Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Responds to Jobs

blogs.adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#81

Post by InclinedPlane »

gill_bates wrote: post #14
samd wrote: post #4

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.

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 choi…

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.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#82

Post by jheriko »

rogermugs wrote: post #42
allenp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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."

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?

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#83

Post by zmmmmm »

rbarooah wrote: post #11

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.

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".

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#84

Post by drivebyacct »

j79 wrote: post #31
gill_bates wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always with the mouse hover. You know that the DOM/HTML(5) includes mouse hover, right? I guess the web just doesn't work.

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…

Good thing disabling Javascript completely cripples basic CSS selectors... Not.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#85

Post by eds »

whalesalad wrote: post #6

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.

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."

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#86

Post by netcan »

alex_c wrote: post #75
mberning wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Empirically, it often is, in many cases.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#87

Post by rogermugs »

jheriko wrote: post #82
rogermugs wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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 yo…

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.

Apple's argument is if you have to re-write all of flash to handle touch then why not write HTML 5? When people say "We need flash because we want to play flash games" They're thinking of http://www.defendyourcastle.org/ among other things. Which would simply not work on a touch screen unless it was completely re-done. So arguing that a mobile device should support flash so it can support those games is just wrong.

As for your other arguments I dont have the energy to get into. h.264 IS a silver bullet because of the existing support for it already. Apple CAN choose it because they have a good foothold in the mobile market. I'm not saying its the the best thing for the customer but it definitely IS for apple.

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...

thats not an empty statement. He did the numbers.

you dont make too much of security. security matters.

The 2 most significant points is still what you haven't addressed. Adobe is slow. Their promises to be on mobile devices in 09, then early this year... I dont blame apple for "not holding their breath" and taking adobe 10 years to catch up with OSX is absolutely true.

The biggest thing happening here and no one seems to get it. FLASH IS NOT AVAILABLE ON ANY PHONE. ANY PHONE. ANYWHERE. NONE. Not just the iphone. Apple has gone and adopted standards like HTML5 which can achieve the same things, why aren't people praising them for embracing something that works like flash but is usable now?! and has been for a while?

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#88

Post by what »

drivebyacct wrote: post #84
j79 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good thing disabling Javascript completely cripples basic CSS selectors... Not.

Some browsers will only respect the :hover pseudo-class on anchors.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#89

Post by blub »

asmosoinio wrote: post #78
elpuri wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Symbian (S60) devices have had flash since 2004 or something and they've shipped tens of millions of devices since then. Also at least Nokia's Symbian devices are OMAP based like iPhone. I'm not saying that Adobe's Flash has had a huge impact on the Symbian world, but just to get the facts straight.

Yes and no: Flash Lite has existed there in the firmware for ages, but nobody is using it. It also cannot be utilized from the browser. Going all philosophical: If a software has zero users, does it still exist? EDIT: My view may be dated. I haven't checked what Nokia is offering through the ovi-system these days, could be that Flash Lite is actually somewhat widely used nowadays. Also: Flash Lite has existed also in…

I've just used Flash on my Nokia smart phone to view a flash-only website. Works out of the box.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#90

Post by alanh »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #81
gill_bates wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 choi…

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 th…

Were they "bets" or technology choices?

For the first time, Apple choosing "not-Flash" actually has enough weight to force content publishers to choose "not-Flash" more often. This will eventually influence more of the tech industry. Personally, I'm thrilled.

Post reply on HN