What a weird world this.
On days after finding myself agreeing with Cameron, I now find myself agreeing with Adobe.
It must be the rapture.
Adobe now says it loves Apple. But that's just a way of getting your attention so it can point out that it doesn't love Steve Jobs' pathological efforts to control the world's developers. On Thursday morning, Adobe launched a new ad campaign in newspapers across the globe that catches the eye with an apparent change in attitude …
What a weird world this.
On days after finding myself agreeing with Cameron, I now find myself agreeing with Adobe.
It must be the rapture.
Companies have little scuffles all the time, but this is getting really creepy really fast.
from Adobe is "we are going to fix the bugs in the flash plugin that crash it and the browser on linux 64 bit systems"
if you're running a closed-source plugin like Adobe's Flash Player. Why aren't you running Gnash instead? If you're that open to closed-source options, looks like it's time to abandon Linux for Windoze.
...all Penguinheads know if you use Linux you're not ALLOWED to ever ever touch anything that isn't FOSS or your fingers will turn black and fall off.
I was told if I used non FOSS sofware on Linux, it would be my wee wee that would fall off. :-(
...pass the popcorn.
Handbags at high noon?
You know, the Apple/Adobe situation always reminds me of the reconstruction of the battle of Pearl Harbor.
and raise you a keg. This is getting interesting really fast.
Adobe's just come with a lot of fluff. None of this answers the very real criticisms of Flash raised in Jobs's letter.
As for me, I'd "love" a website that didn't require me to have an buggy, insecure, privacy-unfriendly, CPU-intensive plug-in just to use it. At the very least let's not have it for video where it's completely unnecessary.
Of course, websites are beginning to realise that Flash is otiose for most of what they want -- but it's the availability of Apple's mobile devices that have made site owners begin to wake up and smell the coffee. This is why Adobe is angry at Apple, and this is why it keeps whining and whining and whining. It begins to see the beginning of the end for Flash. Too bad.
It's more its own fault than anyone else's. Adobe shut down its mobile business unit in 2007:
Now it's scrambling to try to get something ready for release later this year. But it's all a bit late now.
But every time I think I've read your best subhead you produce a better one. Outstanding work.
for Adobe to use this advertising budget and hire some additional Q&A team members to speed up the delivery of a working, full-fledged, high quality Flash running most of the current Web content on a smartphone platform ?
That would definitely show that their technology is workable in the mobile space and that Jobs is wrong.
The ad campaign is just too vague and defensive to be effective in influencing anyone (and clearly abusing that O word).
Adobe hired a 5-y.o. to do draw up the graphics.
I recently purchased an iPad for ad hoc personal use eg put into a suitcase going on holiday so I could confirm/change flights etc
I was appalled to find that when I visited the Delta web site to change my seat, I couldnt scroll - why? Because Apple has not included Flash
Flash is a "given" and it appears that Apple is returning to the olde proprietary days when standard software didnt run on their OS.
iPad is a great toy - it cant be treated as a serious tool if he doesnt support the most popular , standard software.
You bought an iPad assuming it would have Flash on it! (or that's the claim).
Where have been living for the past few years? Outer Mongolia?
Apple's mobile devices don't support Flash (or any other plug-ins); they haven't supported Flash. There hasn't even been any version of Flash to go on them. Everyone has known this since 2007 when the iPhone came out.
Adobe now say they will have the full version of Flash running on a mobile platform LATER THIS YEAR -- namely, on Android. In demonstrations Flash on Android is still crashing and won't work at all with many sites, so perhaps they won't. But you thought to find it on an iPad as of now ...
"Apple is returning to the olde proprietary days"
What sort of nonsense is that? Flash *is* proprietary.
it's also profoundly trashy and unwanted technology. It's also becoming more and more obvious that it is unnecessary: if it were not Adobe wouldn't be needing to whine. They're whining because websites are making other arrangements for delivering content that don't include them and they don't like staring at their own irrelevance. They think whining will help.
... and I swear there's no mention of "Flash" *anywhere*.
And the W3C *sets* the standards for the web.
Flash ain't a "standard" feature of the Web. It's a PLUGIN. You might want to look up what that means.
Flash is a de facto standard, in the most bleeding obvious sense of the phrase. The Flash specification may not be found in the archives of the W3C, but it's presence is ubiquitous, ipso facto it's a standard.
While most readers should be aware of the Apple-Adobe spat, the average computer user certainly doesn't give a rats-ass about Apple's problems. I'm certain most wouldn't be able to tell you that Flash doesn't run on the iPhone or iPad. Statistically speaking, that's pretty likely, with the Safari only accounting for just over 5% of all browsers (iToys included).
What is the freaking obsession with Apple? Someone explain it (and don't say it just works...arg).
@ /etc .. iPads are for people that wouldn't necessarily know or give a shit about how a website or web app is made, they just want it to work ( read Paris )
I thought Apple was about "It just works" .. guess not anymore
I've never had a bit of problem with Flash on a Windows box , though I can understand the frustration of others, having the experience of running CPU hogging, slow starting PhotoShop
@ Sean ... lol ...
W3C doesn't set web standards, the browser makers do .. an organization that makes rules is irrelevant if it has no enforcement method
@ all .. test ..
when you think of Paris and "Open", what do you think of ? .. definition seems clear <]:-0
Maybe he expected it to "just work"?
A website that requires Flash for scrolling is a website designed by asshats.
Ah, but there is. Observe the Remarkable Plummeting Internet Exploder to see how it works.
Yes, they are asshats for demanding flash to scroll.
Likewise, anyone who builds a browser tool that is incapable of viewing one of the most commonly used technologies on the internet (not far behind HTML and CSS...) is a monumental asshat.
Targetting that product as something which "just works" for non-technical people who dont realise the sites they use 24/7 are flash based is even more asshatish.
Quote: "I was appalled to find that when I visited the Delta web site to change my seat, I couldnt scroll - why? Because Apple has not included Flash"
That should read, "... why? Because Delta didn't have their site built to meet the very basics of the accessibility guidelines".
If your customers can't perform an action on your website because you have expected an optional, non-ubiquitous plug-in to be present on your customer's systems then you have FAILED as the owner of your web site.
What you are saying here is that Delta is telling every disabled, screen reading user of their site to FUCK OFF, because a Flash only option is an instant accessibility failure.
But none of it negates the fact that the iPad is a borked browsing tool by preventing users from using Flash if they want to.
The site owner *should* take steps to ensure the broadest possible accessibility. I agree.
The browser maker (hardeware maker in this case) should also take steps to make it work as much as possible.
Like it or not, like Apple, flash is near ubiquitous - certainly as much as any other technology. Ignoring it kind of undermines the "it just works" claims of Apple.
Like it or not, Flash isn't a recognised standard. Nothing that you say can change this fact, irrespective of it apparent ubiquity, which I find HIGHLY dubious if I'm honest. Suggesting that ~90% of the internet (as Adobe have) depends of Flash is absolute bullshit. There are some sites that depend on Flash that get a high volume of traffic, but to say that nearly all websites *need* it is a lie, because as things stand, *no* sites _need_ Flash--quite a number tat use it as the design and layout tool do so needlessly! Ultimately, whether it's 'near ubiquitous' or not is moot. It's not what browsers are designed to do, that's *why* it's a plug-in.
...so how come I've given up with Adobe Reader because of all the updates??? Can't remember the last time Preview needed one....
Preview probably is being updated, but possibly as part of a general OS X update.
Reminds me of Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate campaign which saw their employees wandering around wearing t-shirts with an American flag with the stars replaced by a PC. Same whinging mentality.
For a company who loves all platforms funny how Adobe killed FrameMaker on the Mac in 2004, a few years later made a Linux beta which they then refused to release. Apple still uses FrameMaker 6.0 for their technical documentation, have a look at the document properties in a recent user guide PDF.
Adobe are the lovely company who decided to only allow upgrades from the three previous versions of a product, used to be practically any previous product. Try getting a cross grade between platforms too.
You comment about Preview amused me.... Hello I'm "Mr Hackzor" (is that the right term to use?) I need to write/find an exploit thats going to take down most of the machines that are connected to the internet. Shall I do one for Preview... or shall I do it with Acrobat Reader that most (note the word most before you reply.... the word was most, just incase you forgot.. I've used that word twice now) of the world use..........
So, are you claiming that Adobe Reader isn't a piece of shit that needs constant patching because it's so badly programmed?
What I got from that was "Preview may ALSO be a piece of shit with an equal amount of security holes but we don't know because it is, due to market share, rarely if ever used as an attack vector".
Still, your mileage may vary.
Your post amused me because you reminded me about the word 'most' twice! It's as if you were a frustrated coder at Adobe wondering how to make something read, yes read, I'll say it again read (not write or execute) PDFs. You know what though, I'm sure there's a great reason for all the updates.
That's pretty rich coming from the company which closed down Freehand because it was miles better than their shoddy old Illustrator. In fact, Illustrator suddenly becoming the only game in town was what made me switch away from Apple....
I was using freehand a lot and after adobe bought macromedia i was afraid they'd stop development of freehand and yes, it did happen. freehand was and still is the best sw for vectors and shapes much better than illustrator when it comes to 'easy of use' and guess what, those greedy bastards are still charging a lot for piece of software which wasn't updated for xxx years, link:
"Adobe now say they will have the full version of Flash running on a mobile platform LATER THIS YEAR -- namely, on Android."
I have Flash on my HTC Hero, and as far as I know it's also supported on the Nokia N900.
Or something that behaves very much like it - the flash elements of the trainline.com seem to work just fine.
No Apple = reduced marketplace which we've spent years developing. At Adobe's prices it doesn't take long to earn a fortune.
Given Apple's market share, who would be worried besides Apple?
Adobe could put an end to this if they wanted to. Adobe announces that the next version of Creative Suite will not support OSX. Any bets who blinks first?
Jesus, that is a dumb-ass idea! So, you are proposing a game of brinkmanship with a company who make in a month what you do in year, that is at least 12 times bigger than you financially? Not forgetting that this action instantly alienates at least half of your customer base, many of whom are openly looking for an excuse to seek an alternative from a company that doesn't understand the concept of cross grades! Do you people that reckon this is a winning strategy for Adobe actually *think* about this before you type it? *If* (and they really aren't that stupid) Adobe were to that, it'd be hostile take over attempt quicker than you can blink!
i'd say even more. most of the win copies out there are pirated where the most of the mac users actually pay for it.
and i wouldn't be even worried if that happens. if you look in the history and adobe premiere or lack of it on mac platform. final cut arrived and buried premiere on mac platform, no need for it.
even now you've got pretty cool app called pixelmator which allows you to do quite a lot what you usually do in photoshop - of course there are drawbacks and you cannot compare £50 app with photoshop but if you're a web designer not a dtp designer pixelmator could be all you need and it's fully written in objective C and cocoa framework and it's incredibly fast and easy to use - i've got trial version running now.
i don't believe adobe would abandon mac platform, they're not dumb.
and this we love apple campaign is rather pathetic
wait until you've been forced to use Photoshop on a Windows PC. The most fucking abysmal user experience outside of using Windows itself. No Mac user in their right mind would swap from Photoshop on the Mac to Photoshop on Windows, it is that painful. They would likely stick with their Mac and the last version Adobe released until the first truly viable alternative appeared - see Quark 4 for a prior real world example of how belligerent DTP pros can be.
Adobe wouldn't gain anything from doing and would lose everything as it would provide the impetus for people to finally abandon what has become a dead dog of a software package, just as they did with Quark.
Adobe forgot to mention the Freedom to charge twice as much for the Creative Suite here compared to the US. I think Adobe made their exchange rate calculations using a Flash app.
I'm sure that many people will side with Adobe, simply on the basis that a lot of sites do insist on Flash, it's not reasonable to expect them all to change over quickly, and so if Apple makes it harder for them to convert, this will make it harder to surf the web with the iPad.
But, at the same time, many people will remember some sites that use too much Flash and take too long to open as a result, and wouldn't mind if there was a bit less of it around.
So for Adobe to aggressively take its case to the public seems to me to be just asking for a "plague on both your houses" reaction.
"At Adobe, we believe that the open flow of creativity, ideas, and information should be limited only by the imagination," the site says.
It then goes on to say "What we don't love, however, is fixing gaping security holes in our products, conducting internal security audits of our code, or making our code run on Linux without crashing."
Or at least it should.
I'd be behind Adobe 100% in this little war were it not for the tiny but nevertheless still important fact that Flash is total, utter crap, and has been crap for years, and Adobe doesn't appear to be interested in making it be anything other than crap.
So who is going to dangle the Apple for us bitel...freewill!