Apple's "dirty little secret" re: Flash

[ScaryRobot]

Look, this is all very simple. Apple doesn't want proprietary software controlled by other companies to dictate the user experience of its hardware and software. Prior to Snow Leopard sandboxing, remember, Flash was the leading cause of application crashes on OS X. Think about this for a second. Apple couldn't directly fix the leading cause of application crashes on their own operating system! They never want to be in that position again.

And what happened with the JooJoo is another nice illustration of the problem here. Follow Adobe's logic. Adobe believes Flash is an essential component of the web. Adobe's reaction to negative reviews of Flash on the JooJoo was basically, "They should have come to us and worked with us". Put these things together, and you realize that in Adobe's world, it's reasonable for any vendor that ever wants to implement a web browser to have to come to Adobe and ask nicely, "Please sir, may I have a Flash implementation that doesn't suck?"

Embedding proprietary content in web pages was something that was workable (if far from ideal), in a world where there were a couple of dominant desktop platforms that were, in terms of big-picture innovation, essentially stagnant. Now that the computing world has gotten interesting again, and new platforms and device categories are springing up all over the place, the concept of everyone who wants to implement a browser including Adobe's proprietary technology is neither workable nor desirable.

Could Apple convince Adobe to invest some effort in doing a decent-quality implementation of Flash for the iPhone and iPad? Maybe. And could Adobe succeed? Perhaps. But that doesn't solve the long-term problem. As Apple learned during the OS X transition, Adobe is a fair-weather friend. So Apple has decided to use its considerable market clout (iPhone OS platforms account for a majority of all mobile browsing) to kill virtually the last proprietary web technology. Which will produce long-term benefits for literally everyone except Adobe.

 

[bluehaze013]

Nobody is denying that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple, the important question is why did Microsoft invest that money and the first paragraph of the article that you linked to gives you the answer! The investment was part of the settlement of the legal issues between the two companies. Microsoft didn't give Apple the money out of the goodness of their heart, they did it to make their problem go away.

Pointless to get into an argument about semantics. Point is Apple was on the verge of extinction when MS invested 150 million into them without that money Apple very likely would not exist today.

Call it whatever you wan't doesn't change the facts nor make it a myth...

 

[bobob]

Pointless to get into an argument about semantics. Point is Apple was on the verge of extinction when MS invested 150 million into them without that money Apple very likely would not exist today.

Call it whatever you wan't doesn't change the facts nor make it a myth...

You forgot part two of your homework assignment...

Go look up how much cash Apple had in the bank when Micro$oft made this little "investment" and "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. Get back to us when your brain has sorted through all the actual FACTS surrounding the deal, which you obviously don't know much about.

 

[bluehaze013]

You forgot part two of your homework assignment...

Care to share that information?

 

[bobob]

Care to share that information?

Sure.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Look, this is all very simple. Apple doesn't want proprietary software controlled by other companies to dictate the user experience of its hardware and software. Prior to Snow Leopard sandboxing, remember, Flash was the leading cause of application crashes on OS X. Think about this for a second. Apple couldn't directly fix the leading cause of application crashes on their own operating system! They never want to be in that position again.

And what happened with the JooJoo is another nice illustration of the problem here. Follow Adobe's logic. Adobe believes Flash is an essential component of the web. Adobe's reaction to negative reviews of Flash on the JooJoo was basically, "They should have come to us and worked with us". Put these things together, and you realize that in Adobe's world, it's reasonable for any vendor that ever wants to implement a web browser to have to come to Adobe and ask nicely, "Please sir, may I have a Flash implementation that doesn't suck?"

Embedding proprietary content in web pages was something that was workable (if far from ideal), in a world where there were a couple of dominant desktop platforms that were, in terms of big-picture innovation, essentially stagnant. Now that the computing world has gotten interesting again, and new platforms and device categories are springing up all over the place, the concept of everyone who wants to implement a browser including Adobe's proprietary technology is neither workable nor desirable.

Could Apple convince Adobe to invest some effort in doing a decent-quality implementation of Flash for the iPhone and iPad? Maybe. And could Adobe succeed? Perhaps. But that doesn't solve the long-term problem. As Apple learned during the OS X transition, Adobe is a fair-weather friend. So Apple has decided to use its considerable market clout (iPhone OS platforms account for a majority of all mobile browsing) to kill virtually the last proprietary web technology. Which will produce long-term benefits for literally everyone except Adobe.

Even with the sandboxing Flash can take the entire system down, I watch it happen on almost a daily basis.

 

[bluehaze013]

Sure.

It's just another opinion piece, this is still all a semantics argument, The point before I was attacked remains the same. Apple was almost forced out of the market back then for the same type of stance they are taking now. They had a huge hit with the iPhone and they can get away with their whole closed system on it because it is a small device that is really limited with what it can do in the first place. Noone would ever consider the iPhone to be a computer or laptop replacement. Now that they are bringing the same OS to a larger device that is capable of doing much more the restrictions will become more apparent to customers and will eventually lead them down the same road. People are already touting the iPad as a laptop replacement yet complaining about some of the simplest tasks they can do on their laptops that they can't on their iPad.

Now when Google comes out with their Android tablet and it can upload and download files in Safari, It can go to Hulu and watch all the free movies and TV they want, go to Pogo and play all the free games they want, go to all their favorite websites and view the flash video on them or play flash games, and the device has an SD Card slot for importing their pictures as well as expanded storage, Doesn't require syncing to a computer but still has syncing over the air via cloud computing. Has a USB port with the option for hooking up a printer or whatever other USB device as long as it has drivers for the OS.
I mean Apple is falling back into that territory of being significantly less capable than the competition which could eventually put them right back in that desperate position they once found themselves in back in 1996 -7? whichever it was.

I mean with a MacBook I can dualboot with Windows 7 to do all the things I can't with OSX but Is the future of iPad going to be dual booting Android OS in order to do all the things I wan't? I sure hope not. I would much prefer Apple quit with the penny annie BS and get with the times because I do like the iPad and do enjoy using it but at the same time I can't stand the limitations they put on the device and will very likely end up switching to an Android tablet once they are available if the iPad keeps all these limitations intact.

I don't expect huge support from an Apple only site and I can understand why the site is filled with the opinion that Apple can do no wrong just as the MS sites are filled with MS can do no wrong and the Google sites are filled with Android can do no wrong but with me personally I own devices from all 3 companies and they all do things wrong. My biggest problem with Apple has always been the restrictiveness of their OS's but they excel in other areas enough to always warrant consideration.

If they remove the chokehold they have the chance for huge success, if they cling to their old ideals they are likely to end up back at square one.

 

[GamecockMac]

It's just another opinion piece...TL;DR

And guess what all that garbage you just spouted is? YOUR OPINION.

FACT: Apple had over $1 billion in cash when the $150 million deal with M$ was struck. Hardly a company "saved from bankruptcy" or "on the verge of extinction".

FACT: The "investment" in Apple by M$ was not some altruistic gesture to keep poor Steve Jobs in the computer business. It was a deal made by Bill Gates to make a potentially disastrous lawsuit go away.

FACT: Google tablet = vaporware

FACT: Apple is making money hand over fist with their current business strategy, so why should they bow to the whims of a minority of geeks like you who don't like the way they choose to do things?

Educate yourself before you continue to publicly embarrass yourself by spouting nonsense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.

 

[bluehaze013]

And guess what all that garbage you just spouted is? YOUR OPINION.

FACT: Apple had over $1 billion in cash when the $150 million deal with M$ was struck. Hardly a company "saved from bankruptcy" or "on the verge of extinction".

FACT: The "investment" in Apple by M$ was not some altruistic gesture to keep poor Steve Jobs in the computer business. It was a deal made by Bill Gates to make a potentially disastrous lawsuit go away.

FACT: Google tablet = vaporware

FACT: Apple is making money hand over fist with their current business strategy, so why should they bow to the whims of a minority of geeks like you who don't like the way they choose to do things?

Educate yourself before you continue to publicly embarrass yourself by spouting nonsense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.

You must be very young because anyone that was around and active in computers remembers the WTF moment that occurred in their brains when they first heard of the bailout because Apple was pretty much dead and it didn't make any sense. In hindsight it seems to make a lot more sense and we can all analyze it to death but had the bailout not taken place we likely wouldn't have the iPhone nor the iPad to help push this industry forward and for that I am very glad the bailout took place. Regardless I don't want to argue about it, it's not the point I'm trying to get across at all and if you actually read my post instead of posting TLDR you might realize that.

Cheers mate!

 

[Slip Jigs]

Look, I don't care about this argument anymore. I don't care that I don't have flash in the iPhone.

There is just a certain amount of content on the web that is currently flash based and it would be nice if I could see it on the iPad.

Prime example is a specific site i go to with real time streaming video and chat.

Whatever the rationale is, and I do understand it, both sides, I feel apple is depriving me of this, and for something other than the greater good. Adobe too.

 

[GamecockMac]

You must be very young because anyone that was around and active in computers remembers the WTF moment that occurred in their brains when they first heard of the bailout because Apple was pretty much dead and it didn't make any sense. In hindsight it seems to make a lot more sense and we can all analyze it to death but had the bailout not taken place we likely wouldn't have the iPhone nor the iPad to help push this industry forward and for that I am very glad the bailout took place. Regardless I don't want to argue about it, it's not the point I'm trying to get across at all and if you actually read my post instead of posting TLDR you might realize that.

I bet I'm older than you. My first Apple computer was a IIc, and if YOU had bothered to read anything factual, you wouldn't be persisting in this utter B.S. notion that Apple was "pretty much dead" when they had over a billion dollars in the bank and a pending lawsuit against Micro$oft that might have made them hundreds of millions more had Bill Gates not agreed to the settlement deal which forced them to "invest" $150 million in Apple (a drop in the bucket in terms of a "bailout"). But by all means, continue to display your ignorance of history and basic facts in your zeal to run down Apple.

 

[infectbda]

I'm actually really happy that apple has stuck to its guns on the flash issue. Apple is going to help accelerate the march towards the truly open web.

I've always looked at flash as a piece of technology that filled gaps that the browser didn't address, and adobe has bolted more pieces onto it to continue this. That was understandable then, and for some pieces still (more work needs to be done on the graphics side of things), but increasingly, open web standards are going to fill in the gaps. For video, all flash does it poorly wrap standard video formats.

If every platform includes flash continuing into the future, then what is the incentive to ever move away from it?

Can people at least agree that open standards are better than a monolithic closed platform?

I can understand the frustrations of not being able to view some piece of content on the iPhone/iPad, but I feel like some people have allusions that flash is some grand technology. It isn't.

Also, if you go to a website that has flash, start emailing the developer and tell them to get with the program (especially on larger websites). I really believe prodding will help (at least sometimes).

(oh, and who wants to guess that the majority of crash reports coming into apple for OS X are due to flash? Not a good way to sell your platform.)

 

[inott]

Bottom line flash really sucks. Long before the iPad, even iPhone, flash has sucked. No matter what device you are using, it admittedly uses an unessesary amount of CPU power as opposed to competing video playing software/plugins.

 

[bluehaze013]

I bet I'm older than you. My first Apple computer was a IIc, and if YOU had bothered to read anything factual, you wouldn't be persisting in this utter B.S. notion that Apple was "pretty much dead" when they had over a billion dollars in the bank and a pending lawsuit against Micro$oft that might have made them hundreds of millions more had Bill Gates not agreed to the settlement deal which forced them to "invest" $150 million in Apple (a drop in the bucket in terms of a "bailout"). But by all means, continue to display your ignorance of history and basic facts in your zeal to run down Apple.

Once again if you actually read my posts you will see I have no " zeal to run down Apple" my only concern is to make the Apple devices I use better and to help ensure the company doesn't fall back into the stance that nearly ruined them in the past. You see it is the exact opposite of what you imply. I would just like to be able to view any website I want on my iPad regardless if it uses flash or not, I would like to make the decision to install flash myself as opposed to having Apple make that decision for me. It's really as simple as that.

Cheers.

 

[GamecockMac]

I would just like to be able to view any website I want on my iPad regardless if it uses flash or not, I would like to make the decision to install flash myself as opposed to having Apple make that decision for me. It's really as simple as that.

Tough. It's not going to happen, at least not by Apple's doing. Deal with it.

Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and return your iPad. But all this whining isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

[anthonymoody]

Flash sucks. End of story.

 

[Meever]

Ipad doesn't even have enough memory to have 3 friggen safari windows open without dumping cache left and right. Just admit it folks the iPad would have been a much better device with more ram.

 

[bobob]

Ipad doesn't even have enough memory to have 3 friggen safari windows open without dumping cache left and right. Just admit it folks the iPad would have been a much better device with more ram.

Are you sure? I've read some pretty convincing arguments here at MacRumors that the amazing speed of the iPad is the result of the physical proximity of having the two 128Mb units of RAM mounted directly on the processor chip. If they'd stacked four 128 Mb RAM units, it may have been able to cache more, but may have lost some speed. In engineering, everything is a tradeoff. It's not the same type of RAM you slap in your MBP, Apple can't just pop down to the local electronic discount store and buy an extra 2Gb chip and plug it in the iPad. So when you say "the iPad would have been a much better device with more ram", you are talking about a fantasy world. It's like saying the PowerBook 100 would have been a much better laptop with an i7 processor. Here in the real world we can say that the iPad will be a much better device with more RAM - - when individual 256Mb RAM units of the type Apple uses on the A4 become available in reasonable quantities and prices, Apple will build them into the chip. Just as each generation of the iPhone has improved on the last, each new generation of the iPad will be something we can all look forward to. In the meantime, I encourage you to be happy that we're fortunate enough to live in the iPad era - - I've been dreaming of this time since I was a kid.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Now when Google comes out with their Android tablet and it can upload and download files in Safari.

Wow, Apple is porting Safari over to Android? That I did not know

Once again if you actually read my posts you will see I have no " zeal to run down Apple" my only concern is to make the Apple devices I use better and to help ensure the company doesn't fall back into the stance that nearly ruined them in the past. You see it is the exact opposite of what you imply. I would just like to be able to view any website I want on my iPad regardless if it uses flash or not, I would like to make the decision to install flash myself as opposed to having Apple make that decision for me. It's really as simple as that.

Cheers.

You obviously didn't read the article bobob linked to. If Apple had cow-towed and opened up back then, Apple would be under the thumb of MS completely today.

BTW, great read bobob. For years I thought Photoshop was created by Aldus, and Freehand by Macromedia... who knew. Man, I wish Aldus was still around. I still to this day miss SuperPaint

After reading that article, it just shows you how much MS just squeezed the industry into getting their way. Also the fact that I no long have ANY sympathy for Adobe anymore. Like other posters have mentioned in this melee known as Apple vs. Adobe, I hope Apple buys Adobe. Maybe then Apple can put the screws to the Windows community for once.

Just a dream I know, but it would be a nice reality!

PS. And if we're checking age rings, I probably go back farther than both of you. As I did some of my first computer graphics on an Apple ][ back in HS.

 

[bobob]

You must be very young because anyone that was around and active in computers remembers the WTF moment that occurred in their brains when they first heard of the bailout because Apple was pretty much dead and it didn't make any sense. In hindsight it seems to make a lot more sense and we can all analyze it to death but had the bailout not taken place we likely wouldn't have the iPhone nor the iPad to help push this industry forward and for that I am very glad the bailout took place. Regardless I don't want to argue about it, it's not the point I'm trying to get across at all and if you actually read my post instead of posting TLDR you might realize that.

Cheers mate!

The "Cheers mate!" is a nice touch, but you would have a more credible position in this discussion if you acknowledged that you were mistaken about the bailout. In a debate, admitting you are wrong when presented with incontrovertible facts is not a sign of weakness, but just the opposite. You demonstrate that you are willing to go forward on the basis of rational discourse, rather than endlessly trying to spin your error into some sort of moral victory. Further, as you said, it is merely a side point that you brought up as a diversion from the primary topic of this thread.

 

[samcraig]

I'll be honest. I didn't read the linked articles. But let me ask you this...

Stating Apple had 1B in cash doesn't mean they didn't need or warrant a bailout. Companies survive on cash flow. Sure - they could have 1B in the bank - but what liabilities did they have at the time? How much debt? If they required financing for their next big business deal would they be able to make that purchase?

Point is - unless you know the entire financial picture at the time, you can't say whether 1B was or was not enough to have in the bank anymore than you can say whether 150M was enough or not enough to keep them floating.

 

[Compile 'em all]

Yes - sensationalistic thread title - sorry about that. Sincerely.

There's obviously discussions going on about flash vs html5. And that flash is a resource hog. Debatable depending on who you talk to, of course based it's usage compared to html5.

But, and it's not REALLY a dirty little secret - but considering that the iPad "only" has 256megs of ram - the decision to not even try for flash becomes a little more obvious.

I'm not techy enough to know if 256megs is enough or not. I was always under the impression that it never hurt to have more.

Now I'm not bashing at all - but realistically - given the amount of RAM, Flash would have made the iPad stall as if it had no processing power at all. And Apple, justifiably or not, was NEVER going to let that happen. No matter how much Adobe wanted to try and fix it.

Put another way, politically - Put the focus on the "enemy." Instead of increasing specs and/or dealing with people's frustrations with your device over the specs, make the argument all about how Adobe is lazy. Flash is dead. Yadda Yadda. It's actually a great "move" - warranted or not.

Ultimately - it never hurts to use less memory/bandwidth/compression. The more you do in that arena, the more you free up resources to do other things.

So yes - Flash can be a resource hog. But if you have enough resources, it may go unnoticed. The "problem" is - with the iPad - there's just enough resources to do what Apple wants.

What is it you are smoking? I would love to try some!

Flash bogs down my CORE TWO DUO WITH 4 GEGS OF RAM machine. Copy that?

Your proposal is not solving anything. In fact, your mindset is as moronic as those at Adobe: "Yeah, we know it is poorly written software. Just buy some more RAM and up your CPU. Then it might be okay!". What kind of product development is that? I know what it is called...."garbage".

I am glad people working at Apple are not allowed to visit these forums. Otherwise, they might suffer an instant brain damage.

 

[samcraig]

What is it you are smoking? I would love to try some!

Flash bogs down my CORE TWO DUO WITH 4 GEGS OF RAM machine. Copy that?

Your proposal is not solving anything. In fact, your mindset is as moronic as those at Adobe: "Yeah, we know it is poorly written software. Just buy some more RAM and up your CPU. Then it might be okay!". What kind of product development is that? I know what it is called...."garbage".

I am glad people working at Apple are not allowed to visit these forums. Otherwise, they might suffer an instant brain damage.

Umm I didn't offer a solution - I was raising questions and inviting responses. It's unfortunate, sad, immature and inappropriate to resort to name calling.

The view must be wonderful from that high horse you're on.

 

[Slip Jigs]

What is it you are smoking? I would love to try some!

Flash bogs down my CORE TWO DUO WITH 4 GEGS OF RAM machine. Copy that?

Your proposal is not solving anything. In fact, your mindset is as moronic as those at Adobe: "Yeah, we know it is poorly written software. Just buy some more RAM and up your CPU. Then it might be okay!". What kind of product development is that? I know what it is called...."garbage".

I am glad people working at Apple are not allowed to visit these forums. Otherwise, they might suffer an instant brain damage.

Forget smoking, I want what you're snorting.

If I had a Core Two Duo withe 4 "GEGS" of RAM and it got bogged down as you say, I would take it back.

Now who's whining? The position that Flash over-uses resources is old. It may have been valid at one time, but things have changed, try to keep up. Flash 8 with the On2 video WAS processor intensive, yes. WIth player 8 and above, H.264 is supported and those issues are gone. If you still see them it means you're looking at poorly optimized code and/or video.

Or, you have a crappy computer.

 

[GamecockMac]

I'll be honest. I didn't read the linked articles. But let me ask you this...

Stating Apple had 1B in cash doesn't mean they didn't need or warrant a bailout. Companies survive on cash flow. Sure - they could have 1B in the bank - but what liabilities did they have at the time? How much debt? If they required financing for their next big business deal would they be able to make that purchase?

Point is - unless you know the entire financial picture at the time, you can't say whether 1B was or was not enough to have in the bank anymore than you can say whether 150M was enough or not enough to keep them floating.

I know enough about finance to understand that if a company has $1.2 billion in cash and that's not enough to cover liabilities and keep them afloat, that another $0.15 billion isn't going to drastically change their circumstances.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you didn't read the linked articles, so why bother attempting to comment on the facts presented in them from that position?