Adobe和Apple最近在Flash上的交戰,可以說是搞得比過去幾年Apple和微軟的關係都還糟糕。以一個第三方開發軟體廠商,想要將自家工具及平台推廣到別人的既有平台中,所使用的公關手法卻是隔空放話,這種態度即使是過去跟Apple對立關係最嚴重的微軟,印象中也沒這麼明顯且公開地發生過。然而Adobe真的有為了Flash能被支援做過所有嘗試嗎?其實如果Adobe希望Flash能被iPxx裝置支援,有以下幾個作法能嘗試但是並未真的採取行動:


1.建立遠端連接的轉介服務

如同先前介紹過的CloudBrowse和一些伺服端轉換技術顯示,Flash的轉換可以藉由遠端服務而通過AppStore的審核,目前CloudBrowse下架,並非是被AppStore拒絕,而是其官方認為為了維持品質只服務當前的使用者,可以看出要維持這樣的服務是需要付出相當成本的。相對的,Apple經營AppStore也不是不需要成本,Adobe推Flash的轉介,很明顯是要把自己的平台推到別人的平台中,既然如此,想要在不對平台架構本身做出額外投資的情況下,要達成這件事情,基本上只是一種採收別人成果的行為。(想想Flash轉譯到了iPhone OS3才冒出來,已經是AppStore出現的第幾年的事情了?)


平台持有者理當有權力贊成或拒絕一個新的平台技術的進入,尤其是在並未協商之前就推出的轉介功能。


2.持續溝通讓SWF內容可以在Xcode當中被轉譯

因為之前寫開發資源整理的時候,有加入了一些開發網站的會員,目前像Nimble,Titanium,Unity3D都發出通知,針對iPhone OS 4新版的開發規定,目前在保密協定的狀況下不能多談,但是傳遞出來的訊息,均是在一個良好溝通的狀況當中。Flash的支持者們聲稱,SWF是一個開放的規格,那麼Adobe其實可以試圖和Apple溝通,運用現有的API去對SWF/FLV格式做轉譯的動作。(其實說得簡單一點,SWF/FLV裡面就是包了向量繪圖、ECMAScript、跟影片編碼而已,既然可以透過Flash CS5轉譯,要透過Xcode應該也不難。),但是Adobe沒有這麼嘗試過,就是先以反彈的方式來做為面對新規定的反應,相信當然不會有好的結果。


3.透過開源碼社群或學Opera製作一個示範版含Flash且運行優良的瀏覽器

Flash Player其實有非官方開源碼的版本(只是目前大多完整支援到Flash 8,勉強支援到9),如果真的希望Flash平台可以不被限制,可以透過非官方的社群將開源碼Flash Player製作到足以上架到AppStore,或是自行製作一個內含Flash不以Plugin形式、且運作良好的Webkit瀏覽器,讓使用者自行透過Cydia,Xcode安裝到手機當中。


這裡除了談Adobe的Flash之外,也要提到HTC和微軟簽約的原因是;手機平台本來就不同於PC平台。IBM PC因為開放相容規格的關係,所以在許多硬體的授權費上是不需要被專利和其他授權問題所干擾的。(但是即使如此,Intel都還是有辦法靠更新規格來站在授權強勢的地位了)然而手機市場上已經被各大晶片及手機廠商們佈滿了專利地雷。這點可以從Nokia告Apple,以及之前聯發科為了推3G晶片和高通達成免責協議,就看得出一些端倪。所以手機平台上,硬體商們在硬體上要額外付出的權利授權成本結構,是與PC電腦不同的。


這也是為什麼Intel先前很積極想推WiMax的原因,如果廣泛地無線網路佈及率可以和傳統電信網路比拼,那麼在電信架構的專利授權上,就可以避開不少(電信業者們也不是看不出來Intel在打什麼算盤,所以LTE也推很兇)。雖然Intel也是想自己的晶片多賣一點,不過這也顯示出連PC晶片大廠要進入移動通信市場,都必須以另開規格的方式來避開專利地雷的狀況,來判斷電信市場在軟硬體上的封閉性,而這也是Android平台或其他開源碼軟體,在手機市場上推展的一個隱憂。


回過頭來看,要說Apple怎能不為自己的平台多著想?開發手機和建立平台都需要付出相當的成本,而Adobe的企圖心從Open Screen Project當中就很明顯了,如果Adobe本身只是為了讓使用者可以自由地使用Flash,前面三個作法都還是有機會讓使用者決定是否使用Flash,但是其企圖心很顯然是不止如此,想賺錢又不花成本,溝通的方式又這麼粗糙,這也是同時身為Mac及Adobe愛用者的自己,在這次的狀況下也並未非常苟同Adobe的原因。

