I own a photoshop shop, and I would rather have all our macs running Photoshop 7, than change to Windows running CS 5 or anything...
and...
I think it is official: Adobe Flash just jumped the shark.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe CEO Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I own a photoshop shop, and I would rather have all our macs running Photoshop 7, than change to Windows running CS 5 or anything...
and...
I think it is official: Adobe Flash just jumped the shark.
Flash is gonna die a slow death now....there are too many Iphone\Itouches\Ipads out there. Apple will make a killing in the mobile space.
There is no way flash is ever gonna work smoothly on a mobile device, unless adobe gives it heart and soul to it and then just then it might. If Adobe was such an awesome company then it would come up with an awesome version of flash that just worked awesomely and magically on OSX and Iphone OS.
They just don't have the balls to do it...so Apple is gonna forge its own route. HTML5 is now gonna roll big time! Faster than anybody ever thought.
There is no way flash is ever gonna work smoothly on a mobile device, unless adobe gives it heart and soul to it and then just then it might. If Adobe was such an awesome company then it would come up with an awesome version of flash that just worked awesomely and magically on OSX and Iphone OS.
They just don't have the balls to do it...so Apple is gonna forge its own route. HTML5 is now gonna roll big time! Faster than anybody ever thought.
Apple has introduced many specs for consideration in web standards. The canvas element for example.
Canvas was a Microsoftian attempt to offer a quick-hack experience to troll Adobe. As Apple introduced it, it was pretty much Flash - i.e. not present in the DOM and ignoring standard alternatives such as SVG, instead just spraying ink to a blank area.
Shantanu is Toast
I got on to Flash early (at version 2) and loved it. It was coming into its own and ROCKING the web space. It was exciting and revolutionary. I was stoaked!
NoW? I have almost entirely moved away from it. Steve Jobs nailed it! Its time has passed. HTML5, CSS and Javascript RUN the client sides of the future. They are lean, mean and and don't come with the download in progress bar (at least to the horrid extent that flash does).
Let it go Shantanu. Trying to play defense on this makes it worse. Apple may be a horribly tyrannical company but that doesn't mean that your boughten technology is out of date and will slide in to cyberspace's dark waters.
I got on to Flash early (at version 2) and loved it. It was coming into its own and ROCKING the web space. It was exciting and revolutionary. I was stoaked!
NoW? I have almost entirely moved away from it. Steve Jobs nailed it! Its time has passed. HTML5, CSS and Javascript RUN the client sides of the future. They are lean, mean and and don't come with the download in progress bar (at least to the horrid extent that flash does).
Let it go Shantanu. Trying to play defense on this makes it worse. Apple may be a horribly tyrannical company but that doesn't mean that your boughten technology is out of date and will slide in to cyberspace's dark waters.
Shantannnannn.. not going to work for Adobe anymore anyways.
Sorry, that Office Space reference was too good to pass up!
Any Office Space reference is never to good to pass up... Nice one!
1. It's been in the given form for less than a year, but it's been released in various forms for the past decade.
2. Incomplete in the sense that, when implementing the provided spec, I can't run what?
3. Of course the reference implementation comes first - just as prominent W3C members get to turn their proprietary extensions (oh look, that phrase again!) into standards. Why does this worry you?
Haha. W3C is far from a level playing field. For over half a decade it's been little more (in terms the standards anyone actually takes notice of) than a forum for its corporate sponsors to push their own standards.
Not my words but couldnt say it any better!
This is a comment from the Wsj Blog about it
YawnIndeed wrote:
Open Content? As in Adobe products running on all machines? As in you either run Flash or nothing else and that makes Flash open?
Adobe is not about the consumers. Adobe is about making developers life easy so that developers will use its product. As a developer, I can appreciate Adobes one size fits all solution. One piece of code can run on all machines. The problem here is we are not talking about machines any more, we are talking about mobile space.
Adobe wants to be the monopoly layer between the hardware and the developers and thus the consumers. Adobe wants to control everything. In a way, it is no different than Windows being ubiquitous. My question is does everyone want Adobe to be like Windows? There will be no other choices but Adobe? If so, why bother buying Macs? iPhones? iPods?
Apple is about staying in business by keeping its customers happy. That means doing innovative design and UI to make peoples life easy. That innovation can not be hamstrung by a third-party sometimes-competitor who has its own interest at heart.
Flash is not about open content. Flash is about Adobe owning all. HTML5 is Open Standard. HTML is about everyone developing for every platform out there that adheres to HTML5 Open Standard.
