Print 160 comment(s) - last by evident.. on Apr 26 at 11:17 AM

Lee Brimelow  (Source:
It's on like Donkey Kong!

Fridays are normally are pretty quiet in the tech industry. However, for some reason, today has been particularly interesting -- especially on the Adobe front.

Earlier today, we posted a story which pointed out Adobe's fear of HTML5 gaining traction. In fact, one of the only reasons why HTML5 has even beginning a lot of attention these days is for two reasons; 1) Apple's iPhone OS-based devices don't support flash and 2) Apple is out to kill Flash.

“To the extent new releases of operating systems or other third-party products, platforms or devices, such as the Apple iPhone or iPad, make it more difficult for our products to perform," said Adobe today in an SEC filing. "Our customers are persuaded to use alternative technologies, our business could be harmed,” said Adobe in the filing.

While it's all business in Adobe's SEC filing, Adobe Platform Evangelist Lee Brimelow is fuming mad at the latest iPhone 4.0 SDK which bans the use of programming languages that aren't approved by Apple. "What they are saying is that they won’t allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them," exclaimed Brimelow. "This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe. This does not just affect Adobe but also other technologies like Unity3D.

Brimelow continues throughout the blog railing against Apple and its behavior with regards to Apple. However, he saves his most colorful language for Apple at the end of his piece.

"Now let me put aside my role as an official representative of Adobe for a moment as I would [like] to make it clear what is going through my mind at the moment. Go screw yourself Apple."

It's interesting that this comment was left intact in Brimelow's blog post considering that a previous comment was removed and flagged by Adobe with the following message: [Sentence regarding Apple's intentions redacted at request from Adobe].

Let the games begin!

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good for Adobe!
By pequin06 on 4/9/2010 4:53:16 PM , Rating: 5
Can we give Adobe a 6?

RE: Good for Adobe!
By RjBass on 4/9/2010 5:07:16 PM , Rating: 5

RE: Good for Adobe!
By reader1 on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/9/2010 6:07:18 PM , Rating: 5
Flash is now irrelevant
As are you and your posts.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By dflynchimp on 4/9/2010 8:39:03 PM , Rating: 5
You are incorrect.

It is hardly a debatable issue that reader1's post have never and never will be relevant.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 8:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
They're damn sure entertaining though.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By B3an on 4/9/2010 10:30:54 PM , Rating: 5
Thats very true.

But some serious points to make here...

"Flash is now irrelevant."

(cant believe i'm replying to a reader1 post)
Firstly, by your reasoning then HTML is even more irrelevant. People like you say Flash is old and has been around for years... well guess what, HTML has been around a LOT longer. And it's only on version 5 (which is still unfinished) Flash gets updated every year with new features.

"There's nothing Flash can do that HTML5 and apps can't do."

I'll just paste what i've said before:
Flash is a application platform and cannot be replaced by HTML5, ever. Any developer like myself that has worked with Flash would (or should!) know this. HTML5 is just a (unfinished) mark up spec with limited functionality. Flash and it's coding language are far more advanced. Action Script 3.0 which Flash uses is more like a C language. The software itself is also by far the best for web animation and vector based graphics, as it's animation and drawing tools are excellent, you can even use Flash solely for drawing or creating images, as it's tools are almost as good as Adobe Illustrator for this. In the latest Flash you even have bone tool, which makes creating and animating characters a lot easier. Again, HTML5 is just a markup spec, it has no animation features and tools for such things, you can write a HTML5 website in notepad.

HTML5 s fine for many sites, but theres some things it simply cannot do, and this is where Flash comes in, and why it's so popular in the first place. The only other alternative is Silverlight, which uses the .net language which as anyone should know is way more powerful than HTML will ever be.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By descendency on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By Samus on 4/10/2010 1:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
Flash 10 is years ahead of HTML5 as far as optimizations are concerned...Youtube5 Beta performs pretty poorly on today's browsers (higher CPU utilization) and coding is hella more complex. Have you actually looked through HTML5 code? I'd probably have to do as many lines as I'd have to code to meet a deadline.

But don't get me wrong. I am not an Adobe fan (or an Apple fan for that matter) because their entire business model depends on strongarming the industry to use Flash (and Acrobat) so when Apple begins to strongarm the industry against Flash, Adobe starts getting all pissyfit. Go fucking figure. Both these companies need less vagina.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By descendency on 4/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By B3an on 4/10/2010 2:57:40 AM , Rating: 4
Points in your reason 1 are ridiculous. Do you really have experience in any of these areas? It's because of the excellent tools in Flash that so many devs use it. For a single web developing piece of software nothing even compares. Games, websites, animations/cartoons, images, art, sound, video and many more can all be created in this one piece of software with nothing else needed.

The drawing tools almost rival Adobe Illustrator, the animation tools are the best around for web content, game creation is better than ever with things like the Bone Tool, the Action Script Language (3.0) is refined and now very powerful, and being as it's Adobe importing things from other Adobe software with there settings/layers intact (photoshop, illustrator) is extremely easy.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By fotoguy on 4/10/2010 2:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
I've developed with the latest MS dev studio incarnations for the last 12 years and love them. Now that I'm having to do an app in Flex, I'm using the Flex builder 4 (which is based on Eclipse), and although it is different, it does not suck. Heck, once I got the keyboard shortcuts remapped to be like MS Visual Studio, it's been pretty good.
It's really just a different (more Java-like) mindset to project development.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By bfdd on 4/12/2010 5:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Flash isn't just going to die. You guys who keep saying that know absolutely nothing. Do you know what flash cookies are? Do you know how damn near EVERYONE(including your online banking) uses that to recognize you as a user? The company I work for uses flash cookies as a main source of reference in figuring out if someone coming into our system is someone who has been in our system before. It's an extra measure to prevent against fraud online. It's not just going to disappear over night and HTML5 isn't going to get rid of that. We already have web cookies, they are nice, but don't allow for the recognition that the flash guid does.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By B3an on 4/10/2010 2:44:13 AM , Rating: 3
But Flash's Action Script language is constantly updated with newer versions. Just like HTML, but a lot more often. Even if a new Flash version has few additions to the AS language, it will have many other new features (GPU acceleration, new tools, new abilities, new effects, for instance) and these updates are yearly, not every few years like with HTML, if that. I mean how long was it since HTML4 was released? and HTML5 still isn't final and wont be for a long time.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By zmatt on 4/11/2010 5:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually PASCAL and COBOL are very much still used. There is a lot of stuff from the 70's and 80's in COBOL and many programmers get paid a pretty sum to convert that into a more modern language and platform. PASCAL is actively used in higher ed. There are a lot of research papers written each year involving it.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By steven975 on 4/12/2010 9:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
agreed. I learned on Pascal myself. Learning other languages after implmenting ADTs in Pascal was pretty easy.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By wempa on 4/12/2010 12:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of stuff from the 70's and 80's in COBOL and many programmers get paid a pretty sum to convert that into a more modern language and platform.

