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

1911131415

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 281
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,738member
    HTML5 is the future. Flash will decay; it is a question of the rate of decay.
  • Reply 202 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Yeah, only a few people have picked up on it so far, but how stupid is it that Google, the "champion of open source" is now the number one thing standing in the way of a completely open web. If they dropped Flash support on Android, Adobe would be forced to cave on making HTML 5 tools and Flash would be old news in a couple of years at most. Instead they chose to prop up proprietary software because it's in their financial interests to do so. Wow.



    Way to "not be evil," Google.



    Google also supports H.264 which is not open and full of patents. Hopefully, Apple will join Google in supporting the VP8 video codec that Google plans to make open.
  • Reply 203 of 281
    mariomario Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    It's interesting to see Google begin to cave on open internet as well (embracing Flash on Android) . Their integrity and "do no evil" mantra seems to erode a bit more day by day.



    Every application Google has is open standards and works in any modern browser on any platform. Google unlike Apple is just giving its users and developers and choice to also consume/develop flash.



    I know, I know I mentioned that strange word "choice", unheard of in Apple universe. This is really "Apple vs. choice" and nothing else. Not Adobe, not Google etc. I for one don't like being locked and tied down by a single vendor be it Microsoft, Apple or anyone else. It seems Apple won't be happy until they are the only ones allowed to develop software for their phones or OS X. I think it's time to ditch Apple now, at least that's what I'm doing.
  • Reply 204 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Yeah, I guess from your side of the discussion, there's really nothing left to say.



    But, just in case anyone was wondering, this is exactly what SJ is talking about when he says Adobe is lazy. They want Apple to give them unfettered access to the hardware so they can take their Windows code and get it running on the Mac with as few changes as possible. They don't care that this could destabilize the OS or display subsystems -- i.e., they don't care that this might compromise the user experience -- all they care about is keeping their Flash empire alive with the minimal effort. So, the fact that Adobe is lazy and won't bother to rewrite Flash on the Mac using the more than adequate APIs provided, is exactly the sort of thing that SJ referred to as having been through before.



    Adobe's behavior around Flash on the Mac is exactly the reason they are being kept off the iPhone. They can whine all they want about how it's unfair and that Apple is being mean to them, but everything that's happened is a consequence of their own actions, which they won't accept responsibility for. Typical alcoholic behavior from a company addicted to money for nothing.



    That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.



    If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!
  • Reply 205 of 281
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    I'm with the guy who posted that Flash is much more than banner ads. It is a real programming and run time environment to do real work. I understand Apple being grumpy that the Flash runtime has poor performance on Mac OS. But the Flash development tools are worthwhile and professional grade. Blocking the cross-compiler is just petty. I hope Apple shoots themselves in the foot by also blocking very popular engines like Unity, MonoTouch, and others. And gets in some kind of legal trouble if they selectively enforce the "no cross-compiler" rule.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 206 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post


    Chambers: "Mr. Jobs tear down this wall !!!"

    Jobs: "No - flarn filth flarn are better than yours so - flarn!"

    Chambers: "I would flarn filth flarn ,

    ...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Momus View Post


    What the Flarn.



    LOL'ing at grahamw's edits!
  • Reply 207 of 281
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post


    Why is firewire limited in use today?



    Firewire was mostly used for external hard drives, cameras and music equipment. With the advent of USB2 the speeds got to the point where they were close enough that for most people it didn't matter. Only a few computer companies (Sony's IEEE1394 ports come to mind) besides Apple ever really got behind Firewire much. As USB has spread so much, the number of products sold with Firewire still included have shrunk even more. Music interfaces can use USB2 and ASIO drivers to achieve 0 latency, so its even becoming less needed in one of its last few holdouts.
  • Reply 208 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    Yes the use of Firewire is limited today. There are still a large number of musicians who prefer Firewire over USB (even USB2) due to the way it operates, particularly that it has less latency. Of course MIDI is a niche market, it was developed entirely for electronic keyboard/synth instruments. It is highly important in its own area tho.



    As a musician, the main advantage that FireWire has over USB is that -- by design -- USB "steals" CPU cycles from the rest of the system to move data around.



    The result is that a USB-based audio interface is far more likely to introduce noise (i.e.: those Rice Krispy "krackles") encoding a complex audio stream (or streams) on-the-fly while simultaneously moving the encoded digital data to storage.



    FireWire handles data transfer to storage by itself, instead of depending on the CPU to do it, which is what makes it so much more reliable. And also more expensive to implement.



    You get what you pay for.
  • Reply 209 of 281
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Yeah, I guess from your side of the discussion, there's really nothing left to say.



    When your contruibution to this disussion is stuff like "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah" it is not a "discussion" - you are just trolling. So yes, there is nothing left to say to you.
  • Reply 210 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.



    If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!



    No, it's just being lazy. How's that "working smarter" working out for them?



    As far as APIs go, they have access to the APIs they need, they just don't want to use them. This whole Adobe doesn't have access to the APIs they need is just a Big Lie from Adobe, a lie which you and others seem to have been taken in by. It's basically the same as me telling a system administrator that I can't check my email because I don't have root access to the mail server, when I have a perfectly good mail client available to use.
  • Reply 211 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    When your contruibution to this disussion is stuff like "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah" it is not a "discussion" - you are just trolling. So yes, there is nothing left to say to you.



    Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.



    Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will jog your memory:
  • Reply 212 of 281
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I think you guys are both just making arbitrary distinctions that don't mean very much. Also, the implication that Steve Jobs or Apple agrees with these distinctions is wrong.



    The iPad is most definitely a computer in the technical sense and colloquially, it's a computer to most people who use/buy it.



    Of course it is a computer, but so is the iPhone and iPod Touch. They are sub $500...not to mention awesome, and not even close to being "junk".



    If the iPad had additional things that gave it a traditional computer form, such as a keyboard, mouse, and hard drive, and a more complex enclosure including a hinge, it would quickly become a $1k computer. Removing alot of these traditional features allows them to bring an excellent "computer" to market at $500 (depending on features).
  • Reply 213 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jocknerd View Post


    Google also supports H.264 which is not open and full of patents. Hopefully, Apple will join Google in supporting the VP8 video codec that Google plans to make open.



    The patents to H.264 are well understood and easily licensed. Which is what's important to a manufacturer.



    H.264 is also widely hardware accelerated, all the way down to mobile devices, while VP8 isn't. Which is what's important to users.
  • Reply 214 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


    That's not laziness. That's working smarter, not harder.



    If Apple is unwilling to provide the API's for hardware acceleration, how do you expect Adobe to implement it? Hmm. Perhaps turn Flash into a virus that finds a security hole to root Mac OSX and use the hole for direct hardware access? Get real!



    Flash is the most unstable application on my Macs, by a long shot.



    And you want the Flash team at Adobe to have access to OSX at the kernel level?



    Not just "no", but "hell no!"
  • Reply 215 of 281
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.



    Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will job your memory:



    There is nothing dishonest about the quote - you notice the '...' - those signify that part of the quote was left out. What was left out did not materially affect the point I was making that you had brought nothing of value to the 'conversation' and your latest little rant (quoted in full for you) just affirms that.
  • Reply 216 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Of course it is a computer, but so is the iPhone and iPod Touch. They are sub $500...not to mention awesome, and not even close to being "junk".



    If the iPad had additional things that gave it a traditional computer form, such as a keyboard, mouse, and hard drive, and a more complex enclosure including a hinge, it would quickly become a $1k computer. Removing alot of these traditional features allows them to bring an excellent "computer" to market at $500 (depending on features).



    This whole $500 thing is just fodder for trolling. But, just for perspective, consider the context of Jobs' comments. He was asked if Apple were going to introduce a netbook. In the context of his comments, computer == netbook. So he engaged in a little misdirection. It's not like he was going to say, "No, you can't make a decent traditional laptop-style computer like a netbook for $500 that isn't junk. But, we have this really cool tablet we are calling an iPad under development. Can't tell you any more right now, but it's going to be insanely great."
  • Reply 217 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    There is nothing dishonest about the quote - you notice the '...' - those signify that part of the quote was left out. What was left out did not materially affect the point I was making that you had brought nothing of value to the 'conversation' and your latest little rant (quoted in full for you) just affirms that.



    Fabulous. More dishonesty by omission. What about the part of my post you didn't indicate you left out? Did that also, "not materially affect the point [you were] making?"



    You have no response because, from your position, there is no rational response possible, not because I was sarcastic.
  • Reply 218 of 281
    djintxdjintx Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I think you guys are both just making arbitrary distinctions that don't mean very much. Also, the implication that Steve Jobs or Apple agrees with these distinctions is wrong.



    The iPad is most definitely a computer in the technical sense and colloquially, it's a computer to most people who use/buy it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post


    Not true. Apple has been annoying enough lately that I might switch to the Droid next time I upgrade. I'm an adult and I don't need Steve Jobs telling me what apps I can and can not load onto my device, or what apps I can and cannot develop. Apple's approach is good for the timid and the elderly. It's like the Jitterbug of smart phones.



    The jitterbug of smartphones? Oxymoron much? It is interesting how you relate the jitterbug, perhaps the dumbest of all dumbphones, with one of the smartest phones of all time? I certainly won't argue that the iphone is the most open handset on the market, but a jitterbug it is not in any form of reality.



    This conversation of open vs. closed is kindof ridiculous. I have never felt my iPhone was limited just because flash doesn't work or because I can't load on a million different custom apps. I could care less. And I don't remember ever seeing the little missing flash white box on a website that I navigated to. Maybe I don't go to the same sites as you.



    Not only can I do everything I need to with my iPhone, but there are tons of apps and other web-based features/abilities that I haven't even tried yet, but could do so at any given time if I have the need. Lack of flash doesn't limit me at all. Personally I like that Apple keeps the iPhone ecosystem running like a well-oiled machine. If there were no back end approval process, then I could download some bogus virus enabled app from some site in Peru and hose my phone. No thanks. Adding inefficient crapware that drains my battery and causes crashes are not features I need, not to mention viruses.



    I think this all really comes down to some people's dislike and defiance of authority. The minute they are told they cannot do something, they suddenly need to have it so badly that they do whatever necessary to achieve it, even if it means resorting to illegal practices.
  • Reply 219 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Jobs & Co refer to the iPad as a mobile device. It's not a computer. It's a tablet built primarily for consumption of media.



    Thompson



    What they want to call it and spin it for PR and what it actually is are two wholly separate things.
  • Reply 220 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    Every application Google has is open standards and works in any modern browser on any platform. Google unlike Apple is just giving its users and developers and choice to also consume/develop flash.



    Q. How many Android phones ship with Flash support?



    A. Zero.
Sign In or Register to comment.