Adobe Not Happy With Apple [Archive]

Jeff Campbell

04-10-2010, 05:00 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.cultofmac.com/adobe-to-apple-go-screw-yourself/37435?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+cultofmac/bFow+(Cult+of+Mac)' target='_blank'>http://www.cultofmac.com/adobe-to-a...w+(Cult+of+Mac)</a> </div>"Even in the age of blogs, this has got to go down as a first for corporate PR. Adobe is telling Apple to "go screw yourself" over the new iPhone developer's license that appears to ban apps made with Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone programming tools."<img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1270904071.usr105634.jpg" />To quote Lee Brimelow, Adobe's Flash Platform Evangelist: "What is clear is that Apple has timed this purposely to hurt sales of CS5. This has nothing to do whatsoever with bringing the Flash player to Apple's devices. That is a separate discussion entirely. What they are saying is that they won't allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe."Sounds pretty whiney to me, and I seriously doubt that the destruction of Adobe is foremost on anyone's mind at Apple. They don't want flash on their devices, big deal, get over it and move on.

ptyork

04-10-2010, 06:52 PM

Jeff, you are drowning in kool-aid, my friend. This is Steve's personal vendetta against Adobe and a razor focus on vertical control over every market he enters. Even when confronted about similar tools other than CS5's cross-compiler, they responded that they didn't see how the new licensing agreement would affect them, only Adobe. Yet. Seriously, it is maniacally evil.

Their current claim-of-the-day is that such cross-compiled binaries couldn't be multitasked reliably. It is insulting to anyone with a modicum of technical acumen to make such a statement. It is 50% about killing Adobe and 50% about trying to get developers locked in to Apple's proprietary ecosystem (yes, a flash app could also have been natively cross-compiled to Android, as well). Okay, the percentages can vary, but AT LEAST 50% about killing Adobe.

And before anyone starts in about Apple's rights to do what they want with their own platform, YES they have the right. It is not about what they can and can't do. It is about Darth effin' Jobs and his evil empire. And also before anyone calls me an Adobe fanboy, I really don't much like them either. Well, not Flash. But Adobe isn't evil. Apple is. :)

ctmagnus

04-11-2010, 12:22 AM

95% + of Flash that I see is either eye candy or bloat. And HTML5 can handle the eye candy part. Personally, Flashblock is my favourite Firefox add-on.

ptyork

04-11-2010, 04:10 PM

95% + of Flash that I see is either eye candy or bloat. And HTML5 can handle the eye candy part. Personally, Flashblock is my favourite Firefox add-on.

It strikes me that perhaps y'all don't understand the deal here. This is NOT about running flash on the iPhone. It is about being able to use the Flash development tools to create native iPhone applications. There would be no SWF involved. No ads flipping around in Safari. This would be tower defense and bowling king for the iPhone, written using ActionScript but cross-compiled as a native app. It is all about making it easier to target multiple platforms with applications, not eye candy in a browser.

Macguy59

04-12-2010, 03:29 AM

Clearly it's about Adobe given the no Adobe tools and Apples intention to get everyone using their mobile advertising (rather than the heavily flash dominated ads we see now). I don't really have a dog on this fight (I block flash on both OS) but this kind of attitude isn't new from Jobs. He wants the walls to be taller and he gets away with it. BTW there are still plenty of other platforms out there. You do it their way or not. Pretty simple. Not saying it's fair but . . .

denivan

04-12-2010, 02:23 PM

Sounds pretty whiney to me, and I seriously doubt that the destruction of Adobe is foremost on anyone's mind at Apple. They don't want flash on their devices, big deal, get over it and move on. 

Jeff, do you understand the article you've written about ? This has nothing to do with flash, so I don't understand your last comment.

Jeff Campbell

04-12-2010, 05:42 PM

<sipping from Kool Aid> bah! ..... perhaps I was too flippant about it, but yes I understand it's not about having Flash on the iPhone, its about Apple, rather Jobs, not wanting anything to do with Flash when you boil it down to basics....and I'd have to admit it does sound vengeful...and i won't say he can do anything he wants with his systems/producst, but the vertical integration makes sense if you can get away with it....some companies can't, but Apple can at this point...what will happen in the future and if this will be a great move or screw them in the end is anyone's guess....but it was still whiney ;)

DaleReeck

04-12-2010, 05:56 PM

95% + of Flash that I see is either eye candy or bloat. And HTML5 can handle the eye candy part. Personally, Flashblock is my favourite Firefox add-on.

It doesn't matter. Flash is on 90 percent of the world's websites. If you don't support flash, your product is second tier.

If Apple keeps going the way its going, its going to get its butt sued by several stats and the EU, like Microsoft did when it got too arrogant.

denivan

04-12-2010, 06:26 PM

but it was still whiney ;)

True ;) What does concern me though is that in the past Adobe and Apple have been a great team (regarding the design world).

I have a feeling that for a while now they're not good partners anymore, and that this won't be good for us, apple or adobe....Maybe they should just kiss and make up ?

ptyork

04-12-2010, 07:52 PM

I have a feeling that for a while now they're not good partners anymore, and that this won't be good for us, apple or adobe....Maybe they should just kiss and make up ?

That's the bad part. And it really only hurts consumers. If I were a designer and relied mostly on the Adobe stack (like most do), I'd be looking pretty strongly at hedging my bets by moving to a Windows 7 PC. And THAT can't be good for Apple. If Adobe really is "the better man" as the linked article implies, then that's fine. But I can't imagine that they won't treat OS X as a second class citizen. Especially when you start moving towards really cool stuff like leveraging the GPU (e.g., Nvidia CUDA) for massive performance gains. I could easily see them saying that this is something that can only be done in the more open world of the PC.

As for being sued, I've argued that as a possibility a few times here and I'm backing off on it a bit. It requires the attainment of a super-dominant market position; I'm not certain Steve is capable of becoming market dominant in anything without effing it up. His ego is pissing off his developer and geek base. That's a REALLY bad policy and will lead to fewer truly quality apps created for all of his platforms. He'll be left with fanboys and fart apps before too long... ;)

I know I'm done with the Apple ecosystem. I was going to wait until my contract was up on my iPhone, but I don't think I can stomach it anymore. This was the final straw. At least until I change my mind again. :)

Jeff Campbell

04-12-2010, 10:21 PM

Here is a different perspective (http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/why_steve_jobs_wants_to_kill_adobe/)

DaleReeck

04-13-2010, 02:34 PM

Here is a different perspective (http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/why_steve_jobs_wants_to_kill_adobe/)

Adobe made a business decision as it looked like Windows "won" and Mac was dying. Few doubted it back then. Apple's decision to not use flash now is based mostly on revenge. In the end, the customer is the one who gets hurt. Whether Apple likes it or not, flash is used mostly everywhere and will be for a while. There is no business decision that could justify keeping iPad from supporting flash and making 90 percent of the world's web sites less than the full experience.

But in the end, it's the user experience that says it all. I was playing around with an iPad in the Apple Store (thinking about getting the 3G-64GB version) and I visited a number of sites I liked (mostly news sites) and almost all of them had that little "missing content"c symbol in at least one place. I don't see how that is going to help Apple sell iPads and iPhones.

doogald

04-13-2010, 04:51 PM

But in the end, it's the user experience that says it all. I was playing around with an iPad in the Apple Store (thinking about getting the 3G-64GB version) and I visited a number of sites I liked (mostly news sites) and almost all of them had that little "missing content"c symbol in at least one place. I don't see how that is going to help Apple sell iPads and iPhones.

Good gracious, Apple has sold over 75 million iPhone OS devices already (as of January). They sold more iPads in the first weekend than Google sold Nexus Ones in the first two months. If Apple is suffering, they are crying all the way to the bank, to steal a metaphor.

DaleReeck

04-13-2010, 05:34 PM

Good gracious, Apple has sold over 75 million iPhone OS devices already (as of January). They sold more iPads in the first weekend than Google sold Nexus Ones in the first two months. If Apple is suffering, they are crying all the way to the bank, to steal a metaphor.

In the 4th quarter 2009, iPhone market share dropped from 18 percent to 16. That means that the other 84 percent belongs to others. That's a LOT of phones that arrant oPhones. Are you saying that Apple should feel like they've sold "enough" iPhones? I would think any businessman would want 90 percent of any market, like Windows has over everyone else. And why did they lose 2 percent? Well, keeping things off like Flash (and looking petty about it) isn't going to make up that 2 percent.

doogald

04-13-2010, 10:20 PM

In the 4th quarter 2009, iPhone market share dropped from 18 percent to 16. That means that the other 84 percent belongs to others. That's a LOT of phones that arrant oPhones. Are you saying that Apple should feel like they've sold "enough" iPhones? I would think any businessman would want 90 percent of any market, like Windows has over everyone else. And why did they lose 2 percent? Well, keeping things off like Flash (and looking petty about it) isn't going to make up that 2 percent.

It's also entirely possible (if not likely) that market share flattening was due to the presence of a strong competitor introduced that quarter with a 100 million dollar ad campaign. Apple had 100% iPhone sales growth over the year ago quarter. And they are rarely ever discounted, unlike, say, the Droid, which has had several periods of BOGO and the Pre+, which Verizon is practically giving away at this point. iPod Touch sales continue to make up a higher percentage of iPhone OS share. As I said, I think that Apple is crying that flat market share all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, all sorts of websites which used to use Flash are adding HTML5 video wrappers or scripting elements instead for Mobile Safari clients. Developers continue to write apps (both useless and quite useful and cool), most without converting from some Flash thing. I know that when I go to the NYTimes web site I never watch the videos. I go to read the news, not watch David Pogue's latest music video.

Adobe should swallow their pride, go to Apple behind the scenes, work with their engineers so that they get Flash to run on OS X without taking a full CPU and sucking the battery dry, and earn Apple's respect back. That is, if they really care about the platform. I'm willing to bet that Adobe has lost a bunch of market share among Mac clients with the Creative Suite products. That had nothing to do with Apple, who block nothing on the Mac from Adobe, and everything to do with Adobe treating the platform as a second thought.

ptyork

04-14-2010, 05:37 AM

Adobe should swallow their pride, go to Apple behind the scenes, work with their engineers so that they get Flash to run on OS X without taking a full CPU and sucking the battery dry, and earn Apple's respect back. That is, if they really care about the platform. I'm willing to bet that Adobe has lost a bunch of market share among Mac clients with the Creative Suite products. That had nothing to do with Apple, who block nothing on the Mac from Adobe, and everything to do with Adobe treating the platform as a second thought.

Do you really think they haven't tried? Adobe is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISV for Apple consumers (I don't think this is arguable when you think of the number of Photoshop, Premier, and Lightroom users are on the OS X platform). And Apple consumers are a very important market for Adobe. But the waters are soured and short of inside deals, it is impossible for Adobe to reach performance parity on the Mac. OS X simply doesn't expose hardware at the level needed to make Flash (and probably Premier's new Mercury Playback Engine) work as well. In Windows, all software players have access to offloading processes to specialized hardware capabilities. In OS X, only Apple does. h.264 plays great in Quicktime and like crap in Flash. Do you really think it is because Adobe just can't code their way around Cocoa? No. They've got incredibly good developers. They just can't physically do the same thing on OS X. Without under-the-table support from Apple (which won't happen because despite it's importance to Apple, Steve's too nutso) or Apple opening up better hardware access (also won't happen because it provides competitive advantage to Apple's own products), third party apps simply won't be able to compete in the same way they can in Windows.

At least until the EU pulls a Microsoft on them (remember when MS was accused of creating undocumented API's for Office...it was ugly). But then Steve would just flip the EU off and pull out...he's just that kind of nutso.

Jason Dunn

04-14-2010, 05:58 PM

95% + of Flash that I see is either eye candy or bloat. And HTML5 can handle the eye candy part. Personally, Flashblock is my favourite Firefox add-on.

This is a remarkably short-sighted line of thinking. Let's say that Apple came out and said "JPEGs are evil, we will not support them, but with HTML5 you can use JPEG+ and that's what we'll support." Let's say, remarkably, that the Web started to move toward using JPEG+...what happens to the millions and millions of JPEGs out there? It's EXACTLY the same thing with Flash. Sure, you can say that moving forward HTML5 is the magical solution, but what about all the other Flash content out there? You're just going to give up access to all that content, created over the past 5+ years?

I use my iPod Touch to browse the Web a fair bit, and I've lost count of the number of Flash placeholders I've seen - it's like you're only getting part of the Web instead of all of the Web.

All this anti-Flash rhetoric is ridiculous.

Jason Dunn

04-14-2010, 06:01 PM

<sipping from="" kool="" aid=""> bah! ..... perhaps I was too flippant about it, but yes I understand it's not about having Flash on the iPhone, its about Apple, rather Jobs, not wanting anything to do with Flash when you boil it down to basics...

Well, not quite - the anti-Flash stuff was one thing, but this latest move is restricting developers from using tools to develop their apps across multiple platforms. It has nothing to do with Flash; it's about a Stalinesque iron-fisted control over developers. Jobs wants people to develop ONLY for the iPhone, not for Android, Windows phone, Palm etc. With this move he's making it very hard for developers to port their work to other platforms without a LOT more work. This goes far beyond "no Flash on the iPhone". Apple has gone too far this time.
</sipping>

Jason Dunn

04-14-2010, 06:15 PM

OS X simply doesn't expose hardware at the level needed to make Flash (and probably Premier's new Mercury Playback Engine) work as well. In Windows, all software players have access to offloading processes to specialized hardware capabilities. In OS X, only Apple does. h.264 plays great in Quicktime and like crap in Flash. Do you really think it is because Adobe just can't code their way around Cocoa?

I'll "ditto" this - I've read the same thing elsewhere, that Apple doesn't expose the right kind of hardware-level stuff for Adobe to leverage the way they're doing on Windows with Flash 10.1.

doogald

04-14-2010, 07:41 PM

For a different twist on this (as well as a great article on the differences between Android and iPhone OS 4 multitasking), see this from davidquintana.com (http://davidquintana.com/entry/mobile-multitasking):

Cross-Platform Development

There was a rumor (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html) that the blocking of cross-platform development tools in the new dev agreement had to do with the new multitasking additions to iPhone OS 4. I can see some truth to this. The design of applications on Android and iPhone OS 4 are so different concerning background processing that there is no way a cross platform development tool like the one from Adobe could target both completely. As a result, you would end up with apps that only partially implement the capabilities of iPhone OS. I'm with Apple. That's not something I want either.

ptyork

04-14-2010, 08:01 PM

For a different twist on this (as well as a great article on the differences between Android and iPhone OS 4 multitasking), see this from davidquintana.com (http://davidquintana.com/entry/mobile-multitasking):

Good find, but again, bunk. Nobody is suggesting using a cross-compiler for creating fancy, background processes. They're suggesting that it be used (as it obviously is today) for games and simple stuff. As far as I know, ActionScript doesn't even support creating background threads and certainly not ones that are not related directly to the interface (and thus could not be suspended). They don't need background processing today and they won't need it (or obviously have access to it) in the foreseeable future. The article is mostly correct in its description of the differences, although I can think of easy ways to make a single coding system work in both. However, it is a completely ridiculous argument. If you're making the latest social media, location aware app, you use program natively. Nobody would think otherwise. If you're programming George Bush Shoe Toss (or even something big, cool and 3-D), you'd probably choose a friendlier game development platform, both because it is more productive and because it doubles or triples your potential sales outlets. Apple is taking away this option. Period.

Jason Dunn

04-14-2010, 08:43 PM

For a different twist on this (as well as a great article on the differences between Android and iPhone OS 4 multitasking), see this from davidquintana.com (http://davidquintana.com/entry/mobile-multitasking):

If that's the case, then why didn't Apple communicate with the companies that make these developer tools and tell them what sorts of things they'd need to implement to support Apple's new pseudo-multitasking? Banning these products seems like a heavy-handed approach, which isn't unusual for Apple, but surely there's a better way?

doogald

04-14-2010, 08:58 PM

ptyork

04-14-2010, 10:32 PM

But Adobe is not the only company selling these cross-compilers with iPhone OS binaries - Mono Touch is another. There is an app called "Z-Subsonic" developed in Mono Touch that streams music - one of the multitasking APIs is the background playing of music streams.

One app (or just a few) would LIKE to implement background music playback but can't because the cross-compiler doesn't support it. All other apps work just fine. Ban them all.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? How about just allow them, but make those that want the advanced functionality go native? Or perhaps give the cross-compilers time to catch up? Again, there is no valid argument other than Steve is maniacal.

ptyork

04-15-2010, 01:28 AM

Holy crap!!! THIS is too much.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/with-new-developer-agreement-apple-unlevels-the-iad-playing-field/

Apple is now blocking any form of feedback being sent back to developers or to other competing ad networks. Unless it comes through them and they collect 40%, of course.

Seriously, if you don't see monopoly power being flaunted here, you are blind or totally kool-aid drunk. I'm now back to near certain we'll see a successful anti-trust campaign (either from HTC or FTC). They have 99.4% of the mobile app market (as of Dec. 2009). You simply can't have that kind of control and act in this way. I simply didn't believe even Steve was this stupid. I can't wait...

Macguy59

04-15-2010, 01:37 AM

Jason Dunn

04-15-2010, 03:03 AM

Holy crap!!! THIS is too much.

Wow...that's some scary stuff! Barring developers from collecting anonymous data from their own apps seems pretty crazy...

David Tucker

04-15-2010, 05:54 AM

I think Apple's trying to see how fast they can get sued.

ptyork

04-16-2010, 02:17 AM

Do we REALLY want these folks controlling the mobile world?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/

Seriously folks, I'm truly embarrassed to own multiple Apple products now. I can toss my iPhone easy enough, but my iPod Touch and my MacBook Pro are issued through work. I'm screwed!!! :)

Jason Dunn

04-16-2010, 03:01 AM

Do we REALLY want these folks controlling the mobile world? http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/ (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/)

Absolutely nothing Apple does any more surprises me - I can only count myself as lucky that Microsoft won Phase 1 of the computer wars...could you imagine the world we'd live in with Jobs calling all the shots for a dominant platform? :rolleyes: That's what scares me about Phase 2 - the mobile world...

David Tucker

04-16-2010, 06:34 AM

Absolutely nothing Apple does any more surprises me - I can only count myself as lucky that Microsoft won Phase 1 of the computer wars...could you imagine the world we'd live in with Jobs calling all the shots for a dominant platform? :rolleyes: That's what scares me about Phase 2 - the mobile world...

Well, while the iPhone certainly has the early lead, Android is quickly gaining momentum. I really doubt that Apple will dominate a space where device turnover is 12 - 18 months. Apple certainly is doing extremely well...but I find it hard to believe that the iPhone will be able to beat a huge field of Android competitors in the long run. There's some crazy nice devices coming out this summer and on the flip side, the 'low end' devices are also very good and priced right. More of my family own Android phones than iPhones.

Hard to believe these guys made the 1984 ad...what happened?

Dyvim

04-16-2010, 06:52 AM

I can only count myself as lucky that Microsoft won Phase 1 of the computer wars...could you imagine the world we'd live in with Jobs calling all the shots for a dominant platform? :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, because Microsoft has never done anything anti-competitive or anti-consumer to protect Windows, Office, or IE.:rolleyes:

David Tucker

04-16-2010, 07:04 AM

Oh yeah, because Microsoft has never done anything anti-competitive or anti-consumer to protect Windows, Office, or IE.:rolleyes:

There is no question that MSFT has made some questionable and anti-competitive moves in the past. But I can't think of any point where they did things I would normally associate with Banana Republics.

Windows has generally been a rather open playing field for the user to do whatever they feel like, for better or worse. Google got a TON of crap for bending to Chinese laws, yet Apple is doing the same thing (or worse), on its own and it seems mostly unnoticed.

ptyork

04-16-2010, 07:25 AM

Oh yeah, because Microsoft has never done anything anti-competitive or anti-consumer to protect Windows, Office, or IE.:rolleyes:

Microsoft did three significant things that were quite suspect in the distant past.

1) Made PC manufacturers to bundle their PC's with Windows in order to get the best price. Likewise, they offered further discounts to those who didn't offer to bundle SmartSuite or other competitive office suites. This was by far their worst transgression, IMO.
2) Very briefly allowed Office access to undocumented API's, providing a very slight competitive advantage Corrected very quickly (at the behest of the FTC, admittedly).
3) Bundled IE into the operating system (already free), skewing the formerly competitive browser landscape slightly. This is the one they got slammed for, but has unquestionably been good for the Internet's growth and really did little but perhaps hasten the demise of Netscape and a few others.

Beyond that, they've done little more than compete and win with superior (or at least competently ubiquitous) products, strong marketing, and a good dose of strategic vision.

No they aren't angels by any stretch, but they aren't demons, either. By and large, they've been good caretakers of their quasi-monopoly status, continuing to innovate strongly and, importantly, to support a healthy, free (as in press), and open ecosystem. Certainly better than most companies are when placed in similar market-dominant roles.

Compare that with Apple's recent actions--they've done more in a few months to stifle competition and exert often whimsical, Orwellian control over their platform than Microsoft has thought of doing in 30+ years. Currently it is on a smaller scale, yes, but the trends are more than alarming.

Jason Dunn

04-16-2010, 07:11 PM

Oh yeah, because Microsoft has never done anything anti-competitive or anti-consumer to protect Windows, Office, or IE.:rolleyes:

Not denying that - they did some bad stuff, got caught, and had their hands slapped quite hard. But I'll take Microsoft's approach of platforms and choice over Apple's proprietary approach any day when we're talking about world-wide growth on technology platforms. Cheap computers were a core part of the technology explosion over the past two decades, and Apple doesn't do cheap computers.

Dyvim

04-16-2010, 07:23 PM

Cheap computers were a core part of the technology explosion over the past two decades, and Apple doesn't do cheap computers.
Exactly. Which is why there was never a chance they were going to win (and by win, I mean dominate the market) the PC Wars (once they decided they weren't going to license their OS that is). And for the same reason I don't believe they're going to dominate the mobile device market. They're quite happy selling expensive hardware with fat profit margins to the segment of the population that can afford them. Sure they'll continue to be a major player in the mobile arena and control a disproportionately large share of the mindshare, but I doubt they'll dominate. I don't think it will play out like the mp3 wars- there are too many other good platforms out there with too many choices in hardware, pricing, features, and carriers.

It's an exciting time to be a mobile technology enthusiast. I was getting pretty bored 4-5 years back- now there's so much going on!

doogald

04-16-2010, 08:41 PM

3) Bundled IE into the operating system (already free)

Of course this is off topic, but that is not quite true, and this is what they were caught on. Windows95 when first launched did not include IE bundled. Shortly after (though it may have been on launch day - it's hard to believe that was 15 years ago now), Microsoft started selling the Windows 95 Plus Pack, which included IE. (If I am not mistaken, IE was downloadable for free at launch but only for subscribers to the new MSN dialup service.) It wasn't until later that Microsoft began to bundle IE in Windows.

That was their problem. In order to escape a possible antitrust trial, in 1994 Microsoft and the DOJ entered into a consent decree. Part of the agreement was that Microsoft was no longer able to bundle any product into a future OS. They were free to bundle new technology, but they were not able to, say, take Microsoft Office and start to bundle it for free in Windows (not that they would, of course.) Well, since IE was sold as part of the Plus pack, it was determined to be a product illegally bundled in the OS.

What is different about Apple and the iPhone OS from Microsoft and Windows95 is that Apple does not have a super majority market share; Apple is not under a consent decree that prohibits anything, as Microsoft was back in the 1990s with DOS and Windows. And I do not believe they are even bundling technology for free that they had previously charged for in iPhone OS. (Some of the other things that Microsoft did that were covered in the consent decree were that Microsoft was not allowed to force OEMs to pay per-processor licenses for each sale, even if a Microsoft OS was not preinstalled; they were not allowed to require OEM contracts for longer than one year; they were precluded from basing pricing contingent on the purchase of another Microsoft product.)