Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Adobe Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Lazy' Comments

Last response: in News comments
February 4, 2010 4:45:12 PM

If only did the big companies like Apple and Google both allowed to use OGG as the HTML5 issue, Flash video really would be extinct and said standard would be in the forefront. However, Apple really needs to wake up and put Flash into its products. I can't think of a computer or device that I use that doesn't have Flash. Hell even typing on this Macbook I have Flash installed...
February 4, 2010 4:50:38 PM

Yeah, no flash is a deal-breaker. It's why I don't run Linux on and therefore get little use of my iBook G4s, although Adobe is squarely to blame in this case.
February 4, 2010 4:50:40 PM

""According to Lynch Adobe is ready to enable Flash in the browser on these devices "if and when Apple chooses to allow that for its users," but to date Adobe has not had the required cooperation from Apple to make this happen.""

I believe this... Apple SUX!
February 4, 2010 4:53:49 PM

I don't see how someone would be able to surf the internet without having Flash. It's used all over the place.
February 4, 2010 4:56:27 PM

Yup. I have flash on the macbook I'm typing on. The tables have turned. I don't think Adobe is the lazy one here...
February 4, 2010 5:02:35 PM

Apple = Nazi
Jobs = Hilter

There I said it, now we don't have to wait for the Godwin's Law to come into play.
February 4, 2010 5:03:21 PM

That's what I just said. Apple is the lazy one..? What I was saying is that I have flash on my macbook, I don't see why Apple can't integrate flash into the ipad.
February 4, 2010 5:13:57 PM

Silicon Jesus, I amy running Linux with Flash and have had no trouble. When was the last time you tried Linux???
February 4, 2010 5:14:13 PM

Apple might be more inclined to enable Flash on mobile devices if 90%+ of the Safari crash reports they receive weren't from the Flash plugin shitting the bed. Perhaps Adobe should try making a plugin that doesn't constantly fail and/or eat a core and change worth of CPU just to play video.
February 4, 2010 5:16:09 PM

Well, most of the crash reports were from running the PPC Flash plugin on Intel macs. I have a mac and flash, and they work just fine. Shockwave player (a component of flash I believe? :| ) is buggy, without a doubt.
February 4, 2010 5:20:47 PM

Steve Jobs is the only reason Apple is still a company (well that and ridicolous monopoly charges on microsoft). Steve Jobs is a business genius.

That being said... this is kinda hard to believe that he would say something so stupid. I want everyone to pay close attention to what I am about to say (I am a computer science major 3rd year so i know a little bit of what i'm talking about).

Coming out with superiour software DOES NOT mean that the older software is obselute!!!

Its just that simple ladies and gentlemen. Flash has dug its nails DEEP into our web life, and removing it will be a PAINFUL experience. I do beleive flash's days are numbered, but come on, there is no way it will go away anytime soon. Video sites, online games, and other useful browsing features will have to be completely rewritten.

If any of you have worked in retail, you will know that most stores use archaic technology in their systems. Do they use this technology because they have no otehr choice? No. They use it because it works, and thats enough for them.

The only catalyst that I can forsee finishing off flash is its lack of security. But even that is not a big enough factor to overthrow the web giant in time to save Steve Jobs from some serious humiliation.
February 4, 2010 5:27:58 PM

While it's silly Apple won't allow flash on the iPad, Jobs was right when he called Adobe lazy. They're not maintaining flash at all - they're just sitting on their cash cow.
Will flash always be around? Yes.
Will flash eventually be overrun by HTML5? Probably. 64-bit systems have been around for years and years but there still isn't 64-bit flash. Unless Adobe does a 180 and starts keeping their product up to date with current technology, it will be replaced.
February 4, 2010 5:29:19 PM

Apple is afraid that if they would allow Flash support in the iPhone/iPod/iPad, then users will download free games and other flash based software, which will reduce The Steve Jobs Cut (=the margin they keep on the stuff sold on iTunes)
February 4, 2010 5:39:42 PM

@Silicon Jesus
Explain to me how "Adobe is squarely to blame in this case." Isn't it Apple who won't let Flash work on their devices? As stated, Adobe is completely ready to adopt the iPhone/iPad into Flash, but Apple won't cooperate because it believes its "dated software" which happens to be on "85% of top websites" and hosts "75% of all internet videos." Did you even read the article?
February 4, 2010 5:39:46 PM

adobesucksdickApple might be more inclined to enable Flash on mobile devices if 90%+ of the Safari crash reports they receive weren't from the Flash plugin shitting the bed. Perhaps Adobe should try making a plugin that doesn't constantly fail and/or eat a core and change worth of CPU just to play video.

If that was true (which its NOT), it would point out shortcomings with Safari, since even the POS IE6 doesn't crash from Flash very often.
February 4, 2010 5:41:13 PM

If HTML could reliably do everything Flash does that would certainly save us a lot of effort, but that does not appear to be coming to pass.

So instead of being lazy, Adobe is wistfully yearning to be lazy.
February 4, 2010 5:45:15 PM

Here we go again. The first consumer based 64bit x 86 based processor was released by AMD in 2003. Yet in 2010 we still don't have a 64bit adobe flash. While many see adobe as simply a plugin that allows us to view video online, it’s also responsible for those silly little web adds we're constantly bombarded with nearly every mouse click, or any number of client crashes and security vulnerabilities in many web browsers. The author states “85 percent of the top web sites contain Flash content and Flash runs on over 98 percent of computers on the Web.” Accepting this as true would mean Adobe has a monopoly on the flash market. I don’t think a monopoly bodes well for any of us that simply want to surf the web, free of all the annoying advertisements. While I applaud Steve Jobs for not using flash in its devices, because it spurns competition to adobe flash, (i.e. HTML) I also call Jobs “on the carpet” for its closed platform and locking customers into the App store. In short, I’m a strong advocate of keeping the internet free and open and not turning it into one big advertising medium, and always allowing users to have choice as to what technology they use as they navigate the internet and not being locked into the App Store, Adobe Flash or anything else.
February 4, 2010 5:53:27 PM

Jobs is at least partially right. Adobe IS lazy. Where's the x64 version of Flash? Are they waiting for computers to go 128-bit?
February 4, 2010 5:57:49 PM

Flash can run on Skyfire in my WM device. I guess that means it kicks the iPAD out of the iPAD's a$$. :) 
February 4, 2010 6:01:46 PM

demonhorde665actually i'm pretty sure that my copy of adobe flash professional i use in school has options for installing to 64 bit , maybe the code isnt 64 bit but up to date flash will work on 64 bit pcs.

You can run flash on a 64-bit machine, yes, but is not 64-bit flash. The code is still 32-bit. If you want flash, it's impossible to use a 64-bit browser - flash won't work.

64 bit computers have been around since XP, and have become VERY common since Vista released in 2006. 4 years later, in the incredibly fast market of computers, Adobe's product lies stagnant, unimproved. If it takes over 4 year to release a working version of your software for a quickly growing market, I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a lazy company.
February 4, 2010 6:20:36 PM

Flash is a pain in the butt. It often has the failure to register error on 6ie-ie7.... Even with an admin account and manually registering components of the plug-in.

Flash for firefox never seems to have that problem though...(xp and win7)
February 4, 2010 6:23:02 PM

While everyone is calling Adobe lazy, so is Apple. Just look at all the issues people are having with their 27' iMacs or MacPro towers playing MP3's.

I find it rather ironic that Apple is calling Adobe lazy, when in fact they are just as lazy.

In regards to flash performance, I never had an issue, because I always had at least a somewhat decent video card. Hell, for $50 you can get a decent video card nowadays.

Bottom line, Flash is not going anywhere, so people should just get over it and accept it. Apple is clearly trying to protect there profits, that it.
February 4, 2010 6:24:26 PM

Lets not forget that the main reason people bought Apple products was to run Adobe products on it. It has been a partnership working in Apples favor for a long time. How many graphic designers run Adobe products on a PC in 2000? Seems like Apple is forgetting it's roots.
February 4, 2010 6:28:02 PM

I think Apple is the Lazy one. Adobe is a legend and Apple's Ipad can not be a Internet Dream if it
doesn't allow Flash. Apples's Quicktime only makes up 20 percent or less of the movies on the web. If
they think we are going to convert all the movies to their format to play them they are sadly mistaken.

February 4, 2010 6:28:13 PM

Hot Dog! Another sub-plot in the iPad soap opera. Now all we need is to work in a good conspiracy plot and a little paranoia.
February 4, 2010 6:28:31 PM

I'm not a fan either company. Perhaps Google should create an internet multimedia standard.
February 4, 2010 6:51:09 PM

HTML5 doesn't replace flash games...
February 4, 2010 6:51:34 PM

I only posted once....why the double post?
February 4, 2010 6:52:06 PM

"Adobe isn't lazy"
Two questions for Adobe then:
1) Where is 64-bit support?
2) Why is the majority of browser crashes Flash related?

If just these two aspects can be fixed or at least appear that they are being worked on, then the average and knowledgeable computer-user would be thinking otherwise (regardless of what Jobs has to say)!
February 4, 2010 7:05:36 PM

Not trying to be snippy here, but why exactly do we need 64-bit flash? Is youtube using more than 4 GB of ram? If HTML5 is going to replace the need for flash, should Adobe then even bother with 64-bit?

Not trying to be a troll, just genuinely curious.
February 4, 2010 7:22:31 PM

Think UTUBE gets the FLASH system on its web site for free ??

One example (above)of vendor licencing for useage.

Apple doesnt want to pay adobe for its flash pattent on its IPAD - to expensive, has nothing to do with its availability or quality( its the licenceing pattent fees cost thats killing most companies now adays ). Adobe products have always been typically more expensive then other designs.

So they down play the money issue saying negative comments about a product line, has nothing to do with compatibility or availability.

Alot of web sites with today's bad economey cant afford very many vendor pattent licence usage(s) any more, they are cutting back expenses.

Everyone and their mothers now adays are sueing for pattent copywrite infringments. 99% of most problems are for license pattent / copywrite useage fee(s)issues.

Apple basically doesnt want to pay adobe any more for its pattent license usage fees on its ipad, the iphone was over priced for apple, so they are stooping it on ipad, to either get away from it all together or broker a new deal to get the iphone licensing fees cheeper ( and their other products using it ) in conjuntion with it.

Apple is doing smart business for them, using 1 product to reduce cost on a pre existing products that is in a current use product line expensive license agreement.

Apple wants adobe to go cheeper on its licencing fees for its iphone as well before adding ipad, its all thats really going on. As apple doesnt want to pay as much for it any more, so they are threatening to drop em, common business tactics is all thats happening. Its about money, nothing to do with if flash is any good or available for thier product lines or not.

Doubltfull any pattent exists any more that doesnt have alot of infringment cases against it now adays. Its making lawyers rich, with software so self changeable, everyone can be sued for usage infringments.

There it is- I spoke the unseen truth - most people dont ever hear or read about on web sites. The real issue at hand is money for fees across companies and thier respective products and pattents and licence fees for them.

February 4, 2010 7:41:32 PM

Apple just wants every website to use quicktime instead of flash.
Wake up Apple, it is not the 90s anymore.
February 4, 2010 8:27:27 PM

drukLAWhere's the x64 version of Flash?

LOL, I hear this all the time and it makes absolutely no sense. I have never seen a flash app need to address 4GB of memory.

If it ever did need 64bit I would be more worried about how bloated it had become rather than congratulating flash for reaching some sort of milestone.
February 4, 2010 9:24:59 PM

maestintaoliusNot trying to be snippy here, but why exactly do we need 64-bit flash? Is youtube using more than 4 GB of ram? If HTML5 is going to replace the need for flash, should Adobe then even bother with 64-bit?Not trying to be a troll, just genuinely curious.

My dear Watson, you do realize some of us have 64bit browser with our shiny new 64bit OS. However since the only 64bit flash is a confusion beta download, we're basically forced into using a 32bit browser for online video, like youtube
February 4, 2010 9:40:38 PM

Apple, all i have to say is that open up your platform for developers than you will not have crappy software for your platform.
look at microsoft, they give a lot of support to whomever wants to write software for its platform.
I am using windows and having no problem with flash whatsoever.
If flash is supported on the ipad I will buy one for sure.
February 4, 2010 10:40:12 PM

razorblaze42My dear Watson, you do realize some of us have 64bit browser with our shiny new 64bit OS. However since the only 64bit flash is a confusion beta download, we're basically forced into using a 32bit browser for online video, like youtube

I do realize that actually, I personally run win7 x64 and 64bit Ubuntu on a dual boot. However, I don't see my browser needing 4GB of ram to do what it does either. So I guess my question should be what exactly do we need 64bit browsers or flash for currently? I've played with both and haven't really seen any significantly noticeable difference other than the 64, personally.

