Adobe CEO Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash'

[Enuratique]

Wired has the opinions of ex-Apple and ex-Adobe people on this fracas. Sounds like the prevailing opinion is that Apple is more correct on the finer points than Adobe is.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/adobe-flash-jobs/

 

[calb]

Wired has the opinions of ex-Apple and ex-Adobe people on this fracas. Sounds like the prevailing opinion is that Apple is more correct on the finer points than Adobe is.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/adobe-flash-jobs/

And here's a quote from that article for the defenders of Adobe's app tool:

"Luh was also formerly employed by Apple on the Final Cut Pro team. He said that because Adobe’s Flash Packager didn’t use Apple’s toolchain to create apps, the resulting code would not work well on an iPhone or iPad. A simple “Hello World” app created in Flash and compiled to work on the iPhone would take up 8 MB, he said, when it should be no longer than a few KB. (Wired.com verified this figure with two other developers who have tested the iPhone Packager tool in CS5.)"

 

[Max(IT)]

Let us be a bit careful and make a distinction between trashing Flash and trashing Adobe. There are a lot of Adobe loyalists who are also Apple loyalists. And we need not personalize this to the two CEOs. As SJ said, the two companies go a long way back in terms of growing up together.

You are absolutely right!
Does Apple need Adobe ? Definitely YES!
does Apple need Flash crapware ? Absolutely NO!

Is that simple

 

[parapup]

The point is that there are different definitions of "open standards." H.264 is openly licensed and is controlled by a committee rather than any one company. Here is a definition that fits:

http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html

Two URLs and one quote for you -
Ars Article - Pot Meet Kettle

Mozilla's Chris Blizzard follows up


A very notable quote from the latter -

Whenever I speak at industry groups about H.264, and detail the upcoming royalty obligation, some attendees are invariably surprised that using H.264 will generate royalties. Here’s what you need to know about H.264 and royalties, in an except from an article that I wrote for StreamingMedia.com [ed: full article here.]

…

When I spoke with Harkness, he stated that the patent group hadn’t yet decided the license provisions for internet broadcast, or even if there would be a license, though he conceded that it would make little sense for the patent group to forego this revenue. The only thing certain is that the royalty provisions must be announced by January 2010 for royalties that would be payable the following year.

OK. This paragraph hits all of the big points:

Right now there aren’t any fees for “internet broadcast.”
But there might be in the future
The license changes from year to year.
Remember, this is still very early in H.264’s history so the licensing is very friendly, just like it used to be for MP3. The companies who own the IP in these large patent pools aren’t in this for the fun of it – this is what they do. They patent and they enforce and then enjoy the royalties. If they are in a position to charge more, they will. We can expect that if we allow H.264 to become a fundamental web technology that we’ll see license requirements get more onerous and more expensive over time, with little recourse.

 

[BaldiMac]

Two URLs and one quote for you -
Ars Article - Pot Meet Kettle

Mozilla's Chris Blizzard follows up


A very notable quote from the latter -

I already knew that h.264 is patented and could charge license fees. It still meets the definition that I linked to of an open standard.

 

[parapup]

I already knew that h.264 is patented and could charge license fees. It still meets the definition that I linked to of an open standard.

So you are saying H264-Open is better than Really-Open? And you are also open to paying royalties or complying with other unknown terms the patent holders of H264 may impose?

That Apple supports "Open Web" while touting HTML5 which is "Really-Open" but on the other hand supports less open, encumbered stuff when it comes to Web Video is not contradicting and self serving - especially when unencumbered Really-Open alternatives are available?

What exactly is your point - HTML5 is Open, H264 can be made to fit my definition of Open - and so both are equally open? You continue to ignore the consequences of patented, licensed, royalty demanding "Open" when it comes to H.264. I suppose you would be also willing to accept AAPL-HTML5 instead of HTML5 even if Apple had patents, licensing restrictions and royalty requirements on it?

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Gizmodo or engadget did a break down of how the web would be affected by formats, and from what I remember they said if everyone went the mozilla route there wouldn't be enough storage or processing power available because of .ogg not being efficient or something like that. I'll try to find it.

Do you have a reference for that? In my tests, Theora was surprisingly close to H.264 in efficiency.

Has anyone done a real head-head objective comparison using different resolutions, frame rates, and video samples?

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Do you have a reference for that? In my tests, Theora was surprisingly close to H.264 in efficiency.

Has anyone done a real head-head objective comparison using different resolutions, frame rates, and video samples?

Sorry to quote myself, but, the following addresses both the source, and,
does a comparison:

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html


In looking at the responses, I have to say that a lot of folks dismiss Theora without even testing, perhaps because they think that a Free-and-Open standard just can't be that good. I look forward to more objective testing.

 

[BaldiMac]

So you are saying H264-Open is better than Really-Open?

No. All I'm saying is that H.264 is an open standard.

And you are also open to paying royalties or complying with other unknown terms the patent holders of H264 may impose?

Currently, I don't have to worry about that. In the future, I might. But whose to say that H.264 won't be obsolete in 5 years or whenever it next comes up for review? In general, I pay for many products that include royalty payments. I also use some open source stuff.

That Apple supports "Open Web" while touting HTML5 which is "Really-Open" but on the other hand supports less open, encumbered stuff when it comes to Web Video is not contradicting and self serving - especially when unencumbered Really-Open alternatives are available?

Video codecs are not part of W3C standards. And, no, it is not contradictory to support some technologies because they are Really-Open and some technologies that are not. Most people do.

What unencumbered Really-Open alternatives are there? Ogg Theora is likely to be challenged for violating a number of patents. Doesn't sound too unencumbered.

What exactly is your point - HTML5 is Open, H264 can be made to fit my definition of Open - and so both are equally open?

My only point was that H.264 is an open standard.

You continue to ignore the consequences of patented, licensed, royalty demanding "Open" when it comes to H.264.

I'm not ignoring them. Currently, there are no consequences that affect me.

I suppose you would be also willing to accept AAPL-HTML5 instead of HTML5 even if Apple had patents, licensing restrictions and royalty requirements on it?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I would not be willing to accept AAPL-HTML5, if that implies a closed spec developed only by Apple.

 

[awmazz]

So you are saying H264-Open is better than Really-Open?

Do you need to buy Adobe H.264 Professional CS5 for USD $699.00 to encode H.264 videos? Or a mere USD $199.00 upgrade for those who have paid through the nose before..

 

[Jason Beck]

If Apple is not supporting flash, then would it be supporting their competitors?

Would Apple end up supporting Microsoft Silverlight?

Yes.

 

[Max(IT)]

BTW, what are the well-known Apple basher whining about ?
THIS is Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager Microsoft IE, speaking about H.264 video and Flash.
Microsoft is turning in HTML.5.
Awaiting for another "response" by Adobe CEO

In the link, Microsoft point of view is focused on video delivery, but it is interesting to read what they think about Flash:

Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance.

SO, if Microsoft basically said that Flash sucks, and Windows is the platform where Flash does its best, I think it is safe to conclude that FLASH SIMPLY SUCKS.

 

[25ghosts]

NO Banners are made in Java or HTML.... All in Flash.

THAT industry alone will be enough to keep Flash afloat.
Youtube is the second most clicked site on the planet. All Flash movies.

99% of all the post I've read on this topic in this thread are based on ignorance.

Flash is NOT an interpreted language but JAVA and HTML is. Thus Flash is faster.

You all need to get your facts straight and get off the Steve for Jesus Wagon.

I used to love Jobs but IMO he has mutated into something worse than what governed Germany in a certain century.

Dictatorship WONT last in this century. And Jobs is just that. A dictator on steroids.
He went to far in the 80'ies and it looks as if his ego is overtaking him once more in this decade.



Regards

A Mac User since 93 and never going to use Microsoft.

 

[BaldiMac]

NO Banners are made in Java or HTML.... All in Flash.

THAT industry alone will be enough to keep Flash afloat.

Although they could be easily replicated using web standards.

Youtube is the second most clicked site on the planet. All Flash movies.

And H.264.

99% of all the post I've read on this topic in this thread are based on ignorance.

Okay, made up statistics don't help.

Flash is NOT an interpreted language but JAVA and HTML is. Thus Flash is faster.

That's just a weird statement and conclusion. HTML is not an interpreted language, and I'm not sure what JAVA has to do with anything. Are you referring to Javascript? Which is completely unrelated to JAVA? And also not an interpreted language?

You all need to get your facts straight and get off the Steve for Jesus Wagon.

No one in this thread has suggested that Steve Jobs is anything more than a successful CEO. Some of us are simply agreeing with him on this topic.

I used to love Jobs but IMO he has mutated into something worse than what governed Germany in a certain century.

Not wanting Flash on a smartphone is worse than slaughtering millions of people? Wow. Some folks need a little perspective.

Dictatorship WONT last in this century. And Jobs is just that. A dictator on steroids.
He went to far in the 80'ies and it looks as if his ego is overtaking him once more in this decade.

You do realize that he runs a company and not a country, right?

 

[cmaier]

Youtube is the second most clicked site on the planet. All Flash movies.

Wrong. All h.264 movies, so long as you choose that option instead of flash.

99% of all the post I've read on this topic in this thread are based on ignorance.

99% of all statistics are made up.

Flash is NOT an interpreted language but JAVA and HTML is. Thus Flash is faster.

Oh really? You may want to go double check every thing in those 2 sentences, bub.

I used to love Jobs but IMO he has mutated into something worse than what governed Germany in a certain century.

I think disallowing flash is not even in the same ballbark as killing millions of innocent people. You may have serious problems with reality if you think these two things are comparable.

Dictatorship WONT last in this century. And Jobs is just that. A dictator on steroids.

He rules a nation by fiat?

 

[Dolorian]

Adobe needs a new CEO, fast.

Adobe used to be amazing. But today, after the Macromedia merger and with it's Flash everywhere mentality, it has very much turned into another Microsoft.

How much would I love for Adobe to hire Mac developers and set up a separate division to work exclusively on the Mac version of the CS. One that is optimized for OS X and takes advantage of the technology offered by Apple.

 

[Max(IT)]

As a dev the notion of "lazy developer" is almost non-existent in my book. If you're a "lazy dev" you'll find yourself out of work real fast. It's almost an oxymoron. Most people who spout this gibberish are internet armchair quarterbacks (which is ironic when you are throwing the word lazy around) who have no freaking idea how complicated and difficult programming is.

Steve Jobs has never really had to work a hard day in his life in my estimation. Sure he may put in long hours sometimes, but putting in long hours bossing people around because you were lucky enough to build an empire off of another person's REAL hard work isn't exactly that admirable.

Complicated and difficult ? Dude, I started coding on a Z80 (assembler, anyone ? ), and THAT was difficult. We are mostly speaking about lazy developer that don't want to learn something different from Flash Dev Tools. They ARE LAZY.

 

[aiqw9182]

I find it quite funny how their CEO does nothing but beat around the bush. The interviewer was asking him about the claim that the number one reason Macs crash is due to Flash and he responds with an example that has nothing to do with crashing but with CPU usage by mentioning Gala. The guy is a joke.

 

[logotype]

My thoughts on it all

I rarely post about this, but it pisses me off. I want to clear things up now:

1. What Adobe is afraid of, build once, deplay on many platforms.
One app, 5 screens.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vicDlzmkI

2. Another example, books/magazines:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/xd-inspire/transforming-the-magazine-experience-with-wired/

5. Apple just enabled GPU for plugins, Adobe released beta within days.

6. "H.264 vs Flash" is stupid. Flash does h.264 (and now hardware accelerated).

7. Flash doesn't work with multitouch? ********.
Example: http://vimeo.com/10723525

8. This is the experience with HTML5 on iPad.
Example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

I'm a Flash Developer, and that thing with the Mac crashes, is not because of Adobe. It's because Flash is a very visual tool, and used by designers who can't code. People who have no sense of how to do things correctly (which in turn makes the plugin to crash). There are however so many extremely good flash coders out there who do really amazing stuff with Flash.

Developing with Actionscript is not that bad at all, nice and structured, and with the proper optimization you can build really cool apps which works just fine and quick on mobile devices (with multitouch).

Developing with JavaScript is such a pain and is more about getting things to work rather than do cool stuff.

So much for "web standards", it's a mess! The only true cross-platform which "just works" is the Flash Platform. It's about innovation and Adobe isn't gonna stop that.. HTML5/CSS3/WebGL is a great next step, but it have it's shortcomings which will show..

With that said, I have some other thoughts.
What the f*ck happened with Apple? Once focused on creative professionals, now a consumer focused company.
I do love their products, been a Mac fan since the 90s. I wouldn't even think to buy a PC. I did however bought an iPhone developer membership and will develop using their native tools. I absolutely know there is a need for multi platform deployment (esp for ad agencies), and Apple is destroying that idea due to business related reasons - NOT technological. Flash is my platform and where my heart is.

Please take a minute to watch the above mentioned videos. kthxbye

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Some really good examples, well worth checking out:

I rarely post about this, but it pisses me off. I want to clear things up now:

1. What Adobe is afraid of, build once, deplay on many platforms.
One app, 5 screens.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vicDlzmkI

Comment: Great demo, but, why do the words "Adobe Air" set off the LAN security manager's alarm bells? I wonder how fast the animation would be with rigorous input checking?

8. This is the experience with HTML5 on iPad.
Example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

This is funny. Still a few bugs in the iPad system ...

I'm a Flash Developer, and that thing with the Mac crashes, is not because of Adobe. It's because Flash is a very visual tool, and used by designers who can't code. People who have no sense of how to do things correctly (which in turn makes the plugin to crash). There are however so many extremely good flash coders out there who do really amazing stuff with Flash.

Oops! Now you have lost me. OS's should not let browsers crash them-- and, in fact, I've never seen any of the seven browsers I mess with crash either Snowleopard or Vista. Browsers should not let plugins crash them-- this I have seen often with Flash. Chrome seems to have fixed this so that when the Flash plugin crashes, Chrome keeps working. That is the way it should be. And, plugins should not let bad input crash them. So what if designers can't code -- that is a defect in the Flash plugin if bad input causes it to misbehave. That's first-year programming.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Adobe. If you are so unhappy with Apple, don't play in their yard.
Apple is fine without Flash.

Nonsense.
If you want to see apple dry up and blow away like a dead leaf, just have Adobe stop selling Photoshop for the Mac.

 

[theluker69]

Personally cant wait for flash to be phased out. It will probably be awhile though. Its just not stable and a security hazard. Ive been using youtubes html5 beta and like it so far aside from no full screen and it is a little buggy but it is a beta after all. I think that video will be the first to adopt HTML5. Their are alot of applications on the web that use flash and I just dont see them all being switched over to anything else too super soon. And isnt Quicktime apples version of flash in a way? I know its not a format but it is player and anything that runs on quicktime works on an iphone. Like seeqpod used to and a few other video sites. I always thought that apple wanted to push its quicktime player but I guess I was wrong. Im not in the know about all the formats and etc but I do know that I would love to be able to stream hulu on my iphone and grooveshark too. Just my input.

 

[Max(IT)]

Nonsense.
If you want to see apple dry up and blow away like a dead leaf, just have Adobe stop selling Photoshop for the Mac.

Nonsense.
At this time Apple is selling a lot of iPod/iPhone/MB/iPad/MBP 13" .... they can live without Photoshop and CS5. Actually they can write something like Photoshop (see what happened with Aperture) ...

I hope Adobe will keep supporting Mac with their Creative Suite (and I'm sure they will), but Adobe needs Apple much more than Apple needs Adobe.

 

[Carniphage]

I rarely post about this, but it pisses me off. I want to clear things up now:

7. Flash doesn't work with multitouch? ********.
Example: http://vimeo.com/10723525

The point was not that Flash could not be made to work with Multi-Touch, but rather that the majority of existing Flash applications are based on a keyboard and mouse user interface. Such applications simply don't map onto multi touch devices - which lack a keyboard, and which lack the concept of hover.

C.

 

[kdarling]

The point was not that Flash could not be made to work with Multi-Touch, but rather that the majority of existing Flash applications are based on a keyboard and mouse user interface. Such applications simply don't map onto multi touch devices - which lack a keyboard, and which lack the concept of hover.

The hover problem with touchscreens is not limited to Flash. Mobile Safari has a similar problem with HTML/CSS hover. Apple solved it by letting the first touch show the hover info, the second do an action. Other ideas are possible.

A hover story: I just got an Android phone for programming purposes. I was very surprised at how many Flash based sites viewed just fine on it, even though it doesn't have the full Flash 10 yet.

However, its limited Flashlite isn't designed yet to work around the hover problem, so I thought I was stuck on those kinds of menus. Then I remembered the phone's optical trackball (which usually gets ignored), which of course gave me the hover capability of a mouse... and everything worked fine.