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
Do you also insist that all browsers be able to execute .NET applets? There comes a point when someone with the power to do so (in this case, Apple) has to put their foot down and say, no, we're not going to enable every virus vector that any company develops just to allow their sliver of 'developers' the ability to slop junk onto our platform (thereby giving OUR platform a bad name.)
The rejection of Flash has 2 issues that everyone conflates.
1) playing Flash content within Mobile Safari
2) cross compilers that turn Flash 'apps' into iPhone Apps.
Adobe is trying its best to conflate the two.
Flash is an inefficient platform that requires hardware acceleration to perform properly. Adobe is only now addressing that for the Mac (after having done so on Windows for years). But it will be a long time before mobile devices have the processing power to provide that kind of acceleration, and the world isn't going to stand still just for Adobe to wait for that.
For #2, I heartily support Apple in requiring development tools that are capable of exploiting their devices' capabilities immediately, not waiting for the 3rd party to update their tools to do so.
Moreover, I frankly want development for the iPhone OS to require a smidgen of skill. The cookie-cutter apps are ruining the environment already, and I'd support a much broader purge on Apple's part to ensure quality apps.
i.e. get rid of the Fart Apps now.
They did that so that you would choose to pay for their products.
You're right, but it's idiotic terminology. The word 'open' is used for other things (e.g. open source). Like the FSF constantly trying to explain that a 'free' product doesn't actually mean it's 'free' (huh?), it should've been something else. I don't know what offhand, maybe "recognized standard" or "licensable defacto industry standard but not necessarily cheap" or I don't know what.
Well, as long as they ante up $700 or more to buy Adobe's product and have a sufficiently powerful machine.
...or use the free tools.
Please educate yourself
I think Adobe contradicts itself in its' founders' open letter.
These two points make Adobe argument very shaky.
They say they «We publish the specifications for Flash — meaning any one can make their own Flash player.» What they don't say is that there are no real alternatives/Tools to create Flash applications/content.
These two points make Adobe argument very shaky.
They say they «We publish the specifications for Flash — meaning any one can make their own Flash player.» What they don't say is that there are no real alternatives/Tools to create Flash applications/content.
Beating the dead horse
Sounds like Adobe is trying to rally the troops... only they don't seem to notice that everyone either doesn't care or are behind Apple...
The only thing Adobe can try to do is get industry support on another platform... but that is not likely... especially since Flash video (the only thing used outside of flash games and video game websites) is quickly moving to HTML5. Adobe has been trying to make Flash an enterprise platform for the last 10 years and has never succeeded and are now upset because Apple will not help them make it an enterprise platform with AppStore support. They could still push the internal corporate flash app deployment thing (because that isn't against the dev agreement), but convincing enterprise (or anyone) to use a dying technology is going to be difficult.
Sounds like Adobe is trying to rally the troops... only they don't seem to notice that everyone either doesn't care or are behind Apple...
The only thing Adobe can try to do is get industry support on another platform... but that is not likely... especially since Flash video (the only thing used outside of flash games and video game websites) is quickly moving to HTML5. Adobe has been trying to make Flash an enterprise platform for the last 10 years and has never succeeded and are now upset because Apple will not help them make it an enterprise platform with AppStore support. They could still push the internal corporate flash app deployment thing (because that isn't against the dev agreement), but convincing enterprise (or anyone) to use a dying technology is going to be difficult.
Users may realize that some websites display OK in their PCs and not in the iPad, but some will realize some websites display OK in their iPads and others don't. They may blame Apple but they'll blame the websites as well. Any decent web designer uses some fall-back mechanism for those without Flash. That's common sense; you want to reach the bigger audience possible. I believe it is a painful step for some, and Apple is taking the unpopular step. I don't say they are saints and are doing this for the common good only, but in the end we will all benefit.
No. I'm suggesting that if they really want to get Flash content onto the iPhone, it would possible to do it today by compiling Flash movies to HTML5. Adobe is the kind of company with the resources to do just that.
Flash works great on certain platforms -- Windows with IE especially comes to mind. So use browser detection to select the version that's appropriate for the browser. There's no technical reason it can't be done. Some of this technology undoubtedly already exists since they have a Flash to Objective-C compiler.
So what's confusing to me is why Adobe insists on the Flash runtime when Flash content could certainly be made compatible with iPhone OS as it exists today.
Flex SDK is open source.
Please educate yourself.
(this might be my new signature)
Adobe won't let me make Flash apps with Objective-C!!! They're such control freaks, want to impose Actionscript to everyone!!!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Do not confuse the point. Apple could allow iDevice buyers to have a free Flash player without allowing Adobe Flast-to-iDevice coding option to work. They are separate things. The guy to which you posted the above reply was arguing for the option as an iDevice user to be able to play Flash media if he wished to do that. IMO, there would be absolutely NOTHING wrong with that at all, as he would get to use his iDevice in ways that he wished without affecting anyone else's use of their iDevices. More simply, he wishes he could choose to burn his batteries a little faster, which should have absolutely no impact on those who wish to never run Flash on their own iDevices.
Your answer implies that Apple's stance is about preventing applications created in Flash from being converted to iPhone apps through that functionality in the new CS5. Yes, Apple also has chosen to forbid that (which means some great stuff already coded well in Flash may not end up as an iPhone app we could enjoy on our iDevices... unless the coder decides to learn how to recreate it from scratch via Apples SDK). But, let's not confuse the limitations that Apple chooses for us by both forbidding the OPTION of a Flash PLAYER for those that would be interested... AND forbidding the option of using the Flash-to-iPhone renderer in CS5 to easily render a lot of new apps written in Flash as iPhone compatible apps.
