I got the impression that Apple fell out with Adobe because Steve Jobs said they could do everything with HTML5 and H.264?

Apple fell out with Adobe after they couldn't bother to make Flash use less than 30% CPU much of the time, where the same Youtube video may take 2% on a similar CPU on Windows.

Adobe also wanted Apple to put Flash into the iPhone kernel, when cascading Flash crashes cause most Mac crashes overall. Apple wanted a Flash app, like they have on Blackberry and Android, but they refused; therefore Apple decided to work around them with H.264, CSS and HTML5 to create the "rich Web interfaces" without a crippling performance impact (and they're lighter on bandwidth use, too! Remember, a lot of broadband... really isn't. Or it's capped at five gigs a month...)

Adobe never bothering to go beyond "just barely good enough" caused a lot of very well hidden drama, I think.

I keep forgetting how much US broadband sucks. In the UK  esqui and I are on 20MB Virgin Media cable with a fair usage policy that doesn't cap downloads or uploads, just slows us down for about 12 hours if we use too much per day. Indeed, if we paid for it we could get 50MB, but the 20MB was on a special offer at the time.

As for Adobe versus Apple, I shan't comment further on that, as really I don't like either company. Was just asking based on what I thought I heard, and your knowledge of that clearly doesn't match so I shan't argue. You could well be right...

o_o

3 megabit (about .375 megabyte) is the best DSL they offer here, and cable starts at stupid expensive and admittedly, goes up to 40 megabit down (but only 5 up). It's also $75-100 monthly, if I recall correctly. There's a de-facto monopoly on good broadband locally, but Verizon is slowly (very slowly) running fiber around here.

I'm sorry - when I said 20MB I meant 20 megabit. Old habits die hard. 50 megabit is the max they offer from our ISP.

And on DSL, we can get up to 24megabit I think in the UK.

Apple's the real monster.

better start getting used to windows.

A new, working copy of Photoshop on Windows would cost the same as Photoshop for Mac. Frankly, my laptop has twice the RAM, and Photoshop is very much RAM starved. So if I have to resolve it based on estimated performance considerations...