Adobe man to Apple: 'Go screw yourself' Adobe platform evangelist Lee Brimelow has told Apple to "go screw yourself," upbraiding the Cupertino cult for banning iPhone and iPad applications translated from code Steve Jobs doesn't like. Such code includes - most famously - Adobe Flash. Yesterday, Apple released an updated SDK for the upcoming iPhone 4.0 OS, and unlike …
It's nice to know that at Adobe only has the best interests of its customers at heart.
Oh, no, wait, they're a bunch of money grubbing little shits who annually screw over most of the creative world by charging obscene amounts for their software.
Glad we got that one sorted.
Adobe has never accepted any sort of criticism, constructive or otherwise. They insist their buggy crap is the best stuff on the planet, and refuse to make any bugfixes or improvements.
For example, flash stopped working in Firefox on Debian until I set GDK_NATIVE_WINDOWS=TRUE. Why? WTF? Nobody really knows. It's just a magic word you have to say. And it took many hours of googling and hair-pulling so I could use some work-related sites that the assholes insisted on coding in flex.
That's why I'm forced to agree with Jobs for a change. I doubt he can bash them hard enough to get any customer service out of them, but at least he's raised the issue and gotten some movement on it.
I have always bitched about flash and refused to use it, but people just looked at me funny and treated me like some sort of net-luddite. Now they say "oh you're just jumping on the Apple bandwagon..."
Quit ranting at Adobe. Eclipse also doesn't work either unless you set GDK_NATIVE_WINDOWS=1.
GDK changed from using X11 Windows to client side windows. Some existing programs are going to have an issue with this since they might be calling X11 functions and these could easily break if GDK windows don't actually correspond to X11 windows.
I have Adobe CS2. It was very expensive. It must be installed _exactly_ the way that _Adobe_ wants, and if I make any changes, it breaks, as in it decides that I've got an unlicensed install, and there's all kinds of problems until I delete the install (_all_ of the install, and it dumps stuff over half the damn system) and do a _complete_ reinstall. Microsoft, by comparison, is sensible. MS Office can be installed where I want it and how I want it, and if I modify the install after the fact the only drawback is that the MS patcher won't patch stuff that's not where it expects it to be. And, as the MS patcher has (many) other problems, I tend to avoid using it unless I absolutely have no choice, so this is not a big deal.
I still use CS2 on my personal Mac for several reasons, one being the cost of replacement, and another being the simple fact that the only upgrade I'm interested in is 64-bit capability, and _Adobe does not have 64-bit versions of any of its CS software for Macs, though it does for Windows_. Frankly, they're not getting one penny more from me until there's feature parity for Macs. Period. Not at the price they demand. I've got an older G5 running an older version of Mac OS X upon which CS2 will run without problems (so long as it's installed the Official Adobe Way, no 'jailbreaks' allowed) and that will remain my CS platform unless and until a future version delivers the feature parity I want. Note that CS5 is not going to be that version, based on currently available info.
We still use CS2 at the office, and it does run on Snow Leopard (though it doesn't like it) but I expect that it's gonna break with the next version of the OS. The Unofficial Word is that Apple is preparing to unleash a suite which will be in direct competition with CS, only a lot cheaper, Real Soon Now. If that happens, and if said suite is as least as good as CS2, we'll be moving to that one, and not buying Adobe stuff ever again.
I've been a Photoshop user since version 1. it looks as though I'll stop being a Photoshop user in the near future. And it will be because of the way that Adobe has ramped up the price will failing to deliver features available on the Windows side. I suspect that I am not alone in my sentiments. I further suspect that Adobe could fix this, if they wanted. And I further suspect that they have no (current) desire to do this. This may change when Apple releases its CS killer and Adobe's marketshare falls off the roof, but then it'll be a tad late.
CS2 was written/coded for OS X 10.4 on the G5 platform. It will NOT work properly on the Intel Macs because by that time CS3 had been released for over 6 months.
What do you want? Should Adobe go back and re-write CS2 applications after they had a newer native release already shipping? That' insane.
I wasn't aware that there was exactly one way to create an image, or a poster, or a web site, or a PDF, or even a flash animation for that matter. Silly me. Clearly Adobe have you over a barrel because there is absolutely no other way to do these things without their expensive tools. Oh wait there are countless ways, many of which are completely free.
This is just Apple again demonstrating why a closed platform is a horrible idea for everybody. They don't want Adobe selling a tool which spits out a valid executable so they've banned the concept outright. A reasonable company would have shared appropriate technical knowledge that would allow 3rd party tools to generate compliant code. Then again Apple aren't a reasonable company.
My guess is DrXym is a hobbyist and his livelihood is not dependent on what he produces with his graphics software. I've tried every product out there including the infamous Gimp and can say without a doubt nothing can do what Adobe Photoshop does (as well as it does it) and so yes anyone who needs the power of Photoshop is locked in. I don't approve of Adobe's (and for that matter Apple's or Microsoft's) business practices but I buy the right tool for the job which means I will continue to give Adobe and Apple and Microsoft my money when they are making the best tool for my needs but I also reserve the right to complain about their business practices and products.
Come on.. I'm a Linux user, so perhaps more aware of "lock in" than most. This is not it.
Adobe produce the number one image manipulation application. And truth be told, they justify a lot of pro users buying a Mac.
But how exactly do they lock anybody in. By making super complicated integrated applications that need a whole Adobe stack? No.. Sorry. Photoshop + Win/OSX and you are good to go.
By only outputting images that Adobe products and nothing else support? Nope.. Again, no lockin.
By providing functionality that nothing else does.. Ahhhh..
This is called functionality. It's what you are paying for you twit.
Lockin is a forced use because the application or platform deliberately makes it as difficult as possible to move to an alternative product for artificial reasons.. Closed unique file formats, closed superficially patented protocols etc.. Not features that nobody else has.
Strangely enough, I haven't heard many cases of Adobe suing other image editing companies for providing similar tools, or vice versa.. And I'm sure they have patents on more than slidy unlock controls and window decorations.
Something for the fanboys to chew on.. Apple is a tiny niche. Holding on for dear life to the little market it has carved out in graphic design agencies and as poser gear for trendy gits. . Not some incredibly valuable corporate market.
If Adobe decided to abandon Photoshop on Apple OSs, which do you think would survive in graphic design agencies.. Apple or Adobe?
So skip the whole Adobe whine. Not fooling anybody. If your iProduct can't use flash, get over it. They are low power devices that are not designed for heavy processor tasks. Nobody expects them to. And stop parroting everything that his Steveness tells you. He is a salesman. Not the messiah.
You acknowledge that Photoshop is superior and then complain it commands a premium...
At the end of the day Photoshop just spits out images, i.e. a bunch of bytes in a well defined format. If you don't like how much Adobe charges to manipulate some graphics, use another tool. There are plenty out there. Not every one needs the Photoshop feature set, and even if you do, it's not the only tool high end professional tool if you do. If you don't like their monopoly, just use aa competitor. Better yet, put a bug bounty on the GIMP to implement whatever features it's missing and then benefit from free licensing for ever after.
That's why they won't be seeing a penny more from me unless and until they deliver the features I want.
As for the various free/cheap alternatives... I use several, such as Graphic Converter, to do _some_ of what Photoshop does. The problem is that _nothing_ out there does _everything_ that Photoshop does, and that Photoshop does things that _nothing else_ does. If there was a viable alternative I would be using it.
