'We have never, ever abandoned Apple,' Adobe co-founder says

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 189
    predragpredrag Posts: 26member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by err View Post


    Very simple. check this video - http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2...ng-on-android/



    Non-mobile optimized flash websites running on an android phone. 3D rendering, videos, etc. One hic-up here and there, but very very usable overall



    That video is fairly impressive. There is no question about the performance. The obvious thing here is that it is indeed possible to create a Flash plug-in for a mobile device that can be efficient, lean and fast. How stable? We simply can't know, since so far, Flash on mobile has only been seen on YouTube, through videos such as this one. We still don't have it in the wild, and it is STILL not available on ANY mobile platform. Obviously, Adobe still considers it inadequate for release.



    I can see a possible scenario here. Eventually, Adobe will get the bugs worked out and it will release Flash for Android. The era of Flash on mobile will begin. As more and more people begin to experience Flash on their mobile devices, many will realise what are the TRUE problems with Flash on mobile, and it won't be performance, and perhaps not even stability. It will be UI. Vast majority of Flash content requires mouse-over and (to some extent) right-click for most basic navigation, without which the content is unusable. No (multi)touch-screen device will have a mouse button, or a mouse-hovering feature.



    So what will happen then? Most likely, judging by the speed everyone's now jumping on the HTML-5 bandwagon (following the iPad's release), all the Flash content owners who didn't bother with HTML-5 (expecting that Flash for Android might mitigate the mobile issues and allow them to ignore the iPad for some time) will likely realise that no mobile device can actually use their content. One of the two things may happen: either they will re-engineer all of their Flash content to eliminate the mouse-over functions, or they will simply abandon flash and develop using HTML-5.



    There are very many web sites that have fairly elaborate Flash apps out there. These simply CANNOT be ported over to HTML-5 (HTML-5 is NOT a programming language). It may be lesser effort to re-engineer for mouseless navigation (than to build separate apps for iPod/iPad/iPhone platform, and another one for Android). They may choose to do the modifications and try and capture the Android audience, continuing to ignore Apple audience, or at least buying themselves some time.



    If Android audience becomes large enough, and Flash content ends up being re-coded for mouseless navigation in significant enough numbers, and if that Flash experience becomes consistently reliable, Apple might end up making a prudent business decision and allowing development of that Flash plug-in after all (with a set of conditions that would provide tight enough control over user experience quality).



    This whole scenario may take several years to unfold.
  • Reply 42 of 189
    zindakozindako Posts: 468member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    "He said his company knows a number of developers who want to create applications for the iPad, but are frustrated by the prospect of having to learn to write for a new device rather than sticking with one language they're already familiar with."



    BS! You can write iPhone/iPad apps in C, C++, or Objective-C. If he is implying with his statement that Apple isn't allowing C# to compile, then he needs to realize that almost all developers who write in C# started off with C++.



    What I find odd is, how can you call yourself a software engineer and not know basic C language in any form?
  • Reply 43 of 189
    justbobfjustbobf Posts: 261member
    Adobe refuses to use Apple technology in their apps. They insist that both the Mac and PC versions of their app be exactly the same. There is an exception in that Preferences is under the Application menu on the Mac. Their thinking is that a designer should be able to go to either a Mac or a PC and feel perfectly comfortable using their apps.



    So, that means that Control-Command-D does not bring up a pop-up dictionary as it does in other Mac program, Quick Look does not work in Bridge, etc. So, it is really a matter of philosophy, I think. I would prefer that Adobe programs be more Mac-like.
  • Reply 44 of 189
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by err View Post


    The question is, were they allowed to?



    That is irrelevant when Flash 10.1 for The open Android can't even come close to running on any of the iPhone HW they have released so far.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    i wonder if Chuck can explain why Adobe forced Carbon onto Apple and refused to make a Cocoa version until Apple finally cut them off.



    In Adobe's defense, Apple is still using plenty of Arbon in their pro suites, iLife and iTunes.
  • Reply 45 of 189
    stevetimstevetim Posts: 482member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    "He said his company knows a number of developers who want to create applications for the iPad, but are frustrated by the prospect of having to learn to write for a new device rather than sticking with one language they're already familiar with."



