8 ms·

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

by 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.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  So Flash crashing on my Mac is because of the Mac OS X operating system when those same crashes happen under Linux as well, but not under Windows? Methinks it is more a case of shoddy engineering.
allenp 16y ago
Yeah this was a clearly worded and classy response, definitely better than I expected.
- rogermugs 16y ago
  i disagree. they ignored all the main points in apple's argument. a "This is why Flash is worthwhile" response is better than a "Well, at least we'll be on android."
  - mberning 16y ago
    Agreed. If I'm coding a mobile version of my website and I can do it in flash and support 50% of smartphones or do it in HTML5, CSS, and Javascript and support 100% of smartphones which one am I going to pick... It's a pretty weak retort by Adobe.
    - alex_c 16y ago
      If you're coding any version of your website, I would hope Flash wouldn't be your first choice. I think it's safe to generalize that most people (as in "end users") only care about Flash in the context of video and games.
      - netcan 16y ago
        Empirically, it often is, in many cases.
  - jheriko 16y ago
    I disagree... Apple's argument is really poor and arguing against it would be difficult for this reason, any thorough response would probably look defamatory. Its a lot easier to just treat it with the contempt it deserves. For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. The h.264/battery life argument is similarly weak in that it can be turned against almost any video codec, suggesting that h.264 is some kind of silver bullet "optimal" solution, which it most certainly is not. It also closes the doors to open solutions and user choices of codec - what if I want to host video myself and don't want to waste resources and money on h.264? The layers argument is good, but unfortunately in this context it is extremely weak - Apple love adding their own layers. Look how many layers there are in OS X... should Cocoa be ditched just because its an extra layer? It provides similar functionality to Flash of "making something hard, easier". The open argument is pretty irrelevant to whether Flash is useful or not, but I actually like it... my traditional reason for disliking Adobe has been PDF and Flash and the way they have degraded the internet, although that has as much to do with bad use as it does with being proprietary formats. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... The security argument is great but I'd be careful of making too much of it - iPhone is secure by obscurity and I suspect Flash is such a "security problem" because it is so heavily used. You can compare Safari and IE in the same way, IE is much, much, MUCH, more secure - but to a pretty good approximation, nobody uses Safari - still IE gets a worse image for security because so many people are using it that its 1) a worthwhile target 2) got a large enough user base that complaints come in significant volumes. Did any of that sound remotely good?
gill_bates 16y ago
Go back through the history of Apple's (and its many, many sycophantic fans) proclamations - such as apps on the phone, push notifications, multitasking - and there is a disturbing trend of Apple (and its followeres) making moral pontifications, stamping their feet, and then quietly and shamelessly backtracking when proven wrong. Jobs is trying to undermine the competition because he fears that he made the wrong choice.
- spot 16y ago
  true -- but this time he seems to have gone too far to turn back. then again, remember when PowerPC was better than Intel? Jobs is a master of the Big Lie.
  - rbranson 16y ago
    What was he supposed to say? Get up on stage and tell everyone PowerPC chips were crap? During the PPC days, there were many times where PPC had a significant lead on Intel, especially early on, but towards the end, most notably the G5 days, Intel's lead just widened so far and PPC's got so expensive, that it made the best business sense to switch.
    - whatusername 16y ago
      The Power architecture is still pretty awesome for raw power. But it's not designed for low energy consumption (ie: laptops). So while a desktop with some P6/P7 chips* would be an awesome beast - a laptop might be a toaster. The G5 was a Power4 chip of some sort from memory. Jobs read the market well. The move is definately to Laptops / portable devices - and Intels chips were much better at that.
  - tjogin 16y ago
    At the time, they arguably were better. Things change, and Apple changes too. Don't see anything wrong with that.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Or merely look at some of Apple's other technology bets: Apple Desktop Bus over PS/2 and serial (ADB lost, native ps/2 and serial connectors are still around and USB can easily talk to ps/2 or serial devices with the aid of a simple adapter). SCSI over IDE (IDE won). PowerPC over x86 (x86 won). Firewire over USB (USB won). AppleTalk over TCP/IP (TCP/IP won). I don't think Flash is the right choice, and I'm ok with the idea that some mobile devices won't support Flash, but this anti-Flash jihad seems to be going too far.
allyt 16y ago
Let's keep in mind, however, that there is not really one monolithic "market". Just as McDonalds co-exists with Jean Georges, the legions of Android clones running Flash, etc. will peacefully coexist with iPhones, except without the responsive UX, battery life, or even a fundamental sense of taste. (edit: would the downvoters like to justify themselves? have they seen a Android device with a responsive UI? I haven't...)
- spot 16y ago
  the nexus one is totally responsive. have you seen it? i didn't downvote you, but i would guess it's for "fundamental sense of taste". that's just ranting. plus i am not aware of any evidence that the iphone has a better battery life than a comparable android device (like the nexus one). do you? or are you just reciting the talking points?
- dannyr 16y ago
  "without the responsive UX, battery life, or even a fundamental sense of taste" Pretty strong words. I won't be surprised if this guy has not tried the Droid, Droid Incredible, or Nexus One. He's likely repeating what he reads on Twitter and tech blogs. I have the Nexus One and for me, it's more responsive than the IPhone 3GS. Oh and I have actually used an IPhone! Android 2.1's UI is also drastically better than 1.6. I'm not saying Android is better than the IPhone. It's a matter of personal taste.
- anonjon 16y ago
  Does this really need to be explained? You went a little bit overboard on the rhetoric. The analogy between Android vs iPhone and McDonald's vs Jean Georges is over the top. It comes off as snobbery. 'Fundamental sense of taste'? really?
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Yeah, my guess is you're being downvoted for implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is showing a fundamental inability to perceive taste. That implicit value judgment really weakens your argument.
- tomjen3 16y ago

by samd 16y ago

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.

X-Istence 16y ago
So Flash crashing on my Mac is because of the Mac OS X operating system when those same crashes happen under Linux as well, but not under Windows? Methinks it is more a case of shoddy engineering.

allenp 16y ago

Yeah this was a clearly worded and classy response, definitely better than I expected.

rogermugs 16y ago
i disagree. they ignored all the main points in apple's argument. a "This is why Flash is worthwhile" response is better than a "Well, at least we'll be on android."
- mberning 16y ago
  Agreed. If I'm coding a mobile version of my website and I can do it in flash and support 50% of smartphones or do it in HTML5, CSS, and Javascript and support 100% of smartphones which one am I going to pick... It's a pretty weak retort by Adobe.
  - alex_c 16y ago
    If you're coding any version of your website, I would hope Flash wouldn't be your first choice. I think it's safe to generalize that most people (as in "end users") only care about Flash in the context of video and games.
    - netcan 16y ago
      Empirically, it often is, in many cases.
- jheriko 16y ago
  I disagree... Apple's argument is really poor and arguing against it would be difficult for this reason, any thorough response would probably look defamatory. Its a lot easier to just treat it with the contempt it deserves. For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. The h.264/battery life argument is similarly weak in that it can be turned against almost any video codec, suggesting that h.264 is some kind of silver bullet "optimal" solution, which it most certainly is not. It also closes the doors to open solutions and user choices of codec - what if I want to host video myself and don't want to waste resources and money on h.264? The layers argument is good, but unfortunately in this context it is extremely weak - Apple love adding their own layers. Look how many layers there are in OS X... should Cocoa be ditched just because its an extra layer? It provides similar functionality to Flash of "making something hard, easier". The open argument is pretty irrelevant to whether Flash is useful or not, but I actually like it... my traditional reason for disliking Adobe has been PDF and Flash and the way they have degraded the internet, although that has as much to do with bad use as it does with being proprietary formats. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... The security argument is great but I'd be careful of making too much of it - iPhone is secure by obscurity and I suspect Flash is such a "security problem" because it is so heavily used. You can compare Safari and IE in the same way, IE is much, much, MUCH, more secure - but to a pretty good approximation, nobody uses Safari - still IE gets a worse image for security because so many people are using it that its 1) a worthwhile target 2) got a large enough user base that complaints come in significant volumes. Did any of that sound remotely good?

gill_bates 16y ago

Go back through the history of Apple's (and its many, many sycophantic fans) proclamations - such as apps on the phone, push notifications, multitasking - and there is a disturbing trend of Apple (and its followeres) making moral pontifications, stamping their feet, and then quietly and shamelessly backtracking when proven wrong. Jobs is trying to undermine the competition because he fears that he made the wrong choice.

spot 16y ago
true -- but this time he seems to have gone too far to turn back. then again, remember when PowerPC was better than Intel? Jobs is a master of the Big Lie.
- rbranson 16y ago
  What was he supposed to say? Get up on stage and tell everyone PowerPC chips were crap? During the PPC days, there were many times where PPC had a significant lead on Intel, especially early on, but towards the end, most notably the G5 days, Intel's lead just widened so far and PPC's got so expensive, that it made the best business sense to switch.
  - whatusername 16y ago
    The Power architecture is still pretty awesome for raw power. But it's not designed for low energy consumption (ie: laptops). So while a desktop with some P6/P7 chips* would be an awesome beast - a laptop might be a toaster. The G5 was a Power4 chip of some sort from memory. Jobs read the market well. The move is definately to Laptops / portable devices - and Intels chips were much better at that.
- tjogin 16y ago
  At the time, they arguably were better. Things change, and Apple changes too. Don't see anything wrong with that.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Or merely look at some of Apple's other technology bets: Apple Desktop Bus over PS/2 and serial (ADB lost, native ps/2 and serial connectors are still around and USB can easily talk to ps/2 or serial devices with the aid of a simple adapter). SCSI over IDE (IDE won). PowerPC over x86 (x86 won). Firewire over USB (USB won). AppleTalk over TCP/IP (TCP/IP won). I don't think Flash is the right choice, and I'm ok with the idea that some mobile devices won't support Flash, but this anti-Flash jihad seems to be going too far.

allyt 16y ago

Let's keep in mind, however, that there is not really one monolithic "market". Just as McDonalds co-exists with Jean Georges, the legions of Android clones running Flash, etc. will peacefully coexist with iPhones, except without the responsive UX, battery life, or even a fundamental sense of taste. (edit: would the downvoters like to justify themselves? have they seen a Android device with a responsive UI? I haven't...)

spot 16y ago
the nexus one is totally responsive. have you seen it? i didn't downvote you, but i would guess it's for "fundamental sense of taste". that's just ranting. plus i am not aware of any evidence that the iphone has a better battery life than a comparable android device (like the nexus one). do you? or are you just reciting the talking points?
dannyr 16y ago
"without the responsive UX, battery life, or even a fundamental sense of taste" Pretty strong words. I won't be surprised if this guy has not tried the Droid, Droid Incredible, or Nexus One. He's likely repeating what he reads on Twitter and tech blogs. I have the Nexus One and for me, it's more responsive than the IPhone 3GS. Oh and I have actually used an IPhone! Android 2.1's UI is also drastically better than 1.6. I'm not saying Android is better than the IPhone. It's a matter of personal taste.
anonjon 16y ago
Does this really need to be explained? You went a little bit overboard on the rhetoric. The analogy between Android vs iPhone and McDonald's vs Jean Georges is over the top. It comes off as snobbery. 'Fundamental sense of taste'? really?
Vivtek 16y ago
Yeah, my guess is you're being downvoted for implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is showing a fundamental inability to perceive taste. That implicit value judgment really weakens your argument.
tomjen3 16y ago