backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by UrbanBard.. on May 9 at 2:31 PM


Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch
So long, farewell! Adobe cuts its losses and moves on to other mobile platforms

Well, it looks like it's the end of the road for any hopes of Adobe Flash on Apple's iPhone OS-based devices (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad). Although Steve Jobs has long since put his foot down regarding the matter, Adobe still held out hope that Jobs would change his mind.

However, those hopes were dashed earlier this month when Apple's iPhone OS 4.0 SDK banned the use of unapproved programming languages (including Adobe Flash). The move by Apple prompted some rather colorful language from Adobe Platform Evangelist Lee Brimelow.

Steve Jobs poured more salt on the wounds yesterday with an open letter that basically said that Adobe Flash's time has come and gone. "Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs," said Jobs "But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."

It appears that Adobe has gotten the hint, and is now officially dropping its plans to push Flash Player onto the iPhone OS platform. Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch posted a response to Steve Jobs' rant -- Adobe's President and CEO made comments as well -- and still feels that Adobe could provide a "terrific experience" on the iPhone and iPad. However, the writing is on the wall and Lynch says that Adobe is shifting its energies to other mobile platforms.

“We have already decided to shift our focus away from Apple devices for both Flash Player and AIR," said Lynch. "We are working to bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP), Microsoft, Nokia and others.”

Lynch also said that there will be a public preview of Flash Player 10.1 for Android devices in May and that a full release will come the following month.



Comments     Threshold


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

No lesser
By ArenaNinja on 4/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: No lesser
By Lonyo on 4/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: No lesser
By Lonyo on 4/30/2010 4:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
(no edit button)
Yes, I did talk about desktop implications, but that's because this is about more than mobile IMO.


RE: No lesser
By dusteater on 4/30/2010 11:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
Adobe can't even make make Flash work with IE x64. Pathetic if you ask me. What exactly are all the Flash devs at Adobe doing? Certainly not making Flash work on new platforms.


RE: No lesser
By Omega215D on 4/30/2010 6:56:31 AM , Rating: 1
you might want to look up h.264...


RE: No lesser
By Lonyo on 4/30/2010 8:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
I look it up, and I see "patent licensing requirements", is that what I was supposed to be looking at?


RE: No lesser
By omnicronx on 4/30/2010 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I look it up, and I see "patent licensing requirements"
I think you just answered you own question. Open and licensing don't really go together now do they =P.

h264 is license free for web use until 2015, but you are crazy to think it will remain that why if it were to become a true independent web standard i.e not licensed by adobe and distributed to users for free.(in most cases)


RE: No lesser
By The Raven on 4/30/2010 12:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
He conceeded that it's openess is debated when you talk codecs:
quote:
well, inasmuch as things like h264 HTML 5 are open


My arguement with him is that he is saying that Apple is all for open standards, yet is not OPEN to Flash. I'm no big Flash fan, in fact I tire of it, but I would like the freedom to use it if the OS is capable of it whether I run my own risk of crippling my own system or not.

If Jobs said we don't recommend it instead of blocking it altogether then I wouldn't have a problem with this. But he is not even allowing it, and that is the furthest thing from being open.


RE: No lesser
By MrBlastman on 4/30/2010 8:17:10 AM , Rating: 3
It really is a shame that Adobe and Apple aren't like antimatter.

Bill: It would be most excellent if they would cancel each other out.
Ted: Righteous man.

There might be a bit of a mess if they did, but, the amount of energy released into the cosmos would allow us all to focus on bigger, better and more fruitful things than being held back by either one of these slags.


RE: No lesser
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 8:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well here's a newsFLASH: my browser has currently recorded 250 instances of crashing because of Flash. I now run my browser with NO add-ons and so far no crashes. At all.


You have a serious problem then, my friend. And it's not Flash. Sorry but that extreme number of crashes can NOT be attributed to Flash alone.


RE: No lesser
By jonmcc33 on 4/30/2010 8:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well here's a newsFLASH: my browser has currently recorded 250 instances of crashing because of Flash.


Sounds like user error. My browser (Firefox) never crashes due to Flash. It used to crash due to Quicktime (developed by Apple) though. I stopped using that add-in.


