When the spiritual and temporal head of Apple, Steve "Do what I want shall be the whole of the law" Jobs declared that Flash was a thing of the past, many expected Adobe to roll over and die.
In the tame Apple press, Jobs declares which technology will succeed and what will fail. After all weren't Microsoft making tablets unsuccessfully for years? Then when Steve declared that the time was right for a keyboardless notebook with less functionality than Microsoft's tablet, suddenly the fiat came.
Jobs claimed that one of the main reasons that the expensive gizmos failed was because they were trying to play Adobe Flash. He called on the industry to shift to HTML 5 and was even visiting his chums in the media to join his crusade against Flash. To be fair, not that I am usually fair about Apple, he put his money where his mouth was and banned Flash from his gizmos, thus making them largely useless when they try to visit most of the world's sites.
So with all this working against Adobe, you would expect the company to be doomed. After all Steve's word is law.
Only Adobe announced today that it recorded its first-ever billion dollar quarter, beating Wall Street's estimates and forecasting a bullish outlook for its first quarter.
Revenue for the fourth quarter was $1.01 billion, a 33 percent jump over the $757.3 million reported a year ago. For the fiscal year revenue for the year was $3.8 billion, a 29 percent increase over last year's $2.946 billion.
In a year were Adobe should have been reeling from Steve Jobs's assault, when it even had some major security scares of its own, the software giant had done really well.
It looks like Steve does not get everything right, and Adobe and Flash will be around for a long time. If anything all Steve's grandstanding did, was draw attention to Flash and remind people how important it is.
Now countless sales people point to Apple's rival Android tablets and say "it is not an iPad but at least it does Flash". Not sure that level of advertising was what Steve had in mind.
"After all weren't Microsoft making tablets unsuccessfully for years?"
Yes.
"Jobs claimed that one of the main reasons that the expensive gizmos failed was because they were trying to play Adobe Flash"
No he didn't. Stop spreading lies.
"and banned Flash from his gizmos, thus making them largely useless when they try to visit most of the world's sites."
Most of the world's sites are not made using Flash. Stop spreading lies.
"So with all this working against Adobe, you would expect the company to be doomed."
Why? They make a suite of HTML authoring, desktop publishing, photo editing, audio and video production tools, and they make them very well.
"Only Adobe announced today that it recorded its first-ever billion dollar quarter, beating Wall Street's estimates and forecasting a bullish outlook for its first quarter."
And well deserved - probably something to do with the software they sell?
"In a year were Adobe should have been reeling from Steve Jobs's assault,"
Why should it have been reeling? How much does the Flash plug-in retail for? What's the impact on their sales from the plug-in?
"It looks like Steve does not get everything right, and Adobe and Flash will be around for a long time."
Why would Adobe not be around for a long time?
Flash though....
"If anything all Steve's grandstanding did, was draw attention to Flash and remind people how important it is."
Why have Adobe now turned their attention to bolstering their HTML5 authoring tools?
Why are over 60% of videos on the web now available to watch without a plug-in?
Why has Microsoft, who previously championed Silverlight, also moved to back HTML5 video delivery?
"Now countless sales people point to Apple's rival Android tablets and say "it is not an iPad but at least it does Flash". Not sure that level of advertising was what Steve had in mind."
How many of these tablets are available to buy? How many rival Andriod tablet on the market today, equipped with Flash, have shipped?
Dig deeper. Report.
Fortunately, most (95% of people who use computers, not to mention billions who don't use computers) people on this planet, don't know about St. Eve, don't care about him, and don't care about his so-called "products". People like me, who have real jobs to do, not prancing around like a bunch of effeminate sissies pretending they are useful. People like me, who spend real money purchasing real computers to support our work, not a bunch of useless parasites dancing around, exhibiting their congential stupidity, showing off their oh so reassuringly expensive toys.
No he didn't. Stop spreading lies.
Yes he did
"Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says"
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/
"Yes he did
"Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says"
Then he didn't then, did he.
Mr Farrell claimed Steve said people don't buy tablets because they run Flash. That was a lie.
You've linked to an article where Steve talks about Flash on a Mac, not windows-based tablet PCs.
Steve's actual reason for tablets not selling was the OS isn't designed for touch input, and relies on a stylus.
Not Flash.
"You claimed farrell was a liar because he said Steve jobs blamed Flash for breaking Apple gear."
No I didn't. I said Farrell was a liar for claiming Steve Jobs blamed flash for breaking *tablets*.
Go back, read the article. Then read my comment again. Read it slowly.
Here's the bit in question:
"After all weren't Microsoft making tablets unsuccessfully for years? Then when Steve declared that the time was right for a keyboardless notebook with less functionality than Microsoft's tablet, suddenly the fiat came.
Jobs claimed that one of the main reasons that the expensive gizmos failed was because they were trying to play Adobe Flash."
Steve claimed the tablet market failed to take off because the user experience was not optimised for touch-input.
At no point has Steve Jobs ever said Microsoft failed to corner the tablet market because they were running Flash.
His thoughts on Flash are quite clear. But he's never said tablets as a product type didn't work out for Microsoft because of Flash.
Turns out he was right - Apple shipped a tablet without Flash and it's worked out pretty well for them.
As for being an Apple troll - not really.
In fact, there's plenty of room for some proper journalism on these pages - Nick calls out the tame Apple press and he's right to do so.
Unfortunately, he fails to address that problem, and instead invents things that aren't true (most websites use flash? News to me - I've been blocking flash for 2 years on my computer and the web still works).
That's just as bad as the Apple-tame press. It removes all credibility from the article.
In fact the whole premise of the article seems to be that because Apple's devices don't have Flash, that Adobe was due some sort of failure, and the fact that Adobe still goes strong is some sort of indication that Apple's efforts to bring them down were thwarted.
That whole scenario is made up. For a start, the flash plug-in is free, so at worse it means Adobe's share of the plug-in market depletes. That's happening now - less videos rely on Flash now that they did a year ago. That's fact.
But Adobe are still strong, and will remain strong, because they produce more than just a plug-in. They have an entire suite of products which they ship every 18 months, which are used by all kinds of creative professionals. They *own* the media creation market.
I don't own a Mac (or any Apple products), so can't sympathise, sorry.
My comments are about the article.
I don't understand why apple have been brought up in an article about adobe? just because their phones don't use flash?
looks like the author of the article was just looking for an excuse to dig at apple, and with no apple news lately, used adobe's earnings results as an excuse.
odd.
Hardly anything that Nick claims in the article is actually true.
1/ The only reason that videos are also encoded for HTML5 playback is because Apple manipulation on iDevices. Engineers from Youtube and Vimeo said that HTML5 have tripled their engeneering cost and they did it only because they did not have a choice, videos could not play on iDevices otherwise. However, no major video sites replaced Flash with HTML5. Since lot of you kids are going to challenge me, here is some sources:
Flash vs. HTML5: Don't hate the player:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027963
Youtube weights in on Flash vs. HTML5:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/29/youtube-weighs-in-on-flash-vs-html5-video/
2/ HTML5 is an embryo markup standard which you compare with a fully mature full feature object oriented programming called ActionScript. Thinking that a markup can do what a programming language does is not being a programmer, it is being a webmaster. Never, ever will HTML5 get even close to Flash the reason is that it takes years to implement anything on a standard while Adobe has shown it's ability to rollout breakthrough and new features in a matter of months. In addition, HTML5 implementation is left to the browser...
Now who decide the future of HTML5? Google, Adobe, Mozilla, Apple... all competitors, all trying to block the others at one point or another and all those people have to agree before anything is written on paper. Meanwhile, Adobe has some of the best software rocket scientists on earth.
Some truth about Apple HTML5 showcase and real intentions:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/06/mozilla-evangelist-criticizes-apple-html5-showcase.ars
So, keep playing making ads with HTML5 for the iPhone and keep walking.
See what you did there.
Except no-one expected the company to be doomed.
You've made this all up, just so you could find a way of writing about your obsession with apple.
http://applesucks.squarespace.com