You're just proving his point. These are legacy languages, not used very often anymore. I'll give you Pascal, but mostly just for education purposes.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By lagitup on 4/11/2010 5:03:57 AM , Rating: 1
Again, HTML5 is just a markup spec, it has no animation features and tools for such things

What was that about animation?

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Gungel on 4/11/2010 11:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and watch the CPU utilization, its insane.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By T2k on 4/12/2010 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO, CPU vs Flash - have you checked any regular Flash anim on your Atom-based tablet?

Flash is just as bad at CPU, trust me, that's why they are started shifting to GPU acceleration.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By T2k on 4/12/2010 3:05:52 PM , Rating: 1
ROFLMAO, CPU vs Flash - have you checked any regular Flash anim on your Atom-based tablet?

Flash is just as bad at CPU, trust me, that's why they are started shifting to GPU acceleration.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By weskurtz0081 on 4/12/2010 4:21:24 PM , Rating: 3
Did you actually open that link? My 3Ghz Core2 machine was stuck around 80-90%, while a Flash site might put it at half that. The difference was obvious on this machine.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By blargsoup on 4/13/2010 9:54:53 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Good for Adobe!
By FaaR on 4/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By rocky12345 on 4/9/2010 6:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
reader1 -"Flash is now irrelevant. There's nothing Flash can do that HTML5 and apps can't do."

Thats not the point here yes HTML5 can do a lot the whole point that everyone is getting upset about is the way Apple is going about all of this. They are using bullying tactics to get rid of a competing product this type of sh$t does not fly any more. If Apple truely feels that flash is bad & HTML5 is better why not let the consumer decide give the choice to the consumer if HTML5 is that much better then it should win hands down. But Apple just took that choice away form the end user because it is afraid that it will lose control of things like the app store if flash was to catch on in things like the iphone. Wouldn't you like the choice when you first turn on your shiny new iphone or ipad to say hell no Adobe flash I don't want you on my hardware frack off I like HTML5 better. But no you don't get that choice it was made for you by Apple so that $500 hardware is not really yours I guess you just are renting it from Apple so what they sayd goes.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By damianrobertjones on 4/9/2010 6:42:33 PM , Rating: 5
Apple Macs are irrelevant. There's nothing a Mac can do that a PC and less cash can't do.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By descendency on 4/9/2010 10:53:00 PM , Rating: 4
Or maybe more accurately, there is nothing an equally priced PC can't do better.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By quiksilvr on 4/10/2010 12:04:58 AM , Rating: 4
Wait if you're a student, why did you spend $1200? Shouldn't it be $1100?

And I would get an HP dv4i. Yeah its 1.3" not 1" thick (oh noes) but generally it should cover all the other aspects you were talking about.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By corduroygt on 4/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By inighthawki on 4/10/2010 4:09:51 PM , Rating: 4
1lb heavier and an EXTRA 1" on the screen size for about half the price? Great deal to me. If you're looking for another aluminum based chassis, that's an unfair comparison because that's just not the style of a pc. Personally I'm not all that fond of the apple laptop look and would prefer a plastic pc since i think they look better in general. Just because you cannot find an EXACT match for the macbook you're comparing doesn't mean there aren't other deals out there that qualify as better for a number of people.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Alexstarfire on 4/10/2010 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
I would tend to agree.

I've thought that comparing weight was always funny. I don't use the computer while holding it in my hand so weight should be a moot point for nearly everyone. If you can't carry an extra 1 lbs then I think you have bigger problems to worry about.

Also, not that there aren't crappy plastic laptop cases, the one I have certainly isn't one. Though, I don't drop, destroy, or otherwise try to intentionally harm my computer so maybe that's why my stuff doesn't look like crap and, in fact, looks nearly brand new.

And I haven't heard anyone complain about having a larger screen before, especially when it's not even an inch larger. I say that's close enough.

People have different things to compare, I just don't see why weight is one of them. Perhaps someone could explain that to me.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By corduroygt on 4/11/2010 12:45:38 AM , Rating: 4
You must have never used a laptop in your lap. The extra screen makes the laptop larger, and the heaviness impedes comfort when you're using the laptop on the sofa.
Seriously if you don't like OSX, which is completely understandable, putting win7 on a macbook would still be better than getting that HP. There's a reason Apple sells alot despite being expensive and needs updating these days, it's just more pleasing to look at and hold due to materials.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By inighthawki on 4/11/2010 2:15:08 AM , Rating: 4
I own a 15.4" widescreen laptop which fits beautifully in my lap all the time. It was weird because you made a valid point with good logic about OSX and win7 then you go and say that its better because it's more pleasing to look at?

Please, if you want to argue points at least realize that only a relatively few people will buy a laptop because its smaller a pleasing to the eye. Some people want a cheaper laptop with a larger screen which is cheaper.

Apple sells a lot because it's a status symbol, not because the laptops have any special value.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By inighthawki on 4/11/2010 10:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have two 15.4" laptops. One is rather old, gets about 2 hours normal use, but thats because it has an old and crappy battery. The other one, however, can easily get 4-5 hours of average use.

Also, you keep forgetting that not everyone requires high battery life on a laptop. Sure it's nice if it lasts longer but i have my laptop because it's portable. I won't sit here and lie and say that Apple's laptops don't have excellent battery life, but that extended life has little to do with the screen size. A 15.4" screen would not draw enough power over a 13" screen to halve its battery life...

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Pirks on 4/12/2010 9:29:54 AM , Rating: 4
Me? I can count on over 5 hours of internet browsing
And I can count on 7 hours of internet browsing on my Asus UL80, so what? Is my Asus now better than your Mac? ;)

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/12/2010 9:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
In one respect, it certainly is, it most certainly is.

Asus's UL series is pretty damn good.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 1:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
Where have you been? The Dell Inspiron 15 with an i3/i5 gets up to 7 hours of battery life with the 9 cell battery. The 6 cell is 4 hours. Like 2 hours with the 4 cell. These are the, turn it on, just let it sit there battery life figures.

The 6 cell, you average at 3 hours, unless you watch a dvd movie, then it swan dives to 2 hours.

Me, I have a 12.1" laptop. I'm good for a 3-4 hours, so long as I'm not attempting to game, which I can't do with current games anyways. I'll be moving to an HP TM2 tablet. 9 hours of life, which can drop, depending on like screen brightness settings and such. It's a CULV, but I don't need much power. A 13" or less laptop should never be your main machine.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By PandaBear on 4/11/2010 7:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Using a keyboard that doesn't have del and insert key just kills the point of putting windows on a Mac.

Yes, I am using a mac at work because of work place IT policy with XP, but still, that keyboard alone makes me buy a real PC if I were to put windows on it rather than a mac.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 8:02:38 PM , Rating: 1
The delete and insert key? Hell, I would've said the prntscrn key...

Delete is just fn+backspace. It's cumbersome, but it works.

Why would u need insert?

RE: Good for Adobe!
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 1:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
You're an editor at some company and do a lot of typing. Insert becomes very useful.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 8:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
"An extra 1""?

If the resolution is the same, the screen size is mute.

That actually leads me to a criticism of the macbook line, resolution. 15" screens should be 1080p, end of story. 900p/1440x900 would also be lovely on a 13" screen.

The 17" Macbook Pro should remain at 1920x1200. Its the only MBP that is remotely "professional".

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Marlonsm on 4/10/2010 6:26:07 PM , Rating: 3
Last time I checked my HP was made by Foxconn, the same company that makes lots of stuff for Apple.
Although it's plastic, the build quality is great, nothing is flimsy, and it looks great, comparable to a MacBook, IMO.
And no, it's a DV4, not an Envy.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good for Adobe!
By Alexstarfire on 4/12/2010 2:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
1. Depends on if you need to run unplugged. I really don't. I just need something more portable than a desktop.

2. My trackpad is plenty big. How're you like your giant fingers?

3. Just fine actually. Why, what's up?

4. My keyboard is fine. I wish I had a dedicated numberpad like on a desktop keyboard, but unless you get a huge laptop or really tiny keys that's just not happening.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By inighthawki on 4/12/2010 7:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. For me the reasons to buy a laptop are different. Mostly so i can have a computer that I can carry around with me that I can do some programming.

As far as battery life goes, I typically have it plugged in all the time. It's of no concern to me how long it can go otherwise. At most I need a few minutes to move it to a different outlet without the hastle of shutting down.

Trackpads are also irrelevant to me. I rarely use it if at all. 99% of the time, if I want to actually get something done, I have my usb mouse plugged in. When I don't have that option the trackpad is fine for what I do.

As far as the panel goes, same here. glossy or not, don't care, it works.

Keyboard is fine too, I agree a numpad would be nice but again, that's something you get with an extra large laptop, and If i need one, I'll get one.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Pirks on 4/12/2010 9:44:51 AM , Rating: 1
How's that glossy TN panel working out for you?
And how's the glossy panel in your MBP 13" working out for YOU? Asus is much more glossy and crappy but man! No aintiglare screen option in MBP 13? Come. On.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Marlonsm on 4/17/2010 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 1
Battery isn't good here, but again, I don't really need it, and if I did I could just buy one of that huge batteries HP sells to replace mine when needed.

My trackpad is just fine, even for my big hands(I can hit both Ctrls with one hand in this laptop), and I can always use my USB mouse.

The screen is great, very vivid colors and very bright.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By quiksilvr on 4/11/2010 1:14:16 PM , Rating: 3
Picky picky. And you don't get the 6 cell battery. You get the 12 cell for the 7 hours.

And what is this crap on 1.3" vs 1". Are you serious? Is it THAT big of a deal? If it was 1.5 or 2 then I would understand, but 1.3? They do it for a reason. Its to make sure the thing doesn't overheat. And if you look closely, the HP laptop has little feet under it to give the fans breathing room, something that really should be on the MBP (those thing heat up).

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By quiksilvr on 4/13/2010 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
How is it cheating? All it does is give your laptop a slight bulge in the back. So your laptop will get a handle and weigh a 1/4 lb more. What a tragedy.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 1:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the 13" macbook have a 9-cell battery?

RE: Good for Adobe!
By scrapsma54 on 4/10/2010 12:27:03 AM , Rating: 1
Uh, did you even bother to look at the dell adamo admire? A 1.4Ghz core 2 duo cpu, 2GB of ram, a 128 SSD, 13.4 inch display (does that disqualify it) and for $999.

Less than an inch thick, and found in less than a second.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By corduroygt on 4/10/2010 12:59:06 AM , Rating: 3
That's CULV, which isn't nearly as fast as a 2.53 ghz c2d.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 7:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
That's got CULV and I'm reasonably sure there's no disk drive.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Dark Legion on 4/10/2010 5:34:51 AM , Rating: 5

Very similar weight and thickness (the macbook is not under 1" thick either), a dedicated graphics card (optimus?), a faster processor, bigger HDD, twice the RAM, and similar battery life when using the integrated GPU. All for $300 less.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By zombiexl on 4/10/2010 10:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, you beat me to it. I missed your response and posted about the same model.

I just told a potential apple buyer about this same machine and they are going for the ASUS now.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 7:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
The Macbook Pro is .95" thick.

The U30Jc is .80-1.2" thick.

Otherwise, the U30Jc really is a gem of a laptop. Build-quality isn't up there with Apple, but it costs less and the specs are great.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Dark Legion on 4/13/2010 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
So then why does Apple list it at 1.08"?

I agree about the variable thickness being annoying, but is .12" less in the back really worth that much?

RE: Good for Adobe!
By zombiexl on 4/10/2010 10:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Try that, better CPU/GPU than the apple as well and gets 8 hours. Also lower price.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By quiksilvr on 4/11/2010 1:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you look closely, there are feet at the bottom of the laptop. Also, its 1.2". Vs 1". Seriously. GET OVER IT. It's not like a half inch thicker, it's less than a 1/4 inch.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By mindless1 on 4/11/2010 3:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, get over it. You are whining about something arbitrary. If an HP were 1" thick and Apple's was 0.7" thick you'd try to argue that matters too, because it is not how thick it is, it is your iMental block.

Personally I WANT my laptop thicker. Why? Because I don't have that mental block but do realize all else being equal, no matter the construction materials and technique, thicker is more durable.

Want a stiff alloy chassis? Great, now quit trying to make it so thin and it's even MORE durable.

If you can't lug around a quarter of an inch and a pound more than you do, get up from the keyboard and get some exercise. (Really!)

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 10:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
iMental block?

I like a single product out of Apple's entire lineup and I'm a fanboy?

If HP has a mainstream laptop that is 1" thick, then that means that most laptops are around 1" thick. If I can have a laptop that is a little thinner without completely paying through the nose (X300, Vaio X, etc.), I'd go for it.

Uniform thickness is another pet peeve of mine. I almost pulled the trigger on a Dell Studio 14z a few months ago, but I couldn't stand the shape of the case.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By SPOOFE on 4/11/2010 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
I spent $380 on my laptop, brand new. It does exactly what I want it to. Show me a brand new Mac that will do exactly what I want for $380. I'll wait. I'm not even stacking the deck with all sorts of wacky conditions (ooh, it has to be an inch thick! Ooh!)... there are only two qualifiers in my demand.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/11/2010 9:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
When did I say Apple's products are the best?

I claimed the MBP13 is an insane deal for what it offers, but Apple's product line as a whole is a ripoff.