And, yes, I've tried using the Gimp. No, it won't do what I need.
Let's see... For Just a PhotoShop 7 license a few years back, I was able to by the entire Pro Creative Suite 1 for $499 US. That include Indesign 3/CS, Illustrator 10/CS. Upgrading the three would have been over $700 (I had legal licenses to all of them). I do professional graphic design & marketing.
Adobe has an 18 month release cycle. I skipped CS2 and used CS for 36 months and then gave Adobe $799 for the CS3 version. 36 months later I'll be giving Adobe another $799 for CS5.
So what do I get for paying Adobe their "money grubbing" software prices?
I charge my client MONEY for the time I spend using Adobe's software! I keep time sheets for the various things I do like layout time, photo-editing,vector-artwork and web pages. I get PAID nicely for the ability to use my design talents and get projects out the door using Adobe's software. So My $800 per 36 months nets me over $80,000 in the same time frame.
Glad we got that one sorted out.
well that helps for decision making
I was meant to replace a mac mini ... that will become a shuttle pc, and as for my iphone contract renewal ... I am going to look at nexus .
Can't stand Apple's attitude at the moment. Consumers should react !
Jobs stance toward flash is ridiculous, at his level he probably knows very little about it and is simply repeating what his technologists are saying. Typical in IT morons:
don't know something =negative judgement,
rather than seeing technologies for their merits.
and then iAd ... need I say more. I for one find apple products very good, but I must join the boycott ! viva la revolution !
They do, in ever increasing numbers ... just look at Apple's quarterly figures.
Consumers don't care about the technology, they care about the experience it gives them.
Jobs may not be an engineer but he is no IT moron. He may not be the nicest person in the world but that does not make him a devil either.
Nexus is nice, Desire is better.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/04/06/review_phone_htc_desire/
The only downside is that HTC Sense is a bit of a sod to code for as bits of it diverge from the Android standard.
If you're a code monkey go for the N1, if you're an average user, Desire.
HTH
Jobs understands Flash perfectly. In particular he understands that if it is allowed to run on his mobile platforms then there is no need for an App Market controlled by Apple - everyone can just run Flash "apps".
Jobs hates other people - whether users or developers - having any level of control over "his" platforms and will do anything, and spew out any nonsense about technical issues, to prevent it.
The man is, and I mean this quite literally, insane. His control-freakery has long since past the bounds of what any rational person might exhibit and he needs serious treatment. But, ironically, as a control-freak he's not likely to allow a therapist anywhere near him.
This isn't about Steve Jobs, this is about Apple. You probably are correct about Apple not wanting another developer to make apps for their platform, and bypass their App Store.
Because at the end of the day, these are Apple's devices that they've created, on an Apple platform, with an Apple backend store.
And Adobe want access to all that for nothing? Or just bypass it all together?
So yes, Apple are right in wanting to protect what is theirs, not only because it supplies a better overall experience for the user, but because at the end of the day, they are protecting Apple's own profits. And what company doesn't look out for itself in the first place?
Adobe have created a leech product.
"Because at the end of the day, these are Apple's devices that they've created, on an Apple platform, with an Apple backend store.
And Adobe want access to all that for nothing? Or just bypass it all together?"
Sure. I know I want them to, as a user. Why shouldn't they?
"Adobe have created a leech product."
Well, if they did, they did it over a decade ago. How clever to go to all that bother in case one day Steve Jobs was to release a mobile phone that had a CPU in it.
Seriously, if you're so much of a fanboy that you believe the crap you posted, I'd recommend you just post your wages to Apple every month and cut out the delay in between.
Lock-in is bad for everyone except the paranoid fool in charge of the lock - and in the long run it would probably be bad for him too if he wasn't living on borrowed time anyway. The last hundred+ years of consumer rights legislation has been as a reaction to exactly this sort of shit from manufacturers who think that after we buy their product they still retain some sort of ownership of it. They don't, and as long as Jobs believes that they do he can stick his shiny plastic tat up his arse.
IF you knew what you were talking about, you'd acknowledge that Adobe *can* produce apps for the platform that bypass the App Store totally. In fact, it was the way that Apple originally intended apps to be delivered. It's all here: http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html
As for "growing up", take some of your own advice and understand that Adobe, or for that matter anyone else, don't have a pre-ordained "right" to anything. Where does this over-inflated sense of entitlement come from? Apple, Microsoft et al. don't exist at Adobe's convenience. Apple, like it or not, are entirely entitled to decide how apps are written and deployed on THEIR platform. Don't like it? Don't develop for them. Simple!
When i hand over my hard earned whiskey vouchers in exchange for a piece of plastic crap, shiny or otherwise, I still cling to the quaint, somewhat outmoded idea that it's MINE, and that I have some (significant) input into deciding it's future.
clearly i wanderd in here by mistake, looking for www.theantiquesroadshow.com.
I don't know just how technically competent he is, but I get the feeling he's probably been screwed by some flash-based site that crashes all the time, and had to throw his macbook across the room and "now it's personal". I know I've been in the same situation myself (except for not owning any Macs). At least he's got the power to do something about it.
Maybe the same reason they can't fix any bugs - they don't know how half their code works anymore?
Ok, that's a joke. More seriously though, Reading the huge Risk assessment section of their SEC filing (link below), they seem quite aware that the landscape has evolved around them while they've been sitting on their laurels. They've got to do something if they want to save Flash... they need to prepare it for tomorrow's web.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796343/000079634310000007/form_10q.htm#riskfactors
If Adobe "deep links" into Apple's proprietary platform as it has done, then flashers are still tied to Adobe tools, and Adobe extends the reach of the Flash platform; the very thing that Microsoft crushed Netscape for doing. Flash also gets the enormous lift of a direct developer to punter marketplace that actually works. Flash developers pile in.
But if Adobe generates source code, they are providing a free tool for flashers to escape the control of Adobe, and move across to an ecosystem that works. Adobe shrinks by opening the exits.
If Adobe wakes up before it dies, their only option to grow Flash is to become a platform owner. Microsoft has just realised this, and it's currently called Windows Phone 7.
Maybe it's not HTC, but Adobe that's thinking of buying Palm.
Yep - if you look at what Apple are saying it looks to me more like they don't want you to create an App that actually exposes the API to the user - as a shim that runs, for example, some form of BASIC. That is, lets people write interpreted code themselves that directly affects the API. You know - so the phone part won't get stuffed and stop working.
but with one caveat, the multitasking in iPhoneOS 4.0 is not easy to handle. Actionscript translated to Objective-C, C or C++ might not handle the necessary functioncalls effectvely or not at all.
A converted flash application might behave like some unconverted ones do on Macs, i.E they take a whole core and run down the battery in no time.
If notebook makers started benchmarking battery lifetime with farmville instead of Office, we won't have notebooks rated at >4h :)
It's a licensing barrier that, per El Reg's other story, stipulates that "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs". So if you originally write an application in ActionScript then submit it to Apple, they can reject it for not being originally written in Objective-C, no doubt by looking for other traces of the Flash runtime support stuff rather than at the quality of the application itself.
