9 ms·

Adobe Responds to Jobs

235 points by aberman 16y ago

rogermugs 16y ago
too fast of a response... and not well worded enough
jsz0 16y ago
It's going to be very interesting to see how Adobe handles Flash on all these different platforms. There's a lot to consider: Various screen resolutions, CPU/GPU speeds, memory capacities, browsers, touch vs. non-touch devices, etc. This covers about half a dozen major platforms and probably hundreds of different handset models. It seems like a monumental task to take on. Can they keep up with frequent platform updates?
- jarek 16y ago
  Devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of Flash, but: with the exception of touch, this is exactly the diverse situation Flash has dealt with -- and partially derived its popularity from -- on the desktop.
petercooper 16y ago
Apple could buy Adobe. They have more than double Adobe's market cap sitting around in cash. Forgetting Flash, Adobe is a cash cow, has a lot of great engineers, and some amazing software I'm sure Apple would love to brand as their own.
- stuntmouse 16y ago
  I've also been thinking about this lately. Flash and related products are only a small part of a not very large company, relatively speaking. Why can't Google or Apple just make a deal for Flash/Flex? It's clear that the web (and mobile web) is critical for both.
dchs 16y ago
This article looks crap on my iPhone.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- bshep 16y ago
  It even sounded like they are dropping flash on Apple. They probably meant for Apple Mobile Devices, but who knows? If they really meant dropping Apple completely, IMO that is a bad idea, time will tell.
- gill_bates 16y ago
  Are you kidding? There response was brilliant, and it is right on the money. Steve Jobs arguments are contradictory and largely asinine, and they aren't worth retort. Adobe has essentially wiped their hands and said "Whatever, troll" which is truly brilliant. Jobs must be seething.
  - gill_bates 16y ago
    Ugh. Their.
    - icey 16y ago
      (psst, you can edit comments for up to 2 hours after making them)
- mahmud 16y ago
  Apple had to speak at length to explain all the mess it has created in the last few weeks, and it tried its best to make it all about Adobe. Adobe didn't need to make such grandiose statement, there was no messiah speaking here; just a humble CTO with better things to do in his day than write press releases.
  - Terretta 16y ago
    > just a CTO with better things to do in his day than write press releases Like, make Flash work on a smartphone.
samd 16y ago
Adobe is basically saying that Flash will be available on competitor's phones and the market will decide; which is exactly the right response. I wish most tech bloggers would take this view and just shut up with the endless "analysis" of Flash and Apple. Flamewars don't decide anything, the market does.
- buster 16y ago
  No, sadly, i think marketing does. It's not flamewars, it's not "the market", aka the consumer. It's what Apple can make the world believe. Especially in the case of Apple, my believe is that 90% of their sales are accomplished by excellent marketing. This Blogpost is just another move. I think we can agree that, when looking at hard facts, Steve is plainly lying to his customers in a lot of points. Me, as the nerd i am, can look at some facts and behind the words of that letter. The most sad and disappointing fact on the hand is, that most users will take the letter for granted. Steve writes as if all the things are facts, true and _many_ people will just believe him! He will sell even more units and from today on Apple customers will looks at me, disturbed, why i have Flash on my Phone/Tablet, that it will only drain the batteries, bla bla bla. This is basically what really makes me angry about this. He could have just written "we are not allowing Flash because we want to protect the Appstore". Everyone would understand, that's the fact, ok. But no. He wrote together a big pile of lies.
- richardw 16y ago
  Bloggers don't get clicks by STFU'ing. Probably best to just not read them :)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- jstevens85 16y ago
  >Adobe is basically saying that Flash will be available on competitor's phones and the market will decide; which is exactly the right response. Perhaps not. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/adobes-ceo-jobs-flash-letter-is-a-smokescreen-for-cumberso/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/adobes-ceo-jobs-flash-let... "There's no official transcript yet, but the Wall Street Journal just live-blogged an interview with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen, in which he responded to the Steve Jobs "Thoughts on Flash" letter posted this morning. Substantively, Narayen didn't offer much we haven't heard Adobe say before, but his frustration with Apple is palpable even in summary form: he called Jobs' points a "smokescreen," said Flash is an "open specification," and further said Apple's restrictions are "cumbersome" to developers and have "nothing to do with technology." What's more, he also said Jobs' claims about Flash affecting battery life are "patently false," and suggested that any Flash-related crashes on OS X have more to do with Apple's operating system than Adobe's software." Haven't watched the video, but it sounds like Adobe is giving more than just a "market will decide" response.