So where does this "fanboy" draw the line? Well, let's start with the entire desktop sector. Then throw in the Macbooks that are more than $1500 and what do we have left? The entire mobile lineup (sans iPad) and the 13" macbooks.

Oh and for your question, google "netbook". That would fit your two criteria, and then some.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Alexstarfire on 4/12/2010 2:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, his two conditions are that it has to be Mac and has to be under $380..... a netbook would satisfy one of those conditions. His point was that Mac doesn't offer anything in that price range. Much like the car commercial tried to do by comparing it to a non-existent Toyota at the same price.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By ImSpartacus on 4/12/2010 9:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
No, they were "brand new" and ">$380".

Otherwise, I'd point you to eBay.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By damianrobertjones on 4/12/2010 8:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
We said PC, not laptop.

PS, most of HPs laptops can use extended batteries and some manufacturers can use 2 batteries etc.

Fujitsu t4210 - Two batteries, 11.7 hours and still going. Insane

RE: Good for Adobe!
By KoolAidMan1 on 4/10/2010 4:59:47 AM , Rating: 1
Apple's 27" iMac with 2560x1440 LED backlit IPS LCD display starts at $1700. Dell's standalone LCD with the same specs (minus LED backlighting, CCFL instead) runs $1100. NEC's will likely run about $1400 when it comes out in a few weeks.

Back when Apple was selling 24" iMacs, also with IPS panels, Dell and HP sold all-in-one computers for the same price with inferior MVA panels, slower CPU, slower GPU (Intel IGP, puke), literally half the hard drive storage, again all for the same price as the 24" iMac. They don't even bother competing in the same price range anymore and offer anemic AIOs in the sub-$1100 price range. I did see a Sony AIO the other day, $1800 with an inferior display, slower CPU, slower GPU, a third the hard drive space, etc etc. You get the idea.

Apple's mid-range products are very well priced against other PC builders given the quality of components that they use. Yeah it sucks that they don't sell ATX based Macs that aren't loaded with $1000+ Xeons, but that's why I build my own PCs for gaming, no big deal. I wouldn't buy similar configurations from Dell or HP either, but I do buy the iMac for my Final Cut workstations as they are a spectacular deal given the display quality and performance you are getting.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By dark matter on 4/10/2010 8:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
The advantages of an AOI is always its biggest disadvantage. Its an all in one unit. Thus can only ever be as strong as its weakest part. That screen might still be great in 4 years, but what about memory, wireless connectivity, storage, processing?

Seems an awful lot of components to throw away just because one of them has become outdated.

But of course, lets not let logic get in the way, you have to Apple iMac as that's what designers have to use, isn't it. It has to be, its what they use in films. What do you mean films are not real, of course they are. They tell us how live, how to act, how to fit in and if that means fooling ourselves then we don't need much convincing.

Some of us don't have our heads in the clouds and are quite grounded. But just because its called common sense doesn't mean its common.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By KoolAidMan1 on 4/11/2010 7:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
That is all beside the point of the discussion, which is the claim that Apple's specific products are overpriced. No, they actually aren't compared to the same types of machines that companies like Dell, HP, and Sony sell. The pros and cons of AIOs are another discussion.

But now that you've changed the topic after I successfully made my point, I sold my November 2007 24" iMac in January on eBay for about $1100, well over half of what I paid for it. It was a great Final Cut machine but I really wanted that 27" IPS display. Getting an i7 860 thrown in there was an extra bonus. Then there's the whole silence and non-clutter thing that I reckon most people here don't care about, but I like it. My gaming PC that I built at the same time, well, I wish I could say that it depreciated in value as well as the iMac did. I got peanuts to get rid of my old parts at around the same time. iMacs hold their value extremely well so replacing them honestly isn't that big a deal. It'll be the same thing whenever I decide to sell my 27" iMac and the parts from my current gaming PC.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By SPOOFE on 4/11/2010 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
That is all beside the point of the discussion, which is the claim that Apple's specific products are overpriced.

Apple competes in some spaces in which their products are clearly pricier than roughly similar products, and they also compete in some spaces of much lower volume in which the price differential is less.

You've only established that some niche products carry a premium, regardless of the company.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By mellomonk on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By JKflipflop98 on 4/10/2010 8:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
Why is OSX even important? It's like Win7's ugly older sister. Plus win7 will play any game you want, and take any hardware you like. She's a dirty, dirty girl.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By SPOOFE on 4/11/2010 7:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
OSX is great because it's on Macs.

Macs are great because of OSX.

Circular logic is circular.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Murloc on 4/11/2010 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
osx has got less apps than windows 7, and much less games.

support and customer satisfaction? yellow screens ftw.

I am totally satisfied with dell support.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By damianrobertjones on 4/12/2010 9:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
People are happy to sit down in front of pretty much any machine and get on Facebook. Thats it. End of.

My post was in reply to Reader1 who seems to post utter pap. It was tongue in cheek. No-one got it.

OSX is simple, has big icons and will hardly ever be played with by the standard user thats used Windows. It also has a very funny notepad.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By UnWeave on 4/9/2010 8:46:38 PM , Rating: 3
I think the word you were looking for was "redundant". And you'd still be wrong (or at least, I would still wholeheartedly disagree with you).

RE: Good for Adobe!
By William Gaatjes on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By lukasbradley on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good for Adobe!
By inighthawki on 4/9/2010 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
They may not have made a counter-move, but they are showing that they are willing to step up against apple. While personally i think flash sucks overall, and wouldn't mind an alternative, Apple is simply being controlling just as Adobe states. I'm in support of Adobe on this one. Perhaps this will persuade them to make some releases, and perhaps even optimizations!

RE: Good for Adobe!
By Brandon Hill on 4/9/2010 5:48:32 PM , Rating: 4
The strange thing is, this "Go screw yourself" comment was allowed to make it through in the blog post.

These blog posts obviously must pass through a higher up at Adobe before they are posted. In fact, there was a whole sentence that was redacted per Adobe's order. So if that sentence was redacted, and the "screw yourself" was allowed to say, one must wonder what was originally stated in the redacted part.

The fact that Adobe let "screw yourself" pass through unfiltered to me says that they want some of their frustrations to be aired in a non-official matter.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By lukasbradley on 4/9/2010 6:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
Brandon, it is discussion-worthy, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning Adobe's greater resolve. The airing of frustrations is inaction. It's not even saber rattling.

I'm sure Steve Jobs, if he even cares, is laughing his ass off.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By scrapsma54 on 4/10/2010 1:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
Jobs probably in his limousine:
Woz, get me my pen.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By gralex on 4/11/2010 8:56:09 AM , Rating: 1
" Odyssey 2010 : The year two major tech players took it to the playground."
(Will Apple fire back: "No, you screw yourself!"? Check back for updates...)

