Well, if anything he implied that the second consequence is the result of the first one but this has no bearing on what I said. He clearly stated that (quoting verbatim): "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps". The rest of the sentence does not refute this. And yet he (his company) does use intermediate layers. Now, let's look at the Merriam-Webster for the definition of hypocrite: " a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." So Steve's clearly stated belief is that intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps an yet he acts contrary to his belief when it comes to his own company. I do not know if there could be a clearer case of hypocrisy.
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
Well, if anything he implied that the second consequence is the result of the first one but this has no bearing on what I said. He clearly stated that (quoting verbatim): "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps". The rest of the sentence does not refute this. And yet he (his company) does use intermediate layers. Now, let's look at the Merriam-Webster for the definition of hypocrite: " a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." So Steve's clearly stated belief is that intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps an yet he acts contrary to his belief when it comes to his own company. I do not know if there could be a clearer case of hypocrisy.
No, no hypocrisy at all. He just doesn't give a damn about damaging OTHER COMPANIES' platforms. Follow along:
1) he says intermediate layers produce crap apps
2) he says crap apps are bad because they hurt the platform
3) he acts to prevent intermediate layers to protect his own platform (not that I believe this is why he did it, but we are only talking about the alleged hypocrisy here, so play along)
4) he uses intermediate layers on Windows. Because it hurts that platform.
It's all perfectly consistent. He acts 100% in correspondence to his words. No hypocrisy at all.
Worked perfectly for me in Quicktime, even over the mediocre bandwidth I have.
I quit that website at around the 68% page loading mark.
You think too bad of Steve
You are implying that when he tries to protect his own platform it's not because he cares for users? Remember that he said those words in the context of a technical discussion, not a business one.
You think too bad of Steve
All I'm saying is that he's not being hypocritical. If he said "users always suffer when you allow translation layers, so we are going to forbid it. Our own software also suffers from the use of these translation layers, so we will keep using them" that would be hypocritical.
Instead he said "translation layers make software suck and devalue the platform," and through silent inaction implied "we aren't going to stop using translation layers on windows." I see nothing inconsistent or hypocritical here.
And if his primary concern was users, he wouldn't have spent 10 minutes extolling iAds. The guy is a CEO, with a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of his company for the shareholders, something he's done a fantastic job of. His job is not to make users happy except insofar as doing so helps maximize shareholder value.
Too bad for you, it was awfully nice as far as Flash sites go. Loaded in about 10 seconds on my 11 mbit/sec cable connection.
I have a suggestion for you - please learn something about a topic before posting. You're just about 100% wrong in your 'understanding' of business.
There IS a rule that companies must maximize shareholder return. Above everything else (except obeying the law). Now, there is sometimes a question where it might make sense to sacrifice short term profits to get greater long term gains, but in the end, the officers of a company are LEGALLY BOUND to maximize shareholder return to the best of their ability.
There is NO law that says companies must pay dividends - and there are lots of reasons not to. Just a couple:
1. Keeping cash on hand so they don't have to cut back R&D or other overheads in a recession.
2. Keep cash on hand in case a major acquisition becomes available.
3. Company is providing a greater return than the cash would so the shareholders are better off leaving the cash in the company (they can always sell the stock if they'd rather have cash).
In any event, you're completely wrong - please stop posting about subjects you don't understand.
Then maybe you can explain why it DOES happen? In the real world, Flash sucks up CPU cycles and battery life like there's no tomorrow, causes frequent crashes, and is a massive security risk. The fact that it might be theoretically possible to design a good Flash app doesn't change the fact that in the real world, most Flash apps are garbage.
Isn't he the guy who whined that profit making companies were a bad idea and he didn't believe in them for his own retirement fund? Or maybe that was a different one of the Apple-bashing trolls.
I'm just glad that none of these people will ever get near any company that I'm invested in.
I disagree with you. Sure he is a CEO, but he is also something else (a human, an engineer etc.). Yes, it is his responsibility (only as a CEO) to maximize the profits and, as we see it in this case, he is doing it resorting to hypocrisy, telling others that they should not use translation layers while doing it himself.
No. Once again, there is no hypocrisy. He is telling other that they should not use translation layers on iPhone OS. Unless I am missing something, he is not doing it himself. He is only doing it on a platform that he WANTS to fail. Assume he is being 100% honest - intermediate layers suck and ruin a platform. Why should he allow them on HIS platform? And why SHOULDN'T he use them on a platform that he wants to fail? And how is that hypocrisy? He's acting in complete concordance with his words.
I guess you have never heard of OnLive.
Don't need any RAM to run 3ds Max 2010 over terminal server through a linux embedded system with a CPU < 200MHZ.
Please, tell my why you cannot run applications on the "cloud".
No, it's Apple's product -- you just bought one. If you think it's your product, go hire a lawyer and sue them for using the name of "your" product without your permission.
They have control. They aren't refunding your money. So sell it on craigslist and vow to do a better job as a consumer before buying your next product.
