Douchebag++;

[Serapth]

Did someone slip Steve Jobs something because... WOW. Some people say this entire episode is to cover up for the horrible gestapo like handling of the leaked iPhone that even got chastised by Jon Stewart, but really, who in their right mind would cover up corporate idiocy with ..... corporate idiocy.


The latest chapter in Apple bumbling that only a fanboy could defend, Steve Jobs actually posts on Apple.com front page this following piece of horribly misleading, well, bullshit. Ignoring the fact it is full of lies, from a relationship maintenance perspective it was just simply an act of pure stupidity.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

[Serapth]

Job's comments


Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

[Serapth]

A pretty good rebuttal. (http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html)


Steve Jobs on Flash: Correcting the Lies
Apple has posted Steve Jobs’ “Thoughts on Flash“. There are a lot of lies and half truths. No one will care. The article has enough valid points that people won’t check up on them.

That said, here’s my attempts to correct the lies.

Lie #1: “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary.”

The Flash IDE, yes. The Flash Player, no. Here is a list of technologies open sourced/published by Macromedia/Adobe that are in the Flash Player ecosystem:

ActionScript 3 runtime, called Tamarin. Given to Mozilla to hopefully utilize in future browsers.
RTMP (and it’s ilk), the protocol for real-time video & audio streaming as well as data (AMF). Yes, many want “more” open sourced. Red5 and Wowza seem to be doing just fine with what is there currently.
The SWF format itself, which is what Flash Player plays/runs, has most of it’s spec published in case you want to generate SWF files.
This street goes both ways, too. Macromedia/Adobe has adopted open source technologies into Flash Player with the hopes of embracing standards, not just the de-facto ones.

ActionScript 1, 2, and 3 are all based on EMCAScript. Yes, it’s not as compliant as many would like. Additionally, Adobe did participate in many ECMA Script discussions/debates. Yes, 4 didn’t turn out so well for Adobe.
The XML parsing is based on E4X, ECMA Script for XML.
I’m not saying Adobe’s open sourced a lot of the Flash Player. There’s open source, there’s published, and then there is open source.

Regarding their products, he’s wrong there too. The Flex SDK, one of the biggest boosts for the Flash Platform in the past 4 years, is also open source (yes, the real kind). Most utilize Flex Builder, built on top of the open source Eclipse.

Using a blanket statement saying Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary is a lie. It paints an incorrect & negative picture over all the wonderful things Macromedia/Adobe have done in open source around their products.

Lie #2: “HTML5 being adopted by Google”

Google created the first browser to fully integrate plugins, and continues to work with Adobe to do so. Google also utilizes Flash Player in Gmail for both file uploading, and configuring your web cam. Google utilizes Flash Player in their online maps product for street view. Google Finance utilizes Flash Player for a lot of their charts. Their video site, YouTube, utilizes Flash Player for their videos.

Google didn’t start out with Flash. They started with text, AJAX, and later Flash. They’ve done a lot of forays into HTML5, yes, and will continue to do so. Saying they are “adopting” it, and only it and not Flash Player, is incorrect.

Lie #3: “…75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads…”

Incorrect. If a video is H264, that doesn’t mean it can play on the iPhone. If you look at the iPhone specs, you’ll see the only support a subset of what H264 offers, specifically 2 major components to quality video: Using a maximum of the Baseline profile, with Simple for higher bitrates/resolutions, as well as 2.5 for maximum (ish) bitrate.

Not all H264 videos conform to these specs. YouTube converted a lot of their Spark (Flash 6/7) videos to H264 to support iPhone because there was money to be gained in the large investment. Even so, not all YouTube videos work on the iPhone, in part because of the aforementioned reasons. There is a reason why when you upload a H264 video to YouTube, they’ll often re-encode it.

I’ve been in web video for 7 years. Getting video to work in the browser is the easy part. Setting up video encoding farms to support thousands/millions of users is not. It’s hard and expensive. Not everyone has the resources (read money and time) Google has, and that’s why companies like Brightcove are trying to capitalize on this problem.

Most importantly, HTML5 currently has no universal DRM solution. That is why Flash Player’s RTMPE, and soon HTTP Streaming via Project Zeri, are the de-facto standard today. Those who deploy video content they either own or license the rights to will not utilize HTML5 because it cannot be protected. There is a reason you rent videos in iTunes using their ACC format vs. straight H264. Legally, those videos CANNOT be utilized via HTML5.

Also, Hulu.com and others aren’t using H264, they’re using On2’s VP6.

Lie #4: “users aren’t missing much video.”

Every time a user see’s a blue lego instead of the video they wanted to see, they are missing a video. There were so many people seeing the blue lego, including Steve Jobs himself on stage demoing the iPad, that they removed the blue lego as a PR effort to make it seem like there was something wrong with the website itself vs. the iPhone/iPad.

…thankfully, Grant Skinner added it back.

Lie #5: “…Flash has recently added support for H.264…”

Incorrect. It’s been there since August of 2007. That’s almost 3 years. That’s a long time in technology.

Lie #6: “…must be run in software…”

Not entirely correct. Apple FINALLY gave Adobe and others access to hardware for desktop systems, which Adobe has recently utilized. The #1 criticism for Mac’s & Flash video is lack of hardware acceleration. This move by Apple will go a long way to improving video experiences, not just for Flash, for browser based video. Meaning, cooler Macs and more battery life.

For mobile, Safari/WebKit is using H264 hardware decoding just fine. They just won’t expose it, forcing yet again, Flash to utilize a sub par video experience for iPhone (having to launch a URL to utilize the iPhone’s default video player vs. incorporating the video into the experience).

Lie #7: “…When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all…”

See #3. Also, not all Flash video is just a video block on a page. Some are immersive experiences, games, or involved in compositing with other objects (alpha channels, easier particle systems, etc). HTML5 does not currently support some of these features.

Finally, not all video is pre-recorded and progressive. Live and streamed events are currently done using Flash Player and Silverlight. Yes, I’ve seen systems that can do live H264 via progressive with only seconds latency over CDN’s, regardless, they aren’t what’s being used en masse today. This includes DVR like functionality that both technologies offer, including Adative Streaming capabilities to ensure you can see un-interrupted video regardless of your internet connections’s integrity.

Lie #8: “…Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers…”

Incorrect. The whole reason Flash Player has continued to stay ahead of the curve is because Macromedia/Adobe innovates it. There are gesture & touch API’s in the Flash Player; I and many others have used them for the iPhone resulting in a 100+ apps on the App Store.

Lie #9: “For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.”

Incorrect. This was already discounted 2 months ago by Mike Chambers. Additionally, I tested both MouseEvent.CLICK, MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, and MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, and all 3 worked just fine on my iPhone. Additionally, I’ve seen video of a Nexus One using the native Flash Player 10.1 that plays a Flex website I made just fine with no code changes to support touch.

Lie #10: “Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover.”

Incorrect. There are roll over states for buttons on the iPhone/iPad because you can click/touch on something, which shows the roll over state, but then drag off to not trigger the up, thus canceling your button click if you didn’t meant to touch something. Works the exact same way as a mouse does.

Lie #11: “Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.”

Incorrect, see Mike Chambers’ post in #9.

Lie #12: “If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?”

Those same JavaScript Developers need to do the same work Flash Developers need to do: Nothing.

If both wish to utilize Gesture or Touch events, then BOTH need to re-write/adjust their content to support these events.

Lie #13: “The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content.”

Incorrect. See #3. Media companies will have to create players like Netflix did to support those devices; these aren’t HTML5, they’re Cocoa.

Half-Truth #1: “Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.”

iTunes, flagship Apple software product enabling the success of the iPod, selling over 1 billion songs, and empowering digital movie rentals, isn’t Cocoa.

Gruber, the same guy who Apple apparently used as an example of why Flash doesn’t belong on the iPhone, was quoted, when referring to why Apple hasn’t ported iTunes to Cocoa:

What really matters are features and user experience, not the developer technologies used to make them.

Conclusions

I agree with everything else the article says. While the spin is HTML5 is better than Flash, Apple wants you developing with Cocoa, not HTML5; that’s where the money and good user experiences are. While many have said that the PR person responsible for writing that article is doing Apple a disservice, I disagree. Yes, they do lose creditability writing that many lies, and yes, this just fuels the fire for many developers, not just Flash Devs, to focus on Android instead of iPhone.

However, iPhones and iPads still rock. While Apple is “only the 10th” largest phone manufacturer, they are the only mobile platform people care about right now in the USA (unless you’re a pissed off Flash/Flex Dev). Their app store, combined with the user experience, is un-matched.

Me? I’m still trying to learn Cocoa so I too can participate in building applications for these wonderful devices; devices whose sales won’t be hurt by that article. My colleagues in the industry? Most are heading towards Android along with Adobe. Those moonlighting in Flash & iPhone development simultaneously don’t say much, beyond correcting & helping me with my Objective C knowledge on Twitter (y’all rock!).

…oh yeah, and someone cast Cure 2 on Adobe.

[Serapth]

For the record, I am no fan of Flash. However, I am much less a fan of being lied to.

[EternalGamer]

Ho.y shit, it's like a political campaign debate for issues only of consequence to tech nerds.

I don't care whether I use flash or HTML 5. I also don't care about political alliances to those technologies. Even if the only reason Apple was pro-HTML was because they think Abode is a bunch of pootie pants, I still don't care.

[J Arcane]

The bottom line is, Apple's been dependent on Adobe for their bottom line for years, thanks to Adobe's dominance in the publishing industry that fueled much of the Mac's adoption for many years.

Now Apple finally has just enough grasp of their situation to jam a knife in Adobe's back, regardless of how many consumers are affected in the process.

Jobs' discourse has been getting more and more bitter and snide of late, not just this, but in the many emails he's been sending about willy nilly lately. Frankly I think the old condomhead has finally cracked. The hype over the iPad frankly exceeded even Apple's own limits.

[Ink Asylum]

It'd never happen, but man would it be amazing if Adobe stopped releasing new versions of Creative Suite for Macs in retribution.

[Hawkzombie]

That would bring a stop to everything creative ever.

And it would serve Mac right.

[J Arcane]

It is interesting to wonder how long Apple can keep kicking their oldest ally in the face and get away with it.

I mean for fuck's sake, the PDF format is embedded so deep in OS X they even draw fucking window widgets with it.

[digitalErich]

There was this awesome article that I read a week ago and detailed the entire history of Apple and Adobe and it put a lot of the current situation into perspective. It's a much more complex relationship than this feud indicates. I wish I could find it. It gives you a much different perspective on this whole thing (not that is makes either side out to be the good guy).

[Draconis]

Not gonna get into the H.264 debate as I am not knowledgeable on it. Steve's points about resource management, Flash draining battery, Adobe taking forever to show it, and Flash being a huge Security Risk I agree with.

(95% of the Malware problems and Viruses' I deal with here at work were injected via Flash)

Interestingly enough, Microsoft, of all People, has thrown in their Weight alongside Apple.


Which frankly, rather surprises me. But I am in agreeance. Flash gives me enough problems as is with Firefox and headaches here at work. The Sooner it goes away for mainstream website use, the happier I'll be.

IE Blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx)

[Banacek]

Interestingly enough, Microsoft, of all People, has thrown in their Weight alongside Apple.

I was going to post this.

There is nothing more annoying then an online thread about Apple, so I'm ducking out of this one. I use whatever tool is good for the job. If you apply any 'personal bias' on top of it then you're doing it wrong :)

[TrackZero]

Ho.y shit, it's like a political campaign debate for issues only of consequence to tech nerds.

I don't care whether I use flash or HTML 5. I also don't care about political alliances to those technologies. Even if the only reason Apple was pro-HTML was because they think Abode is a bunch of pootie pants, I still don't care.

You shouldn't. The only thing you should care about is that Apple lied to you because they want to retain 100% market control and Adobe told the truth. If that doesn't matter to you, then you must love getting fucked in the ass on a regular basis. Otherwise, consider not buying Apple products in the future. 'nuff said.

[Draconis]

I was going to post this.

There is nothing more annoying then an online thread about Apple, so I'm ducking out of this one. I use whatever tool is good for the job. If you apply any 'personal bias' on top of it then you're doing it wrong :)

Completely Agree Banacek.

Personally, I live from a philosophy of expanding knowledge across all hardware and software. I have this insatiable urge to try out new gadgets and other high tech items simply because I find it enjoyable, and wish to broaden my views and horizons.

Right now I'm working on a Hackintosh project, just to see if I can get Mac OS X up and running on my current PC as a personal challenge to myself.


For this reason I tend to remain amicable towards all ends and try to be even headed in regards to debates over technology. I just wish that Apple threads here on Cog were more amicable in general, aimed towards expanding knowledge and furthering capability of using said products, instead of having to deal with constant hate and heated rhetoric.

Ah well.

[TrackZero]

I just wish that Apple threads here on Cog were more amicable in general, aimed towards expanding knowledge and furthering capability of using said products, instead of having to deal with constant hate and heated rhetoric.

Ah well.

I agree. But it's very hard to when you have people who are "fans" of the product in question instead of just normal consumers. They raise the stakes in any discussion, which increases the chance of people failing to come to any consensus.

[J Arcane]

I have generally in the past been fairly ambivalent, and even positive about Apple, and have in particular defended OS X against all comers many times because I think it's a fine OS.

But Apple has been behaving in an increasingly indefensible way, playing the bully role in the mobile device markets to an extent I do not find remotely acceptable.

In the process, there's even been some things pointed out and brought up about past practices that make me question their tactics with OS X, they just weren't well publicized as OS X development isn't quite the boom market iPhone dev is.

[muddi900]

Ho.y shit, it's like a political campaign debate for issues only of consequence to tech nerds.

I don't care whether I use flash or HTML 5. I also don't care about political alliances to those technologies. Even if the only reason Apple was pro-HTML was because they think Abode is a bunch of pootie pants, I still don't care.

But...but...but...new interface paradigms :eek:

EDIT: I must say, Steve Jobs is a CEO of a tech company. Like all CEOs of tech companies, he spews a lot of horseshit. It should never be taken seriously. Except when its Eric Schmidt (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/). That guy scares me.

[J Arcane]

The FSF weighs in: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

[Bone]

That would bring a stop to everything creative ever.

And it would serve Mac right.

I've never understood this argument. Adobe products work exactly the same in Windows. Yes, you'd have some computer illiterate artists freaking out but once you showed them that the clover key is replaced with "Ctrl" and Option is replaced with "Alt" they would happily be clicking their pen tools and color pickers again.

All so we can get high quality fakes of our favorite celebrities, of course.

[Hawkzombie]

I've never understood this argument. Adobe products work exactly the same in Windows. Yes, you'd have some computer illiterate artists freaking out but once you showed them that the clover key is replaced with "Ctrl" and Option is replaced with "Alt" they would happily be clicking their pen tools and color pickers again.

All so we can get high quality fakes of our favorite celebrities, of course.

I'm with ya. I have no idea why Macs are so prolific in creative areas...maybe it's because they're shiny or whatever, or maybe they really do crash less...but honestly...if Adobe really wants to try and affect change with Mac, they simply need to cease all compatibility and play hardball. Either it'll end up in Adobe going under as no one is willing to support their gamble and end up finding alternatives (ha) to Photoshop and the like, or people will swap to PCs to do their stuff and mac will become even more the refuge of the insane, the hipsters, and the rich :p

[menage]

I love Adobe, I think CS5 looks awesome.

I'm beginning to hate Apple each day a little bit more. I'm not buying a single Apple product next to maybe an MP3 player. I just bought a new pc and CS4 runs fine on it, it also does a lot of other crap a mac doesn't do that easely, so who needs it.

[Banacek]

Either it'll end up in Adobe going under as no one is willing to support their gamble and end up finding alternatives (ha) to Photoshop and the like, or people will swap to PCs to do their stuff and mac will become even more the refuge of the insane, the hipsters, and the rich :p

And open source software developers...

[Serapth]

The FSF weighs in: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

Hard to take FSF seriously, they always take such a unpragmatic zealot stance, always.

[Serapth]

I'm with ya. I have no idea why Macs are so prolific in creative areas...maybe it's because they're shiny or whatever, or maybe they really do crash less...but honestly...if Adobe really wants to try and affect change with Mac, they simply need to cease all compatibility and play hardball. Either it'll end up in Adobe going under as no one is willing to support their gamble and end up finding alternatives (ha) to Photoshop and the like, or people will swap to PCs to do their stuff and mac will become even more the refuge of the insane, the hipsters, and the rich :p

History mostly. Once was a time that Macs where the only option and the PC world was a pale imitation. Therefore Macs where what were used in schools and macs were what such people bought for home use. Back then, there actually were legitimate reasons to pay more for a Mac if you worked in the graphics world.

Now, its mostly a matter of reputation and traction.

[Serapth]

And open source software developers...

This is the funny thing with Macs. The upsurge in popularity of Mac OS/X didn't really hit the Windows install base at all, but it was more or less a nail in the coffin for desktop linux.

Most of the people that wanted to see a good Linux desktop, got a Mac.

[Banacek]

This is the funny thing with Macs. The upsurge in popularity of Mac OS/X didn't really hit the Windows install base at all, but it was more or less a nail in the coffin for desktop linux.

Most of the people that wanted to see a good Linux desktop, got a Mac.

Pretty much. Honestly, who wants to deal with linux for their desktop? That's why I always laugh when they say 'This year is the year of the linux desktop!' and it never happens.

[Bone]

History mostly. Once was a time that Macs where the only option and the PC world was a pale imitation. Therefore Macs where what were used in schools and macs were what such people bought for home use. Back then, there actually were legitimate reasons to pay more for a Mac if you worked in the graphics world.

When was that, though? I was in desktop publishing in 1995 and although it was a Mac shop, my PC at home ran Photoshop and everything else great. I'd take my work home all the time (although I had to be careful to preserve the stupid Mac OS 7 resource fork along with the file, or else the Mac wouldn't open the work again when I brought it back to the office).

I think convincing people that Macs were the only option for creatives may be Steve Jobs's biggest business accomplishment ever. Hell, he convinced people that he was the champion of freedom and Bill Gates was an evil, evil man. The longer I live, the more I see Steve as the guy with the twirly moustache.

[AgtFox]

When was that, though? I was in desktop publishing in 1995 and although it was a Mac shop
Stop right there and that is your answer. You worked in a Mac shop, almost all mass media used Macs to create their papers, magazines, etc at that time. Almost all colleges that taught graphic design and the like were using Macs...and almost all grade schools used Macs for everything, mostly because they got a HUGE deal for buying Mac vs. PC at least up here in MN.

It didn't matter that the Adobe programs worked just as fine on a PC, it was that most were taught the Adobe programs with a Mac and it became that much tougher for a person to tear themselves from a Mac for future work. They gave into the propaganda and never moved over to a PC, thus keeping Apple going when they were near the brink. What Jobs needs to realize is that without Adobe, Apple may not be around today and certainly not as influential as they are.

My wife went through graphic design in college, she did all her work on G3 or G4 Macs (I forget). She hates Macs and much like you does all her Adobe work on a PC. She's in the same boat as you in your opinions, but she also realizes many of her fellow students continued on using Macs and agrees with what I said above.

[Spectre-7]

Stop right there and that is your answer.

Actually, I don't think it does. I'm pretty sure he was responding to this part:

Back then, there actually were legitimate reasons to pay more for a Mac if you worked in the graphics world.

I dunno... I could be mistaken.

[Zanzibar]

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

The company that created iTunes is taking another company to task for its product's propensity to crash. Oh, the irony.

[AgtFox]

I ran more with the part you didn't quote:

History mostly. Once was a time that Macs where the only option and the PC world was a pale imitation. Therefore Macs where what were used in schools and macs were what such people bought for home use.

I'd say the 80s and early 90s were Mac-centric in schools and therefore most people stayed with Mac no matter the price (and as I said, schools got huge discounts for going Mac back then at least here). In design colleges through at least the late 90s it was still mostly Mac-centric, I'm not sure about today.

When I got to college there was finally more PC penetration (I already had a PC at this point), although we did start moving to a Mac-like system (it was called Umac or something...was a Mac clone) and about 1/3 of the computer lab was taken up by those Mac clones. Most were computers running Windows 3.11 for Workgroups and then Windows 95 when it came out (I worked in the computer lab and helped with both).

[RandoM51]

Is it true that HTML5 has no way to do protected video?

And yeah, Apple was very smart in getting their hardware into high schools and colleges. Get people started on Apple and those people will stick with it later on.

As an IT person I always hated having to support macs. Proprietary hardware, funky cases that got switched around every year or two, orphaned generations of hardware where systems didn't take off, lack of low level access/diagnostics. Oh, and of course back in the late-80's and early-90's your mac users would be "artists" while your pc users would be spreadsheet, db, and word processing. Guess which group was easier to support? Which group had more realistic expectations?

[Bone]

Stop right there and that is your answer. You worked in a Mac shop, almost all mass media used Macs to create their papers, magazines, etc at that time. Almost all colleges that taught graphic design and the like were using Macs...and almost all grade schools used Macs for everything, mostly because they got a HUGE deal for buying Mac vs. PC at least up here in MN.Yeah, as Spectre pointed out though I was really referring to the idea that Macs ever had a technical edge over PC. Certainly I knew the score- I worked at a Mac shop, my school was a Mac shop. But we had PCs in my Mac shop, just not for design... and those PCs ended up running id's qtest a year or so later and my computing history was decided right there :) Anyway I was just wondering if the Mac ever really was the more technically superior route for desktop publishing. Maybe back in the 80's...


As an IT person I always hated having to support macs. Proprietary hardware, funky cases that got switched around every year or two, orphaned generations of hardware where systems didn't take off, lack of low level access/diagnostics. Oh, and of course back in the late-80's and early-90's your mac users would be "artists" while your pc users would be spreadsheet, db, and word processing. Guess which group was easier to support? Which group had more realistic expectations?
EXACTLY. And at least with a PC, the user had not only realistic expectations but also a slightly more refined understanding of computers. I swear the artists in my shop must have thought the box ran on sunshine and butterfly farts. The description of what they were doing before a crash was always stream of consciousness.

And also, when Macs crashed in OS 7, it was bad news, and it happened a lot! Just installing conflicting extensions would do it. But sometimes you'd get a Sad Mac or even a Bomb icon and just kinda shrug. Send it back to Apple and get another one ;)

[Xydarc]

Oh, and of course back in the late-80's and early-90's your mac users would be "artists" while your pc users would be spreadsheet, db, and word processing. Guess which group was easier to support? Which group had more realistic expectations?
None of them.

[Hawkzombie]

Ah, I forgot about AgtFox's point...Macs used to give schools BIG discounts on bundles. Almost forgot about that.

[Draconis]

None of them

This man wins an internet.

I hated macs back in school. I had to work on them when I was part of the Yearbook team that I got corralled into doing for my senior year of high school.

Mac OS 9, Power PC and virtual Windows....hated, HATED that frigging thing. Nothing but a gigantic pain in the arse.


Mac OS X however is something different. Speaking of end users...my Mother and Step Father and especially my brother, constantly harangued me about problems with their windows machines. My brother would only call me when he needed help with windows issues, and usually the problem was catastrophic in nature. Taking me hours to fix and assist a pc clueless individual over 3000 miles away how to fix it.

Eventually I got fed up and told him get a mac. Seriously, just, get a frigging mac. I was spending too much time fixing his problems and it was getting to me.

Queue to today. My brother uses nothing but Macs save his netbook, my parents use nothing but macs whatsoever. They convinced their church to get macs in fact.

Support calls for them have dropped down to ZERO. Nothing practically. I had ONE issue once, with my brother having a print driver problem with his mac. Easily fixed by installing the latest driver.


Now I don't know about corporate environs, as I support Linux, Unix, and Windows systems. But I have also seen a report where total cost of ownership for a corporate IT environment with Mactel's as they quoted it, was insanely lower then tco for Windows machines.

All I know is since I convinced my brother to switch to a Mac, and my parents have, my life has been alot more hassle free since then. And that is a blessing in my view.

I have Mac OS X up and running now, and was kind of shocked how much it feels more like Unix then anything else to me. Still digging deep and learning the OS, something I find quite enjoyable.

[Hawkzombie]

If they were priced comparable to PCs, I'd probably make the switch as well. But I also play a shit ton of PC games, and I'm not too keen on the whole 'Virtual Windows'

[J Arcane]

I started pricing a Mac mini the other day, and then half way through I realized I was paying as much money for glorified laptop hardware as I'd just got done spending on my badass new gaming mini-tower.

It sort of quelled my enthusiasm for the idea.

I usually defend Apple's hardware as worth the extra expense, but their current model line is just so far the fuck behind it is absolutely absurd.

[Draconis]

If they were priced comparable to PCs, I'd probably make the switch as well. But I also play a shit ton of PC games, and I'm not too keen on the whole 'Virtual Windows'



Wait until the iMac refresh happens, then look at them seriously. You get the most value out of Apple Hardware immediately after the refresh or close to it.

Also, heres an Interesting article on the whole Mac Mini ordeal that has some valid points.

Mac Mini Apples and Oranges (http://www.macworld.com/article/42143/2005/01/miniapplesandoranges.html)

As for Virtualization, use boot camp.

Since its Intel Hardware, you are literally using Windows on an Intel Machine. No virtualization. Its 100% windows with all of the drivers etc from what I have used it for thus far. My friend who has an Imac 27 inch was able to load up and play borderlands on it with 0 issues.



As for Mac Mini's, they are upgradeable, but after looking at how I did at things, the cost of upgrade modules, dvi kvm switch....I just came to the conclusion for the money you are spending, you are getting better value out of buying the lowest end imac in comparison.


Edit: So in Vein with J's thoughts, yeah...hold off. Some of the hardware is behind the curve and in need of a refresh, big time.


Oh, and for anyone buying a Mac or seriously looking for one. See if the company you work for has Discounts. Or go to Macmall or Mac Connection, they have lower prices. Milk as much of a lower price as you can.

My company nets me a 100 dollar discount off of the 1500 dollar iMac, not a bad deal all in all. Higher end models are even more of a discount.

[Serapth]

Biggest problem with Macs, regardless to the price, is they use SHIT video cards. In some cases, the cards even though they have the same model number as a PC card, are gimped in some special way.

For example, the current Mac Mini ships with a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M with *SHARED!!!* video ram and the base MacBook ships with the same gimpy card.

Even the base iMacs ship with the same crappy card, and you have to upgrade to the 27" to even have the option of a viable gaming card.

[Banacek]

It's funny. The lack of control that drives the internet savvy nuts about Apple is what makes them so popular. Go into an Apple store on a Saturday. It's nothing but a crowd of people wanting to be told what to buy and how to use it. Now that Windows 7 is out, someone could do the same thing with windows boxes and make a mint. All you need is a good warranty and a knowledgeable staff.

[Draconis]

It's nothing but a crowd of people wanting to be told what to buy and how to use it.

This I feel is a bit disingenuous. Completely a stereotype to be honest. Any time I've stepped into an apple store, I've listened carefully to everything going on around me, including conversations. People who go into these stores ask alot of questions, sometimes leaving some Apple Reps a little overwhelmed with the sheer number of them.

While the above statement that was quoted MIGHT apply to iPod and other low end devices in "Cost", such is not the case with iPhones, iPads, and especially Mac systems. Every time I've been in the store, (always on the weekends, its the only free time I truly have) I have always heard people asking questions and almost always important ones concerning their purchase decisions.

However, that having been said, Apple Store employee's are severely lacking in knowledge when it comes to the OS for their computers. It came across clear to me that they are good at answering questions...until it gets technical.

Then they start to flounder.

Put simply, they don't know how to deal with someone like me who works in Information Technology. Rather disappointing to be honest. I know when I was looking at Mac's seriously I went into the store and bombarded them with questions about the Hardware and software.

Is the CPU upgradeable in iMacs? (no, they are soldered in. The Mac Mini's have them epoxied in)

Where is the CLI, or Terminal in Mac OS X, how do I create scripts to automate some tasks. I could go on. Honestly I think I drove the poor lady helping me insane.

They simply couldn't answer my questions. Though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.



On the bit about Windows 7. I don't think Microsoft will ever come close to the kind of customer loyalty that Apple has, and there's a very good reason why.

Apple generally speaking, treats its customers like gold. My parents and my brother have nothing but good to say about them. My experience with the store aside from inability to answer deeply technical questions has always been good. I have never come away feeling angry or upset at them. And those whom I have seen in the store who are upset, generally walk away pleased at the outcome.

Apple controls the entire experience. They are the one stop you have to go through. No middle man. Whereas with Windows PCs, its not so much that unless you deal with Dell, Gateway, HP or other places. And personally, their customer service capability sucks.


I'll be blunt. I bought an iMac. My employee discount got me 100 bucks off of the 1500 dollar 21.5 inch one. I brought it home, unboxed it. Dead pixel. Bright frigging red dead pixel. I HATE dead pixels.

I called up the store, talked to them, they told me bring it back. They swapped it out no problem. Let me pull out another one, check it out at the store, no dead pixels. Swapped out the receipts and the apple care plan for the base 1 year, and I was on my way.

No store....none....has ever done that. Ever. I've dealt with friends and others who have bought new monitors and Pc's. The store's response is almost always "We need to see 5 or more dead pixels to exchange it."

Or "I'm sorry sir, I realize you bought the most expensive best buy care plan we have, but we don't feel the HUGE DENT in your polarizer film on your laptop screen is going to impact your user experience with this device. So we are going to deny your repair because we feel our insurer's would deny you. Now, you can send it in anyways, and be without it for 6 weeks, but honestly they won't cover it. "

Then I get to listen to the guy tear the geek squad idiot a new hole as he paid 300+ dollars for their plan.


If Microsoft handles things like Apple does, yes, we'll see them succeed. But honestly, there's a reason why Apple Customers are loyal. Generally speaking, if you treat people above and beyond the normal experience of good customer service, they keep coming back.

Very few stores treat people with the dignity and genuinely good overall experience that Apple does.

Good customer service goes a long way. Apple's high marks in customer satisfaction surveys go a pretty long way towards pointing this out.



As for the Mac Mini's and the shared graphics, yes, its absolute crap. 9400M graphics cards are absolute ****, and the desire for them to eat into RAM is ludicrous. The lowest end imac has one of those bastardization of cards inside of it, something that churns my stomach.

I am hoping, sincerely hoping, that with the Advent of Steam coming to Mac, we'll see Apple finally wake the **** up and start putting SERIOUS gaming cards into their devices like they did with the Macbook pros.

Though that remains yet to be seen. I'm not holding my breath.

[Serapth]

Wow, wait, did you just say Apple treats their customers near better than Microsoft? The same Apple that required loosing a class action lawsuit to acknowledge and fix the battery in the iPod?

Besides, most end users never deal with Microsoft directly, they deal with Dell, Hp, etc. My only non developer dealing with MS was with the xbox, where they tripled the warranty, something Apple would never do unless by court order.

[J Arcane]

It's funny. The lack of control that drives the internet savvy nuts about Apple is what makes them so popular. Go into an Apple store on a Saturday. It's nothing but a crowd of people wanting to be told what to buy and how to use it. Now that Windows 7 is out, someone could do the same thing with windows boxes and make a mint. All you need is a good warranty and a knowledgeable staff.
Some people don't like freedom.

There are still, to this day, demonstrations in Russia from people who want the old Communist government back.

[Banacek]

This I feel is a bit disingenuous. Completely a stereotype to be honest. Any time I've stepped into an apple store, I've listened carefully to everything going on around me, including conversations. People who go into these stores ask alot of questions, sometimes leaving some Apple Reps a little overwhelmed with the sheer number of them.

While the above statement that was quoted MIGHT apply to iPod and other low end devices in "Cost", such is not the case with iPhones, iPads, and especially Mac systems. Every time I've been in the store, (always on the weekends, its the only free time I truly have) I have always heard people asking questions and almost always important ones concerning their purchase decisions.

However, that having been said, Apple Store employee's are severely lacking in knowledge when it comes to the OS for their computers. It came across clear to me that they are good at answering questions...until it gets technical.

Then they start to flounder.

I've been there. I always get Applecare, so the second the smallest thing goes wrong on my MBP I go in and have them replace what's wrong. Since the only time I really have to go in on Saturday, I'm always in there. You wouldn't believe how many people I've talked out of buying a Time Machine when they could go to Fry's and get twice the storage for a lower price. Not every Apple store customer is well versed in computers.

People just want guidance, and they think they can trust the people at the Apple store because they know they can bring it back if they don't like something about it. Compare that to say, Best Buy, where you're lucky if you see someone that doesn't run away from you the second they see you. Then when you return something they act like you stole it.

[Draconis]

I've been there. I always get Applecare, so the second the smallest thing goes wrong on my MBP I go in and have them replace what's wrong. Since the only time I really have to go in on Saturday, I'm always in there. You wouldn't believe how many people I've talked out of buying a Time Machine when they could go to Fry's and get twice the storage for a lower price. Not every Apple store customer is well versed in computers.

People just want guidance, and they think they can trust the people at the Apple store because they know they can bring it back if they don't like something about it. Compare that to say, Best Buy, where you're lucky if you see someone that doesn't run away from you the second they see you. Then when you return something they act like you stole it.


I applaud you for the bolded statement. And am glad to see someone does this. In general I dislike how high apple prices their stuff when you can get comparable stuff for much cheaper. I have an Iomega 4 Terabyte Nas I use and love. Works great for Time Machine backups on my Mac as well as incremental backups on my PC's.

And completely agree on the Best Buy, and other places that run like hell. Best Buy's "Warranty" service is crap.

Amusingly, I had an issue with the polarizer film too on my laptop some months after I witnessed that one poor soul. Brought it in to the best buy and they gave me the same bullshit excuse they did him. Though the dent was clear as day, it was pen sized, a small pock mark. Not the end of the world, but still enough to piss me the F off.

They wouldn't repair it. I had the warranty, they refused.

Talked to Gateway. They wanted 435 bucks.

Finally got pissed off after dealing with them enough to deplete all of my patience. Took the damn thing apart, pulled out the LCD (took less then 5 minutes, literally), and jotted down part numbers and did some research.

Found a company out in California that would repolarize the screen. Total cost?

85 Frigging bucks. That's IT. 85 dollars.

Wrapped it up and sent the LCD to them insured. Came back a week later, looking brand freaking new. (still pissed at my former room mate for fucking up my screen)

A little research and persistence go a long way. But citing the examples you have Banacek, its a wonder why people like Apple Care. Apple isn't perfect, but they are far less of a douchebag then CompUSA, Best Buy, etc are by far.

All I know is this. No store thus far has exchanged any monitor or device I have for something in the vein of a single dead pixel. Apple did.

That gives them high Kudos from me.

[cp#]

iProducts are for iRetards who do not know any better.

[Banacek]

Good to see you back to trolling. You've been too quiet for too long.

[cp#]

Good to see you back to trolling. You've been too quiet for too long.
Riiiiiiiight

[Banacek]

Oh, you changed it. Weak...

[muddi900]

Flash on iphones, APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!

Not really, but this is cool:

uJj0kHQgC9w


I am so dual booting when there's a final release.

[muddi900]

iStuff is easier for regular people you say:
http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/ryPNZa0h61I/teach-this-lawyer-ho.html