Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ 731
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.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
No, fragmentation is what the Android platform has (And Symbian and MS Mobile too). What you describe there is called "backward compatibility" - as seen and welcomed on Windows, Macs and sometimes consoles (GameCube->Wii, PSI to PSII).
Additionally what you are missing is that app developers can indeed create and sell a single app which runs on an iPad in full screen with all the iPad widgets, and also runs on an iPhone or iPod Touch. It's called a Universal Application.
I've no idea what you mean. It sounds like bluster. I've only ever used worldwide market share, and whenever US market share is brought up I point out it's worldwide market share that counts. ALL sales that a company makes matters, not just the ones that happen to be in America. It's even more important here because we are talking about how big a market there is for developers of software on the platforms. Developers (at least for the Apple App Store) sell their apps internationally, not just to the US.
In part you didn't comprehend what I wrote, and in part you are just plain wrong. The size of the market for iPhone apps is the total number of apps sold by all app developers. It;s not the number sold by a singe developer, nor is it the number of devices sold.
I don't need a hint. I'm an iPhone developer. I know full well the reasons for the success of iPhone Apps and the relative failure of Android apps. Yes, a major part of it is how easy Apple makes it for users to find, buy and install apps from their App Store. But there's also plenty of other factors, including the point that people purchasing iPhones mostly do so because they WANT to run apps. Many of those Android sales are cheap or free generic phones bought by people who just want a phone.
Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Android may be a bigger market, but the iPhone I'm targeting with my app resides in the deeper pockets of people demonstrably more easily parted with their money for less reward, my friend.
FTFY
Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Informative)
Very true. Look at how Apple fleeces the iPhone users:
1) Profit on selling the device itself (either unlocked to consumer or to AT&T)
2) A nice MONTHLY cut of around $18 from AT&T from the subscribers min. of $70/month. (This is the real reason iPhone is exclusive to AT&T inspite of shitty service all around, notice how this isn't mentioned much here on /.?).
3) A FORCED 30% cut of all third party software sales for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad.
No wonder Apple is wallowing in money, they found an almost perfect way to part fools with their money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and iphones and ipad arent fragmented?
theres 3 differnet hardware versions of the iphone with a 4th coming in a few months. unless you target the lowest common denominator here it might not be fully compatible too. plus the ipad is different again as well.
Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft is only trying to 'stop' you when you use their OS. They aren't trying to stop you from using Firefox or Chrome or whatever on some other OS"...
If the above were the case instead of "limited" device like an ipad or iphone, far more people would have an issue with it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I forgot about all the flash applications I download through Xbox and Zune Marketplace.
Oh wait.
What if your PC manufacturer limited you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are just being assholes to developers and to third party companies. If all companies were like that, there would be very less variety and the whole ecosystem would suffer.
Note: It's not illegal to be an asshole, but you can still get publicly called out for it, like Adobe and some posters here are doing.
Re:Right on Adobe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh Shiznacho! (Score:5, Funny)
It done been brought!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh Shiznacho! (Score:5, Funny)
Horrible imagery there. Please don't say that again.
Thank you.
We Want to (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We Want to (Score:4, Informative)
That's what jailbreaking is for.
Re:We Want to (Score:5, Interesting)
I never used to harp on security either. Then one day I got a virus while using Firefox and browsing www.theatlantic.com web site. Some loser in the Yahoo! ad network decided to build a Flash ad that allowed scripting access from domain:*. My browser... screwed.
Thanks, Adobe. Thanks for giving every idiot web dev alive an automatic weapon with no safety training.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cross scripting exploit was fixed ages ago, and it wasn't just flash that had that exploit - a lot of browsers did too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We Want to (Score:5, Insightful)
All that's required is an adserver that doesn't do a very good job of screening ads that serves ads to a lot of sites and viola.
Instant system compromise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We Want to (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think Apple's motivation is for blocking flash? They still make all their money on hardware sales. The app store only exists to encourage people to develop for their products. The only reason that makes any sense is that Apple wants a higher quality product.
The point of blocking flash is to encourage people to ONLY develop for the iPhone. Development costs generally prohibit most apps from getting cross developed for multiple platforms. Sometimes things like Flash facilitate cross-platform development. If they get developers to only create apps for the iPhone instead of cross-platform, then people have more reasons to buy the iPhone hardware as the apps they want would only exist on the iPhone. Great business plan, horrible for consumers.
New corporate slogan (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)
That's about right and I'll explain why. From the summary:
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)
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.
Re:New corporate slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New corporate slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
To prevent horrible, battery-sucking shovelware from showing up on the iPhone/iPad.
You never looked in the AppStore right? For every decent app there are at least 500 garbage apps out there.
Apple does not want its users having unsatisfactory experiences playing their Flash games, and then subsequently blaming Apple for the bad UI.
