Is Adobe Playing Fool With Us

[is_adobe_joke]

Hi;

Yes this is a flame, or whaever you would ever call it. But I needed to write it in here.

Adobe purchased Macromedia. Cool. Adobe has money, what a big company, bought a major web technology. And they wanted to dominate Web, which they were successful at all. Up to here, I have no problem with whatever they did.

Later on, they decided to improve Flash. Thanks, we really needed that. But we have a minor problem. Al Mighty Adobe can not keep its player up to date, for a platform that millions of people are using, which is, maybe you have never heard of but, LINUX.

For every release, Adobe decides to release 64bit version of their player or not. Can someone please explain me what kind of "big", "responsible" company can behave like this? Don't you have money to hire couple of more people to improve your software quality to support 64bit version on a platform that millions of people are using? Some non-paid developer  can code an application to wrap your player to work as if 64 NSAPI plugin, but you can't release 64bit version of the player?

This is a total insult to Linux users or anyone feels free to choose whatever platform they wanted to use.

If you trust your product, don't release it free, so we can vote with our money. Let's see how many "millions" will buy it. Put a very strong copy protection so people can't cheat on voting (as they do with your other photo editing products). If this way is harder, just "invest" less than a cent for a Linux user, and hire some developers, so make your player up to date for Linux 64bit platforms. I'm pretty sure you can hire couple of developers with a salary you paid to a single lawyer you hired for lobbying patents and other wobby bussinesses.

I think that's all for now, anyone have something to say about it, please don't hesitate, since it's enough.

[370H55V]

Linux users (and I AM ONE, so don't get all high and mighty with me) are Linux users because they DON'T WANT TO BE MICROSOFT SHEEP.

Unfortunately, that means that you get technology updates on a less than 5% scale of all software out there because WIndows still dominates the marketshare of software and R&D.

I use Ubuntu and SuSE because I'm learning how to use and build for them. Until I am able to rebuild one or both of them from the Kernel out, I would never in my wildest imagination think of limiting myself to either one of them as my ONLY operating system. Never, ever...

I have seven Windows builds, two Max OSX builds and three Linux builds if you count X86 and X64 SuSE.

It's not a budget thing either. I'm an unemployed student living on $240 a month, and I can still keep twelve OS's running and current on three machines. Three machines that cost me less than $2000 put together over three years.

I applaud your use of an alternative to Windows or even OS X, but I cannot say I condone your limiting yourself to something that:

• comprises about 0.65% of the total personal computing systems worldwide
• practically requires you be a programmer to modify or install software
  

[is_adobe_joke]

This is not Linux vs. Windows issue. Adobe can easily support Linux player, with a negligable investment on their balance sheet. This is just a terrible behavior, it's uncaring people (for sure not only Linux users) and having a notion that they could be dominant whatever they could ever do.

OTOH, I'm not using Linux for not being MICROSOFT SHEEP. Linux is clearly better designed operating system. And better does not mean, easier to use. But it's also becaming easier to use day by day. And if sometime in future Linux will be the dominat OS, hopefully responsible people at Adobe would read this post all over.

[Captiv8r]

Hi there

You may as well face it. Adobe doesn't make software simply because it enjoys making software. They make software to sell. And when you engage in said activity, you must examine the return on investment. What would they gain by investing time and effort in creating software that would apply to a tiny segment of users? Not to mention it's software they don't charge for.

As was stated earlier, Linux users comprise a tiny segment of the market. Further, it's worth noting that to my knowledge, there isn't a 64 bit version of a Windows based Flash Player either.

Cheers... Rick

[erpguy8c]

Captiv8r wrote:

Hi there

You may as well face it. Adobe doesn't make software simply because it enjoys making software. They make software to sell. And when you engage in said activity, you must examine the return on investment. What would they gain by investing time and effort in creating software that would apply to a tiny segment of users? Not to mention it's software they don't charge for.

As was stated earlier, Linux users comprise a tiny segment of the market. Further, it's worth noting that to my knowledge, there isn't a 64 bit version of a Windows based Flash Player either.

Cheers... Rick

heck, there's not even a 64bit flash player for apple mac osx systems as well.

[purevw]

      As far as Windows is concerned, I think their users should be in an uproar also. I would guess that 80% of the users out there are now using 64 bit systems. Apple tells it's paying customers that they are holding their new I-phones wrong as an excuse to get out of responsibility for a very serious design flaw concerning the antenna. Adobe tells it's customers that Flash Player works perfectly on a 64 bit system, as long as they are willing to downgrade to a 32 bit browser. Are these people serious?

   I'm not arguing "pro Linux". I am arguing that 64 bit computers have been out for years and that it was totaly unacceptable for a large corporation with large assets to drag it's feet so badly simply because there was no real competition at the time. Flash Player x_64 for all operating systems could have and should have been developed as soon as 64 bit processors became available.The only reason it wasn't developed was because Adobe didn't feel Flash was threatened by competitors. Now that there is a very serious threat, they are suddenly promising a "whole new Flash". Too little; too late.

  To erpguy8c:

      They don't charge for Flash? Sorry, but Adobe makes tons of money from Flash. They sell programs to create Flash content at a several times what the Windows operating system costs. They give away the player for free as a way to have a large base of paying consumers that will buy from websites that utilize Flash content. They make large amounts of money from Flash Player, even though they don't charge the consumer directly for the player.

      The tiny segment of Linux users that you mention was at around 4 million computers last year. It's likely double that number at present. That's a lot of consumer buying power. With Android getting so much attention, you can be sure that large numbers of curious users will try Linux at home,  simply because it works so well on their phones. You can be sure that Linux is growing rapidly. Many people used the same logic years ago concerning an upstart open source browser called Mozilla FIrefox. They argued "Why should we worry about compatibility with that browser. It only has a small group of users."

[370H55V]

"I would guess that 80% of the users out there are now using 64 bit  systems..."

You would guess prematurely, or wrongly at that number.

According to several sources, Windows XP still makes up the majority of PC users (between 62 and 81% by estimates), and since only about 30% of those were 64 bit systems (by sales receipts), that makes the largest part, of the largest part, of systems in use (this doesn't mean new systems, the majority of which ARE X64) as being 32 bit.

As far as dragging feet. Microsoft has moved back the sunset date for XP three times now (it's currently set for July 2014), so they're keeping a lot of people using old 32 bit systems with that. Of course it doesn't help that Vista sucked so badly and Win 7 isn't a whole lot better as far as compatibility with other software and older hardware, but there used to be a ten year hard limit on support for ANY OS. Too many people are still using functional PCs on X86 processors with XP 32 bit, and they don't want to have to shell out $2000 for a new system to be able to upgrade to 7.

A short list of software that is still 32 bit or offered in 32 bit as well as 64 for compatibility reasons:

• AIM
• Skype
• ICQ
• Internet Explorer
• iTunes
• Quick Time
• Windows Media Player
• Opera
• Chrome
• VLC Media Player
• Roxio Easy Media Creator Suite
• Roxio Toast
• Alien Skin Eye Candy Filters for Photoshop
• Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection (it's a mix of 32 and 64 bit)

These are just a few from two of my systems (and AMD Athlon X64 and a Core Duo MacBook X64). There are several in that list that are no small market share in their use (iTunes, Windows Media Player) too.

"The tiny segment of Linux users that you mention was at around 4 million  computers last year. It's likely double that number at present. That's a  lot of consumer buying power..."

Compared to nearly a billion Windows systems worldwide? And almost a fifth of that now on Mac OS X?

Take a look here at how OS's stack up by tracked Internet use: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Linux, (ALL of Linux - Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc.X86 AND X64) only makes up 2.78% of the total users.

It doesn't make good business sense for Adobe to focus on less than half of less than three percent of the people who will even consider their software, compared to the more than 88% who will.

Linux is a choice. I'll heartily agree that it is a good choice. I like it better than Windows, but I still have classes to finish and work to do that REQUIRE me to use Windows and IE 32Bit. Like I said before, limiting one's self to just a single obscure OS is not a good choice.

[purevw]

  The 80% I was referring to was hardware, not operating systems. I'll stand by that number.  64 bit processors became mainstream several years ago. I use a 64 bit motherboard that came out in 2005.

  This is not about Linux. It's about 64 bit native Flash Player. Quoting your post: "According to several sources, Windows XP still makes up the majority of PC users (between 62 and 81% by estimates". But the link you supplied in your post states that 49.95% of counted computers are using XP, with a portion of them no doubt using XP 64 bit. But assuming your numbers are the correct ones, then there are between 19 and 38 percent of users that have made the switch from XP to other newer operating systems, which are most likely 64 bit. Using your "billion Windows XP computers still running" analogy, that would put the number of systems with native 64 bit capability at 300 million, give or take?

  One note: Windows 7 compatible computers do not cost $2000. Windows 7 computers start under $400 at many retail outlets. The $400 dollar boxes have reasonably good performance. It isn't hard do build a machine with considerably better performance for a modestly higher price.

  You are very correct that Microsoft is every bit as guilty as Adobe for dragging their feet. They each apparently feel that they know what is best for us. That is the core of the problem. There has been no reason to innovate as there was no real competition until recently. That is changing rapidly.

  I still use Windows XP maybe 5% of the time. But I use it not because of the OS. I use it because there are a couple of Windows programs (retail software) that can do cartain things that the Linux counterpart can't, just as there are many Linux packages that can do things that the Windows counterpart can't. I don't limit myself to a single OS. I also don't limit myself to a single format for streamed video. That idea is also ill conceived.

[mytaxsite]

Nutters like you have come and gone here and all other newsgroups and forums around the planet so I don't expect you to be here longer or for that matter in the computer industry in a serious manner.

hth

[Guest]

Adobe purchased Macromedia. The ADOBE CS is more big and big but I also change it back DW8. Maybe my computer can not run CS3.