RE: No lesser
By Spuke on 4/30/2010 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like user error. My browser (Firefox) never crashes due to Flash. It used to crash due to Quicktime (developed by Apple) though. I stopped using that add-in.
Emphasis on the word USER . I've NEVER had my browser crash on Flash. If yours is crashing that much and you can't fix it (LOL!), then you need to turn in your nerd pass.


RE: No lesser
By Luticus on 4/30/2010 10:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
Actually in Linux (debian) both Firefox and Konquerer (webkit like Safari) crash using flash on youtube for me which is why i switched to opera in Linux and after that I've had no problems.

In Windows I have no trouble at all with any browser (IE, FF, Opera), though I've never tried it on Safari (I refuse to touch it) and I've never tried it in a Mac environment as I don't use Mac's to surf the web.

Perhaps the browser in a Linux/Unix based environment may have something to do with it?


RE: No lesser
By B3an on 4/30/2010 2:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Same, no problems with Flash and i'm always working with it.

But the guys obviously not very smart. For instance "since Macs can't get viruses."

I hope that was a joke.


RE: No lesser
By ArenaNinja on 4/30/2010 6:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
B3an, it was a joke. It's the irony of it... maybe I went on a curve too far for you guys?

And I don't see what I could be doing wrong, since (literally) one click to open a new tab from my Yahoo! homepage, and bam! IE crashes. This has been happening on a fresh Win 7 x64 install. Actually, I installed on another HDD just to test out, and got the same results.

So yeah, tell me how it's my fault.


RE: No lesser
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 6:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I don't see what I could be doing wrong, since (literally) one click to open a new tab from my Yahoo! homepage, and bam! IE crashes.


lmao and you REALLY think this is the norm for most people? Dude, read my lips, YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM. It's YOU.


RE: No lesser
By Alexstarfire on 4/30/2010 7:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
IE sucks?


RE: No lesser
By MrBlastman on 4/30/2010 10:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Check out Quicktime Alternative if you hate Quicktime. :)

It runs .mov's without all the Apple bloat.

http://codecguide.com/download_qt.htm

There's also QT Lite which also works great. Living Apple free can be done and it is soooo worth it.


RE: No lesser
By Drag0nFire on 4/30/2010 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 3
I have an easier way to live Apple free. I don't watch mov files. =D


RE: No lesser
By sprockkets on 4/30/2010 11:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
No one uses .mov containers anymore, in a way. All containers for mpeg4-avc aka h.264 video and aac audio are the .mov container but now an ISO standard, and named mp4 or m4v.

Besides, I use smplayer for all my video needs. The only people still using Quicktime for embedded videos is Apple and ancient websites.


RE: No lesser
By bissimo on 4/30/2010 10:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have NEVER repeat: NEVER had a browser (Firefox, Safari, IE, Chrome on XP, Vista, Win 7 or OS/x) crash because of Flash. You're doing something seriously wrong IMO.


RE: No lesser
By jimhsu on 4/30/2010 12:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have had exactly one instance of Flash specifically crashing, and that is on a beta version of Firefox (Minefield 3.7a5pre) Nothing else. Firefox, on the other hand...


RE: No lesser
By overzealot on 4/30/2010 12:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
*cough*
http://news.techworld.com/security/5392/worlds-fir...
I'm so glad that "Macs can't get viruses."

As an encore, why not prove black is white?


RE: No lesser
By UrbanBard on 4/30/2010 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
These things are relative.

The Mac has had two malware problems in the last five years while Microsoft Windows has had half a million. Apple has fixed both of its malware problems and Microsoft as fixed about 200 thousand of its. Naturally, this make Microsoft the winner. LOL.

Could you tell me who at Apple has said that the Mac can't get a virus? They need to be fired. Oh! It was the "I'm a Mac" ads which said it? No, you need to look at those ads again. At the time of the ads there were no Mac malware problems and still aren't. Meanwhile, Windows keeps being plagued with new malware.

How dumb do you have to be to stay with an OS which is so buggy? If you don't like Macintosh, then go to Ubuntu. Stop being so perversely proud of Windows insecurity.


RE: No lesser
By Alexstarfire on 4/30/2010 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it wasn't actually said in the commercials doesn't mean it was explicitly implied. And if you say that it doesn't matter what is implied then you would be wrong.


