backtop

Print 64 comment(s) - last by darkblade33.. on May 3 at 8:23 PM

Adobe CEO and President Shantanu Narayen  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen responds to Steve Jobs' open letter

Earlier today, Steve Jobs pulled out a shotgun and fired away at Adobe at point-blank range. Jobs laid out a six-point plan of attack detailing why Adobe Flash is detrimental to the Mac and iPhone/iPod touch/iPad mobile platforms and why the web should just let the "proprietary standard" die.

Well, we knew that Adobe wasn't just gonna let Jobs' barbs fly without a response -- and like clockwork, Adobe's CEO has answered back. The Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray interviewed Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen about Jobs' comments and here are a few of the highlights:

  • Adobe believes in open content; Apple is threatened by Adobe's penchant for creating cross-platform software.
  • Narayen likens the fight between Apple and Adobe to the rift between Jon and Kate Gosselin.
  • Jobs' open letter was merely a "smokescreen"; Apple's restrictions are stifling development and have "nothing to do with technology".
  • Narayen refutes the assertion that Adobe Flash is the main reason why Macs crash.
  • Jobs' comments about poor battery life on machines using Adobe Flash are "patently false".
  • "It doesn't benefit Apple, and that's why you see this reaction".
  • Narayen asserts that the consumer should be able to decide which technologies they want to use and he thinks that a multi-platform world is where the future is headed.

Interestingly, Narayen doesn't make any mention of HTML5 which Jobs suggests that developers use to crush Adobe Flash. You can view the full interview here at the WSJ's Digits blog.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HTML5
By Gungel on 4/29/2010 4:31:25 PM , Rating: 5
- Jobs' comments about poor battery life on machines using Adobe Flash are "patently false".-
I assume he refers here to HTML5 which in itself uses as much if not more CPU power than Flash 10.1




RE: HTML5
By nafhan on 4/29/2010 4:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
Good point. It'd be interseting to see some battery life comparisons doing similar tasks in both Flash and HTML5.
It wouldn't be conclusive as Flash and HTML5 implementations differ by platform and aren't both available on all platforms. Flash on Android may be able to give us at least a good idea of how bad it would actually be on the iProducts.


RE: HTML5
By sprockkets on 4/29/2010 6:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Already been done somewhere. Sometimes Flash one, sometimes HTML5 did.

Regardless, playing video anything is going to drain the battery. However, even here on anandtech, his benchmarks show that just flash based crap on the web page will kill the battery.


RE: HTML5
By Targon on 4/29/2010 7:57:35 PM , Rating: 1
And do you know or understand why any one application might cause an increase in battery life? Seriously, so many people who either love Apple or hate Adobe(or Microsoft) try to use clearly bogus or misleading claims to back up their perspective, without there being enough evidence to make for an airtight case.

Basic concept number one: In most modern operating systems, the CPU speed is reduced when CPU usage is low, which helps reduce power conservation. This will apply to battery life in laptops as well. If the CPU is being used more, it will run faster(up to its rated speed), and that will drain battery life faster.

Basic concept number two: Many applications that COULD offload tasks to the GPU have not been coded to do so. The whole idea of GPGPU is to encourage developers to use graphics chips more and more often for various things that historically have been powered by the CPU. This means that the CPU has been doing more work, which ties into concept one.

Basic concept number three: Intel graphics has ALWAYS been substandard, which means that graphics have had to be toned down, or more work has to be passed on to the CPU. Even when something SHOULD be handled by the GPU, if the GPU can't handle it, the application may be coded for the CPU to pick up the slack.

With these things, take a look at Flash. It handles animation, and it MAY take a fair amount of CPU power to do what is being requested. Note that if a poorly coded Flash application is running, it will draw more CPU power than a well coded application. This may not be the fault of Flash itself, but of the coders who make the flash applications. It would be like a poorly written C application that is designed so poorly it requires more effort than it should if coded well. People blame Flash itself, but that blame may be on the wrong thing.

So, Adobe has been moving to use hardware acceleration for Flash to offload a lot of functions to the GPU. It is a welcome change, and helps reduce CPU usage, which in turn will cut back on power demand. You could run any other program that makes heavy use of the CPU, and it will drain battery in the same way, because battery draw is based on how active the CPU is.

As far as the whole Windows draws more battery power on a Mac than MacOS, I have said in other threads that you CAN tell Windows to only use 5 percent of the CPU MAX while on battery, and you will probably get similar battery life to MacOS, because that is how MacOS has been tuned. If you force MacOS to run the CPU at 100 percent while on battery, and you set Windows to the same thing, battery life will be identical between operating systems. Just because you don't see the settings does not mean they are not there.

Put HTML 5 code up to do the same amount as Flash, and it will drain the battery just as quickly. Just remember that you have to look at how things are programmed, because even the old C example of displaying "Hello, World" could be coded using poor libraries to run faster or slower, even if the visible results are identical.

And then, you also have the OS design being closed on MacOS, so some things that may be fairly simple under Windows may be more convoluted under MacOS. You can see how poor native Mac apps run when ported to Windows(Now Contact is a great example of this) if the port isn't done using native methods to do things. Now, how many apps that started on the Mac have been ported to Windows? Have you ever compared the versions?


RE: HTML5
By sprockkets on 4/29/2010 10:27:46 PM , Rating: 1
Whether you have the GPU or CPU do it, you still are consuming more energy. Just because the GPU is doing it doesn't magically make the power usage go away.

Btw, regardless of the OS used, Flash running in the browser decreases battery life. Not based on anything but empirical evidence on Anand's own laptop tests.

quote:
And do you know or understand why any one application might cause an increase in battery life? Seriously, so many people who either love Apple or hate Adobe(or Microsoft) try to use clearly bogus or misleading claims to back up their perspective, without there being enough evidence to make for an airtight case.


You act as if people will cut Adobe slack for such poor tools or for poor coders. No one not interested in excuses or apologies.


RE: HTML5
By Targon on 4/30/2010 8:11:31 AM , Rating: 4
Due to the design of a GPU, it will be a more efficient chip for certain tasks, so it actually cuts power usage by moving certain things to the GPU, including Flash.

Now, ANYTHING that is running in the browser, including HTML 5 would decrease battery life due to an increase in CPU/GPU usage. This is the point, it isn't Flash that causes it, but the fact that the animations and flash stuff in banner advertisements just adds to the amount of work the machine does.

You could just as easily say that running any application, or compiling a program, or watching videos will decrease battery life compared to letting the machine idle. Yes, some apps use more CPU power compared to others, but you are trying to claim that HTML 5, which isn't even out there and being used yet is going to be better.

You ASSUME that Flash is at fault, but without something that really competes with it and has been designed to do the same things, you don't have any valid comparison to prove your point. Now, if HTML 5 can do EVERYTHING that Flash can, and when we see HTML 5 based advertisements that are identical, and web pages that currently use Flash are coded to do the same exact thing with HTML 5, then you can prove it.

I am not saying that Flash is NOT at fault, just that you have no proof that Flash is any worse than anything else.

Oh, and running any game will drain more battery life than running Microsoft Word or OpenOffice Writer, but you should expect that.


RE: HTML5
By sprockkets on 4/30/2010 12:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
But my original post said that sometimes HTML5 won and sometimes Flash won. Forgot?

Here's the difference: Each browser has the responsibility to make it work well, and isn't tied to waiting for Adobe doing it for every platform or OS/CPU/GPU.


RE: HTML5
By Alexstarfire on 4/30/2010 12:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't something like Silverlight a flash competitor?


RE: HTML5
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 6:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO being HTML5 code isn't finalized yet .. and browsers are not HTML5 tuned its early to say.. I mean Flash 10 wasn't as good as 10.1 ... HTML5 is still being edited by Google's Ian dickson. ( Oh gee... Apples not editing it ? )


RE: HTML5
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 6:57:32 PM , Rating: 3
Comparing a very mature & hardware optimized Flash 10.1 to an unfinished product ( in this case HTML5 when it is still being edited ) and browsers aren't even HTML5 tuned isn't going to give anyone the real picture, yet here it is being benchmarked like its fact. Its great for debate when people are bored and don't have all the facts, but you have to expect Flash to be ahead when they have a huge headstart.


