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

1910121415

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 281
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    Adobe had better pray that there is never an iPhone on Verizon because the Droid is the only reason why Android has any market share.



    It's not a crappy 3g network like AT&T is the one actually. The only reason AT&T has any market share, is because of the iPhone.



    I'm somewhat bemused by Apple's closed and proprietary comment regarding Flash, while HTML5 is open, it's not finalized, and the H.264 video codecs aren't open either, Apple wants to control that down the road.



    My only beef with the Apple vs Flash argument, is that it's stupid - I would say what's the harm in giving users choice, but that would break Apple's locked system. I just got a Pre Plus on Verizon, and Web OS will be getting Flash this year - I don't know how often I'll use it, but I'll have the option to install it. This is just a bunch of billion dollar companies, fighting over who gets to control content, the user never wins. Screw Apple, screw Adobe, screw Google, MS, etc...Apple is not your friend, just like Adobe isn't.



    But I don't like Apple's approach of just saying screw it, wait for HTML5...
  • Reply 222 of 281
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    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.



    Yawn. I'll give you the last rant.
  • Reply 223 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "Someone has it backwards -- it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," Apple's Miller said in the statement.



    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And, H.264 is not open. IMHO neither will JS after Oracle is done.



    Also, everything Jobs said about advertising being "lame" on the iPhone is because there is no flash support. Everything he showcased can be performed with Flash on the web, and the multitasking was primarily included to add iAd support. Everyone would be furious if an iAd closed your app to run. Why else wait 4 years for something that everyone requested in the first installment. The latest update is simply to let Apple cash in on the advertising money.



    I'm with guinness, these companies are not your friends, but I prefer Google's approach, which is open, closed, proprietary, free; we will support it all and will let the consumer decide.
  • Reply 224 of 281
    mariomario Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by masqu3rade View Post


    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And, H.264 is not open. IMHO neither will JS after Oracle is done.



    What does Oracle have to do with JavaScript? JavaScript (well ECMA script) is standard, open scripting language and has nothing to do with Java the platform/language which Oracle has acquired with purchase of Sun, other than they both have the word "java" in their names.



    However, before Sun got bought by Oracle, they open sourced Java implementation, so Oracle can't screw it up. Also, Java the platform is just too important to a lot of players including IBM that it simply can't fail no matter what Oracle tries to do with it.
  • Reply 225 of 281
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    What does Oracle have to do with JavaScript? JavaScript (well ECMA script) is standard, open scripting language and has nothing to do with Java the platform/language which Oracle has acquired with purchase of Sun, other than they both have the word "java" in their names.



    However, before Sun got bought by Oracle, they open sourced Java implementation, so Oracle can't screw it up. Also, Java the platform is just too important to a lot of players including IBM that it simply can't fail no matter what Oracle tries to do with it.



    Three words: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...



    No one thought that Microsoft could hijack HTML either, but almost two decades later I still cannot completely remove IE from my computer because of some business related websites like the Department of Revenue and Wachovia's business site.
  • Reply 226 of 281
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    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.



    You so hit the nail on the head. Most of our differences are wetware based, not hardware or software.
  • Reply 227 of 281
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


    Q. How many Android phones ship with Flash support?



    A. Zero.



    At least until Android 2.2 is released, currently said to be mid-May
  • Reply 228 of 281
    intoshintosh Posts: 16member
    I guess Apple will ditch their Dock Connector and replace it with end-to-end USB connections then? And scrap Quicktime along the way?
  • Reply 229 of 281
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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!



    That is, of course, nonsense. Apple has APIs to enable hardware acceleration and Adobe refuses to use them in Flash. They want access to the hardware itself - which is forbidden for very good reasons.



    Think about it this way. Adobe Photoshop can sling around multiMB images with 16 or 24 bit color depths in fractions of a second. Why is it that Flash can't even put up a 640x480 8 bit image without maxing out the CPU and stuttering? Obviously, Adobe's Flash and Photoshop teams have access to the same APIs. Why can the Photoshop team do something far more demanding than the Flash team if Apple is blocking all the important APIs?



    The same thing is true of other (non-Adobe) software packages. There are a ton of packages that do a lot more than Flash that get by just fine with the public APIs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    {No flash on Android} At least until Android 2.2 is released, currently said to be mid-May



    Not quite true. You'll need Android 2.2 AND a version of Flash 10.1 for Android - which isn't due until June at the earliest.



