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.
Fallout From Apple's Exclusion of Flash-to-iPhone Export Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bypass the AppNazi
Adobe should just release the flash support on Cydia. Then the community can decide if they want to use the so called "power/CPU hog" or not. It seems to work just fine on other phones, and to be frank, my iPhone has the worst battery life out of all my phones, so not having Flash doesn't automatically translate to good battery life.
Adobe should just release the flash support on Cydia. Then the community can decide if they want to use the so called "power/CPU hog" or not. It seems to work just fine on other phones, and to be frank, my iPhone has the worst battery life out of all my phones, so not having Flash doesn't automatically translate to good battery life.
People throw the "monopoly" moniker around a lot. You have no idea what it means from a legal standpoint do you. But it sounds good puffs up your self-righteous outrage doesn't it. Adobe claims to have 95% of the web video plugin market. That makes them a monopoly according your own definition yet I don't hear you spouting off about Adobe. Why is that?
The only way an MS ad would be worth watching.
I'd say that the iTunes Store changed the face of the Internet.
But so what? I see you're desperately trying to make some point,
however it doesn't seem like even you know what it is.
What in blazes are you attempting to convey that matters?
[if it's at all relevant to the actual topic here, you have failed to make that connection.]
Section 3.3.9 also forbids analytics?
All the roil here has been about changes to section 3.3.1 of the agreement.
Has any developer noticed that section 3.3.9 has also changed, and seems like it might forbid apps from using common analytics packages, such as Flurry?
All the roil here has been about changes to section 3.3.1 of the agreement.
Has any developer noticed that section 3.3.9 has also changed, and seems like it might forbid apps from using common analytics packages, such as Flurry?
Red Herring
I think that by restricting Developers to a specific set of languages, Apple can somewhat ensure that developers target their platform specifically rather than have developers submit apps that are built for the lowest common denominator of mobile devices. I guess they dont want to foster an environment that mirrors whats on the web today. Most websites leave out a ton of features just because IE6 cannot support those features. I do believe that developers produce their best work when they target a specific platform and take advantage of the unique features that platform has to offer.
It is also good business for Apple to maintain a base of developers that are married to their platform. Imagine an environment where most iPhone developers migrate to Flash CS5. In such an environment, if Apple releases enhancements to their frameworks, developers would have to wait for Adobe to integrate those changes into Flash before the developers could take advantage of Apples improvements.
What if Google buys Adobe and decides CS6 will only come out on google chrome and Flash will only support Android? Apple and all developers that target iPhone OS get left in the dust!
Lets face it, we always have a choice of mobile phones but when it comes to graphics applications, Adobe is a very strong monopoly. Id be cautious siding with them on an issue such as this. It may not end well. How much is the web premium suite again? Do you think we would have to pay that much if Adobe and Macromedia never merged?
Adobe is a behemoth. IPhone devs may not be able to use Flash but Ill bet my last dollar that 99.9999999876% of all graphic content youll see on Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Palm & Android devices as well as the web will be created using Adobes tools. Isnt that enough?
I think that by restricting Developers to a specific set of languages, Apple can somewhat ensure that developers target their platform specifically rather than have developers submit apps that are built for the lowest common denominator of mobile devices. I guess they dont want to foster an environment that mirrors whats on the web today. Most websites leave out a ton of features just because IE6 cannot support those features. I do believe that developers produce their best work when they target a specific platform and take advantage of the unique features that platform has to offer.
It is also good business for Apple to maintain a base of developers that are married to their platform. Imagine an environment where most iPhone developers migrate to Flash CS5. In such an environment, if Apple releases enhancements to their frameworks, developers would have to wait for Adobe to integrate those changes into Flash before the developers could take advantage of Apples improvements.
What if Google buys Adobe and decides CS6 will only come out on google chrome and Flash will only support Android? Apple and all developers that target iPhone OS get left in the dust!
Lets face it, we always have a choice of mobile phones but when it comes to graphics applications, Adobe is a very strong monopoly. Id be cautious siding with them on an issue such as this. It may not end well. How much is the web premium suite again? Do you think we would have to pay that much if Adobe and Macromedia never merged?
Adobe is a behemoth. IPhone devs may not be able to use Flash but Ill bet my last dollar that 99.9999999876% of all graphic content youll see on Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Palm & Android devices as well as the web will be created using Adobes tools. Isnt that enough?
What about Flash not trying to use all available CPU power to redraw a flash image as often as possible, even when that flash image doesn't change at all. Flash uses 100% of a CPU (and no matter how fast or slow a CPU is on your Mac, it will use 100% of one CPU) to draw a tiny advert that shouldn't even take 10% of a CPU. Hardware acceleration would only mean that Flash uses 100% of the GPU as well redrawing the same image ten times more often per second. And it would obviously help nothing with the crashes and hangs that Flash causes all the time.
Let me explain this. You labelled someone because of their comments. I simply used the same logic you did and labelled *you* a troll. You are a troll. That is simply using your logic.
Both positions are stupid (i.e. you calling him a bot, and my calling you a troll). Both are ignorant. Both are a simplistic view of the world, and both use the same stupid logic.
I'm pretty sure he/she/it can handle it
It's not up to you to decide whether someone can handle your offensive comments to justify being offensive. Offensive comments are offensive, and they are a cop out on a true discussion of points and counterpoints.
You may think you're being clever in your attacks, but really, you're just walking away from intelligent discussion, using childish antics like ad hominems to disguise the fact that you can't adequately defend your position.
As Mike and Carol Brady would say, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
If you can't follow that simple rule, go back to the playground and I hope you get your hair caught in the swings.
You know what? That is so true. Adobe has been working on this for so long, I know Apple likes to keep secret, but they really should have warn all these people spending their time and money. It was just a dick move.
Why can't we just have both and give us consumers the choice? Oh wait, this is APPLE we're talking about!
Google and Flash
That's not true about Google and Flash. Google is going to make Flash part of the Chrome Browser and OS. I don't know why Google is doing this, it might be to piss off Apple more..
Hugh
That's not true about Google and Flash. Google is going to make Flash part of the Chrome Browser and OS. I don't know why Google is doing this, it might be to piss off Apple more..
Hugh
Absurd. Flash doesn't create games. Even if you accurately say that Flash can be used to create games, it's irrelevant. Apple has no objection to free games that use appropriate technology. If it's about iTunes profits, why is it that a free game written in C is OK but a free game written in Flash isn't?
I really wish we could find some better trolls.
Adobe is free to do that. Why haven't they?
Obviously for the same reason they haven't introduced a usable version of Flash for ANY mobile platform. They're incompetent to do so or Flash is inherently incompatible with portable, low energy devices. Take your pick.
Better yet, a warm (like hot chocolate warm) Quelque Chose beer.
I guess that says it all. You're opposed to free enterprise and people investing their money in profit-making ventures.
I wonder how many more people are going to ignore all the facts and suggest that Adobe commit suicide?
No, but there are too many vested interests posting here. They fall into a couple of groups:
1. Flash developers who are too lazy or incompetent to learn anything new
2. Apple-haters who automatically attack anything Apple does
3. I suspect there are also Adobe shills here being paid by Adobe. Otherwise, why do we get the exact same figures (75% of the Internet, 90% of Internet video use Flash) from multiple people? There's clearly an Adobe playbook.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument. People are arguing that Apple's decision makes sense. Please point to a SINGLE post where someone said you HAVE TO like Apple from an ethical standpoint if you like their products.
Another strawman. As for YOUR posts, yes, your opinions are consistent - you attack Apple 100% of the time no matter what they do. If Apple bundled a check for $500 in every iPad, you'd find some way to complain about that.
Almost as much as it makes me laugh when people make up stupid strawman arguments. Who made that argument?
The argument as it is usually presented is that Flash is a proprietary closed source product that is buggy as hell, sucks CPU cycles like there's no tomorrow, opens security holes, and drains your battery in record time. Since there's a free, open source alternative that doesn't have those problems, the alternative is better.
What's wrong with that logic?
They don't. They have an interest in releasing the best product they can and providing the best user experience possible for their customers. Flash is inconsistent with that goal. It has nothing to do with Adobe and no vendetta is involved.
This is nonsense on so many levels.