Without actually knowing US law, I wonder how enforceable it would be if it ever came to trial given the sort of things that tend to matter in legal systems about the proportionality of a measure compared to the relative bargaining power of the parties involved. In practice I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually legal and, in any case, whether anyone will ever even bother to take it to court. I guess there's an anti-competition angle since Apple could in practice be distorting competition in the wider market by using its iPhone platform to limit software support for other platforms (in that Objective-C is Apple specific in practice and in any case has no ANSI or even K&R-style definitive spec), but it's probably a bit vague for a government body to actually step in, given that you can just write 90% of your cross-platform app in C++ and use Objective-C just for the front end.
Well Unity iPhone does similar -- it creates a complete Objective-C package which is then compiled -- but Apple's new odious T&C / TOC could read like this is banned too.
There are many worried Unity developers right now, including me, and other middleware platforms too (such as Appcelerator Titanium).
Here's what Unity's CEO has to say about it:
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2010/04/10/unity-and-the-iphone-os-4-0/
Honestly, could the guy have shot himself in the foot any more? First version: "Apple are the evil empire, censoring their employees and preventing them from expressing their view, whereas Adobe are wonderful champions of free speech, freeing the creative community from the shackles of oppression". Second Version: "[Redacted at Adobe's request] Adobe are wonderful (my own opinion) [Redacted at Adobe's request], freeing the creative community..." If one of the central pillars of your argument is that Adobe will allow you to go off-message if you want as opposed to Apple, you'd better be damn sure they will...
And I find it hard to be sympathetic to Adobe- I run a small tech company and I've wanted to get Creative Suite for a while now to build a company website and have a play with Flash, but £1,500 for the suite is a barrier to 'casual' entry and seems to exist only so that Adobe can regularly fleece the creative community (that they're apparently an enabler for) every 18 months by adding 4 or 5 features to each component of the suite, and mandating that you spend several hundred pounds to upgrade- even Microsoft don't have such a bare-facedly greedy approach these days.
It's also quite ironic for Adobe to position Apple as the bad guys who are trying to lock the internet down and control everything when their defence of Flash amounts to "Ha ha, you HAVE to use us 'cause we've got the internet video market sown up"- they're hardly an Open Source, Open Standards champion...
£1500 for an entire suite of professional grade tools is a positive bargain. And it doesn't require you perform mandatory upgrades. If you want to see a scam, go look at how much Rational tools cost for example.
If you run a small tech company you should know all this. If money is so tight, you could easily build a website with cheaper tools, even tools costing nothing.
Photoshop - Sure
Acrobat - Definitely!
Flash - I hate Flash-only sites. I'd only use 'em for games, but anything beefier will be done using JSF or Struts. HTML good! Flash bad!
Erm ... I think I just passed through all the stuff I would use from 'em. There was another one (PageMaker) which they acquired from Aldus, but it seems they wanted everyone to use its expensive sibling InDesign so they killed the app in which my CV and most of my serious documents were made in. Ironically, PageMaker was one of the Mac's "killer apps", looks like Jobs doesn't care about the companies that gave them the killer apps...
"Oh, no, wait, they're a bunch of money grubbing little shits who annually screw over most of the creative world by charging obscene amounts for their software."
If we swap "software" for "hardware" and then discuss their overly territorial and near psychotic attitude to banning applications, gee, we could almost be talking about Apple.
I could easily turn this into a diatribe about Apple's "we like creativity, providing people create what we say they can, how we say they can. Non Apple Approved Creativity is baaaaddd" rant, but let's face it folks, all companies are as bad as each other. Every organisation is guilty in part or in full of the great crime of "trying to control the market place". Admittedly I feel that Apple is one of the most unpleasent because of it's two facedness, but everyone is guilty, from Car firms, to computer firms to med tech firms.
My advice... get over it.
'copters - 'cos I love 'em.....
"Finally, the postmodern defense .... After "We Rock", "They Suck" and "You Suck" we are now at "Everyone sucks".
I was waiting for it." ...... Destroy All Monsters Posted Saturday 10th April 2010 17:48 GMT
And the postmodern attack vector, for the next phase, Destroy All Monsters, is ......... Everyone Rocks.
* Special Forces with Special Forces for Special Forces in Special Forces ..... for AI Specialisation in XSSXXXXPEditionary Phormations. ......... CyberIntelAIgent Command and Control of Consciousness with Communicative Computers as Civilised Cadres.
If One insists on Presenting a Crazy Chaotic World as a New World Order Model Program, One cannot then Not Expect a New Model World to be Programmed.
Welcome to the Cinderella RockerFeller Project for Civil CyberSpace Pioneers and Earthed Base Fellow Followers/Leading Support Troupers.
I'm sure I read somewhere that more than 50% of CS sales are to OS X users. I'm sure Jobs calculated that Adobe can't afford to walk away from OS X before embarking on his anti-Flash crusade. Say what you want about his methods, but his history with Microsoft suggests that he's willing to swallow his corporate pride — when he returned to Apple they took a huge wedge of money from Microsoft in return for an IP cross-licensing deal and a five year commitment by Microsoft to provide Mac versions of Office and Internet Explorer. Safari appeared only after Microsoft announced the winding down of IE for Mac development and Apple quietly put Appleworks out to pasture, implicitly accepting that Microsoft own the office market.
That said, Adobe have done a lot to lock out the competition, especially since buying Macromedia and killing Freehand. About ten years ago Corel tried to reposition CorelDraw as a Photoshop/Illustrator rival, rolling in a photo editor and rebranding as "CorelDraw Graphics Suite".
I think the calculation ends up being that if Adobe walk away from OS X they lose more than 50% of their customers in the short to medium term and in so doing they at least open the door to rivals. Even if it made Apple lose 100% of their desktop customers that's less than 50% of their income stream. So if Adobe walks away there's a real risk it'll hurt Adobe more than Apple.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've had an ipod touch for a while now after buying it off a friend who upgraded to an iPhone proper.
I was trying to make my mind up whether to go iPhone, which despite its locked down system isn't too bad, or an Android. Well given that the locked down on the Apple is only getting worse I am 100% convinced to go with Android.
Thanks Mr Jobs, you saved me any more thoughts on the matter, decision made :]
.. go screw yourself to Mac users for over a decade now with severely sub-standard software releases for the platform. Wake up you Adobe fuckwits and smell the coffee, Apple have got sick of your tiresome bullshit and you absolutely fucking deserve what you are getting from them.
Consumers like software that is compact, runs fast, doesn't suck battery life, doesn't crash, is designed well for the platform and so on...
Developers are obviously more interested in cutting corners, writing one game that runs on many platforms. This is hardly in the interests of the end user. It's about time someone made a stand against the increasing bloat and abstraction in software.
Its not just Adobe that's blocked, MonoTouch, Titanium, Corona etc all vastly superior tools to the dreadful SDK from Apple, its like travelling back a decade. This will mean more badly written apps not fewer.
On the other hand its great news for Rock Your Phone and their ilk as the grey market will now go mainstream. Apps like MyWi and My3G were compelling enough reasons for me to ditch Apple, but most consumers will want more - now they'll get it in spades. Cross-compiling stuff you're doing anyway is little effort, developers will take a punt and throw apps out to the opposition - without needing to jump the Jobsian hoops and paying a cheaper ferryman.
