I agree. Unfortunately the "Open Standard" term is with us now. It would just be nice if those in either a commenting or even a "blogging" capacity (in some cases) would understand the terms they use incorrectly. But I know, thats asking way too much.
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
I agree. Unfortunately the "Open Standard" term is with us now. It would just be nice if those in either a commenting or even a "blogging" capacity (in some cases) would understand the terms they use incorrectly. But I know, thats asking way too much.
"it has attained its dominant market position by out-innovating competitors"
It has attained it's position by BUYING Macromedia. That is not innovation.
It has attained it's position by BUYING Macromedia. That is not innovation.
Now you have an excuse; you can put the blame on Apple and force semantic websites into your clients. You should be grateful to Apple.
They created a situation that entitles you to educate them.
I've only built one. I guess that makes you twice as right as me
You claimed they emitted obj-c which is incorrect. Anyway, show me the LLVM to javascript/HTML5 module
How old is your PowerPC machine?
I'd love Apple to come around and see how sluggish iTunes (in particular, the 'new' UI in the iTunes Music Store) is on my PowerPC - dual processor 2GHz.
My Word, a well thought out sensible view on the argument that is not through APPLE vision.
Nothing wrong with choice, i too have seen flash work on devices and PCs without much trouble. Dont know why Apple are so rubbish they cant just let us choose.
The problem is the android flash running device does not actually exist. This version of flash is to be released in the second half of this year. It was suppose to be out before the end of last year then the first of this year. It never happened. How the heck can it be Apples fault for them not having a working product to ship and run properly. Jobs said show me a phone running flash efficiently and stable and Apple will look at it. Maybe they will finally release one at the end of this year or maybe the next.
Generation 4 iPhone just around the corner, and Adobe is proud that they are just now offering a Flash mobile beta.
Weak effort Adobe.
I've only built one. I guess that makes you twice as right as me
I guess so. So yeah, ARM, not Objective-C. But, the front-end obviously already exists. They would have to build a new back-end. I'm sure Adobe could scrape together the resources to do this. I haven't worked with LLVM, so I'm not sure what the IR is. They might have to rebuild the whole thing. Who knows? But the point is Adobe could do something about this, but they've chosen to complain instead.
You point is weak, but I think I can help it along...
Even though they publish the specifications, there is no interest by other groups (commercial and opensource) to make an authoring suite or flash player. At least not 100% compatible. The only aspects that are attractive have been proposed in HTML5. If it isn't in there, the wise standards committee members realized it isn't generally desired or useful.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't suggest Adobe- or anyone else- can change Apple's mind about anything. Nor am I arguing on Adobe's side in support of a CS5 Flash-to-iDevice app creator. What I was saying was that we shouldn't confuse the concepts of a free Flash player option for those that would be interested in it with the Flash-to-iDevice app creator built into CS5.
iDevices would be more usable if they allowed their users to do more of what they would like to do with them- especially when it is only a software option that would open up a big chunk of the web currently forbidden whether one wants to burn his battery faster and/or crash his Safari browser , etc. or not.
Especially when a decision is just software- and an OPTIONAL install for each user- I never understand how people can come out so passionately against it... apparently just because it is what Apple says... when making such an option available to all would only negatively (or positively) affect those who chose to exercise that option. An iDevice free Flash player would be just like the free Flash player on a desktop or laptop: each person can choose to install and/or use Flash media or not. It would not be forced on those that don't want it, but it would be a solution for those who do, or those who may even need it because something that helps them (lots of interactive e-learning for example) is only available in Flash.
Yes, exactly. I think people are making this into a big war of open vs. closed and all this BS. Bottom line is that with Flash on the iPhone, battery life and performance will go down. So Apple has to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages regarding flash.
Benefits:
-More web content for iPhone users.
Disadvantages:
-Shorter battery life
-Slower performance
Another disadvantage of having Flash that people aren't talking about is the fact that if it's on the iPhone, it performs less than people expect it to, so that means more people bringing their iPhones in to get fixed or to complain.
I don't think people care about Flash as much as some people are claiming. How much web content are you missing without Flash? Not a significant amount, or at least not significant enough to stop millions and millions of people from buying an iPhone.
This is correct.
Adobe's window of opportunity is long gone. Someday they'll wake up and realize that their ship sailed years ago.
I'm all for choice, but Adobe needs to spend some of that marketing money and improve Flash resource utilization. I thought Uncle Steve was making much ado about nothing until I saw for myself how terrible MBP battery life is when Flash videos are playing.
Wow. Less complaining, more innovation Adobe. Thanks.
FTWFlash & burn
Flash=Crash
funny also that something SO slow is called "Flash."
You Adobe guys crack me up. Bring on the alternative! Progress~!
Flash=Crash
funny also that something SO slow is called "Flash."
You Adobe guys crack me up. Bring on the alternative! Progress~!
By the way, I don't know if anybody else reads the San Jose Mercury News, but on the backpage of the business section there's a big ad from this very campaign. The huge headline reads "We <3 Apple" .....
The only reason Apple doesn't want flash on its products is because most ads are made in flash and Apple wants a monopoly on advertisements on its platform. Neither company will admit it, but it's all about advertising.
Make no mistake Apple is not protecting us from Flash. They're just a business, nothing more.
Anyone spouting off rhetoric about how crappy flash is and how they don't want it anywhere near their devices is just playing right into Apple's hands. Which is fine. I'm sure Apple would love to sell you some more expensive crap you don't need.
Make no mistake Apple is not protecting us from Flash. They're just a business, nothing more.
Anyone spouting off rhetoric about how crappy flash is and how they don't want it anywhere near their devices is just playing right into Apple's hands. Which is fine. I'm sure Apple would love to sell you some more expensive crap you don't need.
Let's say that Apple allows a Flash Player on the iPhone. Web site developers can say, "we don't have to update our site now", so they don't. Web application developers can say, "we don't have to create an HTML version of our app", so they don't. After all, the easiest thing in the world to do is nothing at all. Pretty soon that "optional" Flash player becomes essential to seeing the web on an iPhone.
I don't dispute that a Flash Player today would make the web more usable on an iPhone. But the major thing that's driving adoption of HTML5 is the lack of that plugin. It's painful and frustrating, but in the long run, I think it does make the web a better place for users. That's why I said originally that it's not about denying users the choice, but rather that it's by denying users the choice that they discourage developers from building content that doesn't work well on the iPhone.
You point is weak, but I think I can help it along...
Even though they publish the specifications, there is no interest by other groups (commercial and opensource) to make an authoring suite or flash player. At least not 100% compatible. The only aspects that are attractive have been proposed in HTML5. If it isn't in there, the wise standards committee members realized it isn't generally desired or useful.
Thanks. I understand That — it was what I meant in a abbreviated way...
As you say: «There is no interest by other groups (commercial and opensource) to make an authoring suite or flash player.»
That is why I put the link for this article that underlines the lack of viability of these 3rd-party tools.
Again, show me the LLVM to javascript/HTML5 backend. There isn't any, because it would be a really bad idea. It's definitely possible but it would perform horribly.
Take a look at GWT. If you're unfamiliar with it, it is a Java -> JavaScript compiler at heart. It it, however, not a Java byte code -> JavaScript compiler. You'd think there is a reason for this, right?
Care to make a guess?I agree that Adobe probably could do a ActionScript -> JavaScript compiler, but i doubt it will perform particularly well. They could probably easier make an ActionScript -> Obj C compiler, but Apple would just change the developer agreement again to keep them out of the App Store.
In short, it's not a technical issue but a political one.
********
Listen, I love Adobe.. I really do. I'm as big of a Photoshop fan as I am an Apple one. I just think they're kinda full of it on this one. Flash is a closed platform; only Adobe products can write to Flash. So who the hell are they to complain about another company making closed products?!
Listen, I love Adobe.. I really do. I'm as big of a Photoshop fan as I am an Apple one. I just think they're kinda full of it on this one. Flash is a closed platform; only Adobe products can write to Flash. So who the hell are they to complain about another company making closed products?!
the only thing they <3 is their bottom line ...
The big thing that hurts adobe is that apple is saying no to dev's using flash to compile apps
Im sure flash will be around in some form for many years to come, however it by no means is an open platform and neither is pretty much any other adobe product.
adobe is full of s*&t trying to say they are all for open standards and flash is part of that.
The big thing that hurts adobe is that apple is saying no to dev's using flash to compile apps
Im sure flash will be around in some form for many years to come, however it by no means is an open platform and neither is pretty much any other adobe product.
adobe is full of s*&t trying to say they are all for open standards and flash is part of that.
We heart choice.....well....We Choose New web standards....we choose HTML5 and enriched content..we dont choose to use Flash.
Adobe is all butthurt now instead of innovating and getting more people to use their products with the new standards theyre just being a lump of coal in the steps towards the future.
All the points have been made, and theyre clear...nobody cares Adobe...even Youtube is moving towards HTML5 and will ween off Flash for its videos; content looks better under new web standards.
Plus Microsoft, Apple...c'mon.
Adobe is all butthurt now instead of innovating and getting more people to use their products with the new standards theyre just being a lump of coal in the steps towards the future.
All the points have been made, and theyre clear...nobody cares Adobe...even Youtube is moving towards HTML5 and will ween off Flash for its videos; content looks better under new web standards.
Plus Microsoft, Apple...c'mon.