May 14, 2010

Apple vs. Adobe

I am embarrassed. Are you embarrassed? Why are Apple and Adobe acting like twelve year old children on a play ground running popularity campaigns?

Both are claiming to be the more open, community-friendly company. Both are wrong, in my eyes. If you buy an Apple product you're know what you're getting into: difficult to modify hardware specs and a mobile OS that's so up-tight and locked down I'm surprised it lets you make phone calls. Every time you compile Flash you know you're giving the power to a closed-source, power-sucking browser plugin.

Can't both of them just shut up? First it's Jobs' open letter bashing Flash, then it's Adobe's ridiculous advertising campaign telling everyone how they hate dictating how content is created.

My 2 (biased) cents. Flash is slowly dying. With YouTube and vimeo announcing HTML5 betas, what's left for Flash. @FeXd suggests, that Flash still has a market share in browser games - maybe - but with JavaScript speeds increasing vastly in every major browser, what's to say there won't be an XNA-like framework for Java to make kick-ass games in JavaScript?

In the end, both companies are pushing proprietary closed-source systems, the question is, which one suits the consumer's needs the most.


  1. I have to side with Adobe on this one. Apple is keeping viewers from seeing web/app content by disallowing flash. How is that good for anyone?

    Adobe isn't blameless, their ad campaigns are almost as ridiculous as Jobs' letter, but at least they aren't keeping people from creating/distributing content.

  2. I'm with neither of the 2. Flash is a pain in the ass and only good for browser games. I see Apple's point, but it's kinda childish to disallow Flash because you think you're superior. This is the reason why people started hating Microsoft in the first place.