152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Solar View Post


    Adobe ♥'s Apple



    Awesome! Does that mean we're gonna get a desktop flash browser that doesn't crash every 3rd page I look at, or cook my genitals when I'm watching video?



    That's the biggest feature missing from the iPad in my opinion.. I was watching a video on it the other morning and it was a bit chilly. I thought to myself "If only this thing would get hot enough to burn my genitalia, then it would be truly magical".



  • Reply 70 of 447
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post


    Really ? Which one's ? Hulu hasn't , NY Times hasn't, ...



    (rudeness removed), Does it really matter if these all have iApps associated with their sites as well?



    The only thing that's actually true about the statement from these Adobe guys is that the web is going to become less relevant as access to content becomes walled off on Apple's new platform (and to a lesser extent Android's). Just as every big concern had to have a website in the 90's, now everyone has to have an app. But that has nothing to do with Flash.



    I'm disappointed in general with this open letter. If they really believed what they are saying, they could easily get it by simply:



    - making Flash actually work

    - making Flash actually secure

    - open sourcing it

    - applying to make it a standard part of HTML



    It's a virtual lock that Apple would accept it if Adobe did that, they just don't want to, and we should all be thinking about why that is. It's a bit late in the game for them now anyway, but they have had years and years to go that route and they didn't. They haven't even bothered to make the thing work properly and now they are crying when new technology replaces them?
  • Reply 71 of 447
    ptkdudeptkdude Posts: 1member
    In his letter, Steve Jobs laid out a well-thought-out argument for why Apple does not allow Adobe Flash onto the iPhone/iPad universe. He gave specific reasons, all of which were grounded in reality.



    Issued a few weeks later, Adobe's response does not refute anything Steve's letter said. All they really state is that Flash is one of the most common platforms used on the web, and that some of their other applications are leaders as well.
  • Reply 72 of 447
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    That was why I used the example of a different device, I'm fine with not using Flash on an iPhone, however I'm not fine with Adobe denying the choice of other device users.



    Should Adobe be held accountable for restricting the Internet for everyone who doesn't have a device capable of handling their software?



    They are the one's making the claims.



    How about the visually impaired, by taking this stance are Adobe also denying the freedom of people who can't use screen readers with Flash content?



    It's some pretty big claims Adobe is throwing out there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Postulant View Post


    Apple has sold 85 million iPhones and Touches to people who knew in advance those devices didn't support flash. I think the people have spoken emphatically how they feel about flash and its relevancy. We can tally up the iPad sales at the end of the year.



  • Reply 73 of 447
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Awwwww, aren't you cute and all with your bad examples and piss and vinegar.



    So the nice thing about what Steve Jobs did was to get this out in the public eye. It forces Adobe to have to talk about it where before they could pretend there weren't issues, and gives them the opportunity to either effectively address the issues that Steve called out or demonstrate that they were blowing smoke.



    Let's remember that in the course of the ill-advised (where the hell was the FTC on THAT decision) purchase of Macromedia, Adobe did their level best to compromise and kill Flash - which was a Macromedia product. When it became apparent that Flash was popular for doing quick and dirty "flashy"web content they decided to support it and add it to their product line. But ironically according to insiders it's still internally the redheaded step-child with only 4 support staff for the Windows side and 1 for the Mac side - and up until recently absolutely no one dedicated to mobile (hence the abomination known as Flash Lite). They simply assumed that like the rest of their products everyone would just get in line and pay through nose for whatever they decide is good enough. Thus we have these panicked and unreasoned responses from their management - and the abject diatribe from their "evangelists".
  • Reply 74 of 447
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    I ♥ Adobe. But I hate it when a company forces its users to use 25 year old, buggy software
  • Reply 74 of 447
    groovetubegroovetube Posts: 557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    That was why I used the example of a different device, I'm fine with not using Flash on an iPhone, however I'm not fine with Adobe denying the choice of other device users.



    How exactly, is adobe "denying choice"? You don't -have- to run flash. You could install click4Flash or simply uninstall the plugin. Is there an adobe "shill" sitting next to you preventing you from, excersizing choice?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


    I'm not trying to defend Adobe here, but isn't it simply appropriate for these guys to respond to Steve Jobs? I mean, Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple after all.



    That's good for quite a guffaw. I doubt any of them would ever fathom the irony of this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevetim View Post


    I am not yet sure about html5 to the things I do in flash. I'm definately fine for it playing the videos.



    And it won't. The shrieking about html5 "replacing" flash is, just shrieking. I don't see many full on flash experiences being replaced, anytime soon.



    The truth is, both technologies are very much either in beta, being worked out, being proposed, in experimental stages (as those "flash killer" basic animation canvas demos which cook -my- genitals pushing my cpu to crazy heat...) etc. That's really where things are.



    No one truly knows where things will be in about 2 or 3 years, but I do think adobe is under a lot of pressure right now (and rightly so) to produce a player that runs well on a mobile, and by all appearances, and from what I've personally seen (I saw it running), adobe will be successful very soon. It's success will depend on if they push it out too fast to satisfy the screaming banshees and it's still buggy, or put it out when it's done.



    If they do put out a player that runs really well, well, I guess we'll see how that plays out.



    As for the BSers screaming about being forced, no one is forcing anyone. Everyone would still have the choice to run it, or not, and the advances of html5 is a good thing for everyone. Having technologies advance and have new capabilities, is awesome.
  • Reply 76 of 447
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,582member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trollhunter View Post


    @yesiCan, are you being obtuse on purpose? ...



    yesHeIs.
  • Reply 77 of 447
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Postulant View Post


    You mean like this:









    Indeed, thanks. I read about this agreement in passing. I forgot obviously. And I was sidetracked by rumors that Steve Jobs was still complaining about the NY Times.



    It looks that it has now been implemented then. My question actually was: Does NY Times still use the "Flash version" as default, when it detects a standard Mac OS X?



    CGC
  • Reply 78 of 447
    shuntvashuntva Posts: 2member
    Everyone should remember that Flash requires nearly constant updates -- and is the single most frequent cause of security vulnerabilities.



    On a PC, I have to deal with a constant flood of updates (sometimes new ones are released before we can complete the prior update -- do we REALLY want this type of mess inflicting the iPad.



    I am glad that Apple is pushing the open standards HTML5 -- at least that is likely to work without major updates every few days. They have had many YEARS to issue a stable system and have yet to do so ... their time is past.



    Adobe is just playing the FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT game.
  • Reply 79 of 447
    teunisteunis Posts: 23member
    "No company ? no matter how big or how creative ? should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."



    If that is your stance, then why not actually update your software to work across all Operating Systems, notably Mobile Device OS's. Don't keep pushing back release dates.



    "Adobe Flash technology remains the 'market leader' because of the constant creativity and technical innovation of our employees."



    More often then not the websites that I visit do not use Flash, sometimes for Ads, but not the actual site itself. So to say you are the market leader is misleading. Flash may lead the pack in third party software with web capabilities, but not as a platform for creating sites.



    "Apple... has taken a step that could undermine this next chapter of the web ? the chapter in which mobile devices outnumber computers, any individual can be a publisher, and content is accessed anywhere and at any time."



    Apple is arguably leading the way for mobile devices, and personally I think they're goal is to outnumber computers with mobile devices. All Apple wants is software that will run everything on the web without compromising battery life and causing crashes. Unfortunately Flash causes both.



    jerks.
  • Reply 80 of 447
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    That was why I used the example of a different device, I'm fine with not using Flash on an iPhone, however I'm not fine with Adobe denying the choice of other device users.



    Should Adobe be held accountable for restricting the Internet for everyone who doesn't have a device capable of handling their software?



    They are the one's making the claims.



    How about the visually impaired, by taking this stance are Adobe also denying the freedom of people who can't use screen readers with Flash content?



    It's some pretty big claims Adobe is throwing out there.



    Well-put!
Sign In or Register to comment.