First, if developers are not interested in Apple, why are there 200,000 AppStore apps - and many more developers who want to go there but have been rejected for making garbage? Why is it that Apple has 10 times the number of mobile games of either Nintendo or Sony? Clearly, the iPhone ecosystem is the hot place to be for developers.
As for the hardware APIs, you don't know what you're talking about. Hardware acceleration is available - you just have to use the proper tools. Have you heard of OpenCL? (there were other hardware acceleration APIs before that, but that's just one example). Adobe chose not to use the tools Apple provided - and then whined that it was Apple's fault. Why is it that no one else seems to have any trouble?
Heck, for that matter, Adobe itself has applications that use hardware acceleration already. Photoshop, for example, can manipulate a 10 GB image with less CPU cycles than it takes Flash to do a simple web site popup menu. Why is that Apple's fault?
So you're only in favor of FANATICS (as in unthinking illogical haters of Apple) who paint a one-sided picture where everything Apple does is evil.
Oh, and btw, please feel free to show a single post where ANYONE said that everything Apple does is perfect. I'll wait - there are probably a million posts on MacRumors so it may take you a while to search, but I doubt if you'll find a single one. OTOH, I can point to quite a few people who have absolutely nothing positive to say about Apple and who attack everything they do.
if it is, you're in trouble since there are NO smart phones available today with full-featured Flash.
Flash gives away without restriction, regulation or recompense what app developers and media partners want to sell without piracy.
You have a choice; love it or leave.
If you don't want to pay the price - choose another tech company.
Theora is just the old VP3 codec, it was decent in 2001, but it isn't today. And because of the way it is licensed, there is no chance that it will ever improve except for tuning the encoder a little bit. h.264 incorporates many years worth of new ideas. Theora _cannot_ ever come close to h.264 in quality.
The problem that companies like Apple have with Theora is patents. There are hundreds of patents on h.264, but you can get a license to all these patents in an easy package for not very much money, which is what Apple is paying. With Theora, nobody knows which patent troll is holding which patents. Right now they are all quiet, because as long as the big ones like Microsoft, Apple, Google are not using Theora, there is no money to be made. But if Apple put a Theora codec on every Mac, iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad (say 110 million devices), or Microsoft put it into Windows 7.1, then you would see the patent trolls coming out. And Microsoft just paid about $400 million for infringing on an i4i patent (not commenting on the value of the patent, just the cost of being convicted for infringement), which is several times more than they pay for h.264 licensing.
Pedantry is irrelevant.
Because its about the delivery.
Apple would have no trouble with a free farmville app if it was deemed suitable to the itunes store.
What DOES matter is flash apps embedded in websites that circumvent all regulation. For good or ill.
About a dozen years ago, Apple gave consumers a lot more choices. They were losing money due to the support costs of all those choices, they had to lay off engineers, and customer satisfaction was much lower.
Some people learn from history...
Because the developer of that free game in Objective C can now put that he/she is a Mac OS X Objective C Cocoa Touch iPhone iPad developer on their resume, and potentially get a job increasing the number of all Mac/iPhone/iPad applications. (Helps Apple catch up with M$ in mindshare.)
That developer has very probably also purchased a nice Mac as well and is telling friends how well it works. (Apple gains revenue, profits, free advertising).
hate it
i'm a designer, have cs4 on all 4 of my macs. i love adobe & i love
this whole thing is a bummer
i've been reading these forums for a long time.. never signed up before. i've noticed that no matter what apple does/says, there are always people who will disagree and make a big fuss and there are always people who will fight to the death defending them, even against reason. to both groups: you're both total jerks most of the time to people with opposing views.
i will say that there are a few apps in the store that were written by adobe devs in flash cs5 and they work beautifully.
i'm a designer, have cs4 on all 4 of my macs. i love adobe & i love
this whole thing is a bummer
i've been reading these forums for a long time.. never signed up before. i've noticed that no matter what apple does/says, there are always people who will disagree and make a big fuss and there are always people who will fight to the death defending them, even against reason. to both groups: you're both total jerks most of the time to people with opposing views.
i will say that there are a few apps in the store that were written by adobe devs in flash cs5 and they work beautifully.
I've got to say, I'm a "fanboy"/early adopter/whatever, and I've had no issues running flash on any of my Macs (except the Mac Classic - damn you ADOBE!!!). Maybe it is a CPU hog, or maybe it makes it run a little hot, but I haven't noticed any performance problems, crashes, or anything.
Maybe I'm not running enough flash files simultaneously??
Been an Apple user for many years, but lately I've felt like Apple is stepping out of line without how they control content for sake of making more money. And seemingly they now only care about their iPhone and iPad, which makes sense because they make blockbusters out of it. But what about us who still like Apple for their computers? No new Macbook Pros in 10 months, and I assume they won't sneak peak 10.7 at WWDC which would be the right timeline from previous intervals. And now they want to take a dump on Adobe? Say what you want about Adobe's ways of making products - I mean no one is going to argue that Adobe does enough for people to update their products, and people are catching on finally (see sales of CS4). But Apple is heading the same way. Unfortunately for Apple, they actually have competition. And my Mac computer usage depends on Adobe products.
An indefensible argument.
I certainly understand why developers, who have spent years perfecting their skills in mastering Flash, would be upset with Apple's move. As someone that has had similar experiences doing development only to find key players changing course and basically wiping out a good deal of the time I have invested in a project, I feel for them.
However, considering Apple's reluctance to have Flash on the iPhone and iPod Touch, two devices that have been in the market for years, should it come as any shock? Was Apple allowing anyone to write software before with these languages that they have made clear will not run on the iPhone/Touch/iPad? If not, what is everyone complaining about? Also, how do you start a debate with the base of your argument being Apple's behavior is tyrannical by not allowing you to use a proprietary language? Sure, Adobe is allowing others to utilize Flash in their software for now, but what if they change their minds one day? Isn't Apple being a good steward of the Internet by promoting HTML5?
Let's face it, Flash is hinky. I didn't realize how much so until I started using ClickToFlash. Before, I thought it was the browser or, worse, the computer when my computer would experience crashes. Since installing ClickToFlash, I never experience crashes. It is one of the first things I advise new and novice computer users to install. If they run something other than Mac, I advise them to install browser plugins to block Flash. I hardly feel like I am missing much of the overall Internet experience by foregoing Flash, and nobody to whom I have recommended the same practices has complained either. Also, at the end of the day, it rare that I even opt to see Flash generated content.
If you are Steve Jobs, and you want customer to have a very stable experience with your devices, would you put Flash on your devices? Almost three years and 85 million devices are a pretty compelling argument that an Internet device does not need Flash to be a success.
Hell, even Adobe was anti-Flash and worked toward killing it prior to buying Macromedia.
I certainly understand why developers, who have spent years perfecting their skills in mastering Flash, would be upset with Apple's move. As someone that has had similar experiences doing development only to find key players changing course and basically wiping out a good deal of the time I have invested in a project, I feel for them.
However, considering Apple's reluctance to have Flash on the iPhone and iPod Touch, two devices that have been in the market for years, should it come as any shock? Was Apple allowing anyone to write software before with these languages that they have made clear will not run on the iPhone/Touch/iPad? If not, what is everyone complaining about?
Also, how do you start a debate with the base of your argument being Apple's behavior is tyrannical by not allowing you to use a proprietary language? Sure, Adobe is allowing others to utilize Flash in their software for now, but what if they change their minds one day? Isn't Apple being a good steward of the Internet by promoting HTML5?Let's face it, Flash is hinky. I didn't realize how much so until I started using ClickToFlash. Before, I thought it was the browser or, worse, the computer when my computer would experience crashes. Since installing ClickToFlash, I never experience crashes. It is one of the first things I advise new and novice computer users to install. If they run something other than Mac, I advise them to install browser plugins to block Flash. I hardly feel like I am missing much of the overall Internet experience by foregoing Flash, and nobody to whom I have recommended the same practices has complained either. Also, at the end of the day, it rare that I even opt to see Flash generated content.
If you are Steve Jobs, and you want customer to have a very stable experience with your devices, would you put Flash on your devices? Almost three years and 85 million devices are a pretty compelling argument that an Internet device does not need Flash to be a success.
Hell, even Adobe was anti-Flash and worked toward killing it prior to buying Macromedia.