Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Nov 2010 22:38 UTC
Internet & Networking "Last week, critics hammered Adobe over a report showing that Flash drained the new MacBook Air's battery life by several hours. It's not the first time Adobe has been in fisticuffs with Apple: the companies have been duking it out ever since Steve Jobs began ridiculing Flash and touting its alleged-killer, HTML5. Today, in an interview with Fast Company, Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch answered critics who might say HTML5 is somehow more efficient than Flash."
Thread beginning with comment 449247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by JeffS on Tue 9th Nov 2010 17:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Yes, Flash sucks, and badly needs to be improved, and Adobe has failed so far in doing so adequately.

However, Apple isn't pure in this matter either. Just look at iTunes, which is absolutely horrible on Windows - takes eons to start up, it's slow, bloated, and has terrible fonts.

Cat, meet kettle.

Also, both Apple and Microsoft are pushing very heavily on HTML 5. But look at their ulterior motive - h.264 - the video codec that is patented up the wazoo, and the patent's owner, MPEG-LA, is a notorious patent troll. And guess what - both Apple and Microsoft are part of the ownership group!

Thus, I only support HTML5 for video if it's not using h.264 - using Google's VP8 open codec instead.

But make no mistake - Apple and Microsoft both want to lure people into h.264, and create a patent lock-in on web video.

Google, like any corporation, is evil. But their business plan - essentially selling advertising, is conducive to openess, which is great to all of us. Apple and MS, by contrast, make money selling software licenses and computers, so their business plan is more conducive to lock-in, monopoly, or other non-consumer friendly, anti-competitive, behaviors.

That's not to say they're more evil. It's just a "buyer beware".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by nt_jerkface on Tue 9th Nov 2010 18:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Google, like any corporation, is evil. But their business plan - essentially selling advertising, is conducive to openess, which is great to all of us. Apple and MS, by contrast, make money selling software licenses and computers, so their business plan is more conducive to lock-in, monopoly, or other non-consumer friendly, anti-competitive, behaviors.


Google is not interested in lock-in? Is that why they created their own non-standard Java for Android instead of using JME or Qt? Google passed on using Qt because they wanted to lock in mobile developers. They didn't want to create a stack like MeeGo since it would mean that developers could easily port their software to new platforms.

Google cares more about maintaining an open source image than conferring the standard benefits of open source. Oracle also exists in a gray area but they at least aren't trying to pass off a phony image.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 9th Nov 2010 19:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Dalvik and Android are open source, and therefore, by definition not a case of lock-in. You know just as well as I do that Google would've used default Java if it weren't for the fact that Sun had been dicks about licensing (re:Harmony) from the get-go.

Calling something that is completely open source and Free software "lock-in" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Reply Parent Score: 3