I'm sorry but I always get a good laugh from his posts. Sometimes I wonder if he really believes the stuff he writes. If he does, that makes them that much funnier.
He reminds me of that one guy on every job that's a fanatical conspiracy theorist. Crazy as a bat, and you just can't seem to get enough of their amazing stories.
Looks like I´m right again, I touched a few nerves and people are trying to discredit me.
Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.
Steve had a decision, either make a tablet like the HP Slate and run Flash, or go without Flash and create a cheaper slimmer device with better battery life that would sell more units than the Slate.
So Steve chose the lower price and the war with Flash as to beat HP on price and gain market share.
Of course the war with Flash is really not with Adobe, but to get websites to make iPad versions of their sites so users of the iPad won´t complain to their friends thinking about getting one.
It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.
Apple are trying to kill the internet? Wow, that's a new one on me. You'll know it's happened when they take the i out of iMac
I don't think they're trying to kill it, I think they're trying to make it standards based. But standards are slow to change (due to committees) and can be lowest common denominator type stuff. If you can get the web to be standards based you will have an easier time keeping your apps an innovative step ahead. And therefore keep people in the apps viewing iAds and not on the web viewing Google adwords.
I also don't agree with the assertion that the web is a competitor to iPhone apps. Web apps will never be able to integrate with the OS as well as native apps, so that isn't really a concern. If Apple were worried about web apps in general, they wouldn't be promoting tools like HTML5. I don't think Google really cares what the medium for their ads is, so long as the ads get served. iAd is definitely a shot at Google ad revenue, but that is a separate issue.
If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.
Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.
You are still wrong. H.264 is open, it just isn't free. Except actually it is free until 2015 (at least).
There is a glimmer of truth in what you say, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you're making out. There are no open and free codecs available for video that are without doubts in patent encumbrance. That creates an element of risk. Codecs developed by the MPEG currently appear to be the safe bet because of their prevalence and history, and the MPEGs standing in the industry. That they are not offered under the GPL or some other open source license is a problem, but it's a lesser evil than a proprietary Flash wrapper around a proprietary video codec; at least it takes one level of proprietary out of the equation. Apple have some measure of reassurance in backing h.264 because they are one of the license holders, so they can guarantee themselves of its future. They can't do so with Theora. Dirac is another possible, but has its doubters. H.264 is not doubted, and while it is being offered for free it seems to be the best option.
The possibility of Google releasing a codec from their On2 purchase as an open source web video codec may change this.
Whatever the case, it is not Apple's responsibility to police the web and promote it as an open platform, it is the w3cs remit. That Apple is doing so in its spat with Adobe is a side effect of many other technical and business reasons, as Jobs sets out in his letter.
I think the guy who's always right gets the "credibility."
When Steve Jobs sneezes, the rest of the industry grabs a Kleenex.
That might change in the future, but for now, Steve gets to decide where the rest of us are going. That's what happens when you're in a leadership position.
Only in your world does Steve Jobs decide where you are going and maybe a few others on this forum. The rest of us understand if we don't like where Steve Jobs is going we have a choice to move to another option. Which simply isn't an option only inside your head.
For the exception of the iPod Apple doesn't control any market with a #1 product and even though their revenue is way up that fact remains because there are people like you that are willing to pay an insane markup for every product they produce.
With the attitude Jobs has Apple is in for a major fall from grace. And the retards here can joke all they want about Apple is doomed but they may want to watch what they joke about, they just may have their wish come true. Apple is starting to act alot like the old Microsoft. And we all know how well they are doing.
The fees are only waived until 2016, where after sites serving H.264 internet video will have to pay MPEG LA $5 million. It is not "open" in any respect whatsoever. It is closed and proprietary, just like Flash. You're going from one closed standard in Flash to another in H.264. It's meaningless. And Steve Jobs is a liar. I am not an advocate of Flash or any other proprietary standard. Apple is Adobe is Microsoft, etc.
Oh and, Quadra 610...cute chart.
HTML5 and H.264 are NOT synonymous. Quit writing as if they are.
If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.
Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.
And where does Adobe fit into this? If they had it there way, you would need Flash to play any video, regardless of codec, and it better be one it decides to support.
So. Flash or H264?
Big businesses who are willing to spend money on quality are pushing for H264 to become the standard. The HTML5 definition of <VIDEO> needs to be widely accepted to take any meaningful hold over Flash. H264 which has great hardware support and is used in a very large variety of consumer products is the best way to go at this point. It is a great quality codec. I don't see the problem with standardizing it with the open standard of HTML5 at all.
