Adobe to sue Apple now?

[Peace]

I just checked the HTML5 Youtube beta.

It's EXTREMELY FEATURE INCOMPLETE compared to FLASH.
And of course Youtube is at the forefront of HTML 5 conversion away from FLASH.
That does sorta make all you FLASH haters look like idiots.
You do realize that right?

And boy are you under Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field in a big way! LOL

You do realize there is actual text in between all those flash videos right ?

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Actually...

So... Apple has one monopoly (the AppStore distribution method of selling apps for iPhones) and they want to leverage that to affect another market (web video codecs / video delivery systems) by implementing anti-competitive rules in their own marketplace/monopoly of the AppStore. Seems perfectly legit for Adobe to sue, and even have a shot at winning.

Adobe is the one with the proprietary hold on the web content market, Apple supports the open language of HTML5.

 

[macUser2007]

Prove what? That Apple can move some of that $40 billion, mobilize its vast developer base (that is part of the most lucrative operation in consumer tech) and put out a competitive suite faster than you can say Adobe Freehand?

You mean, something like Aperture....? LOL

 

[hellodon]

Really? Then maybe you can explain why Adobe says that the MINIMUM required for Flash 10.1 is a Cortex A8 processor - which is roughly twice as fast as the iPhone 3GS. And even on a Cortex A8, 10.1 apparently runs like a dog. If ADOBE says that the iPhone is incapable of running Flash, how can Apple get in trouble for not running Flash?

Who is trying to run the desktop 10.1 computer version of flash? There is a mobile version of flash...and considering both devices in question are both on the same mobile OS, i think it's pretty clear that's what we're talking about.

You really need to research the stuff you're talking about before coming out with guns blazing like you know everything there is to know.

Was the genius bar named after you or is it just a coincidence ?

 

[*LTD*]

I just checked the HTML5 Youtube beta.

It's EXTREMELY FEATURE INCOMPLETE compared to FLASH.
And of course Youtube is at the forefront of HTML 5 conversion away from FLASH.
That does sorta make all you FLASH haters look like idiots.
You do realize that right?

And boy are you under Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field in a big way! LOL

Because believe it or not, Steve Jobs has been *right* for about a decade now. That's quite a track record.

The YouTube HTML5 beta . . . is a beta. In due course, it won't be. If Apple is betting on it you'd be smart to bet on it as well.

 

[rhett7660]

If you have a superior technology (something better than flash), you implement it without blocking an inferior one.

If you have to block a technology, than it's a threat and therefore NOT inferior.

Blocking technology for any reason (whether it be Blu-ray or flash or anything else) is fascist. That's what fascists do; insist things will be their inferior way and there will be no other option available from them.

Apple, under Jobs, is fascist, and has been for quite some time. It didn't start out that way, but it will end that way.

Emphasis on the word "end". For you see, people don't like fascists or fascism. Oh, they'll put on the armbands and give the salutes and wave the stars and stripes and swastikas and bully those less fortunate for awhile, but it never lasts.

Because sooner or later people wake up.

Because there is absolutely no other choice out there! None not a one, not a single one??!!! Because if your are believing what you are writing, there would be no other competition because apple would have bought/smashed/done away with anything else that does not concede to them. There is only apple and apple only. Yeah ok.

 

[*LTD*]

You mean, something like Aperture....? LOL

EXACTLY.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

There is likely damages for changing development terms after the company invested millions into making development terms for the platform.

Ok, so I am trying to follow your logic...

So Apple should have told Adobe ahead of time that they were changing their SDK license? Why? So Adobe would have time to alter the way they are circumventing Apple's iPhone app parameters. Or maybe Apple did it when they did because they just announced iOS 4.0, and the guidelines needed to be changed because of the upcoming multi-tasking. Who's to say.

Than there is the general anti competitive behavior, you don't have to be a monopoly to get smacked with that.

How are they being anti-competitive? They aren't saying you can't write an app (I could, but alas, I'm not a programer). They just want it written in a particular language.

I hope apple will be forced to open up the platform in the future. The world of computing will be as bleak as cable television if this trend takes place.

I'm all for open standards and net neutrality.

How does unlocking the sandbox help us achieve open standards and net neutrality?

All apple needs to do is to let users install their own apps as they please. Make the store exclusive to apple approved apps.

They can, and it all ready is.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

He's a professional. His "opinions" are what we call "informed."

Guess by that logic, my opinions are "informed" as well.

Opinions are opinions.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

And that's what Apple wants...

As I said earlier, it wasnt something I really cared about on my iPhone but once I started using my iPad to browse the internet instead of my laptop, i started to realize how often it's used and how restricted I was. Its pretty disappointing, honestly.

On my phone, I realize it's a phone and 9 times out of 10 I'm just using the internet quickly to look something up - but on the iPad, the plan was to "have the web in my hands" and really use it as a primary web surfing device. Sadly, I've realized a lot is missing without flash. One thing in particular I mentioned is that I'm shopping for a new car. I wanted to go to a few of the car websites and I couldnt use any of the ones I tried. Had to go get my laptop and I dunno...that sucks

I have spent hours using the iPad for internet (not what this thread is about, but relevant)and the only thing missing for me was the ability to view flash video. As far as I am concerned, most of the flash that it blocks are advertisements and annoyances. Now, that is where the true argument may be hiding. Is Apple trying to force developers and media distributors to use its advertisement plug-in at 40% take for Apple?

 

[*LTD*]

Guess by that logic, my opinions are "informed" as well.

Opinions are opinions.

You aren't a lawyer. We're discussing legal issues here. LOL

Jeezus . . .

 

[macUser2007]

I just checked the HTML5 Youtube beta.

It's EXTREMELY FEATURE INCOMPLETE compared to FLASH.
And of course Youtube is at the forefront of HTML 5 conversion away from FLASH.
That does sorta make all you FLASH haters look like idiots.
You do realize that right?

And boy are you under Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field in a big way! LOL

Yep, and that's just for video. But Flash is sooo much more than video. HTML5 is a good thing, generally, but all this talk about it replacing Flash completely is uninformed, at best.

The true reason for Apple to exclude Flash and cross-compilers , is to exclude competition from its platform. And I hope they get smacked for it.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Actually...

I am amazed at how fast the fanboys will turn this entire thing in to it is all about flash.

FOR THE LAST TIME THE LAW SUIT IS NOT ABOUT FLASH. The law suit would be about using a middleware to compile software written in another language (for example C#, .net, Flash, Python, ect) to iPhone format. It is not about putting flash on the iPad/iPhone. it is about coding languages.

Really learn what it is about before you go off and say that it is all about flash for web pages. This is about app coding. Adobe just happen to make something that can take something coded in flash and compile it to run on an iPad/Phone/Pod

Much of the discussion of flash that I have read here has been somewhat relevant to the discussion. It is important to keep in mind that the specific challenge in this case is use of a cross-compiller.

 

[HyperZboy]

If you have a superior technology (something better than flash), you implement it without blocking an inferior one.

If you have to block a technology, than it's a threat and therefore NOT inferior.

Blocking technology for any reason (whether it be Blu-ray or flash or anything else) is fascist. That's what fascists do; insist things will be their inferior way and there will be no other option available from them.

Apple, under Jobs, is fascist, and has been for quite some time. It didn't start out that way, but it will end that way.

Emphasis on the word "end". For you see, people don't like fascists or fascism. Oh, they'll put on the armbands and give the salutes and wave the stars and stripes and swastikas and bully those less fortunate for awhile, but it never lasts.

Because sooner or later people wake up.

Steve Jobs' evolution running Apple from the 1970s until today is quite a contradiction.

If you compare the Steve Jobs who ran the "1984" commercial to introduce the Macintosh to today's Steve Jobs, it's like comparing 2 different people.

Steve Jobs has totally become what he ridiculed and lambasted and the people here who defend his every word always remind me of that Apple TV commercial of PC owners all walking off a cliff in a straight line. That's sad.

 

[macUser2007]

EXACTLY.

... you've been in the bathtub way too long.....

 

[colinmack]

I've been involved in many more than one.

Being the defendant doesn't count

 

[RaZaK]

let's be adults, Adobe

i'm all for encouraging Apple to change its mind, but, really Adobe? a lawsuit?

what's the legal basis? Apple won't let you get on the iPhone\iPad\iPod swingset and it hurt your feelings? What a crock.

 

[Keebler]

This can't be real - this is almost like the neighbour taking his bat and ball and going home and getting sued for it.

The only thing I can think of is adobe might day apple slandered them.

It's he only thing I can think of

 

[RaZaK]

oh really?

I am amazed at how fast the fanboys will turn this entire thing in to it is all about flash.

FOR THE LAST TIME THE LAW SUIT IS NOT ABOUT FLASH. The law suit would be about using a middleware to compile software written in another language (for example C#, .net, Flash, Python, ect) to iPhone format. It is not about putting flash on the iPad/iPhone. it is about coding languages.

Really learn what it is about before you go off and say that it is all about flash for web pages. This is about app coding. Adobe just happen to make something that can take something coded in flash and compile it to run on an iPad/Phone/Pod

and the Adobe product that is implementing this middleware layer is called what? oh yes, that's right. Adobe Flash. Good point Rodimus.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

You aren't a lawyer. We're discussing legal issues here. LOL

Jeezus . . .

I was making a generalization. By your logic though my opinion on technology is informed thus making my opinion worth motor than anyone elses. Or does that only count towards trustworthy professionals such as lawyers and salespeople?

 

[Shin3r]

Originally Posted by Small White Car
That's what I'm saying. I don't think that's a market.

This is a lot like if CBS is getting 90% of the viewers for a time slot and NBC sues them by saying "it's not fair, they have more viewers, it's a monopoly!" Just because they have the majority of the viewers, that doesn't make it a monopoly. Owning all the channels would be a monopoly.

Group A
TV Channels (NBC, CBS) = Cell phone platforms (iPhone, Android)
Group B
TV Shows (House, Evening News) = App Stores (iPhone App Store, Android Store)

I'm pretty sure it's Group A that matters. If you own all the phone platforms or all the TV stations then that's a monopoly.

Group B is just consumers going where they want to go. Assuming Group A is being kept fair then I don't see how the government can step in on Group B.

So the Android developers are welcome to put out programs to attract buyers. And Adobe is certainly welcome to be one of those developers. Apple sure isn't stopping them.

But as niuniu succinctly points out. I'm not a lawyer.

No you can still control Group B illegally with out having control over group A. You can illegelly abuse your power in group be to control group A. Apple is abusing market power in group B to control group A.

That doesn't matter. It would only matter if Apple said to Android that they had better not let Adobe make apps for them, which of course, they are not doing. Apple is only controlling what Apple is doing. That's not abuse of power. Then again, the free market system is going away because we all feel some sense of entitlement these days and think that if we don't like the way someone handles their own product, that we have a right to make them change it for us. It's disgusting really.

 

[rhett7660]

I am amazed at how fast the fanboys will turn this entire thing in to it is all about flash.

FOR THE LAST TIME THE LAW SUIT IS NOT ABOUT FLASH. The law suit would be about using a middleware to compile software written in another language (for example C#, .net, Flash, Python, ect) to iPhone format. It is not about putting flash on the iPad/iPhone. it is about coding languages.

Really learn what it is about before you go off and say that it is all about flash for web pages. This is about app coding. Adobe just happen to make something that can take something coded in flash and compile it to run on an iPad/Phone/Pod

No need to yell. Some people may be confused by Adobe having flash and then Adobe releasing a product under the Flash name that does the compiling of the code.

I mean you even said it yourself... Adobe makes a program that codes in Flash and has the "Flash" name in the product. People will assume they are one in the same.

 

[JohnDoe98]

I was making a generalization. By your logic though my opinion on technology is informed thus making my opinion worth motor than anyone elses. Or does that only count towards trustworthy professionals such as lawyers and salespeople?

What are your technology credentials?

 

[JediZenMaster]

Wow lots of ignorances all around i see. First off people thinking that any possible law suit will make apple open the app store up or allow people to submit apps without going thru the app store is foolish.

Don't get it twisted like apple is a monopoly because they are not. The iphone is their creation and why should they be forced to open it up? They shouldn't.

This would be like Microsoft attempting to game makers that offer PS3 Exclusive games. I know for some people who just hate apple this whole idea of a threat is giving you guys a premature boner.

Most people in this thread don't even really care about adobe. They are just attempting to jump on an anti-apple bandwagon. People whined and cried about how the new MBP's dont support lightpeak. Show me laptops that do? I havent seen any from HP or anyone else. So This thread is biased. in the fact that it has gone from an adobe issue to hating on apple

 

[RaZaK]

If you have a superior technology (something better than flash), you implement it without blocking an inferior one.

If you have to block a technology, than it's a threat and therefore NOT inferior.

Blocking technology for any reason (whether it be Blu-ray or flash or anything else) is fascist. That's what fascists do; insist things will be their inferior way and there will be no other option available from them.

Apple, under Jobs, is fascist, and has been for quite some time. It didn't start out that way, but it will end that way.

Because sooner or later people wake up.

Apple is a publicly-owned company. NOT a philanthropic organization, and NOT a non-profit.

It has NO obligation to its customers. It's sole obligation is to increase shareholder wealth as is any company. Yeah, i'm grateful they make great products.

However, if they don't implement features\technology that I desire, my responsibility as a consumer is to either A) buy Apple's "inferior" products or B) take my money elsewhere.

no amount of complaining on here or any forum is going to make Steve Jobs change his mind. Also, as long as Apple remains profitable, he's not going anywhere.