Adobe to sue Apple now?

[macUser2007]

I'm also a guy who designed AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64, etc.

The camera circuitry was not stripped; that's why they can use the chip in the next iPhone. And removing it would affect power consumption, not speed (and not by much). A9 does NOT require two cores. It supports two cores. Some A9 designs are single-core. One could also do a 2-core A8 (though one would have to design one's own crossbar). So I am asking what you think the difference between an A8 core and an A9 core is.

I hope you are not offended, but I will take the word of Jon Stokes at Ars over yours.

If Apple did not see an issue with using the older chipset, they would have been upfront, and published the specs, like any other company. The explanation would have come from Apple, not from its shills.

I suppose it is easier to hide the underpowered, older tech in the iPad, because Apple controls the app store so tightly. Any app which may expose the weaknesses of the hardware, will never see the light of day.

 

[JediZenMaster]

I hope you are not offended, but I will take the word of Jon Stokes at Ars over yours.

If Apple did not see an issue with using the older chipset, they would have been upfront, and published the specs, like any other company. The explanation would have come from Apple, not from its shills.

I suppose it is easier to hide the underpowered, older tech in the iPad, because Apple controls the app store so tightly. Any app which may expose the weaknesses of the hardware, will never see the light of day.

Actually Jon stokes claims that he "Heard from unamed Sources" That the a4 uses a Single A8 core. But that means nothing because its mere heresay. Untill i see something more concrete ill belive other wise.

 

[jragosta]

I hope you are not offended, but I will take the word of Jon Stokes at Ars over yours.

If Apple did not see an issue with using the older chipset, they would have been upfront, and published the specs, like any other company. The explanation would have come from Apple, not from its shills.

I suppose it is easier to hide the underpowered, older tech in the iPad, because Apple controls the app store so tightly. Any app which may expose the weaknesses of the hardware, will never see the light of day.

Or maybe, just maybe, Apple is not targeting the iPad at geeks who care whether it's an A8 or A9 or how many cores or how big the cache is. Do you think anyone cares what processor is in their microwave or BMW?

Apple left out a lot of geeky details. Notice that their literature doesn't say how much RAM is in the iPad, either, and it was obvious that people would figure that out as soon as they got their hands on one. The iPad market just doesn't care. All they care about is "is it fast enough" and all indications are that it is.

I'm sitting in my Flash class right now. My teacher says who is a Flash expert 2(0 years in graphics) says APPLE is doing itself a bad service. Spiteful of them!!!!

Well, imagine that. A Flash 'developer' doesn't like the fact that Apple is willing to say that the emperor has no clothes. Maybe if he'd learn real programming, he wouldn't need to be so scared by the fact that Flash is going the way of the dinosaurs. Not tomorrow, but it's clearly happening.

 

[cmaier]

I hope you are not offended, but I will take the word of Jon Stokes at Ars over yours.

If Apple did not see an issue with using the older chipset, they would have been upfront, and published the specs, like any other company. The explanation would have come from Apple, not from its shills.

I suppose it is easier to hide the underpowered, older tech in the iPad, because Apple controls the app store so tightly. Any app which may expose the weaknesses of the hardware, will never see the light of day.

No offense taken. I understand Jon has designed lots of chi... oh, wait, no he hasn't.

Anyway, it is new to you that apple doesn't reveal specs? Have you not noticed that they have NEVER fessed up to what is inside the iPhone? Or what the specs are on the SSD drives they use? The reason they aren't "upfront" is that they don't try to compete on specs, and they think their target market is turned off by technical jargon and a bunch of numbers.

 

[alent1234]

I'm sitting in my Flash class right now. My teacher says who is a Flash expert 2(0 years in graphics) says APPLE is doing itself a bad service. Spiteful of them!!!!

Steve Jobs on the other hand is running a successful business. and from a business perspective he's doing the right thing

 

[alent1234]

This isn't really the best comparison. Almost all current game development on home consoles is done with middleware (I say almost, because there may be some that don't, but who knows).

The middleware is ported to the console- it is the responsibility of the middleware developer in this sense to make sure their engine meets Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft requirements.

Unreal Tournament 3 for PS3 was created with the Unreal Engine and toolset. In order to take advantage of new things the console makers have in their system (like ps3 trophies) the middleware needs to take advantage of it or the developer must code it themselves.

The argument Apple uses - having to wait on a 3rd party vendor to meet new standards/requirements put forth by Apple - goes both ways. Rather than 120,000 developers whose games don't work in the next OS update, and wait for everyone to develop their own solution, Unity can can release a patch, and all 120,000 Unity developers can make their game work using an updated version of the one, centralized middleware tool.

In fact, this has happened in the history of Unity - and still Unity made games are in the top of the list after an update like that.

the console makers also have stricter requirements than Apple to sell a game for their console

 

[jerome65]

the console makers also have stricter requirements than Apple to sell a game for their console

And I believe that the console makers also get a portion of the sale price of every game sold no matter what retail outlet it was sold at.

 

[Darkroom]

if a prominent company like Ubisoft spent money and resources developing for the Nintendo Wii that Nintendo knew all about for over a year, if upon release Nintendo suddenly decided to flat-out block it with no testing, no requested changes, etc., and their reasons behind the block were clearly unfounded and painfully political, rest assured there would be a fairly serious law suit.

 

[jragosta]

if a prominent company like Ubisoft spent money and resources developing for the Nintendo Wii that Nintendo knew all about for over a year, if upon release Nintendo suddenly decided to flat-out block it with no testing, no requested changes, etc., and their reasons behind the block were clearly unfounded and painfully political, rest assured there would be a fairly serious law suit.

I love it when people just make things up and expect everyone to believe them. Let's just get a few details:

1. Who says Adobe didn't have any warning? In fact, published reports state that Adobe knew full well that their converter wouldn't be allowed and simply tried an end run - which is why Apple clarified.

2. What do the Nintendo terms say? Do they require notice of any changes?

3. What do the Apple terms say? Do they require notice of any changes?

4. Under what law would Nintendo sue? If you're arguing a contract violation, exactly what clause in their contract would they be violating if they did that?

5. How do you know Apple never tested the Adobe 'solution'?

Basically, you're making things up and have absolutely no factual basis to support your allegations.

 

[jt2ga65]

I think it would be better to start a class action law suit against Apple for blocking access to the Flash-based Internet. I really wish Apple would get off their high horse, and allow me to access the sites I choose to with my Apple device that I bought. Haven't them been promising to support flash from the get-go? When did they decide to change their story, and pretend like they never promised us Flash in the first place?

I really do not give a crap about Adobe or Flash. I just want my mobile device to be able to view the "real" internet, not some Apple made-up Internet. The "real" internet has sites that contain Flash. Good or bad, if I want to browse the Internet, I expect Flash support from my browser.

Now, if Apple allowed me to replace Safari with something else that I could use to view flash, then all the better. But since they would only approve Opera (which I hate more than Safari) if it would not support flash, then they have blocked my desire to view the Internet.

And for someone to tell be to go buy a Andriod or Palm, or whatever else... I would prefer not to buy an even worse product, and have to pay to get out of my AT&T contract. I don't think AT&T has any decent Android pr Palm phones.

 

[RidleyGriff]

I think we are on the same side, which is why I didn't understand why you are arguing with me when essentially all I am saying is that this case could be big and the outcome will depend on how the court defines the "market". I have said it already, if the "market" is defined as apps then Apple is a HUGE player and the article I linked shows and we all know anyway. If it is defined as phones or platform then monopoly isn't really an issue. It is uncharted territory because this whole area is still emerging. That is all I was saying. I hate Adobe and Flash and I think they are desperate lazy morons that need to just make a new product that is actually good! There is no sense in arguing over what the court will decide, but there are many arguments that could be made on both sides.

Agree we're ultimately on the same side, but I stand by the fact that there is no monopoly here -- and anytime anybody tries to say there is I will disagree.

Any change in tone that came across as argumentative was solely a reaction to your previous post, which -- whether intended or not -- came off pretty obnoxious. If that wasn't your intent, I most definitely offer my apologies.

But yeah -- definitely agree with you re: Adobe. I'd actually have sympathy for them if they had shown any amount of good faith re: the Mac platform the last 5-10 years. Flash development, Photoshop on Intel, 64-bit support in their apps... they've ignored opportunity after opportunity. Make it awful hard to support them from this side of the platform aisle!

If you're talking about evangelists, in the tech world there are few more vocal than Apple evangelists. You could take your exact statement above, switch Adobe for Apple and vice versa, and it would still be true.

The different is the people that are Apple advocates in the press aren't employed by the company. Adobe has a paid position, with a company-run blog, whose only job is to "evangelize" Adobe products (and apparently, attack any partners as well).

If Apple had a blog where they were posting how much Adobe sucked, etc., I'd think Apple was completely out of line as well. Brimelow is a wanker, plain and simple, and the fact that Adobe even needs to employ somebody for this kind of position speaks volumes about their product, imo.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I hope you are not offended, but I will take the word of Jon Stokes at Ars over yours.

If Apple did not see an issue with using the older chipset, they would have been upfront, and published the specs, like any other company. The explanation would have come from Apple, not from its shills.

I suppose it is easier to hide the underpowered, older tech in the iPad, because Apple controls the app store so tightly. Any app which may expose the weaknesses of the hardware, will never see the light of day.

Umm you do know that apple doesn't even release half the specs in the Mac range right? Apple could care less about teh details.

 

[HyperZboy]

And, yet, many people (including 85 MILLION iDevice users and some number of Click to Flash users) get by just fine without Flash. Why is it that you know their needs better than they do?

Not to mention, of course, that those media sites are dropping Flash faster than a hot potato. CBS, NYT, WSJ all dropping Flash. YouTube is now available in html 5 and Hulu isn't far behind.

Most of the sites that are switching to HTML5 are in beta form. Even YouTube is missing features available in Flash and they're more far along than many other sites. Not to mention, many sites create special iPhone pages and just remove the Flash content so you don't notice you're missing content and they don't look stupid.

The notion that HTML 5 is ready to replace Flash at this time is ludicrous.

The fanboys who go to such great lengths to avoid Flash are just sticking their heads in the sand and screaming....

"I can't hear or see you, therefor I don't need you! "

Trying to explain this to Flash-haters quickly turns into a childlike schoolyard
"I know you are, but what am I?" back & forth argument. LOL

 

[macUser2007]

Or maybe, just maybe, Apple is not targeting the iPad at geeks who care whether it's an A8 or A9 or how many cores or how big the cache is. Do you think anyone cares what processor is in their microwave or BMW?...

Uhm, most people do care how large and how powerful the engine on their BMW is, and pay extra for larger ones.

Apple seems to hide specs when they are weak, but tout them when they are not.

It seems to work with fanboys - I am sure back when you were yelling how much better the PowerPC was than Intel, too....

 

[macUser2007]

No offense taken. I understand Jon has designed lots of chi... oh, wait, no he hasn't.

Anyway, it is new to you that apple doesn't reveal specs? Have you not noticed that they have NEVER fessed up to what is inside the iPhone? Or what the specs are on the SSD drives they use? The reason they aren't "upfront" is that they don't try to compete on specs, and they think their target market is turned off by technical jargon and a bunch of numbers.

Nice try. But no, no cigar.

Apple is never upfront about specs when it knows its specs are weaker than the prevailing industry standard.

But when the specs are at industry standards, then they dedicate a whole page to the processor alone, like with the Mac Pro....

Apple is selectively honest.... Or are you implying that the Apple consumer is dumber than the average Android, or PC consumer?

 

[dub3000]

jragosta, everyone here except you seems to be capable of having this discussion without resorting to childish accusations and name calling. Please be civil.

Back on topic - I feel it really is down to whether Adobe will be able to convince the courts that Apple are running an effective monopoly. I agree that this point isn't very concrete.

The console comparisons are a bit foggy though. MS have no similar restrictions on the xbox marketplace which is comparable to the app store in many ways, and as mentioned above there are already loads of cross platform middleware solutions for consoles.

 

[cmaier]

I think it would be better to start a class action law suit against Apple for blocking access to the Flash-based Internet. I really wish Apple would get off their high horse, and allow me to access the sites I choose to with my Apple device that I bought. Haven't them been promising to support flash from the get-go? When did they decide to change their story, and pretend like they never promised us Flash in the first place?

No, Apple never ever promised Flash. Adobe said "we are working with Apple on Flash," but Apple never said that. If anyone broke a promise to you, it's Adobe.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Nice try. But no, no cigar.

Apple is never upfront about specs when it knows its specs are weaker than the prevailing industry standard.

But when the specs are at industry standards, then they dedicate a whole page to the processor alone, like with the Mac Pro....

Apple is selectively honest.... Or are you implying that the Apple consumer is dumber than the average Android, or PC consumer?

Do nintendo and sony excplicitly state what CPUs are in their consoles? (If you don't know the answer is no, both of the specs were released by IBM/Toshiba as part of marketing or a part of teardowns)

 

[PeterQVenkman]

the console makers also have stricter requirements than Apple to sell a game for their console

I can't comment on the approval process. But I'll point out that the Wii game library is not mainly made up of AAA titles.

Adobe has a paid position, with a company-run blog, whose only job is to "evangelize" Adobe products (and apparently, attack any partners as well).

If Apple had a blog where they were posting how much Adobe sucked, etc., I'd think Apple was completely out of line as well.

So does Apple: Steve Jobs. Everything you describe above, he does. He just doesn't do it on a blog.

• He evangelizes Apple products
• He attacks partners (Google, Adobe, Microsoft)
• He ranted/continues to rant about how adobe sucks, and specifically traveled to major publishers of newspapers and magazines to talk about how bad flash and adobe products are.
• He called Google's slogan of "Don't be evil" bulls#!+. (I agree with him on this one), vented about Google stealing an ad network from them at eh iPhone OS reveal.
• He even killed 3rd party analytics in any app, if not approved exlicitly by apple. http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/04/13/apple-banning-iphone-app-analytics/ That's a lot of peeved companies he's made in the past week.
• We all know why he hates microsoft

So, do you think Apple is out of line? I remember some saying somewhere: if people are talking about you behind your back, it's because you've affected their lives. I think Steve qualifies on that one!

The different is the people that are Apple advocates in the press aren't employed by the company.

In the press, but Steve Jobs woos those that agree with him.

Brimelow is a wanker, plain and simple, and the fact that Adobe even needs to employ somebody for this kind of position speaks volumes about their product, imo.

Come on, Apple does the same thing. Apple is just much, MUCH better at it.

Really, did anyone here know who this guy was 10 years ago? Apple has turned many of it's employees into PR/evangelists.

Microsoft had a guy with a similar transformation: J. Allard (head of Xbox division, I think)

Before:

After:

These people are ALL in the PR business at least part time- it's a part of doing business today. Apple just has more budget for it.

 

[rjohnstone]

Do nintendo and sony excplicitly state what CPUs are in their consoles? (If you don't know the answer is no, both of the specs were released by IBM/Toshiba as part of marketing or a part of teardowns)

Sony does.

CPU Cell Broadband Engine™

They clearly state they are using a Cell CPU on the tech specs page on their site.
No, they don't get into the details about the CPU.

But then again their entire site is full of flash based content, so most "i" device users couldn't navigate it too well to find this basic answer.

Nintendo does as well.

Wii Brains

Wii is driven by 2 cutting-edge processors from the best in the business - a PowerPC CPU developed with IBM and a custom GPU from ATI.

Again... they tell you it's a PowerPC chip, just not any specs about "which" PowerPC chip they're using..

 

[MorphingDragon]

Sony does.


They clearly state they are using a Cell CPU on the tech specs page on their site.
No, they don't get into the details about the CPU.

But then again their entire site is full of flash based content, so most "i" device users couldn't navigate it too well to find this basic answer.

There are several variations on the Cell/B.E. Leadtek and Fixtars uses a custom one in their GPU based products for example.

Nintendo does as well.
Again... they tell you it's a PowerPC chip, just not any specs about "which" PowerPC chip they're using..

And this is any different the A4? We're just told its an Apple A4, we only know it is most likely ARM because of drawn conclusions and the fact the P.A. Semi worked a lot with Arm.

 

[rjohnstone]

There are several variations on the Cell/B.E., Leadtek and Fixtars uses a custom one in their GPU based products for example.



And this is any different the A4?

I was simply responding to you comment

Do nintendo and sony excplicitly state what CPUs are in their consoles? (

The answer is yes and no.
Yes, they do state what type of CPU they are using, no, they don't state the actual specs.

 

[MacFly123]

Agree we're ultimately on the same side, but I stand by the fact that there is no monopoly here -- and anytime anybody tries to say there is I will disagree.

Any change in tone that came across as argumentative was solely a reaction to your previous post, which -- whether intended or not -- came off pretty obnoxious. If that wasn't your intent, I most definitely offer my apologies.

But yeah -- definitely agree with you re: Adobe. I'd actually have sympathy for them if they had shown any amount of good faith re: the Mac platform the last 5-10 years. Flash development, Photoshop on Intel, 64-bit support in their apps... they've ignored opportunity after opportunity. Make it awful hard to support them from this side of the platform aisle!

I agree. I am not saying that the monopoly issue is true, but I'm sure Adobe will try to make that case. That is my point on that.

 

[JediZenMaster]

If Adobe claims that apple is a monopoly im sure the judge will laugh them out of court. The Iphone is apple's product and they are within their rights to do what they want with its products.

So go ahead and sue GM for not selling ford in their dealerships and Sue ABC for not not airing american idol. This thread and most of the people who posted in it are very anti apple. And those users don't give a damn about adobe really. They are just wanting to stick it to apple.

Well losers Dream on.

 

[RidleyGriff]

So does Apple: Steve Jobs. Everything you describe above, he does. He just doesn't do it on a blog.

• he evangelizes Apple products
• He attacks partners (Google, Adobe, Microsoft)
• He even killed 3rd party analytics in any app, if not approved exlicitly by apple. http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/04/13/apple-banning-iphone-app-analytics/

So, do you think Apple is out of line?

Heheh... I appreciate your response; at least we're keeping this fun.

If you are asking me if I equate Brimelow publicly saying "screw you, Apple" on his company run blog, and John Dowdell calling Apple unethical on Twitter -- both extremely public platforms -- with Jobs saying Adobe has been lazy in their support of the Mac in a closed-door company meeting, the answer is No.

If Jobs wrote an email to every Apple user saying "Screw Adobe, they're lazy!" you'd have a point.

If Apple released an iPhone app called "Screw Adobe", you'd have a point.

If Apple released a press release, or Jobs said during his keynote "Screw Adobe", you'd have a point.

But none of that happened. In fact, Apple has been very careful not single out Adobe -- or any other company. So don't try to set up some b.s. false equivalency. Adobe have been beyond the pale.

You are right that Jobs talks up his products. So maybe it's unfair to criticize Adobe for needing to hire someone to talk up theirs -- maybe the heads of the company aren't very charismatic and don't like the spotlight; maybe they do need voices out there retaliating against all the gripes about price gouging and terrible refresh cycles; I don't know.

What I do know, however, is that I haven't seen a whole lot of talking up their products from them. I've seen some awesome video of the new Photoshop that certainly speaks for itself -- but what I've heard from the "evangelists" has mostly been defensive blather on how a product that everyone in the industry agrees isn't really that great, is actually not all that bad.

All the time, the world is waiting for them to deliver Mobile Flash... and waiting... and waiting...

And the noise around 3.3.1 has been amazing. I mean, Adobe have got to be morons to put developers in an "us or them" position the way they've been doing. Sure, developers buy and use Adobe's products, but Apple's products help developers make money. I wonder what's going to happen when the App Store continues to be a huge success and developers don't leave? Does Adobe think Apple won't remember? That they won't introduce competing products because Jobs doesn't want Mac users dependent on Adobe's whims ever again?

If this is their idea of "P.R.", I'd hate to see what it looks like the other way.

But that's a different conversation completely. I most definitely agree with you on one point though -- Allard has a SERIOUSLY Single White Female thing going on for Ive.