You've pointed out that 98% of sites use Flash. I don't know if that's true, but Flash is pervasive, and I'll agree that surfing net without flash is like eating butter without bread. But the point remains Adobe could try harder. And if it did and Apple still said "**** off" then we'll know who really is the bastard.
Of course if Apple retains it's "ohh Flash sucks" ******** after Adobe fixes Flash then my point disappears. But until that point, I don't think it fair to pin nothing on Adobe.
Oh and one last thing: Apple marketting works, think about this **** we have to put up with, yet people STILL buy Macs, and the revenue is only increasing, or so it seems. But this brings us back to Apple's "exclusivity" problem.
Actually, I didn't say that 98% of sites use Flash... it's nowhere near that. What I at least attempted to say, whether it came across or not, is that a year ago 98% of devices that had web browsers and were connected to the Internet could VIEW Flash content and already had a Flash plug-in installed.
I still believe that Adobe has begged Apple not only for the API access in OS X, but that it has also begged Apple to let it make Flash for the iPhone/iPad. Apple simply says it sucks but Apple doesn't care about its users need for the web or Flash as a standard now and just blames Adobe for its current Flash implementation on the Mac. The thing is, Flash could be just as good on OS X as it is on Windows, but Apple will not allow access to the APIs to make it happen. I truly believe Adobe has every intention to provide all Internet surfers the best Flash access to content possible. Think how much Adobe has invested in Flash. It isn't just selling Adobe CS4 to a few web designers. There are entire web design schools focusing solely on Flash and CS because it's the current standard. Until there's something better that has 98% penetration in terms of Internet surfing ability to access Flash content, Flash will continue to be the standard.
The point of Apple products has shifted (as I believe) from "oh man Awesome specs!!" to "aww man I'm so hip and cool with my mac"
I'm sorry to say this, but I just don't think Apple really caters to the "I need mad specs and performance" crowd anymore, it's all about image.
And critique their treatment of the performance crowd all you want, the image of "i'm a cool guy on a mac" sells and it sells well, thus will we see a change in Apple's strategy? Hah, hell no. Not till we move away from the culture of "aww man that guy MUST be cool cos he's got a mac"
One last thing before I get slammed, if you're about to say "aww but everyone on this forum cares about specs" know this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. Most people who use a mac will not post on a forum. Hell I bet some don't even know how to do so, AND image sells better than specs in terms of volume.
Is this a sad reflection on society? Perhaps. But it's also the way things are.
You're 100% correct! I can accept it for the most part but the Apple pricing system is downright unfair to the buyer who does care or even the one that doesn't care. Apple product buyers suffer dearly for not buying an Apple product right after it has been released. Beyond that, Apple offers no discount for the exponentially decreasing component costs. The costs of the components of an MBP is probably mid $XXX when it ships brand new. By the time it's nine months old (like now), it's probably worth several hundred dollars less.
Technology changes so fast everywhere EXCEPT APPLE! I agree it makes Apple more money to sell to the sucker that is forced to buy nine months in instead of day one or twenty. My second MBA was stolen, and I waited two plus months waiting for a new MBA because it was then a ridiculous price for such dated tech... and the smaller or more premium the product, the bigger the cost of not waiting for an update. Look at what happened to the MBA. Apple decided not to focus on a major improvement and instead focused on cutting the MBA's price to allow a competitor to all of those buyers who wanted a secondary computing device until its iPad was ready for sale.
I fully expect a new MBA refocused on taking advantage of the luxury market who want premium product and experience as a primary Mac rather than those who want a secondary computing device on the run.
Because that misses the point, yes we could side step the issue, but why should we? We paid a premium, shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy something as basic as running stuff which appears on a lot, if not most, websites?
Well said!
Granted, I don't play many games online, but I don't really think I'm missing anything, except ads.
It's funny that Adobe is now swarming to improve Flash on OS X after swearing up and down for years that it was impossible to do so.
That is not true at all. Sure most sites owned by big companies or those with a technology focus with their Internet sites don't use Flash for things like navigation when HTML is obviously the better choice. However, the web designers that spent two or three years learning Flash and Adobe CS don't think about the alternative of Flash not working because they know 98% of all Internet "surfable" devices or browsers have a Flash plug-in. It has led to Flash being used everywhere from making pretty navigation bars that highlight when rolled over by a mouse to intro animation that shows company information only on Flash, to content filled pages that cannot be seen when the device surfing the site doesn't have Flash plug-in capable browser.
This was NEVER a problem until Apple decided to screw its customers over and blame it on implementation when it is obvious that's nothing more than a cover story! Flash threatens the App store. Flash threatens Apple's paid content via iTunes, iBooks, iPad/iPhone applications that solely display content. Flash and Adobe's CS suite competes with Apple too on software sales. And the ever so wonderful Apple just laid off 40 Final Cut programmers too. Apple cannot allow Flash on the iPad/iPhone because people would have a much easier time bypassing the app store, watching videos for free adding 2.5 minutes worth of commercials as "payment," and it does compete directly with Apple's own implementations of software that competes with Adobe and even Apple's Quicktime.