No, it's not hypocrisy at all. Steve Jobs and Apple have no interest in optimizing the experience of Windows users or furthering the Windows platform. They want iTunes to be acceptable under Windows and better on a Mac. Steve Jobs is a CEO, and about the most respected one out there. He doesn't form opinions in a vacuum -- he has the advice of some of the best developers in the business advising him.
Yeah. But... Those windows users use iTunes, right? So they are Apple users. And you are saying that Steve has no interest in optimizing their experience. I suspected that much myself
Yeah. But... Those windows users use iTunes, right? So they are Apple users. And you are saying that Steve has no interest in optimizing their experience. I suspected that much myself
Apple has no interest in "optimizing" anyone's experience. Apple exists solely to optimize the process of separating consumers from their cash. To the extent making nice stuff that works well facilitates that, that is the path Apple generally chooses to take.
The experience Steve wants to optimize in "I love my iPod, but gee maybe I should dump this Windows PC and buy a Mac".
Well, technically, all the Windows software that Apple develops is free of charge.Yeah. But... Those windows users use iTunes, right? So they are Apple users. And you are saying that Steve has no interest in optimizing their experience. I suspected that much myself
Phew, this is quite a marathon thread! So many misunderstandings it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic (the idiotic misconceptions that is)
First of all as per the quote above, Adobe is no saint. They also acquired Pagemaker and that was one of the main reasons I bought into them instead of Quark which I hate using. And yes, they bought GoLive from CyberStudio and ruined it. I had to switch to DreamWeaver which was better in some respects when Macromedia owned it. They killed Freehand after buying MM too.
Second Adobe is not going to stop making programs for Apple, and even if they did, whatever, I still use InDesign CS3 (even worked out the voodoo fix to get it to run on SnowLeopard) If I had to switch to Quark I would, no way would I switch to a Windows platform. And if I had, had, had to have Windows of course I would just run via Boot Camp, no way am I replacing my wonderful Mac Pro!!!
Finally, I have had Macs since the first one was made. And ever since that first one Apple totally controlled the programs, how they were written, what programmers could do etc. It used to suck to be a programmer on the Apple platform because the standards were so high. Well guess what, they still are, Apple dictates how the menus get laid out what happens where etc. I have a good friend used to worked for Apple and now he has his own software company. He uses X Code and is excited to get an app going for the iPad.
The only difference between now and then is that Apple has provided an easy platform for many, many, developers to create a revenue stream. They market and take care of the money exchange and have a build in search engine that is right in the palm of the hands of millions of uses via the app store. So now JoeBlow with his Flash compiler is calling Apple a tyrant and other worse names because they won't put his stupid little buggy app in the app store, that they promote and are ultimately responsible to the consumer for the consistency and quality of said apps????? Too bad. Either learn to code correctly or go sell your app somewhere else the Apple app store is already bloated with too much stuff. And anyone else pi$$ed off with Apple for such a stupid reason can go get a PC, have fun.
I know that the html5 issue is mixing in here too, I have read the articles about the Flash app issue and there is mention of html5 in those articles too. I code mostly CSS so I am not super up on app code, but I do think that Flash code has some weird version of javascript in it (real javascript, my programmer friend told me is based on C). I have studied javascript and I remember when I tried to translate my knowledge to Flash actionscript it was close but off in a weird way. I haven't really gotten into Flash coding, mostly use it for slideshows and animations. Both of those already have very nice alternatives, I have already switched all of my slideshows to javascript and re-exported my Flash animations from swf to mov files.
As a web designer I am already moving to html5, my clients don't care what language I code in, they do care that ALL visitors to their sites see everything on the page. Only one out of twenty or so clients didn't care that they had Flash on their site, the rest wanted alternatives immediately. So it was a bit of a pain, but it is all done now. The only snag is video mostly because FireFox isn't on board with H264, otherwise that would be simple too.
For all of you out there that are so into Flash, why is it you defend it? Because it is easy for you? You think you will miss something without it? What about the fact that if you don't have the right Flash Player you would miss out anyway?? That has always been the thing that has totally been a pain for me as a web designer. Do I create a swf that is backwards compatible so more people can use it? Should I give up features that the current version can play? And what about those headache inducing Flash detection scripts that redirect people not using a compatible version??? And it goes on and on. Since I have switched to javascript, CSS and embedded YouTube for video presentation (until the video issues gets sorted) I personally have had less headaches with my sites and I can see all of the content on my iPod Touch (waiting for the G3 version of the iPad) I can still use the Flash program for animations, I just export it as something else, either animated gif or movie depending on the content. If I need interaction I use real javascript not the strange version of it that is in Flash action script.
Really, if I could I would hug Steve Jobs and thank him for pushing me to make the change to present better, cleaner, well designed websites. And I am willing to bet the farm when the dusts settles the same will be true for apps in the apps store.
I wonder what Apple will say the day Adobe sends out a press release announcing they will no longer develop or support applications for OSX and the next release of Adobe CS will be Wintel only. I wonder if iPhone and iPad can carry Apple by themselves?
