So do I. And last time I tried, Flash failed. Tried to watch a TV episode I missed, only made it through 1/3 of the show, then just stopped.
Oh, and that's on a computer, not any iDevice.
Flash is crap. The choosing comes more and more infrequently.
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
So do I. And last time I tried, Flash failed. Tried to watch a TV episode I missed, only made it through 1/3 of the show, then just stopped.
Oh, and that's on a computer, not any iDevice.
Flash is crap. The choosing comes more and more infrequently.
It would help if Adobe actually got flash working on mobile devices first. 3 Years of broken promises and you wonder why Jobs told them to F off?
So what, Adobe?
What is the big deal? All Adobe has to do is wait for Microsoft and/or some generic PC manufacturer to release an iPad competitor, and Adobe can run Flash there all they want.
No doubt the presence of Flash on a competitor's platform will insure the demise of the iPad if Flash is so critical to the market as Adobe claims.
Of course, we all know the real answer here, right? Obviously Adobe has decided that Apple has already won the battle for the mobile marketplace and platform (haven't we all?)
You want to be invited to the Apple party, Adobe? You still can be! Just start developing some cool HTML5 authoring tools like Jobs said. You ARE a software company after all!
And are you a business or not? Start responding to changing market conditions or die. Sheesh!
What is the big deal? All Adobe has to do is wait for Microsoft and/or some generic PC manufacturer to release an iPad competitor, and Adobe can run Flash there all they want.
No doubt the presence of Flash on a competitor's platform will insure the demise of the iPad if Flash is so critical to the market as Adobe claims.
Of course, we all know the real answer here, right? Obviously Adobe has decided that Apple has already won the battle for the mobile marketplace and platform (haven't we all?)
You want to be invited to the Apple party, Adobe? You still can be! Just start developing some cool HTML5 authoring tools like Jobs said. You ARE a software company after all!
And are you a business or not? Start responding to changing market conditions or die. Sheesh!
Adobe Flash is not designed for the mobile web. It runs terrible on my Mac, can't imagine how it would run on my iPhone. Apple appears to be defending an open internet, in which web content is based on open standards. This does not mean that mobile devices need to be open. Apple +1 Adobe -1.
I'm assuming that when people post "<3" its supposed to be a heart, but it looks like truck nuts to me.
I'm assuming that when people post "<3" its supposed to be a heart, but it looks like truck nuts to me.
With all the griping, I'm beginning to think that I'm the only person who has no issue with Flash on my MBP. The only site I ever had issue with was StubHub, but it runs perfectly after their site update which leads me to believe the issue was them and not Flash.
This is just trying to pull the issue away from what is actually going on.
Flash...eats....ressources + batteries.
Hell, even on a PC I run it as little as possible. On my iMac 27" I run it as little as possible. On my MBP i7, I block the hell out of it.
Blah, blah, blah...open web...fight the man...blah, blah, blah.
They might strike a chord because Apple is slowly becoming "un-cool"...but in all honesty, I'd rather have a well designed, closed gadget (à-la iPad), that gives me everything it promises (included battery life), than something that promises me 10hrs of battery (***Certain restrictions apply***).
The truth is, some of us here might consider ourselves "power users", but most people aren't. My mother who goes out to buy an iPad, won't know what to do with a task manager, or would probably be a bit angry after her iPad dies within 2 hours of surfing her favourite cooking website.
Adobe : You're still the douches who sell SOFTWARE for 1000s of $$. WE ARE NOT IN 1990 ANYMORE.
Flash...eats....ressources + batteries.
Hell, even on a PC I run it as little as possible. On my iMac 27" I run it as little as possible. On my MBP i7, I block the hell out of it.
Blah, blah, blah...open web...fight the man...blah, blah, blah.
They might strike a chord because Apple is slowly becoming "un-cool"...but in all honesty, I'd rather have a well designed, closed gadget (à-la iPad), that gives me everything it promises (included battery life), than something that promises me 10hrs of battery (***Certain restrictions apply***).
The truth is, some of us here might consider ourselves "power users", but most people aren't. My mother who goes out to buy an iPad, won't know what to do with a task manager, or would probably be a bit angry after her iPad dies within 2 hours of surfing her favourite cooking website.
Adobe : You're still the douches who sell SOFTWARE for 1000s of $$. WE ARE NOT IN 1990 ANYMORE.
very well said. I love all my apple products but I am not dumb. Apple open? You gotta be kidding me. They decide what you can and can't install in most of their devices. What you can and can't see. If you want to develop you are told what you can use, all products owned by them. It is all about control and money. If Apple could control the Internet they would. Hahah. Apple and Open just look funny on the dame sentence.
This doesn't make sense:
Apple says the web should be open, so they block Flash, thus imposing a certain restriction on web users. I agree with Adobe on the idea that if I want to create a Flash website, no matter how slow it's going to be and how lame, let me do it. The web is free and why can't I do whatever I want? What I want to use to create my own website is only MY decision, not Apple's.
On the other hand, Apple IS right that Flash has much better alternatives, notably for Video and websites. However, it still has no competitor in Animation and Game design. While game design is not a problem on the iPhone, I still need Flash games on my Mac. Thank god that's still possible without any problems.
Adobe is stubborn and that argument is also supported by the fact that their CS5 suite is once again full of bugs and performance decreases. Flash is handled the same way.
I personally DON'T CARE about open standards. It does not affect me as a user nor as a creator of content in any way. I can do anything I want with Flash CS4 or Flash CS5, and to me, that's open enough. Flash allows enough freedom for me to feel that I can do anything with it. If I screw it up, it's my fault.
HTML5 does not feel like I can do anything, because my limited programming skills just don't understand how it works, whereas Flash allowed me for the first time in my life to make stuff that looks like a pro did it. I think that's cool and I like it. HTML5 is too complicated for me, and that's purely my problem. But I'm talking about my problems here.
My problem with Flash is NOT whether it's open or not open. It's the fact that it's used for things it should not be used for, such as simple websites and video. Flash should stay the platform for animation and games, that's what it was made for and that's what it does better than anything else you can get on a computer.
Basically: I hope Apple does not do something to stop Flash being available on my Mac.
If Adobe or anyone makes a good and SIMPLE HTML5 authoring tool, similar to Flash, with a timeline and tweens, I would be the first to turn my Flash website into HTML5. But I can't do that today due to the lack of such an authoring tool.
I think Adobe and Apple should stop bitching and just do something to make HTML5 available and make an authoring tool. I don't like to make a website that's 100% code. It's no fun.
It's stupid to stick to either HTML5 or Flash, and hate the other one no matter what. The two things are different and don't replace each other, they both have benefits. Don't believe that developers won't use HTML5 if that will make their content better. It's like arguing over whether the keyboard is better than the screen. If you want to browse the web, you have to support whatever is on the web. The BROWSER has to be Open, not the content. The internet is indeed created by everyone, smart and stupid people alike. Whether you like it or not, that's the net. And if you want to see all of it, you can't JUST support the content you think is best. The web is made of many things and the point is to allow anyone to do literally anything. It's a mess and it's what it's supposed to be. If Apple thinks it has the right to say "the internet doesn't match our unique and well-working style, we should change it", they're wrong.
Apple says the web should be open, so they block Flash, thus imposing a certain restriction on web users. I agree with Adobe on the idea that if I want to create a Flash website, no matter how slow it's going to be and how lame, let me do it. The web is free and why can't I do whatever I want? What I want to use to create my own website is only MY decision, not Apple's.
On the other hand, Apple IS right that Flash has much better alternatives, notably for Video and websites. However, it still has no competitor in Animation and Game design. While game design is not a problem on the iPhone, I still need Flash games on my Mac. Thank god that's still possible without any problems.
Adobe is stubborn and that argument is also supported by the fact that their CS5 suite is once again full of bugs and performance decreases. Flash is handled the same way.
I personally DON'T CARE about open standards. It does not affect me as a user nor as a creator of content in any way. I can do anything I want with Flash CS4 or Flash CS5, and to me, that's open enough. Flash allows enough freedom for me to feel that I can do anything with it. If I screw it up, it's my fault.
HTML5 does not feel like I can do anything, because my limited programming skills just don't understand how it works, whereas Flash allowed me for the first time in my life to make stuff that looks like a pro did it. I think that's cool and I like it. HTML5 is too complicated for me, and that's purely my problem. But I'm talking about my problems here.
My problem with Flash is NOT whether it's open or not open. It's the fact that it's used for things it should not be used for, such as simple websites and video. Flash should stay the platform for animation and games, that's what it was made for and that's what it does better than anything else you can get on a computer.
Basically: I hope Apple does not do something to stop Flash being available on my Mac.
If Adobe or anyone makes a good and SIMPLE HTML5 authoring tool, similar to Flash, with a timeline and tweens, I would be the first to turn my Flash website into HTML5. But I can't do that today due to the lack of such an authoring tool.
I think Adobe and Apple should stop bitching and just do something to make HTML5 available and make an authoring tool. I don't like to make a website that's 100% code. It's no fun.
