Beta
×

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!

Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-support-ad-wars dept.

Advertising 731

Hugh Pickens writes "Businessweek reports that Adobe has taken out newspaper advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times today and posted an open letter to call out the tablet-computer maker for stifling competition. 'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,' the letter states. 'No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.' The letter is part of a widening rift between Apple and Adobe. Two weeks ago, Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs wrote a 29-paragraph public missive panning Adobe's Flash as having 'major technical drawbacks.' US antitrust enforcers also may investigate Apple following a complaint from Adobe, people familiar with the matter said this month. Adobe has also launched a banner ad campaign to let you know that they love Apple. The two-piece banner ads are composed of a 720x90-pixel 'We [heart] Apple' design, followed by a 300x250-pixel medium rectangle that reads: 'What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Right on Adobe! (5, Interesting)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194740)

This couldn't be better timing! I've been working on a killer app using Authorware for the last 5 years in my secluded dungeon. I'm a bit out of touch with what's going on on the internet because I've been really busy not paying attention, is online multimedia still dominated by Java Applets, VRML, and Director/Lingo?

Anyway, the product is now ready to be sold to the world for lots of money. I would love your support in porting to iPad and iPod. Support freedom to use whatever I want! Unlike Apple not owning Flash, this is your product so it should be a breeze.

Wait, no?

Re:Right on Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194848)

Any company trotting out the cynical phrase "freedom is choice" is lying. Plain and simple.

Re:Right on Adobe! (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194890)

I'm so sorry that you won't be able to cross-compile ('cross contaminate' in Apple lingo) your app for Android and iPad/iPod/iPhone/iDontKnow. But that's OK because according to a recent news article [slashdot.org] Android is now a bigger market to shoot for anyway.

Re:Right on Adobe! (1, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195062)

Android is now a bigger market to shoot for anyway.
Android is a bigger market, I suppose, but which Android is the bigger market within the bigger market? Fragmentation of the versions and the not so backwards / forwards compatibility is making it hard to target.

Re:Right on Adobe! (1, Insightful)

ohcrapitssteve (1185821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195120)

Android may be a bigger market, but the iPhone I'm targeting with my app resides in a deeper pocket, my friend.

Re:Right on Adobe! (3, Insightful)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195274)

According to that article, Android, on all devices, is barely beating out iPhone OS on one device. iPhone OS is sold on three distinct devices (iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad), of which the latter two were not included in the numbers. Android has a long way to go.

Re:Right on Adobe! (5, Insightful)

darien (180561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194956)

Terrible analogy. Adobe may not help you, but they certainly won't do anything to stop you. Very different to what Apple wants to do.

But I wanna develop in Flash! (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194994)

So get up offa that keyboard, come open the door and let me in. And go make me a sandwich while I use your computer to develop in Flash. You have Mountain Dew and Cheetos, right? No? You bastard! Stop infringing on my freedom to eat and drink what I want and go get me some!

Re:Right on Adobe! (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195144)

Pfft! My COBOL.Net based app for the iPad contraption will pwn your feeble efforts! I have my COBOL to Ada to Lisp to LabView to FORTRAN to VHDL to C to Objective C/Cocoa workflow all ready to start chugging away. Throw the switch, Igor!

Re:Right on Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195146)

Who you calling an Anonymous Coward SD?

Re:Right on Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195218)

This couldn't be better timing! I've been working on a killer app using Authorware for the last 5 years in my secluded dungeon. I'm a bit out of touch with what's going on on the internet because I've been really busy not paying attention, is online multimedia still dominated by Java Applets, VRML, and Director/Lingo?

Anyway, the product is now ready to be sold to the world for lots of money. I would love your support in porting to iPad and iPod. Support freedom to use whatever I want! Unlike Apple not owning Flash, this is your product so it should be a breeze.

Wait, no?

http://www.newtrafficserver.com try this one

Oh Shiznacho! (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194754)

It done been brought!

Re:Oh Shiznacho! (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195092)

It's on!

Re:Oh Shiznacho! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195152)

It's on like Donkey Kong in a thong!

