Tech Broiler

Jason Perlow and Scott Raymond

Adobe, Stop Being a Wussy

By | February 23, 2010, 11:04am PST

Summary: Adobe Systems has been operating as a vassal state of Apple and Steve Jobs since its very inception.

Adobe Systems has been operating as a vassal state of Apple and Steve Jobs since its very inception. But with relations becoming strained between the two companies, is it finally time for Adobe to play hardball?

Ah, Adobe. Poor Adobe.

Things between Adobe and Apple used to be just peachy. Indeed, almost from the very day the company formed in 1982, it was destined to be the premier supplier of content creation software for the Macintosh, which launched only two years later, in 1984. We all remember what happened in 1984, at least those of us who aren’t Milennials.

Click on the “Read the rest of this entry link below” for more.

First, it was their vector graphics drawing application Illustrator in 1986, and then came Photoshop in 1987 for bitmap editing and painting, which quickly seated the Macintosh as the chosen content creation platform for Advertising and other forms of commercial graphic arts, setting it apart from Windows. Indeed, Adobe eventually ported Photoshop to Windows and made great strides in that market, but the Mac version was always the favorite child.

Adobe followed on in later years with Premiere Pro for video editing, and began to acquire other Macintosh-centric desktop publishing software companies such as Aldus and Frame Technologies to compete with Quark and as a result effectively dominate the content creation market.

In 2005, Adobe purchased Macromedia in a $3.4 billion stock swap which added many other content creation and web development products to their portfolio, such as DreamWeaver, Fireworks, Flash and FLEX. While all of these products run on Windows, again, these were “Killer apps” which greatly contributed to the success of the Mac platform.

All of this is established history. Adobe had an excellent relationship with Apple for many years, and one could argue that the company might not have thrived as much as it did without the Macintosh. But that was then, and this is now.

February, 2010. Relations between Adobe and Apple are becoming increasingly strained, particularly over the issue of Apple’s exclusion of Flash from the iPhone/iPod Touch and the forthcoming iPad.

Adobe is now at a serious inflection point in its history. For years, it was Apple’s darling. To quote the great savant philosopher, Forrest Gump, “Me and Jenny goes together like peas and carrots“. If Adobe’s recent blog comments are any indication, things are not peas and carrots anymore.

Indeed, Adobe makes a very good business out of its Macintosh product line. But this would only perpetuate its vassal/doormat status with Apple.

Today, Adobe needs to make some difficult decisions, and I beleive those decisions should include a phased in divorce from Apple and some self-reliance of its own.

I have made this recommendation before, but with with a different company, Microsoft. I still believe Microsoft should cease development on Microsoft Office for Mac, and given the fact that Apple has chosen to go iJuche with their own office suite on the iPad, I believe this gives Microsoft even more justification for doing so, particularly as it is not entirely out of the question that Redmond may decide to build an iPad competitor with Windows 7 Phone OS, like I proposed with the “ZuneBook”.

Starting today, Adobe should announce that as of a future date — let’s call this April 1st, 2012 or 2013, depending on how generous they want to be (with me leaning towards the 2012 rather than the 2013) that support for all of their Macintosh applications will cease.

As of today, Adobe should announce that it will complete development on Mac versions of products in progress, but after they are released, they will no longer develop anything more for Mac or for Apple device platforms. The new strategic platforms for Adobe going forward will include Google’s Android and Windows 7 Phone OS on mobile, with Microsoft Windows as the preferred client desktop.

To be nice to their loyal customers, they should offer competitive cross-license upgrades and transfers to Windows, and possibly consider Linux a strategic next-generation platform for content creation as well.

Maybe it’s a bit out of the box, but I certainly could see Adobe partnering with a player like Canonical in building an “Ubuntu Adobe Edition” with commercial package feeds of ports of all the Mac apps and content development tools. Perhaps even acquire a company with serious cross platform coding expertise like Opera Software, who has used the Open Source Qt development framework to build past versions of their Linux browser. Adobe has also used Qt in various pieces of their own software such as Photoshop Elements.

And if Linux desktops sound a bit too wacky, this would also be a good time for Adobe to patch things up with Microsoft. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I’m not sure Adobe and Microsoft will ever see eye to eye on Flash versus Silverlight, but who knows. When opportunity knocks, even the most dangerous of rivals can sometimes unite for a common goal. In this case, it’s containment of their biggest competition.

Poll

Should Adobe completely divorce itself from Apple and cease all Mac development?

Is a complete divorce of Adobe from Apple too extreme, or should it finally start playing hardball and recant its oath of fealty to the Hermit Kingdom of Cupertino? Talk Back and Let Me Know.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies.

Disclosure

Jason Perlow

My Full-Time Employer is IBM. I write as a freelancer for ZDNet.

Disclaimer: The postings and opinions on this blog are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions.

I own no investments or direct financial instruments in the companies I write about.

Biography

Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet is a technologist with over two decades of experience with integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. A long-time computer enthusiast starting the age of 13 with his first Apple ][ personal computer, he began his freelance writing career starting at ZD Sm@rt Reseller in 1996 and has since authored numerous guest columns for ZDNet Enterprise and Ziff-Davis Internet. Jason was previously Senior Technology Editor for Linux Magazine, where he wrote about Open Source issues from 1999 to 2008.

In his spare time, Jason is an avid amateur chef and food writer, where his work reviewing New Jersey restaurants has appeared in The New York Times. He is also the founder of the popular food web site eGullet and blogs about restaurants and cooking at OffTheBroiler.com.

312
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Adobe, Stop Being a Wussy
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
a bunch of cagey predators
Steve G.H. 23rd Feb 2010
The dynamics between MSFT, Apple, Google, and Adobe is pretty interesting to watch. I think that Apple is gonna end up building even higher walls around itself and pissing everyone off. It doesn't seem like they can play with anybody, kinda like that kid on the playground that is so annoying that nobody wants to play with him, or his ball.

While your prescription for Adobe to cut Apple off sounds good, and in my opinion would be a great idea, the Mac user base would scream bloody murder. But maybe that's the point, eh?

Whatever happens, the next few years are going to be very interesting to see how these 800 lb gorillas work it out.
0 Votes
+ -
Yep
MLHACK 23rd Feb 2010
Apple geeks are stuck up idiots let them build there walls and see it a trojan horse will get in ;-0
0 Votes
+ -
Learn to read.
AzuMao 24th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I read it just fine..
MLHACK 25th Feb 2010
I know you are a little slow more than likey rode the short bus as a kid and i will forgive you for it. And more than likely are a mac user umm can't forgive you for that one...
0 Votes
+ -
He said Adobe is going to cut off Apple, not the other way around.

Also, if you're going to try to insult someone's intelligence, you seriously ought to get a basic grasp of the language being used (English, in this case) first. You've made a complete fool of yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting
frgough 23rd Feb 2010
Apple is pushing HTML 5. Open CL. Open GL. H.264. All of which are
open standards. And yet, it is Apple being accused of building the
proprietary wall?

Amazing how people let their ideologies rule their reason.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple=King of Propietary Procedure
martyh@... 24th Feb 2010
Everything about Apple has been proprietary since day 1. Only now, when it is in their best interests, do they have any taste for open standards. That's ok. That's business. But to act as if Apple isn't proprietary seems silly. Actually, now that I think about it, it sounds like something a politician would say.
0 Votes
+ -
Proprietary vs proprietary = users lose
ArtInvent 24th Feb 2010
This is exactly what happens when one
proprietary system geared solely to make it's
company money (Apple and it's iPhone OS-iTunes
combination) conflicts with another (Adobe and
it's bid to make proprietary Flash the defacto
standard programming interface for web apps.)
-
Proprietary stuff just sucks. Don't know any
other way to put it. But I think it's just
poetic justice that people who allow a company
like Apple to rule their computing world with
completely abhorrent closed proprietary tactics
get burned by another company doing exactly the
same thing.
-
Reap what you sew.
0 Votes
+ -
total bs
bannedfromzdnetagain 25th Feb 2010
first: the iphone is a product. you can decide to buy it or not.
second: iTunes and it's store is a program and service you can choose to
use. i can freely buy all my music from amazon or use pandora. you can
buy any mp3-player you want. no open or closed here.

flash is a proprietary format that is widely used on the net. it has become
kind of a standard. apple is opposing that situation for a majority of
reasons and pushing for more open alternatives instead. isn't it strange
that all the "open" apologetics fight tooth and nails over adobe's
proprietary software mess?

by the way: who is also crying foul because you can't use your xbox 360
games on a ps3? wow, that is closed!
0 Votes
+ -
Apple is open
tikigawd Updated - 24th Feb 2010
That's why you can change your iPod's battery at will, install anything you want on your iPhone without going through the App store (but who would want to do that since the App store is open to all sorts of apps, not just a select gruop that Apple chooses), upgrade any internal component in your Mac at will, install OSX on any PC, not just those that bear the silver fruit.

Yep. Apple is open.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple open ? Really?
Fletchguy 24th Feb 2010
Hmmm wow didnt know that considering they run the app store like the nazi gustopal. They even just annouced how much more limititations they are putting on apps allowed. Great to hear apple is open so that means I will be able to run windows on my iphone now too right? Oh wait nope...and for the batteries quick change right glad to hear as many i repair have soldered in batteries to discourage self repair...Oh and isnt it apple who has built a notebook with a non replaceable battery hidden inside that when it runs out or goes bad make you buy a whole new laptop yeah thats fair and opened lol
0 Votes
+ -
Technically Worse
mlbslugger 24th Feb 2010
You also have an OS that's locked into over priced hardware, most of which in the Apple line up must be upgraded basically by buying all new equip. For the iphone/ipod the battery issue is a really big one too.
0 Votes
+ -
Technically Better
AzuMao 24th Feb 2010
At least they support an open standard for software rather than trying to get everything made using proprietary crap like DirectX that is nigh on impossible to port.



Ya, the iPhone might not run Windows.. so? Does the Microsoft Windows Mobile run OSX?
0 Votes
+ -
why do some PeeCee Weenies...
Dave Mount 25th Feb 2010
... try to talk about something they know nothing about?
Funny how it exposes their intellect through not being able to spell and
messages fraught with grammatical errors!!! LOL!
Even funnier... they don't even recognize it! Kinda like Dubya trying to be
verbally competent!
0 Votes
+ -
Over priced?
hill60 27th Feb 2010
If it was "over priced" it wouldn't sell, such is the nature of capitalism.

Apple are selling more Macs than ever in their history.

Economics, supply, demand and all that stuff.
0 Votes
+ -
@hill60
AzuMao 28th Feb 2010
What about the ISP cartel in the U.S.?
Internet access is overpriced as hell here, yet
most people buy it nonetheless.
0 Votes
+ -
Excuse me?
rahbm 24th Feb 2010
What on earth is a "gustopal"? A friend who eats with you?
0 Votes
+ -
lol
tikigawd 24th Feb 2010
What on earth is a "gustopal"? A friend who eats with you?

That was pretty good. (no sarcasm there)
0 Votes
+ -
Aaaand... Sarcasm
tikigawd Updated - 24th Feb 2010
Did you actually read what I wrote?

It doesn't seem like you did.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, they are open
DeusExMachina Updated - 25th Feb 2010
Spoken, as always, from your perpetual mountain of ignorance.