Apple have always had a shitty attitude to developers, but never before have I seen so many, so angry. Easy to make smug and clueless comments about CS5 [an unknown quantity, unlike much of what is now 'banned'], but a lot of developers have their livelihoods invested in propelling the iPhone to success - push comes to shove the hardware and OS are now poor compared to competitors, its developers not Apple that are responsible for its current success and they who added the actual value.
There are other ways of developing apps without the official SDK, in compliance with the new terms. Some compaines rely on it (eg. Grapple Mobile). Adobe can read the terms and adapt but they are being irrational.
Adobe should make Flash efficient, release a Windows 64 bit version, support 64 bit for their other apps - eg Premier Elements, Photoshop Elements.
If yor are whiter than white then people might give criticism some credence.
At the time CS4 launched Apple still claimed Leopard was 64bit (even though it wasn't) they only launched proper 64bit support with Snow Leopard so is Adobe expected to recode CS4 just for Snow Leopard's arrival ? Windows has had proper 64 bit support since XP so it's really Apple's fault there is not 64 bit PS for Macs.
I don't need Daddy Jobs censoring my life so I'll stick with Android thanks.
if adobe stop producing cs for mac... mac's figures will drop drasticaly. curently there arent any apps that do what cs does for any of the platforms.. i rate adobe should rather focus on win / linux for cs. leave the mac fan boys to their over priced systems.
handgrenade... cause its only time before apple get hurt back for what they doing to consumers / partners
Handbags at 10 paces? What a cry baby. I love his well thought out reasoned argument. (??)
Lets see now. Apple market shared in the US about 10%, the rest Windows, in terms of desktops. So what is there to worry about? Mobile phones that can browse the net, I'm not sure, but the IPhoneor IPad is certainly not 90%, or even 50%. so what is he so concerned about?
I'll tell you what the problem is, he has no real life, does not see the Sun and real people. His world is full of code, crap and nerds. Go outside, without any tech, it's real.
As Oliver pointed out Adobe are equally evil in the way they price their products, and charge far too much for minor tweaks.
This post has been deleted by its author
Let me tell all the moo-ing Apple haters what this is about:
This is about Apple's view of what the user experience should be on the iPhone (you know, that product that *they* make...) and their view of what needs to be done to preserve that. This is about the newly announced multitasking, and making sure that their implementation isn't the resource-hogging, battery-draining clusterfuck that it is on most other mobile platforms. In order to support multitasking without completely hammering battery life, iPhone OS 4 strips back background apps to just a handful of carefully managed threads, just the bare minimum to provide the necessary functionality (background audio playback, file transfer etc.). It cannot do this if it doesn't know exactly how the code is laid out. It knows how code is laid out in an application bundle produced by Xcode. It doesn't know how code is laid out in an application bundle produced by, oooh, say... Flash CS5...?
It's worth pointing out that this form of multitasking is very similar to Android's, but Google doesn't place as many restrictions on which languages developers code their apps in. That makes some developers happy, but it also results in a situation where Task Killer apps even have a reason to exist on Android. Apple doesn't want their users to ever need to think about such things, and in order to deliver that, developers have to work to a tighter set of specifications.
Now, your average forum troll wouldn't necessarily know this, but Brimlow *should*, and to my mind his whole attitude is colossally disingenuous.
This isn't about Flash, specifically. Adobe is flattering themselves if they think it is. This is about Apple fighting against Android. Comparatively speaking, I don't think Steve Jobs could give a flying fuck about Adobe.
Well said, couldn't have worded it better myself (not by a long shot!).
I keep saying it's all about protecting the user experience, the philosophy that Apple imbues into each of the products it creates.
People get all hot and bothered about "lock down" and "app rejection" but what doesn't accompany those hollow complaints is "what specifically this product doesn't do that you need it to do." The response is always, "I want the system opened so I can fiddle with it." Which translates actually into "you want a system in which others can fiddle to the detriment of the device in my hands!" Thank you, no, you can't have it completely open because I want my user experience perfect.
No this is about Apple blocking people from accessing millions of flash apps and keeping everyone on their App store.
They are welcome to do it on their own platform but tthey just don't have a right to expect developers to hang around for it, Android is as big a shadow on Apple's horizon as Windows was in the 90's.
Soon Android will running on set-top boxes, home phones and even Microwaves.
It's not about Apple keeping you (for some petty reason) away from joyful times on a device, it's about protecting the user experience at the core of all their products.
I take it that some sites (though, I have turned off Flash and don't miss it, and only find myself turning it back on to view some YouTube video embedded in someone's Facebook post) we won't be able to enjoy, but that's a temporary thing. They will transition to non-Flash because they wouldn't want to miss out on the millions and millions of users who have devices that don't view Flash.
It will (hopefully sooner rather than later) and when it does, when they start embracing open standards, we'll all benefit.
BTW, Android will *never* be running in my home phone or microwave!
"No this is about Apple blocking people from accessing millions of flash apps and keeping everyone on their App store."
I don't think you understand the difference between not having Flash in the browser, and not using Flash to write apps...
"They are welcome to do it on their own platform but tthey just don't have a right to expect developers to hang around for it"
And so your point is...?
"Let me tell all the moo-ing Apple haters what this is about:
This is about Apple's view of what the user experience should be on the iPhone (you know, that product that *they* make...) and their view of what needs to be done to preserve that."
No it's not. It's about lock-in. It was bad when MS did it, it was bad when IBM did it, and it's still bad today. Everyone who tries it waves the "consistent user experience" or "QA" cards, but it's always about keeping control of the user locked down tight.
"I don't think Steve Jobs could give a flying fuck about Adobe."
His actions suggest otherwise.
Apple deserves to be hated because it does not respect it's customers.
I've bought many of Apple's products and I used to appreciate their products but now that it's clear what Apple is REALLY about I happyly and glady have converted myself into an Apple hater.
My next systems will not run MacOS , they will not run Windos either, and they will not run anything from Google either. My next systems, as most of my previous ones did, will run one of the true Open Linux distributions : Debian or Ubuntu, and I hope many will start to understand that 'Freedom' can only come if Customers have Choice and I hope people will stop surrendering their 'Freedom' so darned easily to this and that company.
For some reason that I don't care about, Apple hates Adobe. Fine, I don't care.
But this change has enormous collateral damage on app developers using myriad other technologies. For example, mainstream traditional tools like lex and yacc are now banned. Writing the critical bits of your code in assembler is now banned. Using some crufty old Fortran code that computes map projections is now banned. All three of those catch my apps, which could disappear from the app store at any time. So I guess I need to find another income stream. I hear Android is selling OK.
But there are others who are even more seriously impacted, e.g. the people who are doing cross-platform app development using Unity, MonoTouch, and embedded scripting in things like lua. This is not just a few apps on the fringes, but many very-mainstream apps including some of the top-selling games.
FYI there is much discussion of this on the Apple developer forums, but the threads are being deleted or locked by Apple's moderators.
Crazy times....
Adobe practically built Apple. PageMaker is responsible for more Apples ever getting bought back in the day than any other software. This is how Steve Jobs repays those who help him. He is now obsessed with maximizing the number of zeros on his bank statement. Many times over the greediest mammon worshiper. Amazing how so many can be fooled with a simple pair of jeans and a turtleneck.
"Adobe practically built Apple"
um... yeah, ok... and remind me again who Adobe was selling all of their software to at the start, so that they could, you know, get stronger as a company and build a lasting base for the future...? what's that...? oh, yeah... people with Apple computers...
The days of Adobe "helping" anyone but Adobe are long over. And that's fine, but don't show your ignorance by pretending Adobe are some kind of altruistic bunch of hippies who just want to spread the love. Did you by CS4 when it came out? DId you happen to check just how much more it cost in the UK to download the exact same software as in the US?
That may clarify a few things for you...
Because MS brought Word and Excel to the Mac, before Windows was a gleam in their eye.
Did they built Apple as well?
No one other than the buying public built the companies, not a single company.
What Aldus/Adobe did, together with Apple was instigating the Desktop Publishing revolution.
Although I hate adobe at least the guy said how he felt, you would never hear this from a Microsoft/Apple employee (except Balmer) .
I really hope that HTML5 video is widely used if for no other reason than to piss of Adobe.
P.S : When you get round to adding the Balmer icon can you please use this
http://360.kombo.com/images/content/news/balmer_developers.jpg
I can see why Apple does it. Ever wondered why Windows touchscreen devices are relatively awful? Windows and its apps were never designed for a small touchscreen interface. Apple want dev's to develop interfaces for the iphone itself, not just lazily put in an interpreter shim in for something designed for a different platform and interface. Plus there's all those other issues with intepreted code and battery life etc.
If you don't like it, you could just use a website with proper html and you can have any backend coding language you like!
I don't have an iphone and the restrictions are very onerous, but there is a certain logic to it and Apple are nothing if not obsessive.
Icon: It's no Commander Data but still it's an ...
There's nothing inherently wrong with interpreted code, it's useful for adding scripting/macro capabilities to many types of apps and games.
But this argument about "interpreted code" misses the bigger point, that apple is attacking cross compilers in general, even when they produce code which is run natively.
"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine"
Surely the end-users don't care what language a program is written in. In fact it's likely that apple itself wouldn't even know the original language of an application is without excerting resources to find out.
This course of action by apple proves beyond any doubt that no rule is too ridiculous when it comes to killing multi-platform development. They want porting efforts to be as difficult as possible. Human anti-innovation at its finest, I say.
I kind of doubt that, but I'll guess you meant Apple can live without Adobe.
Adobe's Creative Suite 5.0 will be released on Monday! Can you imagine the uproar if Adobe delayed the release for the Mac until Flash is put on the iPad and iPhone? I can imagine the uproar.
Can they live without PhotoShop, Illustrator, Indesign, DreamWeaver and Acrobat? Adobe just isn't Flash.
This feud goes a lot further back to the launch of OS X 10.0/Cheetah. Without native Adobe creative software on OS X until late in the 10.1/Puma, Adobe left Apple languishing without any major/killer productivity/creative software for over 1-1/2 years. Apple wanted OS X to launch with Adobe right behind them, and Adobe dragged their heals.
Not to mention that Adobe creative software performs better Windows NT kernel-based OSes than on OS X ( Also remember that Flash was a Macromedia program long before Adobe bought out the company).
So the feud started almost ten years-ago or better depending on how you look at it (PhotoShop 2.5/3.0 shipped natively for Windows in 32 bit, not the 16 bit for Apple).
Beer because I have to use both platforms and wish they would just down a couple and end the damned feud.
...about misreading the second half of your sentence!
So ignore my first paragraph.
But let me also add that Apple changed over to Intel hardware & 10.5 without letting Adobe test the platform before release. Therefore Creative Suite 1 & 2 were not written for the platform and would crash constantly if loaded on it. This is just another part of the feud.
Some people say this technology of Adobe builds native apps. This is completely wrong. It just packages the same murky Flash Runtime together with the app and makes it appear as a naive app.
Listen to Kevin Lynch (Adobe's Chief Tech Officer) in an interview on allthingsd.com in february:
"since we are not allowed to install the flash runtime in the operating system we are basically packaging it with the app"
No wonder Apple goes all postal on them. Despite telling clearly that they dont want the Adobe product ... Adobe is trying to sneak it in via a backdoor!!
I don't know if what was written above is true but if it is then it's clearly against Apple terms by still being interpreted code.
An alternative (which may be blocked by the new SDK wording) would be to have a library written in one of Apple's supported languages with the core Flash functionality in it, then to convert the Flash files in to one of Apple's supported languages that makes calls out to this library.
This can then be compiled as a native application with no interpreting. Obviously this may not be straightforward but it does remove interpreted code.
...Because Premier has such a large user base after adobe throw a spat over apple buying final cut pro and canceled it for the mac platform, and threatened to cancel other 'essential' programs.
Adobe would never stoop to apple's level would they...?
Adobe were very powerful in the early days of Apple, but they went on to produce software for Windows and weakened Apple once already.
Apple have learned from that mistake, and are very very careful in not repeating it.
That is why today, Apple are a commodity builder and not just purely a producer of Macintosh, and Adobe are no part of it.
That's the point, isn't it? You can use Adobe's tool (and undoubtedly others) to compile an app for iPhone, then, with a press of a button, compile it for Flash, which means that it will run on Android, Windows Mobile, RIM etc.
If you can develop for iPhone and other platforms as easily as iPhone alone, why just make an iPhone app? And if apps are available on all mobile platforms, why buy an iPhone? The App Store is currently Apple's leading marketing strategy.
Don't you love a clash of egos? It's always fun theater but I suspect Mr. Brimelow is fully aware that Adobe isn't the main focus. He must know the new conditions are there to sell Mac computers and create a homogeneous development ecosphere. It isn't like the iPhone SDK will be running on Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.
This is just another step in the vendor lock-in line dance providing end to end platform purity. You can also be sure the SDK will be setting some sort of "Genuine Win^H^H^HMac" flag to make preliminary app store screening easier. All your app are belong to Apple.
There are some software companies that I just cannot feel sorry for. Market share is won through the ability to wage business wars rather than produce superior software. The market won, quality evaporates. I'm not normally a big Steve Jobs fan but... I'm sick of Adobe Flash and Acrobat. I really like what Jobs is doing in this case.
...do not place restrictions on how Apps are built - they are already the source for the best Apps - stuff like iBlacklist, My3G, MyWifi which give the consumer essential functionality Apple don't like for commerical reasons, nothing to do with stability or code quality. _Every_ iPhone user I know who's seen these Apps working has since done a jailbreak - which has been both easy and riskfree for some time now, despite Apple's FUD.
Doubtless there will be howls of angst from mactards, but whats the point of a smartphone that doesn't let you use half of its Apps over 3G or use its connection from other devices? Why shouldn't you have control over who is able to ring you on your own phone or be able to change its UI to your liking?
Adobe, Unity, MonoTouch etc don't need to push iPhoney, they just need to continue regardless of Apple's stance. Rock Your Phone is doing very nicely and will doubtless be joined by other competitors given Jobs' stance.
"Developers are obviously more interested in cutting corners, writing one game that runs on many platforms. This is hardly in the interests of the end user. It's about time someone made a stand against the increasing bloat and abstraction in software."
It's not about cutting corners, it's about reducing costs, and having to maintain 2 code bases that do fundamentally the same thing but in different syntaxes is just nuts. You don't quite double your costs, but you're not far off.