This is a comment from the Wsj Blog about it
YawnIndeed wrote:
Open Content? As in Adobe products running on all machines? As in you either run Flash or nothing else and that makes Flash open?
Adobe is not about the consumers. Adobe is about making developers life easy so that developers will use its product. As a developer, I can appreciate Adobes one size fits all solution. One piece of code can run on all machines. The problem here is we are not talking about machines any more, we are talking about mobile space.
Adobe wants to be the monopoly layer between the hardware and the developers and thus the consumers. Adobe wants to control everything. In a way, it is no different than Windows being ubiquitous. My question is does everyone want Adobe to be like Windows? There will be no other choices but Adobe? If so, why bother buying Macs? iPhones? iPods?
Apple is about staying in business by keeping its customers happy. That means doing innovative design and UI to make peoples life easy. That innovation can not be hamstrung by a third-party sometimes-competitor who has its own interest at heart.
Flash is not about open content. Flash is about Adobe owning all. HTML5 is Open Standard. HTML is about everyone developing for every platform out there that adheres to HTML5 Open Standard.
There are heaps of free flash dev tools on sourceforge. Off the top of my head, there's an Eclipse plugin that works on all platforms but there are a couple of other very capable dev tools there as well (as in, I've used them and they work)
It's telling that all the actual developers are facepalming like mad at the moment. This is pure business spin. The Adobe CEO really shouldn't have let himself be drawn into a pissing match over this though.
Good luck blocking your popover ads when they're all HTML5, btw.
This is pointless and it isn't going anywhere. Both CEOs stick aggressively to their definitions. I'm not sure what "closed" and "open" means anymore, all I know is that they aren't talking about the same thing.
Just because Android will have Flash doesn't mean that Flash on Android won't suck. Maybe it's going to drain the battery life very fast, or that it's going to be super slow. That's not a solution, but we've yet to see what it's going to be like.
Flash is closed in the sense that Flash Player can only be updated if Adobe wants it to be. Flash is open in the sense that anyone can use it and there is no approval system, you can do whatever you want with it and use it on multiple platforms. The meaning of Open and Closed isn't obvious. Who cares about whether Flash is open or closed: it has worked very well so far on computers, but it won't work on mobile devices no matter what. Flash isn't designed for mobile platforms and that's obvious. You can't have ONE solution for ALL. Maybe HTML5 will sort of be the solution for all, but there will still be areas where HTML5 won't replace Flash.
I'm sure Macs crash due to a combination of badly written Flash and a bad way that the OS handles Flash. It's not that obvious, once again.
However, I think Steve's letter made lots of sense and was very honest in terms of numbers and facts. Narayen on the other side is just defending Flash with the usual stuff that companies say about their products.
Just because Android will have Flash doesn't mean that Flash on Android won't suck. Maybe it's going to drain the battery life very fast, or that it's going to be super slow. That's not a solution, but we've yet to see what it's going to be like.
Flash is closed in the sense that Flash Player can only be updated if Adobe wants it to be. Flash is open in the sense that anyone can use it and there is no approval system, you can do whatever you want with it and use it on multiple platforms. The meaning of Open and Closed isn't obvious. Who cares about whether Flash is open or closed: it has worked very well so far on computers, but it won't work on mobile devices no matter what. Flash isn't designed for mobile platforms and that's obvious. You can't have ONE solution for ALL. Maybe HTML5 will sort of be the solution for all, but there will still be areas where HTML5 won't replace Flash.
I'm sure Macs crash due to a combination of badly written Flash and a bad way that the OS handles Flash. It's not that obvious, once again.
However, I think Steve's letter made lots of sense and was very honest in terms of numbers and facts. Narayen on the other side is just defending Flash with the usual stuff that companies say about their products.
These are both companies, obviously, and both are doing what they think is best within their long term strategic vision.
I tend to see the Adobe + Flash issue in much the same way I viewed the Microsoft + Internet Explorer's issue with the lack of standards support for so long. Since Flash is currently so dominant, it's in Adobe's best interest to continue pushing that platform - even if it does hamper the development and use of more advanced and open web standards - because the lock-in is what makes them money. In this view Apple is like the Mozilla Foundation (although with a profit motive rather than a philosophical one). They see it being in their best interest to attempt to derail Flash.
I do think Apple has the better "openness" argument, but it's obviously just because HTML5 support is advantageous to them in this particular confrontation. You certainly don't hear them talking about phasing out Quicktime in favor of HTML5-based solutions.
I tend to see the Adobe + Flash issue in much the same way I viewed the Microsoft + Internet Explorer's issue with the lack of standards support for so long. Since Flash is currently so dominant, it's in Adobe's best interest to continue pushing that platform - even if it does hamper the development and use of more advanced and open web standards - because the lock-in is what makes them money. In this view Apple is like the Mozilla Foundation (although with a profit motive rather than a philosophical one). They see it being in their best interest to attempt to derail Flash.
I do think Apple has the better "openness" argument, but it's obviously just because HTML5 support is advantageous to them in this particular confrontation. You certainly don't hear them talking about phasing out Quicktime in favor of HTML5-based solutions.
Coincidence? I think not
Attention!
Mr. Narayen,
Apple's polling places will be open tomorrow.
Please stay at least 100 feet away.
People voting with their wallets tend to get excited.
That is all.
Attention!
Mr. Narayen,
Apple's polling places will be open tomorrow.
Please stay at least 100 feet away.
People voting with their wallets tend to get excited.
That is all.
Question
Ok, i'll bite, why 9 different browsers? No disrespect, don't troll me, I just want to know.
Ok, i'll bite, why 9 different browsers? No disrespect, don't troll me, I just want to know.
Confused
This guy is confusing "open standard" with "cross platform".
Talk about a smoke screen. His response sounds like a politician - ducking the question and giving an "answer" that doesn't respond to the question...
We support open standards ... we are very open to having you buy as many copies of our software as you need to be as open as you want ... and you can also have the pleasure of paying for it on many different platforms as well. We are very open to selling you a lot of stuff.
Adobe is suffering from Microsoft disease: They are too big and hold too much of their market, so they become complacent and stagnant, resting on the false laurels of assuming that high marketing share lasts forever.
This guy is confusing "open standard" with "cross platform".
Talk about a smoke screen. His response sounds like a politician - ducking the question and giving an "answer" that doesn't respond to the question...
We support open standards ... we are very open to having you buy as many copies of our software as you need to be as open as you want ... and you can also have the pleasure of paying for it on many different platforms as well. We are very open to selling you a lot of stuff.
Adobe is suffering from Microsoft disease: They are too big and hold too much of their market, so they become complacent and stagnant, resting on the false laurels of assuming that high marketing share lasts forever.
Oh trust me it does. I've been through quite a few software product management fails (as a spectator) to know.
As I said above, there are lots of open source flash dev tools.
http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects
In any case, Adobe are working on Flash-to-HTML5 tools. Except HTML5 is poorly supported at the moment - it's an incomplete standard - so it's gonna suck for a while.
At a guess, because "open" web standards are so well supported that you need to test on only 9 browsers and it'll work on all the rest
.
I agree David. This guy doesn't get it, and I don't think he ever will. I also think a part of him his nervous and/or scared, knowing that Flash is dying.
Everyone needs to stop drinking the kool aid on both sides.. they're BOTH business with closed platforms.
ADOBE
------------
Adobe has a closed platform that is prevalent today (Flash) that they have squandered because for a long time there was no alternative. That is not to say that Adobe could not improve their product to be better than the current alternatives being proposed.
A few points for Adobe:
- People talk a lot about HTML 5 online video being better, but flash is capable of a lot more than just delivering video.. there's a whole interactive layer that simply does not have an authoring equivalent in HTML 5.
- Adobe is championing the ability for developers being able to code for multiple platforms.
- No one has demonstrated something as complex as an interactive video or game in HTML5, and certainly not one that runs more efficiently than Flash.
- The amount that flash has to improve is a lot smaller than what it would take for HTML5 to take over even a majority of the sites that use Flash currently.
- Flash is ubiquitous TODAY. Youtube's HTML5 page is still in beta. The iPhone OS' Youtube app does not have access to all of Youtube's videos. There are a huge amount of sites that are using Flash. In order to see the entire web TODAY, you need flash. HTML5 right now is a pie in the sky.
- Flash can currently embed h.264 video, thus using the exact same video codec that HTML 5 is keep to support. If they can leverage it well flash will improve greatly.
- Upon opening up of standards, Adobe was able to start making improvements to Flash for Mac within days.
A few points against Adobe:
- No smartphone runs flash well yet. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, but it hasn't yet.
- Adobe needs to get flash work well on ALL platforms.. it needs fundamental improvements to be taken more seriously by consumers.
