Adobe Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Lazy' Comments

[JohnnyLucky]

Hot Dog! Another sub-plot in the iPad soap opera. Now all we need is to work in a good conspiracy plot and a little paranoia.

 

[konjiki7]

I'm not a fan either company. Perhaps Google should create an internet multimedia standard.

 

[danimal_the_animal]

ubuntu has flash support via firefox!

 

[danimal_the_animal]

ubuntu has flash support via firefox!

 

[ravewulf]

HTML5 doesn't replace flash games...

 

[danimal_the_animal]

I only posted once....why the double post?

 

[matt_b]

"Adobe isn't lazy"
Two questions for Adobe then:
1) Where is 64-bit support?
2) Why is the majority of browser crashes Flash related?

If just these two aspects can be fixed or at least appear that they are being worked on, then the average and knowledgeable computer-user would be thinking otherwise (regardless of what Jobs has to say)!

 

[maestintaolius]

Not trying to be snippy here, but why exactly do we need 64-bit flash? Is youtube using more than 4 GB of ram? If HTML5 is going to replace the need for flash, should Adobe then even bother with 64-bit?

Not trying to be a troll, just genuinely curious.

 

[kooltime]

Think UTUBE gets the FLASH system on its web site for free ??

One example (above)of vendor licencing for useage.

Apple doesnt want to pay adobe for its flash pattent on its IPAD - to expensive, has nothing to do with its availability or quality( its the licenceing pattent fees cost thats killing most companies now adays ). Adobe products have always been typically more expensive then other designs.

So they down play the money issue saying negative comments about a product line, has nothing to do with compatibility or availability.

Alot of web sites with today's bad economey cant afford very many vendor pattent licence usage(s) any more, they are cutting back expenses.

Everyone and their mothers now adays are sueing for pattent copywrite infringments. 99% of most problems are for license pattent / copywrite useage fee(s)issues.

Apple basically doesnt want to pay adobe any more for its pattent license usage fees on its ipad, the iphone was over priced for apple, so they are stooping it on ipad, to either get away from it all together or broker a new deal to get the iphone licensing fees cheeper ( and their other products using it ) in conjuntion with it.

Apple is doing smart business for them, using 1 product to reduce cost on a pre existing products that is in a current use product line expensive license agreement.

Apple wants adobe to go cheeper on its licencing fees for its iphone as well before adding ipad, its all thats really going on. As apple doesnt want to pay as much for it any more, so they are threatening to drop em, common business tactics is all thats happening. Its about money, nothing to do with if flash is any good or available for thier product lines or not.

Doubltfull any pattent exists any more that doesnt have alot of infringment cases against it now adays. Its making lawyers rich, with software so self changeable, everyone can be sued for usage infringments.

There it is- I spoke the unseen truth - most people dont ever hear or read about on web sites. The real issue at hand is money for fees across companies and thier respective products and pattents and licence fees for them.

 

[tvel]

there is a 64 bit flash alpha for linux
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html

 

[coldmast]

Apple just wants every website to use quicktime instead of flash.
Wake up Apple, it is not the 90s anymore.

 

[buckinbottoms]

[citation][nom]drukLA[/nom]Where's the x64 version of Flash?[/citation]
LOL, I hear this all the time and it makes absolutely no sense. I have never seen a flash app need to address 4GB of memory.

If it ever did need 64bit I would be more worried about how bloated it had become rather than congratulating flash for reaching some sort of milestone.

 

[razorblaze42]

[citation][nom]maestintaolius[/nom]Not trying to be snippy here, but why exactly do we need 64-bit flash? Is youtube using more than 4 GB of ram? If HTML5 is going to replace the need for flash, should Adobe then even bother with 64-bit?Not trying to be a troll, just genuinely curious.[/citation]
My dear Watson, you do realize some of us have 64bit browser with our shiny new 64bit OS. However since the only 64bit flash is a confusion beta download, we're basically forced into using a 32bit browser for online video, like youtube

 

[war2k9]

Apple, all i have to say is that open up your platform for developers than you will not have crappy software for your platform.
look at microsoft, they give a lot of support to whomever wants to write software for its platform.
I am using windows and having no problem with flash whatsoever.
If flash is supported on the ipad I will buy one for sure.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]razorblaze42[/nom]My dear Watson, you do realize some of us have 64bit browser with our shiny new 64bit OS. However since the only 64bit flash is a confusion beta download, we're basically forced into using a 32bit browser for online video, like youtube[/citation]
I do realize that actually, I personally run win7 x64 and 64bit Ubuntu on a dual boot. However, I don't see my browser needing 4GB of ram to do what it does either. So I guess my question should be what exactly do we need 64bit browsers or flash for currently? I've played with both and haven't really seen any significantly noticeable difference other than the 64, personally.

I can actually see the use of the 64bit OSes with video cards carrying 1+ GB of ram and DDR3 systems allowing 6GB triple channel at pretty reasonable prices but I just don't see the need for a 64 bit browser yet. As an example, I have 2 instances of Firefox 3.6 open, that have been open for about 4 days on my work laptop, with 4+ tabs open in each instance (with large pdfs on some) and its still only using 250 megs total.

 

[xxyyzz]

the cold war HAS started

 

[mdillenbeck]

[citation][nom]marsax73[/nom]I don't see how someone would be able to surf the internet without having Flash. It's used all over the place.[/citation]
Do it all the time on my Smartphone - and I do have to agree it is quite annoying. However, it is also a web site designer issue - flash may be great and pretty, but does a flash-only site really conform to good design for accessibility?

Try it some time if you have a mobile browser - even look at places like Newegg. Their mobile site is crap. If you have a blind friend trying to access certain sites, ask him how well designers are doing.

After all, it isn't really Apple or Adobe that is responsible for providing the web experience, it is the web designers and their implementations. This is the same logic that people use when discussing ISP liability when people pirate using their service - the ISP (like Adobe and Apple) aren't responsible in the least for the web experience.

That being said, I would love to be able to "full screen" a flash game while sitting in a queue at the grocery store on my smartphone, or even go to a major automotive website to compare vehicle specs while shopping for a new car. However, I don't expect it to happen in the near future.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Eugh, Flash is such horrible software and so badly coded. Apple are right not to put it on their iPhones and iPads - Adobe's port of flash is simply appalling on OS X and kills performance and battery life on Apple laptops. If Adobe had bothered to write a Flash plugin that was even on a par with Windows and addressed some of the battery/performance issues then Apple would probably have included it. Adobe is making out as if they're the victim when they're the victim only of their own laziness.

 

[crikey2]

As for plugin reliability Apple should cean their own house before criticizing Adobe. Quicktime is a total piece of crap - security vulnerabilities - browser crashes - totally bug ridden on 64-bit. The only saving grace is that thank god hardly any sites actually use quicktime...

 

[Stardude82]

Someone would like to tell me why Apple doesn't just stick SWF support into Quicktime? I thought Flash was more or less an open standard now? If Apple isn't happy with the 3rd party player used to render items from 90% of the world's webpages, shouldn't it just build it's own?

 

[notty22]

People WAKE UP. Google owns youtube. Youtube is one if not the most popular visited site on the web. Up until recently its relied on adobe and flash. Google much like M/S does not like to see other people become billionaires piggybacking on their efforts. Google is also gravitating to not need flash using html5 which can run on Chrome and IE, but not the up and comer Firefox. So they are putting the pinch on Mozilla and Adobe.

 

[hsir135]

In a previous post, "Steve Jobs is a business genius." Hmm...well he certainly knows how to create a cult following by branding an image through product ownership. But do you remember in 1980 when Apple owned 50% of the PC market? You will see the same repeat of that "genius" when he is thrown out of his company again. All the itoys will be done better and cheaper by others. $hort Apple stock and buy Google!

 

[omnimodis78]

It's sad when a company's image is tarnished by the cult of personality which its 'leader' exhibits. Jobs could care less what we think, the guy is beyond rich and his company isn't about to cave under any time soon (for better or worse) but at some point the shareholders have to start eyeing him with some reservation. I mean at what point will they say enough is enough?

 

[kelfen]

I'm sure it is not near its end but the observation of Google moving to html5 ect leads me to believe adobe flash is just not as good as html5

 

[kelfen]

when it comes to streaming video's