You might not like this, but the fact is that if Apple don't allow it then some app developers will look at the numbers and consider that converting what they've got to iPhone isn't worth it. The gold rush is over on iPhone apps. So, rather than getting an iPhone version of CoolApp, you just won't get CoolApp at all.
Iphone vs Android is starting to look a bit like Apple vs Microsoft in the 80s, which MS in part won because they embraced developers and Apple didn't.
The only, and I mean the ONLY browser exploit I have ever seen in the three years since I went Mac has been flash based. Admittedly the worst it was able to do was alter the browsers user profile and redirect to add sites. But still.....
I don't miss flash on my iPhone, and after this I think I'm going to remove flash on my Macbook Pro. Adobe is being pissy because Apple's boycott of Flash is making alternatives to their buggy bloat more and more common. HTML5 video is the writing on the wall for flash and they know it.
Talk about hegemonic lock in, what makes them think they can DEMAND other people use their standard? They must think they are Microsoft. Honestly, with Youtube no longer requiring flash, what do I need it for? To power more flash based ads?
Adobe are way off the mark.
It because of flash and game-kits that the web enabled world is fully of skanky crap like the millions of crap-apps that flood all new mobile platforms and services such as facebook.
What apple are trying to do is preserve a quality of experience unlike any other on any other platform - and I think that is laudable.
that is a load if i've ever heard one. I mean, if they really need a certain format for multitasking to work (which is such a GROSS kludge) then document it! "app must support these callbacks" and such. This excuse is bs, and just a smokescreen for "jobs wants full control over how apps are made"
the excuse about bad ports is lame too... Just have ui standards if they want them. oh well, whatever, this is why i would NEVER EVER buy an apple product. (and for those apple fanbois, i don't use windows either -- i would use mac over the ever-shitty windows but my choice is "none of the above")
Adobe creates bloated, bug-ridden, insecure products. Anyone who puts pressure on them to change that design is doing a good thing in my book. I'm not an Apple fan and have no interest in an iPhone but I like seeing Apple put the heat on Adobe. They need to be forced to clean up their mess or become irrelevant.
Apple is just trying to do the same thing to their platforms that I do to my corporate network - keep crappy software of of it.
I have to start with the traditional disclaimer: I hate them all, Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, etc., but...
Rationalize all you want, but when Microsoft wants to do it ("Trusted" Computing), it's bloody murder screaming all over; when cool hip boys who think different (sic), but who couldn't actually be any more mainstream system, want to do it, then it's to "protect the experience", "avoid bad code", "it's all a bunch of garbage anyway", etc.
Interesting, the headology of human beings...
Appleinsider has a nice reminder of why Adobe is pot calling kettle black.
Apple develops Canvas, mozilla & Opera adopt it, Apple submits it for W3C to include into HTML5, declares it can be used royalty-free (it uses Apple patents of course).
Adobe tries to get it excluded, because it will let people do for free, what they like to charge them to do.
Interestingly, Microsoft pitches in for an exclusion too, but they're not part of the story because they're not crying a river. Which ever side of the MS/Apple divide you pitch your tent, you have to admire them for minding their own business and not blaming the next easy target.
There's more on the Adobe story on Appleinsider, it's worth a read just to remind you that they're not smelling of roses.
>Adobe tries to get it excluded, because it will let people do for free, what they like to charge them to do.
Dumb comment - Adobe have included export to Canvas in CS5, proving its perfectly monetisable and they certainly aren't afraid or protectionist about developer using it. Unlike Apple they realise their products depend on developers getting features they want an need.
>Which ever side of the MS/Apple divide you pitch your tent...
95% of people pitch with Windows - and looking at what happens when Apple get a little niche monopoly themselves, that's maybe not as bad a picture as many people paint.
Why is everyone so happy about HTML 5, atleast with Flash i can easy block it when i don't need it. With HTML 5 that 'animation code' now eats my CPU all the time and I can't intelligently block it. Videos load instantly etc. And we are now back with companies pushing different video standards.
it's cool to hate flash.. you know it "causes my browser to crash!!1!!!" even on the most advanced operating system in the world(TM). Flash is the most common cause of computers crashing since Microsoft were pushing Xenix don't you know! Let's forget the fact there's lots of shitty javascript floating around that's equally as "bad" as Flash, or the fact that HTML5 doesn't have any way to obfuscate code or any Adobe-like development tools so apart from Youtube-like sites is a non-starter ATM.
Oh yeah! Java is slow, Windows 2000 is better than XP, Linucs doesn't work with *any* hardware, clockspeeds are a myth (if you happen to be Steve Jobs and flogging PPC gear at the time), trackballs are better than mice, etc etc
Where is all the goodies for the Mac fans? i.e. Hardware accelerated flash?
Oh yea, this is a windows only world, but lets bitch we cannot get our code on the iPhone.
I say flash had it's time, now move over HTML 5 is here and all browsers should support that natively. Developers can now make pages to a standard and not have to worry about what version of 3rd party plug-in is installed.
Flash sucks, it makes the fan on my macbook go nuts. The video quality compared to a windows box is not as good. You can really tell they just want to cover the most popular bases.
"This is all an anti-trust issue. The guys that really get hurt are consumers and developers."
Actually it's not. Antitrust laws only apply to a company with a monopoly or near-monopoly. I think Apple's (well, Steve's) position is the exact opposite of what I want, and so my choice is to not touch iPhone with a 10 foot pool, and planning to get a Droid instead in a couple months (or some newer Android phone so long as it has a keyboard (I have a Modem M on my desktop too...) Or if you really want an "IPhoon" or something, go to alibaba or whatever, and buy one of those Chinese iPhones. I think some even will run J2ME apps. And probably multitask them too 8-) However, I'm a libertarian (I don't know what that's equivalent to in UK, but means I believe in minimal gov't intrusion). Apple can do whatever they want until they get the Windows+Linux+misc market down to like 5-10% of OS market, or in phones until they knock Android+Palm+Blackberry+ WinMo down to like 5-10% of the market. Apples are popular but they are not that popular by a long shot.
In 1996 when Apple was seemingly on the ropes, Adobe made a crucial business decision and one that is coming back to bite them in the ass. They declared that their primary development platform would be Windows; subsequently, every new application or major revision of a product was introduced for Windows first and followed months later, sometimes never at all, by a Mac version.
After Steve Jobs took over and he was charting out a new course with OS X, Apple reached out many times to Abode to introduce a native version of their suite for the new OS. Adobe never committed – standing by its prediction that OS X would never gain momentum or share and it would ride the Windows ascendancy. Adobe thought that it had the dominant hand and displayed its arrogance in public.
ZDNet, 2001:
Creative professionals will “be able to edit their video in Premiere, edit their images in Photoshop and be able to create DVDs in a very creative way”, Chizen said. But they may not be able to do that on a Mac with an Adobe product. Making a Mac DVD product is “something we’re still evaluating”, Chizen said.
A slice from 2002:
Adobe Acrobat 4.x and 5.0 currently do not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system. Adobe After Effects 5.0 currently does not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system. After Effects 5.0 is supported in OS X classic mode
Adobe FrameMaker 6.0, FrameMaker+SGML 6.0 and FrameViewer 6.0 currently do not offer native support for Apple’s new OSX operating system
Adobe GoLive currently does not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system
Adobe Premiere currently does not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system. Premiere 6.0 also will not work in OS X in classic mode
Adobe currently does not offer native support for Adobe Photoshop Elements for the OS X operating system
Adobe Photoshop currently does not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system
Adobe LiveMotion currently does not offer native support for Apple’s new OS X operating system
CNet, 2004:
• Adobe dropping support for several Mac products, most recently its FrameMaker publishing software and most notably its Premiere video editing application, whose demise as a Mac application was attributed to strong competition from Apple’s Final Cut programs.
• Several new Adobe products have been introduced in Windows-only versions. In the case of Atmosphere, a new 3D animation application, the decision to skip the Mac was attributed to a small pool of potential customers. In the case of Photoshop Album, a light-duty consumer photo application, a similar application was already built into OS X. With its Encore DVD-authoring package, Adobe again pointed to competition from an Apple video application.
• Adobe caused a stir among Apple devotees last year by republishing test results that showed certain Adobe applications running faster on Windows PCs than on Macs.
• Adobe, which could once be relied upon to turn up at any Apple gathering, has skipped several Macworld events in recent years.
It wasn’t until 2005 that Adobe ported Photoshop to OS X.
Matter of fact, it was sure of its decision to forget OS X development that it focused Premiere solely for Windows – only to see Apple turnaround and buy a Macromedia offshoot, repackage it as a Final Cut and cut Adobe out a lucrative stream.
John Nack, 2006:
John Nack has answered the burning question of OS X Adobe app users everywhere on his blog yesterday: when will we see native Intel OS X versions for all the shiny new Macs Apple is rolling out this year? Unfortunately, the response is less than ideal. In fact, I think it belies something fishy is up either with Adobe, Apple or both.
John Nack’s answer is basically that they have no plans to update the current CS2 or Studio 8 suites to run natively on Intel OS X, which means anyone buying a new Intel Mac this year will have to deal with running these apps in the Rosetta emulation layer. While it seems like this might be at least workable for some users, it is by no means ideal. The only way to get an Intel version of either suite, as of Adobe’s current plans, is to purchase a new/upgrade suite sometime in 20
4 years since Nack’s decision, Apple is clicking on all cylinders – it has not only reinforced its dominance in the creative graphics segment but also the web development platform, the mobile development platform and content delivery. Adobe’s not feeling too good about their dominance or that primary development platform choice any more. Are they?
Adobe had multiple chances to prove their worth to Apple and they failed miserably. They ignored the OS X version of Flash. They ignored Photoshop – witness the rise of Acorn, Pixelmator etc.
Sorry, Adobe, you screwed yourself. You made a business decision in 1996 to screw Apple when it needed you most to gain credibility for its fledgling OS with the creative crowd. Somehow, Apple making a business decision to protect its customers from your shitty product is the most egregious ethical concern of our time.
How about Adobe start fixing their relationship with the Apple community one step at a time: fix Flash for the desktop and then we can chat about the iPhone, iPad and i….
Adobe made a wrong bet in 1996 and is suffering the consequences in 2010 and has no one to blame except themselves. It’s Adobe’s turn to show that it matters to Apple and the tech industry. I don’t remember Apple or Steve Jobs whining in 1996-2006 about Adobe not contributing to the Apple ecosystem.
Innovate or die, bitches!
So let me get this straight, you're saying that this is all a handbag fight?
Apple are going "Adobe pissed on us, so now we're going to piss on them" and anyone else unlucky enough to have their products caught in the crossfire is just collateral damage?
It's pathetic. Both of them should grow up and behave like adults.
If you are going to develop complex software, multi-platform is the thing you most want to avoid. It is complex, it limits the UI you can produce (you have to stick with the lowest common denominator) and it is very expensive. Read Alan Cooper's About Face for more information on why you don't want to do it. Adobe picking the (by far and away) market leader. This was no different to the shift in the CAD industry from UNIX to Windows in the late 90s. It happened because Windows machines became powerful enough for CAD software, and were far cheaper and more ubiquitous.
Personally, I'm surprised that anyone develops for Mac OSX since it is such a niche market (still).
Wow, reading these comments... it seems like people are so tied up in pissing and moaning about "Flash Good/Flash Bad", they're ignoring the bigger picture(s):
1. THIS IS NOT ABOUT FLASH. Jesus Harold Christ, people. Can we please look at what is actually going on? Multitasking eats power but is convenient. iPhones already have poor battery life. Apple figures out a way to implement multitasking on their platform without forcing you to keep your "wireless" phone plugged in at all times. They mandate best practices which include using the only compiler they know will support this. (Other companies do this, too. Quitcherbitchin.) A senior Adobe employee goes ballistic and acts very unprofessionally. End of story.
2. In an UNRELATED move, Apple doesn't want Flash on the iPhone for reasons that, frankly, are valid. Flash is a useful tool, in my opinion. But that's it; it's a TOOL. Not a religion. It's not your significant other. It's not some poor starving Haitian orphan. It's tool. Nothing more. In some instances, it is a good tool. In some, it's buggier than a tropical swamp. In the case of Apple, Adobe's actions have been less than stellar. It makes sense, in my opinion, to not allow Flash on the iPhone--or any mobile device. Heck, I'm thrilled it's not on my BlackBerry. Some people, however, seem to take it personally that we live in a resource constrained world. I wish I could magic all of you up a phone that has a quad core, multi-gigahertz processor, several gigs of RAM, a terabyte or so of storage AND a 2 year battery life. I can't. Not yet. Neither can Apple. Or RIM. Or Microsoft. Thus, tradeoffs have to be made. To capitalize on the outrage of people who don't seem to understand (even though they should) this basic fact of life, a senior Adobe employee has chosen to try and confuse issues 1 & 2 in an unprofessional manner.
Oh, and three asides:
1. The day Flash finally is supported by my BlackBerry is the day I'll start building a way to block it. I like my battery life, thanks just the same.
2. My mum has an older MacBook. She likes watching videos of cats playing chopsticks, etc. Safari on her MacBook was crashing on the average of once a week. I switched her to FireFox. Same deal. I switched her back to Safari and installed ClickToFlash. Not a crash since.
3. The last time I bought a new laptop, I had to "upgrade" Adobe Suites. (Yes, I use some of their products professionally.) The Adobe upgrade cost me the same as my new computer. Something's wrong here.
This is the year 2010. We don't build thing out of mud. If Flash support is Oh So Very Important, then people will run away from Apple and it's products.
Mac users have this little utility called Menumeters that has been showing us for many years just how much of a pig...rolling around in mud... that Flash really is.
Good riddance.
Flash is a criminalyu un-efficient platform who require super computer power just to play a video. it as poison the net wiith flash, acrobat and the like. it is not a standard, it is IMPOSED agains most user will. I hate Apple for thinking a iphone/ipad is a video game console. but will adore Apple for ever if it help get rid to of the flash monstrosity
You said, you use Apple products. That's a choice.
Now you said you won't be using Apple products anymore..that's also a choice.
Why are you implying that, when you buy an Apple product, you don't have a choice?
It was your choice in the first place to buy it.
I think you are bit confusing.
You hate Apple products, because you can't fiddle with it. Everybody knows that you can't fiddle with the products, so why buy them in the first place.
