Wars are generally fought with opposing goals, Apple and Adobe were working to a common goal taking separate approaches.
Really? Just how was Adobe working with Apple?
- Working to make Flash the universal standard while it ran like Crap on Macs
- Offering Mac Photoshop users free cross-grade software so they could switch to Windows, but not the opposite
- Mac versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite running miles behind the Windows version
- Taking years to adopt Apple technologies like Intel native apps, etc
- Optimizing the heck out of the Windows version so that it ran faster than the Mac version even when the Mac had faster hardware.
It has been at least 15 years since Adobe was on Apple's side. And you can't argue that it was because of relative sales volumes because for most of that time, Adobe's Mac products outsold their Windows products.
One of the last functions, the ability to upload files, comes in iOS 6.
Cool. That is the first I heard mention of it. I haven't kept up with this version of developer releases. That was one of the things that I noticed right away when I got my iPad. So are they just going to allow access to the camera roll? It would be cool if you could also access email attachments or even sand boxed app documents like iWork of PDF Pro.
Flash should be accessible to over 90% of the Andriod camp forever as only 10% have or can even upgrade to ICS without upgrading to one or two particular devices.
It's almost worth crawling back through all the hundreds of forum posts I made in response to moron fandroids whose number one knock on the iPhone was its lack of flash. The last one was l less than a week ago.
Good god, really. You all sound like a bunch of little girls. Everyone knows Adobe was a resource hog and Adobe could never get it to run insanely great on mobile devices. Why does this even bother you guys? Do you really need to post on here saying, "ha ha ha. We were right and you were wrong!"?
By the way, I just picked up a Samsung S3 and it appears to run flash 11 just fine. Doesn't give me any problems. Doesn't mean I want Flash to stay or that Adobe made a good product, but Samsung was somehow able to get Touchwiz and Android to play nice with it.
Mobile Flash is dead... Long live what-ever-the-hell-replaces-it.
Remember, you thought it important enough to reply.
On the Samsung S3. I received one for work last Monday. Wednesday they sent out an email notifying all 20k mobile phone users that all Andriod phones were disabled as of midnight because some pre-installed app on some phones had copied and transferred our entire corporate contact database to a server in China. Oh well I got a few hours to play with it. Even better I got an iPhone on the way.
First, I am a programmer, instructional system designer and educator. I try to find the best tools to fit various hardware, be it Mac, PC, or mobile devices. I have programmed in Flash, and was well aware that Flash support was coming to and end for (at least now) Android Jelly Bean 4.1. Don't have any feelings one way or the other - I just adapt to the needs of my learners.
Some comments have mentioned they don't see Flash unless it pertains to games or ads. Currently, many distance learning programs export a swf file. Some examples are Adobe Captivate, Articulate, Lectora, etc. They have read the writing on the wall, and have made an effort to generate other exports (HTML5, ios, etc). The HTML5 exports are .. well ... terrible at this point. But if you don't know CSS, javascript, C#, etc, this is at least an honest effort.
Another interesting comment is devaluating the Android operating system. As most in this forum know, OS X Leopard has BSD code. Android is a Linux-based OS. So they really have something in common.
So am I a fandroid? I own an iPhone 4, iPad 2, have just preordered the Samsung Galaxy S 3, have two pcs and one notebook.
Adobe purchased Macromedia in 2005 (yes, looked it up). In another seven years, I have no doubt javascript and css will be replaced by something else. As mentioned in the first paragraph, programmers don't (or at least shouldn't) lament; rather they should learn to change with the needs of their users, and the accompanying technology.
The irony of all this is that despite all this Adobe Flash has never been better and mobile devices are considerably more powerful than they were in 2007 when people claimed that Apple was not allowing it for no other reason than to be dicks.
Wars are generally fought with opposing goals, Apple and Adobe were working to a common goal taking separate approaches.
Really? Just how was Adobe working with Apple?