Only in your world does Steve Jobs decide where you are going and maybe a few others on this forum. The rest of us understand if we don't like where Steve Jobs is going we have a choice to move to another option.
You always have that choice. You can also go right ahead and build yourself a square wheel. Maybe certain novelty shops sell them. You always have options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
For the exception of the iPod Apple doesn't control any market with a #1 product and even though their revenue is way up that fact remains because there are people like you that are willing to pay an insane markup for every product they produce.
Apple either controls the market with a #1 product or they set the standard. Apple's influence in this industry is astronomical. Of course, you won't see that if your head is in the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
With the attitude Jobs has Apple is in for a major fall from grace. And the retards here can joke all they want about Apple is doomed but they may want to watch what they joke about, they just may have their wish come true. Apple is starting to act alot like the old Microsoft. And we all know how well they are doing.
I think we all know where to put your "predictions."
You don't need adobe to exist to keep flash rolling, they're just the main company behind the momentum of flash and for obvious reasons. They have the best creative suites and they sell like crazy because they are the best. AIR runs with webkit and HTML5 included. Flash is far less closed than Objective C. Flex is open source. AMF is open source. Eclipse is open source. I'd say Adobe is taking a seriously unjust pounding by a bunch of people who don't know crap about crap.
Your rant fails to address the several good points regarding why Flash sucks for the mobile (and touch) world.
It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.
The 3G model isn't weeks away. In fact, mine arrives tomorrow.
Impact? Most of us have used iPhones since 2007. And we also employ Click2flash on our Macs. The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPads are selling like 13 yr olds in Thailand.
You read AI frequently, surely you've stumbled upon last quarter's results.
Face it, these devices are hits, despite the lack of flash.
I'll put this in perspective for those who do not understand.
It is like driving a car, most all cars use gas to get to one place or another. Most car companies all make propriety cars since you can not take parts from every car to put them on any car.
Now everyone agrees the best way to get one place or another is using hydrogen cars, but the Oil companies insist on selling you gas at their stations and continue to slam the auto industry for making hydrogen cars when gas also works. Oh the gas companies are more than happy to sell you a translator to use gas to make hydrogen
Adobe is doing everything they can to maintain a revenue stream just like the Oil Companies would do if everything was moving to hydrogen
We get it, Jobs doesn't like Flash. Push Adobe to improve it. Push them to improve their design products.
Read the letter again: Apple HAS been pushing Adobe for improvements for years now. We've heard this before in other forums too, so it's not like this letter is the first mention of Apple working with Adobe to make Flash better for mobile devices (and to stop crashing Safari).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
But for Pete's sake, I wish he'd stop poking them in the eye so publicly every chance he gets. All that will do is put their professional design customers in the middle of an unnecessary beef.
Boy do you have it backwards!
Adobe, the media, and stock analysts have been lampooning Apple incessantly about the lack of Flash on their mobile devices. Most of we've heard from Steve about Flash before now came from either internal e-mails that were leaked out or snippets from closed door meetings.
If anything, this letter that actually EXPLAINS the reasoning is long overdue.
Now developers aren't vowing to leave in mass but its pretty obvious that there's a lot of discomfort associated with the new SDK agreement.
I really believe that users are smart enough to figure out the good apps from the bad. IMO, when you have a robust platform like the iPhone/iPad currently enjoys these restrictions seem unnecessary. I can understand Apple's concerns but they are fighting an imaginary enemy. The iPhone platform enjoys success that the Mac never had. Apple just needs to create the best possible tools they can and the developers will use them. They aren't stupid either.
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
You were in such a hurry to post that you couldn't read a paragraph or two further on? Fail.
Comments
... iAd is definitely a shot at Google ad revenue, ...
More like a full broadside.
I'm sorry but I always get a good laugh from his posts. Sometimes I wonder if he really believes the stuff he writes. If he does, that makes them that much funnier.
He reminds me of that one guy on every job that's a fanatical conspiracy theorist. Crazy as a bat, and you just can't seem to get enough of their amazing stories.
Looks like I´m right again, I touched a few nerves and people are trying to discredit me.
Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.
Steve had a decision, either make a tablet like the HP Slate and run Flash, or go without Flash and create a cheaper slimmer device with better battery life that would sell more units than the Slate.
So Steve chose the lower price and the war with Flash as to beat HP on price and gain market share.
Of course the war with Flash is really not with Adobe, but to get websites to make iPad versions of their sites so users of the iPad won´t complain to their friends thinking about getting one.
It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.
It reads like one of his keynote presentations?clear, sensible, and convincing.
Plus he takes little jabs at people who oppose him. That's another similarity.