Because iTunes for Windows and the plethora of crapware in AppStore is such an amazing user experience?
You can debate the morality of what Apple is doing (personally, I think it sucks) but the reasons are pretty clear
Apple is lying why they don't want to allow cross compilers. The reason is simple: lock in users to maintain the very high profit margins on iDevices. Nothing to do with quality of cross compiled and/or flash apps nor user experience.
Disclosure: I have an iPhone 3Gs.
Fanboi alert! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that you sound like a fanboi repeating the same tired excuses or anything. Claiming you think it sucks totally sounds objective though, good thinking!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New corporate slogan (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Hypocritical assholes... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Hypocritical assholes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The choice is Apple's to make (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:The choice is Apple's to make (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The choice is Apple's to make (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The choice is Apple's to make (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No problem. We'll just load Firefox and Flashblock - Oh wait...
Re:The choice is Apple's to make (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They looove Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They looove Apple... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They looove Apple... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Whoops. Looks like I shouldn't have included Solaris. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Actually, Apple generally very Open. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
"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)
Hahahah, is this before or after pigs sprout wings and replace carrier pigeons?
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)
Re:They're Terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
ISO (Score:5, Interesting)
Soooo, Adobe loves open markets? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Can't they both lose? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Adobe -- you are wearing no clothes! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Adobe -- you are wearing no clothes! (Score:5, Funny)
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
Per my co-worker: That's probably why flash sucks so bad on MacOS. Apple won't give them the time of day!
Adobe DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So Adobe is mad at Apple for making products that (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's revenge for the notorious G4 recommendation (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (Score:4, Insightful)
WHAT?! Tons of people complain about that. It's a fucking cell phone, it should be able to run J2ME apps, and the fact that it can't is solely due to Apple's need to make sure they get paid for every app their stupid devices can run.
Look, I don't care if Apple decides not to include Flash by default. Fine, whatever.
The fact that you can't CHOOSE to install Flash and you can't CHOOSE to use another, more powerful browser, on the other hand - that I care about. THAT'S an asshole, anti-competitive move. Apple deserves to be smacked down for that.
Imagine if, along with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft FORBID anyone from running any other browser on their OS at all, and required EVERY app to be approved by Microsoft before it could be allowed to run. Apple's doing EXACTLY THAT.
It's a fucking computer. I should be able to use whatever language I want and whatever libraries I want to target it. As long as something can create code that the computer can run, who the fuck is Apple to say whether or not I'm allowed to write software using it?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine if, along with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft FORBID anyone from running any other browser on their OS at all, and required EVERY app to be approved by Microsoft before it could be allowed to run. Apple's doing EXACTLY THAT.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smart phone market. Nobody's forcing you to buy
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are lots of things that you can do that don't make you a criminal, but do make you an asshat.
I think Triv was trying to say that people need not complain about an asshat company. If you dislike an asshat company, you can just buy the competitor's product instead. For example, you can buy an Android phone and a T-Mobile SIM-only service plan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
THAT'S an asshole, anti-competitive move. Apple deserves to be smacked down for that.
Who do they deserve to be smacked down by?
The government?
Well, in this country we still have a nice healthy hands-off attitude that allows private enterprises to compete against each other, without govmint smacking them down.
Or do they deserve to be smacked down by the market place?
The market place has spoken... millions of iPod Touches, iPhones, and iPads are sold to consumers who are willing to skip over Flash in order to
Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (Score:4, Informative)
and the fact that it can't is solely due to Apple's need to make sure they get paid for every app their stupid devices can run.
Except for the thousands of free (as in beer) ones. Oh, and the web apps. And the ones corporations can distribute internally with that special license thing. Except for those...
I think you're missing the real reasons Apple restricts development on the iPhone to web apps and it's "walled garden". First, puts a severe limit on the number of viruses and exploits that can be installed on the phone. Second, it allows them a pretty significant level of control of the UI (since people mostly have to use their UI libraries). Third it allows them to go to the carriers and say "Look, we can prevent the things you don't want on your network."
Making a few buck on App sales is at best a secondary consideration, as the extremely reasonable and inexpensive terms under which you can release free apps to the App Store show. $100 a year per developer probably doesn't even cover hosting costs for all the free apps out there. $200 year allows companies to set up their own app depositories that Apple hosts no matter how large or widely used.
None of which is going to make you hate Apple any less, but at least hate them for the right reason. Selling apps is at best a 4th or 5th teir reason for the lock down on iPhones. You probably don't like the real reasons, either, but that's fine too.
Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fucking computer.
That's where you've got it wrong. The world has moved beyond the point where everything with a CPU is a computer. The iPhone is an appliance. It does all the things it was designed to do. No manufacturer is obligated to make their appliance do anything other than what they claimed it would do when they sold it to you. If you want a different appliance, feel free to vote with your wallet. If there is nothing that does what you want and you can convince some venture capitalists you're right, make a competing product. But Apple doesn't owe it to you to design appliances that work the way you wished they did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain the fact that Apple will be happy to host and serve your free app on their store and how it fits into your logic bomb here.
You can choose. It takes effort but they can't and won't stop you from jailbreaking and installing any app you want. They will stop supporting you however, which is perfectly acceptable.
Wow, I guess you don't know enough about windows to realize its been going that direction for a while now eh? Load an unsigned driver in Windows Vista/2008/7 without switching to test mode ...
So is my wrist watch and my old dumb nokia phone, but I can't install random apps on either of them. Fuck nokia and casio too!
What you want, is the world to fit your whim, and thats simply never going to happen regardless of how loud you scream, what temper tantrums you throw or what lame arguments you make in an attempt to get your way.
You don't always get your way, get the hell over it. Don't buy the product if it doesn't satisfy you, its that simple. Welcome to the free market. Don't like it? Tough shit, the rest of us are perfectly fine with it and the majority wins.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pot, kettle! (Score:5, Informative)
Not even close. The spec doesn't document Sorenson Spark or On2, so tons of SWFs that embed video are out. Until very recently you weren't even allowed to look at the spec unless you signed an agreement saying you wouldn't develop player software (only export filters), and it's still about as far from an implementation white paper as you can get.
Moreover, Adobe controls the format, not an open standards body, so they're free to add new things and not tell other developers how to do them later on to give themselves an advantage (which they've done in the past with major releases like v9 and 10).
If Flash were completely open, why isn't there a 100% compliant open-source player out there? Gnash is the closest but it has serious problems with later versions of the spec (probably due to underdocumentation).
"But look! They released a spec! It must be an open standard!" Yeah, I've heard that before.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pot, kettle! (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that by far the majority of Flash content on the Web is videos and video-based ads, right? But whatever. Keep chasing Adobe's incomplete and inconsistent publication of specs on each new iteration of Flash (which usually lags by at least a year) and tie yourself to a spec that can be disappeared at any moment.
At least Microsoft had the courtesy to put OOXML in the hands of Ecma and offer the Covenant Not to Sue. With the Flash spec you don't have either of those things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You bring up an interesting point. Why hasn't Adobe baked Flash into WebKit? Even if Apple chooses to ignore the fork for Safari, there are hundreds of other browsers that use the same codebase, including Chrome and the Android browser that would benefit from the contribution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kill CS for Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kill CS for Mac (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kill CS for Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.
And watch Apple come out with their own competing product and lose a giant chunk of their user base? Apple does software very well. Look what happened to Adobe Premiere in the face of Final Cut. Look what happened to ProTools in the face of Logic. Apple has a knack for making professional creative tools. They're much better at it than Adobe and they also build the OS.
If Adobe cut support for Apple then they'd be out of business in two years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quicktime and iTunes are good at what they do. I have heard bad things about the Windows versions, though.
But as far as professional software, Logic is amazing. I've heard similar things about Final Cut, but I don't do video editing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Self Serving Tripe (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. If the gestapo has a gun to my head and I start railing about how such practices are unfair, it's very much self-serving, but the argument itself is also very much correct.
And before anyone chimes in, no I'm not comparing Apple to Nazi Germany. I'm just magnifying the scale of something to make it easier to see.
Re:Adobe make a statement and drop Photoshop for M (Score:3, Interesting)
If they really want to make a stament just don't release Photoshop and their other apps for Mac. Sure this will cost them quite a bit of money but for a part it can hurt a lot of professional Mac users and lure them back to Windows...
So if you were CEO of Adobe would you risk your job by losing big on Adobe CS sales as many, many Mac users don't bother upgrading for that version? Remember Macs are about 50% of your sales by most estimates. And given that Adobe may well have monopoly influence on the professional photo editor market, (Apple does not on the smartphone or smartphone app markets) they could well be opening themselves up to a criminal antitrust suit. A good way to keep them from abusing the Photoshop market share would be to
Re:Adobe make a statement and drop Photoshop for M (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time this happened, when they dropped Adobe Premiere, Apple bought Final Cut Pro and turned it into a good replacement with version 3 vs Premiere 6 and with Final Cut Pro 4 blew Premiere out of the water for a good number of years. Even though Premiere is back on Mac, I don't know anyone in the industry that uses it on Mac. They all still use FCP.
My guess would be Apple's response would be to fork or support programs like GIMP and Inkscape and throw developers at them and overhaul their UI's to Apple's standards. What better way to spite Adobe than create free tools to replace their cash cow. Adobe already bought out and killed the only competition in professional web & graphics tools (Macromedia).