I said they were working to a common goal, not working together. Apple was trying to offer mobile users the best web experience, Adobe was trying to do the same but from the point of view of allowing publishers to provide them rich content that web standards couldn't do at the time in a reliable way.
Flash doesn't work too well on Windows, it doesn't block background loading like the Mac. If you open a Youtube video in a background tab, it starts playing. People have developed extensions for FF and Chrome to stop it happening. It crashes on Windows too:
- Offering Mac Photoshop users free cross-grade software so they could switch to Windows, but not the opposite
I don't recall that being the case, it seems it's not now but they'll always find a way to get you to pay for the cross-grade anyway. You can't cross-grade old versions:
- Mac versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite running miles behind the Windows version
- Taking years to adopt Apple technologies like Intel native apps, etc
- Optimizing the heck out of the Windows version so that it ran faster than the Mac version even when the Mac had faster hardware.
Some of this was down to Apple's choices. They threw their entire OS out and started over. They expected Adobe to support Altivec and then ditched the entire architecture. Adobe has a massive codebase, they can't just rework it on a whim, they have to do a lot of testing to make sure it's rock solid. They certainly could have moved quicker but I don't see that it was malicious.
When Apple opened up access to hardware acceleration, Adobe improved Flash within a matter of weeks
Perhaps my memory is off but i seem to recall that an Adobe employee blog basically spelled out why Flash on Macs was so far behind Windows, specifically naming the lack of access to HW acceleration and then shortly after Apple opened it up.
In another seven years, I have no doubt javascript and css will be replaced by something else.
Client-side PHP perhaps. It saves data translation when communicating with the server (assuming the server is using PHP) and is object-oriented. CSS could be nothing more than an array of values, which is much more flexible as they can all be animated easily and shared using variables. No JS frameworks needed. To animate a style, you just change the style array values, not the object.
Markup would be done in a separate format like how Apple makes .nib files but you wouldn't write these by hand in the same way you don't write PDF, Word, Illustrator, Indesign markup by hand. The layouts you create in these files have expansion properties for dynamic content and selector IDs. The IDs that are handled by PHP. The executable parts are then entirely separated from content and the content is separated from style by design - MVC. This helps with languages. The layout designing would have to be supported in the browser itself and can be mapped to a database so that styles could be nested by users but again, not using code to prevent security vulnerabilities.
It would support arbitrary data in a container so a user could embed a vector, text, an image and video without having to know what markup defines each.
There would be the possibility to compile bytecode (encrypted bytecode too) for deployment and offline storage in a sandboxed space.
This is pretty much how Adobe Air will be built. It offers the possibility of appifying the desktop web experience like the mobile one so you can get a Netflix app or New York Times app that is easy to develop but offers the ability to monetize content. It would still allow the web to work as normal but there's no distinction between app and site. Right now, sites can't do that because there's such a big difference between the client-side and server-side models. They should be the same.
Well in a way they did. Look at all the cars, cameras and consumer electronics that came from those countries once the US helped them rebuild their infrastructure after the war. Perhaps that explains why we never saw a Vietnamese auto industry materialize. The US lost that war.
I hear the iRaqpad and iRaqphone is doing quite well, since the US won that war.
On the Samsung S3. I received one for work last Monday. Wednesday they sent out an email notifying all 20k mobile phone users that all Andriod phones were disabled as of midnight because some pre-installed app on some phones had copied and transferred our entire corporate contact database to a server in China. Oh well I got a few hours to play with it. Even better I got an iPhone on the way.
Hmm... Imagine if that happened with an iPhone. "AppGate", "AppleGate", "iPhoneGate"... Entire web servers would buckle under the load of the online vitriol.
As mentioned in the first paragraph, programmers don't (or at least shouldn't) lament; rather they should learn to change with the needs of their users, and the accompanying technology.
That's a fair point, but Steve had a counter-intuitive view. Programmers should ~drive~ the right technology ~for~ their users. Not merely adapt.