Apple are trying to kill the internet? Wow, that's a new one on me. You'll know it's happened when they take the i out of iMac
I don't think they're trying to kill it, I think they're trying to make it standards based. But standards are slow to change (due to committees) and can be lowest common denominator type stuff. If you can get the web to be standards based you will have an easier time keeping your apps an innovative step ahead. And therefore keep people in the apps viewing iAds and not on the web viewing Google adwords.
I also don't agree with the assertion that the web is a competitor to iPhone apps. Web apps will never be able to integrate with the OS as well as native apps, so that isn't really a concern. If Apple were worried about web apps in general, they wouldn't be promoting tools like HTML5. I don't think Google really cares what the medium for their ads is, so long as the ads get served. iAd is definitely a shot at Google ad revenue, but that is a separate issue.
I don't regard these things as separate issues.
Cheers
If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.
Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.
You are still wrong. H.264 is open, it just isn't free. Except actually it is free until 2015 (at least).
There is a glimmer of truth in what you say, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you're making out. There are no open and free codecs available for video that are without doubts in patent encumbrance. That creates an element of risk. Codecs developed by the MPEG currently appear to be the safe bet because of their prevalence and history, and the MPEGs standing in the industry. That they are not offered under the GPL or some other open source license is a problem, but it's a lesser evil than a proprietary Flash wrapper around a proprietary video codec; at least it takes one level of proprietary out of the equation. Apple have some measure of reassurance in backing h.264 because they are one of the license holders, so they can guarantee themselves of its future. They can't do so with Theora. Dirac is another possible, but has its doubters. H.264 is not doubted, and while it is being offered for free it seems to be the best option.
The possibility of Google releasing a codec from their On2 purchase as an open source web video codec may change this.
Whatever the case, it is not Apple's responsibility to police the web and promote it as an open platform, it is the w3cs remit. That Apple is doing so in its spat with Adobe is a side effect of many other technical and business reasons, as Jobs sets out in his letter.
I think the guy who's always right gets the "credibility."
When Steve Jobs sneezes, the rest of the industry grabs a Kleenex.
That might change in the future, but for now, Steve gets to decide where the rest of us are going. That's what happens when you're in a leadership position.
Only in your world does Steve Jobs decide where you are going and maybe a few others on this forum. The rest of us understand if we don't like where Steve Jobs is going we have a choice to move to another option. Which simply isn't an option only inside your head.
For the exception of the iPod Apple doesn't control any market with a #1 product and even though their revenue is way up that fact remains because there are people like you that are willing to pay an insane markup for every product they produce.
With the attitude Jobs has Apple is in for a major fall from grace. And the retards here can joke all they want about Apple is doomed but they may want to watch what they joke about, they just may have their wish come true. Apple is starting to act alot like the old Microsoft. And we all know how well they are doing.
The fees are only waived until 2016, where after sites serving H.264 internet video will have to pay MPEG LA $5 million. It is not "open" in any respect whatsoever. It is closed and proprietary, just like Flash. You're going from one closed standard in Flash to another in H.264. It's meaningless. And Steve Jobs is a liar. I am not an advocate of Flash or any other proprietary standard. Apple is Adobe is Microsoft, etc.
Oh and, Quadra 610...cute chart.
HTML5 and H.264 are NOT synonymous. Quit writing as if they are.
Thompson
Everything Steve does in public is carefully orchestrated, this letter is no exception.
He's the CEO of a major company, I should damn well hope his public statements are orchestrated!
If Steve Jobs believes in a truly "open" web, he shouldn't be supportive of a proprietary video codec like H.264. MPEG LA, of which Apple is a member, owns patents regarding the implementation of said codec and has the right to charge royalties for its use. The reason Steve Jobs used the term "HTML5" instead of "H.264" is because he can get away with claiming HTML5 is open (which it is), even though Apple's implementation includes the use of the H.264 codec for video playback. Since stating H.264 is "open" is patently false, he uses misdirection by saying HTML5 instead. If you fail to understand this, you're a victim of the reality distortion field.
Put simply, you cannot use HTML/CSS/JavaScript to playback video on the web without a codec like Ogg or H.264. Steve Jobs knows this and purposely sidestepped it.
And where does Adobe fit into this? If they had it there way, you would need Flash to play any video, regardless of codec, and it better be one it decides to support.
So. Flash or H264?
Big businesses who are willing to spend money on quality are pushing for H264 to become the standard. The HTML5 definition of <VIDEO> needs to be widely accepted to take any meaningful hold over Flash. H264 which has great hardware support and is used in a very large variety of consumer products is the best way to go at this point. It is a great quality codec. I don't see the problem with standardizing it with the open standard of HTML5 at all.