    In any event, it's irrelevant. Adobe isn't whining about Apple not supporting FUTURE products, they're whining about Apple not supporting Flash today. Since there IS no full version of Flash for mobile devices today, Adobe's whining is misguided.
  • Reply 230 of 281
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    This will be taken care of next year is presume.



    Tim Cook (I believe) all but said that there are only 3 areas where the iPhone has single carrier exclusity (Spain, US and another country). He mentioned that they had already made of their mind about the US market.



    Reading between the lines I see iPhone on Verizon Q1 of 2011.





    hardly. Verizon is a totally different tech than the iphone.



    the iphone could be unlocked but still GSM and with a radio that can cover the right bands T-Mobile could pick it up. and thus no single carrier in the US.



    but no Verizon (which is CDMA)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    "We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" - Steve Jobs



    Price of an iPad - $499



    that statement was also 3 years ago. which is a lifetime in tech.



    plus they haven't made a computer so much as the Ipad is a mobile internet device. it actually is closer to a 'netbook' than most computers with that name. because they focused on the net, not on being a mini laptop.



    also keep in mind that the ipad starts at $499 and goes up. for most 'netbook' lines, $500 is the max you'd pay.



    and few folks call the ipad 'a piece of junk' even with only the wifi currently out and only in the US for another 4 weeks. sales have been 500k+, colleges are looking to give them to students, hospitals are talking use, major artists are out in the wild drawing and such and tweeting about it. just today I saw a youtube of a piano virtuoso Lang Lang walking out for an encore during a concert perhaps 3 days ago, ipad in hand and using it to perform a major piece (Flight of the Bumblebees I believe it was)
  • Reply 231 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That is, of course, nonsense. Apple has APIs to enable hardware acceleration and Adobe refuses to use them in Flash. They want access to the hardware itself - which is forbidden for very good reasons.



    Think about it this way. Adobe Photoshop can sling around multiMB images with 16 or 24 bit color depths in fractions of a second. Why is it that Flash can't even put up a 640x480 8 bit image without maxing out the CPU and stuttering? Obviously, Adobe's Flash and Photoshop teams have access to the same APIs. Why can the Photoshop team do something far more demanding than the Flash team if Apple is blocking all the important APIs?



    The same thing is true of other (non-Adobe) software packages. There are a ton of packages that do a lot more than Flash that get by just fine with the public APIs.



    All of course very true. However, now it's really time for Adobe to put up or shut up:
    No more excuses. No more whining.
  • Reply 232 of 281
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    Meh, Adobe dosn't need Apple. They have over 90% of the computers in the world using Flash.




    sorry but you are wrong. Because Adobe isn't just about Flash. It's a small part of their business. And an easy half of the sales of their software are to Mac users. Many of those users are Flash developers among other things. Lose them and Adobe could find themselves in a world of hurt.



    Quote:

    You can do many of the things Flash does with current standards, but you don't see anyone doing it. Why? because Flash is better.



    Not really. Flash is equal in terms of quality.



    Most folks will continue to use Flash because those 'current' standards are new and require starting over from scratch. That's time and money. So until they are forced to change they won't.



    I see this all the time. AVID was an awesome non linear editing solution and a lot of folks learned it and it was THE thing. Then Final Cut came along. Just as good, perhaps even better in terms of being cheaper and running on standard equipment etc. But the old regime refused to switch because they didn't want to go back to school and lose time they could be making money. Final Cut was the young pups program and as more and more youngsters came out of film schools and such, FCS has become the thing. Not the old school is being forced to learn it because no one wants to pay the higher costs of going with AVID running companies.



    Same thing with Flash v HTML5, same thing with digital downloads and SD cards v pressed disks, and so on.



    Quote:

    Apple dosn't seem to have tried to help them up to this point, and then they want to complain and say it dosn't work well and they won't use it



    Apple hasn't helped Adobe because the latter has been clear that their Mac OS tactic with the desktops was to wrap the Windows version in a translation layer rather than a native code bottom up version.



    Also Flash isn't a native touch tech. It's a mouse tech. Again to really function well, it needs a bottom up coding. Adobe hasn't shown interest in doing that much work.



    Quote:

    They have an agenda.



    and so does everyone else.



    Quote:

    They tried to stall others like HTC with lawsuits to try to buy time to get their next product to market before the competition.



    you really think that's why. I suppose the first shot suits by HTC, Nokia etc were just an attempt to stall Apple so they could get their stuff out first.



