Adobe Responds to Apple's Anti-Flash Stance With Comments on Openness, Ad Campaign

[Anuba]

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

The Apple/Adobe grudge goes back many years (it started somewhere around the introduction of OS X, and definitely kicked into high gear with the introduction of Final Cut). This public part of the bickering may be a mere tail end of a long story that's been playing out behind the scenes.

 

[marksman]

Not really, unless they're 12-year olds eager to show off their skills. Why you visit such sites I wouldn't know.

9 times out of 10 it's the client who asks for their content to be presented via rich multimedia, not static text. Many corporate clients associate static text and images with coming across as a poor, retarded dinosaur corporation that's either behind the times, or has no money, or both.

In the 15 or so years I've spent in the web design/e-learning/advertising business I've often tried to talk clients out of flashy solutions, usually to no avail, because if you don't give Volvo or Ericsson or Audi or [whoever] all those things they describe along the lines of "whoooosh", "pow", "zzzzzzoooom" and "rrrroaaaarr", they go to another agency that will do it for them.

Which is ironic, because flash-heavy or wholly created flash websites come across like they were made by a 12 year old in school suspension for a few comic books.

It is unfortunate that some large companies don't have people in position of power that understand how the internet works and what is and is not good web design. I suspect a big part of it for large companies comes from their ad agencies. Ad agencies like to sell flashy things (which might include flash).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

If it was me, I would say other platforms have been uninteresting or too fragmented. Android is only just getting interesting for many developers. Palm has always been too limited, Etc. If I wanted to develop a free player app like this, I would want to get a lot of bang for the development buck. Thus, I would want to develop on a very popular platfrom which is Apples. However, if Apple said it is rejected before I even get to develop it, I'm not that excited about continuing to develop an app I give away for free anyway.

As a developer myself, I have great confidence that since there is a Flash player for OS X computers, the bridge to building one for OS X touch devices is not nearly as long as building it in the past for Palm or Symbian, etc. Yes, I agree the OS X version for computers could also use a major upgrade in efficiency, but at least it lets users access Flash content. Something would be better than nothing.

And given the beating that Apple has publicly given Adobe about this, Adobe would be under great pressure to prove Apple wrong by delivering a great incarnation of Flash for iDevices. Apple could say "good job". Adobe could "save face". Users interested in anything Flash on iDevices could have a solution. All wins.

If Adobe fails, Apple didn't block the possibility, more users who might perceive Apple was doing a wrong "big brotherish" type thing here by deciding for us would swing to the Adobe can't get the job done, etc. Again, Apple would win and "I told you so". Users would partially win by forgetting the "it is forbidden" move by Apple. And only Adobe would lose.

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.

Are we talking about Flash Player or the Flash-to-iDevice render app? I'm talking about Flash player which would be a free "app" for any interested iDevice users and for which there is already multitudes of Flash applications, presentations, media (not just video), games, etc already avaiable to users for free if they have a free Flash player installed.

If we're talking about the Flash-to-iDevice feature that was created for CS5 that was then (also) forbidden by Apple at nearly the last minute, that's a different thing. I don't feel any great passion to argue for that, except to say that in making that move, Apple probably blocked a bunch of new apps from quickly coming to the app store (not all of which would be "total garbage" etc). But from my perspective, that's a wholly separate argument for or against Apple or Adobe. My points are about the Free Flash Player option for iDevices, for which there are tons of tools available (including many native Mac tools) that can render Flash media that plays on that player, without Adobe getting paid a single penny by users.

As to "big brotherish", I see it that way much like arbitrary rejections of apps frustrate other developers. Google Voice is a good example. Would some users like to have Google Voice on iDevices? Yes. A Flash Player can be just another App approval. Apparently, with so many people certain that no one wants Flash on their iDevices, even the support counter argument hardly applies, as the 2-3 people who argue for the OPTION would probably be willing to waive any flash-player related support from Apple should we install such an option. I would.


I make no arguments against the pettyness of both companies in fighting this "battle" in a public way. This should be addressed behind closed doors with Apple laying down realistic specs for a Flash player on iDevices and Adobe deciding if they can hit those specs or not. And by realistic I mean that if a battery burning game can get approved for the app store, if a similar game in Flash burns the battery no faster... (and similar). In short, let's not be hypocritical in evaluating one thing against another. Even Apple themselves are not exactly reknowned for deliver super efficient software completely optimized in every way.

 

[marksman]

"In the end, we believe the question is really this: Who controls the World Wide Web? And we believe the answer is: nobody -- and everybody, but certainly not a single company."

I agree 100%.

Apple's iPhone and iPad allow you to watch pedophilia and real life executions. But you can't run Flash on it.

It's ridiculous to censor us from doing what we want. If I want to play a Flash game, I should be able to play it. If it crashes, that's fine. I'll whine and restart the browser and hope that it improves someday, meanwhile enjoying the experience which is for the most part very good.

Since we can't readily control how web developers decide to assault us I disagree.

If you want to have that kind of russian roulette experience on a mobile device, I suggest you choose one of the ones that support it. I prefer not having to worry about it at all myself.

Makes my life a whole lot easier. There are options for people who love flash and want to see it used on every web site. None of those options happen to include Apple mobile devices. If seeing flash on a mobile device is so important to you then I suggest you choose one of them.

Like I said, I and many others like me, prefer it not be dumped upon me. This is one way that the end user can stand up to the crappy web developers who have foisted this stuff on people for years.

 

[Anuba]

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.

If you've been working in web design for 17 years you will also know that the situation changes from year to year. If you look back at the late 90's when we had to support a myriad different browsers (Netscape 3.X, 4.X, IE 3.X to 5.X etc) with VASTLY different ideas about how to render the simplest HTML, you'll also know that creating a Flash-based site without fallback mechanisms was a better way to reach a maximum amount of people (Flash had something like 96% penetration at the time) than the alternatives offered. Especially if you wanted to be sure that the content looked the same on all screens. IE used a different set of tags, dreamed up by Microsoft who thought they could rewrite the web standards and have the rest of the world follow. The tools (Dreamweaver, Frontpage etc) were also very inconsistent and would happily destroy eachother's code.

Browsers render much more consistently today, HTML is more standardized, Flash penetration is down to 90% or something like that... today it makes all the sense in the world to have fallback mechanisms but in the 90's it meant spending 10 times more hours for very little gain ("yay, the 0.2% who still use Netscape 3.0 can see the page correctly now! It only took a week!")

It is unfortunate that some large companies don't have people in position of power that understand how the internet works and what is and is not good web design. I suspect a big part of it for large companies comes from their ad agencies. Ad agencies like to sell flashy things (which might include flash).

The ad agencies are to blame, sure, but the clients are also in a race to outdo eachother. If Audi has flashy Flash content with roaring engine sounds and spinning navigation that you have to chase around the screen, Mercedes wants it too, and then Volkswagen, and Porsche, and BMW, and then they're all equal so one of them wants to take it to the next level... etc. They want what the others have, even when it's internal material the world will never see. I've worked in e-learning, where Flash is king and nobody wants no stinkin' HTML training programs for their new employees, they want interactive Flash with animated cartoons and sh*t.

 

[mixel]

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.

My money's definitely on Gorillas.

--

Seriously though its weird how much of a debate flash *always* brings up. I agree with those who say flash has it's place - it certainly does. Its not dying any time soon nor should it.

But I really dont care about it on the iphoneOS. Nothing mission critical is done in Flash, and if it is that's terribly badly thought out… iPhoneOS isn't supposed to be your primary browsing platform, even if you have an iPad you're expected to have a "real" computer as well. Its really strange it's such a big deal to so many people. :/

By the time the market shifts (if indeed it does) to accept iPad-like devices as full blown computer replacements who knows how important flash will be for content delivery.. Thats years off anyway.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Seriously though its weird how much of a debate flash *always* brings up. I agree with those who say flash has it's place - it certainly does. Its not dying any time soon nor should it.

I take it as showing how big of a deal it is to some people. I- for one- would really like to own iDevices for all the many superior benefits of them AND also have the option on my iDevice to run Flash for when I want or need it.

I don't want to buy some other knockoff that can run Flash but fails to deliver as well on the rest.

Flash is just software. It doesn't mean Apple has to redesign an iDevice's hardware (this is not the argument over- say- an isight camera in an iPad), or go through some monumental cost-eating thing. It's just software that might run great or poor on an iDevice. We can't know because Apple won't even let us see for ourselves.

We do know that in December alone, there were 8 million requests for a Flash player from iDevice owners. That's 8 million things people wanted to see or do that they couldn't because they can't have a Flash player on this device. If that is representative of other months, that's a lot of monthly disappointments for something that could be solved with a bit of free software.

One could also look at that kind of thing and assume that while this crowd is so overwhelmingly against Flash- even blasting me over and over for just arguing for a user OPTION for a Flash player for iDevices- apparently the world of Apple iDevice buyers beyond those that post thoughts here are interested in consuming Flash content on iDevices.

But I really dont care about it on the iphoneOS. Nothing mission critical is done in Flash, and if it is that's terribly badly thought out… iPhoneOS isn't supposed to be your primary browsing platform, even if you have an iPad you're expected to have a "real" computer as well. Its really strange it's such a big deal to so many people.

Maybe so, but if we're going to have "the whole web in the palm of our hand", we can't have the whole web if a thoroughly entrenched piece of it is blocked. Again, 8 million requests for the Flash player from iDevice owners just in the single month of December.

Like I've said to others, I respect that you don't care about it on your device, and that you don't see it as critical. But just because you feel that way doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Those who would like to both own an incredible Apple iDevice AND also have this bit of software on it as a user OPTION won't effect your experience at all. Those that don't want it even if it could become an option, won't have it forced upon them. Those of us that would like it- even if it burns our batteries faster- could at least get a bit more of what we want out of a great device we own.

I see it much like downloading any other app. To each his own, and to each set of apps his own. If my iDevice is heavily used for gaming, my battery is going to burn a lot faster than your iDevice heavily used for low demand apps. In that case it is my choice to burn my batteries more quickly than you burn yours. Why not let this also be user choice? Then, Apple is not big brother and it all falls on Adobe to deliver greatness or bust.

 

[modul8tr]

I'm so over this at this point.

Many people in this thread have presented well articulated arguments for and against Flash. However, I can't help but think this is like the old blind man in a bathroom frantically looking for a spider that's not there anymore (or however that goes).

If Apple's history is any indication, when it comes to leaving behind what they see as old technology, they're not going to change their stance. Apple's devices are always a *statement* on how they think things should be done. I've become a fan because I more often than not agree with them, and as an artist, I dig the auteurs theory of hardware design. The growing pains can be difficult (e.g. dwindling firewire support pushing me to USB 2.0, and now Lightpeak appearing on the horizon) but we get through them. And we'll get through this.

On the other side, Adobe still hasn't delivered Flash for mobile devices. And who knows if the beta they're testing will work out as seamless, efficient tech that won't cause people to pull their hair out. And it could have been Apple's plan (or backup plan) to scare them into writing up some lean and mean Flash code that addresses the needs of our new mobile reality. We'll see.

 

[Simmerl]

x2.
Only in fanboi land is choice bad.

If you think that choice is a good thing, then install Linux and be happy.
There's no need to buy Apple hardware if all you do is bitch about them.

 

[modul8tr]

I see it much like downloading any other app. To each his own, and to each set of apps his own. If my iDevice is heavily used for gaming, my battery is going to burn a lot faster than your iDevice heavily used for low demand apps. In that case it is my choice to burn my batteries more quickly than you burn yours. Why not let this also be user choice? Then, Apple is not big brother and it all falls on Adobe to deliver greatness or bust.

I see your point here, and if the torch wielding villagers storm the gates of Castle Apple (and FWIW I think this scenario is unlikely), it may be allowed, but there will still be the issues of reliability and security. If they were to do this, I could see it coming with lack of support and a blue pop-up disclaimer perhaps.

Even if they were to make it difficult, and bury options to turn it on deep within the OS, someone's going to post a Youtube video and millions and millions of people (including non techie soccer moms) are going to install it. And if it sucks, it will erode the user experience en masse.

I see this as somewhat similar to the USB devices on iPad situation. Apple doesn't want to support the thousands of USB devices people would likely plug into the iPad and then cry about when it doesn't work as expected. And most importantly, those various situations don't fit into their vision for the iPad. As far as ANYTHING storage based connecting to it, I'll bet you their future vision is entirely cloud based.

Both cases don't fit into Apple's design ideology and concern for end user experience. Therefore they're not going to happen. Again, as I posted earlier, it's the auteurs theory of design. This is what you're buying when you buy Apple. Luckily I more often than not agree with the auteurs vision. And millions of people LOVE their iPhones, so I'm guessing they're digging Apple's vision of what a smartphone should be as well. And it's not set in stone, it will grow, just as the Mac did.

As the halo effect of these iDevices draw more people into the fold, I think Apple needs another marketing campaign to remind the buying public of their approach (Think Different). They don't cater to any and everything even if the competition does. They march to the beat of their own drum.

 

[satcomer]

I would fall of my chair laughing if Microsoft's SilverLight made it onto the new iPhone OS. IMHO Sliverlight runs very well on my Macs.

 

[bigwig]

Newsflash: Apple has no interest in Flash "working great" on anything.

That is true now. Five or eight years ago I'm sure Apple would have been quite happy for Flash to work great.

 

[Darkroom]

Newsflash: Apple has no interest in Flash "working great" on anything.

+1

if Apple was so concerned about Flash Player crashing or security, or having to expose their super secret APIs to a 3rd party developer, why don't they make their own Flash player? it's been open sourced. rather, Apple wants to call it non-standard, lazy and push the years-away HTML5 so their junk batteries on their iDevices aren't as obvious as their junk screens are on the iMac line.

 

[macsmurf]

I would fall of my chair laughing if Microsoft's SilverLight made it onto the new iPhone OS. IMHO Sliverlight runs very well on my Macs.

Never gonna happen. Maybe on Android at some point in the future.

 

[bigwig]

I've worked in e-learning, where Flash is king and nobody wants no stinkin' HTML training programs for their new employees, they want interactive Flash with animated cartoons and sh*t.

Apparently studies showing users want websites that load fast, and if they don't load fast consumers lose interest and go elsewhere, have not come to their attention. I've been to plenty of websites that take 10-15 seconds to load every time because of Flash, and they sometimes add another 10 wasted seconds on animation before the UI becomes usable. That's on every page, btw. I do not patronize companies who think I care about how cute their animation is. I do not patronize companies that waste my time. There are millions of people like me.

 

[KnightWRX]

Again, I ask, where is the plugin on ANY mobile platform?

Adobe ships a Flash to iPhone OS app compiler. There are apps on the app store that were made with the beta version of this compiler. They were approved by Apple before they changed the SDK license.

Why were those apps approved for the App store and then suddenly weren't "good enough" that the whole compiler/framework had to be politically blocked (not technically, there is no technical reason for the exclusion).

Not to mention all the Android ROMs running around with the Beta Flash release that's going to be part of Android 2.2.

Mobile platform Flash is around.

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?

Forced to support it ? Adobe wrote the whole thing, supports the whole thing, provides all the developpers tools. It actually took more effort on the part of Apple to block it (by changing the SDK license) than to not block it. Had they just ignored it and judged the apps based on the their own merit, none of this effort they had to put forth would've been necessary.

No one was forcing Flash on Apple. Adobe wasn't shoving a spec down Apple's throat and telling them to get to writing an implementation of it.

 

[SAPPete]

If you think that choice is a good thing, then install Linux and be happy.
There's no need to buy Apple hardware if all you do is bitch about them.

Installing Linux on my iPhone, brb.

 

[KnightWRX]

If you think that choice is a good thing, then install Linux and be happy.
There's no need to buy Apple hardware if all you do is bitch about them.

So wait, if you like some Apple products, you have to love them all and find no faults with some of their offerings ? Otherwise, you aren't allowed to like any of them ?

Black or white much ?

People, stop polarizing posters. I'm not a Apple hater because I don't like their iPhone OS politics. I'm not an Apple fanboy because I like their computer hardware or OS X. I'm not a Nokia fanboy because I think they should get paid their license fees for their patents. I'm not an Apple fanboy because I think Psystar was wrong. I'm not a Google fanboy because I think Android is innovative and a great product.

 

[iLunar]

Adobe ships a Flash to iPhone OS app compiler. There are apps on the app store that were made with the beta version of this compiler. They were approved by Apple before they changed the SDK license.

Why were those apps approved for the App store and then suddenly weren't "good enough" that the whole compiler/framework had to be politically blocked (not technically, there is no technical reason for the exclusion).

You don't know that there is no technical reason. Perhaps Apple investigated those Apps and thus changed their developer agreement?

Regardless, it's Apple's platform. They want native code for a reason as they've been down that road before. You can just look at cross-compiled games on OSX to see how crappy and buggy they are. Apple isn't in the business to support someone else's business. Ultimately it is their platform that they want to be responsible for. Why is that such a bad thing?

There are other mobile platforms out there. Just because they are uninteresting to develop for doesn't mean Apple should be forced to support technology it doesn't want to.

Perhaps the real innovation is coming from Apple and App store developers because they are forced to use a native SDK that integrates seamlessly with the platform?

Not to mention all the Android ROMs running around with the Beta Flash release that's going to be part of Android 2.2.

Mobile platform Flash is around.

Going to be

Beta

In that it's not out now. So why the big huge campaign and complaining that Apple won't let them play when they don't even have a version to ship now?

If Adobe were really on the ball, they would have released a Flash plugin for jailbroken phones ages ago.

 

[sharpToenails]

To create Flash content, you need to give Adobe around $599 (or more), to create HTML5 content, you need NO proprietary software! End of discussion.

End of discussion? Are you serious?

This is simply not true. Where exactly did you hear this? You can generate flash swf content with 3rd party and free tools, and you can also create your own swf player if you think you can do better. I've created swfs without proprietary software. I've also written html/js code using proprietary software. You've got the choice. The swf specification is open.

If there is anything that makes this whole debate agonizing it's the misinformation that is repeated. You people need to chill.

I'm a long time Mac user and as a developer I don't like the direction Apple is taking. This isn't just about playing flash content on your web browser it's also about Apple telling people what programming language they can use to generate apps for the iDevices.

Apple is not infallible folks. When I use Safari 4 it will occasionally crash with Flash turned off. On my iPhone I've crashed visiting websites and it dumps me to the home screen. Give me the choice to see flash content, but don't decide for me.

 

[joost538]

yeah, because Apple's software is oh so "open".. h.264 is far from open...

Actually H.264 is completely open, anyone including you can read the full spec and implement it. It's also patent encumbered which means in order to implement it in a product ("device") you have to pay money, but that is a separate issue from it being an open standard.

Flash/Actionscript is both closed and patent encumbered, so it really is worse in terms of it being a standard and being readily available for both manufacturers and consumers.

 

[KnightWRX]

You don't know that there is no technical reason. Perhaps Apple investigated those Apps and thus changed their developer agreement?

If there was a technical reason, Apple wouldn't approve the apps based on that. Since they changed the license, that means there is no technical reason (no, battery life is not a technical reason, OpenGL is as battery unfriendly as anything Adobe can dish out. Quartz even drains iPhoneOS device batteries like there's no tomorrow).

Regardless, it's Apple's platform. They want native code for a reason as they've been down that road before. You can just look at cross-compiled games on OSX to see how crappy and buggy they are.

The Flash CS5 did produce native code. That's a fail on your part. "Cross platform" games, you mean like games written using things like SDL and OpenGL ? I guess you must be new to game developpement...

Hint, it's not the frameworks that are buggy.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Even if they were to make it difficult, and bury options to turn it on deep within the OS, someone's going to post a Youtube video and millions and millions of people (including non techie soccer moms) are going to install it. And if it sucks, it will erode the user experience en masse.

There are more than 100K apps in the app store, all of which this same "what if" could be applied. Any app could do anything weird, get posted on YouTube and have millions and millions of soccer moms, etc see it and be totally shocked. Why is this one bit of software prone to cause such a massive soccer mom backlash while more than hundred thousand other apps can't cause the same scenario? Again, I appreciate the bias against Flash, but we shouldn't be making up scenarios to justify why ALL users should be locked out of a bit of software they would like. Even if such an event went down, Apple could just blame it on Flash- like they are doing now without it even being on an iDevice.

At one point there was an approved game on iDevices that involved shaking a baby until it died to hush up it's crying. If the soccer moms didn't drive a mass abandonment of the iPhone over that app, I doubt a slow or battery burning incarnation of Flash could yield a bigger reaction.

As far as eroding the user experience en masse, that too could be applied as a "what if" for every app on the app store. Besides, apparently only 2 or 3 of us are actually interested in such an OPTION. Apparently, everyone else is so anti-Flash that if such an option was available- even if it was a great incarnation of Flash- they wouldn't install it anyway. You can't have an en mass event unless the mass embraces the app. Clearly, the experts here knows much better than I know about my own desires such that since THEY don't want Flash on THEIR iDevice, no one else should even want such an OPTION either.

 

[KnightWRX]

Actually H.264 is completely open, anyone including you can read the full spec and implement it. It's also patent encumbered which means in order to implement it in a product ("device") you have to pay money, but that is a separate issue from it being an open standard.

Hey, just like Flash. After all, anyone, including you can read the full SWF spec and implement it. However, as far as is known, it's not patent encumbered. I guess Flash is more open.

Heck, there's already a fully open sourced implementation by the fine folks at the GNU project :

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

 

[iLunar]

If there was a technical reason, Apple wouldn't approve the apps based on that. Since they changed the license, that means there is no technical reason (no, battery life is not a technical reason, OpenGL is as battery unfriendly as anything Adobe can dish out. Quartz even drains iPhoneOS device batteries like there's no tomorrow).

Sure they could have. They had to approve the Apps under the old developer agreement. They didn't like the direction their platform was moving, hence the new developer agreement.

It is, after all, an agreement. The developer doesn't HAVE to participate.

Perhaps Apple is just making sure the future of their platform is consistent? They saw a threat with Adobe's model that would inevitably create bad Apps down the road (no native UI for example), and put a stop to it now. Why is that a bad thing?