This debacle started when the iPad was first released back in April: Apple does something radical again by releasing a tablet computer that uses a touch-screen; a new device that has the potential to end up as a big fiasco, or create a new revenue stream for Apple and allow Apple to become the leader in a new industry. What better way to grab market share in a profitable industry than to create an industry that doesn’t exist yet? This is a move that requires a lot of balls and knowing yourself very well since the possibility of a downfall is so great.
Well, through marketing magic, mass hypnosis (brainwashing), or not, I hereby declare that Apple has succeed in creating a new product and a new industry by setting the tablet computer on the path to becoming another mass-produced computing platform. Want to argue that the iPad is not a success? Please, do so? I’m making my statements based on news that the iPad will sell 8 million units in 2010 – keep in ming that that makes for a product being on the market for well less than a year. Moreover, I think it is irrefutable that Apple has moved other companies into action to grab a piece of this market of tablet computers that they are creating. One evidence we have is HP’s move to acquire Palm, which although not official as of now, it seems that the only thing missing is the signing of a contract. I.e., the deal has pretty much been consummated and it’s only a matter or working out some details.
Apple has again outdone the competition (Amazon’s Kindle, Barnes & Nobble’s Nook, etc) by creating a tablet that is far more sophisticated and slick than the rest. For example, the Kindle and Nook lack a color screen, the Kindle does not have a touch-screen, and the Nook has a definite subpar touch-screen. Apple’s iPad offers a multi-touch screen that works phenomenally well (it is one of iPad’s best features, which Apple perfected through the development of their iPhone). May I say that I have some admiration for Apple for working on what I consider technologies and products that are cutting-edge, the way of the future, while other companies seem to be doing just more of the same?
Google and HP,among many others, will likely play catchup to see if they cash in on what likely to be a very profitable industry. While tablet computers may not sell in larger numbers than smartphones, don’t be surprised if tablet computers sell far more than PCs and notebooks combined. The potential is there. I say this also based on the fact I have my own iPad and how much I love it: always on, great for consuming content (email, surfing the web, watching movies, etc), and most importantly, it always works. Yes, I’ve rebooted my iPad only 0nce since I’ve had it (my wi-fi connection wasn’t working, so I rebooted the iPad and that fixed it).
So, back t0 the original topic: Adobe Flash does not play on the iPad. Still. Ever since the iPad came out. And Adobe is pissed about it. What does that say to you? I’d love to know. I am of the opinion that when a person is angry and the relationship is not based on a contract (verbal or written) that, usually, if not always, that anger is based on some selfish motive(s). And if I can’t see that selfish motive it’s hidden, but it is there. In the case of Apple and Adobe’s relationship, I have this conclusion to make:
Apple has no obligation to serve Adobe, and there’s no contract that they made that says that if Apple makes a product that they are obligated to support Adobe’s technologies and products. This means that if Apple makes a product that supports Adobe technologies, which in turn help Adobe’s bottom-line by promoting Adobe products, that Adobe gets to enjoy some nice products and promotion for free. This is called grace, meaning that no one owes it to you, and that if you receive it you enjoy it and (ideally) be grateful. But you have no right to demand grace from others. To demand that others give you something that they do not owe you is a selfish thing.
It’s okay to be angry from time to time. After all, we are all humans and as humans we are susceptible to human emotions. We do feel angry at someone for not giving us something even though they don’t owe us anything. We may feel angry at Larry Ellison for having the fortune to purchase a Russian fighter jet, wanting for it to be delivered onto his property in the United Sates loaded with missiles (and being angry at the US government for not letting him), wanting to wake up the surrounding population at any hour of the night (and being angry at the airport officials for not letting him)… instead of directly or indirectly sharing some of his fortune with us mere mortals. But in the reality of hour our society is structured and our legal system, Larry Ellison does not owe us anything. I’m walking the fine line of being sarcastic here (due to the arguable flaws of Capitalism), but I make my point: it’s selfish of us to seek out Larry Ellison to ask him for money or gifts because by law he owes us nothing.
Much the same way, Apple does not owe Adobe anything. Apple is not obligated to support Adobe Flash on any of their devices. Doing so would be an act of generosity: perhaps because Apple is fond of Flash, or perhaps because Apple stands to gain more by supporting Flash than by not supporting it. But Apple is not obligated to support it.
So it’s okay to feel angry. The problem lies when we stay angry and refuse to move on. This is highly conter-productive because it’s when you actually start expending energy towards fighting instead of building something. And there’s no cheese down that tunnel (I can tell you that because I’ve been down that tunnel many times). Which is what Adobe is doing now.
Adobe has actually spend time doing an animation on their site that is directly directed at Apple. I save a screenshot of it (not the animation itself) so that we can still see it here after Adobe removes it on their site:
Adobe has been riding Apple’s coattails and Flash has gained popularity through Apple for sure. Apple’s refusal to support Flash could be taken by Adobe as an opportunity to improve Flash – Adobe’s main applications (for sure the legacy ones) have become bloated. There are technical challenges to that need to be solved in order for Flash to work with a touch screen and why should Apple be responsible for overcoming those hurdles? Should Apple put their developers in charge of writing code for Flash to work with the iPad while Adobe sits back and enjoys the free promotion of their product? Or would it be smarter for Apple to apply their engineers towards building better Apple products while supporting technologies are more beneficial to them, the consumer and simply work better?
The last web site we built has an animation built in JQuery that works surprisingly well. I was surprised to learned about the capabilities of jQuery. I wasn’t aware that jQuery could do an animation similar to what Flash can do. You can see it at www.energytransitionsnw.com.
I am not against Adobe. Personally, I love their products. But I think Adobe can do better. And they will gain nothing from complaining, but stand to benefit from working hard and improving their products. That is what I would like to see. And I have to confess that I love my iPad to much to get rid of it, even though right now it is just a toy and I cannot use it for work. It’s such a pleasure browsing the web with the iPad.
http://www.energytransitionsnw.com doesn’t have any animations!!
Well, I suppose you could say that. We’d have to discuss the semantics of what an animation is. Feel free to share your definition here.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not as if I don’t like Flash or dislike Adobe. In fact, I like Flash and Adobe very much. But Adobe has no right to demand that Apple do work to benefit Adobe just as Microsoft has no right to demand that a software company build software that always works on Windows. As a software company you will build a version of your application for Windows if you find it worth your while, but you are not obligated to. As a hardware company you are not obligated to support Flash or any other technologies.
I know the great benefits of Flash. I love Flash. And I wish Adobe would bend itself backwards to make sure that Flash meets Apple requirements. Seriously. Flash has many problems, and if Adobe worked hard to improve it (and they’ve had no incentive), then Flash would continue to evolve, get leaner, and work well with mobile devices by requiring less and less processing power.
Have you seen this letter by Steve Jobs?
http://ht.ly/1LCq3
Well I would say that animation requires some form of movement. What you are describing as animation is just a simple slideshow (that doesn’t require jQuery by the way)
To David:
David, just for the record, I like Flash. For most of my life I have worked as a software tester (not a dev), and I have always strongly supported Flash even though most developers I have worked with despised Flash. They thought Flash did not belong on a web site, that it had not real purpose, and that it made the page unnecessarily “heavy” and buggy. But then, these devs are people who will argue for a page that contains nothing but text and hyperlinks, with no graphics of any kind. While plain text may appeal to devs and engineers who are good at processing information that way, it does not appeal to the general public. And it is the general public that I care about. Thus my support of Flash because it give people the “best virtual experience” that the web can give, in my opinion. At least until a better technology is invented, which is totally possible.
On a very basic level, here’s the definition of animation which you can find on Wikipedia (the very first sentence):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animation
“Animation is the rapid display of a sequence of images of 2-D or 3-D artwork or model positions in order to create an illusion of movement. ”
The jQuery animation on that site is exactly that: a manipulation of image positions, which gives the illusion of movement.
That is why I call that an “animation”. Sure, Flash is much more powerful and can produce more amazing and impressive animation effects.
If see anything that I don’t, please explain it to me and I’ll heed your information. Thank you,
Ricardo
Ricardo
I never mentioned Flash (good or bad). I was simply pointing out that the site you mentioned as providing an example of animation without Flash has no animation. There is no illusion of movement in that slideshow.
Please, say more. I’ll say more in my reply to Emily’s comment (next).
[...] Adobe versus Apple: wһο іѕ аt fault? | Imaginative Design [...]
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Well I would say that animation requires some form of movement. What you are describing as animation is just a simple slideshow (that doesn’t require jQuery by the way)
Emily, I am sorry but I fail to see what you and David are pointing out. Perhaps I am missing something? Please, educate me if you will (and I say that humbly). I am going by the definition on Wikipedia of what an animation is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animation
The slideshow on energytransitionsnw.com is a series of images that gives the illusion of movement. The jQuery script I applied does that. Actually, the script I have has a very cool illusion of superimposing images, as if you were shuffling a deck of cards. I only did not use that animation (may I call it that?) because that would have been too flashy for a site that is supposed to look simple and clean.
I would like to know what I don’t understand that you guys do. Sure that animation (may I call it that?) did not have to be done in jQuery. I could have been done in Flash. But I didn’t want to use Flash because I wanted this animation to work on the iPad and I wanted to try something new. That’s the beauty of being able to do that using different technologies.
Cheers,
Ricardo