Actually the overwhelming majority of OS X's code is open source. Your evidence falls flat on its face.
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 Responds to Apple's Anti-Flash Stance With Comments on Openness, Ad Campaign
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually the overwhelming majority of OS X's code is open source. Your evidence falls flat on its face.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
But there you nail down the key difference: I respect your desire to NOT have Flash as the source of rich media on your iDevice. I am not posting comments about how because I would like the OPTION to install a Flash player, my preference should be forced upon everyone else as well.
However, there are plenty of posts even within this one thread that seem to take the stance that since the poster does not care for Flash, even the option for those that would like the player is useless.
I don't argue for forcing Flash upon guys like you. Perhaps guys like you shouldn't argue against a user OPTION for Flash for guys like me? Then you "win" by not having to deal with Flash, and I can win by having access to Flash content if I so desire. There are no losers when options are available
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Simple: Let Apple do the right PR thing (for Apple) and throw that challenge to Adobe. Then, Adobe knowing that Apple will let an optimized Flash player be installed on OS X Touch will be justified in both delivering one, and delivering one that must "wow" because it will be 100% on Adobe if the delivery turns out to be a dog.
Apple has made it very clear that it thinks Flash "as is" is a battery hogging, etc mess. Apples problem is in looking "big brother" like in deciding to not allow a player for even users who would be willing to burn their batteries faster etc. Apple could easily claim they stand by their point, but they welcome their friend Adobe to deliver a version of Flash for iDevices that overcomes the issues offered.
If Adobe delivers, Apple can claim a win by driving the development of a very efficient incarnation of Flash, and Adobe can claim a win by getting Flash onto iDevices. If Adobe fails, Apple can do an "I told you so" and Adobe can look very, very bad (not because Apple said so, but because users get to see for themselves first hand).
There is no PR downside to this for Apple, once they lose the "big brother" variable. Let Adobe put up or shut up. And let users be the judge. Apple looks good- even wins- whatever happens.
My kind of argument (for a user choice- a user option to install Flash) completely stops in this scenario, as it would all become a "wait to see what Adobe delivers". I could even go back to 100% pro-Apple because I would no longer see them as an obstacle even if Adobe delivered a max-optimized solution.
But Adobe has had the opportunity with other mobile platforms for 2 years. They've had the chance to improve mobile flash since windows mobile 6.5. But they haven't done anything with it.
And now they want to start an open-web campaign? It just seems completely ridiculous to pin this on Apple when Adobe themselves have not delivered a plugin on ANY mobile device.
Why should the requirement fall on Apple? They are you giving developers the option to make rich-media applications with their own SDK. Why must they challenge Adobe to make a plugin? The responsibility is on Adobe with Flash since it is their platform, not Apple's. That is why this whole campaign by Adobe now seems completely ridiculous.
Of course, you are arguing to force Flash on Apple.
If they don't want it on the device that they sell, why should they be forced to support it?
When you have to create a campaign like this, you know you are down to your last card.
Good luck Adobe. You'll need it.
BTW, can you please go back to the good old days and make products that works and reasonable priced?
Good luck Adobe. You'll need it.
BTW, can you please go back to the good old days and make products that works and reasonable priced?
Is that really your best comeback? You used the argument that HTML5 is superior because a whopping 40 companies are working on it, as opposed to one company working on Flash. I then used OS X vs. Linux to illustrate that too many cooks spoil the broth. I could've use the actual food analogy too, but I picked something closer to Flash. OS, plugin, hamburger, doesn't matter.
This could be said about video and games too. Should those be prohibited as well, since the end user apparently can't be trusted to choose for himself whether he wants to use the computer for power hungry tasks or not?
Wrong. Google has been crawling and indexing Flash pages for over 3 years.
Correct, but that's an argument against Flash-based home pages, not Flash content in general (Flash doesn't have to be pages at all).
Yes you can, provided that the webpage has the relevant PHP logic on the server side. If it's lazily implemented, you can't blame Flash for that, blame the designers.
Creating customized right-click menus in Flash has been possible for ages. If developers choose not to implement it, that's their problem.
Huh?
Again, that's up to the site designer. Dynamic/selectable text has been possible to do in Flash since, oh lord, at least 2002, probably longer.
Huh (again)?
Neither is HTML5, but personally I don't dismiss unstable technologies if they're still in development. Flash for mobile devices is something that's coming later this year. If the final releases are unstable, we can talk.
It depends on A) whether the developers have implemented this functionality, and B) whether the browser vendor has added support for it. You can make Flash sites with full back/forward functionality in Firefox and IE, but not Safari (unsure about Opera). I agree that this is a problem, but again, Flash is much more than pages, that's an unwise way to use Flash if you ask me.
The Linux kernel is a high quality OS Kernel with many Distros that have a far better build quality than flash.
Is it better than OS X and Windows? That's the question. You can't build an argument on pitching half the statement against half the analogy. Apples vs. oranges is one thing, but apples vs. gorillas? Come on.The Linux kernel is a high quality OS with many Distros with far better build quality than flash.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Adobe has no reason to put much development into any software already deemed forbidden to be installed. I wouldn't if I was them. On the other hand, if Apple backed off the big brother "forbidden" stance so that I know it could at least get a public hearing (by users trying it out for themselves), I'd be gung ho on developing this particular app for tens of millions of iDevice users.
The "years" argument still leaves the judge as Apple, not users. And Apple has already judged that they don't want Flash on this device. They even have a lot of business reasons (similar to arbitrary app approvals like Google Voice) to support it even if Adobe delivered a "wow" optimized version for iDevices.
I agree Adobe's ad campaign is dumb, except for how Apple started it with the PR release from Steve putting down a profitable product sold by Adobe. Would you not want to defend your product if someone like Apple decided to put your products down?
There is no requirement for Apple. Apple could just choose to switch from "big brother" like to putting the whole thing on Adobe's back: a true put up or shut up maneuver that leaves Adobe room to either deliver or fail. Either way, Apple looks good. And either way, we users feel like we win too, as Apple is simply looking out for us... without DECIDING for us.
yeah, because Apple's software is oh so "open"
It is open as open can be. The parties involved have come together and in their own self-interests decided to make it widely available because it is the best for all involved.
Unfortunately that Demo might dovetail with some kind of takeover announcement.
I am more concerned about the people who have read the details of the codec issues and think there is some kind of nefarious plot or issue with the H.264 licensing that makes anything more than what it is.
There is no real concern or issue with H.264 becoming some kind of financial imposition for the advancement of the internet by those that actually understand what is going on.
Adobe loves Apple so much that its Windows product is light years ahead of its Mac product in terms of performance and reliability, and it only this year released a version of Flash that starts to bridge the gap. If Adobe really loved Apple it would have approached them 5 years ago on a joint project to make Flash work great on OSX. Apple users would be happy and Steve wouldn't be publicly trashing them. Instead Adobe is now reaping the harvest of its malicious neglect. It is too late for the pebbles to speak.
Adobe has many other mobile platforms to work on other than Apple, which is why I mentioned years. Apple wasn't the first mobile platform out there. Adobe has yet to deliver a quality product on ANY mobile platform.
Plus, I don't see how it is big-brotherish for Apple to restrict Flash (in safari or in dev environments). It is Apple's platform, they have their own SDK that is much cheaper than Adobe's platform, and hey, they also let you develop FREE web apps and provide tools to do so. They also let Apps be free in in the App store.
Steve Job's letter came as a response to Adobe's very public comments how Apple is supposedly a close environment, while dismissing any criticism that they themselves are closed. With the change in developer's agreement, Apple has to speak up publicly because Adobe was bitching and complaining that their proprietary middleware was now defunct. Like you said, the company had to defend itself.
Now Adobe has launched an open-web campaign promoting software that is anything but open. It just comes off as petty (and almost to the point of lying).
Better as in how? Scalability? Ease of Use? Stability? Virtualisation Optimisation?
There is no irony, because there is nothing wrong with favoring open technologies for some purposes and closed technologies for other purposes. Most people are like that. I use closed OS X for my OS and Firefox for my browser. No irony there.
WTF is this all about??? Flash doesn't exist on a single mobile platform yet, this is pointless, we've been waiting for it years.
And about using flash to create iPhone OS apps... it's the iPhone OS devices who are missing out, not the web.
It's all about choice... you can choose to buy a device from any other of the four manufacturers that are ahead of Apple in the current mobile device market.
"No confundas gimnasia con magnesia."
And about using flash to create iPhone OS apps... it's the iPhone OS devices who are missing out, not the web.
It's all about choice... you can choose to buy a device from any other of the four manufacturers that are ahead of Apple in the current mobile device market.
"No confundas gimnasia con magnesia."
True Flash can create some incredible magic that adds richness to the browser experience over and above HTML specifications. But I like to have more control over my browsing, and have better access to content, but I can see if your interested in copyrights this could be a bad thing.
Adobe should invest in making Flash lean and portable, instead they spending money on a "We Love Apple" marketing campaigns. They should admit Flash is too fat and advertise that their going to fix it with or without Apple.
I'm sorry you've invested time in learning Flash since it seems to be dying, but shouldn't you blame Adobe for that?
LOL@The Flash debate that always goes on. Forum after forum, thread after thread.
Flash needs a rewrite. It won't go bye bye because Adobe won't let it. So the lazy ass programmers need to start coding! No need to take sides on the matter. If Flash gets replaced by something else as standard on the web, then so be it. But these silly arguments are just silly.
Silllllleeeeyyyy.
Lets argue about something more worthwhile. Miley Cyrus's lap dance/ bump and grind thing for instance.
Wait.. that isn't worthwhile.
Flash needs a rewrite. It won't go bye bye because Adobe won't let it. So the lazy ass programmers need to start coding! No need to take sides on the matter. If Flash gets replaced by something else as standard on the web, then so be it. But these silly arguments are just silly.
Silllllleeeeyyyy.
Lets argue about something more worthwhile. Miley Cyrus's lap dance/ bump and grind thing for instance.
Wait.. that isn't worthwhile.
Would you really want to develop for iPhone OS (OSX) apps using Windows? Does anyone develop Windows apps on a Mac?
I have been working on websites for 17 years.
This is spot on. There have been all kinds of issues over the years where people did not have access to a specific technology or some feature didn't work right, and a good web designer would ALWAYS make sure they could provide as much information/content to as many people as possible.
That is why I consider people who use flash to build websites to lazy and/or incompetent. Any good webdesigner is already having to make sure their sites work for a variety of exceptions in order to hit the largest audience, so it is not any different with making sure it works with and without flash.
I don't know how the world came to employee so many unqualified web designers. I have to assume because people don't want to pay real money for it, so get the guy who works at home (nothing wrong with that), and doesn't really have the skills, and thus does not create the bills.