Only in your world does Steve Jobs decide where you are going and maybe a few others on this forum. The rest of us understand if we don't like where Steve Jobs is going we have a choice to move to another option.
You always have that choice. You can also go right ahead and build yourself a square wheel. Maybe certain novelty shops sell them. You always have options.
For the exception of the iPod Apple doesn't control any market with a #1 product and even though their revenue is way up that fact remains because there are people like you that are willing to pay an insane markup for every product they produce.
Apple either controls the market with a #1 product or they set the standard. Apple's influence in this industry is astronomical. Of course, you won't see that if your head is in the sand.
With the attitude Jobs has Apple is in for a major fall from grace. And the retards here can joke all they want about Apple is doomed but they may want to watch what they joke about, they just may have their wish come true. Apple is starting to act alot like the old Microsoft. And we all know how well they are doing.
I think we all know where to put your "predictions."
[SIZE="2"]
Apple only embraces open source when it benefits them. They are truly the most proprietary company on the face of the planet.
Apple failing to understand open source
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2...rstand_op.html
Another post of nonsense from you. Goodbye.
Keep buying into the lies. SHEEPLE!
Third party IDE's NOT from adobe include:
FlashDevelop
Eclipse with AIR / Flex SDK (Flex is open source and free)
swfmill
swish
SWFTool
haxe
etc...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_F...rd-party_tools
And if you're talking about alternatives to flash player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Playback
You don't need adobe to exist to keep flash rolling, they're just the main company behind the momentum of flash and for obvious reasons. They have the best creative suites and they sell like crazy because they are the best. AIR runs with webkit and HTML5 included. Flash is far less closed than Objective C. Flex is open source. AMF is open source. Eclipse is open source. I'd say Adobe is taking a seriously unjust pounding by a bunch of people who don't know crap about crap.
Your rant fails to address the several good points regarding why Flash sucks for the mobile (and touch) world.
Thompson
Your rant fails to address the several good points regarding why Flash sucks for the mobile (and touch) world.
Thompson
Some day phones will be able to measure when a finger is hovering over the screen
It´s a no brainer why iPad supplies have been constrained on purpose and the 3G model is weeks away. Apple is giving web sites time to convert as to have minimal impact on iPad users, and to create the sense the device is being sold out everywhere, that itś in high demand.
The 3G model isn't weeks away. In fact, mine arrives tomorrow.
Impact? Most of us have used iPhones since 2007. And we also employ Click2flash on our Macs. The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPads are selling like 13 yr olds in Thailand.
You read AI frequently, surely you've stumbled upon last quarter's results.
Face it, these devices are hits, despite the lack of flash.
It is like driving a car, most all cars use gas to get to one place or another. Most car companies all make propriety cars since you can not take parts from every car to put them on any car.
Now everyone agrees the best way to get one place or another is using hydrogen cars, but the Oil companies insist on selling you gas at their stations and continue to slam the auto industry for making hydrogen cars when gas also works. Oh the gas companies are more than happy to sell you a translator to use gas to make hydrogen
Adobe is doing everything they can to maintain a revenue stream just like the Oil Companies would do if everything was moving to hydrogen
We get it, Jobs doesn't like Flash. Push Adobe to improve it. Push them to improve their design products.
Read the letter again: Apple HAS been pushing Adobe for improvements for years now. We've heard this before in other forums too, so it's not like this letter is the first mention of Apple working with Adobe to make Flash better for mobile devices (and to stop crashing Safari).
But for Pete's sake, I wish he'd stop poking them in the eye so publicly every chance he gets. All that will do is put their professional design customers in the middle of an unnecessary beef.
Boy do you have it backwards!
Adobe, the media, and stock analysts have been lampooning Apple incessantly about the lack of Flash on their mobile devices. Most of we've heard from Steve about Flash before now came from either internal e-mails that were leaked out or snippets from closed door meetings.
If anything, this letter that actually EXPLAINS the reasoning is long overdue.
Thompson
There is no evidence of that at all. In fact, it appears to be the other way around.
You should read the replies in this thread.
Now developers aren't vowing to leave in mass but its pretty obvious that there's a lot of discomfort associated with the new SDK agreement.
I really believe that users are smart enough to figure out the good apps from the bad. IMO, when you have a robust platform like the iPhone/iPad currently enjoys these restrictions seem unnecessary. I can understand Apple's concerns but they are fighting an imaginary enemy. The iPhone platform enjoys success that the Mac never had. Apple just needs to create the best possible tools they can and the developers will use them. They aren't stupid either.
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
You were in such a hurry to post that you couldn't read a paragraph or two further on? Fail.