|
apple vs. adobe?
|
04-10-2010, 05:42 AM
M A V I C wrote: Yes. We may not always agree when it comes to Flash issues, but I am 100% behind you with this statement. JavaScript is incredibly useful, but I normally browse with JS off because of this very reason (I do have some sites white listed to allow JS). Poorly coded JS is detrimental to the web and no one really talks about the problem. Nathan
04-10-2010, 11:34 AM
It's all about money and business.
Apple is banning the Adobe stuff to keep the iPhone and iPad a closed system so that you are forced to buy content from Apple. All that other stuff about usability and battery life etc. is smoke and mirrors to disguise the greed. I have nothing against Apple in this regard, if they can get away with it, it's just good business. The disappointing thing for me is that since Apple dropped the "Computer" from their name they have focussed on consumer products with less and less regard to producing computers and associated professional products. The balance is tipping so far that I've considered switching. For example where the hell are the laptops with the new Intel processors? These should have been out last year. Everyone else has released them long ago. Remember that in the past Adobe stopped selling Premier for Mac in a retaliation to Jobs' attitude and Final Cut Pro. They relented, so obviously Adobe needs Apple more than Apple needs Adobe. Adobe sound like a spoilt child and blogs from Adobe employees with comments like this do them no favours at all. They just look like amateurs who have no handle on the business.
04-10-2010, 05:33 PM
M A V I C wrote: Maybe so, but the difference is that javascript is an open development standard under the control of a standards body (the ECMAScript standard). As such, javascript execution can and, in fact, has been highly optimized by many implementers, including Apple in its WebKit framework. In the last couple of years, Apple has been able to improve javascript performance by huge amounts by the development of novel rendering techniques (e.g. SquirrelFish Extreme): http://www.webmonkey.com/2008/09/safari_...rformance/ With Flash, on the other hand, any and all optimization depends entirely on the whims and corporate goals of a private entity--Adobe. Adobe has shown no interest in optimizing Flash performance for the Mac platform. Please explain how you can honestly say that. As previously discussed, H.264 is not open, nor a standard. Apple is pushing H.264, it's not an open standard... H.264 most certainly is a standard!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 "H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 (Advanced Video Coding) is a standard for video compression. The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003. "H.264/AVC is the latest block-oriented motion-compensation-based codec standard developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), and it was the product of a partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team (JVT). The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content... "The H.264 name follows the ITU-T naming convention, where the standard is a member of the H.26x line of VCEG video coding standards; the MPEG-4 AVC name relates to the naming convention in ISO/IEC MPEG, where the standard is part 10 of ISO/IEC 14496, which is the suite of standards known as MPEG-4." On the other hand, I do agree that H.264 is not "open." As I pointed out previously, concerns remain that Theora, the current "open" darling of the video codec world, may also be subject to patent enforcement. Your citation isn't relavant. If Apple's goal was to enforce some sort of QA on user experience, they could have just put that in the EULA. You're kidding, right? Can you give me an example of the kind of language Apple should put into its EULA to ensure both performance standards and full compatibility with platform technologies? If you do, I think you'll find it will read something like that new clause that's caused all this bogus controversy. An interpretation layer can take advantage of the iPhone's strengths. In theory, perhaps. In practice, it has never happened. Keep in mind that one of the main goals of "interpretation layers" or code intermediation is to facilitate cross-platform, i.e. lowest common denominator, application development.
04-10-2010, 05:43 PM
Mike V wrote: Nonsense. Netflix is on the iPad. Do you rent Netflix movies from Apple or from Netflix? How about Kindle? Kindle is on the iPad and iPhone and iPod touch. Do you buy Kindle books from Apple or from Amazon? There are so many other examples... All that other stuff about usability and battery life etc. is smoke and mirrors to disguise the greed. Um...okay...I guess the rest of us have just been imagining that Flash leads to performance, reliability, and security issues. Wait...you're not being facetious by any chance, are you? Remember that in the past Adobe stopped selling Premier for Mac in a retaliation to Jobs' attitude and Final Cut Pro. I think it was because Adobe knew it got its ass handed to it on a plate. FCP simply made Premiere look like a toy. By the way, if Adobe had bothered to actually code premiere for the Mac instead of producing a weak Windows port, Apple wouldn't have bothered... Adobe sound like a spoilt child and blogs from Adobe employees with comments like this do them no favours at all. They just look like amateurs who have no handle on the business. On that, we are in complete agreement.
04-10-2010, 06:07 PM
Apple has been drawing ever-tighter lines in the sand ever since OS X. It wants dedicated developers that don't cross-compile for competitors, sure. Which is why this is a threat to Google's Android far more than it is to Adobe's Flash, a non-entity in mobile.
They are telling developers to make a choice now for iPhone vs anything else, unless they want to spend extra time coding for both. None of this was an issue before Android. So this isn't a desktop fight, it's a mobile fight and has the side effect of making the new Flash less compelling for people who'd like to work with it.
04-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Article Accelerator wrote: True, but that doesn't do anything to disprove my point. H.264 most certainly is a standard!: If I'm reading that correctly, H.264 is not a standard but MPEG-4 AVC is. They are "jointly maintained" so they're the same, but who's to say that wont change someday? Maybe Adobe will buy it and make it only playable in Flash  You're kidding, right? Can you give me an example of the kind of language Apple should put into its EULA to ensure both performance standards and full compatibility with platform technologies? It's not worth my time to come up with that, but just about anything written about user experience would be better than what they came up with - IF their goal is to enforce user experience. If you do, I think you'll find it will read something like that new clause that's caused all this bogus controversy. So? I'm not saying it wouldn't cause controversy, I'm just saying the way they went about it proves they're not just trying to enforce user experience. An interpretation layer can take advantage of the iPhone's strengths. I take it you've reviewed every iPhone app? Admittedly, I don't even have an iPhone. I've been hearing developers discuss this topic and they all seem to think some apps don't create any problems by having an interpretation layer. Keep in mind that one of the main goals of "interpretation layers" or code intermediation is to facilitate cross-platform, i.e. lowest common denominator, application development. Yep. And that would support deckeda's statement that: They are telling developers to make a choice now for iPhone vs anything else, unless they want to spend extra time coding for both. None of this was an issue before Android.
04-10-2010, 06:57 PM
So greed = just good business?
and has the side effect of making the new Flash less compelling for people who'd like to work with it. I don't think that's a side effect at all. I think that is a principle aim, part and parcel.
04-10-2010, 07:16 PM
"If I'm reading that correctly, H.264 is not a standard but MPEG-4 AVC is. They are "jointly maintained" so they're the same, but who's to say that wont change someday?"
You are not reading that correctly. Two standards groups have different naming/numbering schemes, but have agreed that they will jointly maintain the technical specifications so that implementations will be the same. Neither group, ITU-T or ISO, is under the control of a single country or corporation.
04-10-2010, 07:22 PM
RAMd®d wrote: Not that Adobe isn't a compelling company brimming with cutting edge ideas. Here's a staffer, suggesting Apple employees come work for them, http://twitter.com/jdowdell/status/11881181351 And when you go to the page in his tweet to learn more about the process of joining, you read this:
Dear Adobe, boy am I glad I kept my old computer around, in order to best access your site! I'm certain that I'm the best candidate for any job. Can I bring my own 10 year old PC to work with me, or will you provide one there?
04-10-2010, 08:40 PM
JoeH wrote: Ok, my mistake. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
