Yet another Adobe VS Apple thread, this time the fight takes place directly between Steve Jobs and Adobe's CEO.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 10:40 AM GMT
    So finally Steve Jobs decided to break silence on the Adobe vs Apple talk emerging on the web and he offered some sort of summary of why Apple is dissing Adobe's Flash. Here is the letter posted on Apple's website:

    http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/?AID=10480621&PID=3821802&SID=11xbu4pgdnmms

    In a summary:

    PC WorldJobs said Flash is proprietary, insecure and unreliable, a drain on battery life and not optimized for touch screens. More importantly, he said Adobe's claims of providing the "full Web" with Flash are increasingly irrelevant as more sites come up with alternatives, and that banning iPhone app development in Flash will result in better apps because Apple retains control over new features and innovations.


    Response from Adobe's CEO:




    lmao Apple blaming Adobe's Flash for being a 100% closed plattform and proprietary. Wow, just wow. anyway here is the summary from Adobe's CEO response:

    PC WorldAdobe's CEO, Shantanu Narayen, sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal to chat about what Jobs wrote. According to The Journal, Narayen says Adobe's goal is and has always been to make it easy for people to work on any operating system. He says Apple's restrictions would make it unnecessarily "cumbersome" for developers, forcing them to maintain "two workflows" -- one for Apple, and one for everyone else.

    "We have different views of the world," Narayen tells The Journal. "Our view of the world is multi-platform."

    As for the technical problems Jobs connected to Adobe's Flash software, Narayen says he sees them as little more than "a smokescreen." Specifically, he says Jobs' claims about Flash draining devices' batteries are "patently false" and that if Adobe causes frequent crashes on Apple systems, it's likely the result of an issue within Apple's OS.

    Narayan also maintains his stance that Jobs' Flash ban is based purely on business: Apple, he contends, stands to gain the most from apps that are exclusive to its platform; Adobe's platform, on the other hand, allows developers to create apps that can work for multiple types of devices.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 12:27 PM GMT
    well, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 12:40 PM GMT
    lilTanker saidwell, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)


    Facebook programmer (developer of their iPhone app) comes to the defense of Flash on Twitter:
    http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/

    Redirect your hatred of Flash to the W3C, whose embarrassingly slow pace forced devs to use a plugin because the standards were so weak.

    Also, I am looking at you, developers who bitch whenever a browser offers “non-standard” but innovative APIs.

    Browser makers need to go nuts with non-standard APIs and let the W3C standardize later. Waiting for the committee to innovate is suicide.

    10 years ago we bullied Microsoft into stopping innovation on IE so the W3C could take over. How’d that work out?

    For those too young to remember, IE was innovating like crazy from 4.0 -6.0, right up until the DOJ and web standards commies intervened.

    @jeff_lamarche Oh c’mon. Aside from ActiveX, Microsoft moved the web forward faster from 96-00 than any other browser maker has.

    I don’t know why MS abandoned IE, but I do know that web developers were begging them to stop innovating and just follow the committee.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 1:05 PM GMT
    Microsoft weighs in: 'the future of the web is HTML5':
    http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/30/microsoft-weighs-in-the-future-of-the-web-is-html5/

    We've just come across a post from the General Manager for Internet Explorer, Dean Hachamovitch, and the perspective expressed by him on the subject of web content delivery broadly agrees with the essay penned by Jobs yesterday on the very same subject. Echoing the Apple CEO's words, Hachamovitch describes HTML5 as "the future of the web," praising it for allowing content to be played without the need for plug-ins and with native hardware acceleration (in both Windows 7 and Mac OS X). He goes on to identify H.264 as the best video codec for the job -- so much so that it'll be the only one supported in IE9's HTML5 implementation -- before turning to the dreaded subject of Flash.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 1:34 PM GMT
    lilTanker saidwell, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)


    do you know any flash? like have you ever built anything on flash?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 1:57 PM GMT
    As far as using Flash to develop Apps for the iPhone, I think this is the most compelling reason (from Apple) to not indulge:

    We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

    This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

    Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.



    As far as not supporting flash in mobile safari goes, Adobe still doesn't have a full mobile Flash plug in that is finished and won't until later this year. By relying on Flash to create content wed developers have allowed themselves to be held hostage by Adobe. They simply cannot develop for mobile users. Using HTML5 they can. Why anyone would give up accessibility to their website to Adobe is beyond me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 2:16 PM GMT
    A fascinating look (at least for those of us who are interested in these things and this soap opera), and worth a read of the whole thing (as it makes a ton of sense and takes a big picture approach) - "The real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash":

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-steve-jobs-hates-flash.html

    I've got a theory, and it's this: Steve Jobs believes he's gambling Apple's future — the future of a corporation with a market cap well over US $200Bn — on an all-or-nothing push into a new market. HP have woken up and smelled the forest fire, two or three years late; Microsoft are mired in a tar pit, unable to grasp that the inferno heading towards them is going to burn down the entire ecosystem in which they exist. There is the smell of panic in the air, and here's why ...

    [...]

    My take on the iPhone OS, and the iPad, isn't just that they're the start of a whole new range of Apple computers that have a user interface as radically different from their predecessors as the original Macintosh was from previous command-line PCs. Rather, they're a hugely ambitious attempt to keep Apple relevant to the future of computing, once Moore's law tapers off and the personal computer industry craters and turns into a profitability wasteland.

    The App Store and the iTunes Store have taught Steve Jobs that ownership of the sales channel is vital. Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge rent for access to data (or apps) he's got a business model. He can also maintain quality (whatever that is), exclude malware, and beat off rivals. A well-cultivated app store is actually a customer draw. It's also a powerful tool for promoting the operating system the apps run on. Operating system, hardware platform, and apps define an ecosystem.

    Apple are trying desperately to force the growth of a new ecosystem — one that rivals the 26-year-old Macintosh environment — to maturity in five years flat. That's the time scale in which they expect the cloud computing revolution to flatten the existing PC industry. Unless they can turn themselves into an entirely different kind of corporation by 2015 Apple is doomed to the same irrelevance as the rest of the PC industry — interchangable suppliers of commodity equipment assembled on a shoestring budget with negligable profit.

    Signs of the Macpocalypse abound. This year, for the first time, the Apple Design Awards at WWDC'10 are only open to iPhone and iPad apps. Mac apps need not apply; they don't contribute to Apple's new walled garden ecosystem.

    Any threat to the growth of the app store software platform is going to be resisted, vigorously, at this stage. Steve Jobs undoubtedly believes what he (or an assistant) wrote in his thoughts on flash: "Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps." And he really does not want cross-platform apps that might divert attention and energy away from his application ecosystem. The long term goal is to support the long-term migration of Apple from being a hardware company with a software arm into being a cloud computing company with a hardware subsidiary — almost like Google, if you squint at the Google Nexus One in the right light. The alternative is to join the PC industry in a long death spiral into irrelevance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    charlitos said
    lilTanker saidwell, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)


    do you know any flash? like have you ever built anything on flash?


    Yes, it epically sucks. It's just sooo ugly :-P
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2010 3:01 PM GMT
    charlitos said
    lilTanker saidwell, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)


    do you know any flash? like have you ever built anything on flash?

    yup, built a RIS/PACS interface in flash, while it wasn't medical grade viewing it wasn't used for diagnosis and was more an exploration of what could be possible in other technologies that could potentially allow for more cross platform implementation, unfortunately flash is just not capable of displaying the high resolution data effectively and would often cause problems for radiologists during testing, things like massive resource (on quad core, 16gig computers), glitchy image scroll, terrible handling of the 3D interpretation delivered by the server, poor ability to move quickly through records quickly and generally unstable.

    The project and two and a half million dollars where scrapped on my recommendation because flash just couldn't handle what was required and would never reach the standard set forth by the medical community... To this day, most browser based implementations of an RIS/PACS interface are delivered mostly through IE6 using activeX to allow decoding of the data, although that's apparently changing, but I don't hold my breath.

    So yes sweety, I do know a touch of flash.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Apr 30, 2010 3:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidA fascinating look (at least for those of us who are interested in these things and this soap opera), and worth a read of the whole thing (as it makes a ton of sense and takes a big picture approach) - "The real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash":

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-steve-jobs-hates-flash.html

    I've got a theory, and it's this: Steve Jobs believes he's gambling Apple's future — the future of a corporation with a market cap well over US $200Bn — on an all-or-nothing push into a new market. HP have woken up and smelled the forest fire, two or three years late; Microsoft are mired in a tar pit, unable to grasp that the inferno heading towards them is going to burn down the entire ecosystem in which they exist. There is the smell of panic in the air, and here's why ...

    [...]

    My take on the iPhone OS, and the iPad, isn't just that they're the start of a whole new range of Apple computers that have a user interface as radically different from their predecessors as the original Macintosh was from previous command-line PCs. Rather, they're a hugely ambitious attempt to keep Apple relevant to the future of computing, once Moore's law tapers off and the personal computer industry craters and turns into a profitability wasteland.

    The App Store and the iTunes Store have taught Steve Jobs that ownership of the sales channel is vital. Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge rent for access to data (or apps) he's got a business model. He can also maintain quality (whatever that is), exclude malware, and beat off rivals. A well-cultivated app store is actually a customer draw. It's also a powerful tool for promoting the operating system the apps run on. Operating system, hardware platform, and apps define an ecosystem.

    Apple are trying desperately to force the growth of a new ecosystem — one that rivals the 26-year-old Macintosh environment — to maturity in five years flat. That's the time scale in which they expect the cloud computing revolution to flatten the existing PC industry. Unless they can turn themselves into an entirely different kind of corporation by 2015 Apple is doomed to the same irrelevance as the rest of the PC industry — interchangable suppliers of commodity equipment assembled on a shoestring budget with negligable profit.

    Signs of the Macpocalypse abound. This year, for the first time, the Apple Design Awards at WWDC'10 are only open to iPhone and iPad apps. Mac apps need not apply; they don't contribute to Apple's new walled garden ecosystem.

    Any threat to the growth of the app store software platform is going to be resisted, vigorously, at this stage. Steve Jobs undoubtedly believes what he (or an assistant) wrote in his thoughts on flash: "Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps." And he really does not want cross-platform apps that might divert attention and energy away from his application ecosystem. The long term goal is to support the long-term migration of Apple from being a hardware company with a software arm into being a cloud computing company with a hardware subsidiary — almost like Google, if you squint at the Google Nexus One in the right light. The alternative is to join the PC industry in a long death spiral into irrelevance.
    That's a great article! I wonder when Adobe will start to get into the hardware market?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 01, 2010 10:11 AM GMT
    lilTanker said
    charlitos said
    lilTanker saidwell, you already know I agree 100% with apple on this, I absolutely HATE flash with a passion!

    And yes I hated flash with a passion even when I was a windows user (ie, two years ago)


    do you know any flash? like have you ever built anything on flash?

    yup, built a RIS/PACS interface in flash, while it wasn't medical grade viewing it wasn't used for diagnosis and was more an exploration of what could be possible in other technologies that could potentially allow for more cross platform implementation, unfortunately flash is just not capable of displaying the high resolution data effectively and would often cause problems for radiologists during testing, things like massive resource (on quad core, 16gig computers), glitchy image scroll, terrible handling of the 3D interpretation delivered by the server, poor ability to move quickly through records quickly and generally unstable.

    The project and two and a half million dollars where scrapped on my recommendation because flash just couldn't handle what was required and would never reach the standard set forth by the medical community... To this day, most browser based implementations of an RIS/PACS interface are delivered mostly through IE6 using activeX to allow decoding of the data, although that's apparently changing, but I don't hold my breath.

    So yes sweety, I do know a touch of flash.


    Is this something similar?
    RamSoft RIS PACS Teleradiology
    "Online Image Viewer with Streaming
    A critical feature in the Referring Physician Portal is the flash-based image viewer which allows clinicians to view patient studies online. It has all the commonly used tools to manipulate images and is backed by a streaming engine that sends only the image data you need, when you need it - saving bandwidth and decreasing study load times."

    It's absurd to agree with what Apple is doing given the argument Steve Jobs has put forth. It's full of misleading and even untruthful statements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2010 12:36 PM GMT
    Anto saidIs this something similar?
    RamSoft RIS PACS Teleradiology
    "Online Image Viewer with Streaming
    A critical feature in the Referring Physician Portal is the flash-based image viewer which allows clinicians to view patient studies online. It has all the commonly used tools to manipulate images and is backed by a streaming engine that sends only the image data you need, when you need it - saving bandwidth and decreasing study load times."

    It's absurd to agree with what Apple is doing given the argument Steve Jobs has put forth. It's full of misleading and even untruthful statements.

    Yes very much like that, however, the offering here is a little more cut down then what was required, while this is designed and built for teleradiology, what we were trying to create was a proper system that replaced the then currant browser based interface, while the one you see from this site is incredibly simplified.

    They are also very small market, we were working on hospital based solutions, meant to replace the interface to these systems in many hospitals in Australia and larger radiology departments (internal/external)

    To put it into perspect, that implementation has about a tenth of the features available to it then does the current implementation using IE6 and activeX (even though activeX is buggy, no longer supported, a security night mare)..

    it's a nice idea but it's limited in how far it can get.

    I don't agree with apple because of Jobs views, I agree with apple because of my views of flash.. the hard decisions need to be made at this point, Kill flash and get on with it.