Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ
Hugh Pickens writes "Businessweek reports that Adobe has taken out newspaper advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times today and posted an open letter to call out the tablet-computer maker for stifling competition. 'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,' the letter states. 'No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.' The letter is part of a widening rift between Apple and Adobe. Two weeks ago, Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs wrote a 29-paragraph public missive panning Adobe's Flash as having 'major technical drawbacks.' US antitrust enforcers also may investigate Apple following a complaint from Adobe, people familiar with the matter said this month. Adobe has also launched a banner ad campaign to let you know that they love Apple. The two-piece banner ads are composed of a 720x90-pixel 'We [heart] Apple' design, followed by a 300x250-pixel medium rectangle that reads: 'What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.'"
So there are no security concerns in allowing Flash on the device. Flash has never been used as an attack vector for malware. That's good to know.
So even when HTML5 is mature, it won't replace native apps. Yet, you think that Flash will?
I'm sure they considered that. But take it a bit further... Jane Public enables flash to watch the 'OMG ponies' video-of-the-day. Are you confident that every single user would then think "Oh, now I have to turn Flash back off, otherwise my phone will now suck". I'm not. And then a little while down the road it's not "I take the personal responsibility for making my phone suck because I turned on Flash", it's more like "the iPhone sucks. Apple sucks".
Tell me again how this benefits Apple ?
The old "people can't be trusted with freedom so we're going to take it away for their own good" argument. Used by dictators and fascists everywhere. It truly is a classic. I've always found it a bit overrated myself though.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The mere fact that the iPhone/iPod/iPad are a success is a pretty damn good indicator of the following: - People (Consumers. The 99.999% of actual humans on earth that aren't geeky ass, linux using, slashdot reading nerds) don't give a flying fuck about 'open' platforms nor could they even define the word and how it relates to their phone/mp3 player. - Flash must not be THAT important if these devices have done so well without them. The fact is that if you really think you need to have an 'open' product choose one with your dollar bills and stop trolling the internet looking for Apple stories to bitch about. If you don't care about your devices being open then buy the device that you like best and enjoy it.
Because as a general rule OSS developers are lazy sods who only write the bits they care about and ignore everything they don't. This isn't exactly unique to flash, it pretty much applies to every non-corporate funded OSS project on the planet, and even some that are corporate funded. You can ignore it if you want to but that doesn't change the fact that OSS hardly leads anything, it follows, lagging way behind in all but a few very rare exceptions.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
There are already Flash apps in the App Store, published before the updated agreement. Perhaps Apple determined that they did, in fact, suck?
Well, according to you, they're still in the app store, so apparently not.
The one thing that nobody ever talks about is, we know that Apple has been doing a lot of automated processing on the binaries to ensure they are in compliance with other areas of the SDK upon submission. What if they determined that output from other compilers were breaking their system...
Then that's really their problem. How hard would it be to make the automated system capable of testing compliance on this "output from other compilers"?
Remember, Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C. I really don't see how that would cause this kind of problem anyway.
Developers have been pushing for faster approval times since the App Store opened. Automated compliance testing is the way to make that happen.
No, relaxing douchey rules like how much clothing your aerobics instructor has to wear is the way to make that happen. Allowing third-party app stores is a way to make it happen rather quickly.
Is it better to use any tool you want, but wait months for approval? Or use Apple's own tools and have it approved almost instantaneously?
Is it better for Apple to make that decision for you? Or to be able to decide yourself whether it's worth the wait to use your own tool?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I think Apple's (valid) concern is that if the use of Flash tools for mobile app development becomes dominant, then there won't be iPhone and Android development anymore, there'll simply be Flash development. Period. And then the success or failure of any platform is going to depend on how Adobe feels that day. Let's see, should we get around to releasing an Android compiler update this year? Ditto for bugfixes. Ironically, smaller/less successful platforms are much more at risk if this happens than a successful platform like Apple.
This doesn't just affect the manufacturers. It'll affect any users unfortunate enough to invest in those platforms (poor Palm and Nokia owners). I was a Mac user back in the wilderness years when it wasn't always clear that there was going to be continuing software support, and I specifically remember when Apple switched over to Intel there was a huge delay in the availability of an Intel Photoshop port because Adobe didn't prioritize Mac business enough. And you can talk to any Linux user about how well Adobe supports Flash over there. Adobe will gladly use their market power in ways that work directly against the user.
Now I'm not crazy about the way Apple is handling this (and many other things Apple does). But I do understand it, and I think a world in which Adobe dominates mobile app development is a really terrible world for all of us to live in.
If Dell or HP wanted to do that, I would have no problem at all. I suspect their stockholders would be a little upset though.
I am sure you already know how lame your argument is , so I am not going to bother explaining it to you.
That's what I love about Apple fanboys. When Apple ultimately removes some feature or functionality, the fanboys simply convince themselves they never needed it to begin with. When applications for doing a specific are removed from the App store, fanboys will happily use only Apple's authorized specific task app. When websites fail to work for containing Flash, fanboys will happily flock to Apple-friendly websites and pretend that the content on the other websites weren't worth viewing anyways. And when a mac eventually de-evolves into a webcam with a wi-fi connection, fanboys will loyally claim that this and only this was what they were looking for in a computer .
This is what I love about anti-Apple fanboys... they have no idea what they're talking about. If you actually knew of what you spoke, you would know that, like all other computers, Macs get more features and capabilities with every system upgrade.
Stop! Dremel time!