Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I'm conflicted (4, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31831542)

In a battle between two vendors, one with a closed source, insecurt framework and the other with a closed platform, which side do I root for?

Re:I'm conflicted (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831564)

I don't know.

Is there a way both of them can lose?

Re:I'm conflicted (2, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | about 4 years ago | (#31831590)

Apple. Their platform, their closed system. If they choose to keep it closed that is their problem. Let the consumers choose and get the new Google tablet that has flash enabled and let Apple die. Adobe shouldn't be able to use the court system to bully their way into a market.

Re:I'm conflicted (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831688)

Can Microsoft do that as well? It's their platform right? Oh, wait, it's Apple so it's fine now.

I don't know who should win in this one. Perhaps I'll wait till the docs are actually filed and can read the actual arguments and get actual law instead of some journalists opinion on what is.

Re:I'm conflicted (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#31831884)

Can Microsoft do that as well?

I don't see a problem with that. But now you get into the whole monopoly thing and past court decisions and that's a whole different ball of wax than Apple.

Re:I'm conflicted (2)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#31831726)

I think that's a reasonable argument.

I think it would also be a reasonable argument that Apple can't use its monopoly in one area to force its way into another monopoly. In this case, the first monopoly would be in mobile browsers, and the other would be in user web experience.

Both of those are reasonable ways to look at the situation, and a court ruling would come down to the facts. In this case, the facts to support the second argument (the one I provide) would be difficult to show; so that will be Adobe's burden.

Re:I'm conflicted (3, Informative)

quantumplacet (1195335) | about 4 years ago | (#31831820)

Do you know what a monopoly is? how can you possibly claim Apple has a monopoly in either one of those markets? most figures I've seen put them in the 15-20% market share for smartphones, and those numbers are probably high.

Re:I'm conflicted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831970)

I don't think he meant the smartphone market. He meant the douchebag market.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Z_A_Commando (991404) | about 4 years ago | (#31831924)

In what way is Adobe "bullying their way into a market" here? Closed systems aren't illegal, but once you hold a monopoly in a market and start deciding that only certain other people can play with you it's a different story. Adobe is being vilified by Apple, and whether that's true or not cannot preclude Adobe from the right to create products that work on iPhone OS. If others can do it, Adobe should be able to too. Apple holds a monopoly in the MP3 player market. They also hold a monopoly on the distribution of iPod Touch, iPad, and iPhone applications.

I'm glad that someone with a little bit of pocket change is going after Apple and their vendor lock in. In my opinion, that's far worse than a closed source product. At least then, people can choose not to create sites with Flash voluntarily instead of being forced to.

Re:I'm conflicted (5, Insightful)

bluesatin (1350681) | about 4 years ago | (#31831612)

Personally I'd think that Adobe standing up for itself, and perhaps threatening Apple with some-sort of discontinuing of it's products on Macs may knock some sense into Apple; it'd probably be a good thing for Adobe in the long run.

If Apple obviously doesn't want to play nice with Adobe, why should Adobe keep providing Apple with a main selling feature of Macs? (The supposed fact they're for multimedia work).

Re:I'm conflicted (4, Informative)

Old97 (1341297) | about 4 years ago | (#31831790)

Adobe didn't play nice with Apple in the 1990's and about killed it. Instead they sucked up to Microsoft. Turn about is fair play, but there are still good technical reasons why Flash is not good for devices like iPad and iPhone. They are not personal computers. They are devices and Apple is trying to squeeze the most out of them.

Re:I'm conflicted (0, Troll)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | about 4 years ago | (#31831862)

This is why I don't by Iwhatever. I have an Android based phone and it plays flash just fine (java works great too). I don't need an Iwhatever at an absurd price with an expensive fancy contract that doesn't work very well.

Re:I'm conflicted (2)

HogGeek (456673) | about 4 years ago | (#31831816)

While historically speaking the Mac was "the best system for multimedia" and that's why they sell, I don't necessarily believe that holds water anymore.

I use Macs exclusively, as does my family and all of my friends (not to mention a lot of people where I work), and none of us do multimedia.

I use it because it is "UNIX", and a lot of my friends and family use it because it is more stable and less "work" that windows (has been in the past, W7 still being evaluated).

So personally, Adobe can crawl into a deep dark corner and die, and it wouldn't influence my purchases of Apple system(s).

Re:I'm conflicted (1)

atchijov (527688) | about 4 years ago | (#31831954)

1) Adobe products are NOT main selling feature of Macs (by far) 2) Mac sales of Adobe products provide huge chunk of Adobe bottom line. Bottom line: If adobe will pool from Mac market, they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:I'm conflicted (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | about 4 years ago | (#31831652)

Why doesn't Adobe just stop making the photoshop and stuff for Apple and make them for linux and MS only. That would kill a large portion of Apple's business.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831712)

because it wouldn't be Adobe punishing Apple, it would be Adobe punishing their own customers. The customers don't care about a fight between two companies. If netflix canceled your subscription because you went to blockbuster when you really needed a movie on a friday night, would you hate blockbuster or netflix?

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831808)

No it would kill a large part of Adobe's business as many of their customers would either not upgrade or just quit using their product.

My roommate owns a graphics/sign shop (all osx except one machine). He said if Adobe quit offering OSX products, they would never buy Adobe again.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831904)

Why doesn't Adobe just stop making the photoshop and stuff for Apple and make them for linux and MS only. That would kill a large portion of Apple's business.

because back in the day that would be an option. These days the amount of macs sold specifically to run the high end Adobe products are a drop in the bucket next to the iPod/iPhone. It would simply kill a large portion of Adobe's business.

If adobe told apple they weren't going to develop for the Mac anymore, Apple would just laugh at them. Maybe if Adobe had actually played ball with Apple years ago and made flash work better on macs than on Windows they wouldn't be in this situation now. In this argument Adobe backed the wrong horse and now wants a judge to give them another chance.

Re:I'm conflicted (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#31831736)

The one with the closed source, insecure framework.

On an open platform, you are free to kick software vendors you don't like to the curb, in favor of ones you do, and in a granular fashion. On a closed platform, your decision is entirely deprived of granularity. It's a take-it-or-leave-it, all of it, thing.

In practice, the latter gives you much less power as a customer. Yes, you can not buy the closed platform; but that means that you cannot have any of it. Technologically bundled. On an open platform, you can pick and choose. Bundling(whether technological or contractual, and whether or not it meets the legal standards of Sherman) gives the vendor great power over you because, as long as one part of their product is good, they can be more or less assured that you will just have to suck down the bad parts. Open platforms, which are much less subject to bundling, barring particularly nasty contracts, subject individual parts of the system to competitive pressure.

Yes, flash sucks. Don't install it if you have the choice, use flashblock and a whitelist if you just need it in a few places; but never forget that the vendor who can choose for you, even if their taste is impeccable, is more dangerous than the vendor you can choose, even if they suck.

Re:I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831774)

Well I dunno about you, but I'm behind the one pushing for a web standard to supplant Flash. If Adobe expects to maintain dominance through lawsuits, then they deserve to lose even more than they did for just producing a poor product.

It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 4 years ago | (#31831558)

Adobe's in this position because Flash is the #1 cause of application crashes on the Mac. If they hadn't been foot-dragging for the last decade or so, flash would be something Apple actually wanted.


..and as I said on a previous thread. (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about 4 years ago | (#31831638)

Louis Gerbarg has written up a very good explanation [devwhy.com] of the issues involved.


Adobe is a large company with a significant, and complicated, relationship with Apple. They have frequent high level contacts and meetings. Adobe has known for quite some time about Apple's desire not to have Flash on the iPhone. There is no doubt in my mind that if they asked Apple to bless this they were rebuffed, and if they didn't ask the only reason they didn't was because they knew Apple would say no. In either event, they announced the product to their customers and sold them on an idea they were not in a position to deliver, hoping Apple would be unwilling to piss off developers by not fulfilling Adobe's promises. They tried to force Apple's hand by putting Apple in a position where in order stop the Flash they would have to do it publicly in front of Adobe's users. That was a bad call on Adobe's part.

Read the whole thing.


Re:..and as I said on a previous thread. (5, Informative)

virgilp (1774784) | about 4 years ago | (#31831934)

It's very good, except that it's wrong. Apple did know about the iPhone packager, of course (there are approved apps in the AppStroe built with the prerelease versions of it, and Adobe has been bragging about it for a while) - and they did nothing to hint they would prevent it, up till the very last second.
(banning "interpreted code" does not count, the iPhone packager did not create interpreted code)

Re:It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831662)

I agree, my macbook fan goes nuts now every time I watch flash video. That doesn't even happen with dvds..

If Adobe creates a product that isn't dirt slow and insecure, then I'll be more prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 4 years ago | (#31831802)

my macbook fan goes nuts now every time I watch flash video.

That's because the Flash interpreter spins in its main event loop, instead of just waking up when it has something to do. I find it inexcusable to see a flash process sinking 100% of a CPU core even when a video is paused.


Re:It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831894)

same thing happens to me with iTunes on PC. Download a single track and CPU jumps to 100% - this is a well known issue that has remained unfixed for at least the last 3 years

Re:It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#31831860)

What about the other frameworks that Apples ruling has affected, such as MonoTouch? Before this ruling, it was easy for a .Net house to cater to a customers requirements for a related iPhone app - now, they have to either become experienced in another language or outsource the work.

And to be honest, I have never seen a complaint about one of our iPhone apps written in MonoTouch (and we have several complex ones) - people cannot notice the difference between one and a native app.

Re:It would be cheaper to fix the damned product. (4, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 4 years ago | (#31831868)

Although I'm not going to argue that flash is extremely stable, I think this is much more about platform lock-in than any particular defect in Flash.

Apple didn't ban Flash, they banned anything that wasn't written specifically for their platform.

Adobe could release an absolutely amazing and flawless version of Flash 11 tomorrow and it would be just as banned, if not even more zealously, because it would represent a stronger competitor to Apple's own platform.

apple needs to be sued over there app store lock i (1, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#31831562)

apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.

Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc (1, Troll)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#31831794)

Indeed. I recently switched to Linux on my desktop. I used to use an iPod Touch for music and podcasts, but it's now collecting dust, because Apple refuses to publish interoperability information regarding their devices (and also refuses to port iTunes to Linux, which I suspect would be a trivial effort, but I don't think they WANT iTunes on a platform that could threaten OS X one day).

Apple basically sets their stuff up so that if you buy 1 piece of Apple equipment you're going Apple all the way or the whole thing will break. There's no TECHNICAL reason for that situation, and the artificial creation of such a situation should be regulated IMHO.

Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc (1, Troll)

sog_abq (960133) | about 4 years ago | (#31831906)

I don't understand why the EU isn't all over Apple for this stuff. As ridiculous as the MS browser choice stuff is, what Apple is up to in my opinion is far worse than having IE installed by default in windows. I dislike IE as much as the next slashdotter, but how about some consistency?

Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831920)

Perhaps you would be taken seriously, if you were to use proper spelling and grammar...

Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831944)

Yeah! And while we're suing people to tell them how to run their businesses, why won't 7-11 sell me "Hot Jugs and Leather Bimbos"? I demand that their porn lockout be ended by the courts at ONCE!

Oh, and it's "their app store" and "their banning may be going too far". Lrn2spell.

Re:apple needs to be sued over there app store loc (1)

fidget42 (538823) | about 4 years ago | (#31831948)

apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.

While you are at it, sue Sony for their store on the PS3 and sue Microsoft for their XBox Live and sue Verizon because they only let apps for their phones be sold via their app store, and sue...

Extra! Extra! (-1, Troll)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | about 4 years ago | (#31831566)

Page Hits! Page Hits over here! Get them while they're hot!!!

Re:Extra! Extra! (1)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#31831762)

Yeah, which is strange. Why would he want to attract page hits from a bunch of people using AdBlock? He just lost a LOT of money in bandwidth costs.

(Actually, probably not, since not enough people use AdBlock.)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831574)

Who's my enemy here?

"Have at you!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831580)

Apple's iron-bound determination to keep Adobe Flash out of any iWhatever device is about to blow up in Apple's face.

"That's some nice, reasonable commentary, Lou. You'll make Editor for this!" /chiefwiggum

Sue Apple Over Flash? (1, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31831584)

Boo hoo, Adobe. Apple doesn't have to support Adobe products on their platform. Apple's market share is small enough that they're not a monopoly.

If this is Adobe's attempt to get on to the iPlatform they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Sue Apple Over Flash? (2, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 years ago | (#31831704)

I suspect that this isn't about supporting Flash as much as it is about Apple's not allowing linker-level Flash ports. There are good reasons to not allow Flash on the iDevices, it's much harder to make the case for Flash apps that have been converted to stand alone applications.

Re:Sue Apple Over Flash? (1)

PolyDwarf (156355) | about 4 years ago | (#31831770)

While I agree with your sentiment, it kind of depends on how "the market" is defined, as to whether apple has a monopoly.

If it's "Computing Devices" or "PC" or something like that, I agree.

What if the market is defined as "Phones with one button and a touch screen interface"?

I'm also not sure whether the contracts 95% or more of people sign come into the mix or not (I was told one time by an AT&T monkey that I couldn't buy a non-contract iphone).

Lord of War Quote (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31831592)

This reminds me of a line from a movie...

"But in the Iran-Iraq war you sold guns to both sides."

"Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?"

We should be pointing out more reasons for the guys to sue each other than just a petty Flash dispute, we should arm them with the means to sue each other into oblivion!

Than, if my calculations are correct, the lawyers will have made enough to buy new yachts, bolstering the economy slightly. It's really a win for everybody all around.

Re:Lord of War Quote (0, Offtopic)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#31831800)

Egad, that is the second time today I've seen the uncommon Reverse Then Than typo! It is so rare that it is wondrous to see it twice in one day.

By the way I completely agree with you. These two companies should sue eachother into mutual bankruptcy.

Re:Lord of War Quote (2, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#31831900)

...and once they can't help but use their yachts, also in open seas, they will inevitably start falling prey to storms, cyclones, etc.? (commonness of which will be increased greatly due to warming, in which building the fleet of yachts also had its part?)

Ridiculous (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831594)

Submitter seems to be experiencing some joy at the prospect of a lawsuit against Apple. Indeed he/she things it's going to "blow up in their face." Woohoo! I just can't understand the prevailing love on this site for Flash. What in the hell are you fighting for? A device that prevents Flash is a Godsend to me. People act like it's a problem. Who are you people?

"It's Apple's device" (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 4 years ago | (#31831604)

"It was Microsoft's operating system." Oh, right, I forgot, under modern antitrust laws you're allowed to be a total anti-competitive asshole until you become the 800lb gorilla. Part of me is hoping that Adobe wins and takes Apple to the cleaners because I don't buy the hypocrisy here that Apple should be able to get away with behavior that would have launched an online World War 3 if done by Microsoft.

Re:"It's Apple's device" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831822)

It also probably makes a difference if Apple has a comparable product on the iPhone. If you really want to make that analogy, anyway. MS got in trouble because they were shunting people to their browser, away from other browsers, by using their near-stranglehold on the market and their control of the OS. Apple has neither a stranglehold on the smartphone market nor, as far as I know, are they competing with Flash. They merely don't want it on their products. (Presumably, this is for reasons of stability, which seems fair, no? If the iPhone crashes, people are at least as likely to blame Apple as Adobe, even if it's not Apple's fault.)

Re:"It's Apple's device" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831844)

Maybe you should look up the definition of monopoly, because I think being an 800-lb gorilla is one of the requirements. Then I think you need to go further and review the difference between vertical and horizontal monopolies, since Apple is one type and Microsoft [was] the other.

IANAL, but the only way Adobe could win (apart from bringing suit in East Texas) is if they had some prior agreement with Apple to allow flash on the devices in question, and then Apple renegged on that agreement.

Re:"It's Apple's device" (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31831912)

Oh, right, I forgot, under modern antitrust laws you're allowed to be a total anti-competitive asshole until you become the 800lb gorilla.

These "modern" anti-trust laws are a century old, and were instituted because of abuses by 800 lb gorillas like Standard Oil. Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.

options (1)

symes (835608) | about 4 years ago | (#31831616)

Couldn't Apple just give the end user the choice? There are times when not having flash can be really irritating, but it is probably something that I would keep switched off most of the time. I am so conflicted over this one!

Re:options (1)

zmollusc (763634) | about 4 years ago | (#31831738)

Good point. You could have a checkbox marked 'enable Adobe Flash support at the expense of system stability' ( or whatever the poncy Apple equivalent of the checkbox is ).

Re:options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831872)

Couldn't Apple just give the end user the choice?

You know how there's people out there who like to joke about how the GNOME team likes to, for whatever reason, reduce as many options and choices from the user as possible, even when senseless, even when it gets in the way of the user, and even when it runs against what everyone else in the industry does seemingly just to be different?

Their tutelage under Apple taught them well, but they are still but grasshoppers up against the masters. "Choice" is not an option.

Why Doesn't Adobe Get Agressive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831622)

Apple is historically marketed towards creative professionals, who use Adobe Creative Suite to get graphic design work done. Why doesn't Adobe just abandon support for Apple? Granted, they lose out on some marketshare for the moment but they provide a disincentive for Apple's historically core market to continue to use the platform.

Adobe would have to ensure that the product on Windows is a compelling product to drive people to that platform, but they could put a dent in the market that has been a Mac safe haven for years; the graphic design market.

Two could play at that game... (1)

jcr (53032) | about 4 years ago | (#31831742)

Apple could release modern versions of the venerable MacPaint and MacDraw apps, that easily cover what 90+% of Photoshop and Illustrator users need, and include them in the iLife bundle. Hell, they could even release them as developer sample code. Quartz 2D and Core Image provide more powerful image-editing capabilities than Photoshop.


Hey Adobe, here's a better suggestion: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831630)

Suing Apple is a NEGATIVE action and is not going to get you anywhere. Instead you can hit Apple in other ways. For example, why not take a POSITIVE action and port your software to Linux, providing those of us who rely on your software a great alternative to supporting this ass hole run company.

Re:Hey Adobe, here's a better suggestion: (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 4 years ago | (#31831878)

You're kidding yourself if you think Graphics designers are the type of people who would want to use Linux. Most of them barely understand how a computer works to begin with.

The point... I'm missing it. (3, Insightful)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | about 4 years ago | (#31831632)

Adobe is going to sue for what?

Company A doesn't want to use technology developed by company B. Good luck with that.

Granted, Apple is quite aggressive and loud when it comes to Flash but that is still no reason to sue them for not using it. Their device, their technology.

Re:The point... I'm missing it. (1)

keithpreston (865880) | about 4 years ago | (#31831716)

It is going to sue because apple bans applications not programmed in C/C++/Objective C. Apple states this is because compatibility layers make bad apps, I would think it is more of a middle finger to adobe who has publicly announced it's plans to make a flash to iphone tool.

Re:The point... I'm missing it. (3, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 4 years ago | (#31831856)

This was my first thought. Sue them for WHAT? AFAIK there is no contract that Apple has breached. The only possible claim seems to be an antitrust claim under the sherman act or clayton act alleging some sort of exclusionary boycott or "refusal to deal." But the antitrust claim has major problems:

(A) Apple is probably not a monopoly in the mobile phone market. Unless Adobe can show that Apple has a monopoly in the relevant market, they will get absolutely nowhere.

(B) Apple isn't making agreements with competitors to boycott Adobe. They just aren't using it themselves.

A distinction between single-firm and multi-firm conduct is fundamental to the structure of U.S. antitrust law, which, as noted antitrust scholar Phillip Areeda has pointed out, "contains a 'basic distinction between concerted and independent action.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law [wikipedia.org]

This article is silly. Don't expect a lawsuit.

TFA wasn't clear (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31831654)

What grounds are they suing under? Breach of contract? Why should Apple be forced to use Adobe's stuff if they don't want to?

Re:TFA wasn't clear (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#31831678)

There's no information. These are anonymous sources close to an anonymous coward. Don't take it any more seriously than graffiti on the bathroom wall.

Re:TFA wasn't clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831922)

There's no information. These are anonymous sources close to an anonymous coward. Don't take it any more seriously than graffiti on the bathroom wall.

Really? Pissing on the monitor doesn't seem the smartest thing to do...

Re:TFA wasn't clear (1)

yuna49 (905461) | about 4 years ago | (#31831866)

The only plausible argument I could see is antitrust, claiming that Apple holds a monopoly position in mobile applications. Even then it's not all that plausible with the arrival of Android devices. Maybe the truth here is that people at Adobe are pissed off, and a couple of them whispered "lawsuit" in the ear of TFA's author. As others have already observed, Adobe has a complex relationship with Apple with many other levers of influence that don't involve courts of law.

Combined with the article about Google potentially opening VP8, I'm starting to wonder if Flash is nearing the end of its lifespan. Adobe probably won't care about containers and codecs in the long run as long as its developer tools sell. Plus it gets them out of the business of writing browser plugins, which experience suggests isn't one of their strong suits.

Re:TFA wasn't clear (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831870)

The short version: Apple is telling developers that they can't buy Adobe *tools* to produce *native* Apple-platform applications.

The long version:

1. Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot. Steve Jobs also seems to have a personal beef with it for some reason.
2. Apple says, "No flash on our iAnything platforms."
3. Adobe says, "Please?"
4. Apple says, "No!"
5. Adobe says, "Okay, we've made a compiler that takes a Flash script and compiles it to an iAnything native application, using HTML 5, Apple's C-variant, and Apple's API."
6. Apple says, "We've added a clause to our developer contract that says that developers are not allowed to use anything that translates code from one language to another for the iAnything platform. You have to use OUR tools, and you must write in OUR language from the start, or you - the developer - cannot play with us."
7. Adobe says, "..."

Re:TFA wasn't clear (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#31831964)

Well you can sue for just about anything. Winning is another matter. Suing is always a last recourse. Like you I can't see any legal argument passing a dismissal right now.

sue them for what? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#31831660)

What exactly are they going to sue them for? Is there a law that says a company has to allow another company's product to interact with theirs? I mean, sure, its generally considered good form to do so, but its hardly required. Of course, rising popularity of iPhone/iPod Touch/possibly the iPad as well, none of which run Flash, means that there will be less demand to use Flash, and therefore Adobe will be able to sell fewer Flash dev kits. Well, frankly, too bad. Adobe makes some good stuff, and is probably largely responsible for the success of the Mac, but as Apple moves more towards the mobile space, they don't really need Adobe as much as they used to anymore. But, as Apple continues to push the market space away from the desktop, Adobe may need Apple more than ever.

Re:sue them for what? (1)

_bug_ (112702) | about 4 years ago | (#31831836)

What exactly are they going to sue them for? Is there a law that says a company has to allow another company's product to interact with theirs?

Anti-trust violations. In the EU Microsoft has been forced to strip out IE from the OS and give end-users the option of installing a competitor's browser instead of IE in Windows. Microsoft never did anything to stop users from installing a third-party browser, they just gave you their own.

Apple is actively blocking Flash from their OS. You can't elect to install Flash.

So it would seem to me Adobe will look to sue Apple over anti-trust violations, perhaps under EU law.

Re:sue them for what? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#31831950)

Maybe under the EU, but Apple isn't a monopoly as far as my understanding of US law, and therefor anti-trust laws don't apply here. Plus, Adobe and Apple are both US-based companies. Can they even sue in an EU court?

WTF Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

SpeZek (970136) | about 4 years ago | (#31831670)

This is actually a "story"?

It's literally some anonymous guy on the internet saying something.

Re:WTF Slashdot? (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 4 years ago | (#31831910)

This "anonymous guy" is actually the CEO of Adobe trying to mine slashdot's swarm of self taught lawyers in order to drum up material for the suit in question.

Re:WTF Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831928)

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:WTF Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831960)

It's literally some anonymous guy on the internet saying something.

Your a moran!!1 new storey too post (this 1)!

Porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831676)

There's till hope for those who were afraid they couldn't watch porn on an iPad.

And the winner is... Google. (1)

Chris Snook (872473) | about 4 years ago | (#31831696)

I don't really care who wins the lawsuit, but the PR fight is sure to be full of blatant hypocrisy. Meanwhile Google gets to brag about how Android is open source, the Android Market isn't held hostage to the whims of Steve Jobs, and they support both Flash and HTML 5.

I'm making popcorn.

Re:And the winner is... Google. (2, Insightful)

bbernard (930130) | about 4 years ago | (#31831830)

Agreed. And, to be blunt, I'm sick and tired of flash all over my Internet. Flash cookies are a HORRIBLE idea. Menus on websites that are flash driven are ridiculous. And to be blunt, the vast majority of flash on the sites I frequent are the ads anyway. Especially when I'm on a low-bandwidth connection, why the hell do I want flash anyway?

I know, I know, without flash I can't watch a movie on the Internet anymore. So let's adopt HTML 5 standards and get on with it.

If Adobe does, and wins... (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | about 4 years ago | (#31831730)

You can be sure that there will be unintended consequences (both positive and negative) with such a precedent setting decision regarding IP.

There will also be endless appeals, and lots of lawyers lavishly spending the fees this litigation will generate.

Suing them for what, exactly? (2, Informative)

jockeys (753885) | about 4 years ago | (#31831750)

I rtfa, (crazy, I know) and don't understand on what grounds the suing will occur. I understand why Adobe is pissed off, but is Apple really in an actionable position? They own the SDK, the hardware, everything, they can do whatever the fuck they want. While this might not make them popular and people might not buy their shit, how is it that Adobe can sue them because Apple said they couldn't come over and play in the walled garden?

Granted, ianal (but neither is Jack Thompson!) but I am just totally baffled as to what grounds the alleged suit is being brought on.

Sued for what exactly? (1)

Dmala (752610) | about 4 years ago | (#31831764)

I don't get it, what grounds would Adobe have to sue Apple? Last I heard, there were no laws against having a closed platform. Even some sort of antitrust angle doesn't make sense. The iPhone is huge, but it's hardly the only smartphone on the market.

What? I think that's a shot in the dark! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 years ago | (#31831804)

...Sources close to Adobe tell me that Adobe will be suing Apple within a few weeks...

Any law suite will take years to resolve.

Want a hint? Look at SCO vs Novell/IBM over Linux and the so called patents. This suite has taken at least 6 years. Adobe's suite will face the same fate and by the time it's over, results will be irrelevant to the situation at that material moment. The "world" will have moved on. While I think Adobe should not sit idle, I think a law suite is a shot in the dark.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831814)

Adobe failed to keep their promise to provide a (first) free (then low-cost) license for Display PostScript (which was mostly written by NeXT so that Apple had to revise their Rhapsody OS plan (which included a free run-time license for Windows), delaying Apple's then much-needed new OS and opening the crack which became Carbon.

This cost users of Apple's new OS:

  - nxhosting
  - automatic display of .eps graphics
  - easy previewing of .ps files
  - automatic previewing of PostScript fills and stroke effects

and nifty applications like PasteUp.app which depended on such.

Re:What's good for the goose is good for the gande (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | about 4 years ago | (#31831874)

Not to mention telling Apple "No, we're not going to port Photoshop to Yellow box (even though it's based on our Display Postscript technology)". It was a nasty one-two punch that could have put Apple out of business.

Seriously? (2, Insightful)

Flambergius (55153) | about 4 years ago | (#31831828)

Come on, people!

Apple is telling developers that they aren't free to choose the tools they use. Specifically you can't use a tool that would allow you to write code once and run it on any platform. Who cares about Adobe, Apple is telling *you* to take it up the ass and like it.

And there are people in Slashdot that are ok with that?


Re:Seriously? (1)

bbernard (930130) | about 4 years ago | (#31831902)

Sure, Apple is strong-arming everyone. But what are they doing that is illegal? The best way to fight this is to put the iPad/Pod/Phone/whatever down and back away slowly. Then go buy a Blackberry, Android Phone, IRiver PMP, Dell Mini 5, etc. Vote with your dollars, and don't develop apps for Apple.

No, they will not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31831838)

Because Apple does not make money on only supporting HTML5, nor are they directly hurting adobe by not allowing them play in their sandbox. The fun flash games? Don't work very well with a touch screen, if at all. I certainly do not want that experience hindering my iProduct. Not to mention that most of these iProduct have 128 megs of ram; to the newer ones with 512 (I think). Flash is a horrid memory hog. Can your computer visit eight websites with a 400-500mhz prossessor, 128 megs of ram, etc, and still feel quick if you have flash enabled?

  Jobs has stated that he will not allow them on because they are bloated, buggy, horrid, and would bog down the experiance. And you know what? As much as we hate "closed" products, we opt into this one for a reason. Like one of those super cars you buy for millions, and the manufacturor keeps until you call to use it at a track for a day, then take it back. They don't want you playing around with your weight, adding, taking away, etc, because you just dropped a fortune on a perfect driving experiance for whenever you call.

  The iProducts are the video game consoles of the computer world. We buy our software that has been Apple approved, and we know it works perfectly. We don't need more ram. We don't need a new graphics card. No new processor. No stress. Sure it can't do everything, but neither can my wii. But it can do everything the little games marked "wii" say they can do. No mess, no fuss. If I want a more intensive game than the consoles can handle? That's when you get a computer. Same with Apple.
  Sent from my iPhone in a slow moving line.

Suit ? On What Grounds ? (0, Redundant)

mbone (558574) | about 4 years ago | (#31831848)

I do not see, and the original article did not provide, any grounds for a suit.

Lawsuit threats aren't "blowing up in your face" (0)

Old97 (1341297) | about 4 years ago | (#31831850)

Adobe can threaten to sue and they can actually file suit. So what? Suing is not prevailing. Adobe needs Apple more than the other way around.

Haha. (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 years ago | (#31831864)


Use our product! On your product! Without paying us! Or we'll sue you!

What next? Microsoft suing a suddenly popular PC manufacturer because they've completely abandoned Windows and only ship with Ubuntu Linux, or an "advanced" option out of a list of free OSes including Fedora, CentOS, Debian, FreeBSD?

Good. (1)

_bug_ (112702) | about 4 years ago | (#31831940)

Apple's move to not include Flash will have some very good repercussions (I hope). Video on the web tends to be delivered through Flash. We need an open standard, not through a format or application owned by a single company. This is what makes HTML5 very enticing. And with Apple's move I think we'll see a stronger push towards HTML5 for video delivery.

I also hope Apple's move will force Adobe to put more effort towards building a stable and secure platform. Flash has a long history of being a major (if not #1) reason why browsers crash. If Adobe puts more effort into stabilizing Flash you will create a better user experience on the web.

And Adobe's work to make CS5 (and later) have the ability to export to HTML5 canvas is a brilliant way to keep Flash relevant. It will allow Flash to transfer from a content delivery platform to a content development platform. Apple's move will simply push this development forward a bit.

Hooray for Apple! (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 years ago | (#31831946)

Their decision to not allow Flash or Silverlight on their products is a good thing. As I've said in other threads on this same subject, Flash must die! [slashdot.org]

Flash is a horrid item with huge security holes. Apple is right to not allow it to be installed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account