    BS! You can write iPhone/iPad apps in C, C++, or Objective-C. If he is implying with his statement that Apple isn't allowing C# to compile, then he needs to realize that almost all developers who write in C# started off with C++.



    This is an excellent point that I have never thought about. Photoshop was written in C and C++. Photoshop plugins are written in C and C++. Apple compiles both along with their standard objective C. So if they want to, they can have same programmers go after the iPad. There is risk of rejection, but there is already at least 2 iphone apps out there from adobe that are decent.
  • Reply 46 of 189
    casey4147casey4147 Posts: 35member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "We never abandoned Apple," Geschke responded. "Apple now seems to be abandoning at least one aspect of our product line right now. No, we never abandoned them. We've always ported our apps simultaneously to both platforms."





    Bllsht. There was a months-delay between PC and Mac releases of Photoshop Elements a cycle or so back, and I know everyone was happy when PC users got CS3 months before the Mac, right? From http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...hallenges.html



    "A software engineer working on Adobe Photoshop says the company's decision not to deliver native Intel Mac support until the next major release of its high-end graphics suite is a result of the enormous task associated with switching to Apple Computer's Xcode development environment.

    "Last month, Adobe chief executive Bruce Chizen stated that Creative Suite 3 -- which will include the next major releases of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive and Acrobat -- will not be available until the second quarter of 2007. "



    Then there's the whole 64-bit in CS4 debacle.From http://www.betanews.com/article/Adob...ows/1207258861



    "Mac OS X users probably won't get 64-bit support until CS5, the subsequent release of the graphics editing software, according to John Nack, Adobe's Photoshop product manager.

    Nack attributes this unanticipated state of affairs to Apple's decision last year to halt development of 64-bit support for Carbon, a move which he says took Adobe and third-party developers by surprise. Adobe did make CS3 Intel-compatible, but kept Carbon as its core architecture"



    So it's Apple causing the problems? And not telling anyone about architecture changes far enough in advance? Then why is Adobe the only one whining about it?
  • Reply 47 of 189
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Why is this crap still news?

    Apple doesn't want flash and Adobe is bit*****! Too bad for Adobe. They should move on.

    I went to Apple's site (I'm always there. I'm a 20 year Apple geek.)and checked out the Popular science stuff for the ipad.

    WOW!

    Just wait until other companies follow suit. The ipad is where the eyeball are at so you put your money there.That is how the business is run.
  • Reply 48 of 189
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    OMG, they are whining a bit much. Adobe put out a product that Apple ended up not liking. How about focusing on making it way better than HTML5 so the market will beg to use it, or focus on your products that work well.



    How about this:

    Adobe: We admit that in the past we might have been lax in creating Mac OS versions of our applications that were optimized for said systems. This is unfair to the users that make up half of our customers. We have pledged to line one rewrite all of our software starting with the 3 most popular -- Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash and continuing through our entire line up. And we pledge that these new versions will be out by the end of 2010.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Face it - Adobe has never released a full version of Flash that will run on the iPhone. That's an unquestioned fact.



    it's not that might not have wanted to. there was no point. Apple doesn't support Flash in the iphone OS.



    however if you say "mobile devices" instead of the iphone, you are correct. to date we have not seen a full version of Flash running on any mobile OS. demos and betas (of questionable quality) but not a final version,



    Quote:

    Adobe has been promising a version of Flash for the iPhone for 3 years and not delivered. Apple got tired of waiting.



    no they didn't. they aren't waiting for Flash for the iphone. they are waiting for anything from Adobe that shows that they will do the work required. until they give that sign, Apple isn't going to put the needed support into the OS. An optimized version of Flash for MacOS that isn't just a slapped up port of the windows version and a promise to recode all other apps (with a firm deadline and not just 'in the future') would be huge steps that way.



