Steve Jobs bets on HTML5 video, slams Adobe

The evidence seems clear at this point: much like the iPhone and iPod touch, the Apple iPad will lack support for Adobe’s Flash technology. Don’t expect that situation to change anytime soon, either. Wired has gotten some choice quotes from an internal "Town Hall" meeting at Apple’s headquarters, and it sounds like CEO Steve Jobs is  banking on HTML5 supplanting Flash as the de facto standard for web video.

Jobs reportedly made the following observations about Adobe in general and Flash in particular:

They are lazy, Jobs says. They have all this potential to do interesting things but they just refuse to do it. They don’t do anything with the approaches that Apple is taking, like Carbon. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.

Apple had to quietly update iPad promotional videos that showed the built-in browser rendering Flash content last week. Meanwhile, Adobe didn’t take long to slam the iPad, saying Apple continues to "impose restrictions on their devices that limit both content publishers and consumers."

HTML5 certainly looks to have the potential to replace Flash for online video, especially now that Google has rolled out an all-HTML5 alternative version of YouTube. But there is one roadblock. While both Apple and Google are backing H.264 as HTML5’s video codec of choice, Mozilla would rather see the (still-unfinished) standard use the free Ogg Theora codec. Right now, the YouTube HTML5 site currently works in Chrome and Safari but not Firefox. Web developers hoping to ditch Flash could get cold feet if that fragmentation persists.

Speaking of Google, Wired says Jobs also ranted about the search giant, calling its famous "don’t be evil" motto "a load of crap" (or another, less polite term, depending on who you ask). Jobs complained that Apple didn’t get into the search business, yet Google got into the phone business and wishes to "kill the iPhone."

Comments closed
    • Pax-UX
    • 10 years ago

    I’ll be happy to see the death of Flash!

    • diesavagenation
    • 10 years ago
      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      ^dingdingding WINNAR

        • wira020
        • 10 years ago

        OMG! You’re a genius.. that sounds really logical…

      • End User
      • 10 years ago

      Flash performance may very well be a valid concern on mobile platforms:

      “The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn’t meet our standards. ”

      §[< http://blog.pavlov.net/2010/01/27/firefox-for-maemo-rc3/<]§

    • jackaroon
    • 10 years ago

    I just thought I’d take this opportunity to say that engadget’s apple-less RSS feed was a brilliant idea that every tech site should copy.

    • blitzy
    • 10 years ago

    Oh dear, poor Jobs. Apple with its closed properties complaining about Adobe with its closed properties. Sweet irony

    • blastdoor
    • 10 years ago

    I think it’s great that apple-haters and microsoft-haters can all come together and share their common hatred of Adobe. It warms my heart…

      • 5150
      • 10 years ago

      If it wasn’t for Adobe and their programs, I doubt Apple would be in the position it is today.

    • stmok
    • 10 years ago

    All Adobe does is make excuses for the poor implementation of Flash. Especially on Linux and Mac.

    Here’s what I mean:

    The Flash developer for Linux complains about how they have to pick which sound implementation to use…
    => §[< http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/05/welcome_to_the_jungle.html< ]§ Then he complains about how they have to decide which video acceleration infrastructure to use... => §[<http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2010/01/welcome_to_the_thicket.html< ]§ He then tries to explain why Flash video playback is a piece of crap under Linux... => §[<http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2010/01/solving_different_problems.html< ]§ Frankly, I'm tired of Adobe's BULL$HIT excuses! The open source re-implementation of Flash (called Gnash) can do what Adobe is providing excuses for!...But I'm not fond of that implementation either! The quicker we can move to HTML5, the better for the web side of humanity. Interesting that someone has done a test on Mac... /[< *[< l[< Safari 4.0.4 running in 32-bit mode under Mac OS X 10.6.2, on an iMac with a 2.16 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo and 3GB of RAM. Using §[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AwvuirSEAA< ]§ and viewing the 720p version sized to 960 pixels wide (the larger size in the browser window), streaming. Using Flash Plugin, 100-115% CPU (105% typical). (!!!) Using Quicktime Plugin (that's in the browser via Click2Flash), 30% - 40% CPU (35% typical). Unfortunately YouTube's HTML5 beta doesn't appear to work with anyhing but standard def videos (I can't get it to work with that video anyway). So, with §[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEIZ_FFmjnw<]§ Using Flash Plugin, 65-70% CPU. Using Quicktime Plugin, 15-20% CPU. Using HTML5, 15-20% CPU. <]l <]* <]/

      • pogsnet
      • 10 years ago
        • stmok
        • 10 years ago

        l[

    • Sewje
    • 10 years ago

    Latest update. Adobe pulls all Adobe Software from MacOS and now exclusive to Windows.