whalesalad 16y ago
Does this sentence make zero sense to anyone else? We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
- whalesalad 16y ago
  Thanks for clearing it up guys, I misread about 3 times in a row.
- heyitsnick 16y ago
  It's interesting that many find the English subjunctive hard to parse. I think in a generation or two it will will not be seen in contemporary prose.
- eds 16y ago
  Yeah, it's a terrible sentence. First they're "we," then they're "Adobe," then they're "we" again, and while you were distracted by all that, behind your back they snuck in "as we are [working]" when they meant "as we do."
- Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
  It parses okay for me, though a comma between "work together" and "as we are" might help. "If Apple worked with us, as a number of other partners do, we could provide..."
- gill_bates 16y ago
  I makes total sense. Shall I reword it slightly for you? Were Apple and Adobe to work together, as we are with a number of other partners, we feel confident that we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
  - memoryfault 16y ago
    The original statement is missing a comma after "that"
kqueue 16y ago
mouse hovering will be funny on these platforms.
- gill_bates 16y ago
  Always with the mouse hover. You know that the DOM/HTML(5) includes mouse hover, right? I guess the web just doesn't work.
  - modeless 16y ago
    Yes, and because Apple controls WebKit they were able to add a workaround to MobileSafari's touch interactions to prevent breakage on sites that use CSS hover menus (give it a try, they work). Will Adobe's mobile Flash have a similar attention to detail in user interaction design? We'll see.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    Agreed that it's a red herring from a pure technology standpoint: they both expose hover events, for better or for worse. And I agree that a large portion of things like navigation elements and the like will work fine because of the way mobile Flash Player passes those events on touch devices to apps. But I think nearly all of us agree that nav elements shouldn't be done in Flash. They work best and it makes the most sense to use built-in browser technologies for them. So, other than video (the recent trend there seems strongly to be toward HTML5 <video>), that leaves mostly Flash games. Many existing Flash games will work with a touch interface enough to get to an intro screen, and perhaps even into the game itself. But it seems like a good majority will be unplayable, and doubly frustrating because you can see the game running, but not actually control it.
  - j79 16y ago
    There's a huge difference though. With HTML/CSS/JavaScript, hover events (both the :hover and "onmouseover" event in JavaScript) are typically used for visual feedback (the :hover event being strictly presentation...) There's a reason for this: Users can disable JavaScript. A core fundamental of web development (graceful degradation or progressive enhancements) is the result of this. As a developer, you can't assume the "mouseover" event will be available. Web developers write functional pages first. They then progressively enhance it with JavaScript. This is why the web does (or, theoretically) works (contrary to what you said...) Flash, on the other hand, is different by nature. It doesn't permit users to disable mouse events (or any other events), from firing. As a Flash developer, you can write code that requires a hover event, with fair confidence that it won't hinder a visitors interaction with the site/project. To be honest, it's what made Flash so tempting to develop for. You're given an equal playing field through the SWF player. Unfortunately for Adobe, with Safari/Chrome/FireFox/Opera pushing web standards, HTML5/CSS3/JS are making things (quite) interesting for web developers.
rbarooah 16y ago
This is going to be interesting, because if they do manage to put flash and Air on a broad range of other platforms then we will see Jobs's assertion about cross platform frameworks slowing down progress be put to the test.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  Another aspect to this is the constantly cited metric of "number of apps" (which seems totally bogus to me, but that's another argument). The instant Flash arrives on a platform it becomes arguable that that platform rivals if not exceeds the iPhone app store in number of "apps". When iPhone advocates say "but we have 200,000 apps" and Android advocates can simply reply "well we have 50,000 apps and 200,000 flash apps of at least the same quality as 150,000 of the apps on the iPhone".
- psyklic 16y ago
  It already has been put to the test, in countless other situations. For example, look at video game consoles -- crossplatform libraries ensure that really high quality games can be ported to every major platform. Do they lack some features of some consoles? Yes. Regardless, are they still hella fun to play? Of course!
  - greendestiny 16y ago
    Well see even there it's Job's contention that crossplatform frameworks should have displaced native frameworks and limited the hardware manufacturers to effectively just supporting the crossplatform frameworks. Surely the best argument against Job's position is the iPhone itself. The most important and dominant crossplatform framework in the world is HTML+JS and Apple actually wanted it to take the place of native frameworks. But we all know how that ended and now we have the App Store. To support his fears on crossplatform frameworks they would have to supplant native apps and I just don't think it happens. OSX's problems with inferior crossplatform titles stem from a comparative lack of native applications - not from the crossplatform software itself.
    - 16y ago
rafa8a 16y ago
You and me as consumers decide what to buy or not to buy.
- Herring 16y ago
  When it comes to products with strong network effects, you really don't. Sometimes an inferior product (i should say platform) can take over a market simply because it was there first. You can find any number of examples of this in the tech world.
powellc 16y ago
While I don't appreciate much of what Apple is doing these days, surely one has to also appreciate the draconian, closed nature of Flash? At least HTML5 is some kind of standard. Now, if we could just get Apple on the Ogg train...
- mahmud 16y ago
  You know what is draconian? removing a programming environment for children from the App store.
  - olsonjeffery 16y ago
    Yeah.. not to pick nits.. but the removal of Scratch was the removal of a Scratch player, not an actual programming environment itself.. .. I for one would love to see a Scratch development env on the current/next gen of mobile devices, though. Your point stands, though.
  - powellc 16y ago
    Haha. Touche, sir. Apple is certainly draconian, but Adobe is no saint I guess was my point. Flash and HTML5 are competing technologies, and one is an open format.
    - jarek 16y ago
      ... and the other, in Apple's implementation at least, uses H.264.
Mongoose 16y ago
I'm glad that Adobe decided to take the mature route. Further lashing out against Apple would have only exacerbated the situation. In the end, Jobs provided a very rational argument and the brevity of Adobe's response lends itself well to that conclusion.
- schammy 16y ago
  > In the end, Jobs provided a very hypocritical argument FTFY
  - jorgecastillo 16y ago
    I can't really see how apple is hypocritical with this issue. I quote the text below from my last comment. "Apple is not telling Adobe, Microsoft or any other corporation to open up their platform. They are only stating that they believe web standards should be open and not controlled by a single party." If someone got a different impression from Steve's letter I think you should read it again. If you think I got the wrong impression I beg you to point me towards the parts of Steve's letter that will help me see my error.
    - buster 16y ago
      Actually, while you are that he states that the web should be based on open standard you obviously missed the big pile of lies and false facts in his letter. Basically i'd say that at least every second "fact" in his letter is plainly not true. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq
- rayval 16y ago
  Here's one developers catalog of "lies and half truths" in Jobs' message: http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correctin...
elblanco 16y ago
A good strategy might be to go ahead and make flash work on the Apple devices. Being able to demonstrate that the limitation is purely political and not technological would be helpful for people that don't understand what's going on. Plus when Apple reverses this silly nonsense, they'll be ready to roll.
callmeed 16y ago
"Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and our technologies." Ha. I haven't met many people who are "passionate" about Adobe technologies. I don't see Flash stickers on cars or people lining up around the block to buy Photoshop CS5. I don't think the people taking Adobe's side on this do it out of passion–they do it because they don't like how Apple is handling the situation.
- spot 16y ago
  the only reason i have a mac is to run photoshop and after effects. otherwise ubuntu is a fine replacement for mac os x.
  - hgiue 16y ago
    You bought a Mac to run Photoshop and After Effects, instead of just installing Windows on your PC that's running Ubuntu if I understand things right here? Nice.
    - spot 16y ago
      windows is not a fine replacement for either :) in fact i run ubuntu on a mac mini (in addition to lots of generic pc hardware). i like mac hardware. some of it is overpriced, but some of it is fine.
davidedicillo 16y ago
As somebody said in another post, Flash great distribution it's because it was something that designers could do with little programming (if not none at all). What Adobe should really focus is to create a valid equivalent for HTML5 and try to become the standard editor for HTML5 for all those people who don't know how to code.
cjoh 16y ago
Apple v. Adobe is like watching two drunk bus drivers take to the streets. You don't just want off the bus, you want off the road.

235 points by aberman 16y ago

too fast of a response... and not well worded enough

jsz0 16y ago

It's going to be very interesting to see how Adobe handles Flash on all these different platforms. There's a lot to consider: Various screen resolutions, CPU/GPU speeds, memory capacities, browsers, touch vs. non-touch devices, etc. This covers about half a dozen major platforms and probably hundreds of different handset models. It seems like a monumental task to take on. Can they keep up with frequent platform updates?

jarek 16y ago
Devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of Flash, but: with the exception of touch, this is exactly the diverse situation Flash has dealt with -- and partially derived its popularity from -- on the desktop.

petercooper 16y ago

Apple could buy Adobe. They have more than double Adobe's market cap sitting around in cash. Forgetting Flash, Adobe is a cash cow, has a lot of great engineers, and some amazing software I'm sure Apple would love to brand as their own.

stuntmouse 16y ago
I've also been thinking about this lately. Flash and related products are only a small part of a not very large company, relatively speaking. Why can't Google or Apple just make a deal for Flash/Flex? It's clear that the web (and mobile web) is critical for both.

dchs 16y ago

This article looks crap on my iPhone.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

bshep 16y ago
It even sounded like they are dropping flash on Apple. They probably meant for Apple Mobile Devices, but who knows? If they really meant dropping Apple completely, IMO that is a bad idea, time will tell.
gill_bates 16y ago
Are you kidding? There response was brilliant, and it is right on the money. Steve Jobs arguments are contradictory and largely asinine, and they aren't worth retort. Adobe has essentially wiped their hands and said "Whatever, troll" which is truly brilliant. Jobs must be seething.
- gill_bates 16y ago
  Ugh. Their.
  - icey 16y ago
    (psst, you can edit comments for up to 2 hours after making them)
mahmud 16y ago
Apple had to speak at length to explain all the mess it has created in the last few weeks, and it tried its best to make it all about Adobe. Adobe didn't need to make such grandiose statement, there was no messiah speaking here; just a humble CTO with better things to do in his day than write press releases.
- Terretta 16y ago
  > just a CTO with better things to do in his day than write press releases Like, make Flash work on a smartphone.

samd 16y ago

Adobe is basically saying that Flash will be available on competitor's phones and the market will decide; which is exactly the right response. I wish most tech bloggers would take this view and just shut up with the endless "analysis" of Flash and Apple. Flamewars don't decide anything, the market does.

buster 16y ago
No, sadly, i think marketing does. It's not flamewars, it's not "the market", aka the consumer. It's what Apple can make the world believe. Especially in the case of Apple, my believe is that 90% of their sales are accomplished by excellent marketing. This Blogpost is just another move. I think we can agree that, when looking at hard facts, Steve is plainly lying to his customers in a lot of points. Me, as the nerd i am, can look at some facts and behind the words of that letter. The most sad and disappointing fact on the hand is, that most users will take the letter for granted. Steve writes as if all the things are facts, true and _many_ people will just believe him! He will sell even more units and from today on Apple customers will looks at me, disturbed, why i have Flash on my Phone/Tablet, that it will only drain the batteries, bla bla bla. This is basically what really makes me angry about this. He could have just written "we are not allowing Flash because we want to protect the Appstore". Everyone would understand, that's the fact, ok. But no. He wrote together a big pile of lies.
richardw 16y ago
Bloggers don't get clicks by STFU'ing. Probably best to just not read them :)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jstevens85 16y ago
>Adobe is basically saying that Flash will be available on competitor's phones and the market will decide; which is exactly the right response. Perhaps not. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/adobes-ceo-jobs-flash-letter-is-a-smokescreen-for-cumberso/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/adobes-ceo-jobs-flash-let... "There's no official transcript yet, but the Wall Street Journal just live-blogged an interview with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen, in which he responded to the Steve Jobs "Thoughts on Flash" letter posted this morning. Substantively, Narayen didn't offer much we haven't heard Adobe say before, but his frustration with Apple is palpable even in summary form: he called Jobs' points a "smokescreen," said Flash is an "open specification," and further said Apple's restrictions are "cumbersome" to developers and have "nothing to do with technology." What's more, he also said Jobs' claims about Flash affecting battery life are "patently false," and suggested that any Flash-related crashes on OS X have more to do with Apple's operating system than Adobe's software." Haven't watched the video, but it sounds like Adobe is giving more than just a "market will decide" response.

whalesalad 16y ago

Does this sentence make zero sense to anyone else? We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

whalesalad 16y ago
Thanks for clearing it up guys, I misread about 3 times in a row.
heyitsnick 16y ago
It's interesting that many find the English subjunctive hard to parse. I think in a generation or two it will will not be seen in contemporary prose.
eds 16y ago
Yeah, it's a terrible sentence. First they're "we," then they're "Adobe," then they're "we" again, and while you were distracted by all that, behind your back they snuck in "as we are [working]" when they meant "as we do."
Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
It parses okay for me, though a comma between "work together" and "as we are" might help. "If Apple worked with us, as a number of other partners do, we could provide..."
gill_bates 16y ago
I makes total sense. Shall I reword it slightly for you? Were Apple and Adobe to work together, as we are with a number of other partners, we feel confident that we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
- memoryfault 16y ago
  The original statement is missing a comma after "that"

kqueue 16y ago

mouse hovering will be funny on these platforms.

gill_bates 16y ago
Always with the mouse hover. You know that the DOM/HTML(5) includes mouse hover, right? I guess the web just doesn't work.
- modeless 16y ago
  Yes, and because Apple controls WebKit they were able to add a workaround to MobileSafari's touch interactions to prevent breakage on sites that use CSS hover menus (give it a try, they work). Will Adobe's mobile Flash have a similar attention to detail in user interaction design? We'll see.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  Agreed that it's a red herring from a pure technology standpoint: they both expose hover events, for better or for worse. And I agree that a large portion of things like navigation elements and the like will work fine because of the way mobile Flash Player passes those events on touch devices to apps. But I think nearly all of us agree that nav elements shouldn't be done in Flash. They work best and it makes the most sense to use built-in browser technologies for them. So, other than video (the recent trend there seems strongly to be toward HTML5 <video>), that leaves mostly Flash games. Many existing Flash games will work with a touch interface enough to get to an intro screen, and perhaps even into the game itself. But it seems like a good majority will be unplayable, and doubly frustrating because you can see the game running, but not actually control it.
- j79 16y ago
  There's a huge difference though. With HTML/CSS/JavaScript, hover events (both the :hover and "onmouseover" event in JavaScript) are typically used for visual feedback (the :hover event being strictly presentation...) There's a reason for this: Users can disable JavaScript. A core fundamental of web development (graceful degradation or progressive enhancements) is the result of this. As a developer, you can't assume the "mouseover" event will be available. Web developers write functional pages first. They then progressively enhance it with JavaScript. This is why the web does (or, theoretically) works (contrary to what you said...) Flash, on the other hand, is different by nature. It doesn't permit users to disable mouse events (or any other events), from firing. As a Flash developer, you can write code that requires a hover event, with fair confidence that it won't hinder a visitors interaction with the site/project. To be honest, it's what made Flash so tempting to develop for. You're given an equal playing field through the SWF player. Unfortunately for Adobe, with Safari/Chrome/FireFox/Opera pushing web standards, HTML5/CSS3/JS are making things (quite) interesting for web developers.

rbarooah 16y ago

This is going to be interesting, because if they do manage to put flash and Air on a broad range of other platforms then we will see Jobs's assertion about cross platform frameworks slowing down progress be put to the test.

zmmmmm 16y ago
Another aspect to this is the constantly cited metric of "number of apps" (which seems totally bogus to me, but that's another argument). The instant Flash arrives on a platform it becomes arguable that that platform rivals if not exceeds the iPhone app store in number of "apps". When iPhone advocates say "but we have 200,000 apps" and Android advocates can simply reply "well we have 50,000 apps and 200,000 flash apps of at least the same quality as 150,000 of the apps on the iPhone".
psyklic 16y ago
It already has been put to the test, in countless other situations. For example, look at video game consoles -- crossplatform libraries ensure that really high quality games can be ported to every major platform. Do they lack some features of some consoles? Yes. Regardless, are they still hella fun to play? Of course!
- greendestiny 16y ago
  Well see even there it's Job's contention that crossplatform frameworks should have displaced native frameworks and limited the hardware manufacturers to effectively just supporting the crossplatform frameworks. Surely the best argument against Job's position is the iPhone itself. The most important and dominant crossplatform framework in the world is HTML+JS and Apple actually wanted it to take the place of native frameworks. But we all know how that ended and now we have the App Store. To support his fears on crossplatform frameworks they would have to supplant native apps and I just don't think it happens. OSX's problems with inferior crossplatform titles stem from a comparative lack of native applications - not from the crossplatform software itself.
  - 16y ago

rafa8a 16y ago

You and me as consumers decide what to buy or not to buy.

Herring 16y ago
When it comes to products with strong network effects, you really don't. Sometimes an inferior product (i should say platform) can take over a market simply because it was there first. You can find any number of examples of this in the tech world.

powellc 16y ago

While I don't appreciate much of what Apple is doing these days, surely one has to also appreciate the draconian, closed nature of Flash? At least HTML5 is some kind of standard. Now, if we could just get Apple on the Ogg train...

mahmud 16y ago
You know what is draconian? removing a programming environment for children from the App store.
- olsonjeffery 16y ago
  Yeah.. not to pick nits.. but the removal of Scratch was the removal of a Scratch player, not an actual programming environment itself.. .. I for one would love to see a Scratch development env on the current/next gen of mobile devices, though. Your point stands, though.
- powellc 16y ago
  Haha. Touche, sir. Apple is certainly draconian, but Adobe is no saint I guess was my point. Flash and HTML5 are competing technologies, and one is an open format.
  - jarek 16y ago
    ... and the other, in Apple's implementation at least, uses H.264.

Mongoose 16y ago

I'm glad that Adobe decided to take the mature route. Further lashing out against Apple would have only exacerbated the situation. In the end, Jobs provided a very rational argument and the brevity of Adobe's response lends itself well to that conclusion.

schammy 16y ago
> In the end, Jobs provided a very hypocritical argument FTFY
- jorgecastillo 16y ago
  I can't really see how apple is hypocritical with this issue. I quote the text below from my last comment. "Apple is not telling Adobe, Microsoft or any other corporation to open up their platform. They are only stating that they believe web standards should be open and not controlled by a single party." If someone got a different impression from Steve's letter I think you should read it again. If you think I got the wrong impression I beg you to point me towards the parts of Steve's letter that will help me see my error.
  - buster 16y ago
    Actually, while you are that he states that the web should be based on open standard you obviously missed the big pile of lies and false facts in his letter. Basically i'd say that at least every second "fact" in his letter is plainly not true. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq
rayval 16y ago
Here's one developers catalog of "lies and half truths" in Jobs' message: http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correctin...

elblanco 16y ago

A good strategy might be to go ahead and make flash work on the Apple devices. Being able to demonstrate that the limitation is purely political and not technological would be helpful for people that don't understand what's going on. Plus when Apple reverses this silly nonsense, they'll be ready to roll.

callmeed 16y ago

"Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and our technologies." Ha. I haven't met many people who are "passionate" about Adobe technologies. I don't see Flash stickers on cars or people lining up around the block to buy Photoshop CS5. I don't think the people taking Adobe's side on this do it out of passion–they do it because they don't like how Apple is handling the situation.

spot 16y ago
the only reason i have a mac is to run photoshop and after effects. otherwise ubuntu is a fine replacement for mac os x.
- hgiue 16y ago
  You bought a Mac to run Photoshop and After Effects, instead of just installing Windows on your PC that's running Ubuntu if I understand things right here? Nice.
  - spot 16y ago
    windows is not a fine replacement for either :) in fact i run ubuntu on a mac mini (in addition to lots of generic pc hardware). i like mac hardware. some of it is overpriced, but some of it is fine.

davidedicillo 16y ago

As somebody said in another post, Flash great distribution it's because it was something that designers could do with little programming (if not none at all). What Adobe should really focus is to create a valid equivalent for HTML5 and try to become the standard editor for HTML5 for all those people who don't know how to code.

cjoh 16y ago

Apple v. Adobe is like watching two drunk bus drivers take to the streets. You don't just want off the bus, you want off the road.