    Quote:

    Show us Flash working on an iPhone. Surely Adobe knows that they can jailbreak a phone in order to show that it works.



    this isn't like that wifi syncing app. the language to make Flash run isn't there. it's like trying to run a Windows program in Mac OS (not a VM like parallels but just click it and it runs)



    Quote:

    Oh, and get off they hypocrisy about openness.



    that I will agree with. They are playing the FUD game. Apple is showing folks that there's more potential options than Flash. They are getting behind HTML5 etc to make sure that the options are as equal as possible so folks have a choice and aren't picking one or the other cause nothing else works.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjosborn View Post


    I don't think that there has ever been a statement that Apple "has banned" Flash anyways.



    they have, just not in those words. Apple won't put the needed code into the iphone OS, thus preventing it from

    running in said OS. that's in essence banning it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CIM View Post


    Didn?t Adobe pull Premiere from Mac when Apple released Final Cut?



    not exactly. Apple wasn't too happy with the performance of Premiere using Carbon and strongly pushed Adobe to redo with Cocoa. Adobe didn't want to and just dropped the software from continued development.



    Shortly afterwards Apple bought the company that was making Final Cut, reworked the code etc and the rest is history.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zindako View Post


    What I find odd is, how can you call yourself a software engineer and not know basic C language in any form?



    indeed. what I want to do is how hard would it be to take an app written in C and tweak it to run in the other OS's. is it really that difficult. would they be so horrible that they basically wouldn't work. do the other OSs have some kind of requirement that you can't use C and/or must use Flash
  • Reply 49 of 189
    zindakozindako Posts: 468member
    Let me get this straight, the NPD group just released a large size sample survey that shows Android OS overtaking iPhone OS in market share, Google has announced their Android OS will support Flash mobile once its released by Adobe. If Android OS is kicking iPhone OS in market share, and Flash is promised to run in that environment, then what is Adobe crying about?
  • Reply 50 of 189
    boogabooga Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Predrag View Post


    I can see a possible scenario here. Eventually, Adobe will get the bugs worked out and it will release Flash for Android. The era of Flash on mobile will begin.



    Yes, but for which version of Android? On what hardware? The Android ecosystem is unlike the iPhone OS's, in that there has been a diaspora of hardware and software configurations to support. It's not impossible that Flash could be available on Android for years before even a majority of Android phones could utilize it. And if that's the case, who is going to base their business around developing for (and worse, supporting) it? And how will they monetize it?



    Even completely leaving out how awful Flash's multi-touch experience is or its inefficiency with regards to processor or battery life, Android just doesn't seem like a very viable way to build a Flash market place. Apple's strict control over their ecosystem has been disparaged by many, but it means that they're the white whale of a target market for someone with a developer tool like Adobe's.
  • Reply 50 of 189
    errerr Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Predrag View Post


    That video is fairly impressive. There is no question about the performance. The obvious thing here is that it is indeed possible to create a Flash plug-in for a mobile device that can be efficient, lean and fast. How stable? We simply can't know, since so far, Flash on mobile has only been seen on YouTube, through videos such as this one. We still don't have it in the wild, and it is STILL not available on ANY mobile platform. Obviously, Adobe still considers it inadequate for release.



    I can see a possible scenario here. Eventually, Adobe will get the bugs worked out and it will release Flash for Android. The era of Flash on mobile will begin. As more and more people begin to experience Flash on their mobile devices, many will realise what are the TRUE problems with Flash on mobile, and it won't be performance, and perhaps not even stability. It will be UI. Vast majority of Flash content requires mouse-over and (to some extent) right-click for most basic navigation, without which the content is unusable. No (multi)touch-screen device will have a mouse button, or a mouse-hovering feature.



    So what will happen then? Most likely, judging by the speed everyone's now jumping on the HTML-5 bandwagon (following the iPad's release), all the Flash content owners who didn't bother with HTML-5 (expecting that Flash for Android might mitigate the mobile issues and allow them to ignore the iPad for some time) will likely realise that no mobile device can actually use their content. One of the two things may happen: either they will re-engineer all of their Flash content to eliminate the mouse-over functions, or they will simply abandon flash and develop using HTML-5.



    There are very many web sites that have fairly elaborate Flash apps out there. These simply CANNOT be ported over to HTML-5 (HTML-5 is NOT a programming language). It may be lesser effort to re-engineer for mouseless navigation (than to build separate apps for iPod/iPad/iPhone platform, and another one for Android). They may choose to do the modifications and try and capture the Android audience, continuing to ignore Apple audience, or at least buying themselves some time.



    If Android audience becomes large enough, and Flash content ends up being re-coded for mouseless navigation in significant enough numbers, and if that Flash experience becomes consistently reliable, Apple might end up making a prudent business decision and allowing development of that Flash plug-in after all (with a set of conditions that would provide tight enough control over user experience quality).



    This whole scenario may take several years to unfold.



    I agree with most of what you said. I think that if android-flash gains traction we'll see lots of sites starting to support lower definition videos that fit the mobile screen and simply smaller swf's without requiring mouseover (although they could simply assume a 2 key tap-and-keep-tapped gesture to be a mouse over something - just an example on how to solve the problem).





    And about a version of flash that will run on the iPhone - quite sure the 3GS could do it, especially if apple created api's to access video and stuff (if they don't exist already), but that's a whole other matter. The iPad certainly could use flash (even if it isn't the best thing out there, some parts of the web are flash-centric (no way around it yet) and the iPad is kind of like a web-tablet). I think it is a bit crippled by this no-flash policy.
  • Reply 52 of 189
    plovellplovell Posts: 805member
    "We've always ported our apps simultaneously to both platforms."

    is demonstrably false, and they know it.



    I am not in the market for Photoshop or CS (although I know someone who does a lot of it). I'm more of a "PS Elements" user and the Windows version has been released sooner, had more features and is cheaper.



    Stop lying, Adobe !
  • Reply 53 of 189
    errerr Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    Yes, but for which version of Android? On what hardware? The Android ecosystem is unlike the iPhone OS's, in that there has been a diaspora of hardware and software configurations to support. It's not impossible that Flash could be available on Android for years before even a majority of Android phones could utilize it. And if that's the case, who is going to base their business around developing for (and worse, supporting) it? And how will they monetize it?



    You can't fore sure say it is only for "the latest android". If the API's are there, and the phone is good enough (and most android phones are), they might be able to support flash...



    Quote:

    Even completely leaving out how awful Flash's multi-touch experience is or its inefficiency with regards to processor or battery life, Android just doesn't seem like a very viable way to build a Flash market place. Apple's strict control over their ecosystem has been disparaged by many, but it means that they're the white whale of a target market for someone with a developer tool like Adobe's.



    Won't comment on the multi-touch experience, but did you see the earlier video I posted? And the battery life problem is a myth - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwWonKwVp1s - Over 3 hours of video on a flash player in a mobile phone. That's quite decent...
  • Reply 54 of 189
    Why is Adobe crying so much? They are getting seriously worried about all this. I don't care either way, I don't own an iPhone/iPad but I hate flash on OSX. it is constantly crashing, slow, cpu draining, battery draining, and a hassle to deal with.
  • Reply 55 of 189
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,722member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Geschke was also asked why Flash isn't an "open standard," a question that the Adobe co-founder took issue with. He argued that Flash is open because Adobe published the SWF format and removed a previous requirement for a license to use it.



    "No, we haven't put Flash out to a standards body yet as we have with PDF and Postscript," he said. "But I wouldn't be shocked if we do someday when it makes sense."



    It doesn't make sense now, he said, because he isn't interested in having Flash being stuck with "design by committee." He pointed to HTML5, the open standard that Apple has embraced, and noted that it is taking a great deal of time to become finalized because "there are an awful lot of vested interests trying to influence its development."



    OBTW, one of the companies with "an awful lot of vested interests trying to influence its [HTMLs] development" just happens to be Adobe. They tried (and ultimately failed) to neuter the features of HTML5 that will provide alternatives to Flash, including the <video> tag and Canvas.



    Just sayin'...
  • Reply 56 of 189
    sticknicksticknick Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zindako View Post


    Let me get this straight, the NPD group just released a large size sample survey that shows Android OS overtaking iPhone OS in market share, Google has announced their Android OS will support Flash mobile once its released by Adobe. If Android OS is kicking iPhone OS in market share, and Flash is promised to run in that environment, then what is Adobe crying about?



    Adobe has never had anyone question Flash to this extent. It doesn't matter if Android has, or will have, greater market share. No one really gives a shit about Android. Ask your parents what they think of Android and they'll probably tell you the guy who fit into the original R2-D2 suit was cute.



    Here is what Adobe is crying about:



    Some people may know what a Nokia 5800 XpressMusic is.



    *EVERYONE* knows what an iPhone is.



    Adobe is crying because there is now a company out there who has the worlds mindshare in the palm of their hands... and this company is telling everyone that Flash sucks.
  • Reply 57 of 189
    boogabooga Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by err View Post


    You can't fore sure say it is only for "the latest android". If the API's are there, and the phone is good enough (and most android phones are), they might be able to support flash...



    Maybe, maybe not. And if you have an "app" that was written in Flash you have to deal with that discrepancy especially if you want someone to pay for it somehow. (Again, the monetization story is very unclear to me with Flash, which intuitively makes me thing you're going to get lower quality product with it.)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by err View Post


    Won't comment on the multi-touch experience, but did you see the earlier video I posted? And the battery life problem is a myth - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwWonKwVp1s - Over 3 hours of video on a flash player in a mobile phone. That's quite decent...



    Flash video isn't really the issue. I can already watch YouTube and many others without Flash. What about the Flash games my kids like? That's the only thing I really see bringing additional value to my iPad, and I have no idea how it would affect system performance and battery life since it's a completely different beast than video.
  • Reply 58 of 189
    columbuscolumbus Posts: 281member
    Apple spent so much time messing around with Classic and Carbon precisely because Adobe (and to a lesser extent Microsoft) not wanting to back an ?unproven? OS.



    Adobe:

    Last major developer to deliver Mac OS X version

    Last major developer to deliver a universal binary



    Cause let's face it, Classic was only seriously used for 1-2 years by most users and only officially supported for 6 years (2001-2007).
  • Reply 59 of 189
    donlphidonlphi Posts: 214member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post


    I dislike flash in general. The main use of it on the web these days seems to be really annoying ads which hijack your screen...



    What do you think iAds are going to do?



    I'm not a huge fan of Flash or iAds, but I think obnoxious advertising is inevitable.
  • Reply 60 of 189
    lemon bon bon.lemon bon bon. Posts: 2,173member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by columbus View Post


    Apple spent so much time messing around with Classic and Carbon precisely because Adobe (and to a lesser extent Microsoft) not wanting to back an ?unproven? OS.



    Adobe:

    Last major developer to deliver Mac OS X version

    Last major developer to deliver a universal binary



    Cause let's face it, Classic was only seriously used for 1-2 years by most users and only officially supported for 6 years (2001-2007).



    Well, payback is a bitch. Adobe dragged their grudging feet supporting Apple these last ten years. With feature, software parity...and failure to back Apple's tech initiatives. And now they want Apple to back their vapourware? Don't think so.



    Now, the shoe is on the other foot.



    I don't want a sucky flash plug in that takes over my web window. I don't want it's irritating noises, unoptimised video or its cpu drain. Or crappy adverts I can't turn off.



    There's 200k applications that don't used flash. That use Apple's tools. No middleware Adobe crap. It's about power. Apple have finally broken the software dependence on Adobe and M$. In the new era, Adobe and M$ are nowhere. Apple don't need their support. They don't need their lagging implementation of Apple innovations. Apple have got 200k and loads of developers 'who get it.'



    Apple's days of waiting for the grim reaper's axe to fall under veiled threats from M$ and Adobe are over.



    Apple are finally free of both of them. And are stomping all over their ass. Expect more squealing.



    If Apple made a photoshop alt, I'd use it. They made a bad move trash talking Apple. Note the 'we love Apple but...' sucking sound. It won't save them. As the new iPhone 4 and the iPad grow to obscene sales heights...it will merely increase Adobe and M$'s pain...and their irrelevance. They aint going to subject Apple and computer users to the crap they dished up on the desktop. No. They can't transfer their 'monopoly' to mobile computing. That's what the squealing is really about.



    Now that it means innovating and getting creative...and earning the right in the '3rd Great Age..,' Adobe and M$ have been found out.



    Advantage Apple.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
Sign In or Register to comment.