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 to End Development on Flash-to-iPhone Compiler in Wake of Apple License Change
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Adobe tools that generate flash could also generate HTML5...
Adobe makes their flash-related money from the tools they sell to make flash programs -- not flash itself.
I am sure HTML5 does not support all of the functions within flash, but it could.
I would like to see Adobe work on QUICKLY adding to the HTML5 spec so all of the needed functions in flash are supported by HTML5. Then Adobe's suite of apps that generate flash code could also generate HTML5 code.
Just my $.02
Adobe makes their flash-related money from the tools they sell to make flash programs -- not flash itself.
I am sure HTML5 does not support all of the functions within flash, but it could.
I would like to see Adobe work on QUICKLY adding to the HTML5 spec so all of the needed functions in flash are supported by HTML5. Then Adobe's suite of apps that generate flash code could also generate HTML5 code.
Just my $.02
Apple is not thinking about us users. They are being selfish and tyrant. Not cool...
Uhm... that's the entire reason Apple isn't supporting flash. They don't want crap on the products that us users use. Why? Because most of us users will not understand the reason that some of the apps are crappy and will blame Apple, or simply switch platforms.
It is and it isn't. Adobe is selling this as a way to make your "flash based" website and App so it works on the iPhone. In that sense, HTLM5 is relevant. It is much more as you could write an App that wasn't a webpage first. In that case, it is less relevant. It is not unique though. I can't use PS3 API's on an XBOX 360. Adobe wants to make a cross platform framework. Apple has no obligation to want this.
Flash as a cross platform framework is ultimately bad for the end user. Developers will code to the least common denominator to maximize compatibility. This means advanced features of say an iPhone are not implemented as they would not work on a Nokia. This is bad for Apple as they want to innovate and they needs developers to write to their platform's innovations to stand out above the rest. The user benefits from more efficient and advanced apps versus one coded to the least common denominator.
Aperture has levelled the playing-field. Aperture vs. Lightroom is now down to a matter of taste. Adobe still wins because of Lightroom's integration with *everything else* they peddle and the fact that it runs on Windows.
Hardware acceleration? Why is it that others app that play video (e.g. VLC) can run on my MacBook without causing my fan to go into overdrive. Surely you don't think Apple is providing hardware acceleration to VLC and not Flash?
The fact is Adobe never put in the effort into making Flash run well on the Mac, and now it has a reputation for being crap. If Adobe did due diligence and made Flash run well, it'd be on our iPhones today.
Without Adobe, Apple would have never cracked into the business world where they are making tons of money from Graphics Designer. Lets face it, the companies at one time needed each other. Now that Apple is a computer developer/manufacturer last and a Store/Mobile Device Producer first, Apple doesn't need Adobe anymore.
I've used both - I prefer Lightroom - it accomodates my needs as a professional designer.
Bad Strategy
Unless Apple's end-game is a total breakup, this is a terrible argument strategy. It gives Adobe no lateral movement. Their (adobe) only options would be to cut all ties, or back down and lose face. In an argument you have to hold strong, but you also have to leave room for the opponent to make a dignified concession.
I guess there is a semi-lateral move Adobe could make, which would be to fire some people and chalk the whole thing up to personality conflicts.
I would hate to be married (literally) to either of these companies
Unless Apple's end-game is a total breakup, this is a terrible argument strategy. It gives Adobe no lateral movement. Their (adobe) only options would be to cut all ties, or back down and lose face. In an argument you have to hold strong, but you also have to leave room for the opponent to make a dignified concession.
I guess there is a semi-lateral move Adobe could make, which would be to fire some people and chalk the whole thing up to personality conflicts.
I would hate to be married (literally) to either of these companies
Apple also said years ago to get on board with Cocoa. Carbon was only ever intended to be a stopgap until developers could port there code. Remember, Apple's initial plan was to deliver MacOS X without Carbon at all. It only happened because MS and Adobe complained so vehemently.
Adobe had their chance - they knew Carbon wasn't going to last forever. They just decided to do nothing about it until they were forced to.
The software they peddle makes our company hundreds of millions of dollars in ad sales. We can't live without CS suite. If Adobe drops Apple support, we will in a heart beat have to drop the few thousands of Macs we have. Its not something I want to do but it will happen.
Then why did you pay "good money" for the products then, knowing full well flash wasn't included? I paid good money for my toaster too, but I don't complain that it can't mix cocktails.
Everyone keeps saying "DIE FLASH DIE", and I'm all for that, but the fact of the matter is that HTML 5 is basically a BETA technology now, unused by most websites!
That's why I laugh at all the Apple FANBOY posts here.
You people don't live in the REAL WORLD.
Step away from the Reality Distortion Field for a minute please! LOL
EVEN YOUTUBE HTML 5 IS BETA!
That's why I laugh at all the Apple FANBOY posts here.
You people don't live in the REAL WORLD.
Step away from the Reality Distortion Field for a minute please! LOL
Your toaster didn't advertise that it could do a lot of things. The iDevices say they deliver a full internet experience, evidently not.
Not entirely the truth. I went to a convention when CS3 came out where Adobe stated they were working on a full Cocoa and 64bit version of CS with a roadmap of 18-24 months (CS5). CS4 was going to be the middle man but Apple pulled the plug last minute on Carbon 64. It wasn't a bad decision by Apple however Adobe didn't just say forget it. It was on Adobe's roadmap. The problem here is a lot of the users here don't have access to behinds the scenes information, attend conferences, or talk to the vendor, so all they get is stuff thrown around the internet. I just attended an Adobe conference a few weeks ago and the roadmap for upcoming products looks well thought out for once.
"pestilence"? really? if Flash was really that bad for the Internet, it would have been replaced a LONG time ago.
This is another instance of Uncle Steve dictating how our content should be delivered to us. At least be honest and admit that.
Forget the security argument. All Internet content technologies will have security scares from time to time due to the amount of popularity. That's what forces developers to increase security
You can make the app in Objective C and it can still be crappy.
My issue is Apple shouldn't have led Adobe on. Should have to them at the beginning they didn't want Flash CS5 to port apps. How can other software developers trust that the same won't be done to them?
Just bad business.
What some people don't understand is HTML5 wasn't designed or intended to compete or destroy Flash. They compliment each other.
YES, and Apple even said today again that the iPad is better than at netbook at even the internet and that netbooks aren't good at anything!
That is clearly NOT the case.
It's like iLife. They integrate and work well together. Aperture is a stand alone that doesn't have the others to truly support it.
As a designer and photographer, I started off with Lightroom. I was offered a handsome deal on Aperture and chose it because of it's robust archiving capabilities. When that failed on me twice. I decided it was easier to convert a massive 400gb library to Lightroom then to live with the Aperture nonsense.
I am tired of doing layouts in Illustrator and Acrobat for prints when it exists in Lightroom. Now that my photography is turning toward making me money, I need Lightroom. Aperture is cute as a hobbyist, Apple fanatic, or to extend the capabilities of iPhoto. I have been using Lightroom to get my professional work done, and I won't be looking back.
If Adobe leaves Mac OS, then my work life will leave it as well. I will keep my cute, home based Mac, but everyday I get closer to leaving Apple at work.
I agree that I'd like to see flash "The media file format" go away, but Flash "The interactive Media development environment" I would like to see stick around, get some good enhancements in so it can export to HTML5 and such and I think it could do quite well. I am a bit disappointed to see it not be allowed for iPhone apps anymore, I understand Apple's reasoning and even agree with them to a point, but a part of me is still disappointed.
iPad and iPod advertising's lack of mention of Flash exclusion is most likely part of Uncle Steve's Evil Plot to force consumers into an anti-Flash rage.
Problem is that the consumers will feel like they were tricked or that the iPad is missing features and will complain. Once the ratio of iPad consumers shifts more from FanBoi to Average Joe, expect the complaints to start coming in.