Sounds a little disengenuos to me. "We acknoledge there are problems and we are going to work on them to get it right. Oh by the way CS5 is coming, buy now!"
I hope Adobe is sincere, however I'm not holding my breath.
Flash doesn't run well on any of my PPC based Macs. Also, in my experience, Flash has never performed well on the MacOS. This dates all the way back to the Macromedia days.
The bottom line for me (and many other Mac users evidently) is that it runs very poorly and causes applications to crash frequently. What part of that don't you understand?
I guess it must be the older macs that had all of these problems.....
The little MacMini 2.0Ghz, 2Gb RAM seems to play all of the Hi def video I want from Hulu, ABC, NBC, CBS, Edmunds Auto, etc just fine. I do run Firefox and not Safari... Maybe that has something to do with it as well.....
I did not convert to a Mac until June of this year. I guess coming from the PC side, I never gave flash a second thought. I almost always just worked. When I switched to the Mac it was the same thing, it simply worked fine and I never gave it a second thought. I did not realize until the iPad thing came out how much hate there was for Flash in the Mac community. I guess timing is everything...
If the older Macs can't run flash well, I guess that makes sense as to why all of you guys seem to hate it so much....
If Adobe can get Flash working better and more stable than before, go for it. They just have to prove it. Of course there will always be clowns that dislike it no matter how much they improve it. Those are the ones that complain just to complain. What?!?!?! Flash takes up 3% cpu? How dare they! They need to keep it below .1% or else it sucks...
The Adobe CTO claims what Jobs had to say about Flash was "rumor?" Despite being quoted in every tech publication I've read?
If this guy isn't any more clued in to what a multi-billion dollar company CEO is saying about his product than that, it's pretty easy to see why Flash needs to go bye bye.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand what I meant partly because I didn't state it very well but mostly because you don't understand the nature of programming conditional statements.
Let me try to spell it out more clearly.
Lets say you have a weather checking page. If it is sunny, show a picture of a sun, it it is cloudy show a cloud, if it is raining show a picture of rain, if you can't connect to the service show a message that says Please try again later. Now imagine you are coding that page what the hell do you expect the WYSIWYG environment should show? all of the above?
Nah, I got that part, but it was completely irrelevant to what I was arguing so I ignored it.
When I said what you were saying is "nonsense" I was referring to that stuff about how "nothing compares to Flash" in either features or performance. It sounds like an advertisement and it just isn't true.
Again, my argument about the WYSIWYG editor was not an arcane treatise on whether or not "true" WYSIWYG can be obtained due to the existence of conditional statements and live pages. It was simply that a tool used for making animations (Adobe's tools for instance), could be changed to output CSS instead of Flash.
Adobe's statements about how they want to be "open" and their whole open alliance are complete BS in light of the fact that Flash is a proprietary plug-in that doesn't actually even work that well. If they really did have the open-ness and interoperability of the web as their goal, they could easily drop the proprietary stuff and go back to doing what they have *some* talent at, which is simply making design tools. If they really did want to serve their customer base, they would make design tools that are platform and plug-in agnostic. that's what everyone has been asking for since about 1993.
The tools don't have to be proprietary, nor do they have to export proprietary stuff. It's their choice to be pushing Flash, and for them to try and make out like they are not doing anything nefarious is just silly. It's plain as day what their motivations are.
Nah, I got that part, but it was completely irrelevant to what I was arguing so I ignored it.
How convenient to ignore anything that is contrary to your beliefs. Twist it any way you want, you are only fooling yourself. If you have an 8 core then Flash should be no problem so I'm getting that this is more of an emotional battle for you.
WYSISWYG is for rookies. Experienced animators don't drag cute things across the stage, they code the actions by hand. It's easy to criticize what you don't understand.
This matter comes down to user numbers and resources. As wonderful as our Mac computers are they are still the vast minority of global users. Adobe has no incentive to spend millions in fixing Mac related issues when they can put that money towards the other 95% of the market.
I hate that apps like Photoshop are 64bit and faster on windows but again 95% vs 5% of the market, guess who gets more resources thrown at it? It was my choice to play on the Mac side of the tracks and I accept it. Plus now that Apple is bashing Adobe on a regular basis and creating competing products (FInal Cut and now Aperture) I'm sure Adobe is even LESS interested in the Mac market.
Until Apple can grab a significant portion of global users this isn't going to end anytime soon. We all chose to side with the underdog and there are always downsides to that decision.
What a cop out. If you hate it so much just uninstall Flash. Why would you install click to Flash? Oh let me guess you might want to see something built in Flash- so just in case right?
Though we've moved on the unfortunate truth is that many web sites have not. Also, some web appliances use flash quite heavily (Cisco WCS).
It's not a cop out, it's a compromise. Get rid of Flash without having to re-install it when you need to access some site that thinks Adobe is God & they do everything on their site in flash.
That pretty much sums up my attitude towards iTunes on my Win7 quad-core notebook.
Flash works fine. iTunes does weird stuff. I use third-party solutions whenever possible to avoid iTunes.
Hey - Is CopyTrans available for the Mac? If so, give it a whirl.
Wasn't iTunes compatible with Windows Vista before MS's own Zune software? Windows & multimedia have never played nice together, it's therefor not surprising to me that it might hit snags with iTunes.
Yeah but can you also read that flash accounts for 85% of all websites? If you talk about tv, networks and movies, it's closer too 100%. Bottom line is flash would kill off iTunes sales but not too much as some like to own material ( e.g. ABC LOST), so Apple would still haves sales, but Appe needs to offer outakes, bloopers, while adding material the networks ciud offer.
Then everyone becomes happier. Problem solved. Plus apples media would offer no commercials and in occasion an a advanced episode where the buyer agrees to the buyer that no information is offered. To the public and a user coudnt get a few shows in advance if
few episodes and interviews in return for Allowing flash
Flash doesn't account for 85% of all web sites.
The reference is to the fact that 85% of the most popular sites has some bits of flash on it, not that it's created and housed inside the Flash Object container.
Well with my Dual 2.8 Mac Pro with 14 Gig of RAM and Flash STILL sucks badly and eats processor cycles, drastically. Flash needs to go the way of dinosaurs and HTML5 video as been great so far.
In 1997 us NeXT engineers told Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia that Carbon [a transitional API] would be built to ease their transition to Cocoa [Openstep APIs modernized for the PowerPC platform then] and now Intel.
It's 2010 and the bulk of Adobe's product suites are 32 bit legacy code bases that have moved partially to Nokia Qt Toolkit [formerly Trolltech] and a bit of it has moved to Cocoa with Lightroom.
Instead of investing heavily into refactoring their code bases to house a Windows interface branch and a Mac interface branch relying heavily on dylibs of C/C++ code that can be shared in either branch they've chosen to maintain as much of their code as possible before they had to move to Carbon.
Carbon being in legacy three years ago [9 years longer than originally intended] now shows Adobe still hasn't refactored their code bases for a split world of platforms.
The recent alpha to 64 bit and using Quartz compositing and more shows Adobe screaming and kicking into the Mac space.
With each successive quarter Apple grows market share and Adobe loses opportunity to grow sales for their stock holders.
Apple no longer needs Adobe nor do they need Microsoft.
Microsoft was smart with their Mac Business Unit and will have Office for Mac in Cocoa. They know their profits resides mainly out of Office. They aren't going to weaken their bottom line anymore.
With the move to OpenCL1.1/OpenGL 3.x on both the CPU cores and GPU streams [Apple and AMD currently are the only two that have both CPU and GPU OpenCL working] Adobe is late again to making sure their apps are OpenMP compliant and capable of OpenCL working with hardware accelerated OpenGL 3.x compositing.
This is Apple payback to a three companies that strong armed them during the NeXT merger.
The issue here is that Apple has decided to not include Flash on the iPhone platform, which regardless of Mac OS X numbers, has a huge share of mobile Internet usage compared to all other platforms out there. I believe Apple has sold some 75 million devices in 2.5 years which currently account for 50% of the world's mobile Internet traffic.
Actually the issue isn't that Apple has decided not to include Flash but because Apple CAN'T include Flash. Desktop Flash requires more resources than what the iPhone can provide so they can't use that. Flash Player Lite doesn't give a full internet experience anyway so they decided no Flash is better than crappy players that either kill the device or don't allow it to do anything meaningful anyway. Adobe is 100% at fault here. At least Adobe could say to Apple "build your own player" and Apple would and they would make a killer version.
It sounds as though the big companies that use flash for advertisements are now putting pressure on Adobe to fix flash for the Mac. Because if it isn't on the iPhone that is a lot of customers that they are going to be missing their message. But it is, as so many have said, too little too late.
Many years ago Adobe made it clear that it was going to apportion their developer resources in proportion to revenue. So if Windows brings in 80% and Apple brings in 20% then that is how the developers will be apportioned. (The idea of this comes from Plato btw.) Economic rationalists who think of themselves as savvy tend to approve of this idea. But the idea is nothing short of stupidity and will kill the company that follows it. It is killing Adobe. One one side customers cannot be measured by how much they spend. Secondly, if you apportion fewer developer resources to a product you had better make sure that the difference in quality is reflected in a lower price ? as of course it never is.
The CEO of Adobe is responsible for this mess and should resign. The company needs a visionary head once more. It is good to see the company showing signs of panic ? but they need to take drastic action at this point and damage control will not cut it.
You guys are counting CPU cycles like girls count calories. A Ferrari cost around $300k, is that too much? Just go get some more money - what's the problem. Want Flash to run on your netbook... Sorry no can do. Go get some more ram and CPU power.
In 1997 us NeXT engineers told Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia that Carbon [a transitional API] would be built to ease their transition to Cocoa [Openstep APIs modernized for the PowerPC platform then] and now Intel.
It's 2010 and the bulk of Adobe's product suites are 32 bit legacy code bases that have moved partially to Nokia Qt Toolkit [formerly Trolltech] and a bit of it has moved to Cocoa with Lightroom.
Instead of investing heavily into refactoring their code bases to house a Windows interface branch and a Mac interface branch relying heavily on dylibs of C/C++ code that can be shared in either branch they've chosen to maintain as much of their code as possible before they had to move to Carbon.
Carbon being in legacy three years ago [9 years longer than originally intended] now shows Adobe still hasn't refactored their code bases for a split world of platforms.
The recent alpha to 64 bit and using Quartz compositing and more shows Adobe screaming and kicking into the Mac space.
With each successive quarter Apple grows market share and Adobe loses opportunity to grow sales for their stock holders.
Apple no longer needs Adobe nor do they need Microsoft.
Microsoft was smart with their Mac Business Unit and will have Office for Mac in Cocoa. They know their profits resides mainly out of Office. They aren't going to weaken their bottom line anymore.
With the move to OpenCL1.1/OpenGL 3.x on both the CPU cores and GPU streams [Apple and AMD currently are the only two that have both CPU and GPU OpenCL working] Adobe is late again to making sure their apps are OpenMP compliant and capable of OpenCL working with hardware accelerated OpenGL 3.x compositing.
This is Apple payback to a three companies that strong armed them during the NeXT merger.
That might happen about the same time that fax machines are no longer found in offices. Right now you would be hard pressed to find an IBM Selectric in an office (although we do have one) so sure someday, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting on the demise of Flash.
Maybe you're right, but maybe not.
I believe Apple is trying to kill Flash, at least to the extent that it is any kind of internet standard. I believe they will succeed. They are already selling millions of mobile internet devices every quarter that don't support Flash. That number is going to increase, substantially I believe, when iPad ships. The tide is turning, and not in Adobe's favor.
Comments
I hope Adobe is sincere, however I'm not holding my breath.
Flash doesn't run well on any of my PPC based Macs. Also, in my experience, Flash has never performed well on the MacOS. This dates all the way back to the Macromedia days.
The bottom line for me (and many other Mac users evidently) is that it runs very poorly and causes applications to crash frequently. What part of that don't you understand?
I guess it must be the older macs that had all of these problems.....
The little MacMini 2.0Ghz, 2Gb RAM seems to play all of the Hi def video I want from Hulu, ABC, NBC, CBS, Edmunds Auto, etc just fine. I do run Firefox and not Safari... Maybe that has something to do with it as well.....
I did not convert to a Mac until June of this year. I guess coming from the PC side, I never gave flash a second thought. I almost always just worked. When I switched to the Mac it was the same thing, it simply worked fine and I never gave it a second thought. I did not realize until the iPad thing came out how much hate there was for Flash in the Mac community. I guess timing is everything...
If the older Macs can't run flash well, I guess that makes sense as to why all of you guys seem to hate it so much....
And say goodbye to the vast majority of video on the 'web.
How do you figure that. The majority of video on the web is not flash but rather whatever codec could be shoved into the avi format that week.
If this guy isn't any more clued in to what a multi-billion dollar company CEO is saying about his product than that, it's pretty easy to see why Flash needs to go bye bye.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand what I meant partly because I didn't state it very well but mostly because you don't understand the nature of programming conditional statements.
Let me try to spell it out more clearly.
Lets say you have a weather checking page. If it is sunny, show a picture of a sun, it it is cloudy show a cloud, if it is raining show a picture of rain, if you can't connect to the service show a message that says Please try again later. Now imagine you are coding that page what the hell do you expect the WYSIWYG environment should show? all of the above?
Nah, I got that part, but it was completely irrelevant to what I was arguing so I ignored it.
When I said what you were saying is "nonsense" I was referring to that stuff about how "nothing compares to Flash" in either features or performance. It sounds like an advertisement and it just isn't true.
Again, my argument about the WYSIWYG editor was not an arcane treatise on whether or not "true" WYSIWYG can be obtained due to the existence of conditional statements and live pages. It was simply that a tool used for making animations (Adobe's tools for instance), could be changed to output CSS instead of Flash.
Adobe's statements about how they want to be "open" and their whole open alliance are complete BS in light of the fact that Flash is a proprietary plug-in that doesn't actually even work that well. If they really did have the open-ness and interoperability of the web as their goal, they could easily drop the proprietary stuff and go back to doing what they have *some* talent at, which is simply making design tools. If they really did want to serve their customer base, they would make design tools that are platform and plug-in agnostic. that's what everyone has been asking for since about 1993.
The tools don't have to be proprietary, nor do they have to export proprietary stuff. It's their choice to be pushing Flash, and for them to try and make out like they are not doing anything nefarious is just silly. It's plain as day what their motivations are.
Nah, I got that part, but it was completely irrelevant to what I was arguing so I ignored it.
How convenient to ignore anything that is contrary to your beliefs. Twist it any way you want, you are only fooling yourself. If you have an 8 core then Flash should be no problem so I'm getting that this is more of an emotional battle for you.
WYSISWYG is for rookies. Experienced animators don't drag cute things across the stage, they code the actions by hand. It's easy to criticize what you don't understand.
This matter comes down to user numbers and resources. As wonderful as our Mac computers are they are still the vast minority of global users. Adobe has no incentive to spend millions in fixing Mac related issues when they can put that money towards the other 95% of the market.
I hate that apps like Photoshop are 64bit and faster on windows but again 95% vs 5% of the market, guess who gets more resources thrown at it? It was my choice to play on the Mac side of the tracks and I accept it. Plus now that Apple is bashing Adobe on a regular basis and creating competing products (FInal Cut and now Aperture) I'm sure Adobe is even LESS interested in the Mac market.
Until Apple can grab a significant portion of global users this isn't going to end anytime soon. We all chose to side with the underdog and there are always downsides to that decision.
...sometime in 2036.
So what does it take? The CEO of a key customer? A shotgun to the head?
Actually, just keep your 'improvements'. Many of us have learned to live without Flash, and feel better for it.
Hear hear!! Click2Flash all the way baby!!
What a cop out. If you hate it so much just uninstall Flash. Why would you install click to Flash? Oh let me guess you might want to see something built in Flash- so just in case right?
Though we've moved on the unfortunate truth is that many web sites have not. Also, some web appliances use flash quite heavily (Cisco WCS).
It's not a cop out, it's a compromise. Get rid of Flash without having to re-install it when you need to access some site that thinks Adobe is God & they do everything on their site in flash.
That pretty much sums up my attitude towards iTunes on my Win7 quad-core notebook.
Flash works fine. iTunes does weird stuff. I use third-party solutions whenever possible to avoid iTunes.
Hey - Is CopyTrans available for the Mac? If so, give it a whirl.
Wasn't iTunes compatible with Windows Vista before MS's own Zune software? Windows & multimedia have never played nice together, it's therefor not surprising to me that it might hit snags with iTunes.
Yeah but can you also read that flash accounts for 85% of all websites? If you talk about tv, networks and movies, it's closer too 100%. Bottom line is flash would kill off iTunes sales but not too much as some like to own material ( e.g. ABC LOST), so Apple would still haves sales, but Appe needs to offer outakes, bloopers, while adding material the networks ciud offer.
Then everyone becomes happier. Problem solved. Plus apples media would offer no commercials and in occasion an a advanced episode where the buyer agrees to the buyer that no information is offered. To the public and a user coudnt get a few shows in advance if
few episodes and interviews in return for Allowing flash
Flash doesn't account for 85% of all web sites.
The reference is to the fact that 85% of the most popular sites has some bits of flash on it, not that it's created and housed inside the Flash Object container.
It's 2010 and the bulk of Adobe's product suites are 32 bit legacy code bases that have moved partially to Nokia Qt Toolkit [formerly Trolltech] and a bit of it has moved to Cocoa with Lightroom.
Instead of investing heavily into refactoring their code bases to house a Windows interface branch and a Mac interface branch relying heavily on dylibs of C/C++ code that can be shared in either branch they've chosen to maintain as much of their code as possible before they had to move to Carbon.
Carbon being in legacy three years ago [9 years longer than originally intended] now shows Adobe still hasn't refactored their code bases for a split world of platforms.
The recent alpha to 64 bit and using Quartz compositing and more shows Adobe screaming and kicking into the Mac space.
With each successive quarter Apple grows market share and Adobe loses opportunity to grow sales for their stock holders.
Apple no longer needs Adobe nor do they need Microsoft.
Microsoft was smart with their Mac Business Unit and will have Office for Mac in Cocoa. They know their profits resides mainly out of Office. They aren't going to weaken their bottom line anymore.
With the move to OpenCL1.1/OpenGL 3.x on both the CPU cores and GPU streams [Apple and AMD currently are the only two that have both CPU and GPU OpenCL working] Adobe is late again to making sure their apps are OpenMP compliant and capable of OpenCL working with hardware accelerated OpenGL 3.x compositing.
This is Apple payback to a three companies that strong armed them during the NeXT merger.
How 'bout them Apples?
The issue here is that Apple has decided to not include Flash on the iPhone platform, which regardless of Mac OS X numbers, has a huge share of mobile Internet usage compared to all other platforms out there. I believe Apple has sold some 75 million devices in 2.5 years which currently account for 50% of the world's mobile Internet traffic.
Actually the issue isn't that Apple has decided not to include Flash but because Apple CAN'T include Flash. Desktop Flash requires more resources than what the iPhone can provide so they can't use that. Flash Player Lite doesn't give a full internet experience anyway so they decided no Flash is better than crappy players that either kill the device or don't allow it to do anything meaningful anyway. Adobe is 100% at fault here. At least Adobe could say to Apple "build your own player" and Apple would and they would make a killer version.
Many years ago Adobe made it clear that it was going to apportion their developer resources in proportion to revenue. So if Windows brings in 80% and Apple brings in 20% then that is how the developers will be apportioned. (The idea of this comes from Plato btw.) Economic rationalists who think of themselves as savvy tend to approve of this idea. But the idea is nothing short of stupidity and will kill the company that follows it. It is killing Adobe. One one side customers cannot be measured by how much they spend. Secondly, if you apportion fewer developer resources to a product you had better make sure that the difference in quality is reflected in a lower price ? as of course it never is.
The CEO of Adobe is responsible for this mess and should resign. The company needs a visionary head once more. It is good to see the company showing signs of panic ? but they need to take drastic action at this point and damage control will not cut it.
You guys are counting CPU cycles like girls count calories. A Ferrari cost around $300k, is that too much? Just go get some more money - what's the problem. Want Flash to run on your netbook... Sorry no can do. Go get some more ram and CPU power.
My g-d, you really are a worthless creep.
In 1997 us NeXT engineers told Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia that Carbon [a transitional API] would be built to ease their transition to Cocoa [Openstep APIs modernized for the PowerPC platform then] and now Intel.
It's 2010 and the bulk of Adobe's product suites are 32 bit legacy code bases that have moved partially to Nokia Qt Toolkit [formerly Trolltech] and a bit of it has moved to Cocoa with Lightroom.
Instead of investing heavily into refactoring their code bases to house a Windows interface branch and a Mac interface branch relying heavily on dylibs of C/C++ code that can be shared in either branch they've chosen to maintain as much of their code as possible before they had to move to Carbon.
Carbon being in legacy three years ago [9 years longer than originally intended] now shows Adobe still hasn't refactored their code bases for a split world of platforms.
The recent alpha to 64 bit and using Quartz compositing and more shows Adobe screaming and kicking into the Mac space.
With each successive quarter Apple grows market share and Adobe loses opportunity to grow sales for their stock holders.
Apple no longer needs Adobe nor do they need Microsoft.
Microsoft was smart with their Mac Business Unit and will have Office for Mac in Cocoa. They know their profits resides mainly out of Office. They aren't going to weaken their bottom line anymore.
With the move to OpenCL1.1/OpenGL 3.x on both the CPU cores and GPU streams [Apple and AMD currently are the only two that have both CPU and GPU OpenCL working] Adobe is late again to making sure their apps are OpenMP compliant and capable of OpenCL working with hardware accelerated OpenGL 3.x compositing.
This is Apple payback to a three companies that strong armed them during the NeXT merger.
How 'bout them Apples?
Well said, er written.
That might happen about the same time that fax machines are no longer found in offices. Right now you would be hard pressed to find an IBM Selectric in an office (although we do have one) so sure someday, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting on the demise of Flash.
Maybe you're right, but maybe not.
I believe Apple is trying to kill Flash, at least to the extent that it is any kind of internet standard. I believe they will succeed. They are already selling millions of mobile internet devices every quarter that don't support Flash. That number is going to increase, substantially I believe, when iPad ships. The tide is turning, and not in Adobe's favor.