A lot of things don't make sense here. So much so, I'm starting to think that some major piece of the puzzle is missing. For example: Could Apple be readying a direct competitor to Photoshop? They've had a decent Final Cut Pro out for almost 8 years now... Where's their PS? Or maybe a mutiny is brewing within Adobe to give up on Mac altogether, but are finding resistance from old school board-members/investors afraid to file for divorce. It used to be that Apple was Adobe's favorite child, but this summer it's gonna be all about nVidia (don't shoot the messenger ATI fans, here's an old link to get you started: ). Is Jobs just throwing a tantrum? Best defense being a good offense, kinda thing? Time will tell...

A few more "strange" things... Why is the fact that Apple is trying to make a killing by not supporting Flash, so fascinating? Why does Adobe Reader need 218MB of my hard drive? Why doesn't the iPad have a USB port? Why can't I set my Flash plug-in to "never loop"?

Steve's bitching may just unintentionally make the web a better place for the rest of us. I'm glad Adobe are cornered. It means they'll have to do something about it.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By FaaR on 4/15/2010 4:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why would we give Adobe a 6? Flash is the biggest piece of crap on the interwebs right now. 9 times out of 10, if my browser hangs or crashes it's because of that god damn steaming turd.

It is buggy, it is slow, it is a resource hog and a security hole of immense proportions.

I've had fresh, clean windows installs, first webpage with a flash object on it has downloaded a tainted, buggy flash plugin directly from adobe. Crash heaven ensues - literally several browser crashes every day. Only way to fix it was to go to Adobe's site and download their accursed Flash uninstaller - which on at least one occasion failed to perform as advertised, and displayed garbled, illegible text in its window/dialog boxes - and then re-install flash manually by downloading a separate installer (which last time I had to do this tainted my system with a useless "Adobe download tool" or whatever - which ALSO refuses to uninstall properly - just because I missed to click away a tiny checkbox on the download webpage).

I've had flash refuse to work properly again after being disabled from within the browser's plugin manager, and then re-eneabled again. On and on, problem upon problem.

I facking HATE flash. It deserves to die, painfully. I'm no fan of Steve Jobs or his company (coz they're paranoid control-freaks and their products are overpriced), but in the crusade against flash, I'm like go Apple, go.

RE: Good for Adobe!
By evident on 4/26/2010 11:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
honestly i hope apple and adobe kill each other, as i think both companies are crap.

By ZachDontScare on 4/9/2010 5:26:10 PM , Rating: 5
If Adobe wanted to play hardball, they'd stop making Photoshop for the Mac. Want that new version of photoshop? Or illustrator? or Dreamweaver? Get a PC.

(oh, and for 'some reason' our apps wont run in parallels...)

RE: Photoshop
By invidious on 4/9/2010 5:48:14 PM , Rating: 5
Their goal is to screw over Apple, not themselves. Too many artistic types think that Apple computers are the only way to go for graphic design. Obviously they are wrong, but Adobe can't afford to force Mac lovers to choose between Adobe software and their Mac.

RE: Photoshop
By erple2 on 4/9/2010 6:06:39 PM , Rating: 4
I would disagree. The concept of "Photoshop" in the mindset of those artistic types (another phrase I find ... icky, much like "creative types") is so ingrained that people will, in fact switch to a platform it works with.

If Photoshop still runs in Parallels, then those "artistic types" will probably continue to run it there, much like they had to do when there was no "Universal Binary" for Photoshop on the Apple. If you can figure out how to block that from working (which I'm not sure is easy, or legal - though Apple does it all the time), then the "artistic types" will eventually switch. I see "those people" that actually want to continue to have a career will switch to whatever supports the application of choice.

The question becomes whether Adobe can afford to choose between the Photoshop application and, say, Flash development - something that FAR more people use. I don't know what percentage of their bottom line comes from Flash and all of its incarnations vs. Photoshop on a Mac. I'd be willing to bet that Adobe makes far more money with Photoshop on PC's than they do on Macs...

RE: Photoshop
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:14:31 PM , Rating: 5
I would disagree. The concept of "Photoshop" in the mindset of those artistic types (another phrase I find ... icky, much like "creative types") is so ingrained that people will, in fact switch to a platform it works with.
I'm surprised anyone would even attempt to debate otherwise. In fact, if Adobe even floated the rumor that subsequent versions of PS would be on the PC only, I think Apple's sales would show an appreciable dip.

RE: Photoshop
By futrtrubl on 4/10/2010 12:12:49 AM , Rating: 3
Now that you mention it I think I did hear something about them thinking of ditching Mac... now where did I hear it?.... Ah yes, from my own mouth ;']

But seriously, I would be REALLY surprised if they get more revenue from Mac versions than PC versions, and if they dropped Mac support that's 1/2 the versions they need to continue supporting. And hey, if the still want sales to mac owners they can leave in Parallels support unofficially while still taking an official stand.

I think the (vast) majority of high end Mac sales are for graphics design, photography and video work. Apple stands to loose some of its high margin sales....

RE: Photoshop
By maven81 on 4/10/2010 7:09:17 PM , Rating: 4
It would absolutely show a dip, but judging by the various mac forums not all apple based photoshop users are as rational as you assume. Some are already clamoring for apple to release their own version of the creative suite (as if this would be easy!) while others think apple should simply buy adobe and kill the software they don't like, like flash (which they would probably never be allowed to do even if they wanted to).
The bottom line is there absolutely are people out there that would ditch photoshop if their precious Steve told them to.

Of course I kinda wonder if any of them make a living with adobe software (like I do).

On a more interesting note, according to the last Adobe MAX conference, adobe is planning on making their own app store, where developers would be able to sell apps for many mobile platforms. It's pretty clear that if apple keeps playing hardball adobe will pour all their energy into propping up competing platforms like google's android. If that actually goes well, Adobe will have the last laugh.

RE: Photoshop
By 67STANG on 4/10/2010 11:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but don't forget the other apps that almost every creative professional uses: Illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom, Premiere, etc.

I don't know if I've ever met a graphic designer that used their Mac for work and *didn't* have most if not all of those apps installed. Without them, it would be impossible for them to work.

I say go exclusive to PC for CS5. That will show Apple.

RE: Photoshop
By samspqr on 4/13/2010 6:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
just delaying CS5 for mac a couple of months would hurt apple and show that adobe is ready to fight

I don't like flash, but apple is just being nasty here, so I say: get the gloves off, adobe!!

(on the other hand, apple is about 20 or 30 times bigger than adobe in terms of revenue, net income, etc, and adobe felt the downturn more heavily, so apple could buy them if they started a fight... which would not be a bad outcome for adobe owners, but could be bad for us windows users)

RE: Photoshop
By alanore on 4/9/2010 6:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know what your saying. It just seems by taking this stance adobe are admitting that flash is going to die and is not worth defending.