 


 

Translate by Google Translate

Chat: from the Adobe public relations behavior and HTC and Microsoft signed the incident angle of Flash

Adobe and Apple on the recent fighting in Flash can be said to Gaode than in the past few years, the relationship between Apple and Microsoft are also bad. To a third-party development software vendors want to promote their own tools and platforms to the people of both platforms, but used means of public relations is a change in top and let it be, this attitude even in the past relationship with Apple against Microsoft, the most serious The impression is also not so obvious and openly happened. But Adobe Flash is really to be done to support all try it? In fact, if Adobe want Flash can be iPxx device support, there are several approaches to try but did not really take action:


1. To establish a remote connection referrals

As previously introduced the CloudBrowse and some server-side conversion technology show, Flash conversion services available through the AppStore by remote audit, the current CloudBrowse the shelf and not be rejected AppStore, but its official that in order to maintain the quality of service only current users, we can see that to maintain such a service is to pay a considerable cost. In contrast, Apple management is not without cost AppStore, Adobe pushing Flash referral, it is clear is to push their platform to other platforms in that case, you want to structure itself in the right platform to make additional investments , in order to reach this matter, the results others are basically just a harvest behavior. (Think of Flash to the iPhone OS3 translation before coming out, there is already the first few years AppStore things up?)


Platform holders have the power to approve or reject which should be a new platform technology access, particularly in the consultation was not introduced before the referral function.


2. Continuous communication to SWF content which is translated in Xcode

Written order prior to development of resources for the time, were added to some members of the development site, currently asNimble , Titanium , Unity3D have given notice for the iPhone OS 4 development of new regulations, the current conditions in the confidentiality agreement not to talk about, but convey the message, all in a good position to communicate among them. Flash's supporters claim that, SWF is an open specification, so Adobe and Apple can in fact be trying to communicate, using the existing API to go on SWF / FLV format to do translation movement. (In fact, put it simply, SWF / FLV which is a vector drawing package, ECMAScript, with the video encoding only, as translated through Flash CS5, not hard to be by Xcode.), But Adobe is not so tried, that is the first to rebound the way to do face new regulations for the response, I believe, of course not a good outcome.


3. Through the open source community or school to produce a demonstration version of Opera with Flash and the browser is running fine

Flash Player actually non- open source version (just the current most complete support to Flash 8, reluctantly support to 9), if we really want Flash platform can not be restricted, through unofficial open source community to create Flash Player enough shelves to the AppStore, or to create a self-contained Flash Plugin is not in form, and well-functioning Webkit browser, allowing users to self through Cydia, Xcode installed in mobile phones.


In addition to Adobe's Flash on here, we also mentioned that HTC and Microsoft signed because; mobile platform already different from the PC platform. IBM PC compatible specifications for an open relationship, so that in many hardware licensing fee is not required to be authorized to issue the patent, and other interference. (But even so, Intel is still possible to find specifications by updating the status of a strong standing authorization), however, the market has been the major mobile phone and mobile phone chip makers full of patent landmines. This can be told from the Nokia Apple, and before the MediaTek to promote Qualcomm 3G chips and exemption agreement reached on the see some clues. Therefore, mobile platform, hardware, the hardware makers to pay for the right to authorize additional cost structure is different from PC computer.


This is why Intel to push WiMax previously very positive reasons, if widely available wireless network distribution and rate of Competition and traditional telecom network, then the patent license on telecommunications infrastructure, we can avoid a lot of (carriers have also Intel is not playing can not see any calculations, it also pushed ferocious LTE). Although Intel is also selling more chips to his point, but it also shows that even the PC chip maker to enter the mobile communications market, must be open to other ways to avoid patent specifications state mines to determine the telecommunications market in the soft and hard body is enclosed, and this is Android or other open source software platform, the mobile phone market, to promote a worry.


Looking back, how can we not say that Apple's platform for his multi-Zhu Xiang? Create a platform for developing mobile phones and need to pay a considerable cost, and the ambition from the Adobe Open Screen Project which is quite clear that if Adobe itself just to allow users the freedom to use Flash, the first three practices are still an opportunity for Users decide whether to use Flash, but its ambition is clearly more than that, trying to make money without spending the cost of communication is such a rough way, this is love at the same time as the Mac and Adobe's own use, even under this condition Adobe is not very much agree with the reasons.

 

創作者介紹

droger的資訊心得整理

droger 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()