This post has been deleted by its author
Flash is a web browser plugin not a religion. Apple are quite within their rights to insist on coding standards on their own closed platform. Everyone else can cope with it, unfortunately Adobe don't seem to be able to I suspect for reasons as yet undisclosed.
That what started out as a web animation plugin has suddenly befitted religion status because it offers badly coded power sucking video delivery is beyond me. HTML5 video is the future.
This post has been deleted by its author
No comments here about Adobe or Apple products.
Only this:
The products that people believe are the most important (and it could be a hung parliament on this) are the ones that will profit.
The silly thing is that the two companies aren't really in direct competition and to lose support on a tiny, plastic, metal and glass "toy what also does phoning people" isn't really that big a deal. Is it? Apple certainly don't seem to think so.
Mine's the one with the "I'm bored of people arguing" design on the back.
Adobe wasn't sneaking Flash on the iPad. All it was doing was supplying a tool that lets a web site designer convert the Flash on his web page to an application... that would still have to go through the App Store, and be downloaded by the user of that web page in order to view, with that application, the content that would have been seen on the site with Flash.
Come to think of it, if Apple had to review zillions of web sites for App Store inclusion - and the applications didn't even have source code, because they were automatically generated from Flash - this could be a problem.
But I can't condemn Adobe for deciding that it couldn't afford to limit its own future to the future of the Mac when the Mac was in trouble. Switching to developing for Windows first only made sense. But not making a reasonable effort afterwards to keep the Mac versions of their software up to date, especially now that the Mac is doing well, is unfortunate.
While this does make me even less likely to consider buying an iPod Touch, iPhone, or iPad, and my first reaction was to defend Adobe from some of the statements here, I have to admit that Apple isn't as bad as might be thought either.
Hey if we give him long enough, maybe Jobs will just run off and start NeXT 2, this time.
This extensive Apple-politicking-about-flash news is starting to seem a little tiring, over here - not that I'd not want to see the news, just not the cheap behaviors that the news is about. I'd be surprised if it would seem like good news, anywhere else.
Adobes software is the worse in the industry stability wise and especially security wise. The less Adobe bloat malware you have on a box the better off you are. They also showed the world clearly why outsourcing your code to India is a horrible idea.
Apples business tactics have gotten as bad as Sony's lately. Then again their business model of turning the screws on their dumb fanbois is nothing new. At least unlike Adobe, Apple actually occasionally innovates and creates a decent product.
So in conclusion they both suck but if I had to pick a company to vanish, let it be Adobe. The world would not miss their rubbish (except perhaps crap web designers who think they are developers but world wouldn't miss them much either).
Most of the posters here are missing the whole fucking point of why this is a bad thing.
Not because Adobe Flash is great - it's not, it's a steaming pile of shit that I personally wouldn't touch with a barge pole, but because this is some serious animosity between his holiness and Adobe. Perhaps he's never forgiven them for releasing Photoshop on the PC, or for cornering the DTP market by buying Aldus, who knows, who cares. All we can see is it's personal.
And for those of you who think that Steve is doing this to keep up high standards of applications on the iphone, then YOU NEED YOUR FUCKING HEADS EXAMINED. Go have a deep look at the applications on the app store someday. Yes, there are some absolute gems (and I'm a happy iphone user who has bought many), but it's also full of utter crap. Making sure people code in xcode rather than flash doesn't mean that the apps will be any better. In fact, its easier to write buggy shite in C++ or Objective C than it is in any higher-level framework. It keeps some of the airhead designers out of code, that's for sure, but if they're forced to start playing with forces beyond their comprehension (ie real programming) then the apps they release will be doubly-shit.
So, what about the battery life under multitasking bollocks? Well, if this is a true reason (and it's understandable that stuff written in a generic framework won't necessarily be able to handle background activity during task switching efficiently) then it shows yet more Apple fail. Not all apps need to multitask. Hey, I sound like Steve a year ago. Anyway, the point is right. There are classes of apps (instant messaging, productivity, streaming music, etc) that need multitasking. Others don't. They could be paused. You don't want your game multitasking while you're on the phone, you want it put to sleep and to return when you finish your call). Multitasking should be an option built into applications (as it is at the moment, with apple apps multitasking), and it would be very reasonable for that to only be supported under xcode. Making EVERY app multitask is just as wrong as not allowing any to.
So yes, this is Steve's baby and he's entitled to make apps work in whatever way he feels like, but the real shame about this Apple police state for apps is just like in any other dictatorship, although it does keep the wheels moving and things work a lot of the time, a lot of innocent people get caught up in it and hurt, developers using other efficient iphone-specific frameworks as have been mentioned in the comments here. But at least Steve makes the apps run on time.
This is why the world has competition law, and also I assume this is more locking out Adobe (because it's designed directly for avoiding the kind of vendor lockin that Apple lives by and not many years ago would go crying to the DoJ that Microsoft were doing).
As somebody was saying the other day in a well put together article on another site, Microsoft is becomming the place for creative professionals to be, apple is just a dumb consumer electronics moron farm.
This kind of stuff and the likes of the Courier is the evidence btw.
Oh yeah and i s it me or is this more a direct attack on Air Mobile than anything else?
As much as I hate Adobe's CS tools (and my god, their Windows installer is the worst piece of software I've ever used, and that's saying something) the story with the OS/X migration is a *little* more complicated than Adobe saying "Ooooh, that OS/X platform will never amount to anything."
Does Quark ring a bell? They were even *worse* and it took something like four years for them to produce a version of XPress that worked on the 'new' Mac OS. Both Adobe and Quark had invested massive amounts of time and energy in developing software for the older MacOS 7-8-9 frameworks, and their users would *not* have been happy to migrate to a 'new' version that had fewer features. So both companies were on the hook for a huge investment in porting their suites of apps. As well, they probably both figured they had time since Carbon would be around for the foreseeable future.
Remember that Adobe took advantage of that 'break' to bring out InDesign -- they didn't have a competitor to Quark that anyone gave a rat's a** about before the OS/X migration, they sure as heck did after because they started from scratch. Meanwhile, Quark was left looking completely flummoxed. Result? InDesign stole the market from under Quark's nose.
So while I think there's a bit of 'handbags at dawn' going on here, I don't think it's entirely worth it to hold Adobe's behaviour in the 1990s up to the light as an example of them 'screwing over Apple'.
See here: http://blogs.adobe.com/digitaleditions/2010/01/epub_ipad_and_content_interope.html
Adobe bemoans apple's e-book DRM as limiting users. The reason I came across the post? Adobe's DRM was preventing me reading e-books on my Android mobile...
I did post a comment pointing this out. Unsurprisingly, it never made it through moderation...
Hey everyone (Adobe Flashbois, I'm looking at you)... Did you hear? Microsoft just released a <strikethrough>smart</strikethrough>socialphone that *gasp* DOESN"T SUPPORT FLASH.
Horror.
Terror.
Quick, you should all line up and never use a Microsoft product again, after such an egregious affront to the Holy Church of Flash.
Oh, wait. You can't use Apple products because of no Flash on the iPhone and now we can't use Microsoft products because of no Flash on the KIN... but... but... Flash Pro CS4 only runs on OSX and Windows... What will you ever do now?
Oh, I forgot. It's only cool to boycott Apple over Flash. There's a word for this. It begins with an "h" and rhymes with dypocrite.
PS I still don't want Flash on my BlackBerry.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
