Extra CPU cycles on Mac: Apple doesn't allow Adobe to use the GPU for non-video content, and they can only use it for video content if the video is h.264 encoded and ONLY on a handful of newer devices using specific GPU's.
This is completely false. You can use the hardware on the Mac - via OpenCL and other Apple APIs. It's just that Apple won't let developers write directly to the hardware. That's why Mac OS X is so stable. Developers work through Apple's APIs and they can't open security holes left and right.
It's funny how people can do things that do amazing things on the Mac but Adobe can't write a version of Flash that doesn't suck CPU cycles. Heck, Photoshop will sling around multi MB images like there's no tomorrow on my Mac, yet it comes to a screeching halt running a simple 640x480x8 bit image (with no action) on Flash. It's not about Apple, it's about Adobe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
The irony is that the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the DoJ have been emasculated in recent decades. Any and all mergers, for instance, were routinely approved with only the most cursory review. Do we really benefit when the cops avert their eyes?
That's true under the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, there are signs that Obama may go too far in the other direction.
I don't need to quit. The posts you cite prove my point. I never said any such thing. YOU are the one who pretended that I said that - in your usual idiotic, fact-free way. You claimed that Apple had 40% profit on something or other (I don't remember). I explained to you that the 40% figure was GROSS PROFIT, not PROFIT. NO ONE with any business knowledge refers to gross profit (or gross margin) as profit.
And, even after all this time, and all the times I've explained it to you, you STILL haven't learned the difference. Amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterK
Listen, I want Flash to be an option on iOS devices also (so long as it doesn't crash... it seems as though it's been crashing more on my Mac since Adobe and Apple starting going at it).
First, there's no evidence that Adobe can make Flash for the iPhone that won't crash. The best they've been able to do is release a slow, buggy version that runs on a tiny percentage of 1 GHz phones. When this all started, the iPhone was 400 MHz. There's no way in the world that Flash would have worked - but it's Adobe's burden to prove that they could. After years of Apple asking, they still never did.
But even if they DID release a slow buggy version that ran on the iPhone, it would be the worst of both worlds. Even if it was optional, developers would continue to produce Flash crap and would not put the energy into developing REAL apps and web pages. They would count on users clicking 'yes' on the "Flash is not installed, do you want to install it?" page.
ROTFLMAO. Someone suggested that Adobe should release Flash to Open Source. You come up with some project that USE flash (or flash converters, etc). Do you really not know the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Exactly. It's an investigation.
We don't know that. All we know is that there are RUMORS of an investigation. If people panicked every time there was a rumor of an investigation, we'd all be in huge trouble. Let's wait to see if there's EVER an investigation and then wait to see if Apple is found guilty of anything.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
There are no APIs that Adobe doesn't have access to to make Flash run with acceptable performance on Mac OS X. The problem is that Adobe doesn't want to implement Flash as a Mac application. (And one could argue that they they have the same approach to their Creative Suite apps.) Now they even have access to APIs that they didn't need but wanted.
Flash is a piece of crap software, buggy, inefficient, poorly conceived, bloated, and the epitome of bad cross platform development. It's entirely unsuited to Mobile computing, and even on your Droid where you say it runs great it will suck your battery down in a flash, and, although I haven't run it on a Droid, I've seen other reports that call into question your exact description of its performance.
Besides being an outdated concept that holds back progress (And Adobe seems to be doing all they can to hold back progress on HTML5.) and besides the fact that by its very nature it's unsuitable for mobile computing -- not just the runtime, but the flash files themselves -- Adobe will never be able to make Flash run acceptably on multiple platforms, especially not mobile platforms. Yeah, they are hoping that processor and battery advances will make performance issues go away, but they won't, fast enough.
Adobe has demonstrated that it's just not capable of making Flash run decently on more than one desktop platform. The idea that they'll suddenly be able to have Flash running well on Windows and Mac OS, and Linux (ha!) and iOS, and the various flavors of Android and WebOS and Blackberry OS and Windows Phone 7 and, assuming Nokia stays alive, whatever OS they end up using in the future. The idea that this is suddenly all going to change and that Adobe will support all these platforms, when they can't even support two well now, is utterly preposterous. Their culture will never be able to make the adjustment, they'll simply never be able to do it.
And this is exactly the root of the problem with Flash and why it needs to die. The choice is to saddle countless users on multiple platforms with crappy Flash performance for years to come -- not to mention the crashes, the security exploits (they'll never keep up with those), etc. -- or to completely abandon the model of content distribution that Flash represents and move to HTML5, where multiple browser vendors, each focused on their platforms of interest, optimize browser performance and security, all working toward the same goal of implementing a common standard.
Now, which of these is likely to produce the better result for users, developers, content publisher's and even advertisers, over the long haul? It's pretty clear that it's not the one that Adobe is try to ram down our throats because they bet the company on it.
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
You'd think if such a memo or the idea behind it was real someone would be rich by now. Let us know when someone is awarded this bounty.
Any WebKit-based browser that keeps updated with the latest developments would be equally compatible as Safari, including Google Chrome and the web browsers of Android, BlackBerry (as of OS version 6), and WebOS.
Yeah, but do you really think those other companies will keep updated like Apple does?
I would normally agree with your views on Apple's stance, but in this one case, I'll go out and say Jobs probably takes Apple's view of Adobe personally. Hell, I would too if I were Jobs.
There is nothing in that history to support your conclusion, and I doubt very much that you are in a position to say what motivates Steve Jobs. It's really a ridiculous notion that Apple has any interest in "hurting" Adobe, or that they have any other motivation for their actions than to insure the success of their platforms.
The reality is that HTML 5 is 10 years behind Flash when it comes to building anything immersive or significant.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
You're correct. Apple's approval process is so horrible that they need to find excuses for not letting people submit apps.
Again that's a false dichotomy. Just because Apple isn't meeting all of their goals, it doesn't mean the process is totally lacking in value and it should be tossed out!
It means the process is new and needs to be improved! And over the last two (yes, just two years - that's all the older the App store is) Apple has made steady and continual improvements.
I'm glad you are so perfect in everything you can do - that you are able to predict every possible outcome, anticipate and plan for all of them and execute flawlessly. Your a genius - what are you doing posting on an Internet message board? You should be out there making huge money showing companies the errors of their ways!
Quote:
If the quality of the apps are such a HUGE concern, just let them go through the approval process. Or are you and Apple too scared that the apps will actually turn out to be good?
Neither myself nor Apple are scared of anything. The vast majority of apps go through the approval process just fine.
Quality is a HUGE [sic] concern - that's why they banned third party porting tools such as what Adobe was working on.
Porting tools and abstraction environments aren't created for the benefit of the end user. Such tools are to make the programmers life easier. Is it any wonder why Apple has an issue with this? What's Apple's number one goal? The end user experience! Apple knows who their customers really are. It's not the developers, resellers, cell phone manufacturers or even share holders... their customers are you, me and more importantly non-technical people like my parents - the largest demographic of all.
That's who Apple focuses on, period, end of subject. It's also no accident that Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry - and by a wide margin.
People spin and try to justify porting tools and abstraction layers with lame straw men like it offers people more programs than they would have otherwise - again that's like saying you have more choices of homogenized, bland gruel.
Why bother?
Apple isn't about volume. Another fact that seems to drive people crazy - "what without raw numbers you are nothing!" goes the conventional wisdom. Yet look at Apple's profit vs. their market share. How can this be?
It's simple. Apple doesn't focus on crap like market share, or even to a lesser extent, profit. They focus on the end user experience (and thus, that's how they focus on profit - I'm not saying they don't focus on profit at all, just that they do it in context). If you ever watch Steve Jobs speak in public, you can't miss it - it's a theme that comes up constantly! How people can miss it, or dismiss it as Apple playing lip service is just boggling - much like the derisive attitude you display in your post. If you don't believe them, fine - that's your right. I reserve the right to pass you a tin foil hat.