RE: HTML5
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
The thing I wonder is how forthcoming other companies are about flash... As Apple has been publicly.. other companies may not be as public.

IMHO it seems other companies understand flash is still needed (for now), but yet they would also like to minimize flash usage. There was an article here at Daily Tech, credible or not, that said MS also wanted to minimize Flash usage.

Ian Dickson of Google is actually the Editor of HTML5.. what does this mean ? Is there proof in action that Google converted its mobile webistes, like Youtube, to non-flash formats?

Also.. TO BE FAIR, its safe to say Flash for now will be more efficient. Flash 10.1 was better then 10.. Where am I going with this ?? ... Well.. HTML5 is in its early stages and code isn't even finalized - so its not close to being optimized...when it is.. it should be right there or better ..


RE: HTML5
By Spivonious on 4/29/2010 5:12:03 PM , Rating: 4
And Flash is used for lots more than just video. HTML5 simply moves the video player from Flash/Silverlight/WMP/whatever to the browser.


RE: HTML5
By pequin06 on 4/29/2010 5:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
Is it really up to Adobe to give a damn about battery life?
If Adobe writes a good app, one that doesn't bog down a system or crash, shouldn't that be it and the rest to the OS?
Sounds like Apple is trying to pass the buck for their inefficiencies.


RE: HTML5
By walk2k on 4/29/2010 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
Wait I thought Macs never crash because they are so well-made?

Anyway we all know the reason they don't want flash on the iP*d - then people could write flash apps for free and cut Apple out of their $$ from the app store.


RE: HTML5
By sprockkets on 4/30/2010 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of free stuff on the app store. Cost or revenue for Apple isn't the issue. It's them forcing you to use their programming language vs. Flash.


RE: HTML5
By icanhascpu on 5/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: HTML5
By dtgoodwin on 4/29/2010 6:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
HTML5 video may have high utilization, but not nearly as high as Flash on my hardware. HTML5 video plays beautifully on my Atom dual-core nettop that can't begin to play even standard definition Flash videos (comparing the same video - flash vs. HTML on youtube) in Chrome.


RE: HTML5
By MadMan007 on 4/30/2010 1:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
Have you tried a browser other than Chrome? Because I had a chance to use a Dell mini 10 some time back and SD Youtube flash fullscreen was very acceptable - not quite perfect but very good.


RE: HTML5
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/30/2010 7:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you have other problems. I would try a different browser first. Using Opera I can watch flash videos no problem on my Atom N450 netbook.


RE: HTML5
By inighthawki on 4/29/2010 6:43:17 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind that by offloading to the gpu, you now have to take it into consideration. It may free cpu cycles up for other tasks but it certainly doesn't mean you can ignore the work being done on the gpu when calculating battery life.


RE: HTML5
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 7:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards.
HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google, Microsoft and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash).

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?


RE: HTML5
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 7:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not MAGICAL Enough
By stingray87 on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By sapiens74 on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By Chapbass on 4/29/2010 8:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
Why exactly would I be taking a laptop to a major mall again? Or any mall for that matter? Last I checked, laptops weren't a fashion device.

Tell you what, I'll go to the mall and interact with the girls, you can go to the mall and sit on your MBP.


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By sapiens74 on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 11:16:15 PM , Rating: 5
He's not the OP, retard. His point was that you don't use a laptop, be it Mac or PC, to attract girls. BTW, my phone plays music and pictures too.... and it's not even a smartphone. So you do that sitting down while we're walking around and doing stuff. Most people don't go to a mall to sit down.


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By mikeyD95125 on 5/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By NesuD on 4/29/2010 11:31:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Go to any major mall with your alienware and Ill show up with my Core i7 MBP and we will ask all the pretty girls which they like better.


Won't the pretty girls be to busy laughing at your burns from the 100c + i7 MBP?


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By jvillaro on 4/30/2010 12:22:08 AM , Rating: 5
I bet that MBP is going to get them really hot...


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By CZroe on 4/30/2010 12:48:42 AM , Rating: 3
Well, the MBP doesn't fit in my motorcycle's tank bag so when I show up on my sport bike and whip out a small gaming machine with better graphics and great battery life, I'll just let the bike get all the attention while I do whatever public computing I needed to do. Even the MBA is too big.

Forget gadget fashion statements. Forget vehicle fashion statements too. Leave that kind of stuff to the fanboys that use words like "sexy" to describe freaking OBJECTS. Just get what is most appropriate to your needs.


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By jRaskell on 4/30/2010 8:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
So we should make our purchasing decisions based on what all the pretty girls like better?

Good grief, grow up!


RE: Not MAGICAL Enough
By AbsShek on 4/30/2010 10:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, this is exactly how things work...
If it doesn't get the buyer laid, it won't sell...


Jobsian Hypocrisy
By morphologia on 4/29/2010 4:41:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm still reeling from Steve's whole "proprietary" complaint against Adobe. No company on earth is more proprietary than Apple. You can't even service a Mac yourself, to any extent, unless you want to risk a nocturnal visit from Apple's goon squad.




RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By MozeeToby on 4/29/2010 4:56:11 PM , Rating: 5
First and foremost, let me make this clear. I am in no way an Apple Fanboy. I don't own a single Apple product, and I don't think I ever have. The last piece of Apple technology I used regularly were the IIe's in my elementary school computer lab.

Now that that's established, there's a large difference between a device being proprietary and content being proprietary. A proprietary device locks in people who want to use that device, proprietary content locks in everyone who wants to view that content. In order to be affected by Apple I would need to go out and buy an Apple product. In order to be impacted by Flash all I need to do is visit a website. It casts a wider net that has attempted (successfully) to drag everyone into supporting your platform, whether they like it or not.

Not that I agree with Apple's stance, you can't just wave your hand and say "it's good for consumers" and then be angry when your consumers don't agree. By the same token, you could make arguments very similar to Job's against the use of gifs, mp3s, mpeg, HDMI cables, dvds, blu-rays, and any number of other things, all of which Apple devices support.


RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By RealityCheckDude on 4/30/2010 3:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
MozeeToby,"
quote:
Not that I agree with Apple's stance, you can't just wave your hand and say "it's good for consumers" and then be angry when your consumers don't agree. By the same token, you could make arguments very similar to Job's against the use of gifs, mp3s, mpeg, HDMI cables, dvds, blu-rays, and any number of other things, all of which Apple devices support.


An Apple Computer is technically, an," Apple device " correct?

Please explain what Apple Computer natively supports Blu-ray playback?

Answer: NONE!!!

The same goes for the Iphone and the Ipad.

Blu-ray playback NOT natively supported.

Blu-ray has been out since 2006, there's no legitimate excuse for non-Blu-ray playback. PERIOD !!!

SJ's excuse for this, a few years back, was a F ear, U ncertainty, and D oubt laced, Namby Pamby, Propaganda, " ...the licensing is Funky... " garbage, lame excuse.

This latest ploy is the same rubbish, meant to keep Brainwashed, Apple Users content, that their Iphone or Ipad lack Flash Support.

Steve J is looking out for them, making sure that Apple Users are not encumbered by, "Funky Licensing Schemes", or Evil, "Flash Support".

Yeah, Right !!!

No Kool-Aid for me, thank you.


RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 8:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
What about Google and Palm ? Both companies use WebKit.. which is Apples OPEN Source HTML5 rendering engine.

Think that sounds ridiculous ? Why does Google, Palm, and ( now Blackberry in near future ) use HTML5, flash-less browsers, just like Apple ?? ... it began when Google removed all flash from Youtube mobile, not because of Apple.

Furthermore if ANY, or all of those above companies, had to wait on Adobe Flash, which is 100% closed and proprietary, Each and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those companies would be 100% at the mercy of Adobe, have to depend on them for upgrades, updates.. in which any software that PALM, Android, iPhone used would be built on Flash ( again a closed standard which none of those companies have control over ) and all those companies would have software basically built on a house of cards.


RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By ralniv on 4/29/2010 7:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is quite supportive of open software standards. They developed OpenCL and moved it into the open standards realm. They released the Darwin UNIX-like operating system that underlies OS X to open source. Safari is a standards-based browser (e.g. CCS3, Javascript, HTML 5) and available on multiple platforms. Apple uses the OpenGL API for 2D and 3D graphics and MPEG-4 for multimedia. Apple contributed to the development of the open AAC audio encoding scheme. OS X natively supports the PDF open document standard (released to open standard by Adobe a few years ago).


RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 8:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agree 100%.. you never hear how Google and Palm both use Apple's WEBKIT ( an "open source" HTML5 engine ) for their mobile devices.. adroid web browser .. etc..

People have no clue. If iPhone, Android, Palm software had to rely on Flash they would be at the mercy of closed, proprietary software.. None of those companies, in this case because of the article Apple, want to wait on Adobe so they can further software growth. Droid wouldn't have 25,000 apps, iPhone wouldnt have 175,000 apps.. they have much less


RE: Jobsian Hypocrisy
By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 8:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
PS: Lets not forget.. Palm, Google (Droid), and Apple would ALL be paying Adobe royalties for software based off Flash on mobile devices ..


Not a knight in shining armour
By saarek on 4/29/2010 4:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree that Apple is not some white knight coming in on a fancy horse Steve Jobs does give some valid points purely from a web point of view.

Open standards on the Web should be pushed and adopted as rapidly as possible, it allows innovation in the mobile and desktop space whilst removing reliance on a closed standard.




RE: Not a knight in shining armour
By carniver on 4/29/2010 4:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
If I were Adobe, I'd open up the Flash format entirely rather than waiting for the still messy HTML5 to mature and replace Flash altogether. This way they can still make their CS5 and they should have a lead on Flash content creation anyway, all while leaving SJ with no more excuses.


RE: Not a knight in shining armour
By jonmcc33 on 4/29/2010 6:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are asking Adobe to give up on a huge cash cow. That is not going to happen. More people own a Windows based PC that runs Flash without a problem than those that own a Mac and have issues with Flash.

The lowest one on the totem pole is the one that seems to whine the most. Does Steve Jobs need some cheese with that?


By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 7:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Where it seems to be happening is the move to smaller mobile devices, not the pc as you said.

iPhone's safari browser, Google's Android web-browser, and Palms web-browser all use Apple's WebKit - which is an open source HTML5 rendering engine. Open source meaning collaborative effort in which programmers improve upon the code and share the changes within the community ( i,e Google which is a key member )

If Hate Apple or Not doesn't matter .. Flash is NOT open, it is completely controlled by one company alone, Adobe. And any company who relies on them ( Adobe ) for upgrades, etc.. is completely at their mercy. If Apple, Google, Palm used Flash as their main video viewer as the desktop pc has.. none of them would thrive as they have. Much of their software would be completely dependant on what Adobe does.


By darkblade33 on 5/3/2010 8:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
As far as low guy on the totem poll .. from a financial point of view: Apple is worth about 240 Billion in 2010.. versus like 25 Billion for Adobe. I think that sums it up.


RE: Not a knight in shining armour
By UNCjigga on 4/29/2010 5:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
"As rapidly as possible" does not mean today for HTML5. How far are we from a ratified spec? When will browsers/computing platforms support the complete spec? When will HTML5 be optimized for mobile use (on anything non-Apple?) Bottom line, Flash may be an inefficient content delivery mechanism but it's here today and Corporate IT is equipped to support it. HTML5 may be the way of the future but it's not ready yet.


App Store
By LyCannon on 4/29/2010 5:24:00 PM , Rating: 5
The real reason that Apple doesn't want to support flash is their app store. If flash were available on the iPhone/iPad, WTF would I spend money on simple apps when I can get them for free on a website?

It has nothing to do with the "future" of HTML 5, or proprietary formats, or any of the other excuses SJ gives.

It's all about the money!




RE: App Store
By icanhascpu on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: App Store
By VooDooAddict on 4/30/2010 1:14:18 AM , Rating: 3
What's wrong is that they pretend it's a technical problem with Adobe and try to paint them as the bad guy.

Instead they lie, and play a PR game, hoping that people won't see that it's really about App Store money.

They need to stick to their spin from the OSX side. "Apps form the App Store are better tested and higher quality. Oh and that's where we make lots of money."

It's like concessions stand at a movie theater. You are prohibited from bringing in your own food so they can make more money off concessions. And it's accepted ... it's not liked, but it's accepted.


Oh no you di-nt
By Lazarus Dark on 4/29/2010 7:07:27 PM , Rating: 5
Jobs was all like, "yo stuff sucks"
And Adobe was all like "nuhuh, you suck"
And Jobs was like "biotch betta reconize"
And then Adobe was all "Its On"




RE: Oh no you di-nt
By Lazarus Dark on 4/29/2010 7:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen such rediculousness from grown adults (outside of the television, anyway.)


Soon..
By damianrobertjones on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Soon..
By sapiens74 on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Soon..
By damianrobertjones on 4/30/2010 3:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say I don't like them??


RE: Soon..
By jimhsu on 4/29/2010 9:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
That's the thing though. Increasing market share to a majority is simply against the philosophy of Apple, making it impossible. Apple's entire marketing campaign over most of its history has been to be different ... from "Think Different" to "Switch" to whatever they are doing right now, to distinguish itself from the majority, whatnot. Say what you will about the sincerity, but if Apple were to hold a majority share in computing, it would fundamentally not make sense -- it would be "un-Apple".

That, and everything that comes with it ... virus designers would actually have a reason to attack Macs, they would have to dilute brand share to capture the lower market, big businesses would adopt lousy business coding practices that run counter to the whole "open" thing, etc.


RE: Soon..
By damianrobertjones on 4/30/2010 3:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
Good valid points there :)

...But we're forgetting one thing: People can be led like sheep.

All about the money :(


They
By Etern205 on 4/29/2010 4:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
should make a propaganda slide just like Asus and Gigabyte.

(pic is hosted from imageshack)
http://yfrog.com/627o1026603j




Summed up...
By ZachDontScare on 4/29/2010 4:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
"It doesn't benefit Apple, and that's why you see this reaction".

BINGO




Classy, well played
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 5:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs made cheap shots and deliberately ignorant low blows to troll his fan base for his own means. He gave the suits from Adobe PLENTY of ammunition to fire back at him. Instead, Adobe responds with a non-nonsense, no flaming, classy reply.

Well played sir, well played. Much respect.




ok
By sprockkets on 4/29/2010 6:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
While most of his comments are true, Flash is NOT an open standard. Why not? Because the whole DRM security part isn't, and without it, going to places like thedailyshow.com will not work.

But that's ok. There is something called **** that cleverly allows me to steal all the videos from them and anyone else, whenever I want.

Btw, every other video player for linux has H.264 acceleration via VDPAU. I don't expect you to cater to 1-3 of the market, but if you do, your "multi-platform" will then mean something.

If you can do it for Android, you can do it for desktops.




apple
By p05esto on 4/29/2010 7:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Man do I hate Apple... and I used to like them, 12 years ago. Everything about that company and the people who buy their products is annoying.




vehicle for malware
By Mike Acker on 5/1/2010 8:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
Adobe -- Flash, PDF -- are seen as transport vehicles for malware. Adobe needs to DELETE anything in either of these two media that has the ability to transfer control to executable code contained in the portable media.

use ONLY the software available from the presenting host computer.




By kilkennycat on 4/29/2010 7:08:08 PM , Rating: 1
Considering Apple's current hardware in the iPad and iPhone, there are strong reasons to believe that the GPU/H264 accelerated version of Flash 10.1 would run abysmally slow on the Apple iXX hardware. However, the upcoming tablets and phones using the nVidia Tegra/Tegra2 SOC (and no doubt equivalent hardware from ATi) will have no trouble running the accelerated version of Flash 10.1. Steve is afraid that the functional inadequacies of the antiquated in-house-designed hardware in the iPad and iPhone will finally be truly exposed.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki