Adobe’s CEO Responds to Steve Jobs

So SJ is pissed that Adobe has put more effort in to the platforms with the biggest market share, and less in those with the least?

I wonder if this is similar to the reason that every single custom software package I have seen in my field of work runs on a PC instead of a mac...

hmmm.

Life's a bitch and then you die I guess.
 
Adobe says Apple OSX is closed so they can't write hardware-accel through video.

Apple is saying Adobe software is proprietary so they can't patch around it.

Who should budge?
 
FingerSlut said:
Adobe says Apple OSX is closed so they can't write hardware-accel through video.

Apple is saying Adobe software is proprietary so they can't patch around it.

Who should budge?
Click to expand...

Well... the DoJ would say Apple.

Microsoft tried to pull that shit, but they're evil, right?
 
Notwithstanding the shady backend business deals to force clients to use your stuff exclusively, which is really just over-agressive competitive tactics, Microsoft is not really trying to be a monopoly as much as just trying to gain the most market share as any company should. Bill Gates is not even running the company anymore supposedly, retired instead of being ousted for incompetence like Steve Jobs was once.

Google is much shadier with their ad profiling being an unequivocal privacy invasion, their entire sreach engine AND email is SPYWARE

It is the fascist Steve Jobs, who doesn't understand technology more than the casual marketing drone, who thinks the shape and design of the UI will woo yuppies into buying an exclusive product for triple the price. He is the real problem at the helm of this evil empire, since he tried to shut Windows(TM) down in court (and only lost becuase got fired one time) he obviously wants the monopoly, and since he couldn't get it (he def. would have won) he is forced to suck the blood of his loyal followers.

MacOSX would be better than Windows if they sold it for PCs, but it doesn't have a chance to get apps and drivers if the hardware is overpriced significantly, it is totally possible right this second for Steve to change his mind and it could be in stores tomorrow, but he is afraid of competition, he thinks Apple has this customerbase that is some kind of art-appreciation club for rich technophiles with considerable surplus income.

Of course you can install OSX 10.6.3 on a PC if you can find the drivers, but it is not advertised/supported by the company, once Linux is more mainstream I am sure they will but by then it may be too late

Anyway, the HTC Incredible, Google Nexus One, and Motorola Droid(Milestone) have been confirmed by Adobe as the only phones with a capable CPU to play flash video, the older phones may or may not get flash lite(which sux)

After tricking people with itunes and ipod which was no better than the competition but no worse, this time it's different since the devices can only run the pathetic FlashLite, Steve Jobs has almost guaranteed failure with the iPhpne and iPad. Unfortunately the CPUs were selected for battery life and not speed and therefore they are not capable of rendering sufficient fps (whether flash is inefficient, and possibly especially so in Unix, is irrelevant to the capability conversation, Steve!)
 
My point is that Adobe say Steve Jobs "smokescreen" because he really can't enable Flash if he wanted to, I don't think Flash10.1 even uses the 3D chip on the Nexus One, and that is Android 2.2 open source
 
just sad how far in the deep end Steve Jobs has fallen. What is even more sad is that many of the Mac faithful truly believes he can do no wrong.

This is getting about as stupid as the earlier assertion that OSX or Macs don't get viruses.
 
they said they charge $1M for iAd Iphone ads, no wonder they don't want flash ad competition!
 
iceredwing said:
just sad how far in the deep end Steve Jobs has fallen. What is even more sad is that many of the Mac faithful truly believes he can do no wrong.

This is getting about as stupid as the earlier assertion that OSX or Macs don't get viruses.
Click to expand...

word for word my thoughts
 
I'm no fanboi of either products.

The newest OSX is very good though, and I actually enjoy it when I have to use it.
Has that always been the case with OSX? Nope, but now its getting to the point to where nearly everything is solid (for the most part) and their biggest problem now is adobe crashes. If you read all the related stories it almost seems like adobe is costing them in customer serivce costs. Think about it. Apple prides themselves on an amazing customer experience as you can tell by their accolades in that area. I even had an episode where bootcamp destroyed my HD and the guy at the mac store fixed it for free in under 5 minutes. (granted I paid for the protection plan.)

It always boils down to money. How is adobe costing apple money? It must be driving unessessary traffic to their customer service.
 
odoe said:
Here was a good rebuttal to SJ's talking points.
http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html

I'm going to continue to still do Flash apps, as even Air on Android is looking promising. But Apple is just setting themselves up for the market they think is coming.
Click to expand...

Thats a ground level perspective. Do you think Steve Job's burdens his mind with all the tech poop? No thats the tech monkey's job, CEO only cares about moola. I doubt they're looking that far ahead, they wouldn't resort to this kind of PR just to get someone to develop for their products. The most important thing is getting the product in people's hands. The rest will follow.
 
Here's mine

spritetesthtml.jpg


spritetestflash.jpg
 
I believe IE8 is not ready or optimized for HTML5. You could use ChromeFrame for IE, but I don't think it's fully supported. In Firefox, HTML5 is much slower than when benching it in IE8. Running HTML5 benchmark on Chrome yields about 10-15 more frames than IE - about 30fps on IE8, 40-45fps on Chrome - whereas Firefox only ran at about 18fps.

Flash ran around 90-100fps on Chrome and 65-75fps on IE8. Firefox's benchmark was very erratic between 130-250fps.
 
NukeULater said:
HTML 5: 100% on one core and the other three were about 15-30%.

Flash: all four cores at 25-30%.
Click to expand...

Kind of interesting to note that on my system the HTML versions ran @~10 fps, whereas the Flash version ran at >100 fps...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top