You can't build as successful a business as Apple's by being disingenuous, which is what you are essentially accusing them of being - and to insinuate that they are is just nuts. Their actions and success simply speak otherwise. If you don't agree with their position, fine. But you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously given their continued (and accelerating) success!
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
HTML5 is JUST starting to support the API's needed to take it beyond simple text. a year ago, it was barely something worth talking about beyond an alternative way to stream video.
If flash was removed from all web content today, there is NOTHING that is ready to fill everything it can do. Yes, it's going to fade, and yes, HTML5 will be superior to it. But not today.
We don't know that. All we know is that there are RUMORS of an investigation.
Fair enough. But even if there is an investigation - and let's, for the sake of argument, say that there is....
Big flipping deal. Investigations mean nothing. It could be as simple as reviewing what someone filing a complaint submits and then filing as "that was interesting but not actionable" up and to something far more serious.
I'd wager the vast majority of investigations go absolutely nowhere - the courts would be even more clogged than they are now.
Quote:
If people panicked every time there was a rumor of an investigation
...they would be fools and rightly compared to chicken little.
Quote:
Let's wait to see if there's EVER an investigation and then wait to see if Apple is found guilty of anything.
Let's not. Instead let's wait and see if there is a trial that finds Apple guilty of anything.
Investigations can't determine guilt, just the merit of going forward with prosecution. Investigations, in and of themselves, are pretty meaningless. It's the outcome of the investigation, if any, that is important. Not the fact that investigations happen.
A total non story, since as you point out it's just a rumor of investigation.
Apple isn't a monopoly. They certainly aren't colluding with anyone. They don't have enough market share to force other vendors to not install flash (if it were available - ha!).
So how exactly is Apple preventing Adobe from putting flash on WebOS, Android or Blackberry?
They aren't! Adobe is free to do whatever they want with vendors other than Apple. If you want flash, knock yourself out. There are lots of other alternatives... er, wait...
To lay this at Apple's feet is hilarious. The FTC investigation will go no where. They would be laughed out of court. Instead of throwing around a bunch of big words that you obviously don't understand, why don't you ask Adobe what's take them so long with the other mobile platforms? If you use flash on your Droid X and it whacks your battery life in half, I suppose this will be Apples fault too?
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
No one can force Apple to develop porting tools, but if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close. Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
Comments
Extra CPU cycles on Mac: Apple doesn't allow Adobe to use the GPU for non-video content, and they can only use it for video content if the video is h.264 encoded and ONLY on a handful of newer devices using specific GPU's.
This is completely false. You can use the hardware on the Mac - via OpenCL and other Apple APIs. It's just that Apple won't let developers write directly to the hardware. That's why Mac OS X is so stable. Developers work through Apple's APIs and they can't open security holes left and right.
It's funny how people can do things that do amazing things on the Mac but Adobe can't write a version of Flash that doesn't suck CPU cycles. Heck, Photoshop will sling around multi MB images like there's no tomorrow on my Mac, yet it comes to a screeching halt running a simple 640x480x8 bit image (with no action) on Flash. It's not about Apple, it's about Adobe.
The irony is that the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the DoJ have been emasculated in recent decades. Any and all mergers, for instance, were routinely approved with only the most cursory review. Do we really benefit when the cops avert their eyes?
That's true under the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, there are signs that Obama may go too far in the other direction.
More random personal attacks in the absence of substance from the man who insists that "gross profit" is not a form of profit.
You just don't know when to quit....
I don't need to quit. The posts you cite prove my point. I never said any such thing. YOU are the one who pretended that I said that - in your usual idiotic, fact-free way. You claimed that Apple had 40% profit on something or other (I don't remember). I explained to you that the 40% figure was GROSS PROFIT, not PROFIT. NO ONE with any business knowledge refers to gross profit (or gross margin) as profit.