Also, how is it Apple's fault that Flash on OSX is an unstable, insecure, CPU hogging piece of junk?
Read the thread and follow the money. This is nothing more than Apple's agenda and propaganda. Why can I run Flash on Windows 7 on my same MBA so well without taxing the CPU at all? When Adobe has access, it comes through extremely well with successful implementations of software displaying Flash content over the Internet without terrible loss or waste. Apple should step up and give Adobe access to APIs to make Flash work fine for now while Apple works on providing a solution for the long-term. It's not a solution to say the customers just cannot use Flash and in the long-run accept HTML5 and h.264. The long-run plan is fine, but the short-term solution is not fair and isn't a solution at all. Apple's customers deserver better from Apple. It's Apple's customers that suffer... and it's all propaganda from Steve Jobs that leads people down the fanboi path.
Ah. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.
If you hate flash on Mac, just be thankful you're not a Linux user. Those poor bastards have it worse re: flash.
The problem is there are so many different packages or versions of Linux. Adobe has stated clearly that it simply isn't feasible to make Flash better on every single version of Linux. If there was a "standard" for the APIs used across all versions of Linux, I believe Adobe would come through. Even then, realize how few computers are running Linux (perhaps 5% as many as are running OS X).
Thats just Adobe ******** for "We don't want to dedicate the time to program flash from the ground up for MacOSX using the correct API's that are given to us through Cocoa, we want to write a wrapper instead to save time and money"
Sorry, I will NEVER side with Adobe on this one.
It's not about "siding" with Adobe. It's about ensuring Apple gives its users the experience they're paying for... if Apple worked with Adobe on a very low-level, the two could provide a great short-term solution until HTML5 and h.264 was relevant. Heck, I don't think Apple would have to do more than provide a few APIs to ensure proper integration and I am sure Adobe would be more than willing to let Apple "play" to make it happy too.
This isn't going to happen because Adobe is an incredible threat to Apple's business model. Yet, Apple blames Adobe for creating crap software... that's not the problem here... anyone that "follows the money" can figure this one out in a few minutes of logical interpretation.
*shrug* I am only epousing the point of view that I've seen, like I said, I'm not in agreement with it in totality.
I'm of the opinion that both companies are at "fault" but it's more to do with "it's just not worth the investment" for either companies. Ergo, here we are.
Well, I believe Adobe has a lot riding on making Flash work effectively for OS X. I don't believe it makes logical sense for Adobe to not care about Flash performance on OS X. Furthermore, I think Adobe would bend over backwards to make Apple users happy on every point of a Flash implementation for the iPhone/iPad OS. Think about this logically, Adobe has many reasons to ensure Flash success on Apple's products.
Apple has one reason to ensure Adobe fails... ADOBE THREATENS APPLE'S BUSINESS MODEL OF CHARGING FOR CONTENT THAT ADOBE SOFTWARE CAN PROVIDE ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT AN APP STORE, ITUNES, IBOOKS, IPHONE/IPAD REQUIRED! Follow the money!
Don't just side with one side or the other... ensure you're getting what you're paying for from Apple. Everyone should ignore about 95% of what Steve Jobs says about other companies. It's all propaganda meant to deter from the real reason for Apple's system and business. Follow the money and determine why Apple makes the decisions it does. For me, it is obvious that Apple sees Adobe as a threat to its business model. A long time ago, in business school, a professors spent three hours using examples of "following the money" to understand why any company makes every decision.
Apple has some amazing potential with its products, but I find its current lineup is more frustrating than ever because of Apple's perceived threats to its business model. Again I use this analogy to show why I believe Apple is the problem with Flash. If Flash only provided access to "pretty" navigation and animations on websites, Apple would be all over making sure it worked just as well on OS X and the iPad/iPhone as it does on Windows/Android. But since Flash provides access to web games that Apple would prefer selling in its App Store, movies and content Apple would prefer selling in iTunes and iBooks store, and in the suite it competes with Apple's own software... but Apple didn't invest money in ensuring it had developed an Internet standard that provided incredible content over the web, and Adobe won its way onto 98% of all devices with Internet access and a browser.
I sure wish I could blame this on Adobe, but when I use my critical thinking and reasoning skills (following the money) it only makes sense that Apple is impeding progress because it sees a threat to a large stream of revenue. Apple wants its success from the transformation of free illegal downloaded music to work with television, movies, magazines, and other content. The problem is when people get used to "free" it's difficult for them to ever accept paying for the same thing again. There is no illegal downloading issue when it comes to all of this other content. Hulu provides television shows in HD content to customers for FREE. Apple cannot beat that, and Hulu only makes money by showing 2.5 minutes of commercials for a 43 minute television show. Apple has a hard time to compete with free... so it must eliminate its competition.
