Skip to Content

The Flash saga continues: Adobe responds to charges of "laziness"

Kevin Lynch, CTO of Adobe, has posted the latest riposte in the ongoing fencing match between Apple and Adobe concerning the lack of Flash support in Apple's portable products, including the iPad. Apple's latest word on the subject reputedly came from Steve Jobs himself at the recent Town Hall meeting with Apple employees, where he characterized Adobe as "lazy," condemned the plugin's poor performance on the OS X platform, and predicted a future where HTML5 would supplant Flash. Presumably in response to those comments, Adobe's Lynch has argued in favor of Flash, citing the plugin's ubiquity, flexibility, and Adobe's commitment to "focus on enabling our customers to do their best work, and helping them reach people effectively and reliably around the world across operating systems, browsers, and a variety of devices."

Lynch acknowledges the rise of HTML5 video in his post, but he notes that he sees the two technologies as co-existing rather than "one replacing the other." He also claims that since no standard implementation of HTML5 video exists, widespread adoption of HTML5 in place of Flash would lead us back to the "dark ages of video on the Web with incompatibility issues." He also re-affirms Adobe's commitment to bring Flash 10.1 to mobile platforms like the Nexus One, and he claims that 10.1 provides enhanced performance across a variety of platforms. His claim is true -- our own testing showed substantial improvements in Flash 10.1's performance on OS X -- but whether those improvements are enough to enable it to run well on iPhone OS is another story.

What's most interesting about Lynch's post isn't within the main body of the post, but rather in the comments that follow. Read on to find out more.

[Via The Register]
In the comments section on Lynch's post, he makes the following statement: "I can tell you that we don't ship Flash with any known crash bugs, and if there was such a widespread problem historically Flash could not have achieved its wide use today." That's an interesting statement. Let's consider the particulars of it.

Lynch claims Flash is installed on 98% of computers on the internet. If we're being extremely generous, we could say that OS X makes up 10% of those computers, and we could say Linux runs on an additional 1%. So, out of all the computers hooked up to the internet that run Flash, 89% of them are running some flavor of Windows. If Flash runs just fine on Windows but has middling to terrible performance on other platforms (which is usually the case), it's all too easy to dismiss these problems as not being "widespread" -- even if millions of OS X and Linux users are experiencing poor performance from Flash, many millions more Windows users aren't.

Lynch himself admits that "given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac, and it is for the most part the same code running in Flash for each operating system." You know what? That's exactly the problem right there. That's where the accusations of laziness are coming from. If Flash is optimized for Windows but doesn't run well on Unix-based platforms using the same hardware, it's Adobe's job to modify its code to improve performance. It's not Apple's job, it's not Linus Torvalds's job, it's Adobe's job. Even Microsoft knows better than to expect Office for Windows to run in Mac OS X with the same code; that's why Office for Mac exists.

As for Flash's commitment to mobile platforms? The writing is already on the wall for that one: Firefox for Maemo disabled plugin support for its latest release because "the Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn't meet our standards." Remind me again why people are bashing Apple for keeping Flash off the iPad?

Oh, yeah: Hulu. Many people are coming out in defense of Flash because they want to view videos from the site on their iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads, but until or unless Hulu moves away from Flash to HTML5 or some other solution, they're unable to do so. Mike Schuster of Minyanville summed up the anti-Apple side of the argument pretty succinctly by saying, "Effectively blocking the site comes solely at the customers' expense and directs them to Apple's pay content in the worst way possible, and it's in direct opposition of net neutrality and an open Web."

Hang on. Did he really just use the words "net neutrality" and "open Web" in the same paragraph as the word "Hulu"?


This is what an open Web looks like?

Yeah, fine, it's not Hulu's fault the site is useless to the billions of people who don't live in the US. It's the US entertainment industry's fault, with its Byzantine copyright laws and its insatiable thirst for cash. But if you're going to bash Apple over "net neutrality" like Schuster or "open access to content" like Lynch, it's pretty foolish to continue citing access to Hulu as one of your linchpin arguments. If you're really championing for an open Web, how about advocating for a site that is actually open to all?

Kevin Lynch, CTO of Adobe, has posted the latest riposte in the ongoing fencing match between Apple and Adobe concerning the lack of Flash...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

95 Comments

Filter by:
ColonelKernel

"...given identical hardware, Flash Player on Windows has historically been faster than the Mac...."
This is because Windows allows Flash to also utilize the GPU where Flash on Mac is forced to make due with justthe CPU. It doesn't matter how great of a juggler someone is. If you tie one arm behind their back they're gonna drop a few balls.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/10/html5-vs-flash-comparison-finds-a-few-surprises-settles-few-de/

April 05 2010 at 2:43 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dan Woods

Adobe should have come back and said "Apple need to open up it's drivers so we can get hardware acceleration in Flash",
to which Apple could reply "Flash should use Quicktime X for decoding h.264, just like everyone else",
to which Adobe can reply "iTunes doesn't use Quicktime X for decoding; it still uses Quicktime 7",
to which Apple can reply "Introducing iTunes X for Snow Leopard; all Cocoa, no Carbon, just like every OS X App should be",
to which Adobe can reply "Photoshop uses Carbon!",
to which Apple can reiterate "…just like every OS X App should be - didn't you guys learn anything from Quark - even Office:Mac is going Cocoa!".

February 07 2010 at 1:44 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Peter Sadlon

Partners with Apple maybe, but part of Apple not in this reality.

February 06 2010 at 1:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Biddy

I'm sorry, my apologies for how this comment may come off, but the "defense of Apple" on not using Flash is in a word: "tired."

This debate is like refusing to use VHS when Beta was clearly the better format. We all know how that turned out.

As a graphic designer I use Adobe products almost EXCLUSIVELY. Part of the original base of Apple consumers ARE graphic designers, and by and large we use Adobe Creative Suite which INCLUDES Flash.

What we do, and how we use it often requires the use of Flash for various products, AND the various services we NEED to perform our jobs.

It is a HINDERANCE to Apple's original base of customers, and frankly, it's a slap in the face to us if the iPad doesn't eventually support it.

I've been an Apple supporter for years, but I am increasingly becoming frustrated with Apple ignoring their professional users in favor of developing "consumer level products."

Flash is used in a wide range of products, services and media. From ads and websites, to cartoons, television, and video.

Work WITH your partners, don't lambaste them in public. Bottom line for me, if Apple loses Adobe, I have NO use for Apple products.

Flash is a necessary evil whether you like it or not. Supporting Apple's decision for not supporting it is irresponsible, and uninformed.

I hate using a mouse too. But I still NEED it.

February 05 2010 at 10:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
StefanB

I hate Flash because I can't get plugin from someone who can write it properly. I've just had 2 issues this week. I came to work where I left some pages open in my browser and the first thing I see in Google Chrome is a popup warning me that Flash plugin is consuming too much resources if I want to kill the process. Secondly, yesterday on my Mac in Safari I my MacBook was heating up like crazy even though I was only editing file in terminal. I checked activity monitor and on top of CPU and memory usage was a Flash plugin in Safari - not responding. So I had to kill Safari.

Some people may like Flash plugins but please someone give me option to get rid of all of them from my computers because I hate to deal with them anymore.

I love Apple for not putting Flash plugin on their portable devices!

Apple forever!

February 05 2010 at 6:32 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
NanoFrog

Flash is Trash. Adobe lives in a Roach Motel.

February 05 2010 at 5:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Sebastian

I have to defend Adobe on some level, Photoshop and most CS apps run better on OS X than they do on Windows, but people pay for that.
In general, with every piece of software that's multi-os, there's one OS it runs better on than on the other, but that's no excuse for flash's utterly bad performance on OS X, it's not just a slight difference, it's huge.

Office by the way is pretty bad on OS X too, at least on mine. It takes forever to start up (in comparison to pages about 5 times as long) and really slows everything down. When I have pages running it's barely noticeable.

