I know the Devil is in the details but shouldn't it be fairly easy to get Flash, or at least a player, onto the iPhone?
Step #1 - Write a stand-alone player using the SDK without worrying about writing code that can be used on other platforms. If this means a total rewrite, then so be it.
Step #2 - write a plug-in for Safari that stores the URL for the video, the URL of the web page, shuts down Safari, and starts the Flash player.
Step #3 - When the video is done playing the user is offered three options which are 1) Replay video, 2) Save video, and 3) Exit, which will shut down the Flash player and restart Safari where it left off, similar to how music stops playing when you get a phone call and starts playing again after you "hang up".
If a person wants to watch the videos again they can start the player and select it from the list of saved videos, which are just URLS.
I bought my wife an iPhone for her birthday last week. We set up her Gmail account and wifi, and the VERY FIRST new message was a friend sending a link to a YouTube video. Of course, she clicked on it, it loaded in Safari, and nothing happened.
When that didn't work, she tried going to the main menu and clicking the YouTube button. It says "YouTube," so why not.
When that didn't work, she came in and asked me, "what's wrong with this thing?"
All I was able to say was "it's politics between Apple and Adobe."
Bad answer.
Her next question: "Does Adobe own YouTube or something?"
"No, Google does."
"But Gmail works."
"Yes, but that's basically an email application, that's different."
I think one big reason Apple is very hesitant to have flash on the iphone is because it would enable users to listen to satellite radio (XM or Sirius in USA) -- as much as I would like this personally, I don't think Apple would want their iphones to be very nice satellite radio players! (For those of you who didn't know, the online players for XM and Sirius require flash.) Apple is apparently not allowing third party music players on the iphones, and indirectly flash would allow XM and Sirius to play on iphones.
I bought my wife an iPhone for her birthday last week. We set up her Gmail account and wifi, and the VERY FIRST new message was a friend sending a link to a YouTube video. Of course, she clicked on it, it loaded in Safari, and nothing happened.
When that didn't work, she tried going to the main menu and clicking the YouTube button. It says "YouTube," so why not.
When that didn't work, she came in and asked me, "what's wrong with this thing?"
All I was able to say was "it's politics between Apple and Adobe."
Bad answer.
Her next question: "Does Adobe own YouTube or something?"
"No, Google does."
"But Gmail works."
"Yes, but that's basically an email application, that's different."
"Well, that's lame. They need to fix this."
She's right.
I don't think Apple needs to fix the YouTube site.
Hopefully, YouTube will fix itself and then everyone will be happy.
Now, if you have an example of your wife missing out on an advertisement that she wanted to see, you could complain to Apple.
But if Youtube builds around a proprietary product from Adobe that not everyone supports, you should blame YouTube.
When I read between the lines what is see him saying is this: "I'm glad current implementations of Flash will not work on the iPhone and I'm going to make sure it never can."
Seriously! Apple is all about user experience, while Adobe is all about me, me, me and to hell with user experience. It's two completely different ideologies.
Flash is annoying. It's main use is for pushing advertisements into your face. That, and busy, clumsy websites that break the conventions associated with normal HTML pages. Flash be gone and die already.
You can imagine anything you want, it doesn't make it true.
It sounded pretty clear that he wasn't happy with what was out there.
I like Flash, it can be very useful, and ads are ads. Most are going to be annoying. Believe it or not, that's their purpose. When I was in advertizing, many years ago, we knew that often, the most annoying ads were also the most effective ones.
Without those annoying ads, most websites couldn't exist. That's their main, if not only, means of income, so don't be so harsh.
I'm amazed that so many people here are lacking the understanding of basic economics.
I bought my wife an iPhone for her birthday last week. We set up her Gmail account and wifi, and the VERY FIRST new message was a friend sending a link to a YouTube video. Of course, she clicked on it, it loaded in Safari, and nothing happened.
This sounds as if something may have been wrong with the link. It should not have done anything in Safari.
When you press a YouTube link it normally opens the YouTube app and plays the video.
You can imagine anything you want, it doesn't make it true.
It sounded pretty clear that he wasn't happy with what was out there.
I like Flash, it can be very useful, and ads are ads. Most are going to be annoying. Believe it or not, that's their purpose. When I was in advertizing, many years ago, we knew that often, the most annoying ads were also the most effective ones.
Without those annoying ads, most websites couldn't exist. That's their main, if not only, means of income, so don't be so harsh.
I'm amazed that so many people here are lacking the understanding of basic economics.
Well, and if it's their only means of supporting their websites and they can't deliver them through proprietary channels, then i'm sure they can change the means and give us non-flash ads. isn't that how supply & demand works? basic economics, no?
Well, and if it's their only means of supporting their websites and they can't deliver them through proprietary channels, then i'm sure they can change the means and give us non-flash ads. isn't that how supply & demand works? basic economics, no?
The question is whether most people care as much as the few who complain here. I doubt it.
While everyone complains about ads, wherever they occur, very few people care that much.
It's the animation of the ads that makes people pay attention. I suppose the animation can be done another way, but then, what would be the difference? People would still complain.
What really annoys me is this new practice of hiving you visit an ad page before you can get to the site itself.
Some sites, including Forbes, which should know better, actually have the nerve of calling it a "welcome screen"!
Could it be because Flash tends to be crash prone?
Could it be that we are sick of crappy bloated software from Adobe?
Could it be because Adobe has for a long time time now made Mac users second class citizens?
Could it be that it's because we are just plain sick of Adobe's incompetence?
I don't know.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
BRING YOUR CS3 SUITE TO COCOA AND WE'LL BRING FLASH TO THE IPHONE/IPOD TOUCH.
mmmk.
i second that. and i'm sure so does mr jobs. if adobe can drag their heels, so can apple. in the meantime people will find better ways to deliver their content... we didn't have a choice but to wait for adobe to 'embrace' osx, intel macs, and we got used to being treated badly.
improve your apps on the mac first, then we'll talk iphone. and don't think we'll forget being snubbed for years either. i think adobe is more interested in delivering flash for iphone than the rest of us.
google's move to convert youtube content to work on the iphone might be an indication that adobe has more to lose than iphone users have to gain. yes, flash might feel like a standard due to its ubiquity for advertising and video, but things change. there are alternatives for video, quicktime has always better in my experience, and as for ads... well... too bad.
don't get me wrong, i like flash as a concept, but i have not seen many websites use it in a good way. so i sorta appreciate apple's position.
If you don't want Flash on your iPhone, fine. I'm sure it'll be optional. That doesn't mean others don't want to play Scrabulous with their friends. I'm so tired of folks responding to every flash-on-iPhone story with how much they hate flash. Why do you even read the story then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
Could it be because Flash tends to be crash prone?
Could it be that we are sick of crappy bloated software from Adobe?
Could it be because Adobe has for a long time time now made Mac users second class citizens?
Could it be that it's because we are just plain sick of Adobe's incompetence?
Here's a couple more:
1) The more Flash is ubiquitous (or if devs think it is), the more sites will be developed that require it, leading to a sort of defacto-need-to-have. It's really frickin' annoying to have to enable Flash just to see anything at some sites. While we can justifiably call such developers idiots, they will continue to act as such for as long as they keep reading dubious quotes about the so-called 98% Flash availability. And Adobe is great at making sure that bullsh* "fact" keeps getting stated. If people want their sites to be available to iPhone users, and the iPhone does not and will not run Flash, that'll push for better accessibility for everyone.
2) Do any of you folks that want Flash on your iPhone actually use a portable device with Flash? Like a laptop? Flash chews battery like there's no tomorrow on a MacBookPro; how bad do you think it will be on a tiny hand-held? I strongly feel this is really the deal-breaker for Jobs. If you allow an app to sit on your phone that cuts 25% off the battery life (or more, if used much), your specs are significantly harmed. Few reviews will break it down in detail, they'll just report "typical" battery life, and that's what the public will read. We know Apple is working incredibly hard to have the best battery life possible on this device, and this would significantly impact that.
3) Do you guys actually -like- all the flashing/scrolling ads that constantly demand your attention as you try to read an article? Didn't think so. Whattaya bet Steve doesn't either. Once you allow Flash on your device you can't control that and your user experience is degraded.
And as Virgil-TB2 says above, there's no reason a game like Scrabulous needs Flash to run. It wouldn't be "a weekend" to build such a game, but it's readily doable, and would not be a huge effort - particularly since they have an existing app to design to, and the back end is already done.
I don't doubt that some kind of Flash will eventually be available for iPhone, but I also suspect that it will be as a user-download, rather than installed by default. We'll see.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
I don't think your positions are contradictory. yes, we depend on adobe, but you have to agree that the last years haven't been good for mac users and adobe's software has got progressively more bloated and developed a serious case of featuritis. it is precisely because we depend on adobe and that as you said 'nothing else comes close', that i think we are entitled to be critical and to expect better.
I don't think your positions are contradictory. yes, we depend on adobe, but you have to agree that the last years haven't been good for mac users and adobe's software has got progressively more bloated and developed a serious case of featuritis. it is precisely because we depend on adobe and that as you said 'nothing else comes close', that i think we are entitled to be critical and to expect better.
Apples association with Adobe goes way back. They were both highly dependent on each other in the old days. Neither would have survived without the other.
But, when Michael Spindler made his fateful decision in 1995 to flood the market with cheaper Macs during the 1995 holiday season, he blew it badly.
He had a million 68040,Macs in stores (that was a lot of machines back then). But they flopped, because people wanted the new PPC machines instead. so, rather than donate machines to schools and libraries, he had them dumped!.
Shortly after that fiasco, IT departments started to dump their Macs.
Adobe,Quark saw the handwriting on the wall, and ported their software over to the PC which was beginning to become viable for the work that had almost only been done on the Mac.
With the Mac user base moving to the PC over the years, what was Adobe supposed to do? Favor Mac users? Of course not. They had to do what they had to do for THEIR company.
As the Mac began to come back in the mid 2000's, Adobe has begun to devote more attention to its Mac user base.
But don't ever think that one company "owes" something to another. It doesn't. If Apple hadn't caused its own problems, Adobe, Quark, and others, might never have ported over to the PC in the first place.
There were many things that Apple could have done to support Adobe, but didn't. The creation, with MS, or Truetype, was intended to break Adobe's control of Type 1 type creation. Adobe rightly considered that to be an attack on what was at the time, its core business. That let to distrust of Apple.
I think one big reason Apple is very hesitant to have flash on the iphone is because it would enable users to listen to satellite radio (XM or Sirius in USA) -- as much as I would like this personally, I don't think Apple would want their iphones to be very nice satellite radio players! (For those of you who didn't know, the online players for XM and Sirius require flash.) Apple is apparently not allowing third party music players on the iphones, and indirectly flash would allow XM and Sirius to play on iphones.
I have Flash blocked on my Mac, and the Sirius player works just fine. I think it does use a Windows Media format though.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
You are assuming that I don't know. That you (we) make TONS of money with Adobe apps does not change the fact that their software has become bloated and buggy. Adobe's apps were awesome at one point. Very true. Unfortunately Adobe has been Microsofted.
You are assuming that I don't know. That you (we) make TONS of money with Adobe apps does not change the fact that their software has become bloated and buggy. Adobe's apps were awesome at one point. Very true. Unfortunately Adobe has been Microsofted.
Apple's OS has also become bloated and buggy. That doesn't mean that it isn't the best general purpose OS out there.
The same is true with most of Adobe's apps.
The problem is that with the addition of features that many people want and need, comes bloat, and bloat means more bugs. It's inevitable.
Apple's OS has also become bloated and buggy. That doesn't mean that it isn't the best general purpose OS out there.
The same is true with most of Adobe's apps.
The problem is that with the addition of features that many people want and need, comes bloat, and bloat means more bugs. It's inevitable.
True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.
So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?
I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.
Comments
Step #1 - Write a stand-alone player using the SDK without worrying about writing code that can be used on other platforms. If this means a total rewrite, then so be it.
Step #2 - write a plug-in for Safari that stores the URL for the video, the URL of the web page, shuts down Safari, and starts the Flash player.
