Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Businesses Apple Politics

Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ 731

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-support-ad-wars dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Businessweek reports that Adobe has taken out newspaper advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times today and posted an open letter to call out the tablet-computer maker for stifling competition. 'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,' the letter states. 'No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.' The letter is part of a widening rift between Apple and Adobe. Two weeks ago, Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs wrote a 29-paragraph public missive panning Adobe's Flash as having 'major technical drawbacks.' US antitrust enforcers also may investigate Apple following a complaint from Adobe, people familiar with the matter said this month. Adobe has also launched a banner ad campaign to let you know that they love Apple. The two-piece banner ads are composed of a 720x90-pixel 'We [heart] Apple' design, followed by a 300x250-pixel medium rectangle that reads: 'What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

Comments Filter:
  • Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by conner_bw (120497) * on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:24PM (#32194740) Homepage Journal

    This couldn't be better timing! I've been working on a killer app using Authorware for the last 5 years in my secluded dungeon. I'm a bit out of touch with what's going on on the internet because I've been really busy not paying attention, is online multimedia still dominated by Java Applets, VRML, and Director/Lingo?

    Anyway, the product is now ready to be sold to the world for lots of money. I would love your support in porting to iPad and iPod. Support freedom to use whatever I want! Unlike Apple not owning Flash, this is your product so it should be a breeze.

    Wait, no?

    • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:33PM (#32194890)
      I'm so sorry that you won't be able to cross-compile ('cross contaminate' in Apple lingo) your app for Android and iPad/iPod/iPhone/iDontKnow. But that's OK because according to a recent news article [slashdot.org] Android is now a bigger market to shoot for anyway.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mini me (132455)

        According to that article, Android, on all devices, is barely beating out iPhone OS on one device. iPhone OS is sold on three distinct devices (iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad), of which the latter two were not included in the numbers. Android has a long way to go.

        • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:4, Informative)

          by zeroshade (1801584) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:20PM (#32195774)

          According to that article, Android, on all devices, is barely beating out iPhone OS on one device. iPhone OS is sold on three distinct devices (iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad), of which the latter two were not included in the numbers. Android has a long way to go.

          Actually, the study involved smartphone market share in the US. The iPod touch and iPad are not smart phones, which explains why they weren't included. As far as Android having a long time to go, quadrupling market share in only 6 months is a damn long way it's already come. =)

          • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:59PM (#32196498)

            Actually, the study involved smartphone market share in the US. The iPod touch and iPad are not smart phones, which explains why they weren't included.

            That is indeed the reason. There was nothing wrong with the study, only the implications people are taking from it. iPhone OS authors collect from the very same app versions running on all three devices. Android developers have to release different versions of their app for different Android phones.

            And of course it's international sales that matter.

            Also it's obviously wrong because the size of the market for apps is: "apps sold", not "devices sold". Developers are dojng far better on iPhone than Android for versions of the same app. Orders of magnitude better.

            Thus it's wrong to say that Android sales topping iPhone sales on that study means it's a bigger market. Wrong in several different ways.

      • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by c_sd_m (995261) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:35PM (#32196032)
        I'm not sure what iPhone sales have to do with how many iPod Touches and iPads are out there, especially given that iPod Touches now outsell the iPhone [theappleblog.com]. And outselling during one quarter doesn't make a bigger market, especially when there were many more iPhones than Androids sold before that period that are still in use. Perhaps you're confusing the smartphone market with the app market? Few, if any, app devs are actually selling phones.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wovel (964431)

        There are 100 million Android devices? (Even if you ignore the fact that they do not support the same code..)/ I think you should brush up on the comprehension part of your reading..

    • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by darien (180561) <.darien. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:37PM (#32194956)

      Terrible analogy. Adobe may not help you, but they certainly won't do anything to stop you. Very different to what Apple wants to do.

    • Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:46PM (#32195144)
      Pfft! My COBOL.Net based app for the iPad contraption will pwn your feeble efforts! I have my COBOL to Ada to Lisp to LabView to FORTRAN to VHDL to C to Objective C/Cocoa workflow all ready to start chugging away. Throw the switch, Igor!
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:25PM (#32194754) Homepage

    It done been brought!

  • We Want to (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PixieDust (971386) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:25PM (#32194756)
    Be able to open massive security holes in any device or platform! - Adobe
    • Re:We Want to (Score:4, Informative)

      by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:30PM (#32194842) Homepage Journal

      That's what jailbreaking is for.

  • by nanoakron (234907) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:26PM (#32194768)

    Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by causality (777677)

      Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

      That's about right and I'll explain why. From the summary:

      What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.

      Unless it's done by means of proprietary standards and not by means of executive decisions. That's the complete thought. What is quoted from Adobe there is only the first half.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        If given a choice between a proprietary standard that I can use on devices from multiple vendors versus a proprietary standard that only work on one vendor's hardware then the choice is obvious.

        All of this HTML5 nonsense is just a distraction. It won't replace Apple binary apps even when it's managed to mature itself.

        This is all about replacing a web experience that is largely cross platform with one that is Apple only.

        Proprietary multi-vendor vs. Proprietary single vendor.

        • by 605dave (722736) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:00PM (#32195390) Homepage
          This is insightful? What's the insight? Do you know anything about HTML5? Apple is helping build an open web that proprietary devices from any company can connect to. How is an open standard such as HTML an Apple only web experience? The reality is exactly the opposite. Right now we have a situation where one company, Adobe, determines what web experience (if you're talking about Flash) you get on any given device or platform. Compare that to an open HTML5 rendering engine (webkit), and a push towards open web standards. In what universe does that add up to that being an Apple only experience?
    • by loraksus (171574) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:03PM (#32195448) Homepage

      Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

      Yes, but we do it very, very slowly. Pegging processor cores and making browsers run like shit along the way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

      Indeed. Here's a thought, Adobe: Instead of pissing away tens of thousands of dollars on "poor, poor, pitiful me" ads complaining about how Apple doesn't like Flash because it's buggy, crashing and bad for their devices, spend that money on some decent programmers to fix Flash so they have nothing to complain about.

  • by jx100 (453615) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:26PM (#32194774)

    Fantastic how they're crying for "openness" a mere day after they announce Selective Output Control DRM in Flash.

    http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/05/adobes-new-flash-drm-comes-with-selective-output-control.ars [arstechnica.com]

  • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:28PM (#32194812) Journal
    And yes, I know that's not going to sit well with the /. crowd, but it remains a truism. If Apple allowed flash onto the iPhone right tomorrow
    • It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac. Unless you believe the demo was one that "shouldn't have been shown", and that seeing a U-tube video made behind closed-doors with as many takes as it needs to get right is in any way comparable to running it on nearly every darn page on the web. For adverts.
    • Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog. Suddenly Apple's quotes of 10 hours battery life on the iPad are reduced to 5 hours (or whatever). Uninformed users (you know, the 99% majority out there) say Apple is lying about it's battery times. Now every manufacturer lies about it's battery times, right ? Oh, wait [anandtech.com], no [reuters.com] they don't. Apple's battery-life figures stand alone (as far as I can tell) as a reasonable guide to how long you'll get out of your machine. That's worth a lot, to Apple.

    I'm not going to pretend there aren't advantages to Apple in requiring people to use Apple's API to code on Apple's hardware (yeah, yeah, I know you bought it, I know it's *yours*, but you know what I mean). Of course there are. That doesn't invalidate the concerns above. I'm sure 'the Steve' sees it as a bonus.

    Knowing people who work at Apple, they're a focussed bunch. They care passionately about making things easy to use, and frankly about making the very best (whatever) possible. There's very little of the jaded cynicism I've found in other companies over the years - they're more willing to "++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start." than anywhere else I've ever seen, and I (personally) can easily see the above being sufficient reason to abandon Flash as a platform if they think it's beyond saving.