In all honesty HTML5 was always going to supersede flash for somethings. But HTML5 specification is no where near finished, the canvas element is close, but I remember Ian Hickson saying that it may not achieve a fully ratified status from the W3C until 2022.

For those that haven't came across the name Ian Hickson before, he work for Google and wrote the Acid2 and Acid3 browser tests, aswell as helping to shape the HTML5 and the CSS 2 specification before it.

The mission statement for HTML5 is to reduce the need for browser plug-ins, such as Java, Flash and Silverlight, not replace them.

HTML5 is not ready for the prime time just yet, as a web developer you should (nearly)always program for the largest userbase. Its a save assumption that more users will have flash than the current revision of HTML5. Its good that websites such as Youtube are embracing HTML5 by means of having both.

My worry is about the accessibility of HTML5 to users with limited vision. Flash used to be a brick wall for accessibility, but now it can be pretty good if the developer choose to make. I hope that the current accessibility of HTML5 is better than flash. In the UK it is unlawful to offer goods or services that are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities, that includes websites.

RE: Photoshop
By xxeonn on 4/9/2010 7:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
There is also a slight hiccup with HTML5 as it's only the means by which to get the content to your computer. With the current YouTube implementation I think they use the H.264 codec which is proprietary and requires a license to use in browsers.

So for browsers such as Opera which supports HTML5 itself but not the H.264 codec can not play the videos. I know it is a smaller market share but this in effect affects Opera's business as well. I'll admit that Apple may make some decent products but their business morals are, sigh....

I don't know..
By eddieroolz on 4/9/2010 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
I dislike both companies. I can't choose sides on this one.

RE: I don't know..
By Smartless on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: I don't know..
By The Raven on 4/9/2010 6:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Two wrongs don't make a right..." Well html5 could be better....

Well the fact that we have a standard such as HTML5 (in the works) is great. But you can still use flash if you want to. With Apple, you can't use flash even if you wanted to. So screw them.

And I'm not worried about Adobe inhibiting the progress of HTML5. So screw Apple (and M$ while we're at it).

Also, you could use the ol' "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

RE: I don't know..
By The Raven on 4/9/2010 6:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you, but I would love to see Adobe pull support of CS and screw the church of Jobs. Though I don't like Adobe for numerous reasons, I hate how Apple chooses not to ALLOW flash support. Anyway, if Adobe takes it to them 'like Donkey Kong' I'll be happy to support them.

I mean it is OS domination in the market that has gotten us to where we are now, so I will side against the OS/PC maker Apple.

RE: I don't know..
By serkol on 4/9/2010 6:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
Great! If you want to support Adobe, buy CS5!
I mean ... BUY ... not "get", but B U Y !

RE: I don't know..
By Reaper1 on 4/9/2010 11:22:19 PM , Rating: 1
This is why I hate adobe. I would love to buy photoshop... too bad its not affordable in the least bit. What is it 700 dollars? I can buy windows 7 for 30-100 student or oem but image editing software is nearly a grand?

I guess they are only targeting professionals but I bet if they had it within a reasonable price they would make a bigger profit. Same as Steam is doing for pc games at the moment.

RE: I don't know..
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 9:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
"but I bet if they had it within a reasonable price they would make a bigger profit."

You bet wrong. Those that use it for professional reasons already all buy it (PS has something like 90% market share), and those who would use it non-professionally are going to primarily pirate it, whether it costs $700 or $100.

RE: I don't know..
By Reaper1 on 4/10/2010 3:12:45 PM , Rating: 1
Thats your opinion not a fact.

on valves stance on piracy.

RE: I don't know..
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 5:34:19 PM , Rating: 3
Valve? Are you seriously comparing the market for a $750 professional program to that of a $50 game?

RE: I don't know..
By Reaper1 on 4/11/2010 3:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me it costs more to develop a new version of Photoshop than some of the games out there? Like I said a whole os for 30 dollars, a program for 750....

RE: I don't know..
By SPOOFE on 4/11/2010 4:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me it costs more to develop a new version of Photoshop than some of the games out there?

The phrase "sales volume" comes to mind.

RE: I don't know..
By lecanard on 4/10/2010 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't photoshop just $200 for students?

RE: I don't know..
By eddieroolz on 4/10/2010 12:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree somewhat with yanking CS5 products off Apple, however that would cause 2 problems:

1. Another company, or perhaps even an open-source group would fill the niche (since it is so lucrative; motivations drive innovation).
2. CS4 won't be outdated for at least a few years.

So as much as I'd like Adobe to remove the only remaining incentive to buy Apple, I fear that by doing so Adobe will plunge themselves deeper into financial trouble.

RE: I don't know..
By samspqr on 4/13/2010 6:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think CS5 is the biggest jump so far: they moved everything to native 64 bits, they added some new tools that everybody's saying are absolutely great and work not on maths but on pure magic, and they added the mercury engine in premiere

if they're going to fight apple, this is the time

RE: I don't know..
By kroker on 4/9/2010 9:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
It's easy to choose a side: the side where they can BOTH go screw themselves!

RE: I don't know..
By kyleb2112 on 4/11/2010 1:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, a pox on both their houses. My adobe apps are 3 versions old because the features they add aren't worth the clutter and weird docking schemes you can tweak a hundred ways but not turn off. I can drop a .wav on my old Cooledit app and be looking at the waveform instantly. Now that it's called Adobe Audition I have to wait through that patented Adobe plugin pre-load screen.

And Apple is working overtime to be the official face of techno fascism. One of their competitors should remake the 1984 add with Jobs as big brother.

Screw them both.

Past, current, and future multimedia tech ..
By darkblade33 on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Past, current, and future multimedia tech ..
By walk2k on 4/9/2010 10:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
You're high if you think Apple won't ban HTML5 too.

The whole reason they ban Flash is that if people make apps with Flash they can bypass the App store and cut Apple out of the profits.

By KoolAidMan1 on 4/10/2010 4:52:50 AM , Rating: 2
Right, which is why Apple was the very first company to release an HTML5 compliant browser, are completely involved in the specification, and are the first to push it on their mobile devices.

Come on dude, think.

Apple operates iTunes at just over break even, after the RIAA, movie studios, developers, servers, bandwidth, all of the free content it distributes, etc etc. The reason iTunes exists isn't to profit from serving software and media, it is to add value to Apple's high margin and very profitable hardware.

It is there to tie people into a hardware ecosystem. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, and their business model benefits from supporting open formats which run on their own hardware. It is the flip of Microsoft, a software company that uses proprietary software standards made to run on a wide variety of hardware from which they don't make a dime on.

They are two different and very profitable ways of doing business, but don't assume for a second that Apple is primarily in the software business. The software exists to make the hardware useful and marketable (nobody will buy hardware without software), not as a primary revenue stream. Considering that Apple serves a huge amount of free applications over iTunes from which they don't make a dime, I don't believe for a second that they'll mind if some of that same functionality goes over to free web apps created in HTML5.