It's stupid to stick to either HTML5 or Flash, and hate the other one no matter what. The two things are different and don't replace each other, they both have benefits. Don't believe that developers won't use HTML5 if that will make their content better. It's like arguing over whether the keyboard is better than the screen. If you want to browse the web, you have to support whatever is on the web. The BROWSER has to be Open, not the content. The internet is indeed created by everyone, smart and stupid people alike. Whether you like it or not, that's the net. And if you want to see all of it, you can't JUST support the content you think is best. The web is made of many things and the point is to allow anyone to do literally anything. It's a mess and it's what it's supposed to be. If Apple thinks it has the right to say "the internet doesn't match our unique and well-working style, we should change it", they're wrong.
yeah, because Apple's software is oh so "open"
You, like most of your ilk, don't understand the difference between "open" and "free".
Software can be "open", as h.264 is but not "free" like Ogg Theora. But Ogg Theora may not meet the test of time when it comes to patent infringement.
BTW, only content producers will be affected by MPEGLA h.264 licensing, and even then, it won't apply to non-commercial use. Further, OSX and Windows 7 have you covered for non-commercial use anyway.
Pushing FUD...
You have choices.
80+% of the market has nothing to do with apple ( other tha trying veery hard to replicate their prducts)
is 80% of the market not big enough to choose from?
Pathetic... This is getting so old...
Let me get this straight . . .
Who controls the World Wide Web? And we believe the answer is: nobody -- and everybody, but certainly not a single company.
So, nobody controls the Internet,huh? Sounds a lot like ADOBE is trying to do exactly that.
Apple is not trying to control the Internet by not supporting ONE of the several programming languages used to create applications for the iPhone -- not the Internet. Some stupid Flash-based game running on my iPhone is not the Internet. Adobe's position seems to be more like, "There is no Internet without Adobe Flash?" Now who is trying to control the Internet?!
I think the world and the Internet will be FINE without Flash. I promise. It will all be OK, Adobe. HTML5 will save the day . . . or something else completely different. That is what a world in which no one controls the Internet looks like.
Who controls the World Wide Web? And we believe the answer is: nobody -- and everybody, but certainly not a single company.
So, nobody controls the Internet,huh? Sounds a lot like ADOBE is trying to do exactly that.
Apple is not trying to control the Internet by not supporting ONE of the several programming languages used to create applications for the iPhone -- not the Internet. Some stupid Flash-based game running on my iPhone is not the Internet. Adobe's position seems to be more like, "There is no Internet without Adobe Flash?" Now who is trying to control the Internet?!
I think the world and the Internet will be FINE without Flash. I promise. It will all be OK, Adobe. HTML5 will save the day . . . or something else completely different. That is what a world in which no one controls the Internet looks like.
"We believe that Apple, by taking the opposite approach, has taken a step that could undermine this next chapter of the web -- the chapter in which mobile devices outnumber computers, any individual can be a publisher, and content is accessed anywhere and at any time."
If Adobe were truly forward looking, they wouldn't have cancelled Macromedia's Flash for Devices projects 5 years ago...and we'd already have the OPTION of Flash on a mobile device. They're late to the party now, because they lagged, not the rest of the world. At this point, I have no sympathy for their situation, they did this to themselves, not Apple.
If Adobe were truly forward looking, they wouldn't have cancelled Macromedia's Flash for Devices projects 5 years ago...and we'd already have the OPTION of Flash on a mobile device. They're late to the party now, because they lagged, not the rest of the world. At this point, I have no sympathy for their situation, they did this to themselves, not Apple.
Wha???
So Adobe writes a long rant about supporting exactly what they DON'T support (open vs. closed)?? Huh? Does anyone understand how they think ppl will be fooled by this?
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.
So Adobe writes a long rant about supporting exactly what they DON'T support (open vs. closed)?? Huh? Does anyone understand how they think ppl will be fooled by this?
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.
It@s not hamfisted - is calculated that the public are ignorant on the facts behind the licensing issues for the codecs used in HTML5 - Apple (read SJ) is on a personal vendetta against Adobe, probably for what they see as an inferior technology and being rather liberal with the truth when it comes to defending their position against Adobe.
I dislike flash, but I won@t step in line on SJ personal crusade against them.
PS don@t blame me for the '@' instead of the ''' - Apple decided that htey needed to move the keys on their frigging MBPs compared to the rest of the world.
Apple through S. Jobs specifically stated to Adobe in October of 2008 that they needed to build a Flash that provided the whole web experience without the resource use. Flash mobile has been late; too late for Apple. Adobe knew what the score was when the iPhone was announced, but they still haven't delivered (beta notwithstanding).
Apple can't and won't depend on Adobe.
Open Standard
For those that claim that h.264 is not an open standard. Could you please explain your reasoning?
Not that wikipedia is the end all truth but,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process).
"Open Standard" does not necessarily mean "Free".
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permit their standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.
The h.264 standard was developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group.
So its a standard developed with no single company having control, the specification is available (though not "free"), and they have a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fee associated with it.
Maybe one persons idea of "Open Standard" is different from another's, as there are a bunch of different definitions of the term as seen on the wiki page, but by the IETF and ITU-T definition, it would appear to me that its an open standard.
For those that claim that h.264 is not an open standard. Could you please explain your reasoning?
Not that wikipedia is the end all truth but,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process).
"Open Standard" does not necessarily mean "Free".
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permit their standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.
The h.264 standard was developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group.
So its a standard developed with no single company having control, the specification is available (though not "free"), and they have a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing fee associated with it.
Maybe one persons idea of "Open Standard" is different from another's, as there are a bunch of different definitions of the term as seen on the wiki page, but by the IETF and ITU-T definition, it would appear to me that its an open standard.
yeah whatever
This and the lawsuits against Apple are really getting rediculous. everyone is just going tit for tat.
All I have to say is whatever.... All I know is that since my first Apple in 2008, I never had a problem with any apple product. My macbook, iphone, ipad, and mac mini are flawless and I never have to worry. So Apple must be doing something right. it is a shame that companies are looking at the success and peace of mind of Apple and saying let's tear them down.
My Windows experience never was and is still not joyful, and i have been using Windows since the early days of 3.11 for workgroups. I still have to use it for work.
In fact the only time my mac, windows, or idevice gives me issues is with youtube or viewing a video on any website (other than IE explorer giving the "null subscript" and launching visual studio debugger on me - safari and firefox never do that). Watching video is laggy, keeps pausing while it loads and caches the next part into memory.
There has got to be a better way - cause what we have now just is not working for videos. not like the days where I had an MPG and could just embed Windows Media Player into my website. Never had an issue. And that was before everything became flash oriented.
I am at the point right now where I do not watch many videos. especially since; if I have one I want to download... the quality of the downloaded video really stinks compared to how it is displayed on a website. usually the downgraded quality are ones that are in FLV format. the ones that are in MOV or another format (for the few sites that allow these), display the same as the online quality.
This and the lawsuits against Apple are really getting rediculous. everyone is just going tit for tat.
All I have to say is whatever.... All I know is that since my first Apple in 2008, I never had a problem with any apple product. My macbook, iphone, ipad, and mac mini are flawless and I never have to worry. So Apple must be doing something right. it is a shame that companies are looking at the success and peace of mind of Apple and saying let's tear them down.
My Windows experience never was and is still not joyful, and i have been using Windows since the early days of 3.11 for workgroups. I still have to use it for work.
In fact the only time my mac, windows, or idevice gives me issues is with youtube or viewing a video on any website (other than IE explorer giving the "null subscript" and launching visual studio debugger on me - safari and firefox never do that). Watching video is laggy, keeps pausing while it loads and caches the next part into memory.
There has got to be a better way - cause what we have now just is not working for videos. not like the days where I had an MPG and could just embed Windows Media Player into my website. Never had an issue. And that was before everything became flash oriented.
I am at the point right now where I do not watch many videos. especially since; if I have one I want to download... the quality of the downloaded video really stinks compared to how it is displayed on a website. usually the downgraded quality are ones that are in FLV format. the ones that are in MOV or another format (for the few sites that allow these), display the same as the online quality.
They both behave childish...
Steve and Shantanu should solve that argue with one final... PONG match!!
Steve and Shantanu should solve that argue with one final... PONG match!!
Sorry Adobe, but Apple is not "restrict"-ing how users develop and experience the internet, Apple is only limiting how certain Apple devices interact with the web.
Anyone is still free to develop flash to be experienced by Windows and Mac users alike. All PCs, Win and Mac, support flash. Noone is forced to purchase any Apple portable media device which does not support flash (iPod, iPad, iPhone), so time will tell whether people consider flash indispensable on these devices and only Apple will feel any negative repercussions. Considering Macs still support flash, Adobe's argument appears inflated and exaggerated.
The heart of the matter is that Adobe does not like the current trajectory of web development away from its proprietary software (i.e., flash) toward other proprietary software (i.e., .h264). While I am not excited about the fact that .h264 may have to be licensed after 2015, I prefer that format to flash. Perhaps there is still hope (though I have my doubts) that other open source formats, such as Ogg Theora, will gain a wider following on the web. IMO, HTML 5 is the right direction for the web in general, despite the current codec mess (flash vs .h264 vs a truly open standard).