Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, I won't argue for the Mac Flash player being evidence of Adobe's coding skills (although in fairness it's actually pretty solid on Windows), but that's basically irrelevant. Flash is written in ActionScript, which is essentially Javascript with a different DOM. There's nothing that prevents compiled Javascript code from being lean, efficient, and not interfering with multitasking (something I'm still convinced is a red herring).

Likewise, there's nothing inherent in Objective-C that makes it impossible to write badly-behaving bloated apps with terrible performance. You can write bad code in any language.

Absolutely true, no argument. But I am not sure the multitasking/development control is a red herring. I think there are two parts:

1) Make sure the applications work in the best possible manner on the hardware (ignoring really bad garbage, assume its exception), and that means tight control over the API/tools, and

2) Make sure you have the best developers targeting the STRENGTHS of your platform, taking advantage of unique features. This would be greatly diminished by having people write to a third party "environment" commonized across many platforms, and means the same exact mediocre app is available everywhere.

Number 1 is technical, number 2 is business. But they are both valid, and honestly as a user they will both benefit me. As a professional developer I have no problem, it lines up with my want of making my stuff be the best they can be on any platform.
 
So you are admitting his statement is true, just that it wasn't true years ago under other circumstances that no longer apply to anything.

No, I'm saying that Apple only supports their DRM codec for which they get royalities and they do not support the complete HTML5 specification as this would allow any codec to be used.

So web developers are now forced from one proprietary system (Adobe Flash) to another (Apple's implemenation of HTML5).
 
WRONG.

The first HTML5 specifications defined that HTML5 video tag must work with OGG formats ("User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format.") It was Apple that forced the W3C to change this.

Here is the email from Apple's Maciej Stachowiak:

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html

"We think it is a mistake to require Ogg support, even as a SHOULD-level requirement."

Yes, and now HTML5 doesn't mandate support of *any* video format, because Apple refused to support OGG because its performance is poor and Mozilla refused to support H.264 because of religious reasons.

I prefer performance over idealism anytime.
 
So you are admitting his statement is true, just that it wasn't true years ago under other circumstances that no longer apply to anything.

Apple force it because they own some of the patents needed for h.264 so they get money off of it.
Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio is by far better for HTLM5 standard than h.264 because Ogg Theora and Vorbis are 100% free and open source so not licenses fees to deal with.
 
99.9% of people who use Macs use it for desktop publishing and some graphic editing. For everything else people use Windows.

Apple what are u going to do with no Photoshop or Creative suite for Mac? Creative Suite for Windows is superior to the Mac version anyway.

I hope Apple loses this battle.

Apple has 2 things keeping it's OS alive---MS Office and Adobe Creative suite--even though the Windows version of both is King!

This is how I feel also. I'm a graphic designer, and it's required to have a mac and adobe software. And if you go through school on a mac, most likely your entire career will be mac exclusive. If things change, then we might be required to have windows laptops, and then we become windows users for our career.
 
Well you asked for my thoughts. #1 is that you are full of crap.

I'm a huge Apple fan. (awaiting the new macbook) But coming here sometimes feels like entering a cult. How could you blame Adobe for this?
I can't really believe any body could be so out of touch as to post that question. Adobe is directly responsible for flash and all the harm it has done to the Internet. This isn't even debatable.
They've done everything they could to make Flash work better on Mac. The current beta version fixes the issue of the plugin being a CPU hog. (Read the Anandtech analysis)
I this the beta where they make use of the GPU because they would otherwise load the main CPU to much? That is not an improvement as it simply moves the problem somewhere else. This doesn't even touch upon Flashes long running reliability issues or cesurity concerns.
The reason behind this move, it seems to me, is something Apple does not want to disclose.
Obviously there has yet to be an explaination. Frankly I don't think Apple is targetting Adobe in a singular sense, I'm just very happy that the new policy continues to hurt flashband it's mothership Adobe.

