Adobe's Shantanu Narayen talks Apple, Flash and HTML5 at the Web 2.0 Summit.
Tuesday during the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen took a slight jab at Apple even after previously stating that he's tired of the debate over Apple barring Flash from its products.
"Anyone who wants to design for a multi-platform world is our customer," Narayen said during the summit. "Apple would like to keep it closed and proprietary. Well, let the games begin."
But he also pointed out that the media (cough) doesn't want to let the Apple/Adobe debate go. He's right to some degree--the debate is interesting in that the outcome could ultimately shape the way we consume future multimedia on the Internet. Will HTML5 dominate Web animation or will Flash continue to be the main tool?
"It's all about how you control content on the Web," Narayen said, minimizing the controversy surrounding Apple's current lean to HTML5. "Apple has their view."
He also dismissed the Flash vs. HTML5 debate, saying that Adobe is all about creating the best tools [for both]. "It's really described in a narrow way [in the media]."
In the ideal world, HTML5 should be the ultimate winner, but really adobe may say nice things about developing tools to create html5, but secretly they want people to keep with flash... apple may say nice things about html5 too, but really they want you to write an app instead with their SDK... so they are no better than each other when it comes to open standards....
unfortunately for the end user, it appears one of them is going to be the end winner....!
In the ideal world, HTML5 should be the ultimate winner, but really adobe may say nice things about developing tools to create html5, but secretly they want people to keep with flash... apple may say nice things about html5 too, but really they want you to write an app instead with their SDK... so they are no better than each other when it comes to open standards....
unfortunately for the end user, it appears one of them is going to be the end winner....!
+20 if I could on that. People do tend to overlook the fact that flash is just as closed as Apple. However, on flash's behalf.. They do not tend to make the funny little comments that Jobs makes. And speaking of which.. I wonder how how big Apple's PR team is.. And how much drama his comments cause them.
Well, you don't require Apple, so you're 50% there. As for Adobe... will see.
just a personal opinion, i really think one day apple will re-aquire adobe in a buy-out... perhaps to bolster the attractiveness of the mac platform (the exact opposite of what you suggest above).. apple could buy adobe several times over in cash terms... and adobe know this which is why they are desperately trying to ally themselves with anybody who will listen just now!!!!
The only concern i have is about it's privacy, i hear a lot about privacy problems when it comes to flash. (But i'm cautious about content before i allow it access)
My wife on her new smoker I built: "Farmville keeps blue-screening, this new PC sucks...."
Me: "Play Fallout:Vegas, look...no crashes...Facebook sucks...."
Metaphor time:
Car companies, founded on internal combustion, developed efficiency, power battles, safety, reliability. Patented designs of similar features, allows innovation to develop new methods of achieving more efficiency, power, safety, reliability.
Computing companies, founded on rudimentary electrical processes, developed architectures, processes, methods of code. Patented these codes, architectures, processes. Leads to what? Nothing. It is dead, right there. Makes little sense. Almost like if Ford decided to patent internal combustion and steering.
I hope I am wrong, but that is how it looks through my eyes.
So would Adobe... The problem is they tried this... Which is why Apple isn't happy. Unfortunately for Adobe, most designers still prefer Macs. Adobe were big and lazy and assumed that Microsoft won the desktop war. It's a real pain for Adobe to deliver stuff using Apple's tools because it means that Adobe have to do two separate builds instead of pressing a single go button.
Adobe bought all this on themselves.
nice pipe dream there, because MS would sit happily by and let apple acquire adobe, heck i think even Google might have a thing or two to say about that too, but oh wait apple has so much money im sure they can pull it off without sweating
as for less piracy on the mac.... yeah im probably going get stick for this but, well the average Joe Mac out there has problems performing anything that doesn't have a wizard attached to it. Im also pretty sure adobe encourages to some extent piracy, normal users can't afford the Photoshop seminars and courses out there, piracy allows a Photoshop enabled workforce and cements their strangle hold on the media production market, any media production house worth their salt is going be running legit copies, just like MS, they know there is a seriously large contingent of pirate MS office suite out there, but as long as they are learning and familiar with MS office then it ensures that their work place will be using it as well, so they dont aggressively pursue them
ITS ILLEGAL !!
They are allowing some vendors on their OS while prohibiting others ... by actually creating sabotage code and going out of their way to prohibit that vendor.
Imagine if Microsoft tried to ban flash from Windows !!!! I'm not talking about "not supporting" but actively prohibiting it.
Apple did that (a little bit) already
CS4 was not able to run on the new OSX under 64 bit mode. It would only run CS4 in 64 bit mode on Windows 64 bit OSes. Many professionals simple switched to Microsoft. Oh and loved it ;-)
..
Come on, who are you kidding. If Adobe had their way, they would want control of the universe also. And so would you.
@ Jabberwolf
ITS ILLEGAL !!
Where do you draw the line between an operating system that is required to support everything, vs a proprietary OS that is just good for what it does. Would you call my coffeemaker's manufacturer anticompetitive for not allowing flash on the OS its B/W LCD display? Sounds stupid, but you get my point. The only reason Microsoft opened up a bit was that they found it was in their long-term financial interests to do so.