Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2011, 10:22 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Adobe bashing

just for fun...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/09/tech/mobile/flash-steve-jobs/index.html


QuoteQuote:
"The soul of Adobe disappeared when Warnock left," he said. "He was the inventor, the person I related to. It's been a bunch of suits since then, and the company has turned to crap."


12-08-2011, 11:05 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,306
Steve's biggest problem with Flash was he didn't invent or own it.
12-08-2011, 11:14 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Hey Elwood's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Highland, MI
Posts: 336
I have a website that is flash based and I love it. I would rather have the option of flash then just a plain html site. Makes your stuff stand out more. I agree that Steve Jobs was just mad that he didn't develop flash.
12-08-2011, 11:54 AM   #4
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
Adobe will always be on my "just love em" list. I don't care who runs the place. Forget Flash. I could live without it honestly. I find it downright annoying sometimes. Adobe gave us the wonder that is Photoshop and for that I will forgive them much. It still costs too darned much IMHO but I still think it's the best image editor on the planet and though I could use something else I'd rather not. Other imaging applications are okay, some of them are even more okay, but they're just not Photoshop. Photoshop is a whole league of it's own and always has been. As a photographer/digital artist I have a total love affair going on with it, have since I got my first copy of Photoshop 4 years ago. I can replace a lot of the applications I use with others, and have some of them, but not Photoshop. Not really. I've tried GIMP and such and I always come back to Photoshop in the end. There are other imaging applications that I use in addition to it, but Photoshop is my main one and I'm not into giving it up, period.

12-08-2011, 11:58 AM   #5
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,751
Apple and the Mac probably wouldn't have survived the lean years without Adobe. Jobs was pissed that Adobe made it's photo and graphics software available for Windows. Tough. While Jobs said he doesn't like cross platform software, he didn't seem to have problems making money off Windows users with I Tunes.
12-08-2011, 12:18 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 209
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom S. Quote
Steve's biggest problem with Flash was he didn't invent or own it.
That's so true - there wasn't any 'idea' with Steve or his hard working (he called Flash a work of lazy developers) Apple engineers to be able to "innovate" anything in or from Flash.
12-08-2011, 01:03 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,103
QuoteOriginally posted by Hey Elwood Quote
I have a website that is flash based and I love it. I would rather have the option of flash then just a plain html site. Makes your stuff stand out more. I agree that Steve Jobs was just mad that he didn't develop flash.
Yep, it says stay away, this site sucks.

The new Pentaximaging.com site is done entirely in HTML. It doesn't suck.

Flash in nothing more than a resource hogging security risk. It is the past of the Internet. The future is HTML5.

Last edited by boriscleto; 12-08-2011 at 01:09 PM.
12-08-2011, 01:18 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,103
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
Apple and the Mac probably wouldn't have survived the lean years without Adobe. Jobs was pissed that Adobe made it's photo and graphics software available for Windows. Tough. While Jobs said he doesn't like cross platform software, he didn't seem to have problems making money off Windows users with I Tunes.
Adobe wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for Apple. Apple adopted Postscript for it's LaserWriter printers in 1985, nobody outside the Silicon Valley had even heard of Adobe before that. They then developed Illustrator and bought Photoshop. When Jobs started NeXT he licensed Postscript again. Apple went a different direction and created TrueType, but still licensed Postscript for it's LaserWriters. Microsoft licensed TrueType from Apple because it was cheaper than licensing Postscript. The interesting thing is Adobe had a chance to buy Flash in 1995 and passed it up. Their decision to buy Macromedia just for Flash in 2005 is one of the worst business decisions ever.

To be fair they did get DreamWeaver too. :fed up:

The main reason SJ was angry at Adobe was Adobe held Apple hostage over OS X. Adobe flat out refused to port their software to Rhapsody, the original plan for OS X. Instead Apple had to develop the Carbon API, and even then Adobe took more than a year to port Photoshop and Illustrator.


Last edited by boriscleto; 12-08-2011 at 01:32 PM.
12-08-2011, 04:38 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 11,863
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote

The main reason SJ was angry at Adobe was Adobe held Apple hostage over OS X. Adobe flat out refused to port their software to Rhapsody, the original plan for OS X. Instead Apple had to develop the Carbon API, and even then Adobe took more than a year to port Photoshop and Illustrator.
I recall that when it happened. Apple came out with a new OS that abandoned old software and all the Children of the Mac started crying that mean old Adobe was somehow at fault.
At some point, the people who write operating systems have to take responsibility for some of what they do, especially when what they do is make it impossible for software that is already on the shelf to operate.
12-08-2011, 09:00 PM   #10
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I recall that when it happened. Apple came out with a new OS that abandoned old software and all the Children of the Mac started crying that mean old Adobe was somehow at fault.
At some point, the people who write operating systems have to take responsibility for some of what they do, especially when what they do is make it impossible for software that is already on the shelf to operate.
That can go both ways.. much of windows earlier problems came from softwatre developers who took short cuts that eventually would bite them in the nose as the OS was changed..
i.e windows says "hook it this way" developer says this is "easier/trickier faster ect..
small change in the OS and the "not to spec" software goes boom..

At least this is how some of it was explained to me.......
12-08-2011, 09:32 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,103
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I recall that when it happened. Apple came out with a new OS that abandoned old software and all the Children of the Mac started crying that mean old Adobe was somehow at fault.
At some point, the people who write operating systems have to take responsibility for some of what they do, especially when what they do is make it impossible for software that is already on the shelf to operate.
The original plan for OS X was to quickly develop OpenStep into OS X (Rhapsody). There would be a MacOS compatibility layer (Blue Box) that would allow you to boot a copy of MacOS 8 and run non-hardware dependent software. Going forward software would have to be rewritten for the OpenStep based API (Yellow Box). Adobe and Microsoft told Apple that they weren't going to rewrite their software. Apple then changed plans for OS X. They introduced an API called Carbon that would allow developers to rewrite their software with a minimum of changes, Carbon being a cleaner implementation of the original Macintosh API. Blue Box was renamed Classic and Yellow Box became Cocoa. Rhapsody was released as Mac OS X Server 1.0 in 1999. Mac OS X wasn't released until 2001. Microsoft released a Carbon version of Office in 2001, but Adobe didn't release a Carbon version of PS until 2002 (PS7).

Carbon is now depreciated and limited to 32-bit. This is cause of further tension between Adobe and Apple because Adobe finally had to move to Cocoa, more than 10 years after they were told they would eventually have to.
12-08-2011, 10:59 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Don From The Radio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Delaware
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 344
Flash and Photoshop both are resource hogs. Unfortunately, there is no serious competition for Photoshop. Flash, on the other hand, is finally on its way out. Not a second too soon. I've had to junk computers solely because they wouldn't run Flash stuff well. Anyone with a G4 Mac can tell you this. If not for Flash, the early G4s would still be viable computers for light usage. It's disgusting when you can edit video fairly well, but an animated GIF on a message board almost crashes the computer.
12-08-2011, 11:03 PM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,103
QuoteOriginally posted by Don From The Radio Quote
Flash and Photoshop both are resource hogs. Unfortunately, there is no serious competition for Photoshop. Flash, on the other hand, is finally on its way out. Not a second too soon. I've had to junk computers solely because they wouldn't run Flash stuff well. Anyone with a G4 Mac can tell you this. If not for Flash, the early G4s would still be viable computers for light usage. It's disgusting when you can edit video fairly well, but an animated GIF on a message board almost crashes the computer.
G3's have it even worse, because ClickToFlash requires at least 10.5.
12-09-2011, 11:29 AM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 209
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Yep, it says stay away, this site sucks.

The new Pentaximaging.com site is done entirely in HTML. It doesn't suck.

Flash in nothing more than a resource hogging security risk. It is the past of the Internet. The future is HTML5.
Neither does google.com and it doesn't suck either. However, it doesn't serve the same contents like youtube does. It is all application dependent. What's the best way till date to serve streaming content besides flash?

Flash by itself isn't dangerous. What's dangerous is the malicious hackers etc. Just like flying, the mode of transportation is not dangerous, the hijackers are whats makes it dangerous. HTML5 looks like the future. And there is no vendor better positioned than Adobe to help content creators to produce HTML5. They even let you generate HTML5 from Flex. But HTML5 wasn't there yesterday.
12-09-2011, 11:59 AM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,103
QuoteOriginally posted by debmalya Quote
Neither does google.com and it doesn't suck either. However, it doesn't serve the same contents like youtube does. It is all application dependent. What's the best way till date to serve streaming content besides flash?
You do know that Youtube is dumping Flash, right? I haven't seen a Flash video on Youtube for a while, its all HTML5. You just have to opt-in. And the best part is no ads in the videos.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adobe
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
British austerity bashing (again) ;) jeffkrol General Talk 85 08-27-2012 03:00 PM
Official Pentax K-5 bashing thread. ilya80 Pentax K-5 191 11-06-2010 09:13 AM
Question Political bashing - is that OK here? fernley Site Suggestions and Help 8 04-16-2010 01:15 PM
K7 vs. Kx vs. K20D vs. K10D etc .. what's going on? Bashing revisited. jpzk Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 02-08-2010 07:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top