what's with Apple's outright war with Adobe?

i get that Flash is evil and all that, but Apple seems to be going an extra mile to vilify and ostracize Adobe. what's going on?

Adobe Vs. Apple http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/10/adobe-vs-apple-war-generates-rage-facebook-group/

and here's an article about Google and Apple just in a rivalry. i suppose that's been the case for some time now.
http://www.physorg.com/news190100718.html

at the recent iPhone 4.0 event, Jobs made it a point to take a jab at Google about their acquisition of AdMob. certainly not on a level with Adobe, so there's that.

What's going on is Adobe isn't listening, never has, and Apple is going the extra mile, thank-you Apple.

i have no qualms with the fight with Adobe. i don't like a closed and proprietary system on the internet (i.e., Flash) so html5 is very welcome by me. in fact, i am thrilled with this focus by Apple, particularly since Adobe was trying to sabotage html5.

but it seems as though Apple isn't just trying to get the world to move to html5 as they are also trying to really hurt Adobe with the SDK. not allowing ported apps from Adobe Flash (seems weird not to say Macromedia Flash) is especially stinging.

Jobs responds to this issue (and the rationale seems quite sound, imho):

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/10/steve-j...-standard-apps/

And you questioned the almighty, shame.

Apple and Adobe have been at it for years now. Adobe started yanking Mac apps and making Windows only versions of software about 5 years ago. It seems like Apple was buying it's time to get revenge.

IMO, Adobe doesn't want to piss off Apple. Apple could buy a majority in Adobe stocks for $10M and still have plenty of money to spare.

LOL. Good point.

Just finished my take on this subject HERE

This is my kind of politics…

I've been working with Adobe apps, on Macs, since . . . Since I first started using Macs. Loooong time. Apple and Adobe are both very good at what they do, they both tend to cop serious attitude, and I can't live without either one. I don't want to, either. To paraphrase a comment in one of the linked articles ~ I hate it when mom and dad fight.

I've seen a lot of people saying Adobe should kill the Creative Suite on the Mac to get back at Apple . . .


Now, you go on in your blog and point out the obvious reasons that this kind of speculation makes 0 sense,* and in my head I know it's true, but still ~ This is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Guess I'll just have to sleep with the lights on for awhile.

*OK, except that I only now know where to read you, and that should've been obvious. )

There is a lot of stupid being spread across Mac forums because of this. Most of the contempt is coming from angry Flash fans, and bein fueled by old school Apple haters. While they are definitely not hunky-dory terms, I don't think Apple and Adobe are anywhere near disowning eachother.

We're just lucky the people in the forums aren't the ones running the companies.

Yep me tooooo

Possible the reason why Apple is spanking Adobe is because they were a Mac only shop in the early days , the same with Quark - They both turn coat and went to PCs , hence the battles because they both want to keep the PC market - Apple has its own direction and screw the 90% of PCs

Still the David and Goliath , story and really Apple is still the David

Another report

I don't know enough about coding but I guess this cross-platform compilers = bloatware that Apple is saying is buggy ? ? If so then Apple has a good point

Well, both those corporate arseholes need to be taken down a notch. Both are making enemies from once-friends.

Hahaha:



Ed

After over three decades of the internet or something like that, this great unique pipe, Apple's everything going through that iTunes nonsense is counter-evolutionary and hopefully doomed to extinction. It is an Achilles heel - Just that Apple enjoys some cachet armor for the moment - Nothing is forever.

That's only for their iProducts, the rest is still the wide open WWW.How many billion in cash, and no debt goes a long way. I don't see any ebb in the near future. He's doing something right. The business model doesn't fit my needs much though, but it obviously does for many others.

For as much as I'm immersed in tech, except for an iPod mini for the portable music thing I have never embraced that cash cow though. I don't buy anything from the iTunes Store except a little music, I doubt I've spent $30 total, I prefer to spend my money on the full quality CD's.

I have no iPhone as I can't justify the $600+ a year more in monthly charges it would cost me. Oddly, I'm one that just uses my phone to, well, make phone calls rarely text, and watching a movie on a 2x4 screen doesn't thrill me. I'll amuse myself with people in public as opposed to looking at my crotch and laughing to myself.

There are always cheaper ways around anything iXxxx, but with Apple's model it's all in one place and seamless, sort of. I wouldn't be needed if it was totally.

But obviously many people don't feel the same as I do, and Jobs has tapped into that niche. Wish I'd have thought of it.

I don't have a problem with "open" until people try and force it down other people's throats. Free and superior = great ...free and inferior = ok, until you tell me that I need to dump my "closed" solution because it's evil.

H.264 is a good example of this. Ogg is free/open, yet inferior, but that's not stopping thousands of freetards from trying to make it "the codec" for HTML5. All they are doing is slowing crap down. Sometimes free isn't the answer.

Well Apple is no different then MS or Google or any other platform , they are just protecting their turf - from well just hacker crap developers .

iTunes = what was it before ? ? where did you go to find apps apps and music and movies ? <-- if you had to drive your car to get what you wanted , you would burn a whole gas tank driving all over the place --> iTunes now you just drive to one place to get everything , sorta like a Wall*Mart .

I really don't understand the cry babies about iTunes ? ? before to get stuff they had to visit many different places , not to mention never get stuff because they never knew it was available , just new knew it was . Plus you can sync and manage at the same time from the same app <-- whats hard about that ?

Sound Jam!

Beat me to it, drjohn

Yeah
But did Sound Jam sync and manage all your music to different devices and had apps , movies and and and and ? ?

They don't like iTunes because you can't buy a movie from there and play it on a zune 3 years down the road. The fact is, you aren't able to buy movies from ANY store and have them work everywhere. It's not Apple's fault that the content providers require DRM.

They also don't like the fact that you can't buy certain types of apps in the app store ...boo hoo. I can't go into Target and buy porn either. It's their store, they choose what they wish to carry.

No...but it had some neat skins available. And considering I have no other devices, apps, movies etc, what needs to be synced?

Well, we agree on a lot of stuff, well, except perhaps Apple's invulnerability. That stuff is never forever. No one has ever come close to the monopoly the East India Company (not to mention its global shadow-governments apparatus), yet now they're a podunk catalog company). International Harvester (ironic their scouts were a sort of progentor to SUVs) and their vast empire - They're not even a name anymore and haven't been for decades - They really disappeared into nothingness. RCA - Edison's company. Same with the old IBM, once invulnerable and almighty - Now they scratch with everybody else. Innumerable once-giants PC companies that were household names, now you can't even remember who they were before the Chinese took them over. Or even such weirdness as the VW shortseller Hell when Porsche's secret 74% stake pushed VW to the world's most valuable company long enough to cause a lot of parasites' suicides - Now, an Apple would really be subject to that sort of catastrophic weirdness.

That's just silly to think Apple's invulnerable, or anybody else, Google, Adobe, etc - Everybody is. Doesn't have to be so, but history hasn't been kind. Everybody digs their grave at some point.

The only question with Apple is where they're going to dig their grave.

Zwei's on the money with his observation about worthless free hippy nonsense - The only thing more pathetic than when some hippy squanders vast resources on some boneheaded marginal dysfunctional good or gain (loss) is when some conservative Sith does it , although on the other hand there is probably more amazing free stuff out there than free garbage. And Steve is some sort of hippy faerie gone Sith .

However, Apple's nonsense is inexcusable. They certainly don't need it. That Apple Unified User Experience stuff is a sweet magic bullet that works, and would work just as well electively as mandatorily - It's too bad they've chosen to sully that. Their nonsense is really silly and makes them look unnecessarily bad, as they really don't have to do all that stuff.

History always wins - It hasn't been kind to people that don't get it right.

Ed

A benevolent dictator's still a dictator. So, you play along, or revolt and gut him, or variations on that theme.

I like iTunes because I like Apple lossless, although I wish it would work in non-Apple stuff, like with AAC and MP3, although that's functionally irrelevant since I like Nanos (FM is nice, too) and stream my library through a premium MP3Tunes locker ( I don't care to share my personal music preferences as they're, well, personal ) to Mac computers ( well, I guess now an iPad, too ). The only AAC or MP3 stuff I buy is just for my kids' instant gratification, since their quality doesn't concern me ( and they obviously don't care, either, and quality really is a personal preference, not some Fascist thing - if they like junk audio, that's fine ). So, my personal stuff is ripped from disk, since that's the only way to get Apple lossless.

Movies, again, that doesn't interest me obsessively. I buy movies for my kids, and again, their constraints aren't my problem. Besides, I stream stuff, if even that, and have unwatched and unreturned Netflix disks from before the Christmas holidays still laying around ( although we have gone to cinema a lot and summers go the San Jose drive-in { pretty cool, they get movies the same time as the cines, and you can bring in your own better food, drink, comfy chairs, whatever, a lot more comfortable and civilized } ).

But, I suppose you're correct in your assessment of drone slave-wage Stepford consumer wonks, kids, whomever, braindead hippy developers, etc - They want all this garbage, but GIGO, garbage in garbage out. No free lunch. You get what you pay for. Stuff may want to be free, but making it costs money. GIGO.

However, it doesn't change that a benevolent dictator is still a frickin dictator.

It's a free country and its their store and they can do whatever they want.

But if they get gutted and torn a new arsehole, that's just the free market working

Ed

Well, now that I think about it, the thing is free and open access to junk, drivel. That, pragmatically, as evidenced by history, is the important stuff, stretching back to antiquities, since junk collection is what survives, what gets squirreled away and coveted, the stuff that people make the most of, so through sheer numbers and luck it survives, it is through the museums of priceless vases (in their day, mere p!sspots), drivel populist plays, etc, that we think we know past societies and their cultures.

I like junk. It's very important stuff. It defines us. It provides many of us gainful employment.

Junk is so important. It should have free and open access. Apple certainly has it's share of drivel in the App store ( so much for the world's greatest user experience, yet strangely apt, since most user preference is about junk ), yet it is not a freely and openly accessible develoment medium.

Apple could outright buy Adobe altogether and still have plenty of money to spare.

I'm like you but my daughter wanted an iPhone so we got a used one to go with our T-Mobile account. No data plan so it didn't increase our monthly cost. Well, I liked it so much I broke down and found a 1st gen for $100 (cracked glass but not too distracting). They're incredibly easy to hack to get to work with other carriers. Being a tech support guy, learning about these would enable you to expand the services you offer. Just a thought.

The iPad was the first of their devices that I really was compelled to buy. The iPod Touch is too small for couch surfing, and without a camera I wasn't interested in keeping it in my pocket all the time. The iPhone is very expensive for what we need it for. Right now my wife and I both have prepaid phones. I pay $100 a year for mine, and she uses about $125-$150 …$0.25 a minute baby!

What I hope they come out with this fall is an iPod Touch with a camera, and 3g data options like the upcoming iPad. Holy crap I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I've got this strange theory that smartphones have the same power as low-def low-rez television ( remember the old days when half the neighborhood would huddle for hours watching test patterns, when there wasn't a lot of programming? ). In this context, I suppose terms like immersion/immersiveness have to be contextual, as low rez is more immersive, requiring participant/recipient fill-in, so as, for example, with low-rez television, the recipient becomes the picture tube; whereas with say a high-rez medium like cinema, it is so rich and detailed and enveloping that the recipient doesn't have to do much other than just be there, so it's magic works differently, polar opposite of low-def television.

With high-rez, the medium is the projector, with low-rez, the recipient is the projector, therein the magic of these basically inferior low-rez devices, the smartphones. High-rez pushes out, low-rez sucks you in.

With phones, they've always been low-rez, therefore their engaging power, and now with smartphones they have multi-faceted low-rez, except for perhaps a more resolution-independent GPS turn-by-turn navigation etc (and that's probably why people can 'take it or leave it' that feature).

So now, with HD television penetration and saturation, I think we can expect eventual total network programming bankruptcy, and these dorks will think it's about content or lack of, delivery methods, or whatever else excuse/misconception/whatever, when it will be about the fundamental underlying technological differences of a medium.

First we shape our tools, thereafter they shape us.

Ed

Jee, an interesting thing. I got a bus to drive kids around in (legally, I might add, as I'd previously obtained a class B license for single-axles, originally for hauling home-rolled pre-fabbed sections down to the Sea of Cortez), then one day snapped off all but the first foot of roof antenna on one of those overhanging tree branches that overgrow on untrimmed nonpriority roads.

Well, that little stub of antenna is substantially less than 1/4 wavelength, so signal basically wasn't happening but of course a lot of unbearable (or so I'd thought) noise and static. I've been to lazy to just get a ladder and duct tape up some coat hangar, but should to get these kids off that low-rez sedation.

Anywya, I can't listen to noise and static, but darned kids clamor for music despite the static. I turn it on, you basically can't hear any music, just a lot of noise and static, yet the kids are just mellowly happy as clams with it. It's like they don't notice it. Weird stuff. And it's not white/grid noise sedation either - You can hear this junk.

Anyway, that's how smartphones work.

The iPad of course is a different animal. It doesn't suck you in, you don't project into it - It pushes out high-rez, it projects to you.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it

How is the free market not working with the App store? It's not like Steve Jobs is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy his product -- you don't like it, don't buy it. A dictator by definition restricts your options. But you have plenty of options other than Apple or the App store -- they aren't the only game in town ;-)

That Apple and the App store hasn't been gutted and torn a new orifice shows me that the free market is working just fine for them ...

Well, I haven't read anybody here saying Apple is invulnerable, so ... =)



Ah, not really -- a unified experience not enforced by a mandate loses ... well ... a unified experience, as the developers who elect not to adhere to the format spin the experience off in different directions (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, conceptually, but Apple would certainly crash and burn on the user experience side of things) ...

For the same reason, a car that was built to be able to use all existing parts from all manufacturers would probably run, but due to the compromises necessary would also probably end up being a pretty crappy car to actually drive ... ;-)

I would think that would harden the Apple Unified User Experience armor.

You buy the car and equip it with non-OEM junk, and it doesn't work right. You go all-OEM and it does - Everybody learns their lesson, and you've won hearts, minds and everything else. I think you win a lot bigger that way. Winning settles all the unresolved disputes, well, I guess if you've won fairly. A rigged outcome never settles anything. A pure out and out win settles stuff. Stomp terra and crush the opposition.

An outstanding article on the subject (by an iPhone dev) http://bit.ly/cOwIlT

That might work conceptually, but in practice I doubt teaching people a lesson on how badly things can run on your product is very good business. First, regardless of who's at fault, people will be having a bad experience on *your* product -- the user will be associating a bad experience with your product even if it's with some third-party app. And second, you're exposing yourself to the very credible risk that consumers will blame your platform and not the offending piece of software for that bad experience ...

Better, I would think, to provide somewhat less options for your customers in the name of guaranteeing quality standards -- especially if that's what you're trading your name on in the first place -- than to have your product become known as a free-for-all, hit-or-miss experience ...

That, plus -- as Zwei's linked blog pointed out -- it's not in Apple's best interests to be beholding to third party vendors who's products become too big to break ...

I'm beginning to think that it's not just with Adobe - Flash in particular. Apple is pushing HTML5 which seems to me that it will eventually kill QuickTime and M$s Silverlight and a whole lot of other third party, proprietary content delivery methods/apps. For those who may have not run across Silverlight authored content, it's a better experience than Flash.

Yeah, that's a great article. I should quit this, though, as I don't really care that much, and things will be what they're gonna be.

Reality:


That stuff might be right, but unnecessary, because Apple's absolutely right about not pre-empting releases because developers can't hang. Boo hoo. It's not like they're on a Linux cycle (where a lot of open-source developers don't have a problem keeping pace with, yet commercial developers could never).

This is the kind of problem that just gets worse over time, not better, if you don't nip it in the bud. This can only go from worse to worse, especially given it's technology.

Developers just have to quit whining and take their shot and take their chances. If they can't hang, they can't hang - Tough sh!t, separate the wheat from the chaf. Jeeze, they've done this before, under a lot more adverse developer criteria, and when Apple had a lot more tenuous position/circumstances.

And Apple needs to allow this (basically) selection process. A developer relationship is one thing - Babysitting adults is another. You don't want to be in the babysitting business or else it takes over everything.

I like that developer comment, something along the lines of: Who cares about the developer? What about what the user cares about? These guys don't get it - Apple just needs to focus on what they do brilliantly, the user, what's worked for them. Fuk the developers, this isn't about them - It's about the user, stupid. Focus on the user, yet extend the right and means to developers to fuk themselves. As long as they focus on the user, Apple wins. Clean kill, fair fight - That will put that stuff to rest once and for all. Otherwise, any other way, that stuff never fully resolves. They need to fix this now before it goes from worse to worse.

Hey, did you check out Google's Quake II in HTML5 at 30pfs?

Ed

Obviously I'm unfit for these companies like Apple, as you do need a developer relationship, and I have zero aptitude for babysitting adults.

BTW: Flash sucks. Kill it. Sooner the better.

Really, this stuff is more about Flash, Farmville, Facebook, etc, grossly overvalued more than their actual small worth expendable stuff. Who cares? I mean, really, Facebook, social networking is a Boomer thing, and Boomers' attention spans are even worse than their children's or grandchildren's. They'll piss and moan when stuff breaks, then next day on to something else as is their DNA. Nobody will really miss that stuff.

The sooner Adobe and Apple get over their individual beefs, the better it could be for everybody. The OS 4.0 iPhone won't run Adobe flash - though it's tempting to mock Apple zealots who got payday cash advances to get in line to purchase their new trinket and won't stop slobbering - ha ha, it doesn't do every little thing Droid Does! - and here I thought the idea behind smart phones was adaptability and functioning as a PC and cell phone at once. (It's like they're overrated or something.) Apple DOES have a point, in that Adobe eats up a fair volume of computing, and the iPhone OS does feature code that will translate Flash into an iPhone friendly version.

Doing common tasks well > Doing all things

Except that non-OEM brakes usually will stop a car shorter and more consistently, and non-OEM clutch will usually last longer and perform better. Often for less money too. :P

Hahaha. Yeah, you got me. I talk too much anyway, so trying to boil something down to less doesn't work either.

Yeah, a lot of the OEM stuff is just passable, if that. Those packages are a great racket, too. But, with cars like with Apple, it's simple and easy for people. Point and click.

Even Microsoft takes the hard path. Third party stuff can use their own APIs (and they work good most of the time, on a par with native, if done right) - That's a simple way out for them and their developer ecosystem and it works. The thing that makes me laugh, though, is that Apple uses their own APIs for Windows iTunes - Makes perfect sense, though, and isn't hypocritical - If somebody gives you a hole, you jump through it.



Ed

Not trying to pick a debate



You got a list or something ? I keep hearing its the other way around .

Yeah, just what we want. An iPhone that behaves like a PC. No, thank you.