I thought they might of, but I wasn't quite sure. Because if they used thier own technology, it would've been better to put the HD5XXX series in as they use less power.
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 sue Apple now?
- Thread starter netnothing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought they might of, but I wasn't quite sure. Because if they used thier own technology, it would've been better to put the HD5XXX series in as they use less power.
They did their own thing - unlike Optimus, it shuts off the integrated graphics when using the discrete. It checks for whether an app uses CoreGraphics, OpenGL, etc. and reacts accordingly, and unlike Optimus doesn't apparently use profiles or trap calls. Supposedly uses less power than nVidia's thing.
Ok ... so we're talking past each other at this point.
Adobe has a product that does HTML (4) ... (Dreamweaver).
Adobe has a different product that does (some) HTML5
Them trying to sue apple under the auspices of it hurting their business is not a hearty argument. Adobe can invest in their existing HTML authoring tool or invest in their Flash tool to create HTML5 / Canvas products.
The only financial argument they have is that Dreamweaver is $399 and Flash it $699 so they are making less if they sell Dreamweaver instead of Flash. Either way they have a product to sell into the market. I'm no lawyer, but IMHO. Adobe misstepped by blaming Apple for their poor financial performance.
Did anyone sue apple when they decided not to include the floppy drive? No ... everyone screamed, but eventually the entire industry moved on (without floppy).
Ok ... so we're talking past each other at this point.
Adobe has a product that does HTML (4) ... (Dreamweaver).
Adobe has a different product that does (some) HTML5
Them trying to sue apple under the auspices of it hurting their business is not a hearty argument. Adobe can invest in their existing HTML authoring tool or invest in their Flash tool to create HTML5 / Canvas products.
The only financial argument they have is that Dreamweaver is $399 and Flash it $699 so they are making less if they sell Dreamweaver instead of Flash. Either way they have a product to sell into the market. I'm no lawyer, but IMHO. Adobe misstepped by blaming Apple for their poor financial performance.
Did anyone sue apple when they decided not to include the floppy drive? No ... everyone screamed, but eventually the entire industry moved on (without floppy).
this has nothing to do with web stuff. this is about using Adobe tools to make native iPhone apps. read the article linked in the first post.
The power of controlling both the hardware and the software.
I still don't understand why they wouldn't use an ATi chip, they use less power. Fits perfectly with their batterylife fetish.
Ok ... so we're talking past each other at this point.
Adobe has a product that does HTML (4) ... (Dreamweaver).
Adobe has a different product that does (some) HTML5
Them trying to sue apple under the auspices of it hurting their business is not a hearty argument. Adobe can invest in their existing HTML authoring tool or invest in their Flash tool to create HTML5 / Canvas products.
The only financial argument they have is that Dreamweaver is $399 and Flash it $699 so they are making less if they sell Dreamweaver instead of Flash. Either way they have a product to sell into the market. I'm no lawyer, but IMHO. Adobe misstepped by blaming Apple for their poor financial performance.
Did anyone sue apple when they decided not to include the floppy drive? No ... everyone screamed, but eventually the entire industry moved on (without floppy).
HTML5 is more than just the Canvas tag. Adobe supports 1 tag! 1!
Ok. For everyone who thinks this is Flash. Adobe's compiler creates iPhone OS compatible machine code using the Flash programming language. It is Not Flash and will not run in a browser. You would NOT be able to tell the difference between an application developed in XCode and one created using Adobe's compiler. None. In fact some of you probably have even used apps created using tools created using Unity3D or possibly even Adobe's compiler.
It just allows Flash developers to create applications. And if you think creating certain games and graphicly oriented programs in Objective C is easier you have never developed in Flash.
SJ is making claims that it's hard for Apple to approve these for the new OS because of multitasking, stating that 3rd party compilers Might not adopt these features as quickly and the developer would be tied down more closely to say Adobe vs Apple.
I have been railing for TORT Reform and major Legal System overhauls for this country for a long time now.
After reading this thread I change my mind.
The amount of fundamental ignorance that exists about the current system makes me believe any kind of restructuring or overhaul would potentially only end up being worse.
After reading this thread I change my mind.
The amount of fundamental ignorance that exists about the current system makes me believe any kind of restructuring or overhaul would potentially only end up being worse.
If Adobe ever fixed flash code so it ran on Apple hardware without breaking other things, Apple would never have had a problem with it. The problem is Adobe doesn't want to spend time and money to fix Flash for the Mac, because flash is near to becoming an obsolete solution anyway. It was never really meant for a mobile device, Adobe just tries to convince us it is. I don't think Adobe should be very serious about suing Apple over it.
Every Apple fanboy poo-pooed me when I suggested that Adobe might just sue Apple using Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
I believe that Adobe could file a suit as early as the end of this week, because the stipulations in the iPhone OS 4.0 SDK essentially forces you to use ONLY Apple's own programming tools, a potential violation of the tie-in and exclusivity rules that is part of Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
By the way, I believe that Flash 10.1--due late this spring--will work specifically with Mac programming guidelines. Watch Flash 10.1 use a tiny fraction of the resources of earlier Flash versions, thanks to take full advantage of MacOS X memory management and offloading Flash code processing to the GPU.
I believe that Adobe could file a suit as early as the end of this week, because the stipulations in the iPhone OS 4.0 SDK essentially forces you to use ONLY Apple's own programming tools, a potential violation of the tie-in and exclusivity rules that is part of Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
By the way, I believe that Flash 10.1--due late this spring--will work specifically with Mac programming guidelines. Watch Flash 10.1 use a tiny fraction of the resources of earlier Flash versions, thanks to take full advantage of MacOS X memory management and offloading Flash code processing to the GPU.
Its the shareholders platform, and you can bet Adobe, if only the employees, have stock in Apple.
So the old argument of Steve can do what he wants... well only if the company werent public you see... so yes, Adobe and anyone else has a right to voice an opinion.
Not only that, but here is the real sticker... no one is telling anyone they have to buy Adobe made apps - even funnier is that no one has to download flash player just to complain about how slow flash loads... [just dont install it and you can experience first hand the experience of iPad and iPhone browsing on your mac/pc!] lol!!!!
Peace
dAlen
Absolutely.
...
Have you used Aperture 3 yet?
Actually, yes. And it crashes with large libraries. Even after the updates. Maybe Jobs ought to ban it from Mac OS....
I, and most sane others, still use Light Room. Aperture is not up to snuff yet, it doesn't have the features either, nor the plugins.
How
Not a lawyer but just what grounds would Adobe have to sue Apple on. The article made no statements as to grounds, it is just stupid speculation. It would be like my neighbor saying a contractor is going to sue me because he didn't get to use his tools on my house, when I have no contract with said contractor. Interesting thought but Adobe sue Apple over flash tools is BS.
Not a lawyer but just what grounds would Adobe have to sue Apple on. The article made no statements as to grounds, it is just stupid speculation. It would be like my neighbor saying a contractor is going to sue me because he didn't get to use his tools on my house, when I have no contract with said contractor. Interesting thought but Adobe sue Apple over flash tools is BS.
For those claiming that the Flash compiler will make the same Apps as Xcode, I just asked a programmer friend about that and that claim is not true. With the new OS 4 for the mobile devices there are APIs that are Apple's that need to hook into the code properly, the code needs to be written using tools that will do that not just generate a layer of code on top of a more generic base. He is just now starting to write Apps for the store that are mobile versions of his desktop programs. He very much agreed that no way could the code work as well and would be more crippled if written in Flash (yes IN Flash code folks, doesn't matter where it ends up it still starts as Flash action script)
Apple doesn't have to allow code generated in ways that do not work with their system the way they want it to. So people have choices, they can code for other mobile devices or get a compatible C++ program to write the Apps. Some of the others like Unity that compile in Xcode are working with Apple to make sure they are compliant. LINK
Apparently Adobe isn't even trying, they are are having a hissy fit instead. Maybe it has dawned on them that a whole lot of people, myself included banished Flash from their websites in a week, that there are new Apps everyday so that people can watch video on sites like Netflix or other hugely visited sites have an html5 as an option (via a menu tab) available right now. Flash is very proprietary in that it has it's own type of scripting code and that you need to have a Flash program to use it (not so with other languages like javascript). And now of all things they put Flash creation tools in the latest InDesign program??? Why so it is easier to for people to make horrible Flash ads?? And look at the prices they charge! I am not at all interested in their new suite, even more bloated! I had to upgrade to a MacPro to run the last Creative Suite properly and even still their programs crash all of the time. I had to learn DreamWeaver when they killed GoLive so I can learn something else if I need to. I would miss InDesign (or just stay using the version I have), but it has gotten bloated too and I am not doing as much print work as I am web work so the new tricks in CS5 are not worth the money for the upgrade, I can stay at CS4 for quite a long time. So let them take their marbles and go home, there are other things out there, as long as I can manipulate images (just downloaded a demo of SketchPad Pro and love it) and write CSS code (which can be done in TextEdit if I have to, but I don't have to, BBEdit is good, Xylescope and Coda all can be just as successful for me) I am good.
Thing is people, there are choices, there really are, if you don't like Apple go get a JooJoo or Zune or Dell. No one is making you use Apple products if it upsets you so. And allowing Apps in the store made with Flash as the base is not going to guarantee they will be worth having, Flash player is not secure in web pages, what makes you think Flash code will be more secure ported to an App???
I personally hope that Flash Player is never going to happen on an iPad, in the past I was hoping for it, but then I found other, better things to use instead. But before I did, I found a work around to play a swf file on my iPod Touch, it was awful! Even with a faster processor I just don't know how mobile devices will play swf files properly... go look a JooJoo demo and see how "well" it works!
Apple doesn't have to allow code generated in ways that do not work with their system the way they want it to. So people have choices, they can code for other mobile devices or get a compatible C++ program to write the Apps. Some of the others like Unity that compile in Xcode are working with Apple to make sure they are compliant. LINK
Apparently Adobe isn't even trying, they are are having a hissy fit instead. Maybe it has dawned on them that a whole lot of people, myself included banished Flash from their websites in a week, that there are new Apps everyday so that people can watch video on sites like Netflix or other hugely visited sites have an html5 as an option (via a menu tab) available right now. Flash is very proprietary in that it has it's own type of scripting code and that you need to have a Flash program to use it (not so with other languages like javascript). And now of all things they put Flash creation tools in the latest InDesign program??? Why so it is easier to for people to make horrible Flash ads?? And look at the prices they charge! I am not at all interested in their new suite, even more bloated! I had to upgrade to a MacPro to run the last Creative Suite properly and even still their programs crash all of the time. I had to learn DreamWeaver when they killed GoLive so I can learn something else if I need to. I would miss InDesign (or just stay using the version I have), but it has gotten bloated too and I am not doing as much print work as I am web work so the new tricks in CS5 are not worth the money for the upgrade, I can stay at CS4 for quite a long time. So let them take their marbles and go home, there are other things out there, as long as I can manipulate images (just downloaded a demo of SketchPad Pro and love it) and write CSS code (which can be done in TextEdit if I have to, but I don't have to, BBEdit is good, Xylescope and Coda all can be just as successful for me) I am good.
Thing is people, there are choices, there really are, if you don't like Apple go get a JooJoo or Zune or Dell. No one is making you use Apple products if it upsets you so. And allowing Apps in the store made with Flash as the base is not going to guarantee they will be worth having, Flash player is not secure in web pages, what makes you think Flash code will be more secure ported to an App???
I personally hope that Flash Player is never going to happen on an iPad, in the past I was hoping for it, but then I found other, better things to use instead. But before I did, I found a work around to play a swf file on my iPod Touch, it was awful! Even with a faster processor I just don't know how mobile devices will play swf files properly... go look a JooJoo demo and see how "well" it works!
So many words, so little thought....
So, Flash is "very proprietary?" As opposed to H.264, which is just a little proprietary, then? Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?
Cross-compilers are perfectly fine for many purposes. Except some Adobe's products create competition for Apple, so Apple turns on the PR machine to feed the know-nothings BS about "performance" and "crashes."
Evidently it works.
I've seen this written a few other places, but this is pretty clearly incorrect. If it WERE the case, none of the existing iphone apps would work on OS4, and either way a quick change of the Adobe libraries would sort it out.
Regarding the other stuff in your post - Flash code is written in ECMAScript (which is the official name for JavaScript) - it's an open standard. There are 3rd party tools for generating SWF files (including writing Flash bytecode), and open-source 3rd party Flash runtimes. Flash is VERY far from a closed platform.
+1. Just installed it myself after reading your post and can fully agree with you now.
It's here if anyone else wants to try it -> http://clicktoflash.com/
No, I could probably run Flash created apps right now on the new OS no problem. It's just because SJ doesn't believe in developers and wants his version of "quality" control.
No.
Again, no. The overhead is minuscule.
If your a professional there is no substitute for Photoshop. None.
Again. This is not Flash player. I don't know how many times this needs to be said. It completely abides the same rules native iPhone OS apps do.
dub3000 said:
Finally someone who knows what they are talking about... Cheers
Hehe - now this would be interesting if it were true
Adobe Tweaks Photoshop EULA to Protect from Substandard Computers Using CS5
Adobe Tweaks Photoshop EULA to Protect from Substandard Computers Using CS5
1984 Jefferson Parish Hospital v. Hyde:
The Supreme Court approved an arrangement under which the hospital required all surgical patients to use its own approved anesthesiology firm. Competition was not harmed, the Supreme Court concluded, because the hospital admitted only 30 percent of the patients in the area, meaning there was ample room for other anesthesiologists to practice their profession.
Apple has only 18% of the smartphone market. Adobe will lose the case.
Adobe will argue that Apple's app store represents 90%+ of smartphone app sales and is therefore an effective monopoly.
Why does everyone seem to think that this has to do with mobile market share?
When the third largest U.S. company (Apple) seemingly singles out a relatively small company (Adobe) there is likely a lawsuit. When Adobe figures out the right law to stand on (they will or already have) they will sue. It's only a matter of time.
dub3000 said:
That's a really good possibility.
So little thought. You don't need a Flash player, or a Real Player, or a QT player, or a Windows Media Player to play a generic mp4 video file compressed using the H.264 Codec. You just need a browser. Whatever player your system calls on by default in the background, should uncompress the codec, if not the player needs updating -- H.264 is an OPEN standard.
You look at JPEG images, don't you? You read PDFs, don't you? What's your deal with H.264?
Just like PDFs and .doc and a bunch of other stuff. If your system doesn't handle some of the underlying standards very well, then complain about that. Mac OS does a lot with PDFs for example, right in the system.
True, H.264 has not been deeded to the OpenSource community as Free, as in Beer. It's still OPEN. Just like GIF, JPEG, MP4, MP3, etc. etc.
The forum/consortium, similar as for MPEG2 (DVDs, etc,) is likely going to keep it free or low cost. Other, supposedly "free" (as in beer) codecs (such as Ogg Theora) are MORE likely to be subject to submarine patent disputes if they were ever widely used. And they are inferior. The consortium has known and open plans for the codec.
H264 even has an OPENSOURCE encoder. X264.
Technically, everything you see in 2D Mac OSX is a PDF.