backtop


Print 125 comment(s) - last by milli.. on May 13 at 7:56 AM

Steve Jobs has had enough of Adobe Flash and wants the world to move on and embrace HTML5

It's no secret that Steve Jobs is no fan of Adobe Flash -- Jobs basically kneecapped Flash development tools with iPhone OS 4.0. In addition, Jobs has long said that Flash on Mac computers is slow, buggy, and an incredible resource hog.

We all thought that the relationship between Apple and Adobe was beginning to thaw a bit when Apple announced that it would make hardware acceleration APIs available to developers like Adobe. That lead the way for yesterday's announcement of Flash Player 10.1 "Gala" for OS X which provides hardware acceleration of H.264 video content on Macs with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M, or GeForce GT 330M GPUs.

But that isn't quite the end of the story. In fact, Steve Jobs has even more to say about Adobe Flash in the form of an open letter entitled "Thoughts on Flash". Jobs' long-winded rant goes on about the fact that Adobe Flash is proprietary; HTML5 is a better, open solution; the fact that Flash is a security risk to Mac computers; and that Adobe Flash simply eats away battery life on notebook computers (among other things).

Here's a blurb on Adobe Flash being proprietary:

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, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards.

And here's another section with regards to Adobe Flash and its interaction with touch-based devices:

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?

Jobs concludes, saying, "Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice… But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."

"New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too)," Jobs adds. "Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind."

The fight between Adobe and Apple is definitely not over and we'll just have to sit back and wait to see what Adobe's response to Jobs will be.

For those that want to read the full letter, head on over to Apple's website.



Comments     Threshold


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

LOL JOBS!!!
By iFX on 4/29/2010 10:47:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
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.


Pot meet kettle!!




RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By cochy on 4/29/2010 10:57:24 AM , Rating: 5
That's the biggest load of hypocrisy I think I've ever seen anywhere.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By The0ne on 4/29/2010 11:24:58 AM , Rating: 3
I couldn't agree more. I LMAO reading this article. Great stuff to recover from a long commute this morning :)


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Creig on 4/29/2010 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 6
Odd. If you substitute the word "Apple" for "Adobe" and "Mac" for "Flash", his rant makes even more sense:

"Apple’s Mac products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Apple, and Apple has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Apple’s Mac products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, Mac is a closed system."


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By fsardis on 4/29/2010 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 5
Haha, I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was reading the letter. Best laughs I had in a very long time. Clearly, Apple lawyers and marketing dept should ban Steve from emailing or making any public statements anymore. The man has lost it.

The way, I see it, one of these days, Stevie is gonna have his ass handed to him. I would love to see Adobe pull all support for Macs and MS drop Office for Mac and Windows bootcamp compatibility. Apple will be dead in 3 years. Mix that with a nice Mac virus for the grand finale and that would make the most spectacular downfall for any company in world history. Now, if only Adobe would grow a pair of balls...


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By brshoemak on 4/29/2010 1:11:35 PM , Rating: 1
What do you have to do to get a 6? Someone from DailyTech has got to recognize this gem.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Jabroney701020 on 4/29/2010 1:49:38 PM , Rating: 1
C'MON, this is a +6 if anything ever is!


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By ronnaZ on 4/29/2010 1:58:52 PM , Rating: 1
Holy Smoke.. you totally nailed it dude!! +6


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Jucken on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By rs1 on 4/29/2010 3:05:17 PM , Rating: 5
No, he really doesn't. Apart from repeating his flawed argument that HTML5 is a viable replacement for Flash (it isn't, HTML5 adds streaming multimedia support, which is only one particular use-case for flash), he makes a number of other fallacious arguments.

For instance, on the subject of open vs. closed standards, from the point of view of a developer, HTML5+Javascript is no more open than Flash is, because it's the browser that ends up interpreting the HTML markup and Javascript code. And the browser implementation itself is, for all practical purposes, closed to the web developer. Even worse is that since each browser has its own implementation of these "open" standards, the developer's code may look and perform differently in each one. So now he has to debug and test on multiple platforms, instead of just one. And if you're a developer, you'd really rather just have to worry about the one.

His "there's no mouse anymore" argument is also a bit odd, as a lot of HTML and Javascript event handling is built upon mouseover and mouseout events (among other things). So he's going to fault Flash websites for relying on an event that is also used just as frequently in HTML+Javascript websites? It sounds more like he's trying to come up with random excuses, to me. Surely it would not be so hard to make the iPhone/Ipad trigger mouseover/mouseout events when the user interacts with a control. In fact, I would be a little surprised if it doesn't do this already, given the number of non-Flash sites that rely on these very same events.

So all-in-all, his arguments are pretty much nonsense.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Aikouka on 4/29/2010 4:56:56 PM , Rating: 3
As per your point on JavaScript onMouseOver events:

Since JavaScript is interpretted browser-side, that means Apple is able to program Safari Mobile in a way that allows it to be more "touch friendly." If you go to a website with Safari Mobile, instead of performing the action when hovering over the specified object with your non-existent mouse, the browser will execute the action when you press on the object. To actually select the object (if it has an anchor object), you then press it again.

Now, Adobe could try and rework Flash for the iPhone specifically to be more user friendly, but I wonder what effect that would have on current Flash applications.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By jvillaro on 4/30/2010 12:07:44 AM , Rating: 1
Somebody please shut this guy up!
Jobs can't write a single line of code, so he just preaches bullsh!t


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm... apparently Steve didn't like just the tip. :/


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 3
Webkit
Flex
Blaze

Those three popped into my head. :)


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/2010 11:55:18 AM , Rating: 1
Except you would be wrong about Webkit.

Adobe does not appear on the contributors list because they haven't given anything back.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe Air isn't complete therefore they can't contribute when it isn't done.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Pirks on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 5
as3corelib
BlazeDS
Cairngorm
CMap Resources
Durango
Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP)
Flash-Ajax Video Component
Flex SDK
flexlib
FlexPMD
FlexUnit
Generic Image Library
Mapping Resources for PDF
Open Source Media Framework
Adobe Media Gallery
Adobe Source Libraries
Tamarin
Text Layout Framework
Webkit

I count 19 open source from adobe...


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Krotchrot on 4/29/2010 1:15:35 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, he got quiet.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By retrospooty on 4/29/2010 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
ya, in a hurry LOL


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Pirks on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 8:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
You pwned him in a completely unrelated topic. I have no idea what you were trying to do by posting that link, it's useless for this subject. In that link the OP was a moron. I see his line of thinking, but it's clearly flawed and some parts are probably just wrong, namely #4.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By retrospooty on 4/30/2010 8:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
Owned ? I think not, you are wrong on 4 of 4 counts there.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Alexstarfire on 4/30/2010 12:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have the incorrect definition of wrong. If by wrong you mean plausible, then yes, he's wrong. #4 could be wrong, but none of us know for sure. I doubt it runs standard software anyway. He's right about #1 since they do have the hardware and software for it. Is it used? IDK because I don't know every industry inside and out. #2 is blatantly right. To say otherwise is just ignorance. Just because most games are DirectX and not OpenGL doesn't make the computer itself incapable of such features. And #3.... how about you name some files that aren't compatible. .7z and it's variants I don't believe are Mac compatible, though I haven't checked in a good while. Likewise DMG isn't really used outside of Macs but I do believe you can deal with it on PCs. Ummmm, that's all I can really think of.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By retrospooty on 4/30/2010 1:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
You are responding in the wrong thread and missing the context. No-one said it wasn't capable of running any of the above. The context was that it runs "well" or not "well". Since you want to ring it here, I will paste some of it here.

1. Almost zero enterprise apps are written to run on Macs. - Doesnt work "well" on Mac
2. 3d games - the few that are written perform like crap compared to thier PC counterparts. - Doesnt work "well" on Mac
3. Not file compatible other than a few standard media items. - Doesnt work "well" on Mac
4. As far as Foxconn using PC's to build Mac's that is true too. What procurement software do you think they are using to manage the supply chain and order parts? Do you think its the corporate order procurement software written to run on a Mac? What about logistics and reverse logistics? the whole supply chain and just about every aspect of every contract manufacturing company from A to Z runs on a PC. Some use server based apps but are still being ran through a PC. - Doesnt work "well" on Mac


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 11:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home

Adobe contributes to a number of Open source projects..

"Adobe is active in Open Source projects. The following are a number of our contributions and commitments to open source.

as3corelib
BlazeDS
Cairngorm
CMap Resources
Durango
Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP)
Flash-Ajax Video Component
Flex SDK
flexlib
FlexPMD
FlexUnit
Generic Image Library
Mapping Resources for PDF
Open Source Media Framework
Adobe Media Gallery
Adobe Source Libraries
Tamarin
Text Layout Framework
Webkit"

Yay for Google..


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 12:03:32 PM , Rating: 5
You don't understand how open source works, clearly.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 5
How about YOU read the details, Adobe is the main contributor to the majority of those projects. You can't just pick out one to validate your point..