Step #3 - When the video is done playing the user is offered three options which are 1) Replay video, 2) Save video, and 3) Exit, which will shut down the Flash player and restart Safari where it left off, similar to how music stops playing when you get a phone call and starts playing again after you "hang up".
If a person wants to watch the videos again they can start the player and select it from the list of saved videos, which are just URLS.
When that didn't work, she tried going to the main menu and clicking the YouTube button. It says "YouTube," so why not.
When that didn't work, she came in and asked me, "what's wrong with this thing?"
All I was able to say was "it's politics between Apple and Adobe."
Bad answer.
Her next question: "Does Adobe own YouTube or something?"
"No, Google does."
"But Gmail works."
"Yes, but that's basically an email application, that's different."
"Well, that's lame. They need to fix this."
She's right.
I bought my wife an iPhone for her birthday last week. We set up her Gmail account and wifi, and the VERY FIRST new message was a friend sending a link to a YouTube video. Of course, she clicked on it, it loaded in Safari, and nothing happened.
When that didn't work, she tried going to the main menu and clicking the YouTube button. It says "YouTube," so why not.
When that didn't work, she came in and asked me, "what's wrong with this thing?"
All I was able to say was "it's politics between Apple and Adobe."
Bad answer.
Her next question: "Does Adobe own YouTube or something?"
"No, Google does."
"But Gmail works."
"Yes, but that's basically an email application, that's different."
"Well, that's lame. They need to fix this."
She's right.
I don't think Apple needs to fix the YouTube site.
Hopefully, YouTube will fix itself and then everyone will be happy.
Now, if you have an example of your wife missing out on an advertisement that she wanted to see, you could complain to Apple.
But if Youtube builds around a proprietary product from Adobe that not everyone supports, you should blame YouTube.
When I read between the lines what is see him saying is this: "I'm glad current implementations of Flash will not work on the iPhone and I'm going to make sure it never can."
Seriously! Apple is all about user experience, while Adobe is all about me, me, me and to hell with user experience. It's two completely different ideologies.
Flash is annoying. It's main use is for pushing advertisements into your face. That, and busy, clumsy websites that break the conventions associated with normal HTML pages. Flash be gone and die already.
You can imagine anything you want, it doesn't make it true.
It sounded pretty clear that he wasn't happy with what was out there.
I like Flash, it can be very useful, and ads are ads. Most are going to be annoying. Believe it or not, that's their purpose. When I was in advertizing, many years ago, we knew that often, the most annoying ads were also the most effective ones.
Without those annoying ads, most websites couldn't exist. That's their main, if not only, means of income, so don't be so harsh.
I'm amazed that so many people here are lacking the understanding of basic economics.
I bought my wife an iPhone for her birthday last week. We set up her Gmail account and wifi, and the VERY FIRST new message was a friend sending a link to a YouTube video. Of course, she clicked on it, it loaded in Safari, and nothing happened.
This sounds as if something may have been wrong with the link. It should not have done anything in Safari.
When you press a YouTube link it normally opens the YouTube app and plays the video.
You can imagine anything you want, it doesn't make it true.
It sounded pretty clear that he wasn't happy with what was out there.
I like Flash, it can be very useful, and ads are ads. Most are going to be annoying. Believe it or not, that's their purpose. When I was in advertizing, many years ago, we knew that often, the most annoying ads were also the most effective ones.
Without those annoying ads, most websites couldn't exist. That's their main, if not only, means of income, so don't be so harsh.
I'm amazed that so many people here are lacking the understanding of basic economics.
Well, and if it's their only means of supporting their websites and they can't deliver them through proprietary channels, then i'm sure they can change the means and give us non-flash ads. isn't that how supply & demand works? basic economics, no?
Well, and if it's their only means of supporting their websites and they can't deliver them through proprietary channels, then i'm sure they can change the means and give us non-flash ads. isn't that how supply & demand works? basic economics, no?
The question is whether most people care as much as the few who complain here. I doubt it.
While everyone complains about ads, wherever they occur, very few people care that much.
It's the animation of the ads that makes people pay attention. I suppose the animation can be done another way, but then, what would be the difference? People would still complain.
