[Anvh]

Flash still has his place and don't forget that HTML5 is underdevelopment... it isn't even out yet completly...
From what i read the video section is currently quite a mess because they didn't decided yet on which formats would become the standard so several companies pushed their product forward.
In a way i'm happy Apple pushed html5 but they pushed it too hard and fast in certain parts.

And flash unable to run on mobile device is not true, the youtube test video in flash is playable without a frame drop in 720p resolution on my half year old android device...
So surely 480p should be very playable for almost everyone...

[Anvh]

This. Times a million. And Apple still insists on using Quicktime on their site.

Apple have some patents in favour for HTML5 video, also microsoft and google.
Apple and Microsoft have some patents with h.264/MP4 and Google is pushing his WebM
There is a third codec Ogg Theora and non of the big three or any other major company has a patent there but they are trying hard to push that one out of the picture though...

Although there is nothing wrong with the codec, i hope that h.264 won't become the standard there are so many patents and party with interest for that.
Even though WebM is from google it doesn't look bad though and it's free and open-source... but theora might be the best one though for a trully free codec.

ps. by the looks of it nobody is supporting h.264 except internet explorer and safari, Chrome will be pulling the codec out of it with their new release.
So either WebM or Theora will be the standard by the looks of it.

[normhead]

And Apple still insists on using Quicktime on their site.

If Quicktime has problems, Apple will fix them... Apple did ask Adobe to fix Flash, as did many other people. With 80% of the crashes on Apple systems caused by Flash,Flash was making Apple look bad. Apple is a closed system, but Apple will have their development people work with you if need be. The only reasonable reason I can think that Adobe didn't fix flash, was they couldn't. Of course Apple was anti-flash. As should have been every computer company. Apple went through the same thing with OS 9. Updated since the dawn of computing.. it simply wasn't capable of being upgraded to be a modern computer OS. The result was Apple decided to go Unix. Apple owned OS9, they didn't own Unix, so control and ownership had nothing to do with it. Do you actually think a company like Apple, who dumped their whole OS, was actually going to allow it's platform to be compromised by a once great but now old and bloated piece of software like Flash? This is not on Apple, this is on Adobe.. It's their product... they had the responsibility to keep it current. And I have to say, it's these kinds of decisions for which the world will miss Steve Jobs. He was the guy who would say "This isn't good enough" and go with something better. Loyalty to old friends is great, but totally misplaced in technology. Flash doesn't get a free ride for what they accomplished in the past. In technology, no one does.

Flash was Adobe's contribution to he world. My next question would be, what have you done for us lately. Selling overpriced software doesn't count.

[Anvh]

Apple and Flash was indeed a very bad combination, it almost looked like Adobe did it on purpose...

Flash was Adobe's contribution to he world. My next question would be, what have you done for us lately. Selling overpriced software doesn't count.

If i need to say something... DNG maybe?
Adobe's effort to unify and with that simplify RAW files, sadly non of the bigger companies wants it, i wonder why...

But it isn't really fair what you're asking, it's the same as asking what EA gave us besides horrible computer games.
It's a company that makes software and nothing more.

[lithos]

If Quicktime has problems, Apple will fix them... Apple did ask Adobe to fix Flash, as did many other people. With 80% of the crashes on Apple systems caused by Flash,Flash was making Apple look bad. Apple is a closed system, but Apple will have their development people work with you if need be. The only reasonable reason I can think that Adobe didn't fix flash, was they couldn't. Of course Apple was anti-flash. As should have been every computer company. Apple went through the same thing with OS 9. Updated since the dawn of computing.. it simply wasn't capable of being upgraded to be a modern computer OS. The result was Apple decided to go Unix. Apple owned OS9, they didn't own Unix, so control and ownership had nothing to do with it. Do you actually think a company like Apple, who dumped their whole OS, was actually going to allow it's platform to be compromised by a once great but now old and bloated piece of software like Flash? This is not on Apple, this is on Adobe.. It's their product... they had the responsibility to keep it current. And I have to say, it's these kinds of decisions for which the world will miss Steve Jobs. He was the guy who would say "This isn't good enough" and go with something better. Loyalty to old friends is great, but totally misplaced in technology. Flash doesn't get a free ride for what they accomplished in the past. In technology, no one does.

If you're looking for poor functionality and bloat, there's always iTunes.

I cannot help but notice Flash only became truly crap in people's minds after the iPhone was announce. Might just be a coincidence. Or not. My money's on Apple making a play for Adobe, Adobe telling Apple where to stick it, and Steve, in his classically petty and brattish way, using his marketing skills to turn the Apple hivemind against Adobe.

(And of course Flash is crap, but I've known that since before the iPhone. Still, I've had less problems with it than I've had with Quicktime.)

Also, I love how it's acceptable for Apple to use Unix, but as soon as someone else does something Apple does, out come the lawyers.

Flash was Adobe's contribution to he world.

Don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a little program called "Photoshop" that's pretty good.

My next question would be, what have you done for us lately. Selling overpriced software doesn't count.

But selling overpriced hardware does?

If i need to say something... DNG maybe?
Adobe's effort to unify and with that simplify RAW files, sadly non of the bigger companies wants it, i wonder why...

I remember Nikon encrypting their white balance data, so that if you made a RAW viewer, you'd have to pay Nikon for a licence for the decryption key...go figure.

[magkelly]

Actually I don't think the Iphone has much to do with it. I've never even held one and I don't like flash at all. I find flash menus on web pages very annoying. I really miss simple web pages sans flash videos, banners and all that. All that moving stuff just gets in my way when I am wanting to read or web surf. I don't like sites that pretty much force me to use plugins to be able to see their content. That's where my dislike of Flash comes from not from anything Apple has to do with it.

[boriscleto]

Also, I love how it's acceptable for Apple to use Unix, but as soon as someone else does something Apple does, out come the lawyers.

It's called a BSD License. Educate yourself.

BSD licenses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proprietary software licenses compatibility

The BSD License allows proprietary use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a proprietary license or as closed source software.
It is possible for something to be distributed with the BSD License and some other license to apply as well. This was in fact the case with early versions of BSD itself, which included proprietary material from AT&T.

Apple can call OS X UNIX because they paid to have it certified as such.

Single UNIX Specification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also this little thing called a patent. Apple seems to be sued once a week by a patent troll or a company like Motorola or Samsung.

Patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a little program called "Photoshop" that's pretty good.

Adobe was quite astute to purchase Photoshop from the Knoll's.

Early history

In 1987, Thomas Knoll, a PhD student at the University of Michigan began writing a program on his Macintosh Plus to display grayscale images on a monochrome display. This program, called Display, caught the attention of his brother John Knoll, an Industrial Light & Magic employee, who recommended Thomas turn it into a fully-fledged image editing program. Thomas took a six month break from his studies in 1988 to collaborate with his brother on the program, which had been renamed ImagePro. Later that year, Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner; a "total of about 200 copies of Photoshop were shipped" this way.

During this time, John traveled to Silicon Valley and gave a demonstration of the program to engineers at Apple and Russell Brown, art director at Adobe. Both showings were successful, and Adobe decided to purchase the license to distribute in September 1988. While John worked on plug-ins in California, Thomas remained in Ann Arbor writing program code. Photoshop 1.0 was released in 1990 for Macintosh exclusively.

Apple had their heads firmly up their asses at this point in history, besides they already had MacPaint.

MacPaint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Last edited by boriscleto; 12-19-2011 at 05:53 AM.

[Class A]

If you thought Adobe software is bloated, bug-infested, and over-priced, think again.

It also is a security risk.

[RobA_Oz]

Flash was an awful example of processor-hungry software that I found horrible to use on Windows 95 machines years ago. If you opened up a website that ran Flash and nothing else, you could go and make yourself a cup of coffee while it loaded. Navigating the site was worse still. It was an unnecessary and major contributor to the World Wide Wait. It demanded faster processors and more memory at a time when both were costly and otherwise unnecessary imposts.

Steve Jobs wasn't the first one to complain about this bloat-creating monstrosity, but he rightly stuck the knife into it when others should have done so a long time before. Some web designers love it, but I fail to see how anyone else could. Good riddance, I reckon. It's end can't come too soon, as far as I'm concerned.

[JohnInIndy]

Flash was Adobe's contribution to he world. My next question would be, what have you done for us lately. Selling overpriced software doesn't count.

Wasn't Flash developed by Macromedia not Adobe? Adobe bought out Macromedia but I don't think they actually developed Flash. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

[D4rknezz]

So about Adobe : Internet Evolution - John Myers - Adobe Upgrade Policy Prompts Outrage

Basically, Im going to predict that in several years time, all of us will be paying subscription fees for Photoshop. It is being introduced, and it will make more money for the corporation. What, 35 dollars a month for a year, every year? No brainer. What does that say about adobe? your guess.

Now..about Flash. I am honestly tired of the tirade against flash. I am a flash developer - so you know, the tirade and war against flash does, uh..., cost me my employability. Not that any of you should care... But its the weirdest thing to watch one's skill set gets outdated fast and be forced to maybe find a different living, while nowhere near retirement age.

Flash is like BluRay and HD ...or Betamax and VHS.

Let me please, try to explain. Flash is not just the flashy thing you guys see online. Thats a small portion of it, and unfortunately, the one everyone knows about, and the one most visible. It has its bugs, sure, but most of the problems everyone seems to be experiencing with it - is the problem of poor flash coding by developers. Those of you hating flash, hates flash the way you would hate Toyota because all their drivers drives recklessly.

Beyond the usability of Flash as the pretty of the website, Flash/Flex technology allows development of huge multi-platform corporate solutions. A huge company could have a whole database/interface system based on Flash technology, and you'd never know it. I can easily create your restaurant touch screen cash register database, and it doesnt look like it was created in flash.

Also, did you know , that you can create iPad or iPhone apps using Flash/Flex? yes, it doesnt run on the iPhone internet browser, but the technology itself allows you to create this wonderful applications across platforms, including for the Apple devices!
Let me give you an example. if you one day would like to create your own app to sell on mobile platform...such as one to ...measure dof. To do this, you need to hire: A graphic designer, an iPhone developer, and an Android developer. 3 GUYS! or...you can hire 1 talented Flash Developer. Because Flash can publish to iPhone, to Android, etc etc. Want to see one? Go to your iPhone...and look at iTunes store for a game called Machinarium. Its made completely in flash, award winning, and is being sold for play on apple device. Sure, HTML5 will eventually be able to replace Flash...but see, poor coding will also affect html5 later.

What I am trying to drive home is the fact that Flash is beyond what most people see everyday. And what most people see everyday, the bugs they experienced, is due to inept coding by the flash developer than adobe themselves. There are many uses for Flash, and its being killed because of public opinion.
Stop closing down toyota factories because their drivers sucks and because GM says toyota cars are buggy, Please! (this was just an anecdotal example)

Its the media and opinion editor's fault that sets in the public's mind that Flash is only that: The flashy thing on your screen.

The other day i was in the office, and some were talking about the dangers of Facebook and how you can search and snoop on everyone's lives on it. I pointed out that google allows you to search and snoop on everyone even before facebook was introduced, and is still the main tool with which you snoop around facebook. But I dont see anyone crucifying google, the actual search engine that allows you to do all these things.

Public opinion matters, and its fun how news, editors, opinion columns etcs steers public.
I am not trying to start a flame war though - i am obviously on the losing end of this war, as Flash for mobile is cancelled, Flex given away to apache foundation, the future of Flash Builder is tethering on the balance, adobe creating an HTML5 editor that is at this point so far behind Flash Professional IDE....yes...thats all part of Flash technology here...not just Flash.

I just want to give a voice - as my livelihood is tethering on the balance, and I am finding myself eating a different programming textbooks everyday to stay relevant in what i do. Several hundreds of dollars in HTML5 books, CSS books, and trying to decide on whether to go with iOS programming books as opposed to doing it in Flash like I used to be able to do.

[boriscleto]

Wasn't Flash developed by Macromedia not Adobe? Adobe bought out Macromedia but I don't think they actually developed Flash. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

It was originally developed by FutureWave Software as SmartSketch. It was further developed into FutureSplash Animator. In 1995 FutureWave offered FutureSplash to Adobe who turned it down. In 1996 it was sold to Macromedia who turned it into Flash. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time as the WorldWideWeb was really exploding and HTML at the time wasn't up to providing a rich interactive experience.

[bigdavephoto]

Just for the fun of argument, here is something else I noticed shortly after Photoshop Elements 10 was released.

Whenever I open up my copy of Elements 9, most of the time I get an ad from Adobie to upgrade to 10. That is part of the problem but here is the rest of it that is yanking me around. They want me to upgrade for more then what I spent on my copy of 9.

So please, I want somebody to try and tell me that Adobie is not trying to gouge the consumer. Oh and BTW, 10 is just a tweeked verson of 9 too.

[JohnInIndy]

Just a few quick questions for all those that wish to bash Adobe.
1. Do you like how PS works and what it can do?
2. Do you feel it's overpriced?
3. Do you really want a better product?

Here's my answers
1 Yep, I do like what I can do with it. It has a steep learning curve that I may someday master but it works.
2. Not really. I think Nikons and Canons are way overpriced though. That's why I bought Pentax.
3. I think PS is a pretty darn good deal but of course, like most I always want something a little better.

Now for those that answered "NO" to the above I ask this.
Why don't you go develop or hire someone to develop software to your specifications?


And Big Dave how can you say they are gouging? They set a price for the product. You have full control of where you spend your money. Adobe isn't holding a gun to anyone's head and making them buy PS or any other program they develop. Buy the cheaper equivalent product. There is none? Then why don't you develop one and sell it for less?

[boriscleto]

Mac users have absolutely no reason to ever have to use Elements. Pixelmator can do pretty much anything Elements can do and it's only $30.

Pixelmator