Pirks asked for 3 projects and I answered, I'm not going to post a 5 page response detailing every project.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 11:51:52 AM , Rating: 4
Are you that dense? The Apple platform itself is 100% proprietary, the fact that they have endorsed some open source projects does not change this..

Furthermore Webkit is a forked project, they had to keep it free.. And OpenCL is not theirs either.. endorsing a few open source technologies does not changed the fact they have a closed platform. And lets not get started about darwin, that ship has long sailed, aside from the hackintosh community, what value does it have exactly?

When it comes down to it, the morons behind HTML5 can't agree on the spec, especially the video portion. No standard video codec = major failure. How on earth Jobs even thinks it can replace Flash until this happens is beyond me..


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 12:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
FYI I am a fan of HTML5, but they really need to decide on a video codec before they can go further. And while h264 is definitely the better codec, its not free and thats a big problem.

So you say Apple endorses open source projects yet it is pushing a codec that goes against that statement. Any browser implementing HTML5 with h264 support must pay licensing fees. This would all be screw over true open source browsers like Opera and Firefox.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 1
x264


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By adiposity on 4/29/2010 12:23:30 PM , Rating: 3
no


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 2:00:23 PM , Rating: 4
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
ogg vorbis.. The other codec being pushed by Opera and Firefox..(browsers not pushed by a corp entity whose business model can't support a paid codec) Obviously you have not been following the story


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Flunk on 4/29/2010 1:05:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ogg Theora, Vorbis is an audio codec.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 1:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, my mistake..


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By ats on 4/29/2010 1:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
And no one actually knows if its encumbered or not since no one has cared about it till now. If it came into widespread use, expect the patents to start coming out of the woodwork. In addition, its a substandard codec that doesn't have the features needed to compete with H.264 in quality/bandwidth.



RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 2:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And no one actually knows if its encumbered or not since no one has cared about it till now. If it came into widespread use, expect the patents to start coming out of the woodwork.
You are making out as though its a massive unknown, its most likely unencumbered as claimed by Xiph.org Foundation (who released it under a public BSD license).

Furthermore if you realize how patent law works, you can't just sit on a patent without actively trying to defend it. Ogg Theora is used by a lot of people, and considering its been available for years, that idle time has likely passed even if someone does have patents that cover the technology.

i.e nobody has been actively asking for licensing fees or settlements. The case on the subject would be thrown out pretty quickly.
quote:
In addition, its a substandard codec that doesn't have the features needed to compete with H.264 in quality/bandwidth.
A substandard codec? Have you ever done the comparison? Especially at lower bitrates (which it will be for the foreseeable future) the average person is not going to be able to tell the difference. Furthermore think about how much better h264 has got in the last few years, Ogg coudl greatly improve if the same weight was thrown behind it..

I also might add that these licensing fees also apply to content providers... How will the little guys compete? H264 as a standard is not a good thing in the long run, its going to cause fragmentation among browsers and will all around benefit the big players. (whether it be browser makers or content providers)


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By ats on 4/29/2010 5:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are making out as though its a massive unknown, its most likely unencumbered as claimed by Xiph.org Foundation (who released it under a public BSD license).


It IS a massive unknown. VC-1 was believed to be unencumbered as well. Not so much.

And actually, unlike copyrights, you CAN sit on a patent. It happens ALL THE TIME. And Ogg Theora is used by basically no one. Hell, more people probably still use Indeo than Theora.

The fundamental Theora codecs are effectively as good as they are going to get without a new standard. And yes, I've seen the quality comparisons and Theora does a horrible job, esp with non postage stamp content which is where the market is heading. A large part of the reason why 264 has improved is because more and more of its feature set has been used as well as learning how to use its feature set. And for as "great" as 264 has gotten, the best codec available is the opensource x264 so Theora has no argument.

H264, is THE standard. Fantasies of theora are just that, fantasies.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By milli on 5/13/2010 7:56:21 AM , Rating: 1
As soon as Google makes VP8 open-source, all other codecs will be obsolete.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By NAVAIR on 4/29/2010 10:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Darwin is OSX. Think about OSX as a Linux box with GUI, instead of using Gnome or KDE; it use's the propriety Apple GUI. Darwin is nothing more than UNIX, most of it with underlying roots of Free BSD and on other UNIX system that does not come to head. OSX is POSIX compliant and has a full BASH command line. You Apple hatters out there will praise linux, the true geek OS although if you can use Linux in the command line; you can use OSX to. OSX is nothing more that a consumer UNIX/Linux box with professional consumer applications written for it. The OSX is rock stable, just like a good Linux install. OSX use's about 450MB of RAM on a 4GB box. How much does the VISTA for WIN7 box use? How often to you have to reboot the windows box to recover performance lose's from WIN32 memory leaks? You can praise WIN64 all you want; how much software is available in WIN64 runtimes? And how long has Microsoft been trying to get WIN64 established? Since WINXP Pro 64 bit edition... OSX & Windows are decent OS's. Windows does not have any open source guts although the root cuts of OSX is Free BSD= open source, rebranded as Darwin from Apple.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By NAVAIR on 4/29/2010 10:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
I should have previewed my post, lots of stupid spelling errors, oops. Hope you guys can make sense of what are was trying to convey. I do not post much although I have been reading this site since it was a side bar from ANANDTECH and I have been reading Anand Lal Shimpi since he was a high school kid reviewing the K6+; I hated Tomshardware when he changed his format when Anand moved onto the scene.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 11:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
To answer your questions about Windows... I don't know how much Vista uses since I don't have Vista installed. I imagine it'd be similar to Win7 usage which uses a fair amount of RAM. The point is to use the RAM to pre-load applications hence the RAM usage. Less RAM installed, less usage. Also, it frees up RAM when needed.

About rebooting for RAM.... ummm, I don't even remember the last time I had to do that. Like Windows 98 I think.

It doesn't matter if the base roots of OSX are open-source, OSX itself is not.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Phynaz on 4/30/2010 10:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
Learn to read.

OSX is as open as Linux.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Ambictus on 4/29/2010 1:46:54 PM , Rating: 1
Read up on WebKit... NDAs, lack of documentation... Certainly a good way to be open source. They are open source but they do what they can to make life difficult.


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By Zavaros on 4/29/2010 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well is does seem very wrong by Steve to be saying that kind of nonsense. Nevertheless I must say i've had various web browsers crash due to flash. Never had any troubles with html5 sites though. And why should apple use open source?
All i know is that i don't know ANYBODY that has paid for a pc program for the last 10 years( other than windows).
While everybody I know who has a mac bought all their programs.
I really just think that most people are a bit too used to downloading all their music,movies and programs from the net and so they expect everything for free.
A lot of people want flash on the iphone so they can just download for free whatever they want. Here's an idea why not work for free too. When your boss hands you your paycheck just say "no i work for free boss"


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 1:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A lot of people want flash on the iphone so they can just download for free whatever they want.
Exactly, and this is exactly why you can't trust Jobs. He's right about flash, but its foolish to think hes doing this for the sake of consumers.. Hes pushing is own agenda plain and simple, flash on iPhone means less apps being purchased, which means less income and less developer support for his platform.

I also fear that if he continues to push h264 for HTML5, that browsers like Firefox and Opera will go the way of the dodo. Google and Apple have the money to pay for the codec support, Firefox and Opera most likely don't.. Wouldn't that be a great world, MS,Google and Apple being the only choice for browsers =P.. Yep that will definitely benefit the consumer in the long run..


RE: LOL JOBS!!!
By eddieroolz on 4/29/2010 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


I find this extremely ironic coming from a company synonymous with everything proprietary.


Ironic
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 10:52:37 AM , Rating: 5
Jobs says:

quote:
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.


Hey buddy, look in the mirror! Even if I wanted to, which I don't, why can't I run OSX on my PC ??

So basically, according to Jobs, if the author of software continues to DEVELOP said software, it's a closed system. No matter who, what, when, where, and how it's available to everyone.

HUH ??

I would like to know the REAL reasons behind this mans asinine and hypocritical rant against Flash. Because his reasoning falls horribly short. Is he really convinced the entire world should change just because he made a few mobile touch devices? Is the mouse now a complete thing of the past in his mind? Does he really NOT understand that HTML5 is NOT a full featured development suite capable of delivering complete software as feature rich as Flash?

You know more and more these days I take pleasure in one fact: that baring accident or wrongdoing, if I take decent care of myself I WILL live to see Steve Job's death.




RE: Ironic
By msheredy on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ironic
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 11:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quick someone get this guy a life! Seriously dude you need to move on because that last sentence was just plain stupid.


Why? Look the guy's had a good run. Rich, successful, respected by millions of computer illiterate people world wide. But, the man has annoyed me and bla bla bla. So he's got to go.


RE: Ironic
By msheredy on 4/29/2010 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why?


How about why didn't you answer my first question?