    Simon

    • by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:33PM (#32194894)

      I know that's not going to sit well with the /. crowd...

      Actually, I find that in the argument between Adobe and Apple, Apple usually comes out on top because at least its horrible, draconian software is stable and usable.

    • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:52PM (#32195246) Journal

      The choice is Apple's, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

      It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac... Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog.

      Granted, yes, Flash sucks. As a user, I'm not sure I'd install it.

      But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?

      Forget the browser for a moment, though. They're banning it and all other third-party frameworks in an effort to prevent cross-platform applications, even if they compile to Objective-C, which is downright evil. More evil than anything Microsoft ever did. To claim that this has anything to do with battery life or crashing is moronic -- Apple already presumably checks things like this before they approve apps, right? And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away. In either case, it seems downright fascist to ban a tool because it might make the experience suck, instead of evaluating the resulting app and see if it does make the experience suck.

      Now, I agree that this is good for Apple, in the short term. It's also good for the Web, in the short term, because it forces people to start using HTML5. But in the long term, I think it will come back to bite them, and in any case, don't pretend it's a good thing for either iPhone/Pad developers or users.

      • by mini me (132455) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:06PM (#32195506)

        instead of evaluating the resulting app and see if it does make the experience suck.

        There are already Flash apps in the App Store, published before the updated agreement. Perhaps Apple determined that they did, in fact, suck?

        The one thing that nobody ever talks about is, we know that Apple has been doing a lot of automated processing on the binaries to ensure they are in compliance with other areas of the SDK upon submission. What if they determined that output from other compilers were breaking their system and the restriction was made to ensure that developers do not waste a lot of time writing software that is going to automatically be rejected by the automated systems in the future?

        Developers have been pushing for faster approval times since the App Store opened. Automated compliance testing is the way to make that happen. Is it better to use any tool you want, but wait months for approval? Or use Apple's own tools and have it approved almost instantaneously?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Space cowboy (13680) *

        But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?

        I'm sure they considered that. But take it a bit further... Jane Public enables flash to watch the 'OMG ponies' video-of-the-day. Are you confident that every single user would then think "Oh, now I have to turn Flash back off, otherwise my phone will now suck". I'm not. And then a little while down the road it's not "I take the personal responsibility for making my phone suck because I turned on Flash", it's more like "the iPhone sucks. Apple sucks".

        Tell me again how this benefits Apple ?

        And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away.

        I don't underst

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mobby_6kl (668092)

          I'd say that if Adobe had done the right thing, and made Flash better (efficient, stable), and ported *that* to Android instead of putting effort into trying to work around Apple's position on Flash, they'd have made a *far* better case for Apple eating humble pie and asking Adobe to implement this mythical excellent Flash environment for the iPhone. But they didn't.
          br Simon

          Well it's a good thing Adobe has some people who are as smart as you are then, since this is exactly what they did! Have a look at this [youtube.com]

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Space cowboy (13680) *
            I refer you back to the original comment I made:

            It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac. Unless you believe the demo was one that "shouldn't have been shown", and that seeing a U-tube video made behind closed-doors with as many takes as it needs to get right is in any way comparable to running it on nearly every darn page on the web. For adverts.

            When I looked at that video, at about the 5 minute mark they start to show how I'd be using Flash most of the time, ie: as a part of the web-page rather than just Flash on its own. To me, it didn't look as though it was running at all well. Having Flash on the web-page caused the page-update to be slow-as-molasses, and scrolling to be about 2 fps.

            And this is the best they could do, under controlled circumstances, cherry-picking the sites to use ? Give me

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fahrbot-bot (874524)

      Because it's [Flash] on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari...

      No problem. We'll just load Firefox and Flashblock - Oh wait...