What really annoys me is this new practice of hiving you visit an ad page before you can get to the site itself.
Some sites, including Forbes, which should know better, actually have the nerve of calling it a "welcome screen"!
Could it be because Flash tends to be crash prone?
Could it be that we are sick of crappy bloated software from Adobe?
Could it be because Adobe has for a long time time now made Mac users second class citizens?
Could it be that it's because we are just plain sick of Adobe's incompetence?
I don't know.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
Here is one clue ADOBE:
BRING YOUR CS3 SUITE TO COCOA AND WE'LL BRING FLASH TO THE IPHONE/IPOD TOUCH.
mmmk.
i second that. and i'm sure so does mr jobs. if adobe can drag their heels, so can apple. in the meantime people will find better ways to deliver their content... we didn't have a choice but to wait for adobe to 'embrace' osx, intel macs, and we got used to being treated badly.
improve your apps on the mac first, then we'll talk iphone. and don't think we'll forget being snubbed for years either. i think adobe is more interested in delivering flash for iphone than the rest of us.
google's move to convert youtube content to work on the iphone might be an indication that adobe has more to lose than iphone users have to gain. yes, flash might feel like a standard due to its ubiquity for advertising and video, but things change. there are alternatives for video, quicktime has always better in my experience, and as for ads... well... too bad.
don't get me wrong, i like flash as a concept, but i have not seen many websites use it in a good way. so i sorta appreciate apple's position.
Originally Posted by Booga
If you don't want Flash on your iPhone, fine. I'm sure it'll be optional. That doesn't mean others don't want to play Scrabulous with their friends. I'm so tired of folks responding to every flash-on-iPhone story with how much they hate flash. Why do you even read the story then?
Could it be because Flash tends to be crash prone?
Could it be that we are sick of crappy bloated software from Adobe?
Could it be because Adobe has for a long time time now made Mac users second class citizens?
Could it be that it's because we are just plain sick of Adobe's incompetence?
Here's a couple more:
1) The more Flash is ubiquitous (or if devs think it is), the more sites will be developed that require it, leading to a sort of defacto-need-to-have. It's really frickin' annoying to have to enable Flash just to see anything at some sites. While we can justifiably call such developers idiots, they will continue to act as such for as long as they keep reading dubious quotes about the so-called 98% Flash availability. And Adobe is great at making sure that bullsh* "fact" keeps getting stated. If people want their sites to be available to iPhone users, and the iPhone does not and will not run Flash, that'll push for better accessibility for everyone.
2) Do any of you folks that want Flash on your iPhone actually use a portable device with Flash? Like a laptop? Flash chews battery like there's no tomorrow on a MacBookPro; how bad do you think it will be on a tiny hand-held? I strongly feel this is really the deal-breaker for Jobs. If you allow an app to sit on your phone that cuts 25% off the battery life (or more, if used much), your specs are significantly harmed. Few reviews will break it down in detail, they'll just report "typical" battery life, and that's what the public will read. We know Apple is working incredibly hard to have the best battery life possible on this device, and this would significantly impact that.
3) Do you guys actually -like- all the flashing/scrolling ads that constantly demand your attention as you try to read an article? Didn't think so. Whattaya bet Steve doesn't either. Once you allow Flash on your device you can't control that and your user experience is degraded.
And as Virgil-TB2 says above, there's no reason a game like Scrabulous needs Flash to run. It wouldn't be "a weekend" to build such a game, but it's readily doable, and would not be a huge effort - particularly since they have an existing app to design to, and the back end is already done.
I don't doubt that some kind of Flash will eventually be available for iPhone, but I also suspect that it will be as a user-download, rather than installed by default. We'll see.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
I don't think your positions are contradictory. yes, we depend on adobe, but you have to agree that the last years haven't been good for mac users and adobe's software has got progressively more bloated and developed a serious case of featuritis. it is precisely because we depend on adobe and that as you said 'nothing else comes close', that i think we are entitled to be critical and to expect better.
I don't think your positions are contradictory. yes, we depend on adobe, but you have to agree that the last years haven't been good for mac users and adobe's software has got progressively more bloated and developed a serious case of featuritis. it is precisely because we depend on adobe and that as you said 'nothing else comes close', that i think we are entitled to be critical and to expect better.
Apples association with Adobe goes way back. They were both highly dependent on each other in the old days. Neither would have survived without the other.
But, when Michael Spindler made his fateful decision in 1995 to flood the market with cheaper Macs during the 1995 holiday season, he blew it badly.
He had a million 68040,Macs in stores (that was a lot of machines back then). But they flopped, because people wanted the new PPC machines instead. so, rather than donate machines to schools and libraries, he had them dumped!.
Shortly after that fiasco, IT departments started to dump their Macs.
Adobe,Quark saw the handwriting on the wall, and ported their software over to the PC which was beginning to become viable for the work that had almost only been done on the Mac.
With the Mac user base moving to the PC over the years, what was Adobe supposed to do? Favor Mac users? Of course not. They had to do what they had to do for THEIR company.
As the Mac began to come back in the mid 2000's, Adobe has begun to devote more attention to its Mac user base.
But don't ever think that one company "owes" something to another. It doesn't. If Apple hadn't caused its own problems, Adobe, Quark, and others, might never have ported over to the PC in the first place.
There were many things that Apple could have done to support Adobe, but didn't. The creation, with MS, or Truetype, was intended to break Adobe's control of Type 1 type creation. Adobe rightly considered that to be an attack on what was at the time, its core business. That let to distrust of Apple.
It's a two way street.
I think one big reason Apple is very hesitant to have flash on the iphone is because it would enable users to listen to satellite radio (XM or Sirius in USA) -- as much as I would like this personally, I don't think Apple would want their iphones to be very nice satellite radio players! (For those of you who didn't know, the online players for XM and Sirius require flash.) Apple is apparently not allowing third party music players on the iphones, and indirectly flash would allow XM and Sirius to play on iphones.
I have Flash blocked on my Mac, and the Sirius player works just fine. I think it does use a Windows Media format though.
It's the animation of the ads that makes people pay attention.
You misspelt install Flash blockers.
Clearly you don't know. Without Adobe many of us would be completely SOL. For me at least, their applications are pure gold. Any software is going to have some issues but I make TONS of money with Adobe apps. Nothing else even comes close. And by the way 'long time Mac users' are mostly the desktop publishers of the world who are totally dependent on Adobe.
You are assuming that I don't know. That you (we) make TONS of money with Adobe apps does not change the fact that their software has become bloated and buggy. Adobe's apps were awesome at one point. Very true. Unfortunately Adobe has been Microsofted.
You misspelt install Flash blockers.
I have been saying that if Flash does come to the phone, there should be a way to turn it off.
You are assuming that I don't know. That you (we) make TONS of money with Adobe apps does not change the fact that their software has become bloated and buggy. Adobe's apps were awesome at one point. Very true. Unfortunately Adobe has been Microsofted.
Apple's OS has also become bloated and buggy. That doesn't mean that it isn't the best general purpose OS out there.
The same is true with most of Adobe's apps.
The problem is that with the addition of features that many people want and need, comes bloat, and bloat means more bugs. It's inevitable.
Apple's OS has also become bloated and buggy. That doesn't mean that it isn't the best general purpose OS out there.
The same is true with most of Adobe's apps.
The problem is that with the addition of features that many people want and need, comes bloat, and bloat means more bugs. It's inevitable.
True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
True, but there's a huge difference between the two. Photoshop takes forever to launch, virtually brings my computer to a crawl, corrupts files and does all sorts of weirdness to my preferences. Yes, iTunes, as an example, has become bloated as well, but it works just fine. That's the difference.
Then you have to understand what it's launching. It has many filters, custom presets, color management software, etc. It looks for whether there are the proper frameworks, of which there are more than a few, fonts, scratch disks, and your pictures that were already worked, and filed.
So, yes, it does take a bit of time to launch, so what?
I've never had PS corrupt files. Never! If you do, then there is something wrong with your installation of the software, or the OS, or other third party software, such as system enhancements.
In comparison, iTunes is a very simple program.