February 05 2010 at 5:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Ilene

@Izzy - You don't need flash to play Mafia Wars :) I play it just fine on my iPhone... Farmville is another story though...

For the topic at hand, I have disliked flash from the beginning. I have had to work with it professionally and while you can do some really neat stuff with it, it does leak, and cause problems on machines, regardless of OS flavor. When you have to work with the same flash loading over and over again in a development environment, it is even worse...

I for one am extremely happy that Flash is not available on my iPhone. This means that I don't get those annoying take over your entire webpage advertisements. I can get in, and do what I need to do without the distraction from my goal...

February 05 2010 at 3:07 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Ilene's comment
beenyweenies

The lack of reasoning or fair application on this issue is astounding:

"it does leak, and cause problems on machines, regardless of OS flavor"

What flawless development platform are you comparing Flash to? HTML, PHP, Javascript etc. ALL suffer from their own share of annoyances, imperfections, potential security flaws and potential for abuse.

"I for one am extremely happy that Flash is not available on my iPhone. This means that I don't get those annoying take over your entire webpage advertisements."

Then what you and every other Flash-hater should be arguing for is the OPTION to disable Flash in Mobile Safari. Ask yourself honestly - why didn't Apple just make it optional? That would have been incredibly easy for them to do. Instead, people are happy, downright ecstatic that Apple is limiting their choices for them. Everyone one of you are playing right into Apple's hand on this. They didn't exclude it to provide some utopian experience, nor did they exclude it for performance reasons. They excluded Flash because it provides a development alternative to the app store, plain and simple, and you are buying right into it.

February 05 2010 at 4:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Montana Leet

@beenyweenies:

You fail to understand that maybe, just maybe the reason Apple excludes Flash from the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad is because Flash isn't any good? If the Safari browser crashes because of Flash, who are the users going to blame? Apple! And who will blow the crashes out of proportion? Jordan! :-p

Also, how on earth would Flash work with touch screens anyway? Flash apps aren't designed for touch devices. I mean, advertisements would work fine, but other than that, Flash plain and simple wouldn't work. Put that on top of the battery drain and CPU usage, why should Apple add Flash compatibility?

February 05 2010 at 8:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
dan

I find it somewhat ironic that while Apple may curse flash performance on OS X (maybe even curse flash in general), they wholeheartedly embrace it as one of their advertising platforms. Has no one else seen the huge page take overs they do on sites like cnn.com where they have not 1 but 2 EXPANDABLE flash banners synced together to display their Get A Mac campaign?

Apple may be cursing flash as a resource hog, but they give flash their full vote of confidence as a dynamic advertising platform. As other commenters have stated, big brands require big, interactive advertising.

February 05 2010 at 3:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
beenyweenies

- Performance - Yes, Adobe got lazy. But given the bad press of late you can be assured they are working triple time to fix it

- Poor implementation/overuse - That's a bit like saying you hate the color red because some people misuse it. Besides, here's one word to consider - iFart. Should we abandon all App development because some apps are pointless and/or suck? Faulty, biased logic in the extreme going on here

- Banner ads - Getting rid of Flash won't change the fact that banner ads are annoying and intrusive. Cutting off the nose to spite the face?

In my opinion, it is the maturity of Flash/Flex from annoying splash screens to a full featured Rich Internet Application platform that has Jobs scared. Flex provides an easy to learn, open source, very robust software-in-a-browser alternative to App Store deployment. Just consider it - if app devs could create equally powerful apps that run not just on the iPhone/iPad, but every other mobile device, web browsers on every OS and full desktop deployment on any OS, using one cheap tool and just one set of code, those devs would abandon the app store overnight and keep Apple's cut for themselves. Flash is, in essence, a huge threat to the app store.

Let us remember that Jobs is saying the same thing about Flash that he said about Blu Ray, and it's no coincidence that BOTH offer alternatives (re: threats) to the iTunes/App store model. I love me some Apple but this is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous that Apple fans would support such a move just because Flash isn't literally perfect in every way. iFart, dude, iFart.

February 05 2010 at 2:18 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to beenyweenies's comment
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.