If the CS5 renderer was not blocked by Apple, would developers choose to develop in Flash instead of Apple's SDK? Probably many would. Why? Because they could make more money by creating their app in a system that could then run on a wide variety of platforms far beyond Apple's reach, but also on Apple's devices too. The developer alternative is to code it in Apple's SDK so that it can run only on Apple's devices, and then code it in something else if they also want it to run on other devices. If we believe that developers should be well paid for their hard work, we shouldn't be so quick to take Apple's side against them (developers not Adobe). On the other hand if we can only see things as "whatever Apple believes, I believe", then I'm sure they'll be responses that supports Apple's stance even if the Developers- and even we consumers of developers work- end up losing out.
Bottom line: to me it would make much more sense for Apple to give iDevice owners the option to install the "buggy", "crashes my Safari 10 times a day", "abomination", "die flash die", etc Flash player and burn their battery and crash their Safari, etc if they so choose, rather than arbitrarily decide for them. Those that want it would get it and experience the good or bad in that for themselves. And those who don't want it wouldn't be forced to get it and wouldn't have to experience the bad that they know is absolutely there (but mostly- IMO- because Apple says so).
There is no current choice of HTML5 + h.264 + javascript vs. Flash that can completely cover what Flash can do on the web. A developer cannot choose HTML5 + h.264 + javascript instead of Flash and in any way get a rich Flash-like application (not just a video) to run on 97% of the world's computers. HTML5 + h.264 + javascript option will run on about 8% of the world's computers today. So a developer that wants rich media on more than 8% of the world's computer has little choice than to choose an option beyond or in conjunction with HTML5 + h.264 + javascript. On the other hand, if he chooses to code it in Flash, it will run on about 97% of the world's computers- even Apple's own Macs. Which should that developer choose if money & resources are (typically always) tight?
I understand the difference between Flash and HTML quite clearly. As a developer, I've worked closely with both technologies. I'm exactly the kind of person who would understand what both technologies are capable of. There are absolutely some elements in Flash that can't be replicated in HTML5, so not every Flash movie can be compiled without modification to HTML5. But the majority? Absolutely.
Also, if Adobe can compile ActionScript to Objective-C, they can without question compile it to JavaScript. Most of the required technology obviously already exists.
Adobe is distracted with this. Insisting too much on Flash. Of course it's mainly about business but nevertheless they should look at other possibilities regarding HTML5 and digital magazines.
There seems to be really a great opportunity for Adobe here :
There seems to be really a great opportunity for Adobe here
:
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.
you do realize that the majority of video played in flash is also h.264, it's really only legacy video from early flash video and small one-offs. youtube, vimeo, facebook, brightcove, funnyordie all of those use h.264 so any license issues -which btw are a load of FUD - would apply just as equally to flash playing h.264 as it would safari or internet explorer.
there are no angels in this current spat, both companies are looking out for their own bottom line, but it's adobe that's in major trouble here. developers make platforms and developers want to make money. adobe has been trying for years to figure out a way for developers to monetize their work with flash going back to 2003 with macromedia central - which was a precursor to adobe air. it was supposed to be an occasionally connected platform with compiled code that developers could use to sell flash apps. it sucked, and failed miserably.
adobe has bet the farm on flash, but their inability to make it a financially viable platform for developers and their tardiness in releasing 10.1 has left them about 18 months behind apple - that's an eternity in software development. they not only need android to become a huge platform larger than the iphone market, but they also need a second platform, symbian, webos, rim, winps7 to be big. the sole benefit for a developer to using flash is its cross platform capability.
i wouldn't classify this campaign as a last throw of the dice, but it's definitely a desperate move and shows a distinct misunderstanding the target audience.
Gruber already said this better than me, so I'll refer you to him. The last paragraph sums up my beliefs about Apple's thinking perfectly. Obviously, this is a trade-off Apple is not willing to make. No matter what you think they should do, Adobe will not change Apple's mind on this.
Three SIMPLE points:
1 - Adobe would not exist without Apple's DTP revolution;
2 - You took 10 years to START thinking about developing your products with Cocoa, not to mention snubbing Apple when times were difficult for SJ et al.;
3 - FLASH SUCKS.
So **** you, Adobe...with some luck you'll be bought by Apple so that 80% of your ****** products can be put out of their misery, just like you did with Macromedia back in the good days.
You are one the prime role models of a world WITHOUT competition and innovation.
Apart from Photoshop freaks and lazy developers, NOBODY cares about you. So shut up and get lost.
ADOBE IS DEAD.
Completely agree. I just wish there were more of these "decent web designers" out there. Things wouldn't be as big of an issue if there were. That is, if there really is an issue considering the number of non-flash devices out there in use. Could just be the few "tech-geeks" and the "tech-geek-wannabe's" making a big issue out of a small one.
I've actually built a compiler or two in my day. This is exactly what they did. Flash -> Abstract Syntax Tree -> HTML5. Done. LLVM is a modular compiler. They can replace the back-end to emit any language they like.
while i agree with you that pricing of adobe's products are high and it can be an emotional issue especially for self-employed freelance designers/developers, i doubt they are purposefully gouging europeans. they do want their business, afterall.
i came across this letter from may 2007 concerning this issue.
Adobe keeps the free PR flywheel turning...
Nothing like stoking the fire of free publicity. This isn't news, BTW, so I'm thinking in Page 2 at best.
Why would they single out Apple, when all the other big players in personal computing are directing the masses away from Adobe.
Nothing like stoking the fire of free publicity. This isn't news, BTW, so I'm thinking in Page 2 at best.
Why would they single out Apple, when all the other big players in personal computing are directing the masses away from Adobe.