    Quote:

    They will not allow flash on their products because it ruins their monoply of control.



    a 'monopoly' that is completely legal and benefits the customers in this case because Apple's further development of the mobile OS wouldn't be hampered by concerns of breaking potentially 1000s of Flash cored apps



    Interesting thing is that companies that created Flash based online games aren't so bothered by this. Only in the last couple of days was it announced that Farmville will soon be released as an ipad app and you can bet that the companies other games will soon follow. probably still linked to facebook so you can keep your 'neighbors' and leaderboards and such



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post


    whats the problem with flash? It might not be perfect, but it's everywhere on the web



    the major problem, admitted by more than one Flash developer,is that Flash is not a native touch tech. you would have to rewrite it,which Adobe hasn't and doesn't seem to want to do, or add a a translation layer, which means bloat and more changes for bugs.



    Quote:

    and i don't see anyone paying royalties to use it?



    no royalty payment is publicly declared for anything but you can bet money was paid. if only for the software to build Flash. which is not cheap. Adobe is known for using their dominance in many realms to jack up their software prices to very high prices.
  • Reply 233 of 281
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by druble View Post


    Apple tries to do things like sue people for using multitouch and then technologies that drive it, when other companies own those technologies and Apple dosn't even pay them for stealing the technology.



    I supposed you have the patent numbers and dates to back that up. Probably not since you don't actually do any research on your 'facts'



    Quote:

    Cisco owns the name iPhone by the way. Look it up.



    i did. which is why I know you are full of crap about the whole thing.



    Trademarks require use to keep them. Cisco bought the mark and device and discontinued it. they wait until their last extension to restart use was almost up and when they found out Apple wanted to grab the mark when it lapsed, they announced a new product that wasn't released until months after the iphone. The courts deemed that the announcement and delayed release didn't qualify as use. But Apple was nice enough to let them use the name on the released device without fear of lawsuit. But if that device was ever dropped, Cisco couldn't release anything new with the name.



    Suppose you also think that Microsoft 'bailed out' Apple rather than the truth which was that they lost a suit over a 'look and feel' violation



    Quote:

    They tried to delay competetion from releasing products with false lawsuits.



    Name one suit where Apple was faulted with filing a bogus suit. Compared to say Psystar that tried to file an Anti-trust suit claiming that Macs are a market in and of themselves. Which by the by was a reaction to being served a suit for creating unauthorized clones



    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.



    None, because there aren't any. Not on a professional use level. Same as the Mac.



    Adobe cornered the market through creating the best product at that time and buying out smaller companies. Everyone in graphic designed flocked to Photoshop, Illustrator etc and now Adobe has such a stronghold that they can do what they want. they 'update' and provide only a handful of new tricks and toys and people buy. And pay. Photoshop is great but is it really worth $700 an upgrade. Not really. But folks are so invested in that world that they will pay.



    And yet I don't see a lot of rants against this. but Apple does the same thing with hardware prices, using their legal right to tie the OS to their stuff and it's like Steve Jobs is Satan Incarnate.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by blullama View Post


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



    Now is it not good. iAd gives app developers a native way to put in ads without fear of bugs and crashes. Plus they get a cut of the money, thus encouraging them to put in ads. increasing the potential for views. On several million iphones and ipod touches and almost a million ipads (before 3g hits the US and anything hits the rest of the world). for the advertisers, that's freaking awesome
  • Reply 234 of 281
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    all of course very true. However, now it's really time for adobe to put up or shut up:
    no more excuses. No more whining.



    Quoted for truth! (AI didn't like my original reponse: QFT)
  • Reply 235 of 281
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    All of course very true. However, now it's really time for Adobe to put up or shut up:
    No more excuses. No more whining.



    But, doesn't that imply that Adobe hasn't then had access to hardware acceleration until now? I recall people here claiming that Adobe has had access and was lying when they said that this HW access is what allows 10.1 on Windows to run so well.



    It is time now for Adobe to put up or shut up about this. Flash on the Mac sucks. But it probably also time for those that put all of the blame on Adobe's shoulders for the performance to acknowledge that there was at least a kernel of truth to their statement that they needed access to the hardware. This appears to have now been provided.
  • Reply 236 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    But, doesn't that imply that Adobe hasn't then had access to hardware acceleration until now? I recall people here claiming that Adobe has had access and was lying when they said that this HW access is what allows 10.1 on Windows to run so well.



    It is time now for Adobe to put up or shut up about this. Flash on the Mac sucks. But it probably also time for those that put all of the blame on Adobe's shoulders for the performance to acknowledge that there was at least a kernel of truth to their statement that they needed access to the hardware. This appears to have now been provided.



    They already have had access to other APIs that should allow them to do graphics programming that runs at something other than a crawl. Pretending that they didn't and that only this would do (even though no other 3rd party had it either and most graphics software, including Photoshop, on OSX did not suck like Flash) was pretty much a lie. Also, regardless, the code they do currently have crashes constantly, which isn't related to this. However, there's not really much they can complain about at this point. They have no excuses to hide behind anymore.



    Looks like it was released on 3/29/2010.
  • Reply 237 of 281
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    They already have had access to other APIs that should allow them to do graphics programming that runs at something other than a crawl. Pretending that they didn't and that only this would do (even though no other 3rd party had it either and most graphics software, including Photoshop, on OSX did not suck like Flash) was pretty much a lie. Also, regardless, the code they do currently have crashes constantly, which isn't related to this. However, there's not really much they can complain about at this point. They have no excuses to hide behind anymore.



    Looks like it was released on 3/29/2010.



    The other APIs would not expose H.265 video hardware acceleration. That is why Apple posted this tech note. There was no need for them to pretend that didn't have it since they did not have access, nor did any other app that would have benefitted from hardware acceleration for H.264 video...except Quicktime. Access to any other API obviously would not provide the same advantages, which is why Apple used them for Quicktime. If they weren't advantageous, do you think Apple would have wasted the effort in creating and then using them?



    As I said, it is now time for Adobe to put up or shut up. No more excuses....but that doesn't mean the excuses had no merit. Obviously, they did.
  • Reply 238 of 281
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    The other APIs would not expose H.265 video hardware acceleration. That is why Apple posted this tech note. There was no need for them to pretend that didn't have it since they did not have access, nor did any other app that would have benefitted from hardware acceleration for H.264 video...except Quicktime. Access to any other API obviously would not provide the same advantages, which is why Apple used them for Quicktime. If they weren't advantageous, do you think Apple would have wasted the effort in creating and then using them?



    As I said, it is now time for Adobe to put up or shut up. No more excuses....but that doesn't mean the excuses had no merit. Obviously, they did.



    It's not obvious that their excuses had merit at all. In fact, their excuses were and are without merit. No 3rd party had access to these APIs previously, yet, it's hard to find graphics software on OSX that sucks as much as Flash. This also doesn't excuse all the Flash related crashes, which this has nothing to do with. So, while there might be advantages to this API, Adobe's lack of access to it doesn't explain the problems with Flash on OSX. But, now, their excuses just got pulled out from under them.



    I also don't think Apple created this API "just for them". It's probably an existing private API that they felt could now be published. Although, I would not be surprised to learn that the motivation for publishing it at this time was to put an end to the excuses. Now, of course, Adobe will no doubt say that they have to "study" the API, and there will be more excuses about why it will take them years to incorporate it, if history is any guide.
  • Reply 239 of 281
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    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.



    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.



    http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations...oid_platf.html



    How is AIR and Flash fostering open standards Mario? "Are your content are belong to us" is what proprietary runtimes like Flash offer. Yes choice seems good to a liberty loving human but it's abstract from whether choice is good or not overall.



    Though your point is fallacious on multiple levels. There are a multitude of "choices" in which to develop iPhone apps. Flash just so happens to be not one of them. I do think it's time for you to ditch Apple. Success always brings carpet baggers who fly in like locust looking to capitalize.



    Apple's success didn't come on the backs of Flash or its minions and I for one will not be sorry to see them pack up and move their half baked crap to Android.
  • Reply 240 of 281
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    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.



    not really sure what kind of drawing you are talking about, but these guys haven't had too much trouble



    Jim Lee Co Publisher for DC Comics

    Manga Artist Yoshitoshi Abe

    Brushes group on Flicker

    and of course Jorge Colombo was already using Brushes on the iphone to make his New Yorker covers.



    plus there are tons of videos on youtube. mostly of brushes on the iphone. but there are some ipad ones also



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    Right here. Till there are HTLM 5 tools that do the sort of interactive type things like playhousedisney.com, pbskids, nickjr.com etc. we will keep using Flash.



    or it won't matter. particularly for those groups. They might decide to go with standalone apps at no cost with some advertising or even low costs and no ads. A lot of parents aren't keen on having kids online on the openmarket that is the web. One mistype and a kid could be on a porn site or such. But with an app, that risk lowers. Plus you can take the game with you. I have stopped counting the number of times a game on my iphone has kept my 7 year old nephew from being a total wreck as the only kid at the table eating out. And i'm probably not the only adult that has experienced that.
Sign In or Register to comment.