Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
They shouldn't work on Flash for iOS. They should let Flash die and develop HTML5 authoring tools for their suites.
But "Thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours"? Apparently Adobe had a casual team of about three people on the Mac version of the player for all those years that it has never performed well, didn't listen to them when they warned about preparing for the iPhone, and then laid off even these three people about the time the iPhone came out. And Adobe is developing for how many mobile platforms now? I don't think they will keep up. Mobile is advancing rapidly, and its becoming ever more important.
Flash, or Flash Lite, works great on your phone? How are all those items that rely on hover controls? How's your battery life?
It might not be so "buggy", but it is inefficient. Anyway, Apple has released the necessary APIs -- but Adobe is not satisfied with doing it according to the guidelines the way that all developers are required to do it. The content could be run more efficiently through the QT player; this would allow Apple to keep Flash content a little more sandboxed and QT would give it the hooks necessary. Flash is a security risk when it gets the access that they want.
No, it's a bit prudent. Code produced by such tools is never going to be optimized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Why should they waste their time? People are already hopping up and down about approval times on the App Store - great, let's allow a flood of poorly written apps from people who can't even commit enough to the platform to learn the native tools.
You're correct. Apple's approval process is so horrible that they need to find excuses for not letting people submit apps. But before the new EULA, there were, and still probably are, apps in the store that were APPROVED by Apple that were written with Adobe's cross-compiling tool.
If the quality of the apps are such a HUGE concern, just let them go through the approval process. Or are you and Apple too scared that the apps will actually turn out to be good?
"Thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours"? Apparently Adobe had a casual team of about three people on the Mac version of the player for all those years that it has never performed well, and then laid off even these three people about the time the iPhone came out. And Adobe is developing for how many mobile platforms now? I don't think they can keep up.
Flash, or Flash Lite, works great on your phone? How are all those items that rely on hover controls? How's your battery life?
It might not be so "buggy", but it is inefficient. Anyway, Apple has released the necessary APIs -- but Adobe is not satisfied with doing it according to the guidelines the way that all developers are required to do it. The content could be run more efficiently through the QT player; this would allow Apple to keep Flash content a little more sandboxed and QT would give it the hooks necessary. Flash is a security risk when it gets the access that they want.
I was talking about the amount of time it would take to optimize flash for iOS devices. It's not something so simple as making the code work in xcode, it has to be optimized. And adobe is developing HTML5 toolkits for their software alongside their flash ones. They actually made a REALLY big deal about it at Google I/O. Sometimes it's useful getting non-apple news from a site other than AI.
I am running full flash 10.1 (beta3)
Most on hover work like drop down menus. It's not perfect, but then again, flash for mobile (10.1) was just released. The number of finger friendly flash sites is going up significantly.
Battery life is pretty much exactly what it is playing any other kind of media content over a wireless connection. The "battery drain" happens with HTML5 or with Flash or anything active I am doing in my browser. Play a tv clip in flash, or play it using HTML5, it's the same battery usage statistics.
Apple JUST released the api's in march, and only for computers with the following GPU's: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M and GeForce GT 330M
What about all the other times when flash isn't playing video that it locks my machine up?
One straw man doesn't equate a universal truth...
So your computer is a new one (if apple) using a: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPU?
If not, apple hasn't released the api's for your device. They only released the API's relating to h.264 playback for THOSE devices. So when your computer is doing non-video content, it can't use the GPU, aka it has to rely fully on the CPU. Again, the ONLY api's released when it came to the GPU was for low level access to accelerate h.264 playback.
I'm not posting a straw man. Your example, by definition, wouldn't be GPU accelerated.
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
There's a bounty, but the amount isn't known? Who is funding this bounty? Isn't this just hearsay?
Your taxes at work, defending private interests. Please.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
I'm not so sure I want to use programs written by non-experts. I'm sure a user focused company like Apple is even less sure that this argument is worthy of consideration. Not all discrimination is bad!
Approval by Apple for an App is not a blanket approval forever. Apple's not de-compiling or reading through source code. It's also clear that Apple was overwhelmed, and is still probably pretty overwhelmed by the success of the App Store. There are plenty of examples of Apple going back and pulling programs for a multitude of reasons (not that I always agree with their reasons).
And before anyone whines about how unfair Apple is, Google has done it too and I thought I saw where Palm has with the WebOS but I couldn't find the reference I was looking for so take it for what you want.
If flash is such a crappy environment that poor practices by flash programmers can lock up my browser on a routine basis then.... it's a flash problem! It's so woven into many web sites that it needs to be a heck of a lot more robust than it is now! If you have "non-experts" creating flash apps, then flash had better be able to keep these "non-expert" flash authors from shooting themselves in the foot, and by proxy shooting my computer as well.
At least with Safari 5, I can kill flash in Activity Monitor, regain control of my browser and resume work.
They may sell lots of pro applications, but that doesn't equate caring about Mac users. And I don't even really care if they "care" about Mac users - I just want them to take pride in their product. That there is such a performance difference in Flash between Mac OSX and Windows should be extremely embarrassing for them. You can't tell me that if Adobe took this seriously that they couldn't go to Apple and that Apple wouldn't work with them. The fact is, Adobe isn't overly concerned with the Mac. They were content to coast. The whole 64 bit carbon thing should have been a non-issue. The writing was on the wall - if they were really serious about the Mac, they would have already been moving to Cocoa, instead of waiting until the absolute last minute when Apple basically forced their hand. Plenty of other developers made the leap to Cocoa without having to have Apple basically poke them in the butt with an electric cattle prod. Instead Adobe was plainly content and intent on "milking" the Mac. I think Apple saw this, along with all the hassle of propping up Carbon 64 and they said "enough - were killing it". It was the smart thing to do. It was the ballsy thing to do as to this day people are still painting Apple as the debil for it. Much like with Adobe and their half-a$$ed flash iOS app compiler, they only have themselves to blame - Apple was quite clear about the future of Mac OSX and the iOS - none of it was a secret. Snow Leopard wouldn't have happened if 64bit carbon was still lurching around like the zombie that won't die, and for all the jokes about "thousands of fart apps" what the heck do you think the ease of allowing "non-experts" to write thousands of poorly coded and un-optomized iOS apps would do for the iOS? I think Apple was exactly correct in their reasoning for blocking flash and Adobe's flash to app converter. Apple is about the user experience, and the user experience would have sucked with those tools.
If you want a platform with an uneven and inconsistent user experience, Android has your back! Knock yourself out. Have fun with unexplained battery drain, warm handsets, wildly variable battery life, uneven performance... Just remember the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot means you occasionally will.
I think Adobe got a double one-two punch from the iPhone that they didn't anticipate. First of all, they didn't expect Apple to literally take over the advanced mobile market overnight. And second they probably didn't expect the double digit growth in the Mac caused by first the iPod and now the iPhone "halo" effect.
They gambled they could milk the Mac and coast along on Windows. They gambled wrong. Oh well - man up and take care of business - but enough with the "life is so unfair". Please...
Well then, the next thing you know, Apple will be telling you that the "program" or website you are visiting was coded in HTML, CSS, and PHP by "non-experts," so it won't work on the next Mac or iDevice. Forget visiting your church's website, your fave non-profit, your own DIY, etc. Only a handful and websites by so called "legit" experts will be accessible. Sounds like too much power to me. best crush this idea before it's too late.
To those wringing their hands at Apple's "anti-competitive" policy: please explain to me how getting the government to require support for your technology promotes competition? Hint: it's no longer competition if the government is calling the shots!
It's real simple. Two big companies butted heads, the market picked a winner, and now the loser wants the cops to overrule the market.
This would be a less serious concern if we didn't have such frequent demonstrations that our government is more than willing to overrule its citizens whenever the mood strikes it.
It would be fun and surreal if the FTC investigates Apple?s failure to anchor their products to a technology that doesn?t even exist: Flash suitable for mobile devices! (In both performance and battery life.)
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
Wow, you really think Apple is that powerful/evil? Or put differently, should Apple think, "oh gosh, how is Adobe going to feel about this decision? Oh, I'd better fret about it." Uh no. Apple looks out for Apple. Call that evil, call it selfish, call it another day in the tech business. Every firm does the same. If that surprises you about Apple, then you just spent the last 34 years on a turnip truck
As for the timing, don't read conspiracy into anything that can be adequately explained by a slow, last minute response to the treat of another development platform usurping/wrapping the official SDKs and tool chain behind a layer that Apple doesn't control. Why would Apple let that happen? Why would I, as a consumer want every ActionScript kiddie flooding the App Store with crummy Flash apps that might not even be properly adapted for the platform?
It would be fun and surreal if the FTC investigates Apple?s failure to anchor their products to a technology that doesn?t even exist: Flash suitable for mobile devices! (In both performance and battery life.)
You're been snarky, but are likely more right than you know.
Which you say on great authority, no doubt.
Quote:
And? So?
And so the sun rises in the east. These discussions should not have to begin with a theoretical debate about whether antitrust laws exist -- but somehow they always do.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
Wow, just wow. OK, theory time: the government protects the public's interests. (Now I know that doesn't always work that way, god knows I could write long paragraphs about cases where it doesn't, but this ain't the right forum). Simply put, the government should ideally exist to balance the needs of the individual (or company) against the needs of society at large. That's why the only valid complaints the FTC should give 2 cents about are when the public good is harmed by what any members of that society (companies in this case) are doing.
Now Adobe files a complaint against Apple. Adobe and Apple's individual interests conflict. Why should my tax money be used to "investigate" that, unless Adobe puts an argument on the table about the public good being at stake? I can't see any way to turn a private dispute between two companies into one where the public's interest is at stake. You might try to argue that preventing Adobe's Flash from running on iOS hurts "the public," but Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in terms of phone market share, and Apple's customers weren't duped into buying an iPhone on the promise of Flash--they knew what they were buying.
Call me a Libertarian, but if Adobe wants to pay their own lawyers to sue Apple, I'm happy to let the two fight it out in civil court with their own money.
Adobe should open their Flash runtime to the Open Source Community like how Apple released Webkit in 2005(a fork from KDE's KHTML rendering engine) to the community which is now backed by developers of Google, Nokia, RIM, Palm and many others.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
There's a difference between defending private interests and using a government stick to settle private corporate disputes when the market can settle that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigAppleW
3/4 of all web video is Flash based
The best advertising is Flash based
The best interactive content is Flash based
All The best movie sites are done in Flash
Flash is extensively used by ALL the big boys. For a reason.
People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.
ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.
That's your opinion. Are you going to rail against TiVo owners too? There's nothing that says ads have to be flash-based. The concept of ads isn't the bad part, I start blocking them when they start promoting objectionable products, quack remedies, those stupid teeth whitening photos or detract from the alleged site content.
Adobe should open their Flash runtime to the Open Source Community like how Apple released Webkit in 2005(a fork from KDE's KHTML rendering engine) to the community which is now backed by developers of Google, Nokia, RIM, Palm and many others.
There's a difference between defending private interests and using a government stick to settle private corporate disputes when the market can settle that.
Since this seems to be the kernel of so many arguments here, I have to wonder out loud what it means, or implies. Should laws only be enforced by torts? Should we do away with District Attorneys, Grand Juries, and maybe even police departments?
Comments
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
They shouldn't work on Flash for iOS. They should let Flash die and develop HTML5 authoring tools for their suites.
But "Thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours"? Apparently Adobe had a casual team of about three people on the Mac version of the player for all those years that it has never performed well, didn't listen to them when they warned about preparing for the iPhone, and then laid off even these three people about the time the iPhone came out. And Adobe is developing for how many mobile platforms now? I don't think they will keep up. Mobile is advancing rapidly, and its becoming ever more important.
Flash, or Flash Lite, works great on your phone? How are all those items that rely on hover controls? How's your battery life?
It might not be so "buggy", but it is inefficient. Anyway, Apple has released the necessary APIs -- but Adobe is not satisfied with doing it according to the guidelines the way that all developers are required to do it. The content could be run more efficiently through the QT player; this would allow Apple to keep Flash content a little more sandboxed and QT would give it the hooks necessary. Flash is a security risk when it gets the access that they want.
No, it's a bit prudent. Code produced by such tools is never going to be optimized.
Why should they waste their time? People are already hopping up and down about approval times on the App Store - great, let's allow a flood of poorly written apps from people who can't even commit enough to the platform to learn the native tools.
You're correct. Apple's approval process is so horrible that they need to find excuses for not letting people submit apps. But before the new EULA, there were, and still probably are, apps in the store that were APPROVED by Apple that were written with Adobe's cross-compiling tool.
If the quality of the apps are such a HUGE concern, just let them go through the approval process. Or are you and Apple too scared that the apps will actually turn out to be good?
"Thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours"? Apparently Adobe had a casual team of about three people on the Mac version of the player for all those years that it has never performed well, and then laid off even these three people about the time the iPhone came out. And Adobe is developing for how many mobile platforms now? I don't think they can keep up.
Flash, or Flash Lite, works great on your phone? How are all those items that rely on hover controls? How's your battery life?
It might not be so "buggy", but it is inefficient. Anyway, Apple has released the necessary APIs -- but Adobe is not satisfied with doing it according to the guidelines the way that all developers are required to do it. The content could be run more efficiently through the QT player; this would allow Apple to keep Flash content a little more sandboxed and QT would give it the hooks necessary. Flash is a security risk when it gets the access that they want.
I was talking about the amount of time it would take to optimize flash for iOS devices. It's not something so simple as making the code work in xcode, it has to be optimized. And adobe is developing HTML5 toolkits for their software alongside their flash ones. They actually made a REALLY big deal about it at Google I/O. Sometimes it's useful getting non-apple news from a site other than AI.
I am running full flash 10.1 (beta3)
Most on hover work like drop down menus. It's not perfect, but then again, flash for mobile (10.1) was just released. The number of finger friendly flash sites is going up significantly.
Battery life is pretty much exactly what it is playing any other kind of media content over a wireless connection. The "battery drain" happens with HTML5 or with Flash or anything active I am doing in my browser. Play a tv clip in flash, or play it using HTML5, it's the same battery usage statistics.
Apple JUST released the api's in march, and only for computers with the following GPU's: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M and GeForce GT 330M
and ONLY for h.264 coded videos.
What about all the other times when flash isn't playing video that it locks my machine up?
One straw man doesn't equate a universal truth...
So your computer is a new one (if apple) using a: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M or GeForce GT 330M GPU?
If not, apple hasn't released the api's for your device. They only released the API's relating to h.264 playback for THOSE devices. So when your computer is doing non-video content, it can't use the GPU, aka it has to rely fully on the CPU. Again, the ONLY api's released when it came to the GPU was for low level access to accelerate h.264 playback.
I'm not posting a straw man. Your example, by definition, wouldn't be GPU accelerated.
FTC to Adobe: No big deal.
No flash on iOS products.
Sent from my iPhone.
LOL! Wittiest reply thus far.
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
There's a bounty, but the amount isn't known? Who is funding this bounty? Isn't this just hearsay?
Your taxes at work, defending private interests. Please.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
I'm not so sure I want to use programs written by non-experts. I'm sure a user focused company like Apple is even less sure that this argument is worthy of consideration. Not all discrimination is bad!
Approval by Apple for an App is not a blanket approval forever. Apple's not de-compiling or reading through source code. It's also clear that Apple was overwhelmed, and is still probably pretty overwhelmed by the success of the App Store. There are plenty of examples of Apple going back and pulling programs for a multitude of reasons (not that I always agree with their reasons).
And before anyone whines about how unfair Apple is, Google has done it too and I thought I saw where Palm has with the WebOS but I couldn't find the reference I was looking for so take it for what you want.
If flash is such a crappy environment that poor practices by flash programmers can lock up my browser on a routine basis then.... it's a flash problem! It's so woven into many web sites that it needs to be a heck of a lot more robust than it is now! If you have "non-experts" creating flash apps, then flash had better be able to keep these "non-expert" flash authors from shooting themselves in the foot, and by proxy shooting my computer as well.
At least with Safari 5, I can kill flash in Activity Monitor, regain control of my browser and resume work.
They may sell lots of pro applications, but that doesn't equate caring about Mac users. And I don't even really care if they "care" about Mac users - I just want them to take pride in their product. That there is such a performance difference in Flash between Mac OSX and Windows should be extremely embarrassing for them. You can't tell me that if Adobe took this seriously that they couldn't go to Apple and that Apple wouldn't work with them. The fact is, Adobe isn't overly concerned with the Mac. They were content to coast. The whole 64 bit carbon thing should have been a non-issue. The writing was on the wall - if they were really serious about the Mac, they would have already been moving to Cocoa, instead of waiting until the absolute last minute when Apple basically forced their hand. Plenty of other developers made the leap to Cocoa without having to have Apple basically poke them in the butt with an electric cattle prod. Instead Adobe was plainly content and intent on "milking" the Mac. I think Apple saw this, along with all the hassle of propping up Carbon 64 and they said "enough - were killing it". It was the smart thing to do. It was the ballsy thing to do as to this day people are still painting Apple as the debil for it. Much like with Adobe and their half-a$$ed flash iOS app compiler, they only have themselves to blame - Apple was quite clear about the future of Mac OSX and the iOS - none of it was a secret. Snow Leopard wouldn't have happened if 64bit carbon was still lurching around like the zombie that won't die, and for all the jokes about "thousands of fart apps" what the heck do you think the ease of allowing "non-experts" to write thousands of poorly coded and un-optomized iOS apps would do for the iOS? I think Apple was exactly correct in their reasoning for blocking flash and Adobe's flash to app converter. Apple is about the user experience, and the user experience would have sucked with those tools.
If you want a platform with an uneven and inconsistent user experience, Android has your back! Knock yourself out. Have fun with unexplained battery drain, warm handsets, wildly variable battery life, uneven performance... Just remember the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot means you occasionally will.
I think Adobe got a double one-two punch from the iPhone that they didn't anticipate. First of all, they didn't expect Apple to literally take over the advanced mobile market overnight. And second they probably didn't expect the double digit growth in the Mac caused by first the iPod and now the iPhone "halo" effect.
They gambled they could milk the Mac and coast along on Windows. They gambled wrong. Oh well - man up and take care of business - but enough with the "life is so unfair". Please...
Well then, the next thing you know, Apple will be telling you that the "program" or website you are visiting was coded in HTML, CSS, and PHP by "non-experts," so it won't work on the next Mac or iDevice. Forget visiting your church's website, your fave non-profit, your own DIY, etc. Only a handful and websites by so called "legit" experts will be accessible. Sounds like too much power to me. best crush this idea before it's too late.
It's real simple. Two big companies butted heads, the market picked a winner, and now the loser wants the cops to overrule the market.
This would be a less serious concern if we didn't have such frequent demonstrations that our government is more than willing to overrule its citizens whenever the mood strikes it.
How many people here honestly believe that the iPhone SDK, which destroyed Adobe's investment in making a Flash deployment option fully compatible with all previous versions of the SDK license, was posted two business days before Adobe's release of that product purely by coincidence, and not because of a willful desire to maximize the destructive impact on Adobe's bottom line?
Tip for people who are awake: there's a bounty in the Valley for anyone who can turn up a copy of an internal memo asking the staff to sit on that release until that date. I hear it's not a small amount.
Wow, you really think Apple is that powerful/evil? Or put differently, should Apple think, "oh gosh, how is Adobe going to feel about this decision? Oh, I'd better fret about it." Uh no. Apple looks out for Apple. Call that evil, call it selfish, call it another day in the tech business. Every firm does the same. If that surprises you about Apple, then you just spent the last 34 years on a turnip truck
As for the timing, don't read conspiracy into anything that can be adequately explained by a slow, last minute response to the treat of another development platform usurping/wrapping the official SDKs and tool chain behind a layer that Apple doesn't control. Why would Apple let that happen? Why would I, as a consumer want every ActionScript kiddie flooding the App Store with crummy Flash apps that might not even be properly adapted for the platform?
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
And Apple somehow doesn't qualify as one of those?
It would be fun and surreal if the FTC investigates Apple?s failure to anchor their products to a technology that doesn?t even exist: Flash suitable for mobile devices! (In both performance and battery life.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k
And flash on android doesn't consume any more battery than HTML5 or other active content.
You're been snarky, but are likely more right than you know.
Which you say on great authority, no doubt.
And? So?
And so the sun rises in the east. These discussions should not have to begin with a theoretical debate about whether antitrust laws exist -- but somehow they always do.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
Wow, just wow. OK, theory time: the government protects the public's interests. (Now I know that doesn't always work that way, god knows I could write long paragraphs about cases where it doesn't, but this ain't the right forum). Simply put, the government should ideally exist to balance the needs of the individual (or company) against the needs of society at large. That's why the only valid complaints the FTC should give 2 cents about are when the public good is harmed by what any members of that society (companies in this case) are doing.
Now Adobe files a complaint against Apple. Adobe and Apple's individual interests conflict. Why should my tax money be used to "investigate" that, unless Adobe puts an argument on the table about the public good being at stake? I can't see any way to turn a private dispute between two companies into one where the public's interest is at stake. You might try to argue that preventing Adobe's Flash from running on iOS hurts "the public," but Apple is nowhere near a monopoly in terms of phone market share, and Apple's customers weren't duped into buying an iPhone on the promise of Flash--they knew what they were buying.
Call me a Libertarian, but if Adobe wants to pay their own lawyers to sue Apple, I'm happy to let the two fight it out in civil court with their own money.
You should want your tax dollars defending private interests.
once big companies start saying what you can and cannot do, then your very own private interests are next. who will stand up for you then?
I'm fine with it. and Apple needs to loosen up on Flash. I want it and so does everybody else. flash is not an old technology. it is one that was ahead of its time.
There's a difference between defending private interests and using a government stick to settle private corporate disputes when the market can settle that.
3/4 of all web video is Flash based
The best advertising is Flash based
The best interactive content is Flash based
All The best movie sites are done in Flash
Flash is extensively used by ALL the big boys. For a reason.
People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.
ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.
That's your opinion. Are you going to rail against TiVo owners too? There's nothing that says ads have to be flash-based. The concept of ads isn't the bad part, I start blocking them when they start promoting objectionable products, quack remedies, those stupid teeth whitening photos or detract from the alleged site content.
They did.
Which ones have source code contributed by Adobe?
Adobe should open their Flash runtime to the Open Source Community like how Apple released Webkit in 2005(a fork from KDE's KHTML rendering engine) to the community which is now backed by developers of Google, Nokia, RIM, Palm and many others.
They did.
There's a difference between defending private interests and using a government stick to settle private corporate disputes when the market can settle that.
Since this seems to be the kernel of so many arguments here, I have to wonder out loud what it means, or implies. Should laws only be enforced by torts? Should we do away with District Attorneys, Grand Juries, and maybe even police departments?