1) A trained orangutan could replace the iPod battery in under 5
minutes. (Not that any significant number of people change their MP3
player batteries (yes, any brand of MP3 player) with anything
approaching a frequency that makes this an issue.)

2) I have had macs since '84. What exactly is it that you are claiming I
can't replace. Torx wrench opened my fat mac and mac plus, pushing
two plastic clips opened the Mac II family and many of the Performas,
a single lever opened my dual 450 dual, my Quicksilver and my
FW800. A similar lever opens my G5. How is this prohibitive, especially
when compared to the stupid philips head machine screws that hold
most PC cases together?!?

I bet you I can change out a hard drive on my mac faster than you can
on your PC. In fact, I bet you I can do it faster with ANY component in
the system!

3) I fail to see why Apple need to make OSX installable on hardware
they don't make, as they are a hardware company. But that said, it is
trivially easy to install OSX on PCs. Apple COULD have made it all but
impossible. They did not. Even when droves of people were
downloading the Calyway distro, still leopard and then SL come out
with the same installation routines.

4) Apple uses PCI-e, USB, FW400 and 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11n
WiFi, and any number of other standard components and technologies
They could just as easily have used closed tech. In fact, Apple is the
reason many of these technologies are around at all. USB would have
died a quick death if it were not for Apple, who was the first and only
major PC vendor to offer USB systems, and thus bootstrapped the
peripheral market. They were also the first major PC vendor with WiFi,
and were responsible for its adoption, and of course they invented
FireWire.

So you're left with the closed ITMS.
Boo Hoo.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, they are open
tikigawd 24th Feb 2010
) A trained orangutan could replace the iPod battery in under 5 minutes. (Not that any significant number of people change their MP3 player batteries (yes, any brand of MP3 player) with anything approaching a frequency that makes this an issue.)

Good thing I went to orangutan school and got trained! If I hadn't I wouldn't have been able to change the battery of my click wheel iPod way back when. Yep, after orangutan school I learned it was possible to change my click-wheel iPod's battery even though Apple didn;t want me to do it. I voided the warranty though sad


2. I have had macs since '84. What exactly is it that you are claiming I can't replace. Torx wrench opened my fat mac and mac plus, pushing two plastic clips opened the Mac II family and many of the Performas, a single lever opened my dual 450 dual, my Quicksilver and my FW800. A similar lever opens my G5. How is this prohibitive, especially when compared to the stupid philips head machine screws that hold most PC cases together?!?

The other day I was talking to a guy who told me about his liquid cooled MacPro. He had gone to NewEgg, gotten a P6T mobo, and replaced the one that came withe the MacPro. Then after installing OSX on it he OC'd to the HILT, man.
I felt so inadequate about my Win7 Core i7 rig, built into my a tool-less Antec case. First of all I could never dream of liquid cooling my PC. That's unHEARD of!! Apple invented it, after all, and I heard Jobs has a ninja team on call in case anyone dares to copy it. Second, opening the case by removing the thumb screws and sliding drives in and out without tools is a royal pain.

I bet you I can change out a hard drive on my mac faster than you can on your PC. In fact, I bet you I can do it faster with ANY component in the system!

Pssh, YEAH you can! I only went to orangutan school. I bet you went to gorilla school, and everyone knows gorillas are way better.


3) I fail to see why Apple need to make OSX installable on hardware they don't make, as they are a hardware company.

I KNOW, right?! I don't see why they have to either but they're so awesome that they do!!! They want everyone to buy whatever hardware they feel like and slap OSX in it. No special instructions required! Apple tells you how to do it. In fact, I've someone somewhere told me that if you ask the Geniuses at the Genius bar they walk you through the process.

Apple is open and awesome.


4) Apple uses PCI-e, USB, FW400 and 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11n WiFi, and any number of other standard components and technologies

You're right. And since I was talking about standards, and not about customizing a Mac without any boundaries whatsoever then you make a great point.


In fact, Apple is the reason many of these technologies are around at all. USB wol dhave dies a quick death if it were not for Apple, who was the first and only major PC vendor to offer USB systems, and thus bootstrapped the peripheral market.

I know! Apple is single-handedly responsible for the adoption of all sorts of technologies by the lemmings! All SORTS, so many I can't even name them. Oh I'm starting to remember... USB, USB, and USB. And who can forget Apple's invention of the ubiquitous FireWire! Oh jeez, and I almost forgot how Apple invented the Wi-Fi Alliance without any contributions by Sony, Cisco, 3Com, Lucent, Panasonic, or a few others!

As always, you have schooled me in the ways of the DeusExMachina. I bow down to you, kind and benevolent sir.
0 Votes
+ -
lol
AzuMao 24th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Your point being?
DeusExMachina 25th Feb 2010
1) If you voided your warranty, you must have failed your class,
because cracking the iPod case in such a way as to not void the
warranty is trivial.
2) Even so, if the unit is under warranty and needs a new battery, why
are you cracking it open, just get it replaced free. If it is not under
warranty, then you aren't voiding the warranty.

3) Your sarcasm aside, what point are you making? To wit:
"The other day I was talking to a guy who told me about his liquid
cooled MacPro."

No you didn't.
You are either an idiot or a liar. There were NEVER any liquid cooled
mac pros. Ever. Wanna try that again?

"He had gone to NewEgg, gotten a P6T mobo, and replaced the one
that came withe the MacPro."

You are making the same OSX on non-apple hardware argument that
was already addressed.

"Then after installing OSX on it he OC'd to the HILT, man."

Are you trying to claim that Macs can't be overclocked?!? Please tell
me you are, so that we can add another entry into your database of
ignorance.

"I felt so inadequate about my Win7 Core i7 rig, built into my a tool-
less Antec case"

3.33Ghz six-core Xeon Core i7-980X (overclockable to at least
3.6GHz) machines are in the pike for 2nd week march. Big deal. And
tool-less? You still need to twiddle your thumbscrews. Not that that is
that big a deal, but YOU are the one who brought up the "ease of
upgrade" argument, which you are attempting to change midstream.
My lever beats your thumb screws by order of magnitude. I can have
my mac open in less than a second.

Not clear on why you are harping on liquid cooling, though. I certainly
never brought it up. And you are taking both sides of the issue,
decrying its complexity in the first part of the post, and now making it
seem like some high tech marvel that Apple is claiming they invented.
Neither is the case.

"Second, opening the case by removing the thumb screws and sliding
drives in and out without tools is a royal pain."

And again, I can do that faster on my mac than you can on your PC. So
what is your point exactly? YOU are the one that brought up
upgradeability. I fail to see why that is so important, but since you
brought it up, you need to suffer the consequences of your ignorance.

"I KNOW, right?! I don't see why they have to either but they're so
awesome that they do!!"

Actually, yes, they do. It is trivial. Again, they COULD have made it
next to impossible. They did not by choice.
Besides, are you claiming that Windows installs go without a hitch,
following ONLY instructions that come from MicroSoft (As opposed to
your various hardware vendors)? Yeah, right.

"You're right. And since I was talking about standards, and not about
customizing a Mac without any boundaries whatsoever then you make
a great point."

Yes, I am. Those ARE industry standards. What boundaries are you
talking about?

As for your last diatribe, what is your point? Apple WAS the only early
adopter of USB, which Intel was close to scuttling, They DID invent
FireWire, And they were the first PC vendor to offer WiFi, which was
also floundering.
0 Votes
+ -
If it's that USB 2.0 was too slow.. so what? It would have been easier to implement USB 3.0 than making a new standard altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
Time Travel anyone?
DeusExMachina 25th Feb 2010
" It would have been easier to implement USB 3.0 than making a new
standard altogether."

First of all, FW800 is faster than USB3.0. FW16 blows eSATA out of the
water.

But that said, FireWire was out at the same time as USB 1.0, let alone 2.0.
More importantly, it belongs to Intel, and there was not even a USB 2.0
spec out yet, let alone 3.0. How exactly do you propose Apple implement
that?
0 Votes
+ -
Go back in time..
AzuMao 25th Feb 2010
..to when you decided to click that "Reply to Message" button without actually checking your facts.

FW800 came out years after USB2.0, not before.

But even if it had come before, that's still just semantics; it doesn't matter what they would have called it.

Point is, it would've been easier to just stick with USB but increase its bandwidth, instead of making a whole new standard that operates in a different, insecure way (direct memory access). Yes you can disable that functionality, but then you're left with nothing but a slightly improved USB.. minus backwards compatibility.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, let's
DeusExMachina Updated - 26th Feb 2010
You neatly dodge the point that you keep going on about my being
"proud of firewire" when in fact the reason it keeps being brought up
is that the discussion is about use of open, standard hardware.

Now, as to your inability to pay attention, and your purposeful shifting
of facts. Yes, FW800 came out after USB2.0. So what? The discussion
at that point was about FW400, not FW800!

You clearly know nothing about hardware or how it is implemented. It
is not about being easy. Apple could not have done ANYTHING to
increase USB bandwidth. Intel invented USB, and there is a standards
body that dictates how it is implemented, and what constitutes
complying with that standard. Apple had no control over ANY of the
specs of USB. Period. It simply was not up to Apple.
Nor would it have necessarily been any easier.
And as pointed out several times, there are numerous other reasons
why firewire is a superior technology to USB besides speed.
Now, you keep on making this idiotic statement:
" Yes you can disable that functionality, but then you're left with
nothing but a slightly improved USB.. minus backwards compatibility."

Look, you just don't know what you're talking about. First, removing
DMA does NOT leave you with a slightly improved USB. There are
numerous things you simply CAN NOT do with USB that you can with
firewire.
1) bus powered high wattage peripherals. TOTALLY impossible with
USB
2) daisy chaining of devices.
3) Target Disk mode
4) CPU independent hardware
5) peer to peer device communication
6) peer to peer bi-directional networking
and more

Also, removing DMA still leaves FW400 an order of magnitude faster
that USB.
You simply are not right on your facts. And your logic is absurd at
best, immorally duplicitous at least. You take one argument, then
twist it into something else when confronted with facts, acting as if
that was the argument you were making all along. You claim FW is
less secure than USB, but when shown that USB hacks also exist, pass
over that argument and pretend your only point was about speed,
even when it has already been shown that FW400 as significantly
faster that USB even without DMA. You talk about FW800 even though
the discussion was about FW400, because it allows you to make some
silly point. You talk about me bringing up FW indicating I am "proud"
of FW even when a simple rereading of the first post shows that it is
being brought up NOT as a championing of the technology, but simply
as part of a list of open, standard tech in Apple hardware.
Lastly you say FW800 "came out years after USB2.0, not before." You
are totally incorrect. The USB2.0 spec was released in 2000, and was
standardized by its standards body at the end of 2001, the beginning
of 2002. The full FW800 spec and standards implementation was
released by Apple in 2002. This does not even take into account
FW1600 and FW3200, BOTH of which are part of the original FW800
1398b specification.
You are just simply wrong on the facts, and don't appear to
understand what you are lifting from your skimming of wikipedia.

