Slashdot Mirror


Will Adobe Sue Apple Over Flash?

An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iron-bound determination to keep Adobe Flash out of any iWhatever device is about to blow up in Apple's face. Sources close to Adobe tell me that Adobe will be suing Apple within a few weeks."

8 of 980 comments (clear)

  1. I'm conflicted by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecurt framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    1. Re:I'm conflicted by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem isn't so much that the iPhone/iPad shouldn't be running Flash due to performance/battery limitations, it's that Apple changed the rules without telling Adobe. It's as if you worked for 2 years on a shiny sports car only to be told, 3 days before you'd be able to take it on the road, that its category had been banned from using the roads ever again. I don't think Adobe would've been that pissed off had Apple told them BEFORE they started working on their Flash exporter.

      I just don't know what Apple is thinking here though because as the GP said, Apple needs Adobe as much if not more than Adobe needs Apple. Adobe's products are a major reason Apple sells well in the first place.

    2. Re:I'm conflicted by careykohl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well the argument now isn't about allowing Flash, it's about allowing C/C++/Objective C applications that Adobe Flash CS5 exported from an application that was originally built with Flash. Apple had a case when they wanted to keep Flash off and keep everything C/C++/Objective C based, but if Adobe has managed to build a compiler that turns Flash into Objective C then Apple has no business rejecting apps simply because they were developed on software from a company they don't like.

  2. ..and as I said on a previous thread. by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Louis Gerbarg has written up a very good explanation of the issues involved.

    Quote:

    Adobe is a large company with a significant, and complicated, relationship with Apple. They have frequent high level contacts and meetings. Adobe has known for quite some time about Apple's desire not to have Flash on the iPhone. There is no doubt in my mind that if they asked Apple to bless this they were rebuffed, and if they didn't ask the only reason they didn't was because they knew Apple would say no. In either event, they announced the product to their customers and sold them on an idea they were not in a position to deliver, hoping Apple would be unwilling to piss off developers by not fulfilling Adobe's promises. They tried to force Apple's hand by putting Apple in a position where in order stop the Flash they would have to do it publicly in front of Adobe's users. That was a bad call on Adobe's part.

    Read the whole thing.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. TFA wasn't clear by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What grounds are they suing under? Breach of contract? Why should Apple be forced to use Adobe's stuff if they don't want to?

    1. Re:TFA wasn't clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The short version: Apple is telling developers that they can't buy Adobe *tools* to produce *native* Apple-platform applications.

      The long version:

      1. Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot. Steve Jobs also seems to have a personal beef with it for some reason.
      2. Apple says, "No flash on our iAnything platforms."
      3. Adobe says, "Please?"
      4. Apple says, "No!"
      5. Adobe says, "Okay, we've made a compiler that takes a Flash script and compiles it to an iAnything native application, using HTML 5, Apple's C-variant, and Apple's API."
      6. Apple says, "We've added a clause to our developer contract that says that developers are not allowed to use anything that translates code from one language to another for the iAnything platform. You have to use OUR tools, and you must write in OUR language from the start, or you - the developer - cannot play with us."
      7. Adobe says, "..."

  4. Got to side with Apple on this one... by rimcrazy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They have a platform worth billions. Tens of billions. They have chosen to make it closed. You as a consumer can chose to use there platform or not, that is up to you. For them, to potentially put the fate of a multi-billion dollar product in the potential hands of a company that makes development content for this multi-billion dollar platform and not control it is suicide.

    You can argue the merits of closed or open but in this case the point is moot. iPhone is closed and Apple wants it that way. They are not going to put their fate in the hands of Adobe. The only legs Adobe may have to stand on is if they were lead to believe that their platform was to be accepted (written contract or verbal) and then at the 11th hour to be shafted? Well then maybe they have a case.

    Hey, I was the engineering dept. manager back at VLSI Tech back when chip sets was a good business. Intel decided, rightly so, that they could not put the fate of their CPU's in the hands of 3rd party chip set vendors. In ONE product cycle (after they finally figured out how to make them) they took 90% of the PC market with their chip sets. Did it hurt? Yea, it hurt. We went from $250M/yr to $25M/yr in 12 months. I lost my job along with a host of others. That being said, I still can't fault Intel for what they did. Quite frankly I'm surprised it took them as long as it did. The case in point with Apple and Adobe is no different.

    --
    "TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
  5. Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    *Sigh* So when you bought your iPod Touch did it not say Windows PC or Mac OS X only right? It was fairly clear on my box that there was no Linux support.

    Apple basically sets their stuff up so that if you buy 1 piece of Apple equipment you're going Apple all the way or the whole thing will break. There's no TECHNICAL reason for that situation, and the artificial creation of such a situation should be regulated IMHO.

    No there's no technical reason. Just practical ones. Apple doesn't want to support Linux. Many companies don't. That's their choice. You changing your OS is not the responsibility of Apple.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.