    Job is just asking for something like this to happen.

    Come on Adobe, do the honerable thing, make it happen. Theres always Linux 😉

    • Skrying
    • 10 years ago

    Flash is going absolutely nowhere until there is a suitable solution that will allow websites to place advertisements on top of playing video. Flash is also needed for other elements some people are taking for granted such as the closed captioning offered on Hulu or the speech to text on YouTube.

    There’s a reason that even with YouTube having their HTML 5 beta going on you can only watch ad supported videos with Flash.

    Flash, as much as it gets bashed, really has brought video much further than any other streaming solution could have (except Silverlight, which was late to the game and carries the Microsoft branding). As much as it sucks in terms of performance I rather have ad-supported videos vs subscription service.

    • deruberhanyok
    • 10 years ago

    l[

      • blastdoor
      • 10 years ago

      Good question — I was wondering the same thing. If they had said “Cocoa” instead of Carbon, that would have made more sense.

      The more conspiratorial part of my brain makes me think that this Carbon reference is a signal to people who know about this stuff that maybe the whole account is fictitious. Perhaps the entire story is a FSJ plant.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      Especially since they’re trying to kill off Carbon. You can’t make a 64-bit app using Carbon.

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      I second that. I also want a full transcript of it since taken out of context, that phrase makes 0 sense.

      Adi

    • albundy
    • 10 years ago

    oh the irony of it all…flaming the one company that made them still exist today…hah, how unfortunate. iJobs is just using this as an excuse to push his crap through. good luck with that…

      • XaiaX
      • 10 years ago

      Adobe bought Macromedia, who made Flash.

      Photoshop and the other design tools were definitely a staple of the Mac universe, but they aren’t related to Flash. Flash didn’t drive anything to do with the resurgence of Apple. That was Apple’s hardware.

    • phez
    • 10 years ago

    I don’t really get the discussion. I goto youtube and watch videos, but my computer doesn’t explode as some of you are saying?

    • adam1378
    • 10 years ago

    If only they would finally bring flash to the mobile sector like adobe has been talking about all year. I am still waiting to use the real internet, unmolested on my pre.

    • jstern
    • 10 years ago

    I hate flash, but is HTML5 really going to kill flash video now that a regular resolution youtube video with GPU acceleration uses something like 2% CPU power, and something like 10% CPU for 720p youtube videos? That’s a lot better than what I get with HTML5 video.

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      GPU acceleration that is currently not available for the mac platform. There is a reason here why Jobs is slamming Adobe so badly.

      Adi

        • jstern
        • 10 years ago

        But video sites are not going to switch to HTML5 video if flash is better, just for Apple. And lets be honest, the reason why Jobs is so against Flash and Bluray is because it cuts into Apple’s bottom line. Everything comes down to money.

          • adisor19
          • 10 years ago

          No, sorry. I think the fact that CS4 was released in 64bit for windows but only in 32bit for OS X falls more in line with Adobe being lazy and with what Jobs has been complaining about.

          Adi

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            Don’t be blind. And if that was true then Jobs would sound more like a baby than a CEO. And I don’t know much about the subject, but wasn’t the reason for only releasing it in 64 bit for Windows only have something to do with the OS. OSX not being 64bit or not being fully 64bit? I’m asking cause I don’t know, but have read that it has something to do with the OS. And what about Bluray? Do you agree that the reason he makes so many (lame) excuses about not having Bluray is because he would lose money from movies sold on itunes?

            • crazybus
            • 10 years ago

            Photoshop CS4 isn’t 64-bit in OS X because its codebase is largely built on the Carbon API, which Apple isn’t porting to 64-bit. Rather than maintaining two distinct APIs, Carbon and Cocoa, Apple is deprecating Carbon and pushing for developers to adopt Cocoa in the future. Carbon was originally designed for backwards compatibility with OS 8 and 9 and is mostly irrelevant for new application development. What basically amounts to a complete rewrite of Photoshop would take longer than Adobe’s usual product cycle, hence why CS4 isn’t yet 64-bit on the Mac. Apple itself just ported the Finder to Cocoa with Snow Leopard, and its Final Cut application is still primarily built on the Carbon framework.

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            Thanks, now I understand the reason.

            • danny e.
            • 10 years ago

            wow. you’re a apple fanboy and don’t even have your apple facts straight. that’s really lame but I’m not suprised.

            • moog
            • 10 years ago

            It’s about money (limited time/resources to ship products).

          • XaiaX
          • 10 years ago

          “video sites” are irrelevant. Youtube already has an HTML 5 version up.

          And the comment about CPU usage makes no sense at all. They both use h.264. The only difference is the object type in the source page, not the video itself. If you get acceleration for one, you should get acceleration for the other. That’s not a format issue.

        • crazybus
        • 10 years ago

        Oddly enough, h.264 video played through HTML5’s <video> tag is hardware accelerated in Safari for OS X since Apple uses the Quicktime interface for decoding.

        • insulin_junkie72
        • 10 years ago

        As many things that Adobe may be guilty of, Apple refuses to open up the neccessary API that would allow it, so it’s a decision made by Apple.

          • adisor19
          • 10 years ago

          BS. All the APIs are there. The OpenCL library is available for everyone to use on 10.6. There is simply no excuse.

          Adi

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 10 years ago

            We’ve had this discussion before.

            Sure, apart from the fact that OpenCL can’t talk to the dedicated video playback hardware on modern video cards, it’s PERFECT for efficient video playback!

            You can create a less-efficient general shader-based hack (I believe this is the current ATI under Linux solution), but it can’t use, you know, the actual part of the video card specifically designed to playback video.

            And the HA that is currently available in OS-X is locked down by Apple to only work w/ their programs.

      • djgandy
      • 10 years ago

      Who says we wont have hardware accelerated html 5 video?

        • jstern
        • 10 years ago

        We might, but if it’s not vastly superior to flash then it won’t hurt it.

      • vihad
      • 10 years ago

      Have you been hiding in a hole the past years?
      Flash is the worst thing that has ever happened the web (even worse than IE 5 IMO). It’s buggy as hell, its as propriatery as it goes and every other platform except windows sufferes terrible performance hit to render the simplest of movies made with it. I am a linux user and the things that this thing does to my core 2 duo 2.13 GHz laptop boggles the mind. This machine as it’s setup (Ubuntu 9.10 64) can decode high definition video perfectly fine without sweating BUT can it playback a page with a couple of flash ads without hitting 100% cpu util for the one core? NO! Can it decode the average web video without reaching 30% cpu util? NO!
      Adobe has had years to fix this and did NOTHING. It’s time for this POS technology to go down the drain, as a developer, linux enthusiast, open standards advocate and user i say it’s about time!

        • jstern
        • 10 years ago

        I think you mis read my question, which is basically if HTML5 video is going to kill flash video, now that it has GPU acceleration and a regular youtube video is using less than 5% cpu power. I’m not talking about the past year, I talking about from here on out. Linux has to low of a market share, so, again are companies going to spend the time, effort and cash to switch to HTML5 which at this point uses 30%+ CPU power, or stay with GPU accelerated flash, which is the future right now? Will they switch to HTML5 which is not as efficient as GPU accelerated flash just to please the Linux users which is a very small percentage? In that case pleasing the Linux users will provide a worst experience for 95%+ of all computer users. And by the way, unless I’m mistaken Linux will get GPU acceleration. And don’t think I’m a fan of flash.

          • poulpy
          • 10 years ago

          Not sure where you get your 30% value against HTML5 video, -unless implementation is still shaky- if your system knows how to decode h.264 it should be accelerated. Isn’t that the whole point of the exercise?

          Regarding Flash, because some platforms now hide part of its ugliness behind GPU acceleration doesn’t change the fact that on a larger scale many other platforms have at best no acceleration and at worse no “stable” implementation (Apple, Android, Linux, smartphones, etc)..

          Video wise HTML5 is so much cleaner and backed by so many big players that it’s more a matter of when than if -IMO.

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            I got it from other benchmarks and from my own tests. I was disappointed that HTML5 was behind flash, since I wanted it to kill it, (though now I’m seeing that competition is better). I’m no expert so I could be wrong, but the video decode is all the same process. Someone here on techreport explained it pretty well to me, his knowledge of flash seemed much higher than anyone else here and I wont attempt to try and explain it, but basically flash video is not as inefficient as I thought, it’s a lot closer to playing video on your computer, only that it was doing all the work on the CPU, except on Internet Explorer, which did one process on the GPU, and that’s why it uses the least amount of CPU power compared to other browsers. I don’t have gpu acceleration, and right now youtube HTML5 uses a little less CPU power than flash, but the quality is worse. I’m disappointed in both, my dream is for the browser to be able to play any type of video, that if I upload a .avi video to youtube, it will play that same video instead of re encoding it, losing the original quality.

            • tay
            • 10 years ago

            Jstern is an idiot liar. His tests are made up in his own mind and he is trolling. §[< http://theflashblog.com/?p=1698<]§ Go hide under a rock.

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            I read your link. How am I lying? You can check it yourself under Windows Task Manager. Like I said flash uses a little more cpu power, but at the same time the HTML5 version of the same video on youtube is a bit pixelated, if not I would be using HTML5. Trolling how? Because I asked how flash GPU acceleration is going to affect HTML5 replacing flash video? I hate flash, and if you’re familiar with my past comments on flash related news you would know that, yet you seem to think I’m a troll because I asked a really fair question, which was, are websites really going to go through all the trouble of switching to HTML5 video when flash video play back has dramatically improved now that it uses the GPU.

            • tay
            • 10 years ago

            Learn to use sentences and paragraphs.

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            That’s all you have to say? I guess this whole flash issue is a sensitive subject for you. The only other people I see getting this outraged over somebody saying anything remotely positive towards flash are mac fanboys on this mac website that I visit. (I have a mac.)

            • tay
            • 10 years ago

            OK Liar. Let me address your lies.
            1. You benchmarked your flash player on and confirmed it under windows task manager and you use a mac?
            2. Liar Jstern wrote:
            q[< I think you mis read my question, which is basically if HTML5 video is going to kill flash video, now that it has GPU acceleration and a regular youtube video is using less than 5% cpu power. I'm not talking about the past year, I talking about from here on out. Linux has to low of a market share, so, again are companies going to spend the time, effort and cash to switch to HTML5 which at this point uses 30%+ CPU power, or stay with GPU accelerated flash, which is the future right now? Will they switch to HTML5 which is not as efficient as GPU accelerated flash just to please the Linux users which is a very small percentage?<]q When I pointed out that the adobe blog says this is not true, you said that q[

            • jstern
            • 10 years ago

            I’ll type quick cause I have to go to class.

            You do know that Windows can be installed on macs right? So I do question your IQ that you would be convinced that I’m absolutely lying because of the mentioned of Task Bar. A normal person would actually consider the fact that I might have Windows installed on my Mac, rather than being absolutely convinced that I don’t have a Mac and I’m just making that up. Why in the world would I say I have a Mac if I didn’t? That makes no sense.

            I have to go to class, you’re going to have to explain why the Adobe blog shows that I’m a liar. Perhaps because I said that GPU accelerated flash video is faster than HTML5, and you’re thinking that I meant regular flash, which I said used slightly more power than HTML5.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 10 years ago

          l[

          • adisor19
          • 10 years ago

          OS X doesn’t have GPU acceleration for flash video yet and that’s another 7% of the desktop market share. So far only windows is getting it. There is no reason why this situation exists today other than : Adobe is lazy or has an axe to grind.

          Adi

        • bhtooefr
        • 10 years ago

        Beside the point, but Flash is halfway decent on Solaris – and not just x86, but SPARC, too.

      • stdRaichu
      • 10 years ago

      The fact that flash requires GPU acceleration to run a low bitrate, low resolution H.264 stream is telling of how inefficient it is. Compare CPU cycles consumed with $media_player playing SD H.264 and $gpu_accelerated_media_player playing back 1080p H.264. Similarly, my last experimentation showed that GPU-using flash dropped performance of any DX/OGL running at the same time as the browser with flash ads or movies loaded in it.

      As much as I don’t really like Apple very much, Adobe are sitting on a crock of shitty code and I’d have to side with Job’s “vision” on this one. I’d love to see online video freed from the tyranny of flash. Getting everyone to agree on a codec/container is another matter entirely, of course 🙂

        • jstern
        • 10 years ago

        You would have to talk to UrberGerbil. If feels weird defending flash, but accordingg to UrberGerbil GPU acelaration means that flash video plays the same way video plays on your computer. In other words when you play a video on your computer, some of the steps are done on the GPU, and flash GPU accellaration basically works the same way. Without GPU accelaration everything is done on the CPU, unlike when you play a video on your computer which gives some of the work to the GPU. So playing video on your computer also uses the GPU, is what I’m trying to say. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of flash, and I’m no expert on video playback.

    • Mondos
    • 10 years ago

    I love Photoshop, it is just, perfect. The only gripe I have with Adobe is Flash. UPDATE IT!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 10 years ago

    I wouldn’t say Jobs was complaining. I saw it more as “we didn’t start it but I’ll be damned if we don’t finish it ourselves”.

    • Voldenuit
    • 10 years ago

    Wow. Jobs just can’t play along with anyone else, can he? He must have been a real terror in the McDonald’s ballpit as a toddler…

    • PRIME1
    • 10 years ago

    PRIME1 bets on Amazon MP3 downloads, slams iTunes.

    Back in your DRM infested court Jobs.

      • XaiaX
      • 10 years ago

      You do know that iTunes switched to DRM free music a while ago, right?

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    The last paragraph is funny within the limited context that’s noted. Jobs must be channeling John D Rockefeller – ‘competition is sin.’

      • Welch
      • 10 years ago

      No kidding….. makes it sound like

      “Why bring me competition, i didn’t get into the search business… I thought we had an agreement to monopolize!”

      Yeah, because that’s not evil wanting to be the only big shot in the Smart Phone world…. doh!

      • Ragnar Dan
      • 10 years ago

      q[

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        ‘almost certainly a fictional quote’ – I’m not going to be baited by your retarded poilitical outlook, and btw I didn’t pass any judgment or say anything negative or positive about Rockefeller because like any man there are good things and bad things, so I’ll just ask: What’s your source for saying (or implying) it was a fictional quote?

          • Ragnar Dan
          • 10 years ago

          You’re obviously not honest nor mature enough to argue with, as you’ve demonstrated numerous times, but I’ll point out the problem anyway: your supposed quote contradicts his conduct during his lifetime. People who fear competition go to government to limit their possible losses to superior competitors, or organize unions to commit the physical violence themselves in the case of employees. Rockefeller continually increased production, improved efficiency of refineries and the quality of and the number of products he produced with oil, and lowered prices. Gasoline dropped in price by more than 3/4 while he was mostly free to operate like the American system was designed for. In other words, he behaved in the exact opposite fashion of collectivists like you, who when defeated in argument make personal attacks against their victorious opponents.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Ok, so you have no source indicating he didn’t say it and just decided that for yourself by working backwards from your political philosophy. Got it!

            Once again I shall ignore your baseless personal accusations and assumptions. Even books that are pro-Rockefeller document his underhanded business dealings so I doubt you’ve read any – ‘just the facts ma’am’ is what I go by. Maybe he didn’t say the quote but the substance of it is borne out by his business dealings in Standard Oil and even if one doesn’t pass judgment on his business dealings it’s clear from them he abhorred competion.There’s a problem in logic when one looks at results and works backwards or uses a political philosophy to work backwards to ‘prove’ something. It’s kind of funny that on a tech site where stories of abusive practices by Intel abound that prices are used as some kind of proof that the business practices were all fine.

          • Ryu Connor
          • 10 years ago

          q[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_rock_jsr.html<]§ q[

      • wira020
      • 10 years ago

      To me, that sounds like a spoiled child…

    • WillBach
    • 10 years ago

    The Mozilla Foundation has monies they made through a search deal with Google. Do they have enough to license H.264? If they do have enough money, would they resist it on principle?

      • _Sigma
      • 10 years ago

      l[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html<]§ /[

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 10 years ago

        And yet if they hold back browser progress in the same way IE6 has, I don’t really care for their high ground stance.

        They need to take the hit and do what it takes to get HTML5 going.

          • bhtooefr
          • 10 years ago

          The problem is, due to some interpretations of the GPL, it could be twisted as a GPL violation.

          I’ve not read Mozilla’s licenses, but a patent license that carefully dances around the letter, but not spirit, of GPLv2 is certainly possible.

          The problem is if a contributor who licensed their code under GPLv2 decided to use the “and any later version” line… then they can sue Mozilla under the terms of GPLv3.

          • John59
          • 10 years ago

          Take a hit….

          how strange you would want to put a proprietary patent encumbered video format in to an open w3c standard. HTML5 video tag does not define one codec currently. And according to their mandate it will NEVER be solely H264 as it is patented to high heaven. It is only Safari of all the major browsers that will not support OGG Theora in their HTML5 specification. Internet Explorer is any ones guess at this point in time.

          Some people care about having an open web that is free for all to use and not just those who can afford to licence H264 from MPEGLA.

          If you are interested in this discussion take a look here:
          §[< http://www.osnews.com/story/22812/MPEG-LA_Further_Solidifies_Theora_as_the_Only_Video_Tag_Choice<]§

          • stdRaichu
          • 10 years ago

          I expect what will happen is that an unofficial H.264-capable extension will surface; a statically linked ffdshow/ffmpeg running inside the browser process would allow things like H.264 to run, but would be “illegal” to download and install in places with software patents.

          Hands up who uses ffmpeg where it’s technically illegal.

          I certainly hope Theora gets more traction though, it’s just a shame it took so long to get to this point. It’s still inferior to x264 (most things are by my eye) but the latest encoders are waaaay better in terms of quality for a given bitrate. For people like google where the H.264 licensing costs peanuts it’s not really very useful, but for people rolling their own videos out small scale it’s fine. Be even nicer if my theoretical official plugin for FF bundled an encoder as well 🙂

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 10 years ago

            /[<>>> I certainly hope Theora gets more traction though, it's just a shame it took so long to get to this point. <]/ For HTML5, as long as YouTube and Hulu use H264, even if Theora were better (and you mention, it's not), Mozilla's current "use Theora for HTML5 or just use Flash" position certainly isn't practically tenable. Even the Mozillazine post referenced in #21, while the author takes a hardline in the article, in the comments he mentions that if they start losing marketshare to other browsers because of no H264, they might reverse course.

            • stdRaichu
            • 10 years ago

            As I understand it, reversing course and implementing an H.264 decoder whilst still allowing the browser to be downloaded for free would either a) cost them a fortune in royalties or b) make it illegal in places like the US. Yay software patents.

            Think the licensing costs are something like $0.20-0.10 per decoder, depending on the number shipped, capped at $5m pa for 2009 (cap has risen every year so far). Chump change for google, adobe and apple who already have other products to “monetise” H.264 with.

            Edit: forgot to add that although theora isn’t really comparable to x264 and friends at high resolutions, it was primarily designed to perform best at low resolutions and bitrates. Have yet to see any thorough side-by-side comparisons by a third party though (one of the coders, Monty, has done a few convincing looking comparisons on his MIT page), so now I’m tempted to compare things myself…

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 10 years ago

            Indeed, but if they don’t reverse course, they run the risk of becoming a niche browser again, since most browser users don’t care about philosophy, and would abandon ship rather quickly if 21st-century must-haves like YouTube and Hulu don’t work as expected any longer.

            So it’s a rock and a hard place for them.

            From their own selfish perspective, if Theora doesn’t take off, they’re probably hoping that H.264-based HTML5 video flounder, and the current Flash-based status quo continued on, since it’d still be a level playing field.

            Yeah, I was aware Theora pretty much blows chunks at HD video, which is another problem.

    • Anonim1979
    • 10 years ago

    Die Flash, DIE.
    The only things that saves my sanity is Flashblock in Firefox.
    I couldn’t browse internet without it on my single core PC….

    Not to mention it bugs rodden piece of excrement-like code.
    Like Adobe Reader even if you have last version you leave huge security hole on Windows PC. Too many unpathed exploits and zero-day attacks.
    Adobe is reeeeealy slow in patching bugs.

      • sschaem
      • 10 years ago

      so… whats going to happen when all those flash add move to use HTML5?

      From what I see so far, HTML5 renderer (like in Chrome) is not any faster then flash…

      And how do you guys plan on blocking HTML5 add when everything is HTML5 ?

      HTML5 blockers ??

      And you want ang Mpeg4/ H.264 engine in your web broswer ?
      how about flash 🙂

        • stdRaichu
        • 10 years ago

        If that happens, then (sane) browsers will default to not playing the movies automatically. Which, er, they appear to be set to already.

      • yes
      • 10 years ago

      adobe reader is pretty terrible. it updates as often as steam

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 10 years ago

      Use FoxIt instead then. It is a great PDF substitute.

        • Anonim1979
        • 10 years ago

        Flashblock has nice PLAY arrow in place of flash – I can run any flash I want with one click.
        I suppose HTML5 video block would have the same – as “vid” tags would be as easily intercepted.

        • stdRaichu
        • 10 years ago

        SumatraPDF is even better than foxit IMHO. It has even less features than foxit but it’s much smaller, much faster and requires security updates even less frequently. 99.9% of the time I have a PDF open it’s for simply reading it, so all the forms gubbinz is wasted on people like me.

      • clone
      • 10 years ago

      your problem isn’t flash it’s your single core pc.

        • Anonim1979
        • 10 years ago

        Blah.
        Everything works fluidly – then one moronic 10x10pix flash with fire animation grabs 100% CPU. – SLIDESHOW.

        Not to mention laptop browsing – good luck with your battery….

    • Sargent Duck
    • 10 years ago

    I hate Adobe as well and glad to see Jobs take a stance on them.

    However the one thing that he didn’t bring up was Silverlight. I know it’s a Microsoft product, but seeing as how Apple looks to be partnering with Bing for the default search engine, Silverlight can’t be that far of a stretch to the imagination. I know nothing of the coding, but from the little I’ve seen as an end-user, I like it.

    /[

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      You forgot the part where Google’s head honcho was on Apple’s board of directors until very recently..

      Adi

      • grantmeaname
      • 10 years ago

      isn’t apple an older company than microsoft?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        Nope, MS is older by about a year if you go by company founding date. I just looked it up. (And the info wasn’t hard to find either! :p)

          • TheShadowself
          • 10 years ago

          However, Apple started out as a computer company with OS and hardware (just as they do now). Microsoft started out as a compiler company then moved to an OS company a few years later.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            And that has exactly what to do with the thread?

            • blastdoor
            • 10 years ago

            “I didn’t hear Microsoft complaining about Apple getting into the OS business.”

      • KoolAidMan
      • 10 years ago

      WTF? Apple was creating operating systems before Microsoft. Microsoft’s own productivity software for the Mac predates the existence of Windows.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 10 years ago

        productivity software != operating system

          • KoolAidMan
          • 10 years ago

          Yup, and Apple was making operating systems a few years before Microsoft started. To say that Microsoft wasn’t complaining about Apple joining the OS business when Microsoft wasn’t even /[

          • The Dark One
          • 10 years ago

          It’s a bit tricky, but I think you’ll find his statement holds up if you run through it enough times.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      Silverlight has always been available for Mac.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 10 years ago

        Oh, and you didn’t hear MS complain when Apple got into the OS business because they didn’t exist yet when the original Apple computer came out in 1976/7. In fact, their first products included BASIC interpreters for Apple computers.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          Try reading the rest of the thread or look up the dates of incorporation for MS and Apple. MS preceded Apple as company by roughly one year. I didn’t look up any products so the ‘entry in to the OS market’ is not in dispute..

      • Buzzard44
      • 10 years ago

      I think a lot of people commenting on this post are missing the entire point of competition and free enterprise.

      • no51
      • 10 years ago

      He’s complaining because AAPL can’t demonify GOOG as easily as MSFT.

      • moog
      • 10 years ago

      Silverlight also works on Linux, via the Mono project.

        • Nitrodist
        • 10 years ago

        LOL, like that works great.

        • stmok
        • 10 years ago

        Have you even used it under Linux?

        What makes it more amusing is that when you visit a Silverlight powered site with it; it will tell you to install Silverlight!

        Silverlight is only good for Microsoft and no one else. We need a multi-platform solution that is universally agreed by all.

    • Prion
    • 10 years ago

    I appreciate that the open-source community wants to back its own solutions because information wants to be free or whatever but the VP3 quantizer sucks and makes the codec difficult to tune thereby making Theora uncompetitive with h.264 and VC-1 on HD video.

      • Illissius
      • 10 years ago

      It’s not just idealistic bullcrap — the licensing issues surrounding H.264 are murky, and there’s nothing stopping the people holding the patents — I forget who — from charging exorbitant fees a few years down the road. (Presumably, Apple and Google would be a lot more capable of ponying up than would Mozilla or Opera.)

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      Agreed but then how do you expect firefox to remain free when event the playback of h.264 requires a licence ?!

      Adi

      • ew
      • 10 years ago

      I’m okay with Firefox not supporting H.264 right out of the box. They should make it brain dead easy to install 3rd party support for other codecs though.

        • bhtooefr
        • 10 years ago

        And then you get the dancing bunnies problem. “Download this codec to view this video now!”

        …and your box takes a crap.

        However, Firefox could use a rather different approach. Use the OS’s native media framework. So, on a Windows box, use DirectShow. On an OS X box, use QuickTime (which Safari already does.) On a *nix box, use GStreamer.

        The codecs would be outside of their control, then.

    • flip-mode
    • 10 years ago

    Well, I have to say it: Thank God for Steve Jobs.

    It would be a wonderful thing if the iPad somehow brought about the fall, or even the decline, of Flash.

    And, in this instance, Jobs is simply speaking the unvarnished truth – ADOBE IS LAZY.

    It amazes me that the company continues to do well since, as far as I can tell, it just sits on its collective ass and pretty much fails to innovate in any meaningful way – at least in any meaningful way that I can benefit from.

    And why the HELL can’t Adobe manage to provide a license server?

    I _[

      • phileasfogg
      • 10 years ago

      I have to agree 100%. The team that wrote the FP10.1 player is just downright incompetent. They did a godawful job of partitioning the decode pipeline between the CPU and the GPU – a team of smart undergrad students at a top-notch university could have done a much better job than these clowns. I’m glad Apple is giving them their comeuppance.

        • adisor19
        • 10 years ago

        And let’s not forget how even now on their second beta release, there is still no support for GPU hardware accelleration on OS X ! The same freaking os that brought OpenCL to the world ! argh.. Flash needs to DIE and fast.

        Adi

          • eitje
          • 10 years ago

          q[

            • mikeyikey
            • 10 years ago

            According to Google, current world population is about 6.6 billion-ish… so 7.6% of 6.6 billion is roughly 500,000,000.

            • BooTs
            • 10 years ago

            Lets not throw around incorrect numbers, mmkay?

          • BooTs
          • 10 years ago

          Oh noes! They aren’t supporting something in a BETA! CALL TEH POLICE!

      • StashTheVampede
      • 10 years ago

      Many have stated that Adobe is too well entrenched and I disagree: the web moves fast and free is a “better” price for many companies.

      Others have stated that Microsoft is also too entrenched and couldn’t be taken down. While this is still true, they have lost marketshare to linux for servers and Mac’s on the desktop (desktops have tiny gains, compared to servers).

      The web has moved a lot to “free”. Adobe may be as close to free as possible, but HTML4 is VERY free.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 10 years ago

        Have they lost ground to linux in the server area? I thought Linux (and BSD) were always huge in servers.

      • Illissius
      • 10 years ago

      Adobe is the new Microsoft. It’s a good thing the only thing they make which most people encounter is a plugin for a web browser, and not an operating system.

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 10 years ago

      flip-mode is on Jobs’ point.

        • flip-mode
        • 10 years ago

        Lollers. Nice innuendo!

      • paulWTAMU
      • 10 years ago

      I came here to post this. I hate hate hate flash. Silverlight’s better, at least from a user experience (no idea about coding to work with it). Flash can DIAF.

        • kvndoom
        • 10 years ago

        I’m glad Apple is taking a stand. I mean, somebody, anybody. Maybe Adobe will wake up and improve their awful product.

    • w00tstock
    • 10 years ago

    I must be the only one that plays flash games? Sure there are better things for video no doubt, but wtf are we gona do for pointless time wasteing games!

      • thecoldanddarkone
      • 10 years ago

      Buy them off itunes appearantly…

        • gerryg
        • 10 years ago

        I second that. Jobs can’t make any money off of Flash apps or web pages, so he’s not interested in supporting Flash. It’s effectively a free competitor to iTunes apps (for iPhone/iPod Touch), which to Jobs is an insanely stupid idea to support. Note that the main reason for launching the iPad is to sell something Jobs hasn’t sold directly before – ebooks. Oh, BTW, I heard that Jobs has a company he calls Apple that he works with to help him make money.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          Say nothing of all the free games on the App store.

      • Illissius
      • 10 years ago

      HTML5 Canvas element.

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 10 years ago

        Eventually. Sure would be nice to be able to view all those sites as they were meant to be seen today and until Flash is replaced.

        Then again, Adobe is being SOOOOO lazy that Apple won’t put any effort into adding it to their products.

        Because Adobe is lazy. Not Apple.

        Of course, that irony aside, I realize that the real reason for no Flash is because so many of the apps in the app store would be rendered pointless if a device that can have an internet connection anywhere comes out capable of running Flash. Suddenly, who needs those apps? You got free versions readily available.

        So no, Flash isn’t coming, but it’s because of the damage it would do the app store and how the developers of said apps would rebel.

    • no51
    • 10 years ago

    And adobe retaliates by dropping support of Photoshop on Macs.

      • Spyder22446688
      • 10 years ago

      Haha! It would be a Pyrrhic victory, but one I’d be glad to see.

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      They already refused to release a 64bit version of CS4 so it’s not surprising to think they’ll drop mac support in the future.. although the outcry would be insane.

      Adi

        • sweatshopking
        • 10 years ago

        i think that this has already been answered, but you seem to really have some issue with it. If osx was a full x64 os, then they would have. you cant blame adobe (and for the record i have no love for adobe, im not a ravenous hater of any one in particular, i think they all suck), when snow leopard is only 32/64 mixed. at least windows and linux are REAL 64 bit, rather than just marketing.

          • adisor19
          • 10 years ago

          You really should get your facts straight. OS X sl IS a full 64bit os kernel and everything. It doesn’t boot by default in 64bit kernel mode due to lack of certain third party extensions in 64bit but you can certenly force it to boot in 64 bit mode if you so desire.

          One thing you need to learn though is that OS X allows running 64 bit programs in a 32 bit kernel contrary to windows, so this is a moot point. There is no penalty in running a 64 bit app on a 32 bit darwin kernel.

          Adi

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This