I can actually see the use of the 64bit OSes with video cards carrying 1+ GB of ram and DDR3 systems allowing 6GB triple channel at pretty reasonable prices but I just don't see the need for a 64 bit browser yet. As an example, I have 2 instances of Firefox 3.6 open, that have been open for about 4 days on my work laptop, with 4+ tabs open in each instance (with large pdfs on some) and its still only using 250 megs total.
February 4, 2010 11:18:04 PM

the cold war HAS started
February 5, 2010 1:16:44 AM

marsax73I don't see how someone would be able to surf the internet without having Flash. It's used all over the place.

Do it all the time on my Smartphone - and I do have to agree it is quite annoying. However, it is also a web site designer issue - flash may be great and pretty, but does a flash-only site really conform to good design for accessibility?

Try it some time if you have a mobile browser - even look at places like Newegg. Their mobile site is crap. If you have a blind friend trying to access certain sites, ask him how well designers are doing.

After all, it isn't really Apple or Adobe that is responsible for providing the web experience, it is the web designers and their implementations. This is the same logic that people use when discussing ISP liability when people pirate using their service - the ISP (like Adobe and Apple) aren't responsible in the least for the web experience.

That being said, I would love to be able to "full screen" a flash game while sitting in a queue at the grocery store on my smartphone, or even go to a major automotive website to compare vehicle specs while shopping for a new car. However, I don't expect it to happen in the near future.
February 5, 2010 1:19:18 AM

Eugh, Flash is such horrible software and so badly coded. Apple are right not to put it on their iPhones and iPads - Adobe's port of flash is simply appalling on OS X and kills performance and battery life on Apple laptops. If Adobe had bothered to write a Flash plugin that was even on a par with Windows and addressed some of the battery/performance issues then Apple would probably have included it. Adobe is making out as if they're the victim when they're the victim only of their own laziness.
February 5, 2010 1:21:04 AM

As for plugin reliability Apple should cean their own house before criticizing Adobe. Quicktime is a total piece of crap - security vulnerabilities - browser crashes - totally bug ridden on 64-bit. The only saving grace is that thank god hardly any sites actually use quicktime...
February 5, 2010 1:55:33 AM

Someone would like to tell me why Apple doesn't just stick SWF support into Quicktime? I thought Flash was more or less an open standard now? If Apple isn't happy with the 3rd party player used to render items from 90% of the world's webpages, shouldn't it just build it's own?
February 5, 2010 2:01:20 AM

People WAKE UP. Google owns youtube. Youtube is one if not the most popular visited site on the web. Up until recently its relied on adobe and flash. Google much like M/S does not like to see other people become billionaires piggybacking on their efforts. Google is also gravitating to not need flash using html5 which can run on Chrome and IE, but not the up and comer Firefox. So they are putting the pinch on Mozilla and Adobe.
February 5, 2010 2:30:25 AM

In a previous post, "Steve Jobs is a business genius." Hmm...well he certainly knows how to create a cult following by branding an image through product ownership. But do you remember in 1980 when Apple owned 50% of the PC market? You will see the same repeat of that "genius" when he is thrown out of his company again. All the itoys will be done better and cheaper by others. $hort Apple stock and buy Google!
February 5, 2010 2:59:07 AM

It's sad when a company's image is tarnished by the cult of personality which its 'leader' exhibits. Jobs could care less what we think, the guy is beyond rich and his company isn't about to cave under any time soon (for better or worse) but at some point the shareholders have to start eyeing him with some reservation. I mean at what point will they say enough is enough?
February 5, 2010 3:31:05 AM

I'm sure it is not near its end but the observation of Google moving to html5 ect leads me to believe adobe flash is just not as good as html5
February 5, 2010 3:31:41 AM

when it comes to streaming video's