I sat across the table from the man and he is freaking nuts and everyone who works for him knows it. Pitiful.
... and yet they continue to work for him. And his company continues to make massive amounts of money.
I guess in that case I wouldn't mind so much being a rapidly dying, mentally, emotionally and physically deteriorated ruin of a human being, bent on control fueled by his narcissism trying to slap together a legacy pyramid for himself.
If they really want to make a stament just don't release Photoshop and their other apps for Mac. Sure this will cost them quite a bit of money but for a part it can hurt a lot of professional Mac users and lure them back to Windows (I don't like Windows either but I prefer it above crApple) or let them release Linux versions of their products:)
First, this is just a really stupid argument. I'm not sure why people think this is a good idea. Adobe is obviously out for profit, you think they want flash on the iDevices because its better for their users? Yeah, keep living in your happy little world.
Next, the CS products get more bloated and slower with each release (with the exception of the 64bit version of PS for OSX in CS5, of course not many plugins yet support 64bit so you have to run it in 32bit mode until they do). I believe they're even now using AIR for their UI.
There's really no reason why many professionals would really need to upgrade anyway. Many are still using CS3. Yeah, PS in CS5 introduces the new "Content Aware Fill" which is pretty nice, but its not flawless and it just makes something that people have been doing for years easier (in some cases its still easier to do it the old fashioned way). There's nothing that you can do in CS5 that you can't do in an earlier version. with exception of loading really large image files. Of course, now that CS5 has been released for OSX that ability is out there. If CS6 didn't come out for mac (which would cost Adobe a lot in lost revenue), I'm sure the creative professionals would be more then content staying on an older version (at least until Apple released a competing app).
Apple got it right again with the iPhone, but is already losing it again with the highly proprietary iPhone now rapidly losing market share rapidly against the more open Linux/Google/Android platform. (Android's 4x marketshare growth in a single month - WTF!?!)
I would say, and I believe many would agree, that the normal "user" doesn't care about or even understand what "open" really means. In fact, from reading many comments on various sites I would say that many "geeks" don't even understand what open means or how its applied to the various phones. Regardless, Apple has a single phone (granted with 3 revisions thus far), on a single US network. Android is available on multiple networks and more importantly, Verizon. I know many people that would love to get an iPhone but refuse to simply because they can't have it on Verizon. They complain that they won't be able to use mobile-to-mobile minutes talking to their friends and wont get unlimited sms/mms to their friends. Not one person I know has ever mentioned that they don't want an iPhone because its not "open".
Android phones are a great alternative to the iPhone on other networks so people will buy it. But to say that Apple is "losing" because they aren't open, I can't see how that can be completely proven as Apple recently announced they surpassed 1 million sold iPads (which run the same "closed" operating system).
As others have pointed out, you also have to count the iPads and iPod Touches as they all share the same OS and allow non-at&t users to have the "iPhone" experience without having to switch to at&t (or get non-contracted service on their iPad 3G's)
Regarding "some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen" -- nothing springs to mind, care to elaborate? It does have rollover support but that doesn't mean that you have to use it.
But everyone seems to think all the current flash apps out there will already run perfectly on their multi-touch device. I don't have any numbers or specifics since I try to avoid any of the social media games, but how many of them will work perfectly on a mobile device touch screen? Its a serious question. I've never played any of them.
As Jobs pointed out, if any of these games or apps would have to be rewritten with touch in mind, why not write them in a more open format (html5) rather then keeping them bound to a closed plugin?
There are a lot of things Flash does that HTML5 will never do.
Everyone always says this. Can you please name a few of these things?
HTML5 video tag can host browser-native video. There are many complex game examples showing that HTML5 can be used for games. Many of the full-flash-crap-pages currently only use flash to do some fancy (annoying) fades and transitions. I would love to lose that, but I believe HTML5 or CSS3 animations or whatever can do that.
Yes. According to the article "All new videos are encoded in h264 format, so we're playing videos natively in the iPad since it supports h264-encoded videos"
Flash can already play h.264 files in the mp4 container. So all Facebook has to do is bypass the flash plugin and just link you directly to the very same mp4 file the flash player uses.
I notice quite often that flash based videos are already encoded in a format supported by the iPad (I say iPad because some are too high resolution for the iPhone to play, even though the format is correct). Simply using the Activity window in the desktop Safari most of the time I see an mp4 file being streamed into the flash player. Simply copy the url from the activity window and paste it directly into the browser and it will play natively. Take the url to the iPad and it would also play just fine. So in cases like this, all that needs to be done is for the site to link you directly to the media file and the browser will do the rest. Why do we need flash for video again? (I know, for those not encoded in h.264.... )
I've done work for a company, building an iPhone app for them which is up on the store as well. I actually find development for the iPhone (and OSX in general) as a "breath of fresh air". My primary background is in C development (with some C++ on Windows programming w/ MFC). I find ObjectiveC and the Cocoa/Cocoa Touch frameworks to be way more intuitive then programming in C++ (especially using the MS classes). The ability to use straight C, and link against many c libraries (provided, it has to be statically on the iPhone) is a big plus for me.
I also do a lot of Java work. I admit, its all back end multithreaded server stuff, nothing with a GUI. I have a love/hate relationship with Eclipse. Usually it works, sometimes it slows down to a crawl, other times it just freezes and I have to kill it. I've tried other Java IDE's (IDEA, NetBeans and the awful Oracle JDeveloper) but have to keep coming back to Eclipse, as I admit its features and available plugins hands down beat the rest (especially with Maven and Spring, imo anyway). I know, many will say "just use vi or emacs". I do for quick editing, but I admit, IDE's have spoiled me.
However, as minimal as it is, I like Xcode. I also find it much easier "starting" an iPhone project. I tried to do some android stuff a few times and every time I start a project I just get frustrated with it. It probably mostly has to do with my lack of experience with UI's in Java. Having to create multiple emulators is quite of a pain too, even though you only have to do it once per configuration you want to try.
iPhone OS 3 not only supports multitasking for 1st party apps, but it also supports multithreading for all apps. A cpu intensive app would then be able to take advantage of multiple cores. iPhone OS 4 also introduces "Grand Central" into the mix which along with the new background process ("multi-tasking") support would further benefit from multiple cores.
It's also obvious that OS4 has been in the works well before the iPad came out. OS 3.2 was most likely just a way to get the device out early.
I'm not saying what the article is saying is true, but it does make sense.
Apple does not want flash on their platform for simple money reasons.
The authors of Farmville and Mafia Wars are more then welcome to develop iPhone native versions of their games, and offer them for free. Yeah remember, you can put apps on the store, FOR FREE. In which case apple doesn't make any money on them. (Flash author tool costs a lot more then the $99/yr developer fee so don't even go there).
And if they don't want to develop for the iPhone natively, there's also HTML5. Apple doesn't get any money if you develop for that.
Please explain how Objective C is god-awful. I actually find it a pleasure to use and find the Cocoa API's way more intuitive then the MFC ones. Please don't bring up C# and.Net. I can't stand THAT god-awful hack of a language and framework. I don't want to include, or make my users download such a large install just to to run a 1mb application.
I've actually found the intellisense in Visual Studio fails on me way more often then in Xcode. Sure, in past versions intellisense in Xcode was horrible. But after doing a project in Visual Studio 2008 recently, I just gave up on the intellisense and kept the MFC documentation open on a second monitor. (Yes, it may be better in VS 2010, but that JUST came out. I still had issues with it occasionally and had to keep resetting it). Not to mention I find Apple's documentation and samples way better then Microsofts.
Also, because Objective-C is just straight C with object oriented extensions (message passing), I can include just about ANY C library I want. I'm able to take libraries I've written for apps on Linux/Unix and link to them for iPhone apps (statically of course, but I can still use them as is).
Slashdot Mirror
I sat across the table from the man and he is freaking nuts and everyone who works for him knows it. Pitiful.
... and yet they continue to work for him. And his company continues to make massive amounts of money.
I guess in that case I wouldn't mind so much being a rapidly dying, mentally, emotionally and physically deteriorated ruin of a human being, bent on control fueled by his narcissism trying to slap together a legacy pyramid for himself.
If they really want to make a stament just don't release Photoshop and their other apps for Mac. Sure this will cost them quite a bit of money but for a part it can hurt a lot of professional Mac users and lure them back to Windows (I don't like Windows either but I prefer it above crApple) or let them release Linux versions of their products :)
First, this is just a really stupid argument. I'm not sure why people think this is a good idea. Adobe is obviously out for profit, you think they want flash on the iDevices because its better for their users? Yeah, keep living in your happy little world.
Next, the CS products get more bloated and slower with each release (with the exception of the 64bit version of PS for OSX in CS5, of course not many plugins yet support 64bit so you have to run it in 32bit mode until they do). I believe they're even now using AIR for their UI.
There's really no reason why many professionals would really need to upgrade anyway. Many are still using CS3. Yeah, PS in CS5 introduces the new "Content Aware Fill" which is pretty nice, but its not flawless and it just makes something that people have been doing for years easier (in some cases its still easier to do it the old fashioned way). There's nothing that you can do in CS5 that you can't do in an earlier version. with exception of loading really large image files. Of course, now that CS5 has been released for OSX that ability is out there. If CS6 didn't come out for mac (which would cost Adobe a lot in lost revenue), I'm sure the creative professionals would be more then content staying on an older version (at least until Apple released a competing app).
What's the problem again?
VAT
And how is this Apple's problem?
Apple got it right again with the iPhone, but is already losing it again with the highly proprietary iPhone now rapidly losing market share rapidly against the more open Linux/Google/Android platform. (Android's 4x marketshare growth in a single month - WTF!?!)
I would say, and I believe many would agree, that the normal "user" doesn't care about or even understand what "open" really means. In fact, from reading many comments on various sites I would say that many "geeks" don't even understand what open means or how its applied to the various phones. Regardless, Apple has a single phone (granted with 3 revisions thus far), on a single US network. Android is available on multiple networks and more importantly, Verizon. I know many people that would love to get an iPhone but refuse to simply because they can't have it on Verizon. They complain that they won't be able to use mobile-to-mobile minutes talking to their friends and wont get unlimited sms/mms to their friends. Not one person I know has ever mentioned that they don't want an iPhone because its not "open".
Android phones are a great alternative to the iPhone on other networks so people will buy it. But to say that Apple is "losing" because they aren't open, I can't see how that can be completely proven as Apple recently announced they surpassed 1 million sold iPads (which run the same "closed" operating system).
As others have pointed out, you also have to count the iPads and iPod Touches as they all share the same OS and allow non-at&t users to have the "iPhone" experience without having to switch to at&t (or get non-contracted service on their iPad 3G's)
Regarding "some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen" -- nothing springs to mind, care to elaborate? It does have rollover support but that doesn't mean that you have to use it.
But everyone seems to think all the current flash apps out there will already run perfectly on their multi-touch device. I don't have any numbers or specifics since I try to avoid any of the social media games, but how many of them will work perfectly on a mobile device touch screen? Its a serious question. I've never played any of them.
As Jobs pointed out, if any of these games or apps would have to be rewritten with touch in mind, why not write them in a more open format (html5) rather then keeping them bound to a closed plugin?
What you don't like to go to a website to only be presented with 30 seconds of intro animation?
Or in my case, a big empty page with a box in the middle that says "Flash".
There are a lot of things Flash does that HTML5 will never do.
Everyone always says this. Can you please name a few of these things?
HTML5 video tag can host browser-native video. There are many complex game examples showing that HTML5 can be used for games. Many of the full-flash-crap-pages currently only use flash to do some fancy (annoying) fades and transitions. I would love to lose that, but I believe HTML5 or CSS3 animations or whatever can do that.
What else is there?
Yes. According to the article "All new videos are encoded in h264 format, so we're playing videos natively in the iPad since it supports h264-encoded videos"
Flash can already play h.264 files in the mp4 container. So all Facebook has to do is bypass the flash plugin and just link you directly to the very same mp4 file the flash player uses.
I notice quite often that flash based videos are already encoded in a format supported by the iPad (I say iPad because some are too high resolution for the iPhone to play, even though the format is correct). Simply using the Activity window in the desktop Safari most of the time I see an mp4 file being streamed into the flash player. Simply copy the url from the activity window and paste it directly into the browser and it will play natively. Take the url to the iPad and it would also play just fine. So in cases like this, all that needs to be done is for the site to link you directly to the media file and the browser will do the rest. Why do we need flash for video again? (I know, for those not encoded in h.264.... )
I've done work for a company, building an iPhone app for them which is up on the store as well. I actually find development for the iPhone (and OSX in general) as a "breath of fresh air". My primary background is in C development (with some C++ on Windows programming w/ MFC). I find ObjectiveC and the Cocoa/Cocoa Touch frameworks to be way more intuitive then programming in C++ (especially using the MS classes). The ability to use straight C, and link against many c libraries (provided, it has to be statically on the iPhone) is a big plus for me.
I also do a lot of Java work. I admit, its all back end multithreaded server stuff, nothing with a GUI. I have a love/hate relationship with Eclipse. Usually it works, sometimes it slows down to a crawl, other times it just freezes and I have to kill it. I've tried other Java IDE's (IDEA, NetBeans and the awful Oracle JDeveloper) but have to keep coming back to Eclipse, as I admit its features and available plugins hands down beat the rest (especially with Maven and Spring, imo anyway). I know, many will say "just use vi or emacs". I do for quick editing, but I admit, IDE's have spoiled me.
However, as minimal as it is, I like Xcode. I also find it much easier "starting" an iPhone project. I tried to do some android stuff a few times and every time I start a project I just get frustrated with it. It probably mostly has to do with my lack of experience with UI's in Java. Having to create multiple emulators is quite of a pain too, even though you only have to do it once per configuration you want to try.
Just my thoughts on it. To each their own.
Please check your facts on the licensing dates, they changed in February.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx
(direct PDF of the press release is here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf )
iPhone OS 3 not only supports multitasking for 1st party apps, but it also supports multithreading for all apps. A cpu intensive app would then be able to take advantage of multiple cores. iPhone OS 4 also introduces "Grand Central" into the mix which along with the new background process ("multi-tasking") support would further benefit from multiple cores.
It's also obvious that OS4 has been in the works well before the iPad came out. OS 3.2 was most likely just a way to get the device out early.
I'm not saying what the article is saying is true, but it does make sense.
Apple does not want flash on their platform for simple money reasons.
The authors of Farmville and Mafia Wars are more then welcome to develop iPhone native versions of their games, and offer them for free. Yeah remember, you can put apps on the store, FOR FREE. In which case apple doesn't make any money on them. (Flash author tool costs a lot more then the $99/yr developer fee so don't even go there).
And if they don't want to develop for the iPhone natively, there's also HTML5. Apple doesn't get any money if you develop for that.
Please explain how Objective C is god-awful. I actually find it a pleasure to use and find the Cocoa API's way more intuitive then the MFC ones. Please don't bring up C# and .Net. I can't stand THAT god-awful hack of a language and framework. I don't want to include, or make my users download such a large install just to to run a 1mb application.
I've actually found the intellisense in Visual Studio fails on me way more often then in Xcode. Sure, in past versions intellisense in Xcode was horrible. But after doing a project in Visual Studio 2008 recently, I just gave up on the intellisense and kept the MFC documentation open on a second monitor. (Yes, it may be better in VS 2010, but that JUST came out. I still had issues with it occasionally and had to keep resetting it). Not to mention I find Apple's documentation and samples way better then Microsofts.
Also, because Objective-C is just straight C with object oriented extensions (message passing), I can include just about ANY C library I want. I'm able to take libraries I've written for apps on Linux/Unix and link to them for iPhone apps (statically of course, but I can still use them as is).