I said "companies" not "corporations" (a private company has NO obligation to put endless profit ahead of ethics, morals and people and even corporations should behave RESPONSIBLY and ETHICALLY) and beside, I'm saying that is the #1 reason why this world is screwed up. As long as mankind puts MONEY ahead of PEOPLE this world will continue to be a place of needless suffering and misery. If some of you cannot understand why that is WRONG, then may God have mercy on your souls. People never seem to learn from history. Things like the French Revolution apparently have had little to no impact on succeeding generations as the hoarding of wealth by the few to the detriment of society as a whole continues unabated. Regulated and non-profit companies lead to the lowest prices (this has been particularly obvious with utilities and health care where the more privatized and profit driven things are the HIGHER the prices become. Things like health care are leading to unsustainable costs relative to GDP and WILL destroy this country if nothing is done. Capitalists at all costs types don't seem to get that it's bad in general when the country dies. Shipping jobs overseas to maximize profits is what has lead to the decline of countries like the U.S. and will eventually turn us into a 3rd world country. That is virtually GUARANTEED unless something changes. All these types shouting about how government shouldn't interfere with business and profits don't seem to "get" how the system almost collapsed under nothing less than PURE GREED in the past two years and they STILL DON'T GET IT as they STILL don't want regulations put back into place to prevent further disasters. I can only conclude that humans are so darn greedy that they would rather jeopardize the entire country and all of society than help to contribute to saving it. I think some people will deserve what they get in the end.
Adobe doesn't tell me to use anything. It is the people making web sites that decide whether to use Flash or not and it is there that companies like Apple should be making their case, not forcing the decision on the user that simply wants to be able to access the existing content that is already there. Apple is hardly the poster child for open standards to be crying rivers about things like Flash. Just look how closed their own "standards" are from codecs like Apple Lossless to how they refused to license FairPlay, thus keeping their protected media files unusable by other systems for years and years. Look at their endless push for Quicktime instead of supporting open standards. Apple has no room to talk about anything, IMO.
Is the concept of greed REALLY that hard to understand? You make it sound like a person must choose between having nothing and pushing to make millions. Is life really that black and white to you or are you just purposely trying to be thick in order to justify your own belief in endless greed? Do CEOs really need to make tens of millions of dollars each year while 95% of the rest of the company are barely making above the poverty line (or in the case of some companies, their primary workforce is making slave labor rates in Communist countries while the company pays out millions for celebrity endorsements of their shoes. They do this not because they cannot make a profit paying at least minimum wage in the U.S. to make things like shoes, but because they're so darn greedy that they always want MORE MORE MORE. Like I said, a day of reckoning is coming. History has taught it is INEVITABLE when greed takes focus over ethical and moral concerns.
I find it completely ironic that the social groups that push "conservative" and "religious" values the most in this country are usually the SAME people that are endlessly greedy and destroy other people's lives in favor of even more profit. The two are mutually incompatible. I honestly believe most of these people that claim to be religious have never read their own doctrine. Christianity, for example, is 100% against greed, worship of money and self-centered natures so how certain groups have come to preach "health and wealth" I'll never know except that they seem to believe God should be made in their image and no the other way around. People that cannot accept that do no actually believe in it and have no place in it. Going to be a building every week and confessing you're a greedy self-centered person but not changing will not get you anywhere. Yes most of society is hell-bent on the worship of money and the celebration of self. Look where it has gotten us...endless wars, poverty and misery. But as long as you're OK then it's fine, right?
Well, I don't know what percentage of the total of Mac users are CS dependent/Design pros. Some people do music (no Adobe software that I'm aware of), others do Video (FCP, again no Adobe needed) others are just consumers. It will be painful for some web/graphic designers, sure. Just don't know how many. I'm sure most of those that don't care using windows switched already since the Adobe software is coded with windows in mind and runs better there.
I wonder if windows can carry adobe by themselves.
Sounds like a fight neither side would do well from.
I can't agree more with any of that. SJ is great at deciding what is good for an end user... he is an end user when it comes to writing code. He is not a developer. SJ said all IPhone development should be webApps. This is what he wanted. It wasn't only after developers complaining in a similar way as today that SJ changed his mind and made a complete reversal (to his credit) and went 100% percent behind producing a public API and AppStore which has been the thing that has pushed the IPhone way beyond what the competition has.
Developers need to be free to choose to develop with whatever tools they see fit...
I understand that Flash Apps may mainly be low-brow lashed together low quality apps. Why not just stick them in their own section of the AppStore and let the market decide.... flash==bad apps if that is the case.
So you expect adobe to give up half its business in order to cause Apple to lose 10% of its Mac sales?
And to Magnus; a soon as you referred to your god I stopped reading.
They will probably say that they are sorry to see Adobe go out of business. The Mac platform accounts for 50% +/- of the CS revenue. That would be cutting off their (corporate) nose to spite their (Flash) face.
Really, my grade school-aged daughter has better problem resolution skills than some of the people in this thread...