
Adobe Responds to Jobs - aberman
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/04/moving_forward.html
======
samd
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.

~~~
gill_bates
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 choice.

~~~
thought_alarm
> 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
technical challenges that Adobe has been unable to overcome?

Instead of waiting around for Adobe to get their act together, Apple delivered
HTML video and interactive web content for their mobile devices, they
delivered it years ago, and they did it using open standards and open source
development that their competitors are not only taking advantage of, but are
utterly embracing.

It is the tale of one company that's able to get things done, and another
company that isn't. And it shows how foolish it is for companies like Apple,
Google, Palm, and RIM to depend on a company like Adobe to deliver the "full
web".

There was no choice to be made. Mobile Flash didn't exist in 2007, it still
doesn't exist today, and any dependence on Adobe is foolish.

~~~
ajross
Isn't one of the reasons that mobile flash doesn't exist today that Apple,
y'know, expressly disallowed Adobe's flash-to-iPhone compiler? Isn't that the
issue at hand here?

If Adobe had simply failed to deliver a product, no one would care. Instead,
they _did_ deliver it (or were just about to deliver it), and Apple freaked
out.

~~~
allyt
The topic was Flash running in a mobile browser. Like Android, which Adobe
originally said would ship Flash for over a year ago. I think Adobe's utter
engineering incompetence is one of the obvious points everyone seems too
polite to make.

~~~
starkfist
To be fair, it's technologically nearly impossible. The incompetence is coming
from whomever is promising it. The engineers are fucked...

~~~
endtime
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.

~~~
acqq
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 work with battery for hours.

~~~
endtime
>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.

~~~
catch23
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.

~~~
barake
Newer Flash Videos codecs like H.264 probably are that intensive. Codecs have
changed over the years, giving us better quality, but also requiring hardware
support or lots of go juice to run well.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video#Codec_support>

------
Mongoose
I'm glad that Adobe decided to take the mature route. Further lashing out
against Apple would have only exacerbated the situation.

In the end, Jobs provided a very rational argument and the brevity of Adobe's
response lends itself well to that conclusion.

~~~
schammy
> In the end, Jobs provided a very hypocritical argument

FTFY

~~~
jorgecastillo
I can't really see how apple is hypocritical with this issue. I quote the text
below from my last comment.

"Apple is not telling Adobe, Microsoft or any other corporation to open up
their platform. They are only stating that they believe web standards should
be open and not controlled by a single party."

If someone got a different impression from Steve's letter I think you should
read it again. If you think I got the wrong impression I beg you to point me
towards the parts of Steve's letter that will help me see my error.

~~~
buster
Actually, while you are that he states that the web should be based on open
standard you obviously missed the big pile of lies and false facts in his
letter. Basically i'd say that at least every second "fact" in his letter is
plainly not true.

<http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq>

------
rbarooah
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.

~~~
psyklic
It already has been put to the test, in countless other situations. For
example, look at video game consoles -- crossplatform libraries ensure that
really high quality games can be ported to every major platform. Do they lack
some features of some consoles? Yes. Regardless, are they still hella fun to
play? Of course!

~~~
greendestiny
Well see even there it's Job's contention that crossplatform frameworks should
have displaced native frameworks and limited the hardware manufacturers to
effectively just supporting the crossplatform frameworks.

Surely the best argument against Job's position is the iPhone itself. The most
important and dominant crossplatform framework in the world is HTML+JS and
Apple actually wanted it to take the place of native frameworks. But we all
know how that ended and now we have the App Store.

To support his fears on crossplatform frameworks they would have to supplant
native apps and I just don't think it happens. OSX's problems with inferior
crossplatform titles stem from a comparative lack of native applications - not
from the crossplatform software itself.

~~~
acqq
> Surely the best argument against Job's position is the iPhone itself. The
> most important and dominant crossplatform framework in the world is HTML+JS
> and Apple actually wanted it to take the place of native frameworks. But we
> all know how that ended and now we have the App Store.

And with this paragraph you exactly proved why Flash doesn't have sense on the
iPhone.

~~~
greendestiny
I don't get what you mean.

------
petercooper
Apple could buy Adobe. They have more than double Adobe's market cap sitting
around in _cash_. Forgetting Flash, Adobe is a cash cow, has a lot of great
engineers, and some amazing software I'm sure Apple would love to brand as
their own.

~~~
stuntmouse
I've also been thinking about this lately. Flash and related products are only
a small part of a not very large company, relatively speaking. Why can't
Google or Apple just make a deal for Flash/Flex? It's clear that the web (and
mobile web) is critical for both.

------
rafa8a
You and me as consumers decide what to buy or not to buy.

~~~
Herring
When it comes to products with strong network effects, you really don't.
Sometimes an inferior product (i should say platform) can take over a market
simply because it was there first. You can find any number of examples of this
in the tech world.

------
jsz0
It's going to be very interesting to see how Adobe handles Flash on all these
different platforms. There's a lot to consider: Various screen resolutions,
CPU/GPU speeds, memory capacities, browsers, touch vs. non-touch devices, etc.
This covers about half a dozen major platforms and probably hundreds of
different handset models. It seems like a monumental task to take on. Can they
keep up with frequent platform updates?

~~~
jarek
Devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of Flash, but: with the exception of
touch, this is exactly the diverse situation Flash has dealt with -- and
partially derived its popularity from -- on the desktop.

------
callmeed
_"Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and our
technologies."_

Ha. I haven't met many people who are "passionate" about Adobe technologies. I
don't see Flash stickers on cars or people lining up around the block to buy
Photoshop CS5.

I don't think the people taking Adobe's side on this do it out of passion–they
do it because they don't like how Apple is handling the situation.

~~~
spot
the only reason i have a mac is to run photoshop and after effects. otherwise
ubuntu is a fine replacement for mac os x.

~~~
hgiue
You bought a Mac to run Photoshop and After Effects, instead of just
installing Windows on your PC that's running Ubuntu if I understand things
right here? Nice.

~~~
spot
windows is not a fine replacement for either :)

in fact i run ubuntu on a mac mini (in addition to lots of generic pc
hardware). i like mac hardware. some of it is overpriced, but some of it is
fine.

------
davidedicillo
As somebody said in another post, Flash great distribution it's because it was
something that designers could do with little programming (if not none at
all). What Adobe should really focus is to create a valid equivalent for HTML5
and try to become the standard editor for HTML5 for all those people who don't
know how to code.

------
elblanco
A good strategy might be to go ahead and make flash work on the Apple devices.
Being able to demonstrate that the limitation is purely political and not
technological would be helpful for people that don't understand what's going
on. Plus _when_ Apple reverses this silly nonsense, they'll be ready to roll.

------
cjoh
Apple v. Adobe is like watching two drunk bus drivers take to the streets. You
don't just want off the bus, you want off the road.

------
whalesalad
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.

~~~
gill_bates
I makes total sense. Shall I reword it slightly for you?

Were Apple and Adobe to work together, as we are with a number of other
partners, we feel confident that we could provide a terrific experience with
Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch

~~~
memoryfault
The original statement is missing a comma after "that"

------
kqueue
mouse hovering will be funny on these platforms.

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

~~~
j79
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 the
"mouseover" event will be available.

Web developers write functional pages first. They then progressively enhance
it with JavaScript. This is why the web does (or, theoretically) works
(contrary to what you said...)

Flash, on the other hand, is different by nature. It doesn't permit users to
disable mouse events (or any other events), from firing. As a Flash developer,
you can write code that requires a hover event, with fair confidence that it
won't hinder a visitors interaction with the site/project.

To be honest, it's what made Flash so tempting to develop for. You're given an
equal playing field through the SWF player.

Unfortunately for Adobe, with Safari/Chrome/FireFox/Opera pushing web
standards, HTML5/CSS3/JS are making things (quite) interesting for web
developers.

~~~
natrius
_"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.

~~~
j79
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.

------
dchs
This article looks crap on my iPhone.

------
powellc
While I don't appreciate much of what Apple is doing these days, surely one
has to also appreciate the draconian, closed nature of Flash? At least HTML5
is some kind of standard. Now, if we could just get Apple on the Ogg train...

~~~
mahmud
You know what is draconian? removing a programming environment for children
from the App store.

~~~
powellc
Haha. Touche, sir. Apple is certainly draconian, but Adobe is no saint I guess
was my point. Flash and HTML5 are competing technologies, and one is an open
format.

~~~
jarek
... and the other, in Apple's implementation at least, uses H.264.