Flash is a pig in OS X, a closed end third party plug-in upon which everyone relies on for security and stability patching, and the main malware vector for modern operating systems. Its really simple why Apple would be at the forefront of HTML5 adoption over Flash. Think and take reality into consideration before posting your conclusions.

By darkblade33 on 4/10/2010 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I agree with you on the CPU usage.. if you consider battery life in an iPhone or even a Android phone which both use HTML5 Gmail or non-flash Youtube

ON Safari, HTML5 was the most efficient and consumed less CPU than Flash using only 12.39% CPU. With Flash 10.0, CPU utilization was at 37.41% and with Flash 10.1, it dropped to 32.07%

By Alexstarfire on 4/10/2010 5:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious, but what OS was this run on?

By darkblade33 on 4/10/2010 10:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. and I beleive you're thinking the same thing as me.. it was run on mac OS... but as a moderate ( politically and scientifically ) I'm thinking many things to be fair to both sides:

Flash on the mac isn't as optimized as Windows or Linux because of usage and versions.. this means its very possible that Flash optimized properly could be just as efficient on mac OS( or iPhone variant ).. Now, Looking at the opposite point of view.. you could just as well say "Hey HTML5 isn't anywhere near being 'optimal' on any operating system because HTML5 standards aren't even finalized"

By darkblade33 on 4/10/2010 3:49:38 PM , Rating: 1
When you say Apple who is pushing HTML5 ..will eventually ban it... I can see you havent thought this out.

*HTML5 will be open just like HTML 1,2,3,4 ( not proprietary which is CONTROLLED by ADOBE software Company ) It won't be controlled by anyone, which is one reason why MS and other companies have made Flash alternatives .. so they don't have to deal with ADOBE !

*Apple iPhone, iPad, iPod supported websites already use HTML5 ( so they aren't going to have 200 websites supporting their products with HTML5 and committ suicide one day by saying 'Ok we now oppose you' when they never ever liked Flash over at Apple !

*CNN, Disney, Flickr, New York Times, and Even GOOGLE all have iPhone optimized websites that use (yes) HTML5 .. Google was one of the first to remove flash from their mobile youtube website.. so even though they will continue 'legacy' support with flash on Droid.. it seems even Google knows better techs like HTML5 are the future..

I admit I dont like alot of companies all the time, who mak emoney hand over fist, but if you can name one company who isn't making alot of money by doing something in their own interest.. please name them here so i can start laughing.

By darkblade33 on 4/10/2010 3:56:57 PM , Rating: 1
PS: One more thing, other countries are also moving to HTML5..
Whether I, You, or anyone else like it.

Yes, I think flash will be around many more yrs.. but it'll be seen less and less as the only good 'standard' and more and more as an 'option'. How many now use Silverlight, instead of Adobe Flash ? MS Mobile Windows 7 will use silverlight.. and they will push it.. thats much more proprietary then Apple pushing HTML5 - which by the way ..

The HTML5 editor is 'Ian Hickson of Google' ! ( Not Steve Jobs )

By darkblade33 on 4/10/2010 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
Mobile Gmail runs on both Android & iPhone in HTML5 !

Which one is worse?
By maevinj on 4/9/2010 5:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Apple or Adobe. I don't know. Maybe they can both go away...

RE: Which one is worse?
By bug77 on 4/9/2010 5:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe has a point, but their history with Flash makes it impossible for me to sympathize with them. I mean, Apple I can easily ignore, but Flash? It can singlehandedly crash my browser on Windows and slow my surfing to a crawl on Linux. And I hear it does fare any better on OS X either.

RE: Which one is worse?
By stmok on 4/10/2010 7:04:50 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. You can ignore Apple's marketing and such; but you can't ignore Adobe's Flash.

Flash is the reason why people have extensions like NoScript and AdBlock Plus installed with Firefox...Such extensions make web surfing livable in both Linux and Windows.

The day I long for; when HTML5 takes over...


Linux (Xubuntu and Arch respectively)
=> sudo apt-get remove flashplugin-nonfree
=> pacman -R flashplugin

...Maybe we should have an International Uninstall Adobe Flash Day ?

RE: Which one is worse?
By maven81 on 4/10/2010 7:13:34 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that apple wants to kill flash just so that they can replace it with their own iAd platform right? The ads would not be going anywhere...

Good for him
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 4:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
Way to go! Apple tyrannical control over their products and anti-competitive behaviors are only good for Apple and hurt consumers in the long run. I still can't figure out how Apple gets away with the crap it does while any other large company would be hammered to the ground by bad press and lawsuits.

RE: Good for him
By just4U on 4/9/2010 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like Microsoft? They just have to "think" about doing something along these lines and the suits start to lineup to take a piece out of them.

RE: Good for him
By bupkus on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
Apples & Adobe both SUCK
By iFX on 4/9/2010 6:26:43 PM , Rating: 5
You've got two of the crummiest tech companies arguing with each other over who is the absolute worst. News flash, you both suck!.

Apple is rapidly becoming irrelevant...
By T2k on 4/12/2010 4:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
...if you think about it and Jobs' response to this issue clearly shows how this rather bitter, arrogant freak is simply going for the money harder than ever (feeling the end is near?) and total control - his BS about "application quality" when he was asked about Apple-only/C/C++/Obj-C was downright pathetic...

...iPad, as usual with every first-gen Apple product, is a pretty badly performing piece and he's obviously becoming more and more greedy, witness the crazy price jump in its app prices etc...

...and now this grab will seriously drive than any enthusiast support, I bet - unless he reverses or significantly changes his policies iCrap is destined to be irrelevant, just like OS X is still irrelevant on the PC Market (single-digit market share after a decade.)

By FaaR on 4/15/2010 6:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the iPad is as much a bad performing piece of hardware (Anand's tests show it's faster than any current similar type device) as simply "almost, but not quite".

Lacking a built-in camera, at least one for video conferencing, is dumb, lacking a USB port is dumb, lacking a SD cardslot simply because Apple rather wants you to pay a hundred dollars for another paltry 16 gigs of flash is arrogant at best. I don't think its raw speed is one of its drawbacks however... :)

I'd be quite interested in an iPad, if it wasn't so artificially limited in what it can do; it's a very slick and sexy piece of hardware in most respects. Apple's controlfreak nature is hurting it more than helping.

Enemy of my enemy.
By Earthmonger on 4/10/2010 1:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
As someone who hates Flash and its applications, I should have no sympathy for Adobe. But I hate the content dictatorship of Apple and their suppression crusade even more. So, go go go Adobe!

Setting it straight
By Shadowself on 4/9/2010 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you carefully read Apple's new rules, it allows many different programming languages (not just Apple's beloved Objective-C [which I understand is beloved by very few outside of Apple]).

