Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
Yep.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
A great percentage of the population whouses Adobe Suites are on the Mac. I highly doubt Adobe would dare pull their joint out of the Mac. Even if they do, that doesn't mean their customers would go back to PC. If that's the case I'll still keep my Mac and then I can still install Windows version of Adobe Suites on my Mac. Thank the heavens for boot camp.
You don't understand the metaphor. The goal of the railroads was to have freight shippers and passengers PAY for their service. To do so the rail roads CHOSE how to ship good and transport passengers. Apple is choosing NOT TO USE Flash & third party code generators.
It is their choice. They are competing with Google, etc. etc. and have a large (though not dominant market share). They are choosing -- they are the consumer in this case. If their product is inferior, then the consumer of digital information will choose another method.
I do understand the metaphor, and like most metaphors, it is imperfect. If you look again at Lynch's use of the railroad metaphor, he is talking about railroad gauges. The implication is that if you own a railroad, you won't be able to move your cars outside of the rails you build yourself if the gauges are different. That's true. So it's not the metaphor which is problematic, but the application here which does not work. Adobe can move their railroad cars almost everywhere expect for this one place. The metaphor fit better in the case of Microsoft because they owned 95% of the railroad tracks and so whatever they allowed or did not allow to use those tracks impacted the vast majority of the market. They could also use that built-in advantage to have a huge competitive edge, which they did.
i'm rather quite shock how a large number of people have completely ignored something that's quite significant about Adobe's Flash web app for the iPhone. Adobe has NOT released the product. Steve mentioned this a couple of times on his public letter. So why all this hoopla for something that's not even released yet?
Lynch can scream all he wants about freedom of choice on the web, but where's freaking product? Even the Android version was a demo version.
Its apple's trains. They can run on whatever tracks they want. Forcing another company to support your proprietary standards is hardly an 'open' strategy. Fuck these fools.
Adobe is totally backwards. Just got CS5: you can't install it on a case-sensitive file system. What? More than 10 years after Apple ships Mac OS X, which is UNIX based and where case-sensitive is the norm, more than 10 years since Apple ships UFS, case-sensitive HFSX and was potentially shipping ZFS, Adobe still can't put that little effort into cleaning up their code to make it run on a case-sensitive file system?
Talk about LAZY! And that with software that retails for more than a new computer, and which is mostly the same code warmed up over and over again, with a few new features thrown in? And they can't use a regex search and replace to fix up resource names, which if their code weren't a huge mess wouldn't need any fixing up in the first place?
And they say something about 19th century? Their code is still written as if we all were using teletypes...
It was high time someone stands up to them. Flash bogs down any computer, no matter how powerful, if not for any other reason than because it allows imbeciles to "program" and make all the mistakes that would make you flunk an into to CS class.
I wish Apple would set up a team to create some serious competition to the Creative Suite software. $40bn should go a long way towards writing a decent layout software, drawing program, web site creation software and photo editor.
Nevermind that Adobe has some of the worst customer service of any company I ever had to deal with. An insult, given what they charge for their software.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
All those worst case scenarios are kinda reaching. I know they are worst case, but we have to sort of be realistic.
- Adobe won't stop updating a product suite on a platform that comprises of 50% of their annual sales. Their shareholders would lose their collective minds.
- If Microsoft doesn't support the canvas tag, they will be relegating IE to a second class browser. They are trying to push IE 9 as a standards based browser and if they can't at least match the main browsers, they will continue to lose market share.
- Firefox will most likely cave in and support H.264. Regardless of the fact that Firefox is free, the Mozilla Foundation makes a ton of money. Their reported revenue for fiscal 2008 was almost $79 million. That was a pretty sizable increase compared to their fiscal 2007 revenue. They have assets in the 9 figures.
- As of right now, no mobile phone supports Flash and when they do, we'll see how they perform. Until then, it's all talk from Adobe.
- There are no grounds for the Feds to sue Apple. They are only looking into potentials and I am pretty sure Apple's legal team thought the changes to the terms pretty thoroughly.
- The way that iAd is being pitched, Apple won't let it be a nuisance. It will most likely be a top-tier platform. Either way, until it is actually available, we can't pass judgement.
- With $40 billion in case and a top 3 market-cap, they will have to make a ton of mistakes to crash. Not having Flash on their iPhone OS devices hasn't hurt sales one bit. 1 million iPads in 28 days proves that.
Lynch said Apple's philosophy is "counter" to the Web, and forces companies to write software for a specific operating system, which results in higher costs for development.
Um, what? I had no idea that the Web was OS specific. Someone better tell the W3C this...
Lynch also said that Adobe has big plans for HTML5, even though the Web standard and its inclusion of streaming video technology are widely viewed as a competitor to Flash. He said Adobe would create "the best tools in the world" for those looking to make content via HTML5.
Then shut up and get to it. Instead of whining about ONE COMPANY blocking you out, get these HTML5 authoring tools out! Come on, let's go.
Oh, and get that Mobile Flash Player up to snuff while you're at it. It's not looking so good at the moment. Hard to believe Apple's given up on you afte years of promises about full, mobile, Flash Player.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Reread your history books. Adobe has done the bare minimum to support the Mac platform for over a decade now and has done far more to promote their Windows products for a long time now.
- Late to deliver OS X native apps
- Late to deliver Universal binaries
- Late to deliver 64-bit apps (and most of CS5 is still only 32-bit!)
- Acrobat Pro on the Mac has always been watered down and overpriced
- Adobe's engineers and marketing people have long pushed the Windows versions of their apps over the Mac versions. Their Illustrator and Photoshop people have definitely done this.
- And on and ond...
Despite this, Adobe still gets around half of its Creative Suite revenues from Mac users. Too much revenue for Adobe to walk away from.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Bull Shit! Adobe has never been a friend to Apple. It's more the other way around. The Macintosh put Adobe on the map don't forget. But more recent when Steve cane back to Apple and brought with him Mac OS X. He personally went to Adobe to ask them to create an video editing application that Apple would pay a license for and give away free on the mac. Adobe said "No". So Steve said we will do it ourselve than and that is how iMovie was born!
Oh for crying out loud, I wish Adobe would just stop their whining and focus on 1) fixing Flash for the Mac desktop 2) create a real mobile version of Flash, not Flash lite, so that they could prove that Flash is viable on a mobile device.
I can wait to hear about how Flash now runs on Android and can play all flash content but people are trying to click that little button with their pinky and can't do it or have no idea what a particular button is for and can't hover, etc., etc.
Until we get to that stage and Adobe can show that it is worth bringing current Flash content from the desktop onto mobile screens, Adobe... sit your "a" double "s" down and get to work! Lazy beeaches.
Trains? A bit of a tortured metaphor there. Apple would have to be a railway company serving a relatively small but affluent area; Adobe would have to be some kind of independent train manufacturer who uses a gauge that no-one else uses (call it ADB-gauge) and tries to give away gauge-conversion kits for free, while trying to maintain the impression that their trains are the standard way for circuses (well, it's travelling entertainment!) to get around. Apple Rail won't accept Adobe Trains' gauge conversion kits because of some grumbling about Adobe's trains damaging the track more than other trains do, but Adobe Trains are desperate to get their gauge on there because the Apple Rail areas are a hotbed of circus activity! I mean, yes, the circuses are getting around okay, but only the ones who've got Apple Rail gauge trains (the components of which are given away by Apple Rail for free) and, well, Adobe Trains is only championing the cause of the circus train operators who've bought Adobe's trains (and no others)!
Wow, I really shouldn't try to take things to their logical conclusions. It gets pretty surreal.
Quote:
We don't want to play technology games when Apple is playing a legal game
Law is the means, always, not the end. It's not a legal game that Apple is playing, it's just plain old business. Having Flash on iPhone would lose stockholders' money, not having Flash on iPhone gains money (or is neutral). Likewise, for all the rhetoric, that's exactly what Adobe is doing: they believe (quite reasonably) that being supported on the iPhone will get them a lot of money, in terms of driving developers to buy more copies of Adobe CS. They do so love their developers' money.