Perhaps my memory is off but i seem to recall that an Adobe employee blog basically spelled out why Flash on Macs was so far behind Windows, specifically naming the lack of access to HW acceleration and then shortly after Apple opened it up.
Yes, but that was a bogus argument.
Even after they had access to hardware acceleration (in the way they wanted it) on the Mac, it sucked. And before they started using hardware acceleration on Windows, the Windows version was still better.
Furthermore, they always had access to hardware acceleration - they just had to use Apple's APIs. They wanted to bypass Apple's APIs and have direct access to hardware acceleration. This would have made their security issues even worse with very little performance benefit.
Yes, but that was a bogus argument.
Even after they had access to hardware acceleration (in the way they wanted it) on the Mac, it sucked. And before they started using hardware acceleration on Windows, the Windows version was still better.
Furthermore, they always had access to hardware acceleration - they just had to use Apple's APIs. They wanted to bypass Apple's APIs and have direct access to hardware acceleration. This would have made their security issues even worse with very little performance benefit.
It may have still sucked in comparison to Windows and sucked overall but it was still much better on resource usage with the HW acceleration which means that Adobe was correct to point out this issue. That makes the argument very valid.
Better yet, just remove it completely from your Mac. It seems ideological, but I am realising the tangible benefits of doing that.
Actually, I found that the best solution is to move the Flash plugins from the main /Library/Internet Plugins folder to a separate Plugins folder inside of the iCab web browser.
That way, you still have one browser that can run bonafide Flash. By moving the Flash plugins out of the main Library folder, web browsers like Safari and Firefox will believe that the plugin isn't installed and will never render the content.
I think I am firing up iCab 1-3 times a month to access Flash-based content. Without a doubt, at some point in the not too distant future, I will realize that I haven't fired up iCab for several months.
That way, you still have one browser that can run bonafide Flash. By moving the Flash plugins out of the main Library folder, web browsers like Safari and Firefox will believe that the plugin isn't installed and will never render the content.
I just have the projector downloaded. If I really want to see a Flash element, I download it and view it there.
*shrug*
I hate that Safari 5.2 and 6 have removed the Activity window, but I'm also viewing far fewer Flash elements that can't be "legitimately" downloaded than five years ago, of course.
Actually, I found that the best solution is to move the Flash plugins from the main /Library/Internet Plugins folder to a separate Plugins folder inside of the iCab web browser.
That way, you still have one browser that can run bonafide Flash. By moving the Flash plugins out of the main Library folder, web browsers like Safari and Firefox will believe that the plugin isn't installed and will never render the content.
I think I am firing up iCab 1-3 times a month to access Flash-based content. Without a doubt, at some point in the not too distant future, I will realize that I haven't fired up iCab for several months.
Yes, the browsers entirely not rendering Flash (and Java, I hate Java apps) is exactly what I want. Tell you what, my quality of life has improved. As for a backup for viewing Flash-based content, at first I kept Chrome around or what not and then a few months ago I just decided, anything that really needs Google or Flash, outside of do-or-die emergencies, screw it. I'm purging Google and Flash from my life as far as possible. Bought Pixelmator, hope never to touch Adobe stuff again, in this case not out of spite but personally because of cost and I don't want to pirate software or content ~anymore~.
Well, that's the steps I'm taking, will it pay off? Maybe it already has. The moment I turn off AdBlock in a web browser on Mac or iPad, I am absolutely blown away how nonsensical the web has become. Like the post-PC, there is a "post-web" ecosystem forming. I'm not talking Web 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever, but literally post-Web.
Just look at a website ~ when was the last time you actually managed to find exactly what you wanted or do what you wanted without wading through superfluous content, ads, clicks, surveys, logins, etc. I'm not saying we should rush things but Steve said, "focus is about saying No, and when you say No you piss people off". Web developers must learn to tell clients "No", because most clients are only now "getting" the "Internet". And the post-Web ecosystem is here. Web developers must educate clients on this.
Eg. Like I mentioned above, just make a decent but lean web app that runs on desktop, laptop, mobile and tablet. Done. Then see where to go from that. Don't make the "full e-commerce site with blah blah blah" then ~later~ panic about a "app".
I just got Dirt 3 Showdown, nice, and they have some stats thing you can access on a website... Mostly with Flash. No thanks. Multiplayer? Xbox Live subscription needed. No thanks.
Keep it simple, and as we see from Apple, beauty in simplicity is what the world so desperately craves for in this day and age where every second of life is crammed to the brim with unimportant rubbish.
And that's why Flash is dead to me. The philosophy behind me has come to an end of its usefulness.
I hate that Safari 5.2 and 6 have removed the Activity window...
They're going to remove it? I'm on 5.1.7 and using it to download stuff: I highlight a line in the Activity Window, Cmd-C, go to the Download Window and Cmd-V. Works like a charm, though not on Windows, even if web developers try to hide stuff or don't want people to download a picture I can still get it. What to do without an Activity Window?
Things are changing, and not for the better with todays termination of my beloved iDisk and Gallery. But I digress.
They're going to remove it? I'm on 5.1.7 and using it to download stuff: I highlight a line in the Activity Window, Cmd-C, go to the Download Window and Cmd-V. Works like a charm, though not on Windows, even if web developers try to hide stuff or don't want people to download a picture I can still get it. What to do without an Activity Window?
Things are changing, and not for the better with todays termination of my beloved iDisk and Gallery. But I digress.
It's a pain. The only option is Safari-based option is to enable dev mode, try to highlight the general area and then use Web Inspector to hunt down the specific line in the code so you can copy it and then open directly. That's for trying to find a direct link to a video. Images a little simpler as they are usually in an images folder that is easier to sort through. Still a huge PITA.
The only viable option at this point is to have a 3rd-party browser installed so you can use it instead. Hopefully someone will create a Safari Extension that resolves the issue.
Comments
Really? Just how was Adobe working with Apple?
- Working to make Flash the universal standard while it ran like Crap on Macs
- Offering Mac Photoshop users free cross-grade software so they could switch to Windows, but not the opposite
- Mac versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite running miles behind the Windows version
- Taking years to adopt Apple technologies like Intel native apps, etc
- Optimizing the heck out of the Windows version so that it ran faster than the Mac version even when the Mac had faster hardware.
It has been at least 15 years since Adobe was on Apple's side. And you can't argue that it was because of relative sales volumes because for most of that time, Adobe's Mac products outsold their Windows products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
One of the last functions, the ability to upload files, comes in iOS 6.
Cool. That is the first I heard mention of it. I haven't kept up with this version of developer releases. That was one of the things that I noticed right away when I got my iPad. So are they just going to allow access to the camera roll? It would be cool if you could also access email attachments or even sand boxed app documents like iWork of PDF Pro.
Remember, you thought it important enough to reply.
On the Samsung S3. I received one for work last Monday. Wednesday they sent out an email notifying all 20k mobile phone users that all Andriod phones were disabled as of midnight because some pre-installed app on some phones had copied and transferred our entire corporate contact database to a server in China. Oh well I got a few hours to play with it. Even better I got an iPhone on the way.
First, I am a programmer, instructional system designer and educator. I try to find the best tools to fit various hardware, be it Mac, PC, or mobile devices. I have programmed in Flash, and was well aware that Flash support was coming to and end for (at least now) Android Jelly Bean 4.1. Don't have any feelings one way or the other - I just adapt to the needs of my learners.
Some comments have mentioned they don't see Flash unless it pertains to games or ads. Currently, many distance learning programs export a swf file. Some examples are Adobe Captivate, Articulate, Lectora, etc. They have read the writing on the wall, and have made an effort to generate other exports (HTML5, ios, etc). The HTML5 exports are .. well ... terrible at this point. But if you don't know CSS, javascript, C#, etc, this is at least an honest effort.
Another interesting comment is devaluating the Android operating system. As most in this forum know, OS X Leopard has BSD code. Android is a Linux-based OS. So they really have something in common.
So am I a fandroid? I own an iPhone 4, iPad 2, have just preordered the Samsung Galaxy S 3, have two pcs and one notebook.
Adobe purchased Macromedia in 2005 (yes, looked it up). In another seven years, I have no doubt javascript and css will be replaced by something else. As mentioned in the first paragraph, programmers don't (or at least shouldn't) lament; rather they should learn to change with the needs of their users, and the accompanying technology.
I said they were working to a common goal, not working together. Apple was trying to offer mobile users the best web experience, Adobe was trying to do the same but from the point of view of allowing publishers to provide them rich content that web standards couldn't do at the time in a reliable way.
When Apple opened up access to hardware acceleration, Adobe improved Flash within a matter of weeks:
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/22/apple-opens-door-to-hardware-accelerated-decoding-of-h-264-in-flash-and-other-platforms/
Flash doesn't work too well on Windows, it doesn't block background loading like the Mac. If you open a Youtube video in a background tab, it starts playing. People have developed extensions for FF and Chrome to stop it happening. It crashes on Windows too:
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/rErLtVD9It4
I don't recall that being the case, it seems it's not now but they'll always find a way to get you to pay for the cross-grade anyway. You can't cross-grade old versions:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/order-product-platform-language-swap.html
It shouldn't be an issue at all with the cloud license they offer.
Some of this was down to Apple's choices. They threw their entire OS out and started over. They expected Adobe to support Altivec and then ditched the entire architecture. Adobe has a massive codebase, they can't just rework it on a whim, they have to do a lot of testing to make sure it's rock solid. They certainly could have moved quicker but I don't see that it was malicious.
Perhaps my memory is off but i seem to recall that an Adobe employee blog basically spelled out why Flash on Macs was so far behind Windows, specifically naming the lack of access to HW acceleration and then shortly after Apple opened it up.
Client-side PHP perhaps. It saves data translation when communicating with the server (assuming the server is using PHP) and is object-oriented. CSS could be nothing more than an array of values, which is much more flexible as they can all be animated easily and shared using variables. No JS frameworks needed. To animate a style, you just change the style array values, not the object.
Markup would be done in a separate format like how Apple makes .nib files but you wouldn't write these by hand in the same way you don't write PDF, Word, Illustrator, Indesign markup by hand. The layouts you create in these files have expansion properties for dynamic content and selector IDs. The IDs that are handled by PHP. The executable parts are then entirely separated from content and the content is separated from style by design - MVC. This helps with languages. The layout designing would have to be supported in the browser itself and can be mapped to a database so that styles could be nested by users but again, not using code to prevent security vulnerabilities.
It would support arbitrary data in a container so a user could embed a vector, text, an image and video without having to know what markup defines each.
There would be the possibility to compile bytecode (encrypted bytecode too) for deployment and offline storage in a sandboxed space.
This is pretty much how Adobe Air will be built. It offers the possibility of appifying the desktop web experience like the mobile one so you can get a Netflix app or New York Times app that is easy to develop but offers the ability to monetize content. It would still allow the web to work as normal but there's no distinction between app and site. Right now, sites can't do that because there's such a big difference between the client-side and server-side models. They should be the same.
Better yet, just remove it completely from your Mac. It seems ideological, but I am realising the tangible benefits of doing that.
I hear the iRaqpad and iRaqphone is doing quite well, since the US won that war.
Hmm... Imagine if that happened with an iPhone. "AppGate", "AppleGate", "iPhoneGate"... Entire web servers would buckle under the load of the online vitriol.
That's a fair point, but Steve had a counter-intuitive view. Programmers should ~drive~ the right technology ~for~ their users. Not merely adapt.
Yes, but that was a bogus argument.
Even after they had access to hardware acceleration (in the way they wanted it) on the Mac, it sucked. And before they started using hardware acceleration on Windows, the Windows version was still better.
Furthermore, they always had access to hardware acceleration - they just had to use Apple's APIs. They wanted to bypass Apple's APIs and have direct access to hardware acceleration. This would have made their security issues even worse with very little performance benefit.
It may have still sucked in comparison to Windows and sucked overall but it was still much better on resource usage with the HW acceleration which means that Adobe was correct to point out this issue. That makes the argument very valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Better yet, just remove it completely from your Mac. It seems ideological, but I am realising the tangible benefits of doing that.
Actually, I found that the best solution is to move the Flash plugins from the main /Library/Internet Plugins folder to a separate Plugins folder inside of the iCab web browser.
That way, you still have one browser that can run bonafide Flash. By moving the Flash plugins out of the main Library folder, web browsers like Safari and Firefox will believe that the plugin isn't installed and will never render the content.
I think I am firing up iCab 1-3 times a month to access Flash-based content. Without a doubt, at some point in the not too distant future, I will realize that I haven't fired up iCab for several months.
I just have the projector downloaded. If I really want to see a Flash element, I download it and view it there.
*shrug*
I hate that Safari 5.2 and 6 have removed the Activity window, but I'm also viewing far fewer Flash elements that can't be "legitimately" downloaded than five years ago, of course.
Yes, the browsers entirely not rendering Flash (and Java, I hate Java apps) is exactly what I want. Tell you what, my quality of life has improved. As for a backup for viewing Flash-based content, at first I kept Chrome around or what not and then a few months ago I just decided, anything that really needs Google or Flash, outside of do-or-die emergencies, screw it. I'm purging Google and Flash from my life as far as possible. Bought Pixelmator, hope never to touch Adobe stuff again, in this case not out of spite but personally because of cost and I don't want to pirate software or content ~anymore~.
Well, that's the steps I'm taking, will it pay off? Maybe it already has. The moment I turn off AdBlock in a web browser on Mac or iPad, I am absolutely blown away how nonsensical the web has become. Like the post-PC, there is a "post-web" ecosystem forming. I'm not talking Web 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever, but literally post-Web.
Just look at a website ~ when was the last time you actually managed to find exactly what you wanted or do what you wanted without wading through superfluous content, ads, clicks, surveys, logins, etc. I'm not saying we should rush things but Steve said, "focus is about saying No, and when you say No you piss people off". Web developers must learn to tell clients "No", because most clients are only now "getting" the "Internet". And the post-Web ecosystem is here. Web developers must educate clients on this.
Eg. Like I mentioned above, just make a decent but lean web app that runs on desktop, laptop, mobile and tablet. Done. Then see where to go from that. Don't make the "full e-commerce site with blah blah blah" then ~later~ panic about a "app".
I just got Dirt 3 Showdown, nice, and they have some stats thing you can access on a website... Mostly with Flash. No thanks. Multiplayer? Xbox Live subscription needed. No thanks.
Keep it simple, and as we see from Apple, beauty in simplicity is what the world so desperately craves for in this day and age where every second of life is crammed to the brim with unimportant rubbish.
And that's why Flash is dead to me. The philosophy behind me has come to an end of its usefulness.
They're going to remove it? I'm on 5.1.7 and using it to download stuff: I highlight a line in the Activity Window, Cmd-C, go to the Download Window and Cmd-V. Works like a charm, though not on Windows, even if web developers try to hide stuff or don't want people to download a picture I can still get it. What to do without an Activity Window?
Things are changing, and not for the better with todays termination of my beloved iDisk and Gallery. But I digress.
It's a pain. The only option is Safari-based option is to enable dev mode, try to highlight the general area and then use Web Inspector to hunt down the specific line in the code so you can copy it and then open directly. That's for trying to find a direct link to a video. Images a little simpler as they are usually in an images folder that is easier to sort through. Still a huge PITA.
The only viable option at this point is to have a 3rd-party browser installed so you can use it instead. Hopefully someone will create a Safari Extension that resolves the issue.