- Adobe had to take until they were threatened to start reacting with respect to performance of their plugin.
- They are gambling on a technology that people are increasingly willing to do without.
APPLE
------------
Apple has a closed platform that they are touting as a feature so they can have more control over their popular device.
A few points for Apple:
- They have a device people want and can convince people to use despite it not having flash - thus leading credence to people not necessarily needing it.
- They are claiming to support openness and standards.
- They opened up the web on mobile devices.
A few points against Apple:
- h.264, no matter what they say, is NOT an open standard. It is currently free, but the patent holder can charge royalties whenever they see fit. This is precisely the mozilla foundation's opposition to HTML5 video being h.264.
- Their ecosystem is as closed as it gets. They approve any native executable code that runs on the device.
- HTML5 has not been officially ratified as a standard. It may be open, but it is far from complete. At this point it is a slippery slope. Apple's flavor of HTML5 can be different than, say, Mozilla's.
- Firefox and IE do not support HTML5 as apple sees it... it's not useful as a 'standard' unless it is indeed adopted universally.
- Steve's point about "lowest common denominator" type app development applies to the fragmented nature of the iPhone's 3 different generations, as well as the iPad. Not only are they guilty of forcing this on developers, but by criticizing this type of development, they are criticizing the use of 'standards' that could possibly be used to develop something for all ecosystems.
- If there is anyone who would be able to figure out a way for flash to work well on a mobile device, it would be Apple.
- Apple is partly to blame for the performance of Flash on the mac.
ADOBE
------------
Adobe has a closed platform that is prevalent today (Flash) that they have squandered because for a long time there was no alternative. That is not to say that Adobe could not improve their product to be better than the current alternatives being proposed.
A few points for Adobe:
- People talk a lot about HTML 5 online video being better, but flash is capable of a lot more than just delivering video.. there's a whole interactive layer that simply does not have an authoring equivalent in HTML 5.
- Adobe is championing the ability for developers being able to code for multiple platforms.
- No one has demonstrated something as complex as an interactive video or game in HTML5, and certainly not one that runs more efficiently than Flash.
- The amount that flash has to improve is a lot smaller than what it would take for HTML5 to take over even a majority of the sites that use Flash currently.
- Flash is ubiquitous TODAY. Youtube's HTML5 page is still in beta. The iPhone OS' Youtube app does not have access to all of Youtube's videos. There are a huge amount of sites that are using Flash. In order to see the entire web TODAY, you need flash. HTML5 right now is a pie in the sky.
- Flash can currently embed h.264 video, thus using the exact same video codec that HTML 5 is keep to support. If they can leverage it well flash will improve greatly.
- Upon opening up of standards, Adobe was able to start making improvements to Flash for Mac within days.
A few points against Adobe:
- No smartphone runs flash well yet. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, but it hasn't yet.
- Adobe needs to get flash work well on ALL platforms.. it needs fundamental improvements to be taken more seriously by consumers.
- Adobe had to take until they were threatened to start reacting with respect to performance of their plugin.
- They are gambling on a technology that people are increasingly willing to do without.
APPLE
------------
Apple has a closed platform that they are touting as a feature so they can have more control over their popular device.
A few points for Apple:
- They have a device people want and can convince people to use despite it not having flash - thus leading credence to people not necessarily needing it.
- They are claiming to support openness and standards.
- They opened up the web on mobile devices.
A few points against Apple:
- h.264, no matter what they say, is NOT an open standard. It is currently free, but the patent holder can charge royalties whenever they see fit. This is precisely the mozilla foundation's opposition to HTML5 video being h.264.
- Their ecosystem is as closed as it gets. They approve any native executable code that runs on the device.
- HTML5 has not been officially ratified as a standard. It may be open, but it is far from complete. At this point it is a slippery slope. Apple's flavor of HTML5 can be different than, say, Mozilla's.
- Firefox and IE do not support HTML5 as apple sees it... it's not useful as a 'standard' unless it is indeed adopted universally.
- Steve's point about "lowest common denominator" type app development applies to the fragmented nature of the iPhone's 3 different generations, as well as the iPad. Not only are they guilty of forcing this on developers, but by criticizing this type of development, they are criticizing the use of 'standards' that could possibly be used to develop something for all ecosystems.
- If there is anyone who would be able to figure out a way for flash to work well on a mobile device, it would be Apple.
- Apple is partly to blame for the performance of Flash on the mac.
They should, because that would kill Adobe even faster then they are dying now and that's a good thing.