Quote:
The technology issue I think Apple has with us is not that it does work, but when it does work
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Quote:
All the innovation coming from all those companies [in the Open Screen Project] will dwarf what's coming from the one company that isn't participating
The Open Screen Project is all about standardising web sites on Adobe's proprietary, closed, Flash. The "open" part is that the device manufacturers all play nicely with Adobe, see? Hardware manufacturers are totally up for that, because it gives them one more little logo to put on their boxes and they don't really care about anything else. For them, the cost of compliance is offset by the expected additional sales (or mitigated loss). Notice the people who aren't in the list: no Microsoft, Linux Foundation, RedHat, Ubuntu, Sun, no HP, Dell, Acer. All the big phone makers are there, yes (Nokia to RIM), and that does include Google (presumably for Android). If Flash ends up being dominant in the mobile space, Adobe will have won (against the OS makers), and then I'm sure Apple would be most deferential, just as if any other technology had become overwhelmingly dominant. But there's just no reason for them to be in the meantime.
Quote:
It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash...
That, of course, is a matter of perspective. For developers in general, it is about HTML5 versus Flash versus a handful of other technologies. For Microsoft, it's about Silverlight versus Flash (what's HTML5??). For Adobe, it's about every possible competitor, including HTML5, versus Flash. Oh, wait a minute. Well, if you mean HTML5 as the thing that includes <video>, <audio> and <canvas>, that's versus Flash. If you mean all the other features of HTML5, then it's not. I think this is a pretty clear indication that Adobe intend to put support for everything but <video>, <audio> and <canvas> into Dreamweaver, and make it hook into Flash to emulate the rest, that way they can say they produce HTML5 output without actually competing with themselves.
Debating this issue is kind of pointless, because it all boils down to the fact that Adobe's primary focus is the developers and Apple's is the end-user. So which side you defend comes down to which view you agree with.
So on to the pointless bit...
I happen to agree with Apple because our job as programmers is to make a product that as good as possible for the end-user. I don't think programming for the lowest common denominator benefits the end-user. Sure, some apps don't really need to make use of any features other than the lowest common denominator features - however, business being what it is, companies will tend to want to reach the optimal compromise between cost of development and market reach. So I believe that over time the average app on any platform won't make use of any of the special features of that platform, thus making any effort on further development of any such platform a waste of resources for the platform vendors. Needless to say, such a situation would HUGELY benefit Adobe (understatement of the year) and just about ruin every other platform vendor.
I'd really like to see some examples of why Flash and HTML5 aren't competitive technologies. I can't really see why one would need Flash if one had full HTML5/CSS3/Javascript/SVG/H.264 support...
Amazing. The iPhone came out in 2007. It is now 2010. Adobe has now FINALLY got a beta of their amazing Flash plug-in. What the hell? Apple was supposed to work with a bloated alpha or something? And doesn't the plugin require a minimum of something like an 800mhz processor to show the content? Complete crap. Until the Adobe CEO shows half a dozen phones on-stage running their glorious plugin, this is all talk of NOTHING.
"The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
Well Steve Job's disagrees ... I'm not sure who is right, but look at this from Steve's infamous letter.
"In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we?re glad we didn?t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"
Comments
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
Yep.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
A great percentage of the population whouses Adobe Suites are on the Mac. I highly doubt Adobe would dare pull their joint out of the Mac. Even if they do, that doesn't mean their customers would go back to PC. If that's the case I'll still keep my Mac and then I can still install Windows version of Adobe Suites on my Mac. Thank the heavens for boot camp.
You don't understand the metaphor. The goal of the railroads was to have freight shippers and passengers PAY for their service. To do so the rail roads CHOSE how to ship good and transport passengers. Apple is choosing NOT TO USE Flash & third party code generators.
It is their choice. They are competing with Google, etc. etc. and have a large (though not dominant market share). They are choosing -- they are the consumer in this case. If their product is inferior, then the consumer of digital information will choose another method.
I do understand the metaphor, and like most metaphors, it is imperfect. If you look again at Lynch's use of the railroad metaphor, he is talking about railroad gauges. The implication is that if you own a railroad, you won't be able to move your cars outside of the rails you build yourself if the gauges are different. That's true. So it's not the metaphor which is problematic, but the application here which does not work. Adobe can move their railroad cars almost everywhere expect for this one place. The metaphor fit better in the case of Microsoft because they owned 95% of the railroad tracks and so whatever they allowed or did not allow to use those tracks impacted the vast majority of the market. They could also use that built-in advantage to have a huge competitive edge, which they did.
Lynch can scream all he wants about freedom of choice on the web, but where's freaking product? Even the Android version was a demo version.
Talk about LAZY! And that with software that retails for more than a new computer, and which is mostly the same code warmed up over and over again, with a few new features thrown in? And they can't use a regex search and replace to fix up resource names, which if their code weren't a huge mess wouldn't need any fixing up in the first place?
And they say something about 19th century? Their code is still written as if we all were using teletypes...
It was high time someone stands up to them. Flash bogs down any computer, no matter how powerful, if not for any other reason than because it allows imbeciles to "program" and make all the mistakes that would make you flunk an into to CS class.
I wish Apple would set up a team to create some serious competition to the Creative Suite software. $40bn should go a long way towards writing a decent layout software, drawing program, web site creation software and photo editor.
Nevermind that Adobe has some of the worst customer service of any company I ever had to deal with. An insult, given what they charge for their software.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
All those worst case scenarios are kinda reaching. I know they are worst case, but we have to sort of be realistic.
- Adobe won't stop updating a product suite on a platform that comprises of 50% of their annual sales. Their shareholders would lose their collective minds.
- If Microsoft doesn't support the canvas tag, they will be relegating IE to a second class browser. They are trying to push IE 9 as a standards based browser and if they can't at least match the main browsers, they will continue to lose market share.
- Firefox will most likely cave in and support H.264. Regardless of the fact that Firefox is free, the Mozilla Foundation makes a ton of money. Their reported revenue for fiscal 2008 was almost $79 million. That was a pretty sizable increase compared to their fiscal 2007 revenue. They have assets in the 9 figures.
- As of right now, no mobile phone supports Flash and when they do, we'll see how they perform. Until then, it's all talk from Adobe.
- There are no grounds for the Feds to sue Apple. They are only looking into potentials and I am pretty sure Apple's legal team thought the changes to the terms pretty thoroughly.
- The way that iAd is being pitched, Apple won't let it be a nuisance. It will most likely be a top-tier platform. Either way, until it is actually available, we can't pass judgement.
- With $40 billion in case and a top 3 market-cap, they will have to make a ton of mistakes to crash. Not having Flash on their iPhone OS devices hasn't hurt sales one bit. 1 million iPads in 28 days proves that.
Lynch said Apple's philosophy is "counter" to the Web, and forces companies to write software for a specific operating system, which results in higher costs for development.
Um, what? I had no idea that the Web was OS specific. Someone better tell the W3C this...
Lynch also said that Adobe has big plans for HTML5, even though the Web standard and its inclusion of streaming video technology are widely viewed as a competitor to Flash. He said Adobe would create "the best tools in the world" for those looking to make content via HTML5.
Then shut up and get to it. Instead of whining about ONE COMPANY blocking you out, get these HTML5 authoring tools out! Come on, let's go.
Oh, and get that Mobile Flash Player up to snuff while you're at it. It's not looking so good at the moment. Hard to believe Apple's given up on you afte years of promises about full, mobile, Flash Player.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Reread your history books. Adobe has done the bare minimum to support the Mac platform for over a decade now and has done far more to promote their Windows products for a long time now.
- Late to deliver OS X native apps
- Late to deliver Universal binaries
- Late to deliver 64-bit apps (and most of CS5 is still only 32-bit!)
- Acrobat Pro on the Mac has always been watered down and overpriced
- Adobe's engineers and marketing people have long pushed the Windows versions of their apps over the Mac versions. Their Illustrator and Photoshop people have definitely done this.
- And on and ond...
Despite this, Adobe still gets around half of its Creative Suite revenues from Mac users. Too much revenue for Adobe to walk away from.
Yep.
Apple needs to do things better. Adobe stood by them when they were dying. Now, they repay the favor by trying to kill Adobe. Eh?
The Adobe Creative suite is one of the only reasons people buy Macs. Most artists like Macs due to their style and the CS is a good fit for the OS versus Windows. However, if Adobe simply decides to stop updating the CS for Mac, Apple will be in bigger trouble than they realize.
Bull Shit! Adobe has never been a friend to Apple. It's more the other way around. The Macintosh put Adobe on the map don't forget. But more recent when Steve cane back to Apple and brought with him Mac OS X. He personally went to Adobe to ask them to create an video editing application that Apple would pay a license for and give away free on the mac. Adobe said "No". So Steve said we will do it ourselve than and that is how iMovie was born!
I can wait to hear about how Flash now runs on Android and can play all flash content but people are trying to click that little button with their pinky and can't do it or have no idea what a particular button is for and can't hover, etc., etc.
Until we get to that stage and Adobe can show that it is worth bringing current Flash content from the desktop onto mobile screens, Adobe... sit your "a" double "s" down and get to work! Lazy beeaches.
Wow, I really shouldn't try to take things to their logical conclusions. It gets pretty surreal.
We don't want to play technology games when Apple is playing a legal game
Law is the means, always, not the end. It's not a legal game that Apple is playing, it's just plain old business. Having Flash on iPhone would lose stockholders' money, not having Flash on iPhone gains money (or is neutral). Likewise, for all the rhetoric, that's exactly what Adobe is doing: they believe (quite reasonably) that being supported on the iPhone will get them a lot of money, in terms of driving developers to buy more copies of Adobe CS. They do so love their developers' money.
The technology issue I think Apple has with us is not that it does work, but when it does work
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
All the innovation coming from all those companies [in the Open Screen Project] will dwarf what's coming from the one company that isn't participating
The Open Screen Project is all about standardising web sites on Adobe's proprietary, closed, Flash. The "open" part is that the device manufacturers all play nicely with Adobe, see? Hardware manufacturers are totally up for that, because it gives them one more little logo to put on their boxes and they don't really care about anything else. For them, the cost of compliance is offset by the expected additional sales (or mitigated loss). Notice the people who aren't in the list: no Microsoft, Linux Foundation, RedHat, Ubuntu, Sun, no HP, Dell, Acer. All the big phone makers are there, yes (Nokia to RIM), and that does include Google (presumably for Android). If Flash ends up being dominant in the mobile space, Adobe will have won (against the OS makers), and then I'm sure Apple would be most deferential, just as if any other technology had become overwhelmingly dominant. But there's just no reason for them to be in the meantime.
It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash...
That, of course, is a matter of perspective. For developers in general, it is about HTML5 versus Flash versus a handful of other technologies. For Microsoft, it's about Silverlight versus Flash (what's HTML5??). For Adobe, it's about every possible competitor, including HTML5, versus Flash. Oh, wait a minute. Well, if you mean HTML5 as the thing that includes <video>, <audio> and <canvas>, that's versus Flash. If you mean all the other features of HTML5, then it's not. I think this is a pretty clear indication that Adobe intend to put support for everything but <video>, <audio> and <canvas> into Dreamweaver, and make it hook into Flash to emulate the rest, that way they can say they produce HTML5 output without actually competing with themselves.
flashsucks.org
So on to the pointless bit...
I happen to agree with Apple because our job as programmers is to make a product that as good as possible for the end-user. I don't think programming for the lowest common denominator benefits the end-user. Sure, some apps don't really need to make use of any features other than the lowest common denominator features - however, business being what it is, companies will tend to want to reach the optimal compromise between cost of development and market reach. So I believe that over time the average app on any platform won't make use of any of the special features of that platform, thus making any effort on further development of any such platform a waste of resources for the platform vendors. Needless to say, such a situation would HUGELY benefit Adobe (understatement of the year) and just about ruin every other platform vendor.
I'd really like to see some examples of why Flash and HTML5 aren't competitive technologies. I can't really see why one would need Flash if one had full HTML5/CSS3/Javascript/SVG/H.264 support...
The fact they say it costs more to develop something with HTML5 than with Flash is just.... incredible.
It was badly misquoted. He said:
"The technology issue that Apple has with us is not that Flash doesn't work on the iPhone, but that it does work. You can actually make a great Flash app that runs across operating systems, and they don't like that."
Well Steve Job's disagrees ... I'm not sure who is right, but look at this from Steve's infamous letter.
"In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we?re glad we didn?t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"
That's the best Adobe's CTO can do?
Can I apply for his job? He's clueless.
Ed