Besides which, the most important point, and the one that you simply
are not getting, is that the two technologies were ALWAYS intended to
be complementary. That is why Apple has always had both, since each
was first implemented. (Apple was the FIRST major PC vendor to
release machines with EITHER of the busses.) There is NO reason to
have FireWire keyboards or mice. That would be foolish and a waste of
the bus, Such things are better left to USB, as it was intended. On the
flipside, there is a reason you don't see many USB1.0 camcorders. The
technology simply isn't up to the task. Even USB2.0 is sub par, which is
why all high-end cameras use FW, almost exclusively. USB2.0 is also
totally unsuitable for low latency applications, which is why FW is
mandated for many applications by the US military, and for use in
aeronautics applications.
0 Votes
+ -
See below.
AzuMao 26th Feb 2010
Apple didn't even make FireWire.
Both these threads are moot.
0 Votes
+ -
It is a piece of **** that completely destroys the security of your system unless you install custom drivers to disable direct memory access. I can't believe you're actually
gloating over it.
0 Votes
+ -
Knowing what you are talking about
DeusExMachina 25th Feb 2010
It certainly helps!
First, I did not brag about FireWire. I had nothing to do with it. I
would, however, do so readily if I were Apple.
First it beats the pants of USB in speed and usability. Not only is the
original FW400 noticeable faster than USB 2.0, but ever tried daisy
chaining USB devices. Oh, wait, you can't.
Second, it requires local access. If someone has local access, FireWire
hacks are pretty low down on your list of worries.
Third, the security issue of which you speak exists because FireWire
was always designed for speed. Unlike USB, it allows DMA access
without CPU intervention. But this is also the source of your security
issue. So if you are concerned about local access, and need to
lockdown your ports, this is trivially easy on a mac. Just set the
OpenFirmware password. Just the act of setting the password
automatically turns off DMA access on the FireWire port. Instead, a
virtual memory space can be utilized as per the OHCI-1394 spec. This
is true for every mac since OpenFirmware support began, in 1999.
There are other mitigation techniques as well.
In Linux, under the old firewire stack, you can just set to phys_dma to
0, thus disabling FireWire Direct Memory access, thus:

$ rmmod ohci1394
$ modprobe ohci1394 phys_dma=0

Voila, done.

In the newer juju FireWire stack, this exploit no longer works, anyway.

If you are using FreeBSD, you can use similar mitigation strategies.

If you are using windows, well, I guess you're SOL. This is not an Apple
issue, as Windows does not allow for the proper setting of these OHCI
parameters.

But again, on the other platforms, you are just flat out wrong. There is
NO need to install custom drivers.

Also, similar pwning attacks exist for USB, so I fail to see how FireWire
fails, but USB is fine.

"I can't believe you're actually gloating over it."

I can't believe you'd make such a poorly researched point.
0 Votes
+ -
First, I did not brag about FireWire. I had nothing to do with it. I would, however, do so readily if I were Apple.

Then why do you keep listing it amongst things good about Apple/Macs/etc?

It would be like a Windows user listing "BSODs" as a reason to respect Microsoft.

First it beats the pants of USB in speed and usability. Not only is the original FW400 noticeable faster than USB 2.0, but ever tried daisy chaining USB devices. Oh, wait, you can't.

Faster than USB 2.0, yes.. and? Surely it would have been easier to move on to USB 3.0 instead of making a new standard from scratch?

Second, it requires local access. If someone has local access, FireWire hacks are pretty low down on your list of worries.

When the only alternative involves taking it apart while it's running, dousing it in cryogenic fluids, and having another computer to swap RAM into on the spot.. I'd say it's top of the list. Or do you know of some other way to get into a locked computer?

Third, the security issue of which you speak exists because FireWire was always designed for speed. Unlike USB, it allows DMA access without CPU intervention.

That's weird.. I thought the third iteration of USB was even faster than FireWire, but it doesn't use DMA.


But this is also the source of your security
issue.


Not mine, no. I have it completely disabled in the BIOS and blacklisted the drivers from loading altogether, since I have no use for it.

So if you are concerned about local access, and need to lockdown your ports, this is trivially easy on a mac. Just set the OpenFirmware password. Just the act of setting the password automatically turns off DMA access on the FireWire port.

Defeating the purpose of FireWire.

Just admit it, FireWire sucks.

Also, similar pwning attacks exist for USB, so I fail to see how FireWire fails, but USB is fine.

Such as?
0 Votes
+ -
Hooked on Phonics
DeusExMachina 25th Feb 2010
"Then why do you keep listing it amongst things good about Apple/Macs/etc?"

Do you even know how to read?!? This part of the thread has NOTHING to do with
listing "good things about Apple," it is about Apple implementing standard
hardware. FireWire is a standard, macs have it. What part are you not
understanding?

"When the only alternative involves taking it apart while it's running, dousing it in
cryogenic fluids, and having another computer to swap RAM into on the spot.. I'd
say it's top of the list. Or do you know of some other way to get into a locked
computer?"

Um, that is not the only option. Again, as posted previously, OHCI can be disabled
VERY easily, either at the BIOS level in PCs or OpenFirmware on macs. In addition, a
quick trip to terminal to set the phys_dma parameter to 0 stops DMA access in
Linux. On the mac, setting an OpenFirmware password likewise shuts off DMA
access. Can you even read?

"That's weird.. I thought the third iteration of USB was even faster than FireWire, but
it doesn't use DMA."

Again, as pointed out above, USB 2.0 did not even even exist when FireWire came
out, let alone USB3.0 Implementing that would have required Apple buying Intel. Is
that what you mean by easier?
Also, USB3.0 will NOT faster than FW800, let alone FW3200. Latency issues on the
USB 3.0 bus, combined with the need for CPU intermediation guaranteed that
USB3.0 will NEVER come even close to its theoretical maximum speed. And put on
three devices on your bus, and watch your speeds plummet.

"Defeating the purpose of FireWire."

Again you highlight your utter ignorance. Turning off DMA just forces the creation
of a VM proxy. You sacrifice a little speed, but it still knock USB 2.0 for a loop. Not
only that, but transfer speed is not the only issue. Since the FireWire bus does not
need CPU mediation, tasks on the local machine do not take a performance hit. This
is NOT the case with USB, where heavy data transport can bring a machine to a
crawl. Also, USB can only supply 5 +/-.25 Volts at at most 100mA (500mA from a
powered hub) for a maximum of 2.5 watts. FireWire400 can supply as much as 30V
at up to 60 watts. There is a reason that there are not many USB bus powered
peripherals.

"'Also, similar pwning attacks exist for USB, so I fail to see how FireWire fails, but
USB is fine.'

Such as?"

A simply Google search would answer that question, but if I do the work for you,
will you STFU?
You can start here:
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=security&seqNum=263

There are others.
0 Votes
+ -
But when you make a list of "standards" or "innovations" or whatever, to defend something, it's implied that they're supposed to be good things. What part of this aren't you understanding?

Um, that is not the only option. Again, as posted previously, OHCI can be disabled
VERY easily, either at the BIOS level in PCs or OpenFirmware on macs. In addition, a
quick trip to terminal to set the phys_dma parameter to 0 stops DMA access in
Linux. On the mac, setting an OpenFirmware password likewise shuts off DMA
access. Can you even read?


Can you? Minus DMA from it and all you've got left is.. USB. Sans backwards compatibility.

Again, as pointed out above, USB 2.0 did not even even exist when FireWire came
out, let alone USB3.0 Implementing that would have required Apple buying Intel. Is
that what you mean by easier?

So they made USB, without buying Intel.. but to upgrade USB, they would have to buy Intel.. but to make a completely new standard, that works in a fundamentally different (and insecure) way, they don't have to.. ya, that adds up. Not.

Also, USB3.0 will NOT faster than FW800, let alone FW3200. Latency issues on the
USB 3.0 bus, combined with the need for CPU intermediation guaranteed that
USB3.0 will NEVER come even close to its theoretical maximum speed. And put on
three devices on your bus, and watch your speeds plummet.


FW800 and FW3200 didn't exist back then, either.
So what exactly is your point?

"Defeating the purpose of FireWire."

Again you highlight your utter ignorance. Turning off DMA just forces the creation
of a VM proxy. You sacrifice a little speed, but it still knock USB 2.0 for a loop. Not
only that, but transfer speed is not the only issue. Since the FireWire bus does not
need CPU mediation, tasks on the local machine do not take a performance hit. This
is NOT the case with USB, where heavy data transport can bring a machine to a
crawl. Also, USB can only supply 5 +/-.25 Volts at at most 100mA (500mA from a
powered hub) for a maximum of 2.5 watts. FireWire400 can supply as much as 30V
at up to 60 watts. There is a reason that there are not many USB bus powered
peripherals.


And??

Again, surely it would have been easier to up the watts in a new USB version instead of making a new standard all together. And if DMA isn't needed to achieve the same performance, again, no reason to ditch USB for a brand new interface with no backwards compatibility and massive insecurity by default.

A simply Google search would answer that question, but if I do the work for you,
will you STFU?
You can start here:
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=security&seqNum=263


AutoRun has nothing to do with USB you fucking dumbass.
0 Votes
+ -
Nothing of the kind is implied
DeusExMachina Updated - 26th Feb 2010
The fact that you insist on inferring that does not mean it is implied.
Not that it is not a good thing. FW is great. It's inclusion in that list,
however, had nothing to do with that.

"Can you even read

Can you? Minus DMA from it and all you've got left is.. USB. Sans
backwards compatibility."

Already addressed. Several times. Even without DMA, FW400 is STILL
faster than USB, even USB2.0, and has other advantages, as pointed
out elsewhere. You are simply wrong.

"So they made USB, without buying Intel.. but to upgrade USB, they
would have to buy Intel.. but to make a completely new standard, that
works in a fundamentally different (and insecure) way, they don't have
to.. ya, that adds up. Not."

God, are you really this dense. They implemented USB by complying
with Intel's specifications and paying a licensing fee. They had no need
to buy intel to use USB. To ALTER USB in order to make it faster,they
would have had to make a new standard. As Intel was in charge of
that standard, they would have had to buy Intel, since Intel had no
intention of relinquishing control of the standard. Again, as this
argument is about open standards, if Apple had made their own USB
implementation, THEN they would have been guilty of being
nonstandard. It adds up just fine.

"FW800 and FW3200 didn't exist back then, either.
So what exactly is your point?"

Back then when? The discussion at that point was about USB3.0.
FW800 and the FW3200 spec had been out for over half a decade.

"Again, surely it would have been easier to up the watts in a new USB
version instead of making a new standard all together."

Um, no, it wouldn't be. Ever design hardware? Clearly not. The USB
specs are the way they are for a reason. It is simply not possible to
make
USB support higher power output without destroying peripherals. That
is why, when they NEEDED higher powered USB, they did so at the cost
of breaking the standard, and adding an additional power line.
HighPower USB is only available for limited specialty applications, and
is not compatible with USB.

"And if DMA isn't needed to achieve the same performance, again, no
reason to ditch USB for a brand new interface with no backwards
compatibility and massive insecurity by default."

DMA is not needed to beat the pants off USB, but it DOES increase
speed. And again, FW differs from USB in many aspects, not just DMA,
many of which can not be implemented in USB. As such, you can NOT
make the statement that there was "no reason to ditch USB."
Also, in what way does FW have no backwards compatibility in any
way different than USB? Can you plug your old parallel printer into
your USB bus without an adaptor? How are you managing that?
As already shown repeatedly, get this through your clouded brain:
THERE IS NO MASSIVE SECURITY THREAT IN FIREWIRE!!!

"AutoRun has nothing to do with USB you ******* dumbass."

Autorun has quite a lot to do with USB, as USB devices announce
themselves and use the CDROM subsystem. But you would know that,
not being a dumbass and all. (In fact, it even goes into detail about
that in the link I gave you)
0 Votes
+ -
@azumao
Axsimulate Updated - 26th Feb 2010
"Faster than USB 2.0, yes.. and? Surely it would have been easier to move on to USB 3.0 instead of making a new standard from scratch?"

Wow! You just don't get it do you? What new standard did Apple need to make from scratch are you talking about? After all the Firewire standard has been around for over a decade. And in the development stage over a decade before that (started 1986). Before USB! So who really made the new standard from scratch? Intel.
USB showed up in the mid 90's and most people at that time didn't really know what to do with it. That is until Apple came out with the iMac with USB as a standard 1998.

Firewire was also created with DV in mind. In order to get 24-30 fps NTSC/PAL without stutter that DV requires, you must have a reliable connection that can deliver that data uninterrupted. USB simply cannot do this. Maybe USB 3 can, who knows, it's too new to tell yet. My bet is it won't because USB is still processor dependent and thus susceptible to outside interruptions.
conversation was completely moot.


@Deus
AutoRun is a vulnerability in the OS.
Not in CDs, or USB drives, or anything else.
0 Votes
+ -
@AzuMao
Axsimulate 26th Feb 2010
What are you talking about? Apple invented Firewire in 1986. Wow, you are so quick to judge Firewire as crap and yet know little to nothing about it that much is obvious.
You said Intel were really the ones who made it, and now you say Apple made it afterall.. how can both these be true unless Apple owned Intel?

Anyways, I couldn't care less about the history of it.
It's a piece of crap, and bragging about crap is silly.
I don't know Hitler's family tree but I think he's a piece of shit and would raise similar objections over him being listed amongst Germany's achievements.
0 Votes
+ -
Hooked on Phonics: Part Deux
DeusExMachina Updated - 26th Feb 2010
Allowing Autorun from USB is a vulnerability in the USB spec. The OS
allows it, but it is implemented in the USB standard. Again, you don;t
know what you are talking about.

"You said Intel were really the ones who made it, and now you say
Apple made it afterall.. how can both these be true unless Apple
owned Intel?"

Seriously, take a remedial reading class!!! Axsimulate said
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the kind. He said USB was invented by Intel,
NOT FireWire.

He said:
"So who really made the new standard from scratch? Intel."

He is talking about Intel developing USB well after FireWire
development was almost a decade old.

As to your point that this makes the thread moot, um, no it doesn't.
This thread is not about Apple INVENTING FireWire, it is about Apple
EMPLOYING FireWire. This thread would be relevant no matter WHO
invented FireWire.


"I don't know Hitler's family tree but I think he's a piece of **** and
would raise similar objections over him being listed amongst
Germany's achievements."

Instant Fail.
http://tinyurl.com/6cnjm
Allowing Autorun from USB is a vulnerability in the USB spec. The OS
allows it, but it is implemented in the USB standard. Again, you don;t
know what you are talking about.


There is nothing about USB that requires automatically executing a file when you plug something in. Nor is there anything about CD-ROM that does. Nor anything else. Where as FireWire operates based on DMA, and its performance is crippled without it.

Seriously, take a remedial reading class!!! Axsimulate said
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the kind. He said USB was invented by Intel,
NOT FireWire.


What part of

"What new standard did Apple need to make from scratch are you talking about? After all the Firewire standard has been around for over a decade. And in the development stage over a decade before that (started 1986). Before USB! So who really made the new standard from scratch? Intel.
USB showed up in the mid 90's and most people at that time didn't really know what to do with it. That is until Apple came out with the iMac with USB as a standard 1998.
"

did you take to mean "The FireWire standard was made by Apple and USB standard was made by Intel"?

Instant Fail.
http://tinyurl.com/6cnjm


Fulfilling a prophecy isn't failure per se.

Also, if you weren't retarded, you would know that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving anything approaches 1, making it a completely redundant law. Instant fail for somehow interpreting something as a fail without any qualifier; you basically said everything fails.
0 Votes
+ -
Let the OP be the judge of that
DeusExMachina 26th Feb 2010
"There is nothing about USB that requires automatically executing a
file when you plug something in."

Actually,m yes, there is. It is in the USB spec. Why you you make
comments about thing you don't know anything about?

"Where as FireWire operates based on DMA, and its performance is
crippled without it."

Just 'cause you keep saying something, does not make it so.
OK, maybe one more time will get this through your thick skull.
FireWire operation is NOT based on DMA (it is based on integrated
host controllers) and it is NOT crippled by turning it off. You are just
wrong.

"What part of ... did you take to mean "The FireWire standard was
made by Apple and USB standard was made by Intel"?"

Um the whole part. It is quite clear. And it is simple English. But I'll
leave it to him to set you straight on what he meant. (Not that that will
stop you from claiming you know better that he what he meant.)

"Fulfilling a prophecy isn't failure per se."

No, bringing up Hitler in a conversation that has nothing to do with
hitler is failure. Per se. Or did you not understand Godwin's law,
either?

As for your last, illogical diatribe, I "basically" said nothing of the kind.
Since no OS can run all executables.
And you're saying that unless an file is automatically executed when the device is inserted, the USB spec isn't being followed.
So nothing follows USB spec, according to you.
In case you're wondering, this kind of logic I keep using against you is called reductio ad absurdum, and isn't going to stop until you stop making bogus statements.


And yes, you said exactly that. You said that I failed, the reason for which being something that encompasses everything! That is the same as having no qualifier at all. The probability of everything that is possible goes up as time moves on. That's just how the universe works.
0 Votes
+ -
Your logic
DeusExMachina 27th Feb 2010
Your "logic" (or lack thereof) speaks for itself.

"And you're saying that unless an file is automatically executed when
the device is inserted, the USB spec isn't being followed."

I am neither saying that, nor does it logically follow.

"In case you're wondering, this kind of logic I keep using against you
is called reductio ad absurdum, and isn't going to stop until you stop
making bogus statements."

Um, no it's not. Please don't make yourself look even more foolish by
trying to make actual predicate calculus arguments, as I used to teach
intro and intermediate logic to university students. Or rather, go
ahead, it just make your look the fool.

"And yes, you said exactly that. You said that I failed, the reason for
which being something that encompasses everything! That is the same
as having no qualifier at all. The probability of everything that is
possible goes up as time moves on. That's just how the universe
works."

Oh really, is that what it means? OK, Mr. logic expert, please write
that out as a formal equation in first order quantified predicate
calculus. My first year students could do it in their sleep. Let's see you
do it.

Here's a hint, it will begin with something similar to A(x)E(y):
0 Votes
+ -
Um, ya, you just did.
AzuMao Updated - 27th Feb 2010
"There is nothing about USB that requires automatically executing a
file when you plug something in."

Actually,m yes, there is. It is in the USB spec. Why you you make
comments about thing you don't know anything about?


Yet another instance where you probably wish you could go back in time and stop yourself from posting such things.

Um, no it's not. Please don't make yourself look even more foolish by
trying to make actual predicate calculus arguments, as I used to teach
intro and intermediate logic to university students. Or rather, go
ahead, it just make your look the fool.

Completely non sequitur; neither of us were talking about calculus.
Also, I pity your students.
Try to make at least one post without contradicting yourself, please.

Oh really, is that what it means? OK, Mr. logic expert, please write
that out as a formal equation in first order quantified predicate
calculus. My first year students could do it in their sleep. Let's see you
do it.

Here's a hint, it will begin with something similar to A(x)E(y):


Unnecessary; simple English did the job just fine.
But since you were unable to grasp it the first few times, here's your chance to try again; saying that something (my reductio ad hitlerum) falling under a principle that applies to everything (that the likelihood of something increases as time passes) is failure per se, is the same as saying everything is. If you still don't get it just tell me which part you're stuck on.





p.s.
Since you keep posting random off topic things for no reason, MY TURN!
0 Votes
+ -
@AzuMao
Axsimulate 1st Mar 2010
Considering you have two people telling you your wrong and can back it up, the probability of you being wrong has going up considerably.

Here let me put it this way so that maybe you can understand since you have proven time and time again, your reading comprehension is very low.

Apple=Firewire
Intel=USB
0 Votes
+ -
@Axsimulate Right..
AzuMao 1st Mar 2010
..so you're trying to backpedal now and claim that most people would actually interpret

What new standard did Apple need to make from scratch are you talking about? After all the Firewire standard has been around for over a decade. And in the development stage over a decade before that (started 1986). Before USB! So who really made the new standard from scratch? Intel.

as "It was really Apple that made FireWire" and

USB showed up in the mid 90's and most people at that time didn't really know what to do with it. That is until Apple came out with the iMac with USB as a standard 1998.

as "It was really Intel that made USB"?


I highly doubt that. And even if they did, alleging that "If many believe so, it is so." isn't very good for your argument.
0 Votes
+ -
@AzuMao
Axsimulate Updated - 1st Mar 2010
You really shouldn't argue about something you obviously know nothing about.

I guess I have to spell it out for you since your reading comprehension is so low.

Apple created Firewire in the late 80's
Intel created USB in the early 90's

You keep claiming Apple created a new standard from scratch (I'm assuming your referring to Firewire since you keep avoiding my question) when another already existed (I'm assuming your referring to USB)

I provided you with the fact that Firewire, created by Apple, was already in development BEFORE Intel created USB. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Since your knowledge in this subject is nearly nonexistent, I'll give you a little history lesson.

First Firewire is peer to peer. It does not need a computer to control data to and from two Firewire devices. Therefore DMA has nothing to do with Firewire and everything to do with USB since USB must have a computer to control data flow between devices. Firewire requires extra hardware for it's peer to peer ability and for controlling data traffic, thus Firewire is a little more expensive then USB. However, because of this extra hardware Firewire is able to sustain higher transfer rates than USB. This is why Firewire 400 is faster than USB 2.0 rated at 480.

That being said, somewhere around 1995 USB, created by Intel, started to show up on motherboards. In fact at the time, I had a 486DX4 motherboard that had USB on in. Nobody knew what it was and Windows didn't support it. (Windows 95a didn't support USB and Windows 95b had very poor support for it) It wasn't until Windows 98 came along until Windows got full USB support, but there was little to nothing that used USB. Then Apple introduced the iMac, the iMac used Intel's USB port as a standard exclusively. Gone were the legacy ADB ports that Apple used in the past. USB is similar to ADB. However ADB couldn't power as many things and was not hot swappable. USB is simply more flexible and robust then ADB ever was or intended to be. So Apple went with the newer better USB tech created by Intel.

It seems like you were the only one having difficulties understanding my comment. I thought I was crystal clear.
0 Votes
+ -
@Axsimulate
AzuMao 1st Mar 2010
So I was supposed to interpret

What new standard did Apple need to make from scratch are you talking about? After all the Firewire standard has been around for over a decade. And in the development stage over a decade before that (started 1986). Before USB! So who really made the new standard from scratch? Intel.

as "It was really Apple that made FireWire" and

USB showed up in the mid 90's and most people at that time didn't really know what to do with it. That is until Apple came out with the iMac with USB as a standard 1998.

as "It was really Intel that made USB"?


Why do you keep trying to evade instead of answering?


And what do you mean "arguing"?
Asking a yes or no question is an argument???
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Adobe, Stop Being a Wussy
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix