Adobe to sue Apple now?

[RidleyGriff]

Sure I'm good for discussion.
My position does not necessarily align with me liking flash. I don't. The players is proprietary but the development platform lets users code for it.

The reason I won't object to flash on any ethical grounds, is that as much as I dislike the need for it, it is entirely devloper and user driven. I can buy any computer and choose whether I want it or not. I think HTML5 is a great solution. Also note I do not object to apple not allowing flash in their browser. I do object to not permitting code which runs perfectly fine being blocked on legal grounds. Flash is actually an interesting platform and allows users to make a lot of different content aimed at different platforms. It is for the user to decide whether they want to run it.

Thanks for the reply. My issues with Flash are many, but I reject the notion that their is anything user-driven about it.

You can't roll your own Flash plug in. It's not open-source. You can't improve the plug-in if it runs poorly. The only choice any customer has is whether they want to disable it -- and that is only if Adobe has decided to support their platform of choice in the first place. Otherwise, there's not a single thing you can do about it.

That's not promoting innovation. And it's not in-line with any sort of open source or net neutrality ethics. And saying that one is okay with Adobe's closed platform because you can develop for it is a pretty weak argument, in my opinion. It competely misses the initial problem with the situation.

It is, in fact, the very same argument as saying "I don't like Apple's closed approach but I'm okay with it because I can develop for it."

So, which is it? Do you disagree with Apple -- and Adobe? Or do you support them both? You really can't separate the two out on this front, imo.

What will be interesting to see now is what will happen with the opera browser since it has been permitted even though it breaks apples own rules. What if opera takes the same step as google and make flash work right inside the browser without the need for a plugin, would apple yank it ? On what grounds.

I actually think it's pretty clear why Opera was allowed. It doesn't provide a one-to-on connection to a website -- it's a processed, cached lightweight version -- so it's not really providing full duplicative functionality as Safari. The rendering engine is on Opera's servers, so no special runtimes are on the phone. And if Flash were ever intergrated, then the app would be pulled -- because no runtimes are allowed on the phone. Pretty straightforward, imo.

I preffer if the control is in the hands of users, followed by developers.

But that's not what you're advocating. You're proposing a situation where developers -- and there cross-platform interests -- take precedence over individual users.

When developers build for a cross-platform development kit, they will always end up developing for that development platform, and not for one specific device. It only makes sense; the whole point of using a cross-platform toolkit is to deploy on as many different devices as possible. But if their product is the same on all devices, there is zero market incentive to add enhanced functionality; you're not going to compete against yourself. So developers tend to develop for the features that all of these different devices share.

But as a consumer, I'm not buying an iPhone for all the things it has in common with Android; I'm buying an iPhone for the things it does different than Android.

For all of the hate thrown at Apple, their business interests lie with making as many customers happy as possible. Happy customers equal more product sold, and more money for Apple. Apple's business interests align with my interests as a user of smartphones.

I can always choose another platform if I don't like something Apple has done. But if cross-platform development is allowed, I'll never be able to buy up into a better, more device specific apps. The lowest common technical standards will rule they day. And that, once again, is less choice for the consumer.

 

[hayesk]

Adobe is suing because they have been "singled out" as the only vendor being excluded from development by Apple.

A bad guess - Apple hasn't stated anything like that. There are other middleware companies that will be affected to.

 

[macUser2007]

What bluff is apple making, and how is suing without a cause of action calling that bluff?

(See what I did there? I just called your bluff).

One can easily argue that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices in an area where it may have a monopoly.

The "performance" argument Jobs gives is a poor excuse and certainly not borne on the OS X platform.

 

[PixelFactory]

Hmm... before this thread all of the graphic designers claimed Adobe hasn't added anything worthwhile in several years. But now it's all indispensable? If Photoshop went away, you can bet a lot of those filters/effects/features would be available in other graphics applications within weeks. Certainly enough features to match Photoshop a few years ago ... you know, when Adobe upgrades were worthwhile.

Well said. If Adobe abandoned the mac, I could live with the current version of CS for years. I don't NEED all the new toys they implement every year or so. Quark would regain a lot of market share. Someone would put together an alternative to Illustrator. Pixelmator could easily be improved and become a true competitor to Photoshop. In the past Adobe squashed its competition by either copying features (they copied layers from Live Picture) or buying them out (they bought macromedia not only for their interactive portfolio but also to kill xRes).

 

[hayesk]

My favorite part of the Apple Store:

-- image snipped --

I love the simultaneous hating on Adobe and featuring of Adobe. Epic.

Except that Apple doesn't hate Adobe at all. This is all created in the media. Adobe's product may have fallen victim to Apple's policies, but none of these policies are specific to Adobe. Other middleware has fallen victim to this. Apple doesn't allow other plug-ins in Safari on the iPhoneOS either. There's simply no evidence that there is "hating" coming from Apple.

 

[RidleyGriff]

When Steve Jobs was asked at the iPhone OS 4.0 Q&A if there was any intentions of opening the platform to installation of applications outside the app store he responded, "There is a porn store for Android to go to. You can download them, your kids can download them. That’s a place we don’t want to go. We’re not going to go there." Let's say for a moment that this was not just anything more than a baseless "won't someone please think of the children?" argument. The internet is quite well know for having porn. Would you think it okay if Steve Jobs decreed tomorrow, "There is porn on the internet. You can watch it, your kids can watch. That’s a place we don’t want to go. We’re no longer going to let you go there." and followed it with "everything you need can be supplied by the app store."

I don't even understand the argument you're making. If Apple wanted to do that, they'd have every right to. They don't have some sort of obligation to offer anything on any device.

 

[StruckANerve]

So Apple is not allowed to run their business how they choose anymore?

 

[haydn!]

I doubt Adobe have any legal ground to base a suit on.

If the iPhone and App Store have proved anything, it's that the internet, and mobile devices don't need Flash to be popular. Lack of flash support, although it upsets some users, has done nothing to stop the incredible growth of the iPhone and App Store.

Adobe are obviously, and understandably concerned that one of their biggest products is on the verge of becoming obsolete. Instead of fighting the innovators that are giving their business new challenges, Adobe should be innovating to overcome the competition!

One of the main reasons Apple won't implement support is the power and recourse consumption flash involves. If Adobe could find a way around this, make flash more efficient, I'm sure Apple would be more inclined to offer support.

 

[hayesk]

Might as well sue Playstation3, Nintendo, and Xbox for excluding Flash capabilities. They are similarly engineered for proprietary components and operating software.

Well, Nintendo does have Flash in the Opera browser - but it's pretty slow.

 

[TMay]

Except that I'm not cheering Adobe, I could care less about them.
I'm just slamming Steve Jobs for his utter arrogance towards his customer base.

By the way, if no website you go to has FLASH content, you'd have to live in a Cave and be the Geico guys. Almost every local or national news website I go to uses FLASH content.

I guess fanboys don't follow any news other than Macrumors.com LOL

50 million iPhone users and 35 million iPod Touch users say that you are wrong about the customer base. Plainly, even for those that care about the lack of Flash, there isn't any boycott of Apple products. You of course are welcome to initiate that.

More to the point, this is about the developer base of Adobe Flash, not the developer base of Apple iPhone OS.

Guess we won't be getting FarmVille anytime soon.

 

[*LTD*]

One can easily argue that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices in an area where it may have a monopoly.

Which area would this be?

 

[cmaier]

One can easily argue that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices in an area where it may have a monopoly.

The "performance" argument Jobs gives is a poor excuse and certainly not borne on the OS X platform.

No one cannot easily argue that, as they have no monopoly in the smartphone market. Arguing that "the market for iphone software" is a market relevant under antitrust law is as silly as arguing that Apple has a monopoly on white power adapters for use with iPhones.

 

[macUser2007]

Well said. If Adobe abandoned the mac, I could live with the current version of CS for years....

Really. This is only so if your clients do the same. And most will not.

Most corporate creative departments are running CS on PCs nowadays, so if you are incompatible, they'll just go to a vendor who is not such a fanboy....

 

[shakenmartini]

But Adobe as the argument that Apple is abusing its market power in volume of apps downloaded. We are talking just about the app market and that area apple has huge market power that the other phones can not even touch.
I believe our resident Apple fanboy (*LTD*) posted an article a while back saying apple had 99.4% of the number of apps downloaded. 99.4% is a huge market power.

By your reasoning, Adobe controls Flash, but a flash interpreter is not available on MANY platforms. As such, Adobe should be forced to write a flash player for every platform out there since they control the Flash standard. In fact, since flash video is a key use of flash technology, the courts should step in and force Adobe to write a hardware accelerated video player for Linux (which does not exist under all configs at the moment - see the JooJoo for proof).



Ahhh, but yes it doesn't work this way. Nobody is forced to use flash, there are many competing technologies out there.

Just like the smartphone market. If adobe can't play by Apple rules, there are MANY other platforms for them to sell their software on.

 

[muncyweb]

I sell cakes and refuse to put in them any nuts from Argentina. So Argentina sues me??

This is between Apple and their customers.

 

[CaryMacGuy]

There is no law saying that Apple has to support a proprietary standard such as Flash. Apple has decided that it doesn't need flash to make the iPhone or iPad a successful product. Guess what, they are right.

 

[seashellz]

all APPLE needs to do is turn around and sue ADOBE for "nuisance lawsuit" and case closed


in the end its APPLEs product and they can design it the way they see fit

and FLASH? what a joke of a 'product'




The Microsoft fanbois need to get a life; They are DINOSAURS in the coming age of mammals...heh heh

"Windows is an antiquated technology"-WSJ Sept 2009 (in a review of SL)

 

[50548]

That's like Burger King sueing McDonald's because they don't sell the whopper.

Best news ever!

I hope Adobe does it, really...it's gonna be one more reason for Apple to buy that POS company with some spare change and shut it down, just so it can show the world how that stupid little MS's brother started misbehaving after being practically created by Apple's desktop publishing revolution.

Again: DO IT, ADOBE! SHOW US THE SHORTEST WAY TO OBLIVION!

 

[JackAxe]

Opinons are like ***holes, we all have one.

 

[mikerr]

I'm backing Apple on this one, there has got to be a serious reason as to why they dont want the plugin flash on the iPhone & iPad and to be honest HTML5 is so much nicer & way less cpu intensive.

Surely the main reason is that it would kill (or harm) the appstore app sales.

Many of the apps in appstore could be made in flash and distributed outside of the appstore...

 

[muncyweb]

Maybe if the Adobe staff called a prayer meeting to pray the Flash back into Apple, rather than all this lawsuit business, perhaps they would have more time to improve upon their products.

 

[smilinmonki666]

I'm sorry, but this is getting pathetic...

First M$ get told off for only including THEIR browser on THEIR os due to "Unfair competition" & now this...

Why file suit for this. They should should see why they do this, maybe M$ should file suite against them because you can use can't install Windows Mobile on the iPhone, oh... wait, thats also pathetic... Or they should just realise that they can't get on the iPhone. There is a reason for this I'm sure...?

 

[Winni]

Apple can do what it wants with it's software packages and terms. People really need to get over it.

It might be unfathomable to the average American, but NO, Apple CANNOT do what they want with their software and TERMS. Especially NOT with their TERMS.

In case you haven't noticed, there are LAWS, and Apple has to obey those laws as much as you or anybody else.

Could Ford forbid Pirelli to produce and sell tires that fit on their cares?
Could McDonald's forbid Heinz to produce and sell Ketchup for their French Fries?
Could Swatch forbid somebody to produce and sell batteries that fit into their watches?

Could Microsoft forbid Adobe to produce and sell Flash for Windows? (We all certainly know the answer to that -- Microsoft was grilled for more than one illegal attempt at finishing off their competitors.)

Could Apple write a license agreement that only allows you to use their software while you are in Disneyland and wearing a Mickey Mouse T-Shirt?

Folks like you actually believe that Apple has all the rights to impose such rules on their customers.

And people in other countries believe that their have to be limits to the rights of the copyright owner, because, you know, customers (and in this case, developers) have rights, too. And in other countries, the rights of the customers weigh as much as the rights of the seller.

 

[jragosta]

Not a good argument there. I do not have to look very far to find the fact that a majority of Apples 140k + apps are crap and calling them crap is being nice.

That's a meaningless argument. There are some bad native apps, but there are also good native apps. If you write in native code, it's possible to create good apps.

So far, all the indications are that it is not even possible to write good apps with Flash to iPhone. That is unless there's some evidence out there that you're refusing to provide because you LIKE getting the floor wiped with your face.

Pulled from the same article. He even said it was in very early Beta or even Alpha stages when he looked at it. Not valid comparison.

And he said that everything he saw said that it would NEVER be a good solution.

So where's all this evidence that it produces great iPhone apps?

One can easily argue that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices in an area where it may have a monopoly.

One could argue that the world economy is really run by the Wicked Witch of the West, too, but that wouldn't be true, either.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly and they're not engaging in anticompetitive practices.

The "performance" argument Jobs gives is a poor excuse and certainly not borne on the OS X platform.

If it's a poor excuse, why is it that not a single mobile OS supports Flash at this time? And why is it that even Adobe claims that 10.1 (if they ever get around to releasing it) requires a Cortex A8 processor - so the iPhone isn't fast enough to meet Adobe's minimum standards.

And your statement about OS X / Flash is just plain wrong. It is well documented that Flash sucks big time on Mac OS X. My 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo with 3 GB jumps to 120% processor usage when a Flash web page is open - even if it's not doing anything. The only time my MacBook Pro EVER gets hot is running Flash.

 

[50548]

Which area would this be?

The same "area" invented by Psystar some months ago...