RE: No lesser
By Targon on 5/1/2010 8:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Just because public reports are quiet about something does not mean that there have been no malware problems, just nothing that made headlines. When a Mac has a problem, the vast majority of Mac people scream, freak out, then call their local Mac tech to fix it, without having any idea what actually happened. The number of Mac people who are sophisticated enough users to not only track down the cause of a problem, but also fix it, and then escalate what they found to Apple or some other "authority" is probably down in the 1% range.

How many people run into problems with Windows and get an honest tech who actually tells the customer what happened? It's probably larger than the entire Mac customer base, so you hear people talk about it.

The ABILITY to get a virus is there with MacOS, the key is that most malware writers don't see the Mac platform as worth targeting due to the fairly low numbers of users, even if they would be fairly easy to scam due to the whole concept that 'Macs don't get viruses'.

The basic idea that the larger the customer base, the more bugs will be found has been around for a long time. Also, the more changes that are made over time, the greater the chance that new bugs will be introduced. Combine these together, and you will get the general reason for some basic statistics.


RE: No lesser
By UrbanBard on 5/9/2010 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Just because public reports are quiet about something does not mean that there have been no malware problems, just nothing that made headlines. "

This is delusive. All the Mac needs to garner world wide headlines is for a security researcher to find a theoretical vulnerability, mostly in its FreeBSD foundations, which will crash an application, not get root access. Meanwhile, Windows malware is so numerous, it barely gets a mention.

Nor do Mac users scream, because we so rarely get attacked. Two Trojan horses in five years is almost never. We Mac users are our Mac techs. The Mac user groups and website are quite good at warning us of potential problems. May I suggest MacSurfer?

I have run Mac OSX since 10.1.5 and have never had any malware. And I don't run anti-virus software. Occasionally, I will run ClamXAV to check if I have a Windows virus that I might accidentally send to a friend. It never happens though. You seem so out of it that I have to wonder if you have any friends who are Mac users. Do you choose your friends according to their computer preferences?

"The ABILITY to get a virus is there with MacOS, the key is that most malware writers don't see the Mac platform as worth targeting due to the fairly low numbers of users, even if they would be fairly easy to scam due to the whole concept that 'Macs don't get viruses'."

It depends on your definition of a virus. Some people ignorantly call any malware a virus, when it is not. A Virus is a self replicating program which can infect RAM, Disks, CD's, DVD's or USB drives and use them to spread itself. A Worm is malware which replicates by using networks or the Internet.

Unix based operating system, like Mac OSX, have a permission system which tends to prevent any such transmission. If the Macs have "security by obscurity" due to a low market share then that seems like a good reason to own a Mac. That is, if you care about security. Mainframe computers have an even lower market share and they are considered rather secure.

All computer users are vulnerable to social engineering attacks, like Trojan Horses, Spam and Phishing, which fool users into divulging their pass words. Macintosh users are not especially vulnerable to this. Snow Leopard has recently increased its anti-malware protection to cover Trojan Horses and Phishing.

"The basic idea that the larger the customer base, the more bugs will be found has been around for a long time."

No so. Windows was designed to allow any action by default. Only recently has Microsoft been closing down avenues for attack. The UNIX based systems, like Mac OSX or mainframe OS's, close down everything except for what the user specifically asks for. This is much safer than Windows.

You really shouldn't give Microsoft Windows any alibis. Recently, a security researcher found in Windows Seven a flaw, in a no longer used DOS program, which is twenty years old. This flaw gave the finder complete access at the root level. This is not just bad security, a mistake or an error. You have to wonder if Microsoft Windows has any security at all.


RE: No lesser
By chick0n on 5/3/2010 10:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
that simply means you and your computer have a problem(s). Not Flash/Adobe

I've been using Flash on my Win7 Comp for YEARS without a single crash.

So dont blame when you suck and can't keep ur computer running stable.


He'll be Back.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 8:49:19 AM , Rating: 1
This is just like when Job's insisted on doing things "his way" with Motorola CPU's instead of Intels or AMD's. Sometimes his vision just doesn't meet reality.

In this case, he'll come crawling back to Adobe once he realizes HTML5 literally cannot deliver the same end user experience or developer environment that Flash can.

Remember how Quicktime was going to "dramatically change" the game?? Yeah how did that work out for you, Stevie?

This is a great move by Adobe, because let's be honest, they don't NEED Apple




RE: He'll be Back.
By Anoxanmore on 4/30/2010 9:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
It did, for about a single year.

I made an awesome quicktime movie back in highschool for a multimedia project using Maya and Bryce.

sighs

Of course that was in Macs had the upperhand in processors.


RE: He'll be Back.
By 67STANG on 4/30/2010 10:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course that was in Macs had the upperhand in processors.
When might that have been?


RE: He'll be Back.
By Anoxanmore on 4/30/2010 11:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
You don't remember the PowerPC days?

G3/G4/G5s

They gave them the edge in video, music, graphic design processing.


RE: He'll be Back.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
You mean those five THOUSAND dollar (without monitor) dual CPU machines that only came ahead in the benchmarks with handpicked software optimized for them? Those??


RE: He'll be Back.
By Anoxanmore on 4/30/2010 11:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
Even the basic one(s) out performed PCs in the use of video/audio processing and usually graphic design.

Hand picked software? You don't remember how they couldn't run most PC software so of course it was going to be optimized for their OS.

Come on relcaimer, even for you that is a stretch.


RE: He'll be Back.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 3:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Come on relcaimer, even for you that is a stretch.


lol and you claiming Apple has ever held a performance crown isn't??


RE: He'll be Back.
By Anoxanmore on 4/30/2010 3:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
No it isn't, Apple did hold the performance crown in video/audio processing and graphic design.

There is a reason Pixar originally used Apples to render their movies *cough*Toy Story*cough*

You are being uber dense. You also need to remember this was prior to AMD Athlon 1800+ and Pentium 4 1.8ghz.


RE: He'll be Back.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2010 5:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it isn't, Apple did hold the performance crown in video/audio processing and graphic design.


You are being a *little* minimalist in your argument, aren't you? I think if you dug up some benchmarks something would catch your eye.

quote:
There is a reason Pixar originally used Apples to render their movies *cough*Toy Story*cough*


LOL now you are trying to sneak something by me. Sorry, nice try. Steve Jobs BOUGHT Pixar and became their CEO. Gee, I wonder why they picked Mac's to use !!?? Are you kidding me, get the hell out of here.

quote:
You are being uber dense. You also need to remember this was prior to AMD Athlon 1800+ and Pentium 4 1.8ghz.


And you are bringing up ancient history!!!

So basically the premise of your argument is that Mac's were some kind of power machines in two very selective categories in a tiny window in time. And your supporting evidence is that the man who FOUNDED Apple, chose to use Mac's when he became CEO of Pixar. Maybe you should have posted impartial benchmarks instead.

Brilliant man, just brilliant.


RE: He'll be Back.
By sprockkets on 5/1/2010 12:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you have ever considered CPU architecture you would know that the PowerPC platform was always superior to x86, from day 1. The only reason why IBM went with Intel was due to their platform being ready sooner.

The fact that all x86 processors today take the x86 CISC code and make it into RISC code confirms PowerPC processors had it right all along.

Today it is only with Intel's billions made in the past that they've cleverly overcome all of x86 deficiencies and surpassed PowerPC with the C2D CPU.

You bring back many memories of my high school days in 1995 when they were using a Blossom workstation computer with dual Pentium processors trying to record video taken on VHS. They had to run it several times to get it to capture video without dropouts. And the saddest part was it was trying to do this all on Win95. Anyone who remembers that OS will find it hard to imagine doing any form of work on it without crashing or needing to reboot multiple times in a day.

Sure, today the whole PowerPC vs. x86 situation is gone, and thus it is between OSX and the current iteration of NT.

quote:
LOL now you are trying to sneak something by me. Sorry, nice try. Steve Jobs BOUGHT Pixar and became their CEO. Gee, I wonder why they picked Mac's to use !!?? Are you kidding me, get the hell out of here.


That doesn't make any sense as Steve Job's computers at the time would have been NeXTStep workstations, not Macs.

quote:
So basically the premise of your argument is that Mac's were some kind of power machines in two very selective categories in a tiny window in time.


It only took Microsoft 10 years to clone the Mac desktop. That isn't a tiny window of time, especially in the computer market.


RE: He'll be Back.
By Anoxanmore on 5/1/2010 4:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
*cough* Read the guy above me Reclaimer and grow up a bit.


RE: He'll be Back.
By luseferous on 5/2/2010 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
"There is a reason Pixar originally used Apples to render their movies *cough*Toy Story*cough*"

Sorry but the 'Pc' has always been ahead of the Mac in 3d rendering and design. Software like Maya,3D Max, Softimage, Lightwave... all grew up on the pc and on the whole only got ported over to the Mac much later on. For 2D stuff Mac's have been the choice of the industry but how much cpu power does it take to rotate a bitmap as opposed rotating a complex textured 3d model.

BTW those apple benchmarks claiming the G5 to be the faster than competition I'm pretty sure were proved to be bogus,misleading and were dropped very quickly by Apple.

In a nutshell Mac's have always had the edge in 2d image processing/design due to the software not the hardware.


RE: He'll be Back.
By luseferous on 5/2/2010 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
As a side note at least one of the programs I listed above started life on the Amiga which at the time crapped on both Pc and Mac in terms audio/video processing abilities.


RE: He'll be Back.
By beerhound on 5/3/2010 9:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
That would be lightwave, back when it came bundled with the VideoToaster. Those things were so far ahead of other PCs at the time, they were used to render Babylon 5 for the first couple of seasons. Too bad the corporate weasels at Commode-odore were such a bunch of screwups, the engineers actually had a lot going for them.


RE: He'll be Back.
By Drag0nFire on 4/30/2010 4:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well they currently have the crown for notebook temps...

Unfortunately temperature != performance...


RE: He'll be Back.
By UrbanBard on 4/30/2010 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not a chance.

What Steve Jobs is doing is flexing his muscles. Back in 1997, Apple was the weak one; it was close to going out of business. Steve had to obey Adobe and Microsoft. Apple had develop the Carbon API's to move them to Mac OSX.

Apple is in the driver seat now. Both Adobe and Microsoft are in the doldrums. Steve Jobs has decided that the move to HTML 5 is necessary. This will happen in the next year.

All I see Adobe doing is whining and moaning; it has no power or juice. Adobe is acting pathetic; It won't win. Flash has been missing on the iPhone for three years without any effect on sales.

Why should Steve Jobs care what Adobe does? Adobe won't pull its CS5 from the Macintosh desktop; that would cut its own throat.


RE: He'll be Back.
By adiposity on 4/30/2010 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I see Adobe doing is whining and moaning; it has no power or juice. Adobe is acting pathetic; It won't win. Flash has been missing on the iPhone for three years without any effect on sales.


There was no competition that had flash. To really see an effect on sales you'd have to have another platform with flash...which is coming.


RE: He'll be Back.
By UrbanBard on 4/30/2010 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's wonderful; I love competition. It brings out the best for the customers.

If Android with Flash is what the customers want, then great. If not, it will join all the other iPhone killers.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent running Flash as a Web application, just not on the iPhone itself as a plugin.

Meanwhile, the Internet will continue migrating to HTML 5. HTML 5 will improve with time. We will look back at this controversy and laugh, just like we do with all the hubbub over the floppy disk missing on the original iMac.

PS. My iMac only crashes in Safari when I have Flash running -- usually at the end of a Video. I use Click2Flash to avoid all the distracting Flash advertisements. I just hated it before when a video would start running without my permission. The Websites always hid the ads so it was difficult to find. My life is much better without Flash being in control of my user experience.


Steve Job's loves flash
By Tony Swash on 4/30/2010 7:24:57 AM , Rating: 1
Steve Job's loves flash - on other phones.

Remember that Adobe has not yet released a working version of full flash for any mobile platform and it is already indicating that it will only run on the latest and fastest hardware (there's a powerful hint about its likely performance).

Remember that Adobe's track record is very poor in maintaing Flash on more than one OS at a time.

Note that the competitors to the iPhone have rushed to embrace Flash as a useful way to differentiate themselves from the iPhone and achieve some sort of marketing advantage based on better specs.

Note also that the non-iPhone sector will, seemingly, allow the Adobe's cross platform flash based development model to be implemented on their platforms.

The net result of all this will be that the iPhone's competitors will be embracing a technology that will almost certainly slow down their devices, will not work well in a touch interface and will leave them beholden to the whims of Adobe's bug fix and development cycle.

Finally note that consumers have shown absolutely no concern about the lack of flash on the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad suite of devices and have bought them in their tens of millions.

Steve Jobs must be praying that the Apple's competitors in the mobile device market embrace Flash in all its glory. Adobe is Apple's secret weapon against its competitors.




RE: Steve Job's loves flash
By Johnmcl7 on 4/30/2010 5:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
The N900 has had full flash support since its launch although it rarely gets a mention.


RE: Steve Job's loves flash
By Targon on 5/1/2010 8:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Flash is moving toward GPU acceleration since developers are doing more and more with Flash as time goes on, not less. Are all applications a bit larger now than they were 10 years ago? If applications get larger and do more over time, then it makes sense that Adobe would have to address some performance issues caused by the larger applications.

Adobe hasn't released 10.1 on any platform yet, mobile or otherwise, so it makes sense that they may want to do a multi-platform release, and mobile will see the full release when 10.1 is released for the desktop.


Most amusing
By Windogg on 4/30/2010 3:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
Watching Apple and Adobe battle it out is like watching Stalin vs Mao. Two juggernauts that are both pretty despicable in their own ways with a very loyal core of followers. You really don't know who to root for because a victory to either will be a step backwards for everybody. Both side are throwing out press releases like the stuff generated by Iron Curtain propaganda mills.

I personally find Adobe products to be resource hogs, very buggy at imes, full of security holes, and expensive. While I have an iPhone and Macbook, I find it takes a lot of tweaking (and jailbreaking) to really make them work right. "It just works?" well not really. I've had more crashes with OSX 10.6 than with Win7 or even Vista SP2.




RE: Most amusing
By UrbanBard on 5/9/2010 2:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Apple wasn't looking for this fight. It would rather that it began three years from now when HTML 5 is becoming mainstream.

The problem was that Adobe woke up to the fact that three years from now Apple will have 15% market share in PCs (8 or 9% world wide) and 70% market share in US Smart Phones. Microsoft says that IE9 will exclude Flash about that time. Apple's Safari browser still has Flash plugins now, but who knows for how long.

Adobe is complaining about being kept off the iPhone platform when Adobe has no Flash software which will run on a Smart Phone. Perhaps, Android will have Flash capability by the New Year.

Meanwhile, the Web is moving to the H.264 codec. A recent report suggests that, in the last year, H.264 has moved from being used on 31% of the web sites to 64%. So, this problem is taking care of itself, because we will use both systems. If Adobe can perform well, then there is no need for it to be replaced.

The problem is that Adobe's Flash has performed quite poorly on the Mac, so we welcome Flash's replacement. How any of this makes me or Apple a villain (or Stalin) is beyond me. If you don't like Apple products, then don't buy them.

PS The only time Safari crashes on my 24 inch iMac is when I am running a Flash video. I can go for a month or more without a reboot, so I have no idea what is causing your problems. I use ClicktoFlash to avoid all the distracting Flash ads.


Hey Adobe here's your problem
By hiscross on 4/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hey Adobe here's your problem
By Pirks on 4/30/2010 11:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
your highed rated poster people need to be told the truth
That's my job man, so buzz off! :P


By hiscross on 5/1/2010 8:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
well then tell them the truth, unless you believe what they say about Apple, then you are one of them.


Adobe 64 bit
By knowom on 4/30/2010 1:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe needs to hurry up and add 64 bit support for mac and windows end of discussion it's absurd that they continue to ignore it.




RE: Adobe 64 bit
By UrbanBard on 4/30/2010 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe has created three of its Apps in CS5 in 64 bit. Photoshop is one, but I forgot the other two. The rest will take Adobe a year or two.

90 percent of Mac applications will be migrated to 64 bit code this year. The other 10% will remain in 32 bit because there is little reason to move them until the Carbon API's go away in five years.

Windows will have a much hard migration to 64 bit.


Here is a hint to Adobe
By Tony Swash on 4/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here is a hint to Adobe
By hiscross on 4/30/2010 10:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Adobe is the industryies 5 1/4 floppy. Isn't that flashy.


Is it just me...
By Creig on 4/30/2010 8:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
or does that photo of Kevin Lynch make you think he's about to be bitten by a radioactive spider?




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki