Adobe CEO the iPhone's lack of Flash: It's an Apple issue
Summary: Shantanu Narayen, CEO of Adobe, must be getting tired of these pesky Apple iPhone questions.On Adobe's fiscal first quarter earnings conference call, Narayen was asked about Flash on the iPhone---not to mention the iPad.
Shantanu Narayen, CEO of Adobe, must be getting tired of these pesky Apple iPhone questions.
On Adobe's fiscal first quarter earnings conference call, Narayen was asked about Flash on the iPhone---not to mention the iPad.
"We've been fairly transparent," said Narayen. "We're committed to bringing flash to any platform with a screen. This has nothing to do with technology. It's an apple issue and you'll have to check in with them."
Needless to say, the Apple-Adobe relationship remains on the rocks.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
The only reason iPhone doesn't support
It would otherwise undercut Apple's App Store based business model.
As simple as that.
I just don't understand, why Adobe doesn't have the guts to say that in open.
Adobe.. you can learn something from Google.
Walk away from pesky platforms.
A platform is always in need of good Apps.
If Adobe backs off from Apple's platform.. it will be a big blow to Apple and not otherwise.
A reason, but hardly the ONLY reason.
What never ceases to amaze me
Why should you be amazed?
[b]Only[/b] on sites with overcrowding flash elements?
What planet are you on? There are far more of those out there than you care to think.
Yeah, I should be amazed
Can you imagine if Microsoft tried this?
I agree with aks78 - this is pure greed on Apple's part. If Flash is crappy software, why not leave it up to consumers to install it or not as they see fit? With zillions of iPhone apps available, you can't tell me that some of them aren't more troublesome than Flash, and IMO that conclusively proves aks78's point.
Such a tiring argument, and so wrong
this the best excuse people can still come up with?
First of all, the App Store allows free apps. Ok, so it costs $99/yr for
a certificate to put apps on the store but really, who cares? Anyone
that cries over the $99 is just whining to whine.
Additionally, Apple is embracing HTML5. They are pushing it full
steam.
Thats 2 ways that you can run apps on the phone WITHOUT money
going to apple (with exception of the yearly developer fee, which
again, is nothing).
There are plenty of free apps on the store that require some sort of
outside "payment" (hardware, etc...) to work fully. Wouldn't that be
undercutting the store?
Your argument makes no sense. Sorry. Try again.
Also, why must people insist that Adobe cut ties with Apple (or vice
versa) over something as stupid, as trivial, as Flash? Its not even
originally their product. So Apple won't allow flash on the
iPhone/iPad.. Oh noes lets stop developing Photoshop, After Effects,
Indesign (and the rest of the CS4 suites, among other software) for
the Mac because Apple won't let flash on their mobile devices! That is
a completely stupid and irrational idea. Get over it. Flash sucks.
There's no need for it. Hell, Adobe is even taking ideas for iPad apps.
Lightroom (of some sort) on the iPad would be amazing.
If Adobe gets all upset that they spent a ton of money on a technology
that might go away in the next decade, boohoo. I'm sure they'll
survive.
My web experience has been far better since I've installed Click2Flash.
As trivial as Flash?
Yes.
Illustrator and After Effects (amongst others) then Flash.
Most of the flash content is probably even designed using a
combination of those apps (and others).
Unless your using Lynx or similar, you can block ads and flash, but
you'll most likely still get a lot of images and logos that passed
through Photoshop. If your watching any video from a large
production company (even mid-range) whether it be via html5 tags,
embedded quicktime or some other method (even flash) there's a
good chance After Effects was used.
Not to mention the use of their non-flash products in print, television
and the big screen. Adobe is much, much more then just a lousy flash
plugin.
Revenue vs Profit
p=32172&tag=nl.e539
Mindshare is even bigger. Which is why you're here.
just a bit much!
best to cut the cord now
technology that is proprietary, that has always put the Mac
way behind Windows, that would hold Apple over a barrel
forever. Only a fool would see it otherwise.
better off without flash
Flash has too many issues that aren't going to go away.
Adobe can't even be bothered to make a 64 bit version which shows you their level of commitment to furthering development in the IT world.
HTML 5 should be embraced and further developed.
Apple is making the right decision.
HTML5 will be embraced...
Most developers will not twiddle-fart with variants and a few dozen IF/THEN statements or whatever to differentiate Macroslop from Mozzarella and everyone else (to change the names of the not-always-innocent)...
Apparently IE9 that you conveniently omitted already does
Funny eh?
Finally!!
I doubt it. Apple makes operating systems.
Nice way to pass the buck. For a while I thought I was reading a government official... :rolleyes:
Misread article, sorry:
Apple whines that Flash is buggy (the development software, on OS X but it's not so hot on Windows either, but I digress - the playback module is fairly stable...)
I agree: Flash is trash....but...
There's nothing open about H.264. It's patented technology that requires costly patent royalty fees be paid for its use. These are the licensors of the technology who stand to benefit from its widespread adoption -
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx
The reasons for my mistrust of H.264 are summed up nicely on a blog by Mike Shaver from Mozilla.
http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mozilla_Explains_Why_it_Doesn_t_License_h264
Uhmm....
Many (ok, not all, but many) of the videos that stream through flash
are encoded in h.264. Just because its playing through flash doesn't
mean they aren't.
Again before people flame, I said many. I know flash supports a
number of codecs. The fact is, h.264 is a superior codec in terms of
overall quality (which is why its chosen more often).
Anyway, the free-streaming license was renewed until the end of
2015 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000040-264.html).
Most likely it will either be renewed again or just made permanently
free (to stream at least).