Re:Oh Shiznacho! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195176)

"It done been broughten!"
There, I fixed that for you.

We Want to (4, Insightful)

PixieDust (971386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194756)

Be able to open massive security holes in any device or platform! - Adobe

Re:We Want to (3, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194842)

That's what jailbreaking is for.

Re:We Want to (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195134)

Piss off adobe and you may end up needing to do some real jail breaking.

Re:We Want to (2, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195024)

Or view material from pulitizer prize winning journalists. Yeah, damn those bastards!

Only Apple fanboys try to make this into a security argument. It's just another day in the life of the "you are allowed to use your device to what we say you can" shop.

New corporate slogan (3, Insightful)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194768)

Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

Re:New corporate slogan (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194878)

Adobe: We Bitch and Moan until we Get Our Way(TM)

That's about right and I'll explain why. From the summary:

What we don't love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it, and what you experience on the web.

Unless it's done by means of proprietary standards and not by means of executive decisions. That's the complete thought. What is quoted from Adobe there is only the first half.

Re:New corporate slogan (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194942)

If given a choice between a proprietary standard that I can use on devices from multiple vendors versus a proprietary standard that only work on one vendor's hardware then the choice is obvious.

All of this HTML5 nonsense is just a distraction. It won't replace Apple binary apps even when it's managed to mature itself.

This is all about replacing a web experience that is largely cross platform with one that is Apple only.

Proprietary multi-vendor vs. Proprietary single vendor.

Re:New corporate slogan (-1, Troll)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195124)

If there was anything close to technically accurate in your rant it might make it a proper rant as it is it's confusing. What exactly is it that you are complaining about?

Re:New corporate slogan (2, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195182)

Not really. It's for 2 reasons:

1)To prevent horrible, battery-sucking shovelware from showing up on the iPhone/iPad. Those Flash games at newgrounds, for example, were never meant for touchscreens. Apple does not want its users having unsatisfactory experiences playing their Flash games, and then subsequently blaming Apple for the bad UI.

2)To prevent developers from cross-developing for Android, Pre, Blackberry etc at the same time. You want to develop for iPhone? You have to use Apple-approved tools only. Thus, developers are less likely to offer the same apps for competing platforms.

You can debate the morality of what Apple is doing (personally, I think it sucks) but the reasons are pretty clear.

Re:New corporate slogan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195010)

Unlike Apple [slashdot.org] ?

Oh I see. If Apple does that, it's open and cool. If Adode does it, it's whining?

Can't run Java on iPhone either... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194772)

yet nobody is complaining about that. Maybe the expectations that an iPhone/iPad should run /everything/ are just a bit too high for a small device.

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194882)

WHAT?! Tons of people complain about that. It's a fucking cell phone, it should be able to run J2ME apps, and the fact that it can't is solely due to Apple's need to make sure they get paid for every app their stupid devices can run.

Look, I don't care if Apple decides not to include Flash by default. Fine, whatever.

The fact that you can't CHOOSE to install Flash and you can't CHOOSE to use another, more powerful browser, on the other hand - that I care about. THAT'S an asshole, anti-competitive move. Apple deserves to be smacked down for that.

Imagine if, along with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft FORBID anyone from running any other browser on their OS at all, and required EVERY app to be approved by Microsoft before it could be allowed to run. Apple's doing EXACTLY THAT.

It's a fucking computer. I should be able to use whatever language I want and whatever libraries I want to target it. As long as something can create code that the computer can run, who the fuck is Apple to say whether or not I'm allowed to write software using it?!

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (2, Informative)

Triv (181010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195156)

Imagine if, along with bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft FORBID anyone from running any other browser on their OS at all, and required EVERY app to be approved by Microsoft before it could be allowed to run. Apple's doing EXACTLY THAT.

...except that Microsoft was convicted of leveraging their desktop OS monopoly into the web browser market - it was Microsoft's road or the high road for a lot of people.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smart phone market. Nobody's forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like it (and you clearly don't) then buy any of the other smartphones on the market.

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (0, Troll)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195174)

You obviously weren't around for the IE vs Netscape wars. When MS would release updates to the OS that caused any browser but IE to crash on launch.

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (0, Troll)

StylusEater (1206014) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195240)

No one is forcing you to buy their product. Why does it matter if they lock others out? As long as they don't have a monopoly like the company you cited...who cares...

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (2, Informative)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195270)

THAT'S an asshole, anti-competitive move. Apple deserves to be smacked down for that.

Who do they deserve to be smacked down by?
The government?
Well, in this country we still have a nice healthy hands-off attitude that allows private enterprises to compete against each other, without govmint smacking them down.

Or do they deserve to be smacked down by the market place?
The market place has spoken... millions of iPod Touches, iPhones, and iPads are sold to consumers who are willing to skip over Flash in order to have a useable device.

Their nearest competition has a buy one, get one free business plan. We'll see how well that works out for their eco-system.

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (2, Informative)

mldi (1598123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194968)

This is more about development tools used, but yes, they are also complaining about the web thing, just not as loudly.

Re:Can't run Java on iPhone either... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195110)

Once you scrape away the proprietary veneer, it actually looks much like a Mac or any other machine running Unix.

The whole "app" thing kind of blows away the idea that it's "just a phone" and "not a general purpose device".

Hypocritical assholes... (5, Informative)

jx100 (453615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194774)

Fantastic how they're crying for "openness" a mere day after they announce Selective Output Control DRM in Flash.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/05/adobes-new-flash-drm-comes-with-selective-output-control.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:Hypocritical assholes... (1)

lastomega7 (1060398) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194868)

The whole thing comes off as a compelling argument for HTML5, imo.

Re:Hypocritical assholes... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195168)

Don't you understand? "Open" means "Able to Run Flash as God intended" not some piffle about "does what its owner wants it to"...

Self Serving Tripe (1)

Kruid (646582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194808)

'nuff said

Re:Self Serving Tripe (2, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195148)

It is of course self-serving. But that doesn't mean it doesn't also happen to be true. Essentially coincidental, but still...

The choice is Apple's to make (4, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194812)

And yes, I know that's not going to sit well with the /. crowd, but it remains a truism. If Apple allowed flash onto the iPhone right tomorrow
  • It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac. Unless you believe the demo was one that "shouldn't have been shown", and that seeing a U-tube video made behind closed-doors with as many takes as it needs to get right is in any way comparable to running it on nearly every darn page on the web. For adverts.
  • Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog. Suddenly Apple's quotes of 10 hours battery life on the iPad are reduced to 5 hours (or whatever). Uninformed users (you know, the 99% majority out there) say Apple is lying about it's battery times. Now every manufacturer lies about it's battery times, right ? Oh, wait [anandtech.com] , no [reuters.com] they don't. Apple's battery-life figures stand alone (as far as I can tell) as a reasonable guide to how long you'll get out of your machine. That's worth a lot, to Apple.

I'm not going to pretend there aren't advantages to Apple in requiring people to use Apple's API to code on Apple's hardware (yeah, yeah, I know you bought it, I know it's *yours*, but you know what I mean). Of course there are. That doesn't invalidate the concerns above. I'm sure 'the Steve' sees it as a bonus.

Knowing people who work at Apple, they're a focussed bunch. They care passionately about making things easy to use, and frankly about making the very best (whatever) possible. There's very little of the jaded cynicism I've found in other companies over the years - they're more willing to "++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start." than anywhere else I've ever seen, and I (personally) can easily see the above being sufficient reason to abandon Flash as a platform if they think it's beyond saving.

Simon

Re:The choice is Apple's to make (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194872)

Now explain how locking all their devices to depend on iTunes has anything to do with them being the best possible.

Would the effort required to make them function in a sane way (and then have iTunes use that functionality) be so much greater than the effort expended on trying to tie things to iTunes?

Re:The choice is Apple's to make (3, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194894)

I know that's not going to sit well with the /. crowd...

Actually, I find that in the argument between Adobe and Apple, Apple usually comes out on top because at least its horrible, draconian software is stable and usable.

Re:The choice is Apple's to make (0, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195196)

Steve Jobs is just the new Bill Gates.

Steve doesn't really have to ban Flash. His end goals will still be achieved by allowing some
illusion of freedom. As others have said, merely allowing Flash to run in the iThings will not
make them run well or magically appear. Steve will still have the upper hand.

He simply doesn't have to be a jerk.

Steve Jobs doesn't need to be a jerk, he just chooses to be. He thinks he can get away with it
and plenty of fanboys seem to be intent on proving him right.

This whole "interest for ease" seems to me more about limiting the devices and then trying
to convince you that crippled is what you really want and that you don't really want to do
all of those other things.

Re:The choice is Apple's to make (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195246)

The choice is Apple's, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

It would be just as buggy and crash-prone [zdnet.com] as it is right now on the Mac... Because it's on every darn page on the web - for adverts - it'd be running almost constantly as the user uses Safari; so the other down-side comes into play - it's a huge battery hog.

Granted, yes, Flash sucks. As a user, I'm not sure I'd install it.

But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?

Forget the browser for a moment, though. They're banning it and all other third-party frameworks in an effort to prevent cross-platform applications, even if they compile to Objective-C, which is downright evil. More evil than anything Microsoft ever did. To claim that this has anything to do with battery life or crashing is moronic -- Apple already presumably checks things like this before they approve apps, right? And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away. In either case, it seems downright fascist to ban a tool because it might make the experience suck, instead of evaluating the resulting app and see if it does make the experience suck.

Now, I agree that this is good for Apple, in the short term. It's also good for the Web, in the short term, because it forces people to start using HTML5. But in the long term, I think it will come back to bite them, and in any case, don't pretend it's a good thing for either iPhone/Pad developers or users.

They looove Apple... (4, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194828)

But they still have to be dragged kicking and screaming to rewrite their products (Flash isnt their only product) to stop using APIs from two deprecations ago. They apparently love Microsoft even more than Apple.

Re:They looove Apple... (2, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195014)

This argument is stupid and probably comes from people who have never actually built a product the size of Adobe's products. You think they should just bow down and use whatever new flavor of APIs apple wants them too? Including sever costs to them in rewriting large portions of an application that heavily uses carbon considering it's mostly a visual app. Sorry but, at least Microsoft understands that backwards compatibility is a requirement for those corporations to be able to create those kinds of products. I'm a Linux user but I can admit that lack of stable APIs have affected the development of things like device drivers for Linux.

Adobe <3 Apple.... NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194844)

No really, Adobe doesn't like Apple. How could they?

The reality is that Adobe feels like they are being shut out. Whether this is anti-competitive/monopolistic behavior by Apple is going to be decided by court cases.

The reality is that for all their support of open standards, Adobe Flash still requires a plugin. It's not implemented by a browser. Apple does not like 3rd party code so close to their own core software in mobile devices. This is mostly because Apple will be blamed if devices die after an hour of usage because a rogue flash app is causing massive power drain. It happens! Also, I think they have processors optimized for a specific type of video codec. It may be that video acceleration is not available for anything but h.264.

There's no way out of this. Apple will not accept flash on their devices, and that's the end of the story. I'm pretty certain the court cases won't go anywhere either. Adobe needs to cope with it.

How about a version of the flash player written in Javascript? *giggle*

Re:Adobe 3 Apple.... NOT (2, Interesting)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194966)

It's not implemented by a browser.

Opera on the Wii implements it, I believe Flash is also built in, in some of the latest Chrome builds now.

Re:Adobe 3 Apple.... NOT (2, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195180)

You bring up an interesting point. Why hasn't Adobe baked Flash into WebKit? Even if Apple chooses to ignore the fork for Safari, there are hundreds of other browsers that use the same codebase, including Chrome and the Android browser that would benefit from the contribution.

Re:Adobe 3 Apple.... NOT (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195056)

Well, they were in the process of creating a actionscript vm for firefox with the Mozilla foundation if I remember correctly.

Pot, kettle! (1, Informative)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194856)

This whole argument is pot and kettle to the extreme.

Adobe doesn't have any business telling Apple that they're acting too proprietary because they refuse to open up the Flash spec. Your device's participation in the Flashverse is dependent on whether Adobe thinks you're important enough to deserve a Flash plugin. Effectively they are holding the Web hostage.

Apple doesn't have any business telling Adobe that they're acting too proprietary when you have to pass Checkpoint Charlie to execute so much as a single line of native code on iPhone OS, and even then you can't use a third-party compiler anymore.

I respect that Adobe is trying to make a living, but Flash is probably the worst thing to happen to the Web since the early days of Java. It's slow, buggy, it crashes constantly, support is inconsistent, and its bread and butter (video embedding) has been eaten by a much better way of doing things (HTML5 + Theora/H.264).

I respect that Apple is concerned about feature-completeness in the APIs, but seriously, there are plenty of good programmers out there dying to use Java and Python to write iPhone apps. I'm not one of them, but I know it must feel really obnoxious to be denied a viable programming language.

Re:Pot, kettle! (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194914)

Adobe doesn't have any business telling Apple that they're acting too proprietary because they refuse to open up the Flash spec.

Flash spec [adobe.com]

There you go. I guess they do have a right now, right?

Re:Pot, kettle! (5, Informative)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195268)

Not even close. The spec doesn't document Sorenson Spark or On2, so tons of SWFs that embed video are out. Until very recently you weren't even allowed to look at the spec unless you signed an agreement saying you wouldn't develop player software (only export filters), and it's still about as far from an implementation white paper as you can get.

Moreover, Adobe controls the format, not an open standards body, so they're free to add new things and not tell other developers how to do them later on to give themselves an advantage (which they've done in the past with major releases like v9 and 10).

If Flash were completely open, why isn't there a 100% compliant open-source player out there? Gnash is the closest but it has serious problems with later versions of the spec (probably due to underdocumentation).

"But look! They released a spec! It must be an open standard!" Yeah, I've heard that before.

Re:Pot, kettle! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195058)

Your device's participation in the Flashverse is dependent on whether Adobe thinks you're important enough to deserve a Flash plugin.

Ran into that when I got a Wii. I thought, cool, I can watch online video on my big TV. Went to Hulu and... nothing. Googled what was up with Adobe updating the Wii's flash support to the required version (9, I think) and Adobe's attitude was "What? Who cares? Go away!" If that's their attitude with, like, 70 trillion Wiis sold, geez, what's next?

Re:Pot, kettle! (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195206)

"Apple doesn't have any business telling Adobe that they're acting too proprietary when you have to pass Checkpoint Charlie to execute so much as a single line of native code on iPhone OS, and even then you can't use a third-party compiler anymore." if you want to distribute the app through Apple's distribution channels. With a dev license you can "ad hoc" distribute what ever you want written with whatever languages you want.

I love you... (1, Insightful)

Serendip7 (936348) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194858)

I love you ... I just don't like the things you do... or what you say... Translation: I love f*cking you...

Yea, except the BSD's. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194864)

We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like.

Unless, of course, you're using FreeBSD and friends..

Re:Yea, except the BSD's. (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195076)

and friends? sorry but you're all alone ;p

Kill CS for Mac (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194870)

Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (4, Insightful)

cordsie (565171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194976)

Because blowing a gaping hole in their foot isn't going to help them either.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (4, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195294)

Don't discount the entertainment value of that for us end-users.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (0)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195038)

Because Valve is already providing Mac's with Steam, so CS will soon follow. If Adobe drops their CS for Mac's, Valve will rule.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195140)

Valve has a Photoshop competitor now??

Re:Kill CS for Mac (1)

kraemate (1065878) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195104)

Maybe apple just doesnt care.
The PC division is clearly not the main focus of their new strategy, all they want is handheld dominance.

It would have been every fanbois dream if apple used their growing power with iphone/ipad to defeat M$ with their OSX sales but i doubt if Jobs wants that.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (4, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195106)

Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.

And watch Apple come out with their own competing product and lose a giant chunk of their user base? Apple does software very well. Look what happened to Adobe Premiere in the face of Final Cut. Look what happened to ProTools in the face of Logic. Apple has a knack for making professional creative tools. They're much better at it than Adobe and they also build the OS.

If Adobe cut support for Apple then they'd be out of business in two years.

Re:Kill CS for Mac (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195166)

It would also get the attention of their shareholders right damn quick as half (yes, HALF) of their consumer base would vanish in an instant. Shareholders love it when you erase half of your market in an instant. But, hey, I'm sure Apple would notice also...

I HATE YOU BOTH (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194880)

Adobe and Apple both hate developers, as a developer I hate them both right back.

Fuck Flash, fuck iPuds, fuck AIR, fuck AirPorts, fuck one button mice, fuck PostScript, fuck Cold Fusion, fuck Objective C, and fuck pippin with a newton.

Adobe make a statement and drop Photoshop for Mac! (1)

Thunderbird2k (1753946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194904)

If they really want to make a stament just don't release Photoshop and their other apps for Mac. Sure this will cost them quite a bit of money but for a part it can hurt a lot of professional Mac users and lure them back to Windows (I don't like Windows either but I prefer it above crApple) or let them release Linux versions of their products :)

Re:Adobe make a statement and drop Photoshop for M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195248)

I think Adobe releasing Linux versions of their software (Photoshop, etc.) would be very beneficial since there are far more Linux users now. This would make Apple quite nervous.

Adobe Made its bed they can lie in it (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194908)

I'd have much more sympathy for Adobes cause, If they hadn't decided that the people who create annoying pop up advertisements should be able to access your computer and that you shouldn't be able to moderate their behavior.

Free Us Adobe (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194912)

Yeah, and we all know how committed Adobe is to user choice, which is exactly why in addition to ".swf" format I'm sure your Flash player plug-ins will start playing .ogg files and .mp4 files as well, because your customers deserve to be free to use your product to open whatever files they want, not just the file types you support... right?

Who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194924)

If you don't think you'd be happy with an ipad without flash, don't buy one. Consumers don't give a shit as long as it works for a year after they've bought it. After a year, there's the next Apple thing to buy.

Sweet! (5, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194928)

Dear Adobe:

I recently read your open letter to Apple and let me just say that I cannot agree more. I particularly liked this bit:

"We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."

Since my platform of choice is [64 bit Linux, Solaris, Irix, HPUX, any of the Various BSDs...] I cannot wait for your forthcoming (very soon I expect) release of Flash for this platform! I realize that my platform of choice is not the most popular one out there, but your message gives me hope! Given your support of openness, and in full understanding that my platform is rather obscure, perhaps you could simply release most of the slient code as open source and allow me to port it myself. That would be even better.

Thanks
Users of various platforms that Adobe does not support.

Re:Sweet! (2, Funny)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194986)

Whoops. Looks like I shouldn't have included Solaris. Sorry.

Re:Sweet! (2, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195172)

Whats a hpux? There does have to be a lower limit of users before they'll bother adding support.

Re:Sweet! (2, Insightful)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195254)

Dear Adobe:

I was so pleased to hear your stance on our right to view and create content regardless of platform or channel. When can we expect the Adobe Creative Suite for operating systems other than Windows & OS X?

Cheers,
Content Creator

Twenty-five years later... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194930)

...and someone's finally taken notice of Apple's anticompetitive actions? Will wonders ever cease?

SDK not the problem; Adobe not serious about Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194944)

The iPhone is already more than capable of running Flash without violating any of Apple's rules, as seen with the Gordon project [github.com] . If a couple of people can get a basic Flash interpreter working in their spare time, surely Adobe can put some man-hours towards a full implementation.

There is no question that Apple is making it difficult for Adobe, but the truth is that Adobe is not serious about Flash. They want a free ride with their existing products, but have no intention of doing whatever it takes to bring Flash to devices that require a little extra work. It is easier to go crying to the media and make another company look bad for Adobe's own shortcomings.

I do not like Apple's restrictions as much as the next guy, but Adobe needs to get over it. Either bring Flash to the iPhone through the allowable channels, or make Flash so compelling on other devices that nobody will consider purchasing an iPhone in the future.

linux is for faggots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194946)

keep sucking that open source dicks, homos.

Mental Masterbation (5, Interesting)

StylusEater (1206014) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194948)

I find it very disheartening that both companies are going to great lengths to show just how "OPEN" they are, when neither of them are even close to being "open" or really staunch supporters of all things "open." Both companies have jockeyed, in open and/or behind closed doors, to make standards their bi*ches and now they complain because their "industry standards" are being threatened.

This in turn has caused people to complain loudly about "freedom!!!" I want my freedom? I ask, freedom from what? You're now encountering what Stallman et al have been talking about for ages! You're only free as far as a company's whims says you are... Ohh, now I'm supposed to feel sad for those that hooked their toolset to Adobe? or to Apple for that matter? Why not focus on developing truly standards compliant applications with Open tools and let the companies come to us for a change rather than us bowing to them for the next release? We are all masters of our own domains, now "buck up" and act like it.

Makes Sense (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195256)

Libertarians are Republicans who got fucked in the ass and liked it.

Re:Mental Masterbation (2, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195258)

I agree, it is depressing. Where is my working Open Source Flash player Adobe? Is there an open standard for Flash that has any implementations that work for over 99% of Flash out there other than yours? When you can answer these questions, then maybe you have a leg to stand on in complaining about Apple. But until then, I sincerely hope that Flash dies the death it so richly deserves.

Apple is right, Flash is buggy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194950)

Problem is that Flash crashes constantly on the OSX platform. I get a flash crash on random websites just for banner adds on my mac. All Adobe has to do to get their product on the Iphone/ipad platform is make it so it actually works on said platform. As it stands simple flash programs run much slower on the OSX platform and crash much more often. Fix it Adobe, then complain.

People choose their own poison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32194964)

Nobody expects their apple apps to run on a pc or their apple to run the pc games or office products. I think consumers knowingly make a choice when they choose a platform. And in the specific case of Apple, they are giving up some user choice for the perceived gain in the quality of the experience. I don't agree with the Adobe stance that openness is every damn executable should run on every damn platform.

Freedom (4, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194972)

I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking. It's not like Apple is locking out Adobe to push their own proprietary standard, there is no anti-trust issue here.

Adobe is the next Sun. They're going to keep faltering and faltering until they're bought out by some giant. Open source and open standards are going to kill them. Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products. I think the folks at Adobe realize the impact that open source will have. They know that keeping the web running on Flash is their only hope to survive as a company.

Adobe is like if Microsoft only had Office and IE. Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing. Software as a product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future. IBM and Google know this, that's why they're so ahead of the curve.

Who cares (1)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32194978)

Both of the companies can try and have their way, but what I would remind people of is that what the users want/need should be the important thing. It seems to me like both of these companies don't even want to believe that maybe their product(s) aren't what people actually want/need.

They're Terrified (3, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195000)

Sorry, but Adobe's reaction to this situation is making one thing absolutely crystal clear - they are shitting their pants right now. They are terrified. They know their major cash cow is in major trouble and they are going to fight with every trick in the book to avoid the inevitable. Because, that is what it is - inevitable. Flash is becoming old news and nothing Adobe can do is going to change that fact. Their tantrum-throwing flailing isn't going to change things. HTML5 is going to push Flash to the side. It may not stick in the long term (I think it will but I won't argue that fact because the industry is always changing) but it will certainly provide the catalyst for people to move on to something else.

Re:They're Terrified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195228)

Adobe does not make that much money on Flash. Adobe makes money on selling 3-digit creativity software.

I'm almost as sick of Apple... (1)

drc003 (738548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195020)

...as I am of Adobe.

Nooooooo (-1, Troll)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195042)

OMG, the Times and WSJ. Steve is shaking in his loafers.

Adobe needs to go 5 years to the past... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195054)

Adobe has always screwed the foremost free open source community. Flash is not and has not been open format.

If they want to change their act, open the specs so that others can actually implement it and collaborate with Apple and others to fix possible problems.

As it stands, Flash is an annoying legacy, like IE6, that is painfully dragged around until the replacements achieve necessary momentum..

ISO (5, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195080)

Why not push for ISO certification for Flash? It worked with the PDF.

Soooo, Adobe loves open markets? (4, Interesting)

GeLeTo (527660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195086)

Great! Now if they would be kind enough to adjust the European prices for their products so that they are not 2 times more expensive than in the US.
Observe:
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Creative-Suite-Master-Collection/dp/B003B328TE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768517&sr=1-3 [amazon.com] - $2,450.99
http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Creative-Master-Collection-deutsch/dp/B003FSSL3M/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273768468&sr=1-5 [amazon.de] - EUR 3,688.00 = $4,683.39

And thanks to some european laws that Adobe strongly supports and enforces (with the help of BSA) it is illegal for an european company to use software bought in the US.
Yay for open markets.

Can't they both lose? (2, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195100)

This is a battle between purveyors of closed devices that exert outrageous amounts of control over what users can do with their devices, and purveyors of bug riddled crash prone propretary garbage who are misusing the word "open" as cover for a self-serving argument.

Wouldn't it be nice if they both lost, somehow?

Here's a proposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195192)

What if Apple were to develop their own flash plugin? Assuming that the spec is truly open (I'm not sure since I haven't read it) - then the shoe would be on the other foot - Apple could slow the adoption of new Flash features implemented by Adobe by not updating the Flash plugin to work with them. I wonder then what Adobe's argument would be?

Ahhh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32195198)

'We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs,'

So that is why they make all of their software Linux compatible....

The F word is being abused (1)

merc (115854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195220)

Too often corporations pull out the "freedom" word when it suits them and then ignore it all other times. I think the word they really want is "control". For instance, what about Dmitry Sklyarov's [slashdot.org] freedom to publish security research at a conference? Adobe didn't seem to think much about freedom at that time.

Given that the Flash format is open... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195230)

...what's stopping Apple from implementing their own secure Flash runtime?

I believe the real reason for Flash missing on the iPhone and Ipad is the simple fact that a lot of apps that Apple is currently getting a pretty penny for through the app store could be implemented as quite simple flash apps, free for all to use. It's a business decision, plain and simple.

The real question is, will coming generations embrace technology with limits like these, or will people eventually realize the value of true openness? Given that people in general seem content with the limits on things like DVDs and Blu-Rays I'm leaning towards the likely outcome being a less free computing environment for the masses, as much as I hate to say it.

@Slashdot: Stop being fanbois and think! (1)

mmaniaci (1200061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195250)

I hate Apple for their anti-consumer politics and demeaning advertising. I hate Adobe because their software is bloated, buggy, and insecure. Now that you know I'm not partial to either company, why should Apple be able to block Adobe's media platform out of their hardware? Isn't this just like Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, leaving other browsers at a huge disadvantage? Isn't this worse because Adobe isn't even getting a chance to gain iPad customers? This is also companies deciding how their customers use their product, and that is bad. It may not be illegal, but it is very bad and I really wish this community would get past their fanboi-ism and on to the actual topic.

If Apple gets away with this then they will set a sort of precedence. It could start a trend where any hardware company could block a software company from their product, or the other way around, or with any combination of industries/products. Capitalism is great and all *cough* but the quest for a higher bottom line seems to remove all morals and justice from business and Apple's behavior represents just one of many slippery slopes.

Work on Flash for OS X then we'll talk. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32195262)

If you really <3 Apple, how about working on flash for OS X first? If I can bog down a 2core machine with 4GB of RAM with 1 flash game and 1 Youtube video open, I don't even want to think about how flash will run on the iPhone.

Apple has the hooks for hardware acceleration. You could even do something with GrandCentral if you wanted.

Adobe has bitten Apple numerous times in the past (It's the reason Final Cut Pro exists). Extend the olive branch and show that you're even capable of making flash run decent on the Mac, then the iPhone may follow.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?