    • by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:05PM (#32195476) Homepage Journal

      Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog.

      What makes you think advertisers won't just use HTML5 <canvas> to make their seizure-magnets?

  • by Megane (129182) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:29PM (#32194828) Homepage
    But they still have to be dragged kicking and screaming to rewrite their products (Flash isnt their only product) to stop using APIs from two deprecations ago. They apparently love Microsoft even more than Apple.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This argument is stupid and probably comes from people who have never actually built a product the size of Adobe's products. You think they should just bow down and use whatever new flavor of APIs apple wants them too? Including sever costs to them in rewriting large portions of an application that heavily uses carbon considering it's mostly a visual app. Sorry but, at least Microsoft understands that backwards compatibility is a requirement for those corporations to be able to create those kinds of produ
  • Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrgnDancer (137700) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:35PM (#32194928) Homepage

    Dear Adobe:

    I recently read your open letter to Apple and let me just say that I cannot agree more. I particularly liked this bit:

    "We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."

    Since my platform of choice is [64 bit Linux, Solaris, Irix, HPUX, any of the Various BSDs...] I cannot wait for your forthcoming (very soon I expect) release of Flash for this platform! I realize that my platform of choice is not the most popular one out there, but your message gives me hope! Given your support of openness, and in full understanding that my platform is rather obscure, perhaps you could simply release most of the slient code as open source and allow me to port it myself. That would be even better.

    Thanks
    Users of various platforms that Adobe does not support.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrgnDancer (137700)

      Whoops. Looks like I shouldn't have included Solaris. Sorry.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Idiomatick (976696)
      Whats a hpux? There does have to be a lower limit of users before they'll bother adding support.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by schmidt349 (690948)

        Great! So much for "a choice of platforms." Now it's "a choice of platforms that Adobe has deigned to support."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by psbrogna (611644)
      Dear Adobe:

      I was so pleased to hear your stance on our right to view and create content regardless of platform or channel. When can we expect the Adobe Creative Suite for operating systems other than Windows & OS X?

      Cheers,
      Content Creator
      • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:18PM (#32195728) Homepage

        Or at least full and complete Flash documentation (Where is an official RTMPE specification, not the clean-room reverse engineered one that Adobe has sent DMCA takedown notices to anyone trying to implement said spec.), not a partial spec which is not sufficient to implement a fully compliant player.

        Oh yeah, and a promise not to sue those who add RTMPE support to third-party players would be nice too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by saleenS281 (859657)
      Irix is dead (literally EOL 4 years ago...).
      FreeBSD has flash support.
      Solaris has flash support.
      64bit Linux has flash support.


      Even HP won't try to sell you HPUX for anything but servers at this point, but if you really want it, you can get it [hp.com]. You're going to have to try harder than that.
  • Mental Masterbation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StylusEater (1206014) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:36PM (#32194948)
    I find it very disheartening that both companies are going to great lengths to show just how "OPEN" they are, when neither of them are even close to being "open" or really staunch supporters of all things "open." Both companies have jockeyed, in open and/or behind closed doors, to make standards their bi*ches and now they complain because their "industry standards" are being threatened.

    This in turn has caused people to complain loudly about "freedom!!!" I want my freedom? I ask, freedom from what? You're now encountering what Stallman et al have been talking about for ages! You're only free as far as a company's whims says you are... Ohh, now I'm supposed to feel sad for those that hooked their toolset to Adobe? or to Apple for that matter? Why not focus on developing truly standards compliant applications with Open tools and let the companies come to us for a change rather than us bowing to them for the next release? We are all masters of our own domains, now "buck up" and act like it.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @03:01PM (#32197774)

      when neither of them are even close to being "open" or really staunch supporters of all things "open."

      That discounts the entire backing of Webkit from Apple (used in almost every mobile device today) and also the strong HTML5 support they have given.

      Not to mention the support for other projects, like CLANG/LLVM, GCC, ZeroConf, etc. etc.

      Or the fact that without Apple, we'd still be buying DRM laden music online.

      To claim Apple does nothing to support open standards is to ignore some very real good they have done.

  • Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RazorSharp (1418697) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:37PM (#32194972)

    I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking. It's not like Apple is locking out Adobe to push their own proprietary standard, there is no anti-trust issue here.

    Adobe is the next Sun. They're going to keep faltering and faltering until they're bought out by some giant. Open source and open standards are going to kill them. Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products. I think the folks at Adobe realize the impact that open source will have. They know that keeping the web running on Flash is their only hope to survive as a company.

    Adobe is like if Microsoft only had Office and IE. Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing. Software as a product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future. IBM and Google know this, that's why they're so ahead of the curve.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cmburns69 (169686)

      "Software as a mass-market product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future"

      There, I fixed it for you. When demand for a certain type of software is very high, open source will provide a suitable replacement. For niche markets, or markets involving high liability, or strict government regulation, open source replacements are not nearly as abundant. For example, how many open-source hotel management software suites are there? How many open-source flight control systems are there?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BitZtream (692029)

      Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products.

      Hahahah, is this before or after pigs sprout wings and replace carrier pigeons?

      Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing.

      You should have kept it just at chrome. Firefox is just dieing slowly, and OO.org and Docs are in no way an acceptable substitute to Office, even if microsoft is screwing wi

  • They're Terrified (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:38PM (#32195000)
    Sorry, but Adobe's reaction to this situation is making one thing absolutely crystal clear - they are shitting their pants right now. They are terrified. They know their major cash cow is in major trouble and they are going to fight with every trick in the book to avoid the inevitable. Because, that is what it is - inevitable. Flash is becoming old news and nothing Adobe can do is going to change that fact. Their tantrum-throwing flailing isn't going to change things. HTML5 is going to push Flash to the side. It may not stick in the long term (I think it will but I won't argue that fact because the industry is always changing) but it will certainly provide the catalyst for people to move on to something else.
  • ISO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Itninja (937614) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:42PM (#32195080) Homepage
    Why not push for ISO certification for Flash? It worked with the PDF.
  • by GeLeTo (527660) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:43PM (#32195086)
    Great! Now if they would be kind enough to adjust the European prices for their products so that they are not 2 times more expensive than in the US.
    Observe:
    http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Creative-Suite-Master-Collection/dp/B003B328TE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768517&sr=1-3 [amazon.com] - $2,450.99
    http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Creative-Master-Collection-deutsch/dp/B003FSSL3M/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768468&sr=1-5 [amazon.de] - EUR 3,688.00 = $4,683.39

    And thanks to some european laws that Adobe strongly supports and enforces (with the help of BSA) it is illegal for an european company to use software bought in the US.
    Yay for open markets.
  • by Tridus (79566) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @12:43PM (#32195100) Homepage

    This is a battle between purveyors of closed devices that exert outrageous amounts of control over what users can do with their devices, and purveyors of bug riddled crash prone propretary garbage who are misusing the word "open" as cover for a self-serving argument.

    Wouldn't it be nice if they both lost, somehow?

  • If Adobe Flash (which Adobe did not even develop BTW) were an really usable product, e.g. open source, able to be enhanced by the end-user, GREEN(!) and secure they would have a case to stand on (in critiquing Apple).

    But Apple has a very good point with respect to their two main products -- the iPhone and the iPad. These are *battery* based devices and power consumption is a major concern. Right now I've got a "single process" [1] chrome session with the libflashplayer.so sub-process running and playing *NOTHING* the Flash Process is sucking down 25+% of my CPU (Pentium IV Prescott) [2]. This isn't just chrome, one sees the same behavior in Firefox its just more difficult to see because it runs as a single process.

    GREEN programs take steps to minimize their CPU consumption, recognize when they are doing nothing and adapt, allow the O.S. to go into various power saving modes (ACPI, P4-clockmod adjustments, suspend to ram, etc.) and as far as I can tell Flash is designed so as to prevent that. If one strace's the chrome flash plugin process one discovers that in 10 seconds it issues 56,000 system calls -- 53,000 (95%) of them are useless gettimeofday() calls. Maybe Flash hoping that someone has requested that it play something... Seems like Adobe doesn't know what a "poll()" call is useful for.

    So I'll do my best to avoid Flash entirely on the basis of its CPU use and CO2 emissions footprint and not even bother to open the potential security problems can-o-worms.

    1. A "single process" chrome session is more often a 4-5 process session (given extensions, plugins, etc.) but it is far better (from a memory use standpoint) than the typical 35-process sessions one gets under Linux once one has exceeded the Google/Chrome "imposed" process limit.
    2. Fortunately one can either "kill -s STOP" or entirely kill the libflashplayer.so plugin and chrome will keep right on functioning (with the possible informational messages in certain tabs/windows that there was a problem with Flash. Often times it isn't even clear that those tabs/windows were using Flash.

  • Adobe DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Graham J - XVI (1076671) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:24PM (#32195844) Homepage Journal

    I'm curious how Adobe can claim "consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content" just after they implemented support for Selective Output Control in their proprietary DRM.

  • by rockhome (97505) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:26PM (#32195872) Journal

    I couldn't view every page in every browser on every device before the iPhone or iPad, so how am I limited?

    This isn't about freedom, it's about a market choice. People have bought the iPhone and iPad in droves and have said, more or less, that the devices are compelling enough to buy even without Flash support.

    Apple doesn't have anywhere close to a monopoly in the mobile device space, so I don't understand the problem.
    Someone enlighten me please.

  • by daemonenwind (178848) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:37PM (#32196080)

    I remember back during the megahertz wars how Adobe came out telling its customers that, based on benchmarks, they could no longer recommend Apple products. (This was back in early 2003)

    Of course, that was when Adobe was pretty much the killer app that kept Apple breathing. If Apple lost Adobe during late OS9/early OS X, they lost everything. Furthermore, if the G5 flopped (which has been argued both ways), Apple would have to do something drastic. I believe the move to Intel is their response, and Adobe was very likely the catalyst.

    So Steve Jobs, having a good memory and being somewhat egotistical, seems to me to be getting some revenge here by taking on one of Adobe's flagship product, now that Apple doesn't need Adobe anymore. It's hard to say that Adobe's creative suite is the bedrock of Apple profits these days, so there's not much to lose from his perspective.

  • Grab for money? (Score:4, Informative)

    by scdeimos (632778) on Thursday May 13, 2010 @09:27PM (#32202820)

    Although I think Apple can truly be a-holes...

    'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,' the letter states.

    I can't play Flash in the Lynx browser. I can't play Flash on the Atari Lynx either, but that doesn't even have internet connectivity, let alone a web browser. Sorry Adobe, what's you point again?

    'No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.'

    Adobe, just so we're clear on this, you are dumb-asses. Your own Flash 10.0 EULA [adobe.com] excludes Apple from including Flash on their iPod/iPhone/iPad platform:

    3.1 Adobe Runtime Restrictions. You will not use any Adobe Runtime on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use an Adobe Runtime on any (a) mobile device, set top box (STB), handheld, phone, web pad, tablet and Tablet PC (other than with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and its successors), electronic billboard or other digital signage, Internet appliance or other Internet-connected device, PDA, medical device, ATM, telematic device, gaming machine, home automation system, kiosk, remote control device, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television system or (c) other closed system device. For information on licensing Adobe Runtime for use on such systems please visit http://www.adobe.com/go/licensing [adobe.com].

    In other words, you're launching a public humiliation campaign against Apple in an effort to extort licensing fees from them. Way to go.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Working...