Your apparent dislike for anything Apple/Steve Jobs proves that I cannot reason with you. Have a great rest of your life being pissed at someone whom you have never met. I feel sorry for you.


RE: Ironic
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
I actually need to answer that? Job's statement is the very definition of hypocritical. Apple products are ENTIRELY, from top to bottom, proprietary. Hell in most cases you have to go through Apple to even purchase them, have them serviced, or have batteries replaced etc etc. Even on the software side, they have locked everything down with their "Ap stores".

So no, I wasn't actually going to answer your first question because it was a waste of time. Thanks for wasting my time.


RE: Ironic
By Pirks on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ironic
By SkullOne on 4/29/2010 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 5
Decent code? Apple writes shit code just like the rest of them. What about the current DHCP fuck up with the iPad? Or how about the SMS issue with iPhone that was left open for way to long just so they could have a PR day after the exploit was announced to the world? What about the recent patch that was nearly 800MB?

Yeah, their better coders then anybody else. /sarcasm

Jobs is on this rant simply because Flash is a direct competitor to the Apple cash cow that is the App Store. Plain and simple. Mobile Flash 10.1 would allow people to write a single app that could be used across any smartphone complete with ads so that they can maximize revenue.

Instead his "holiness" Jobs will spew bile and bullshit till he keels over claiming they are the best at everything in order to keep their system completely closed off and hamstringing developers.

Apple is as proprietary as they come and this rant just helps prove it.


RE: Ironic
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 1
I think you need to take a look at some history. For the longest time the only thing the GPU was really used for was games and picture editing. It hasn't been until the last 2-3 years that they started offloading things like video encoding to the GPU. Everybody has basically been jumping on the bandwagon since then.

I haven't had problems running flash since IDK when. Laptops/mobile devices might be more of an issue since battery life will be affected, but battery life is going to be affected when you're doing anything more than sitting on the desktop. How much is actually wasted... IDK.


RE: Ironic
By NanoTube1 on 4/29/2010 5:15:51 PM , Rating: 1
Adobe's coders don't suck. Take Photoshop as an example - it's one of the best applications ever written and it keeps getting better.

It's just the flash side of Adobe that sucks on Mac OS X.


RE: Ironic
By Pirks on 4/30/2010 10:39:49 AM , Rating: 1
It sucks in Windows too so Adobe Flash coders suck dick


RE: Ironic
By alanore on 4/29/2010 11:46:47 AM , Rating: 5
Its easy, Flash would allow Apps onto the iPhone/iPad without going through Apple's iStore. All you would need to do is visit a website and press full screen. This would mean that Apple wouldn't have absolute control over its platform, or from the revenue that Apps generate.

That is why Apple embrace Flash on OS-X even allowing it to use hardware acceleration, yet it wont allow flash any where near locked down iStores devices.


RE: Ironic
By cfaalm on 4/29/2010 3:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I WILL live to see Steve Job's death.


Any ideas how the man will go down in history? Plenty to go around.

The man who lived to see Flash die. Did he?
The man who got sold us >$500 computers.
The man who got us hooked on nifty little handheld iStuff.
The man who put back the I in the i.
The man who welded the computer shut.
The man who died so rich because he overcharged anyone else.
The man who sued EVERYONE over alledged patents.

More suggestions welcome.


RE: Ironic
By noirsoft on 4/29/2010 8:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs: iHole


Payback could be a !$$##!
By frobizzle on 4/29/2010 11:11:39 AM , Rating: 5
I think Adobe should simply withdraw all support for any Apple products. No more Photoshop or anything else. Just pull the plug! Then when the graphic art houses scrap their (now useless) Macs, we'll see how Jobs likes it!




RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By zmatt on 4/29/2010 11:32:45 AM , Rating: 5
Amen, I think Jobs forgets that the main reasons Apple has survived all of these years is for companies like Adobe actually giving some professionals a reason to use a Mac. College art students aside, a lot of serious multimedia work is done on Macs, with Adobe software. Without photoshop, illustrator, and the rest a lot of people would be using PCs instead.


RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By mikeyD95125 on 5/3/2010 2:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
They do still have Logic Pro and Final Cut going for them.

But you can run Pro Tools on a PC.

I think professional use of Macs is really what drives the outstanding (but expensive)hardware. If professional photo, audio, and video users abandoned ship then Apple would lose their market for their innovative high-end hardware and their computers would start to suck (again).


RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By ats on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 1:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... someone tell me when I should stop laughing.


RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Payback could be a !$$##!
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 2:37:42 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect.

Premiere Pro has long replaced Final Cut in the past 10 yrs, back when Mac's lost their graphic and video processing edge, which died with the Power PC CPUs.(G5's)

It is all a matter of price, and Premiere is less expensive than Final Cut, not even counting hardware replacement.

FCP has nothing over Premiere and a lot less going for it, seeing as how Macs are now inferior in terms of quality internals compared to actual video editing computers.


Bring on the haters
By chrish89 on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring on the haters
By chrish89 on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring on the haters
By neogrin on 4/29/2010 12:18:15 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, I am unable to see the Graph you have linked... because it's in Flash


RE: Bring on the haters
By geddarkstorm on 4/29/2010 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 3
Irony so thick, you could cut it with a knife.


RE: Bring on the haters
By chrish89 on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring on the haters
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
And what's your point? Google is higher than that and they are pretty much entirely opensource.


RE: Bring on the haters
By chrish89 on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring on the haters
By themaster08 on 4/29/2010 3:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Can I ask a simple question?

Where the hell is this wave of mactards coming from? It was just Reader1 and Pirks. Now we have a whole host of these cretins.


RE: Bring on the haters
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2010 8:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
Then why post about stock prices?


RE: Bring on the haters
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 1:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
The stock is being bid-up by institutional investors.

Why?

Because Apple has something like $40-50B in CASH. Investors want that paid back as a dividend. Microsoft did something similar about 5-8 years ago.


By jnemesh on 4/29/2010 11:30:22 AM , Rating: 4
While Steve Jobs is indeed promoting an "open" standard in HTML 5, what is often lost in the argument is the fact that he is a STOCK HOLDER in MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA owns the patents for h.264. While h.264 is "free" right now, MPEG-LA is a business, and they intend to make money from h.264. At some point in the future (2014 or 2016, I have heard) they will begin to charge for its use. If Apple can make h.264 a de-facto standard by then, he will stand to make millions from its adoption! Doesn't anyone else see the conflict of interest here?

Apple and Jobs have been trying to control web standards for YEARS. They lost the desktop war, but its a new ballgame now with mobile devices, and they are playing to win, make no mistake!

The other issue is the obscene amounts of money Apple is making in their PROPRIETARY App Store. A huge portion of the apps in the store would NEVER sell if Apple used Flash...the majority of these apps are already available FOR FREE on the web, using Adobe Flash. Apple WHINES about how web sites would have to be re-programmed to accomidate mobile touch screens as an interface instead of using a mouse, but really, its all about forcing people to pay for useless apps, instead of allowing them the ability to use whatever content they want from the web.

Keep digging your own grave, Steve...between the Flash issue and the bad press from going after Gizmodo for your missing iPhone, more and more people are seeing you for the egotistical bastard you really are!




By ats on 4/29/2010 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Are people so dense and uninformed that they don't realize that .264 is already a done deal, independent of HTML5? What do people think is streaming via flash now for video from most sites? H.264 is ALREADY the standard. Its is used by everything from TVs to Web to movies.


By jnemesh on 4/29/2010 1:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
VC-1 was a "done deal" and included in the spec for Blu-Ray. Now, most encoding is done on h.264. What I am saying is that right now, its the "best" option for many people. That WILL change once companies start to realize the poison pill they are swallowing. Google recently announced that the On2 codecs they purchased will be available as an open codec. Ogg Theora is another alternative, although not as attractive because of its performance in comparison to h.264.

The point I was making is that Steve Jobs has a direct financial interest in seeing HTML5 adoption increase with h.264 as its main video codec. Apple is leveraging its HUGE market to push standards that will make Mr. Jobs money, and most people dont even realize the implications of what he is doing.


By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 2:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
You can't really consider it a standard if its within the flash container..

I think you are also missing the point. Right now Adobe has a license for h264, and as long as the player usage is for non commercial use.. (on the player end.. i.e youtube is non commericial), the user or content creator would not have to pay these fees..

They are losing out on some major revenue here, once again there is motive behind Apple pushing H264.. and its not because 'it crashes your browser'.. Not that I'm saying its untrue, but you would be naive to think that Jobs truly has the consumer in mind here..


Flash
By pjwr2004 on 4/29/2010 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 4
Droid DOES Flash.




RE: Flash
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 1:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. And I wish I could get the new Incredible that is coming out. With the Snapdragon processor it should be able to manage almost any lousy web app that is designed to run on Flash.


RE: Flash
By adiposity on 4/29/2010 5:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you mean with custom ROM.