And, even after all this time, and all the times I've explained it to you, you STILL haven't learned the difference. Amazing.
Listen, I want Flash to be an option on iOS devices also (so long as it doesn't crash... it seems as though it's been crashing more on my Mac since Adobe and Apple starting going at it).
First, there's no evidence that Adobe can make Flash for the iPhone that won't crash. The best they've been able to do is release a slow, buggy version that runs on a tiny percentage of 1 GHz phones. When this all started, the iPhone was 400 MHz. There's no way in the world that Flash would have worked - but it's Adobe's burden to prove that they could. After years of Apple asking, they still never did.
But even if they DID release a slow buggy version that ran on the iPhone, it would be the worst of both worlds. Even if it was optional, developers would continue to produce Flash crap and would not put the energy into developing REAL apps and web pages. They would count on users clicking 'yes' on the "Flash is not installed, do you want to install it?" page.
They did.
ROTFLMAO. Someone suggested that Adobe should release Flash to Open Source. You come up with some project that USE flash (or flash converters, etc). Do you really not know the difference?
Exactly. It's an investigation.
We don't know that. All we know is that there are RUMORS of an investigation. If people panicked every time there was a rumor of an investigation, we'd all be in huge trouble. Let's wait to see if there's EVER an investigation and then wait to see if Apple is found guilty of anything.
Black & Decker refuses to support Flash on my toaster. We should sue them, too.
The degree of intelligence in the anti-Adobe crowd is self-evident.
You attempt at sarcasm belies a complete disconnect from the obvious parameters in play.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
There are no APIs that Adobe doesn't have access to to make Flash run with acceptable performance on Mac OS X. The problem is that Adobe doesn't want to implement Flash as a Mac application. (And one could argue that they they have the same approach to their Creative Suite apps.) Now they even have access to APIs that they didn't need but wanted.
Flash is a piece of crap software, buggy, inefficient, poorly conceived, bloated, and the epitome of bad cross platform development. It's entirely unsuited to Mobile computing, and even on your Droid where you say it runs great it will suck your battery down in a flash, and, although I haven't run it on a Droid, I've seen other reports that call into question your exact description of its performance.
Besides being an outdated concept that holds back progress (And Adobe seems to be doing all they can to hold back progress on HTML5.) and besides the fact that by its very nature it's unsuitable for mobile computing -- not just the runtime, but the flash files themselves -- Adobe will never be able to make Flash run acceptably on multiple platforms, especially not mobile platforms. Yeah, they are hoping that processor and battery advances will make performance issues go away, but they won't, fast enough.
Adobe has demonstrated that it's just not capable of making Flash run decently on more than one desktop platform. The idea that they'll suddenly be able to have Flash running well on Windows and Mac OS, and Linux (ha!) and iOS, and the various flavors of Android and WebOS and Blackberry OS and Windows Phone 7 and, assuming Nokia stays alive, whatever OS they end up using in the future. The idea that this is suddenly all going to change and that Adobe will support all these platforms, when they can't even support two well now, is utterly preposterous. Their culture will never be able to make the adjustment, they'll simply never be able to do it.
And this is exactly the root of the problem with Flash and why it needs to die. The choice is to saddle countless users on multiple platforms with crappy Flash performance for years to come -- not to mention the crashes, the security exploits (they'll never keep up with those), etc. -- or to completely abandon the model of content distribution that Flash represents and move to HTML5, where multiple browser vendors, each focused on their platforms of interest, optimize browser performance and security, all working toward the same goal of implementing a common standard.
Now, which of these is likely to produce the better result for users, developers, content publisher's and even advertisers, over the long haul? It's pretty clear that it's not the one that Adobe is try to ram down our throats because they bet the company on it.
On the other hand, Government should be transparent, denying Wired's request is nonsense.
On the flipside, Government really has NO BUSINESS in this matter!!!
You were the same one saying the DOJ needed to grab a piece of Microsoft's ass a decade ago. Now you say it's not the place of the government.
Apple has become the new Microsoft, as a wide array of Mac-loving Apple fanboys readily agree.
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
You'd think if such a memo or the idea behind it was real someone would be rich by now. Let us know when someone is awarded this bounty.
The reality is that HTML 5 is 10 years behind Flash when it comes to building anything immersive or significant.
I've seen the HTML 5 demos and all I can do is laugh. Why do you think all the big web sites use Flash?
Any WebKit-based browser that keeps updated with the latest developments would be equally compatible as Safari, including Google Chrome and the web browsers of Android, BlackBerry (as of OS version 6), and WebOS.
Yeah, but do you really think those other companies will keep updated like Apple does?
You do realize that Apple and Adobe have a history, right?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._struggle.html
I would normally agree with your views on Apple's stance, but in this one case, I'll go out and say Jobs probably takes Apple's view of Adobe personally. Hell, I would too if I were Jobs.
There is nothing in that history to support your conclusion, and I doubt very much that you are in a position to say what motivates Steve Jobs. It's really a ridiculous notion that Apple has any interest in "hurting" Adobe, or that they have any other motivation for their actions than to insure the success of their platforms.
flash is a bag of fail.
HaHaHa! Love it!
Then click on the link, where the Flash spokesperson explained what went wrong:
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2...ng-on-android/
I'll quote some of it for you:
I'm not justifying the FTC's investigation, but if you're going to post something, post the rest of it too.
It's called DAMAGE CONTROL.
ADOBE IS NOT GOING TO FOOL ANYONE.
Why Demo a product using a shitty version?
The reality is that HTML 5 is 10 years behind Flash when it comes to building anything immersive or significant.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
It's called DAMAGE CONTROL.
ADOBE IS NOT GOING TO FOOL ANYONE.
Why Demo a product using a shitty version?
Because he was testing out a new release. It's called Beta testing. not every release will have everything working.
That video is using a NexusOne running Flash10.1 flawlessly.
You're correct. Apple's approval process is so horrible that they need to find excuses for not letting people submit apps.
Again that's a false dichotomy. Just because Apple isn't meeting all of their goals, it doesn't mean the process is totally lacking in value and it should be tossed out!
It means the process is new and needs to be improved! And over the last two (yes, just two years - that's all the older the App store is) Apple has made steady and continual improvements.
I'm glad you are so perfect in everything you can do - that you are able to predict every possible outcome, anticipate and plan for all of them and execute flawlessly. Your a genius - what are you doing posting on an Internet message board? You should be out there making huge money showing companies the errors of their ways!
If the quality of the apps are such a HUGE concern, just let them go through the approval process. Or are you and Apple too scared that the apps will actually turn out to be good?
Neither myself nor Apple are scared of anything. The vast majority of apps go through the approval process just fine.
Quality is a HUGE [sic] concern - that's why they banned third party porting tools such as what Adobe was working on.
Porting tools and abstraction environments aren't created for the benefit of the end user. Such tools are to make the programmers life easier. Is it any wonder why Apple has an issue with this? What's Apple's number one goal? The end user experience! Apple knows who their customers really are. It's not the developers, resellers, cell phone manufacturers or even share holders... their customers are you, me and more importantly non-technical people like my parents - the largest demographic of all.
That's who Apple focuses on, period, end of subject. It's also no accident that Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry - and by a wide margin.
People spin and try to justify porting tools and abstraction layers with lame straw men like it offers people more programs than they would have otherwise - again that's like saying you have more choices of homogenized, bland gruel.
Why bother?
Apple isn't about volume. Another fact that seems to drive people crazy - "what without raw numbers you are nothing!" goes the conventional wisdom. Yet look at Apple's profit vs. their market share. How can this be?
It's simple. Apple doesn't focus on crap like market share, or even to a lesser extent, profit. They focus on the end user experience (and thus, that's how they focus on profit - I'm not saying they don't focus on profit at all, just that they do it in context). If you ever watch Steve Jobs speak in public, you can't miss it - it's a theme that comes up constantly! How people can miss it, or dismiss it as Apple playing lip service is just boggling - much like the derisive attitude you display in your post. If you don't believe them, fine - that's your right. I reserve the right to pass you a tin foil hat.
You can't build as successful a business as Apple's by being disingenuous, which is what you are essentially accusing them of being - and to insinuate that they are is just nuts. Their actions and success simply speak otherwise. If you don't agree with their position, fine. But you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously given their continued (and accelerating) success!
Show us.
I've heard fart apps don't fart that loud when developed in Flash
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
HTML5 is JUST starting to support the API's needed to take it beyond simple text. a year ago, it was barely something worth talking about beyond an alternative way to stream video.
If flash was removed from all web content today, there is NOTHING that is ready to fill everything it can do. Yes, it's going to fade, and yes, HTML5 will be superior to it. But not today.
We don't know that. All we know is that there are RUMORS of an investigation.
Fair enough. But even if there is an investigation - and let's, for the sake of argument, say that there is....
Big flipping deal. Investigations mean nothing. It could be as simple as reviewing what someone filing a complaint submits and then filing as "that was interesting but not actionable" up and to something far more serious.
I'd wager the vast majority of investigations go absolutely nowhere - the courts would be even more clogged than they are now.
If people panicked every time there was a rumor of an investigation
...they would be fools and rightly compared to chicken little.
Let's wait to see if there's EVER an investigation and then wait to see if Apple is found guilty of anything.
Let's not. Instead let's wait and see if there is a trial that finds Apple guilty of anything.
Investigations can't determine guilt, just the merit of going forward with prosecution. Investigations, in and of themselves, are pretty meaningless. It's the outcome of the investigation, if any, that is important. Not the fact that investigations happen.
A total non story, since as you point out it's just a rumor of investigation.
Apple has become the new Microsof
They are taking the profits of the iOS and preventing other companies from selling Windows computers? Wow.
They are a convicted monopolist? They focus on products and features instead of the end user? They produced a smartphone platform that no one wants?
Your right, they are exactly the same
HaHaHa! Love it!
As a non-Windows end user, it is.
Apple isn't a monopoly. They certainly aren't colluding with anyone. They don't have enough market share to force other vendors to not install flash (if it were available - ha!).
So how exactly is Apple preventing Adobe from putting flash on WebOS, Android or Blackberry?
They aren't! Adobe is free to do whatever they want with vendors other than Apple. If you want flash, knock yourself out. There are lots of other alternatives... er, wait...
To lay this at Apple's feet is hilarious. The FTC investigation will go no where. They would be laughed out of court. Instead of throwing around a bunch of big words that you obviously don't understand, why don't you ask Adobe what's take them so long with the other mobile platforms? If you use flash on your Droid X and it whacks your battery life in half, I suppose this will be Apples fault too?
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
No one can force Apple to develop porting tools, but if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close. Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
The reality is that Flash is 5 to 10 years behind itself, then, or it's developers are. Seriously, I can't even remember a time when I've gone to a website and said, "Oh, wow, this Flash thing they did is so cool, I'm totally immersed in it." (Should there be a "dude" on the end of that?) The reality is that I've yet to see a Flash based website that wasn't a piece of shit and that I didn't wish that they had just used HTML as god intended on the web. Maybe I'm just not impressed by "cool" animations and transitions and "effects". Actually, I'm really not because they just get in the way of what the site is supposed to be about. Or maybe it's the mentality of people who choose to develop in Flash that's the problem. The bottom line is that Flash is a technology that just seems to bring out the worst in web design and development.
Couple of decent ones here: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/best-flash-sites