1. Radius's Avatar
    So the big news right now is the soon to be announced lawsuit between Adobe and Apple. It seems Apple is officially disallowing any and all Flash and Silverlight on their iWhatever devices.

    Not only that, but cross compilers that allow people to get around such obstacles will also be canned, not to mention no Flash products available in the app store and no Flash support in the SDK anymore.

    I have to wonder what is up with that exactly?
    04-13-10 03:05 PM
  2. Mr. Marco's Avatar
    Apple is genius when it comes to their products but I don't think Apple goes about business decisions all to well.

    People have wanted flash on their smartphones for ages now. And now Apple wants to stop that on their products?

    By the way does Steve Jobs own any other clothes than a black turtle neck and Levi jeans?
    04-13-10 03:10 PM
  3. Radius's Avatar
    Right, it makes no sense.

    Also in the news a month or two ago was Google stating they will remove support for all viewers on YouTube except for HTML5 in the not too distant future. So reading between the lines this means either Apple has to adopt HTML5 or lose YouTube.

    And that's a big deal as 95% of all video content on the internet now is linked to YouTube.
    04-13-10 03:13 PM
  4. mitchell209's Avatar
    Right, it makes no sense.

    Also in the news a month or two ago was Google stating they will remove support for all viewers on YouTube except for HTML5 in the not too distant future. So reading between the lines this means either Apple has to adopt HTML5 or lose YouTube.

    And that's a big deal as 95% of all video content on the internet now is linked to YouTube.
    Apple is already planning on using html5.

    They probably blocked Adobe because they don't like them. It has nothing to do with YouTube.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-13-10 03:38 PM
  5. Radius's Avatar
    It would make more sense for them to use Flash as it's Google who wants everyone to use HTML5. The strategy is to open smartphones and all other computing devices to HTML5 and then they can host their own online apps on the platforms.

    This would effectively circumvent the need for an app store and allow Google to take over whatever platform they wish. Things are getting interesting.
    04-13-10 03:45 PM
  6. qbnkelt's Avatar
    A lawsuit can be filed but for what? Not wanting to use a tool? Was there ever a contract between Apple and Adobe to incorporate Flash?
    I would love to have Flash, but a lawsuit is weak.
    04-13-10 04:11 PM
  7. Radius's Avatar
    It's possibly weak, but who knows? The objective might just be to cost Apple money and bad publicity which it certainly could.

    No matter what happens though it looks like Google will get what they want in terms of Apple, making them accept their software without the need for an app store.

    Google Voice anyone?
    04-13-10 04:19 PM
  8. qbnkelt's Avatar
    Oh, I think they can survive a lawsuit. They survived the Newton fiasco! But who knows....
    Is it a sure thing?
    04-13-10 04:25 PM
  9. stuaw11's Avatar
    Theres no cause of action for a lawsuit, theres no laws out there that say you have to let someone on you OS, period. There's absolutely nothing Adobe can do legally to compel Apple to let them in or use Flash.
    04-13-10 07:45 PM
  10. crackvegas78's Avatar
    Right, it makes no sense.

    Also in the news a month or two ago was Google stating they will remove support for all viewers on YouTube except for HTML5 in the not too distant future. So reading between the lines this means either Apple has to adopt HTML5 or lose YouTube.

    And that's a big deal as 95% of all video content on the internet now is linked to YouTube.
    Umm, Apple is one of the major companies pushing HTML 5, Steve has always hated Flash and that is the main reason they are not going to allow it on their platform. In regards to the yet to be announced lawsuit, I say good luck to Adobe, they really have no legal ground to stand one.
    04-13-10 11:36 PM
  11. lnichols's Avatar
    HTML5 will be a standard, Silverlight and Flash are proprietary. So you can be sued now for not supporting for a proprietary media format? Maybe Adobe should have tried to get FLASH out to more mobile devices sooner, then people would have demanded Apple put it in. Or has it not gotten out yet because it is a PIG on processing power and hardware requirements???? Instead Apple showed that nearly everything that FLASH does can be supported in HTML5, Android supports HTML5, decided to back HTML5, and will let site owners decide what to support.
    04-14-10 02:52 PM
  12. evilhunter101's Avatar
    If jobs ever bashed adobe or flash in the news or some other public forum apple can theoretically be sued for libel, slander, or defamation. Its a very long shot that it will get any results other than negative publicity for apple but there's still grounds to stand on.

    Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

    The link describes defamtion and such on terms of one person to another but the same basic underpinnings stand for companies.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-14-10 03:03 PM
  13. crackvegas78's Avatar
    If jobs ever bashed adobe or flash in the news or some other public forum apple can theoretically be sued for libel, slander, or defamation. Its a very long shot that it will get any results other than negative publicity for apple but there's still grounds to stand on.

    Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

    The link describes defamtion and such on terms of one person to another but the same basic underpinnings stand for companies.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Well he has done that, but that is not what Adobe is thinking about suing for. Again it's not like Flash is a open platform, it is owned by Adobe so who really cares.
    04-14-10 03:52 PM
  14. infamyx's Avatar
    Their only leg to stand on is Apple is being anti-competitive and not allowing Adobe even the chance to bring their technology over and let users decide for themselves.

    Every move Apple has made for its OS is to hinder Adobe, eapecially this change in App development. Its not about the quality of apps (thats on the dev) but the fact Flash can be utilized.

    Flash is a direct competitor to 3 things Apple has: Itunes, App Store, and HTML5 (Apple partially owns the codec H.264 which is used by HTML5 video and has to be licensed out = money)

    In the EU this case would definitely work because they dont bull**** with anti-competitive practices (see MS getting owned by the browser ballot). In the US its sketchy but possible.

    Do you think consumers would let Microsoft fly with not allowing Flash cause it directly competes with Silverlight? **** no, Apple is no different and they need to be taught so.
    04-14-10 05:22 PM
  15. evilhunter101's Avatar
    Well he has done that, but that is not what Adobe is thinking about suing for. Again it's not like Flash is a open platform, it is owned by Adobe so who really cares.
    So what are they thinking about suing for? Not to be a smartass, I'm just not caught up on what is being argued over.

    Flash is a direct competitor to 3 things Apple has: Itunes, App Store, and HTML5 (Apple partially owns the codec H.264 which is used by HTML5 video and has to be licensed out = money)
    Hmm, I didn't know they owned that codec. Very interesting. I wonder how this will all play out in court and if Adobe wins, how will Jobs manage to hinder Flash on the iThings.
    04-14-10 05:31 PM
  16. stuaw11's Avatar
    If jobs ever bashed adobe or flash in the news or some other public forum apple can theoretically be sued for libel, slander, or defamation. Its a very long shot that it will get any results other than negative publicity for apple but there's still grounds to stand on.

    Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

    The link describes defamtion and such on terms of one person to another but the same basic underpinnings stand for companies.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    There's exceptions to defamation and libel for public figures. Without getting into heavy case law, see the NY Times v. Sullivan section in that link for the sheer basics of the legal principle. I say good luck proving the actual malice component to Adobe from a legal standpoint that anything Jobs said is false or knowingly false. Everything he said publicly was the truth in fact, which is an affirmative defense to defamation

    Their only leg to stand on is Apple is being anti-competitive and not allowing Adobe even the chance to bring their technology over and let users decide for themselves.

    Every move Apple has made for its OS is to hinder Adobe, eapecially this change in App development. Its not about the quality of apps (thats on the dev) but the fact Flash can be utilized.

    Flash is a direct competitor to 3 things Apple has: Itunes, App Store, and HTML5 (Apple partially owns the codec H.264 which is used by HTML5 video and has to be licensed out = money)

    In the EU this case would definitely work because they dont bull**** with anti-competitive practices (see MS getting owned by the browser ballot). In the US its sketchy but possible.

    Do you think consumers would let Microsoft fly with not allowing Flash cause it directly competes with Silverlight? **** no, Apple is no different and they need to be taught so.
    I don't see anything anti-competitive, Adobe has PLENTY of other pieces of the market to get on Android and BB, over 50% of the market to be exact.

    I see none of the following:

    Dumping- where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
    Exclusive dealing- where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
    Barriers to entry- designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
    Price fixing- where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
    Refusal to deal- two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
    Limit Pricing- where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
    Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market


    Again, I see no leg for Adobe to stand on. They have plenty of opportunity being on Blackberry and Android devices. I say good luck proving anti-competitive practices to a judge, they have no legal basis from anything I know about the area.
    Last edited by stuaw11; 04-14-10 at 05:38 PM.
    04-14-10 05:35 PM
  17. infamyx's Avatar
    I don't see anything anti-competitive, Adobe has PLENTY of other pieces of the market to get on Android and BB, over 50% of the market to be exact.

    I see none of the following:

    Barriers to entry- designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
    Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market



    Again, I see no leg for Adobe to stand on. They have plenty of opportunity being on Blackberry and Android devices. I say good luck proving anti-competitive practices to a judge, they have no legal basis from anything I know about the area.
    Really now? The change in App development that requires all apps to be natively written in Objective C/C/C++ when a competitor announces a product that would allow for iphone development seems like a barrier for entry to me, especially WHEN IT NEVER EXISTED UNTIL AFTER ADOBES ANNOUNCEMENT

    Apple owns HTML5 and it is using its power to block competitors to keep from bringing another proprietary video from taking hold (Flash) Seems to me like monopolization at its ******* worst, and you cant argue that.

    Like i said do you see Microsoft blocking Flash because it competes with Silverlight? No, because people would be foaming at the mouth wanting their head.

    I hope Apple gets raped just as hard as Microsoft does. Apple isnt giving users CHOICE. Whatever angle Adobe intends to play is up to them
    04-14-10 07:45 PM
  18. crackvegas78's Avatar
    Really now? The change in App development that requires all apps to be natively written in Objective C/C/C++ when a competitor announces a product that would allow for iphone development seems like a barrier for entry to me, especially WHEN IT NEVER EXISTED UNTIL AFTER ADOBES ANNOUNCEMENT

    Apple owns HTML5 and it is using its power to block competitors to keep from bringing another proprietary video from taking hold (Flash) Seems to me like monopolization at its ******* worst, and you cant argue that.

    Like i said do you see Microsoft blocking Flash because it competes with Silverlight? No, because people would be foaming at the mouth wanting their head.

    I hope Apple gets raped just as hard as Microsoft does. Apple isnt giving users CHOICE. Whatever angle Adobe intends to play is up to them
    Apple does not own HTML 5, that is one thing that sets it apart from Flash. HTML 5 is just the next evolution of HTML, not a proprietary system like Flash. Both Apple and Google are pushing HTML 5 where as only Adobe is pushing flash. So to be clear NO ONE owns HTML 5.
    04-14-10 08:29 PM
  19. stuaw11's Avatar
    Exactly so how is it anti-competitive if they dont even own HTML5? Thats merely a choice to NOT use Flash, but they arent pushing their own system over Flash because they dont own HTML5.

    I mean if an school CHOOSES to bring McDonald's on campus for the students can Burger King claim anti-competitive practices? A choice to use one thing over another isnt anti-competitive
    Last edited by stuaw11; 04-14-10 at 08:37 PM.
    04-14-10 08:35 PM
  20. infamyx's Avatar
    I typed that before I was heading out to dinner lol. I believe my first post addressed it but I'll clear it up here.

    Apple, Microsoft and about 15 other companies own the h.264 codec patents, which can only be used if licensed (quite a hefty license fee too)

    H.264 is the codec used for HTML5 video, because Apple had a fit on the W3C because they were going to go with OGG as the main codec, which happens to be free.

    HTML5 video which Apple has a huge stake due to their codec and has the potential to reap BILLIONS if it kills Flash vs Flash which is the industry leader rolling in billions just from online video.

    So why isn't Apple letting Flash on their handhelds again? Is it because Adobe was lazy? On the mac yeah they were, on the mobile platform they've done a LOT of work to make it run great.

    This Apple vs Adobe is about money, Apple wants that online video king position bad.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-14-10 09:05 PM
  21. stuaw11's Avatar
    Actually Google is really at the HTML 5 forefront especially with youtube. I dont see how Apple will reap BILLIONS they dont own youtube or any of the content sites like Google stands to make. And if they own 1/15 patents, that pie gets split 15 ways if theyre even getting royalties from sites like youtube using HTML 5. Cant exactly say Apple is the only one being anticompetitive then if there are 15 other patent holders for the codec.

    Again, the premise of anti-competitive would mean that Adobe had no way of gettig started in the mobile market which is far from true. They have 76% of the Us market to potentially put their product on, iphone is only 24/25% of the market.


    Strong feelings against Apple making the choice they are is far from meeting the legal elements of anti-competitive practice in the end.


    Hypothetically, if Adobe was forced onto iphones, would that not make Adobe a monopoly in video playback on mobiles since they already have Android and BB making up somewhere around 60-65% of the mobile market? I dont see a federal judge forcing Adobe onto iphones and giving Adobe a near 90% share of the video playback market on mobile while Apple isnt allowed to utilize its own intellectual property in HTML 5 (if they do own a stake in the codec). That would be against all modern legal principles
    Last edited by stuaw11; 04-14-10 at 09:19 PM.
    04-14-10 09:09 PM
  22. crackvegas78's Avatar
    It's funny, I can not find anything that says that Apple owns h.264, I'm not saying that they don't I am just wondering if anyone has any proof of this. This is an article that I did find and it seems to say that it is open source. Google to Open-source VP8 for HTML5 Video
    Last edited by crackvegas78; 04-15-10 at 02:52 AM. Reason: Addl content
    04-15-10 02:48 AM
  23. dcgore's Avatar
    This is like on that TV show "gossip girl" where one girl tells her friends that some other girl is outsted and therefore they can't talk or hang out with the "reject" anymore.
    04-15-10 08:02 AM
  24. infamyx's Avatar
    It's funny, I can not find anything that says that Apple owns h.264, I'm not saying that they don't I am just wondering if anyone has any proof of this. This is an article that I did find and it seems to say that it is open source. Google to Open-source VP8 for HTML5 Video
    Apple and a bunch of other companies own the patents that h.264 uses, they don't solely own it. Any money made comes back to them and other patent holders, and then they also get yearly royalties

    VP8 is a tech invented by I believe On2, a company Google was rumored to be buying so as not to rely on h.264, but it's all rumors

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-15-10 04:35 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD