Apparently, previous comments by others influenced their decision to give it all up. It seems HTML5 and other programming will replace it, so no worries. I think this was really just a move to save money for the company. Just like banks give excuses to get rid of jobs in order to post higher profits for its investors.

Market Watch:

Late Tuesday, the San Jose, Calif.-based company said it decided on eliminating jobs as part of its strategy shift. See full story on Adobe job cuts.

In a blog posting on Wednesday morning, another major change was outlined: scrapping development of the company’s widely known Flash Player software for mobile browsers. Adobe plans to focus instead on HTML 5, another platform for publishing content on the Web.

“We will no longer continue to develop Flash Player in the browser to work with new mobile device configurations

In the blog, Danny Winokur, general manager of interactive development, wrote that Flash development would end “following the upcoming release of Flash Player 11.1 for Android and BlackBerry PlayBook.”

He said that while Flash has “enabled the richest content to be created and deployed on the Web by reaching beyond what browsers could do,” HTML 5 “is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively.”
Last year, Adobe’s Flash platform drew sharp criticisms from Steve Jobs, the late CEO of Apple Inc. AAPL -2.78% , who called the technology flawed and said it didn’t work well with Apple devices.

IDC analyst Al Hilwa said Adobe’s decision was a smart move, noting that HTML 5 “is coming on strong as a standard, accelerated by the speed of change of hardware devices.”

“By 2013 we will reach a point where 90% of smartphones and tablets will sport HTML5 capable browsers,” he said in an e-mail. “In this light, having a large cadre of staff working on putting Flash on every mobile device on the planet appears to be unnecessary and an unwise use of resources. Adobe is smart to let go.”
Meanwhile, Adobe said its workforce reduction would be part of a revised strategy focused on digital media and digital marketing.

In a research note, analyst Patrick Walravens of JMP Securities wrote that the company’s “aggressive shift toward a subscription-based model” is overall a positive step.

“We believe the shift to more of a recurring revenue model may result in a fundamentally more attractive and manageable business for Adobe but remain on the sidelines on this stock as these shifts are often difficult and take longer than expected,” he wrote

WSJ:

The U.S. jobless rate was flat at 9.1% in September, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment rose to 16.5%, the highest rate this year.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6? for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs.

The key to the rise in the broader unemployment rate was due to a 444,000 jump in the number of people employed part time but who would prefer full-time work. That number could reflect a rising number of workers who saw their hours cut back by concerned bosses or new part-time hires who would prefer full-time work.

The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find.

The 9.1% unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force, which rose by about 423,000 in September.

The broader rate increased despite a rise of 398,000 in the number of people who are employed, as the increase was canceled out by new entrants to labor force. Meanwhile, the number of unemployed people in the U.S. increased by just 25,000. But if the labor force increases continue to outpace the rises in the number employed, the headline 9.1% rate could move higher in the coming months.

Why do the majority of Americans vote in the least qualified candidate? Why did we vote in Bush not once but twice into office? Why did we vote Obama into office? Please listen to what they say, observe at what they have actually done, and improve your decision making process. I really don’t think our economy can take another Bush or Obama in office. Do you?

Stop Wasting America’s Money on Pretend Make-Work Government Programs

by Ron Paul

In January 2009, the administration claimed that if Congress passed a rush stimulus bill, the United States would be saved from economic catastrophe that was threatening to send unemployment figures above 8 percent. Government stimulus was the answer and if we cared about our country, we would set aside our reservations and do what needed to be done to pass the bill. Congress passed the bill. Unemployment continued to go up and has been well over 8 percent ever since. (In fact, economist John Williams of ShadowStats finds unemployment to be closer to 23 percent using traditional methodology.) Yet some are claiming the first stimulus worked and all we need to bring back prosperity is more government stimulus.

Stimulus might appear to work for some people for a short time. It worked for a short time for Solyndra. For a time, they could pretend to be engaging in productive activities that would help the economy. For a time, unemployment was 1,100 people less. But the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra shows that the government is a terrible venture capitalist. This charade cost the American people over half a billion dollars they could not afford, yet there is no mea culpa. The administration is not questioning its calculations, or how they could have been so wrong on their unemployment predictions in the wake of the last stimulus.

Instead, they want more money. Once again we are hearing the cry that if we care about our country, we will approve more spending and more taxes and that will create more jobs. They promise.

Yes, you could have gone to the Solyndra factory and you would have seen jobs. What you could not have seen were the productive jobs that were never created. Real venture capitalists make decisions based not on politics and photo opportunities, but on complex economic estimations of risk and reward. They don’t simply throw piles of other people’s money at a factory and expect magic to happen. The uncreated jobs you can’t see might still be around. Instead, we have more government debt which will lead to more inflation and more taxes. These, in addition to an already hostile regulatory environment, only add to the burden and risk of job creation in the private economy.

It has been said that when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Our government is full of people who sincerely believe big government and more spending is the answer to every problem. They automatically look to government for every solution. Government is their hammer, and all they know to do is to keep hammering. When government “solutions” still don’t solve the problems, they are unfazed. They keep calling for more government, more laws, and more programs. Americans are tired of being treated like nails.

This government-centric mindset is the root of the problem. People who think this way are naturally drawn to politics and government. To them, the Constitution is an annoying road block, something to get around, or ignore.

We must become interested in real, lasting, productive jobs – careers that allow families to build up a solid foundation of prosperity and economic security – not pretend make-work government jobs that waste resources and vanish overnight. We have to choose one or the other.

The reason why banks do this is to manipulate numbers and show they are profitable. They cut their biggest expense which is human resources. It fixes the book short term but hurts the company in the long run since they will not be able to grow. This is not a true profit but just a smoke and mirrors trick.

Now that our same government has decided to crack down on their fraudulent practices, one of the major banks announce they will cut more jobs.  This is after they suckered in Warren Buffett into a $5 billion private investment.  Seriously, if the bank is simply insolvent, the FDIC needs to step in and liquidate this bank.  The odd part is the bank executives are all still getting paid million of dollar compensations even though the company is laying off troops of employees.  Yes, people who are invested in BofA deserve a haircut and should be forced to take losses.

RTTNews:

Financial giant Bank of America Corp. (BAC: News ), which is struggling with souring mortgage losses, is in talks to cut roughly 40,000 positions over a period of years as part of its initiatives for cost cutting, known as Project New BAC, reports said Friday, citing people familiar with the plans.

Job cuts may total about 10 percent of the bank’s total employee count of 288,000 in the next two to three years. Chief Executive Brian Moynihan reportedly said that the bank will cut assets as well, to make it easier to manage. He is expected to discuss the details of restructuring on Monday at a conference held by Barclays Capital in New York or during the bank’s next earnings conference call in October.

Moynihan recently had said that its time to simplify and streamline the organization, and make sure business processes are relevant with a smaller, more focused company.

It was reported earlier that the officials had set a preliminary goal of cutting expenses by 20 percent in consumer banking.

On September 6, Bank of America announced reshuffling and restructuring its operations management, and appointed David Darnell and Tom Montag to the newly-created positions of co-chief operating officers. The Bank said the first phase of change is nearing conclusion and expects significant expense reductions as a result. The reorganization is expected to align the bank’s operating units with its three core customer groups: individuals, companies, and institutional investors.

The bank’s Project New BAC was started in April 2011 with the primary objective of alignment of leaders with customer groups and simplifying the organization.

BAC closed Thursday’s regular trading session at $7.20, down $0.28 or 3.74 percent. In pre-market activity, shares are currently trading at $7.27, up $0.07 or 0.97 percent.

Now that our same government has decided to crack down on their fraudulent practices, one of the major banks announce they will cut more jobs.  This is after they suckered in Warren Buffett into a $5 billion private investment.  Seriously, if the bank is simply insolvent, the FDIC needs to step in and liquidate this bank.  The odd part is the bank executives are all still getting paid million of dollar compensations even though the company is laying off troops of employees.

MarketWatch:
If it is true, it would be another sign of desperation. The Charlotte Observer reports that Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) could lay-off 30,000 people over several years.

The bank has come under new pressure as the government announced a suit against 17 financial firms which it claims misrepresented the risk of mortgage-back securities they sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The total losses from these was $200 billion. The possibility that the government can recoup of all that is unknown.

Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) has been rumored to need over $100 billion in new capital. There have also been rumors that the firm could be taken over by JP Morgan (NYSE: JPM) or another large American bank. B of A has attacked these as false, but its share price has done little to allay fears. The stock fell to $6.01 three weeks ago. Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in the bank which cause share to rally. Subsequent bad news pushed shares, which had recovered to $8.39, back to $7.25. The stock’s 52-week high is $15.31.

Bank of America can continue to deny it will need to raise large sums of money, an act which would nearly wipe out common shareholders. The firm’s stock says many investors have bet otherwise

Now, a few years after the fact after our corrupt politicians bailed out their lobby heavy “friends”, the US regulator has decided to sue the major banks.  I say get it done.  We need to get our money back, and if these companies fail in the process, so be it.  They don’t deserve to stay in business if they can’t pay their bills.  These are the same bailed out banks that are foreclosing on Americans everyday and use deceptive practices in loan modifications and predatory lending.

LA Times:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks a year ago. If the case is not filed Friday, they said, it will come Tuesday, shortly before a deadline expires for the housing agency to file claims.

The suits will argue the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, failed to perform the due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified. When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities backed by the mortgages quickly lost value.

Fannie and Freddie lost more than $30 billion, in part as a result of the deals, losses that were borne mostly by taxpayers.

In July, the agency filed suit against UBS, another major mortgage securitizer, seeking to recover at least $900 million, and the individuals with knowledge of the case said the new litigation would be similar in scope.

Private holders of mortgage securities are already trying to force the big banks to buy back tens of billions in soured mortgage-backed bonds, but this federal effort is a new chapter in a huge legal fight that has alarmed investors in bank shares. In this case, rather than demanding that the banks buy back the original loans, the finance agency is seeking reimbursement for losses on the securities held by Fannie and Freddie.

The impending litigation underscores how almost exactly three years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the beginning of a financial crisis caused in large part by subprime lending, the legal fallout is mounting.

Besides the angry investors, 50 state attorneys general are in the final stages of negotiating a settlement to address abuses by the largest mortgage servicers, including Bank of America, JPMorgan and Citigroup. The attorneys general, as well as federal officials, are pressing the banks to pay at least $20 billion in that case, with much of the money earmarked to reduce mortgages of homeowners facing foreclosure.

And last month, the insurance giant American International Group filed a $10 billion suit against Bank of America, accusing the bank and its Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch units of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages that backed the securities A.I.G. bought.

Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan all declined to comment. Frank Kelly, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, said, “We can’t comment on a suit that we haven’t seen and hasn’t been filed yet.”

But privately, financial service industry executives argue that the losses on the mortgage-backed securities were caused by a broader downturn in the economy and the housing market, not by how the mortgages were originated or packaged into securities. In addition, they contend that investors like A.I.G. as well as Fannie and Freddie were sophisticated and knew the securities were not without risk.

Investors fear that if banks are forced to pay out billions of dollars for mortgages that later defaulted, it could sap earnings for years and contribute to further losses across the financial services industry, which has only recently regained its footing.

Bank officials also counter that further legal attacks on them will only delay the recovery in the housing market, which remains moribund, hurting the broader economy. Other experts warned that a series of adverse settlements costing the banks billions raises other risks, even if suits have legal merit.

The housing finance agency was created in 2008 and assigned to oversee the hemorrhaging government-backed mortgage companies, a process known as conservatorship.

I remember when Bill Maher and Jon Stewart used to bash Bush. During the first year of Obama’s term, they use to say give Obama time (like most Obamabots), but now they know he is just as incompetent as Bush or maybe even worse. I think he was recently called Jimmy Carter 2.0.  Both comedians now know their presidential pick is a failure and now acknowledge it is OK to make fun of him like most of our corrupt politicians (see video below).

My biggest disappointment in his administration is his criticism on Bush and his abusive spending that got us into this bad recession. Yet, President Obama has taken it upon himself to be as fiscally irresponsible and has made it a goal to wastefully outspend his predecessor. The new 3 stooges Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are no different than the original stooges Bush, Paulson and Bernanke.

Even though transparency has been a continued theme preached by President Obama and his administration, we continue to see the actions from deliberate planning out of public sight. I am specifically talking about the numerous FRAUD bailouts that reward companies for failing, the outlandish budgets that continue to increase the federal deficit which further harms our economy, and manipulated stress tests that have negotiated results by the banks to show them in a better light. Simply put, President Obama is just the democrat version of President Bush.

Did you fall in love with Obama? Why??

Huffington Post

I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.

After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq…etc…anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.

I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration… all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.

I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head — they are all simply employees.

On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.

I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.

Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.

Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.