Oops
By adiposity on 4/29/2010 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.


many non-Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.

I guess the iPad has problems with these too. In case you weren't aware, Jobs, "hover" is part of the HTML5 (and lesser) spec!

You idiot!




RE: Oops
By nafhan on 4/29/2010 1:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
A good example of this would be those obnoxious double green underline links that have recently made reading Dailytech an exercise in frustration.


RE: Oops
By adiposity on 4/29/2010 2:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
adblock...


Adobe ... retaliate.
By VooDooAddict on 4/30/2010 1:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Apple's attack of Adobe is biting the hand that feeds is.

How many professionals out there run Adobe Creation software on OSX? It is a significant factor in businesses purchasing Apple systems for their creative departments.

I know it won't happen ... but it would be amusing if Adobe just drops support for all things apple with future releases.
Next edition of PhotoShop ... Make it Windows and Linux only.




RE: Adobe ... retaliate.
By SiliconX on 4/30/2010 12:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I would like to see it happen, it won't happen. Ever.

Jobs is a raving megalomaniac and a bold-faced liar, but he's not an idiot. He's quite brilliant actually. He wouldn't deliberately piss off Adobe unless he knew that Adobe couldn't retaliate with anything substantial.

Adobe dropping OSX development of their products seems like an easy choice, but what does it mean for Adobe? Windows machines might make up 90% of the market or something, while Apple machines make up 5%, but i'd wager OSX versions of Adobe's software make up a much higher percentage of their overall sales than 5%.

Adobe likely can't discontinue offering OSX versions of their products without taking a serious, possibly even crippling, blow to their profits.

Jobs would certainly know this. So he'll continue curb-stomping them without fear of reprisal.


On the other hand....
By Blight AC on 4/29/2010 11:57:47 AM , Rating: 3
Apple’s OS products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Apple , and Apple has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Apple’s OS products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple . By almost any definition, Apple's OS is a closed system.




Perhaps Adobe could respond...
By Tony Swash on 4/29/2010 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 3
In his open letter Steve Job's says:

"We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"

Perhaps Adobe can respond - preferably with a version of mobile Flash that doesn't suck.

On the other hand it wouldn't matter if they did as it looks as if the issue has been resolved. There are many choices available to the mobile tech consumer other than Apple products. If enough of Apple customers are frustrated to the point of not buying Apple devices, perhaps Apple will reconsider their position. But the fact is that the lack of Flash does not appear to have slowed down Apple sales in the slightest. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Apple’s customers, being viewed as valuable, are causing major content stakeholders to re-tool their content to make it available on Apple’s mobile platforms.

Adobe appears to being losing even with Google's late offer of support.

(thanks to Michael Gartenberg for some of this)




Hypocrite alert!
By jRaskell on 4/29/2010 10:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Job's long-winded rant goes on about the fact that Adobe Flash is proprietary; HTML5 is a better, open solution;


Wait! Steve Jobs is criticizing Adobe Flash for being a proprietary, closed solution! What a @#$%ing hypocrite! Apple products are some of the most closed, proprietary, locked down products in the entire electronics market.

the more I read about Steve Jobs, his views and opinions, the more I think this guy is a complete and utter megalomaniac.




Open Source
By btc909 on 4/29/2010 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
What a bunch of BS. The reason why the iPhone has a stranglehold on it's market is the apps because of their proprietary OS. Why would Apple let that go to HTML5 that could be ported to another smart phones? This reminds me of Gizmodo. I am Jobs & I WILL DESTROY YOU! Funny, very FUNNY. So how will Apple force iPhone apps to only be written for the iPhone OS only. Hummmm?




Get this man to a doc!
By hevets on 4/29/2010 11:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think Steve Jobs' pancreatic cancer must have spread from his pancreas into his brain if he can believe such nonsense!




QuickTime
By Devenish on 4/29/2010 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
Let’s not forget about the slow and bloated proprietary multimedia framework with its own share of bugs and vulnerabilities that was developed by Apple known as QuickTime.




Apple 200% proprietary
By SpaceJumper on 4/29/2010 12:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Steven should say Apple products are 200% proprietary.




Speaking of bloated and proprietary
By Sylar on 4/29/2010 12:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open.


Can you say hi to iTunes for me?




By ET on 4/29/2010 1:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that a lot of flash isn't mobile friendly, but so are a lot of standard sites. Currently HTML 5 isn't a great solution anyway, since it doesn't have wide support, and flash happens to be more consistent. I'm sure that will change, but for now I'm sure developers who want it won't have a hard problem making more mobile friendly flash content, and if Steve Jobs worked with Adobe, I'm sure it would have been easy to add better touch support for flash.




Appholes
By drimpossible on 4/29/2010 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Appholes.




Jobs way off.
By imaheadcase on 4/29/2010 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
First the Ipad flop, now this statement. Even apple lovers love to make fun of both these things now.

I like how he thinks HTML5 is going to be replacing flash like tomorrow or something. Like everyone is going to embrace his thought.

For the amount of macs and ipads or whatever sold its still not worth someone to go out of way and develop for that platform and windows at same time.




Jobs seriously needs to STFU
By phatboye on 4/29/2010 2:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or does it seem like every time I read an article about Apple's Steve Job's it seems as though he says something to downright piss me off even more than before.




Thinking of Himself
By rpierce on 4/29/2010 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think Steve has heard so many people say those same things about Apple for so long it is just stuck in his head. It all came out when he wanted to "express himself".

Too funny, thanks for the laugh Steve!




View from the Mac side
By NanoTube1 on 4/29/2010 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
I know where Jobs is coming from on the performance and stability issues.

As a dual user (Mac for the last 6 years / PC for the last 20 years), I can attest that Flash on Mac OS X is absolute crap. It's slow and buggy as hell. If I disable ad-blockers on either Safari, Chrome or FireFox, my web experience goes down the drain. If one could compare it to gaming, it's like having your FPS drop down from 60 to 5 in a nano second. Furthermore, it is the truth that the number one cause of web browser crashing on the Mac is Flash.

The rest of his post is PR and the usual manipulations, but at least on the performance, stability and Adobe's neglect of Flash on Macs for the last few years, he is absolutely right.




By piroroadkill on 4/30/2010 4:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
Your systems and lock-in are far more objectionable than Flash




By ice456789 on 4/30/2010 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
All of Pirks' posts are already modded all the way down. :(




Adobe on Apple
By Gungel on 4/29/2010 11:01:57 AM , Rating: 1
Please Adobe CEO give us your thought on Apple. Can't wait for his response.




He does have a good point though
By KOOLFUN5 on 4/29/2010 12:49:39 PM , Rating: 1
I do say DEATH TO THE ROLLOVERS AND POP-UPS !!!!!!!

Those 2 things need to go away.

So screw FLASH, everyone hates any system that employs roll over/pop ups, as nobody i've ever met even remotley likes having those systems forced upon them while surfing the web.

So yes kill that roll over/pop up spamming flash system, it sucks. There are better safer video viewers out their that dont do that at all.




It's funny
By Phynaz on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's funny
By HotFoot on 4/29/2010 11:57:59 AM , Rating: 5
All the people who run flash blockers on their PC maintain the choice to view one of the most popular formats ever invented. It's about choice. If you're happy with Apple deciding for you that there needs to be artificial limitations on the capability of the technology you're paying for, then good for you.


RE: It's funny
By Camikazi on 4/29/2010 12:15:33 PM , Rating: 5
I use Flash Block cause of the damn annoying animated ads mostly, if those did not exist I would not need FB. I don't mind Flash and like what it can do to websites when used right, it's just the ads, the annoying, moving, blinking seizure inducing ads that i hate.


RE: It's funny
By jonmcc33 on 4/29/2010 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
All the people who run flash blockers on their pc complain about the iPhone not running flash.


Those are "ad" blockers. We are not blocking YouTube or any other Flash that we want to intentionally view.


RE: It's funny
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Its even more funny that you are that naive to think that if HTML5 replaced flash that those annoying flash ads that we are blocking in the first place won't be replaced by HTML5 equivalents.. And of course it will be a hell of a lot harder to know what is and what is not an ad.. YAY!


RE: It's funny
By Phynaz on 4/29/2010 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 1
I never said a thing about ads.

Nice try.


RE: It's funny
By omnicronx on 4/29/2010 3:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
You didnt have to, it was implied by your flash blocking statements in which the main use is to block flash ads, not content..

You opened the door, not me..


RE: It's funny
By Fleeb on 4/29/2010 5:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from ads, what kind of Flash content would you want to block?


RE: It's funny
By nafhan on 4/29/2010 1:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Once HTML5 becomes more widespread there will be plenty of obnoxious HTML5 ads and a need for "html5 blockers". Yeah, progress!


I guess all the Apple/JHobs haters missed this
By hiscross on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
By neogrin on 4/29/2010 12:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
Obvious Fanboi is Obvious..Period

JHobs?!?...are you serious?


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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