In a way it is sad that Apple has to carpet bomb the developer landscape to send a message to Adobe. It is however a message Adobe needs to hear loud and clear because they certainly haven't listened to the user community and the complaints about flash. Complaints mind you that come from several different platform users.

In a very real way I'm happy to see Adobe being held responsible for years of incomputance and disgraceful support of it's software. The fact is that I as a user don't have the influence that Apple has. In the end hopefully this mess will be cleaned up but for now Adobe needs a wake up call or two.
The unfortunate thing here is that Apple is not taking into consideration (maybe it is but does not care) the online community that have upgraded to Flash.
I'm begining to wonder if you work in marketing at Adobe. The sad fact is that every site using flash is not being improved by it's presence. Rather the opposite actually as I tend to stay away from sites using to much flash. In fact I see the use of flash as a comment, a very negative one, on the developer and the sites owner.
Almost all the great sites today use Flash. And although it initially seems that the online community will have to just switch to HTML5 for video playback, it does not take into account Flex applications (built on Flash) which have become prevalent in the corporate and development world in the recent years.
Given a choice between two companies selling the same product on the net I will always go with the flash free site. We should I deal witha business organization that might crash my browser half way through a transaction? Not to mention the security concerns.
The company that I work for uses Flex apps heavily, including for stock trading. (I work for an investment bank).
To bad for you, but it is better than what I thought. I was pretty sure that you worked for Adobe.

Think about this though, how many customers have you lost because of flash?
I think Apple is missing a great opportunity here. And as a consequence many might transition to the competitive google platform.
While there may be reasons to go Google this isn't one of them. As it is there is barely memory to run Apples software on iPad. Nothing compelling would have happened on iPad if these technologies where permitted. Frankly I don't really understand why this is even an issue when the amount of RAM in an iPad is a much bigger concern.
some might see that as laughable, but add some UI/design guys to their teams and google can be huge threat.

Your thoughts?

I really think you are in to deep to see the significant harm that flash and Adobe has done to the Internet community. It really sucks bad and for many of us it is good to see somebody trying to do something about it.

This may sound mean but I really want to see Adobe on the auction block. Yes they have some good products but that isn't the issue in my mind. The problem rather is that the results of poor management need to be public and woven into our history.

Frankly this is one thing that seems to go against public policy now in Washington but accountability is a big thing in my book. Adobe screwed up with flash big time and it is about time people start demanding they get off their marketing train and deal with user issues. Or don't and fail. Frankly I think they are deep into the failing mode now with flash. Even grandmothers are now recognizing it as a creepy way to damage their systems.

In any event don't be surprised if the winds change directions quickly in your industry. I'm not above writing a letter to a banks management team when I see a flash based site causing me grief. Flash is one of the quickest ways to customer dissatisfaction.


Dave
 
Yes, and now HTML5 doesn't mandate support of *any* video format, because Apple refused to support OGG because its performance is poor and Mozilla refused to support H.264 because of religious reasons.

I prefer performance over idealism anytime.


Modizlla does not want to support H.264 because it has patents tied to it and the owners can easily in the future demand royalties from it. Hell now you have to pay some royalites.

OGG is 100% free and that is why it should be the standard.
 
99.9% of people who use Macs use it for desktop publishing and some graphic editing. For everything else people use Windows.

Apple what are u going to do with no Photoshop or Creative suite for Mac? Creative Suite for Windows is superior to the Mac version anyway.

I hope Apple loses this battle.

Apple has 2 things keeping it's OS alive---MS Office and Adobe Creative suite--even though the Windows version of both is King!

AdobeMary, you seem a tad confused. Close to 50% of Adobes business is Apple related, less than 10% of Apple (Apple is more than just Macs) is Adobe related. If Adobe stopped selling Apple products they would risk bankruptcy while barely denting Apple Profit margins.
 
Yes, and now HTML5 doesn't mandate support of *any* video format, because Apple refused to support OGG because its performance is poor and Mozilla refused to support H.264 because of religious reasons.

I prefer performance over idealism anytime.

Apple's HTML5 implementation doesn't support the standard as it doesn't allow any other codecs but only H.264. Therefore it's a proprietary one.

I prefer open standards.
 
No, I'm saying that Apple only supports their DRM codec for which they get royalities and they do not support the complete HTML5 specification as this would allow any codec to be used.

So web developers are now forced from one proprietary system (Adobe Flash) to another (Apple's implemenation of HTML5).

H.264 is neither an Apple proprietary standard, nor does it mandate DRM. The video Apple *sells* on iTunes is H.264 with a DRM wrapper. The H.264 that YouTube is using has zero DRM.

The HTML5 specification does *NOT* say any codec can be used, that would mean I could create "Stuart's Super Awesome Video Codec" and then complain that browsers didn't support it. The specification clearly says that *no* specific format has to be supported.
 
The HTML5 specification does *NOT* say any codec can be used, that would mean I could create "Stuart's Super Awesome Video Codec" and then complain that browsers didn't support it. The specification clearly says that *no* specific format has to be supported.

As I already said it did say that HTML5 should support OGG until Apple said "no, we don't want OGG to be supported at all, not even on a should level".

So Apple only supports their proprietary DRM codec for which they will get royalities in the future.

And that's as worse as Adobe that wants everyone to support Flash.
 
For those of you who are bashing Adobe and promoting with HTML5, which probably won't come into W3C recommendation until 2022, which codec is being used the play back the files?

I'm finding this incredibly messy and that's why I am not coding HTML5 sites which make use of HTML5 media properties.
 
Sounds like Adobe is in a panic

For years Apple told Adobe that they needed to revamp Flash and Adobe did not act on it. For at least 3 years they were blocked from the iPhone, Adobe did not get the message.

Apple and even Microsoft have all decided to adopt HTML5, Adobe had a chance to jump into a real standard, but decided against it.

Adobe just completed CS5 which does not have support for HTML5 and did this for their own reasons, which are not to the benefit of developers.

Now they are loosing money and in a Panic, and like a baby starting a war of words and accusations.

If they think they are in the right, they should suite Apple just like everyone else instead of telling Apple to **** off.

This is business, the writting was on the wall, most browsers now days support HTML5, if adobe were to create a browser it would only support their technology because they think they are rigth.

Welll Apple think they are right, so lets see the developers or the court decide and stop all the name calling.
 
I am in the same situation as him. I want to learn objective-c but I have no time because I am a student but I do know AS.By doing this they will lose a lot of potential and current devs

You must be in Med School then, or a single parent

I'm in grad school and I work 9 hours a day and I can still squeeze out time on the weekend to do something else

If you wanted to learn objective-c, you could learn it. But I think you're really just trying to use the platform to make a quick buck.
 
AdobeMary, you seem a tad confused. Close to 50% of Adobes business is Apple related, less than 10% of Apple (Apple is more than just Macs) is Adobe related. If Adobe stopped selling Apple products they would risk bankruptcy while barely denting Apple Profit margins.

And those 50% Apple related Adobe business will just switch to Windows. Problem solved! And do not tell me the story how you are going to stick with CS4 or switch to some other suite because there is none.
 
News Flash (no pun intended)

Animated gif images are now blocked due to the intensity on hardware.
 
What many buffoons who defend Apple cannot seem to understand (and don't know the first thing about programming, so their opinion shouldn't really count anyways), is that the effect of this is far beyond just flash. Phonegap, Unity, eg....are also all gone.


Adobe should "accidentally" release a jailbroken flash and pull ALL mac products off the shelf and restrict support.

Then laugh as Apple sales plummet.

No, buffoons are those who bemoan the marginalization of their proudly held esoteric and arcane arts as though the average joe should not dare to participate in media creation industries.

All my jobs over the years have involved communication and content and media creation. Adobe is not a deal breaker for me, and I suspect that is so for many other creatives.

l used Flash a couple of times about 12 years ago to create interactive CD-ROMs. I used Adobe Premiere and After Effects a few times for video production about 10 years ago. Now, I love FCP, Keynote, and Aperture: they get the job done. I grew up on Aldus PageMaker, then used Adobe PageMaker, then InDesign. But now I'm fine with Pages, since I dabble in all kinds of creative media and corporate communications processes and no longer do DTP alone (I've diversified). I do have an old copy of PS4, or maybe even CS1, hanging around, which I do dust off from time to time; but for layered art, there are all kinds of solutions coming out all the time: Pixelmator, Gimp, etc.

Here's the thing: everyone goes on about Apple's arrogance and proprietary platforms and how they are elitest...etc. But Apple really does make the platforms for the rest of us, and these are platforms that people of all abilities love to use. End of story. Apple made the DTP revolution possible. Apple made the Desktop Video revolution possible (until FCP you had to invest in 100,000 dollar turnkey Avid seats). Apple is now revolutionizing mobile computing.

The platform needs to be robust and useable -- let the best platform creator or creators win. Hey, if others can step up to the plate, the more the merrier. HOWEVER, the media products and files and formats and exchange protocols need to be open and standard for everyone. Adobe and MS want to present it all backwards, revealing that they are indeed tyrants. Really, I don't know why all these buffoons out there can't see that.

These self-proclaimed media creation gurus who live and breathe Flash can get off their high horses and join the rest of us in the 21st Century. Apple is continuing to be true to its common-man, revolutionary roots and making great tools for everyone -- from my 10 year-old daughter to my grandma. Just as I picked up Aldus PageMaker as a whippersnapper and whipped up professional quality stuff to the chagrin of the razor-blade wielding strippers, so my creative daughter can produce good stuff using a few share-ware, open-source and app store tools.

Incidentally, many Apple users may not understand all the ins and outs of programming. But who really considers Flash content creation or interactive media file scripting real programming anyway? (let alone taking that interactive media file and running it through some recompiling gizmo and calling that an iApp worthy of the name). What's that all about?

Apple is criticized for making loads of great APIs to enable developers to get closer to the core OS processes and the hardware? While something like Flash or .net etc. is one huge abstracted proprietary runtime la la land? Get a grip. Hello, we don't want what that produces! Your bamboozled clients may think that is what they want or need. But most of us don't really like this "cross-platform" plugin thingy that is supposed to do all the work (but really doesn't). We want open web standards and file formats. I may just prefer creating and consuming the web and media on Apple's useable platforms, because Apple gets it.

So, I hope Adobe DOES pull all Mac products off the shelf. Adobe have failed to move forward and improve their products. They have sat on their laurels far too long, and they expect to reap unending and exorbitant license fees for their bloated and unusable products, just like MS do. If MS can get marginalized in today's world (as they most definitely are right now in mobile computing), then Adobe better sit up, take notice, stop laughing and get their a$$es back to work. Let's see a little whip-cracking like they have over there at Cupertino.
 
Apple what are u going to do with no Photoshop or Creative suite for Mac? Creative Suite for Windows is superior to the Mac version anyway.

Apple has 2 things keeping it's OS alive---MS Office and Adobe Creative suite--even though the Windows version of both is King!
Windows fanboy? Didn't know they existed. ;) Believe me there are plenty of Mac folks that have moved on from creaky old MS and Adobe products.
 
99.9% of people who use Macs use it for desktop publishing and some graphic editing. For everything else people use Windows.


Everyone I know that uses Mac can't fit into either of those categories. A handful of teachers/professors, accountants, etc. Everyone who works for me has to use a mac, and we're a technology network implementation consulting group.

Your claim is beyond silly.
 
Adobe have failed to move forward and improve their products. They have sat on their laurels far too long, and they expect to reap unending and exorbitant license fees for their bloated and unusable products, just like MS do. If MS can get marginalized in today's world (as they most definitely are right now in mobile computing), then Adobe better sit up, take notice, stop laughing and get their a$$es back to work. Let's see a little whip-cracking like they have over there at Cupertino.
Amen.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.