What it explicitly forbids are in line translation software. It requires software to follow an approved methodology for directly accessing Apple's iPhone OS APIs. It does not allow a piece of software to access an intermediate layer that then accesses the iPhone OS APIs -- even if that intermediate layer is done through approved programming languages.

Code running behind code translators is one (one of many certainly) ways to get around security systems. With all the recent activity about breaking an iPhone's security, this may be a knee jerk reaction by Apple.

I suspect that Apple's limiting the programming languages is so Apple does not have to have 200 different code analysis tools in house to analyze the code handed to them for inclusion in the App Store.

panicked yet?
By lucyfek on 4/10/2010 10:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
i don't care much about apple but i couldn't care less about adobe (and their insecure bloat of any kind)

Even beginning...
By SilthDraeth on 4/10/2010 10:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
" has even beginning a lot of attention"

I think you meant "Even been getting"

Dragon Naturally speaking ftl.

By eirruby on 4/10/2010 3:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well apple knows best what they want on their smartphones and if you are already obsolete then you are sorry, flash needs more development to get attention back to apple.

By Pneumothorax on 4/12/2010 11:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
So when somebody going to Pshop a "Locutus" pic of Steve Jobs? He's basically the new Locutus. Billy G. is now too busy actually going good things around the world like vaccinations for Africa.

Oh yeah
By chrnochime on 4/12/2010 8:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
I just had to post, simply for the fact that the Adobe dude wrote that without any attempt to make it even a little less vulgar.

Ah the sheer joy we get when execs throw caution in the wind :D

Me tuff guy
By hiscross on 4/10/2010 6:09:45 PM , Rating: 1
watch my belly jump up and down when I walk... the adobe guy

By EasyC on 4/12/2010 12:54:06 PM , Rating: 1
Is there really any company Apple won't try to piss off. Let's run down the 2010 list shall we?


Technically, Apple could patent the "Go screw yourself" business model, since they apparently did it first this time. lol

By sapiens74 on 4/9/2010 5:17:04 PM , Rating: 1
No 64 Bit Support?

Give me HTML 5

Misleading headline.
By bissimo on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading headline.
By Joey B on 4/9/2010 5:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually thinking "quite" vs. "quiet" and "The one reason two reasons:..." would be why no one would take them seriously. However, you may be on to something.

RE: Misleading headline.
By iFX on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
Isn't this what Intel and M$ did in the early 90's?
By Shig on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 5
Lol, what? How did Microsoft "lock" anyone into the x86 environment? You've never been a programmer I see. In fact, if you hadn't managed to post here, I'd assume you didn't even own a computer after typing that little bit of nonsense.

I learned long ago that anyone who uses the term "M$" doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. Thank you for continuing the tradition.

By Shadowself on 4/9/2010 7:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Both Microsoft and IBM shipped operating systems (yes operating systems) for Apple servers in the early 90s. Then in the mid to late 90s cancelled both. Once the few people that were running Apple systems with Microsoft for IBM OSes on them got used to those OSes they had virtually no choice but to move to other platforms when support was cancelled for Apple hardware.

While this isn't Microsoft locking anyone into x86 hardware it is Microsoft getting people to use its OS on non x86 hardware then stopping supporting that non x86 hardware and thus getting people to move to an x86 platform. Not exactly the same, but close.

Just to set the record straight, Microsoft did not only do this with Apple's hardware. They did it on others too. MIPS machines IIRC.

By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:24:57 PM , Rating: 3
"Not exactly the same, but close."

If you're referring to NT 4.0's support for other processors -- it's not even close. Locking someone into (or out of) a platform or language implies the capability exists, but you've just sealed it off, legally or otherwise. Microsoft (wisely) giving up on developing new versions for CPUs with negligible market share isn't the same thing at all. It's not the same ballpark. It's not the same league. It's not even the same ****ing sport.

By Kenenniah on 4/9/2010 7:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except they didn't end support to force people into anything. They did it because there wasn't a large enough base compared to x86 to make the extra development costs worthwhile. Why keep spending development money for a product with very little return?

There is a gigantic difference between not allowing something to run on your platform at practically no cost to you (Apple), and not spending tons of money to support multiple architectures.

By ZachDontScare on 4/9/2010 5:29:43 PM , Rating: 4
This is pretty different. Say what you will about MS... they've never prevented you from writing Windows apps using the language of your choice. You can even get logo approval for apps written with non-MS tools. Jobs has taken control-freak to a new level here.

By walk2k on 4/9/2010 10:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Can you imagine the backlash if suddenly Microsoft came out and said "only MS tools may be used to make programs for Windows" and that non-compliant programs (like ohhhh Apple's iTunes) would be banned?

The nerd rage would destroy the internets.

By KoolAidMan1 on 4/10/2010 5:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
They are actually doing this with the Windows 7 phone.

Seriously. They specifically ban all native code as well as managed C++ and VB.NET. Here's a quote from a random FAQ I found that I'm assuming is correct:

What technologies and tools can I use to program for Windows Phone 7 Series?
You can currently use the managed language C# using Silverlight and XNA based on Compact Framework.

Can I write my application in C++?
No, only managed code written in C# is supported for developing on the Windows Phone 7 Series platform. Unmanaged code and other languages (including Managed C++) are not supported.

Can I write my application in VB?
Not at this time, however this is being strongly considered for a future release of the developer tools.

Can I P/Invoke into System API’s?
No, as an ISV there is no access to the system API’s using P/Invoke. Any application that attempts to use P/Invoke will be rejected from being published to the MarketPlace.

Can I P/Invoke my own native DLL?
No, native code may not be run as any part of your application. P/Invokes are not permitted.

By Alexstarfire on 4/10/2010 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
That's hardly a ban. It says it's not supported. IDK if that means it won't run at all or if they are simply saying that if you code in languages they don't support that they simply won't help you if problems arise.

Also, they aren't preventing you from using the language translators like Apple is doing. That is more relevant than anything.

By dflynchimp on 4/9/2010 8:51:45 PM , Rating: 1
By locking all programmers into the x86 environment?

In a word, no.

What they did was "standardize" the industry as they were the "first-to-market". the x86 feature set was a hardware-based decision that received support and acceptance due to market share and comp-tech evolutionary factors.

What Apple is doing is artificial market manipulation, counting on their established user base to continue supporting them even in the advent of them effectively locking out someone else. This is an anti-competitive move, and and has been part of Apple's doctrine since...forever.

They count on their mindless sheeple and iFans to eat up their proprietary iCrap priced at iFlated numbers and iMaginary sense of superiority and magicalness to...ok iMma stop bashing iWare this is bad for my least according to father Jobs.

Incase you haven't figured it out, dflynchimp<-not the biggest fan of Apple.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki