Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'

13468915

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 281
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevetim View Post


    Adobe's market cap is 18bil. Apple could buy them today and dissolve flash



    Only if Apple and Adobe were only two strong companies in IT market.



    I think that someone like MS could be much more interested than Apple. If nothing else, Apple already has Final Cut, Aperture, photo and video apps with iLife... while MS hasn't got pretty much anything related to photo, video and DTP creation. CS5 suite would perfectly fit in with their existing offerings.



    As it is, considering market shares, MS is perfectly fine with independent Adobe, knowing that Adobe will develop software for Windows... but if Adobe would end up for sale, I think MS would fight for it 'till the last $ of their money - proprietary, OSX-only CS6 would be very unpleasant for them.
  • Reply 102 of 281
    ozexigeozexige Posts: 215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    You seem a little smarter then they typical users on here, so I will let you in on a secret. That little quote from Steve is what I like to call a profiler post. It can give insight to the people who respond. I would tend to give you a little more credibility based on your post and the caliber of response. Very mature and intelligent aside from calling me a troll, but I won't elaborate any further. Gotta use the Psychology education somehow ;P



    Hehe psychology, have a persecution complex?

    Or maybe something to prove?



    hehe
  • Reply 103 of 281
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    Except now, advertisers have to advertise through iAd. How is that good for advertisers?



    Just out of curiosity, maybe an Apple User could go to http://labs.adobe.com and download the release candidate for Flash 10.1 to see if the new version of Flash will have resolved the crashing issues... I don't doubt that after Apple jabbed at Adobe, that it may have gotten their attention. Though, I doubt that would be enough to satisfy Apple users.



    No...Adobe needs to offer a pound of flesh at this point. Outside of the publishing industry their reputation amongst Mac users is poor. Much like Microsoft, many Mac users today are actively looking to rid themselves of Adobe software.



    I'm going with Aperture as soon as I get my Canon DSLR. Probably would never need Photoshop for my basic needs.



    Flash is undoubtedly cool for some needs but the neglect that Adobe offered to Mac users isn't something that's going to be forgotten anytime soon.
  • Reply 104 of 281
    drubledruble Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Berp View Post


    My point? You have no idea what you are missing. But I guess it doesn't matter does it. If you don't know what your missing, then you don't miss it do you?!



    Adobe's Position - Write software in Flash and deploy it on multiple platforms at the sametime so that everyone can enjoy and benefit.



    Apple's Position - We'll have none of that. We're too good for that.



    Good luck with that position.



    iPhone os (Flash free iPhone + iPod touch + iPad +...)



    Consumer satisfaction: sky high



    Market penetration: going viral



    Competition: copycat galore



    Don't need no luck, ...make my own![/QUOTE]



    Copycats galore? The world does not revolve around Apple. It revolves around PC's. Name one single technology Apple has used that someone did not use before Apple. Even at their roots, the GUI that made Apple so famous was licensed from Xerox. Seems Apple copies others. They just have good marketing, thats all. Some people do try to copy Apple, but a lot of people are not trying to copy Apple. The sooner people realize that, we will stop seeing pointless comparisons of products to Apple products.
  • Reply 105 of 281
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post


    Android has a walled garden? Force users to use their products?



    Do you have examples?



    Android has a walled garden, but it's just a bigger playground than Apple's. Maybe you and I have different meanings for what is "open". Am I mistaken in that you need some kind of Google ID to use most, if not all, Android phones? How are they a walled garden? Well:



    1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only. The private codelines are an estimated 6+ months ahead of the public SDK and therefore essential for an OEM to stay competitive. The main motivation for the public SDK and source code is to introduce the latest features (those stemming from private branches) into third party apps.



    2.* Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community. There is also a rampant NIH (not invented here) culture inside Google that assumes code written by Googlers is second to none. Ask anyone who?s tried to contribute a patch to Android and you hear the same story: very few contributions get in and often no reason is offered on rejection.



    3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that?s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6* to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released. The Nexus One, Motorola Droid, HTC G1 and other Experience handsets serve the purpose of innovation testbeds for Google.



    4. Incomplete software. The public SDK source code is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs ? and of course Google?s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk. There are a few custom ROM builders with a full Android stack like the Cyanogen distribution, but these use binaries that are not licensed for distribution in commercial handsets.



    5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement. This is one of the strongest control points as no OEM would dare produce a handset that doesn?t tap into the Android Market (perhaps with the exception of DECT phones, picture frames, in-car terminals or other exotic uses of Android). However, one should acknowledge that Android?s acceptance process for Market apps is liberal as it gets ? and the complete antithesis of the Apple vetting process for apps.



    6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it?s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.



    7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android?s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google?s blessing.



    8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google, much like how you need Sun?s approval to claim your handset is Java-powered.
  • Reply 106 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Just because you don't know how to do in outside of Flash, doesn't make it unfeasible in another development environment.



    Didn't say that it couldn't be done. I said it's not feasible. A whole new environment would have to be written. One does not exist for your precious objective-c. The environment would have to catch up to the tweening and filter capabilities with Flash. Believe me, if someone wrote such an environment, it could make a killing.



    Oh wait. Somebody already did. But Apple wants nothing to do with it. Sorry Apple users... you can't benefit. Maybe when your two year contract is up, you should switch to Android. Then you can play in the shinier, funner playground. Until then. Good luck on getting your app approved in the app store. Rejected? Sorry to hear that.
  • Reply 107 of 281
    Ahhh... Adobe, how soon ye forgets it's past. Back in 1999/2000 Adobe tried to compete with Flash when it was owned by Macromedia. They even sued Macromedia over Flash's layout and tools. Adobe competed tooth and nail with Macromedia and lost on every front, with Flash and Dreamweaver vs. Adobe GoLive (remember that junk?) and Adobe Photoshop started losing ground to Macromedia Fireworks - especially with the web designer crowd. Now that Adobe has a MONOPOLY they want to play the victim "woe is me" role and try to make Apple look like the big bad evil guys.



    It's funny (to me) I use Adobe products, but all the ones I use are the formerly Macromedia created / owned ones (Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks). I don't use the Adobe programs like Photoshop or Illustrator much anymore if at all.



    Now they finally are up against a company that won't cower and crawl at mere sight of Adobe, a company they can't bully that has the resources, fans, users, money, lawyers, and power to fight them - Apple. Now, Adobe wants the public's sympathy. Go suck it Adobe, bunch of hypocrites. Go Apple, Go HTML5, and Go Open Source (like HTML5).
  • Reply 108 of 281
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Hell on a PC your choices are extremely limited.



    When Adobe conquered Macromedia's Xres and Live Picture it pretty much chilled the market for high end photo creation/manipulation tools.



    The only think we have now are smaller apps that can do a subset of Photoshop for a much better price.



    Well, there is Corel... sort of...
  • Reply 109 of 281
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Good

    Those developers who are not focused on their craft and a bit renegade need to look elsewhere for a platform. Funny how many "potential" developers suddenly think they're the Gordon Gekko of mobile application development. Newsflash there are almost 200k apps on the app store. The mountain doesn't come to Mohammed.



    You know, the app store pretty much sucks IMO, and the reason is, there are too many apps, and most of them are not high quality. There are many thin wrappers around internet content, or other free content. There are many similarly named apps without good ways of distinguishing between them. How can you find anything? How do you know which is best?



    Also, you can't try before you buy. I've bought many apps only to realize it doesn't do what I want. Is it worth going through the hassle of trying to get a refund for $2, no, but I'm left feeling burned. I see all these apps advertised in Apple ads, but I would never know they existed otherwise. I don't have hours to spend sifting through all these apps. Its a big mess.



    And then, there's Apple's dumb rules that restrict what app developers can do. For example, I'd like an app that can stream media over m WiFi in my house so I don't need to sync it through iTunes. As far as I can tell, there are no apps that let you do this very basic function, and probably because Apple wants iTunes to be the alpha and omega of your media life.



    And BTW, I'm focused on my craft, so up yours buddy.
  • Reply 110 of 281
    drubledruble Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Your post is amazingly devoid of outstanding options in software. Pray tell what Photoshop competitors should I be looking for on a PC.



    As always the PC market will have more software but a large portion of said software will be utter crap and would not cut muster in the Mac market where even shadetree developers are expected to deliver functional products in performance and UI.



    Paint Shop Pro is great. ACDsee pro is great too. PhotoStudio is another fine example that is very similar to Photoshop in many ways.
  • Reply 111 of 281
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


    Well, there is Corel... sort of...



    Yup, and you can get Corel for Mac also (not that I recommend it).

    If you can live with X11, Gimp is free, and quite capable.
  • Reply 112 of 281
    gwklamgwklam Posts: 17member
    I have seen the power of html5 and i have developed alot of things on flash and have deployed flash 10.1 RC2 on my computer now.



    as far as looking at a html5 vs flash standpoint, the cpu usage is about the same between them now, just have a long at this html5 demo: http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/ .

    the things is that flash is very cross-browser friendly, but html5 is still new. but when browsers like firefox are not upgrading to h264 codecs, it could become difficfult.



    the way I see it, many web developers could enhance their websites using both html5 and flash together. but of course this wouldnt work if you were devloping for the iphone os. the only benifitial things i see about html5 now is that you dont need an extra plugin like flash. but thats about it.
  • Reply 113 of 281
    drubledruble Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OzExige View Post


    Hehe psychology, have a persecution complex?

    Or maybe something to prove?



    hehe



    I like to understand people and personality. Thanks for your insight.
  • Reply 114 of 281
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    Jailbroken means that you remove the lock on the wireless carrier that the phone is locked down to. In Apple's case, that's AT&T.



    Wrong again. That is called an "unlock". Jailbreaking and unlocking are not the same thing. I'd go through the rest of your post but I'm typing on an iPhone and don't have all day for this.
  • Reply 115 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    Android has a walled garden, but it's just a bigger playground than Apple's. Maybe you and I have different meanings for what is "open". Am I mistaken in that you need some kind of Google ID to use most, if not all, Android phones? How are they a walled garden? Well [...]



    Not to mention that the whole purpose of Android is to allow Google to collect personally identifiable information on users.
  • Reply 116 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    We may both be right. Most people who buy computers don't need/use all the capabilities that it has. They just want to do email and look at stuff (web pages, facebook, pictures, and movies. Apple has created a new class of device for that. Okay, call it a computer colloquially if you want, but they are doing very little computation. By your definition maybe even the iPhone is a computer. And that's okay, but it stretches the term computer too far. We need new words that make descriptive distinctions between all the computer-like devices out there now.



    For those who produce (as opposed to consume) things, a computer that can easily create content is essential. Ask anyone who has tried to build a Keynote presentation from scratch on an iPad. Very difficult. Same thing with editing media. Heck, even sharing a document and printing are not not easy.



    I will get an iPad (probably v2). And it will take the place of my iPhone for some things, and my laptop for others. But not everything for both. It's not a computer, it's a tablet or slate.



    I get the distinction you were making and I somewhat agree. It just sounded like you were taking the idea of the iPad being only for media consumption a bit too far. Ironically, I think I probably have a bit of a problem with that characterisation because it's kind of true at the moment.



    My disappointment with the iPad (even though I will get one anyway), is exactly that it's (so far) pretty poor for creating things. All I expected/hoped for before it was introduced was that I could write and possibly do a bit of drawing on it, and I was really disappointed that this is not really possible yet. It's technically possible, but only in the same vein as cruising the web was on a Pocket PC in 1995. It works, but it isn't really useable.



    However, it's a new platform and I think over time, the iPad will become capable of taking over a large part of content creation even though we will still need desktops for the more complex creation tasks. I think the iPad could easily displace the laptop though as most people with laptops are not really into content creation in a big way and they mostly buy the laptop for it's portable characteristics.



    The thing you said that I really agree with is the idea that the words we have right now are inadequate. iPads are not "real" computers in that they aren't desktops and have extremely limited content creation possibilities, but they are still computers of some kind. As I said, I'm buying the current one anyway, but in reality, I'm thinking the iPad I really want (one that you can write on etc.), won't be available until about 2013 or so.
  • Reply 117 of 281
    ltmpltmp Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    Wow! How hostile you people are. If only you really new what Adobe was really offering and how superior it's development environment is to Apple's. You know it doesn't just do advertisements and games.



    I don't think that the question is if Flash is a useful tool. The question is will Adobe be able to update it immediately to support new APIs for iPhone.



    By the way, i've seen some pretty amazing and interactive HTML5 lately.
  • Reply 118 of 281
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post


    You know, the app store pretty much sucks IMO, and the reason is, there are too many apps, and most of them are not high quality. There are many thin wrappers around internet content, or other free content. There are many similarly named apps without good ways of distinguishing between them. How can you find anything? How do you know which is best?



    Also, you can't try before you buy. I've bought many apps only to realize it doesn't do what I want. Is it worth going through the hassle of trying to get a refund for $2, no, but I'm left feeling burned. I see all these apps advertised in Apple ads, but I would never know they existed otherwise. I don't have hours to spend sifting through all these apps. Its a big mess.



    And then, there's Apple's dumb rules that restrict what app developers can do. For example, I'd like an app that can stream media over m WiFi in my house so I don't need to sync it through iTunes. As far as I can tell, there are no apps that let you do this very basic function, and probably because Apple wants iTunes to be the alpha and omega of your media life.



    And BTW, I'm focused on my craft, so up yours buddy.



    I totally agree on the "try before you buy" Lite versions help but are not always offered. I think the whole 80/20 rule here applies (groan) 80 % of any store is going to be blah. I'm always looking for that cream. The top 20% that are worth the money.



    I'd also like having an App Store Marketplace. Say I buy Omnifocus and find that it's just not working for me. I'd love to be able to transfer my license via iTunes to another user for store credit. We're talking about digital data here which almost by definition is portable. I don't think users should have to pour money into apps that become essentially worthless because there's no way to transfer them without exposing your Apple ID and Password.



    There are many many many improvements that need to happen to online stores sooner rather than later. We are simply not leveraging digital data in a manner that's beneficial for developers and end users IMO.
  • Reply 119 of 281
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    You are the rare case. The only reason Android has been successful so far is because the Droid is the only decent touchscreen device available for Verizon. The Nexus one, and others, have been flops in terms of sales.



    I don't think it's a question of a walled-garden. Android has their own walled-garden forcing users to use their products. To get many of the apps on the Android store your device still needs to be rooted (jailbroken). From what I see now, and the foreseeable future, the App Store will continue to offer better apps. Android may be "more open" but what is it worth if the apps are of a lesser quality?



    Application quality is relative. Even with smaller number available, you might find something for Android that does not exist on iPhone.



    As example, I'm still missing Handy Shopper I used to run on Palm. I couldn't find equally versatile shopping list app for iPhone. Likewise, Documents To Go on Palm were better than iPhone's part.
  • Reply 120 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post


    You know, the app store pretty much sucks IMO, and the reason is, there are too many apps, and most of them are not high quality. There are many thin wrappers around internet content, or other free content. There are many similarly named apps without good ways of distinguishing between them. How can you find anything? How do you know which is best?



    Also, you can't try before you buy. I've bought many apps only to realize it doesn't do what I want. Is it worth going through the hassle of trying to get a refund for $2, no, but I'm left feeling burned. I see all these apps advertised in Apple ads, but I would never know they existed otherwise. I don't have hours to spend sifting through all these apps. Its a big mess.



    And then, there's Apple's dumb rules that restrict what app developers can do. For example, I'd like an app that can stream media over m WiFi in my house so I don't need to sync it through iTunes. As far as I can tell, there are no apps that let you do this very basic function, and probably because Apple wants iTunes to be the alpha and omega of your media life.



    And BTW, I'm focused on my craft, so up yours buddy.



    You forgot to mention how the App Store loves fart apps.
Sign In or Register to comment.