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

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#101

Post by Auzy83 »

thought_alarm wrote: post #19
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…

> Jobs is trying to undermine the competition because he fears that he made the wrong choice. You think so? Smart-phones have been around a long time. The iPhone was announced over three years ago, yet here we are in the middle of 2010 and mobile Flash is still nowhere to be found on any mobile device. How is that not Adobe's fault? Is Adobe just not very interested in mobile Flash, or are there very serious technica…

Actually, many mobile phones simply haven't had the CPU to run flash, and you'll find that none have been able to run complex applications until fairly recently.

That's why smart phones have also mostly sucked until recently too (no, it isn't that the iPhone's suddenly created demand, its just due to an evolution in technology).

Besides, you miss the point. H.264 IS a patent encumbered format, and Apple is going out of their way to jab at its loyal developers.

For that reason (and many others), I will now be replacing OSX on my mac with Windows 7 and will not personally be supporting OSX for my project (Nightingale). In fact, I'll be asking the community if it is the right thing to do shortly.

Apple's disrespect for other developers is absolutely incredible, and I have NEVER seen such a disrespectful person. He doesn't give a damn if other companies spend months developing a software package for his platform, or if they have bent over for Apple for years. I'm totally done with Apple now.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#102

Post by endtime »

acqq wrote: post #92
endtime wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? There's no qualitative computational difference between a smartphone and a desktop computer; further, the quantitative difference between today's smartphones and older Flash-capable machines of a decade ago is probably not that huge.

Absolutely not true that there's no difference. The speed of your desktop comes from using POWER. Today's desktop CPUs alone pull up to 130 WATTS. My desktop CPU bought in 2000 used 30 W. Now even notebook CPUs use more when they're not idle! Now I can come to a lot of web pages where only Flash ads use 100% of a modern CPU! That translates in 60-70 Watts. Then compare all this with the goals for device which should…

>My desktop CPU bought in 2000 used 30 W.

And didn't it support Flash?

>Now I can come to a lot of web pages where only Flash ads use 100% of a modern CPU!

Okay, so show a placeholder for Flash content and only load and play the things the user double taps.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#103

Post by ZeroGravitas »

windsurfer wrote: post #36
thought_alarm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jobs is trying to undermine the competition because he fears that he made the wrong choice. You think so? Smart-phones have been around a long time. The iPhone was announced over three years ago, yet here we are in the middle of 2010 and mobile Flash is still nowhere to be found on any mobile device. How is that not Adobe's fault? Is Adobe just not very interested in mobile Flash, or are there very serious technica…

Just FYI: my N900 has flash and it works great. Hardware accelerated and everything.

He said mobile flash. Nokia hacked the desktop Flash 9 into Maemo because they were so desperate to get something on their device. I can't find the link right now but an Adobe blogger basically distanced himself from it recently, saying it was Nokia's baby (which makes sense as they're the only one running it) as it wasn't 'real' mobile Flash.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#104

Post by jstevens85 »

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.

>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-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.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#105

Post by catch23 »

endtime wrote: post #102
acqq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not true that there's no difference. The speed of your desktop comes from using POWER. Today's desktop CPUs alone pull up to 130 WATTS. My desktop CPU bought in 2000 used 30 W. Now even notebook CPUs use more when they're not idle! Now I can come to a lot of web pages where only Flash ads use 100% of a modern CPU! That translates in 60-70 Watts. Then compare all this with the goals for device which should…

>My desktop CPU bought in 2000 used 30 W. And didn't it support Flash? >Now I can come to a lot of web pages where only Flash ads use 100% of a modern CPU! Okay, so show a placeholder for Flash content and only load and play the things the user double taps.

Running flash content on a PC bought around 2003 is actually pretty choppy. I installed Windows 7 on an old Athlon 1.6 ghz machine a month ago and tried to watch youtube with it -- the videos looked like they were going around 8 fps. I can watch old divx movies on it, but I can't watch youtube full screen... it's pretty sad.

This machine was fast enough to play Quake 3 and a dozen other gaming titles, but is too slow to play youtube videos. I just don't get it, is the flash vm really that processor intensive?

I can't see how flash could run well on the upcoming android devices if it runs so poorly on the Athlon 1.6ghz.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#107

Post by jraines »

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 would call it "taking the high road". Just my opinion, of course, but I think it's better than a point by point rebuttal when that would obviously make no difference.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#108

Post by codingthewheel »

thought_alarm wrote: post #19
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…

> Jobs is trying to undermine the competition because he fears that he made the wrong choice. You think so? Smart-phones have been around a long time. The iPhone was announced over three years ago, yet here we are in the middle of 2010 and mobile Flash is still nowhere to be found on any mobile device. How is that not Adobe's fault? Is Adobe just not very interested in mobile Flash, or are there very serious technica…

You should familiarize yourself with the technologies.

Adobe has been trying to get Flash on the iPhones since Day 1, and has been unable to do it because of some honestly pretty shitty business practices on Apple's part. Now you may love Flash or hate it, but the bottom line is this: the iPhone can never be considered a best-of-breed gadget when it still provides a second-rate web browsing experience in which about 40% of the Internet is forever closed to you.

The reason that Apple does not, will not, can not support Flash is simply this: it would gut the App Store like a week-old fish.

Kindly remove the blinders from your eyes, then get back to us. :)

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#109

Post by endtime »

catch23 wrote: post #105
endtime wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My desktop CPU bought in 2000 used 30 W. And didn't it support Flash? >Now I can come to a lot of web pages where only Flash ads use 100% of a modern CPU! Okay, so show a placeholder for Flash content and only load and play the things the user double taps.

Running flash content on a PC bought around 2003 is actually pretty choppy. I installed Windows 7 on an old Athlon 1.6 ghz machine a month ago and tried to watch youtube with it -- the videos looked like they were going around 8 fps. I can watch old divx movies on it, but I can't watch youtube full screen... it's pretty sad. This machine was fast enough to play Quake 3 and a dozen other gaming titles, but is too slow…

I don't mean to suggest that it should run smoothly on any of today's smartphones (though some N900 users commented that it runs well for them). I just take issue with the "nearly impossible" in the parent of my original comment. But I suppose I may have interpreted that to mean more than was intended.

Re: Adobe Responds to Jobs

#110

Post by j79 »

natrius wrote: post #68
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…

"Web developers write functional pages first." You're confusing best practices with common practices. The vast majority of sites are developed with the assumption that javascript will be enabled in the viewer's browser.

You're right. That's why I included, "This is why the web does (or, theoretically) works..."

To be honest, I know a few developers that develop with the assumption that JavaScript will be enabled. I've also worked at a few companies that assume clients should have JavaScript enabled...

Unfortunately, I see too many sites that completely fall apart if you disable JavaScript (some sites that are even selling a product!)

JavaScript still has a stigma as being a "toy" language and until developers understand/utilize it's full potential, a lot of crummy code will still be written. Thankfully, jQuery (and other great JS libraries) are opening the potential for JavaScript to developers.

Post reply on HN