It seems that an old myth continues to be perpetuated and adapted for modern times, and it is that adult entertainment industry was the catalyst for VHS-Beta outcome, and subsequently similar catalist for DVD-DIVX short war, and some even say tipped the scales in favour of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.
These are all myths. It is possible that those working in porn like to think this way and enjoy perpetuating the myth, but it is simply not true.
Porn is currently just a bit over a $billion a year industry. Compare that to Hollywood, which brings in over $80billion, not to mention broadcast TV, cable TV and other forms of (mainstream) video entertainment, and in that context, adult entertainment represents barely over 1% of annual revenue. As such, it has practically zero influence over anything.
The main point of this article isn't that the choice of HTML5 by Digital Playground will significantly help in marginalisation of Flash. It is that even porn industry is clearly seeing that their customers are increasingly trying to access their content from Flash-less devices. Rather than offer parallel solutions for Flash and Flashless devices, they are deciding to look to the future and avoid Flash altogether. In other words, along with New York Times, Virgin America and many others who have successfully migrated to Flash-free web sites, porn is shedding its Flash shackles.
The main point of this article isn't that the choice of HTML5 by Digital Playground will significantly help in marginalisation of Flash. It is that even porn industry is clearly seeing that their customers are increasingly trying to access their content from Flash-less devices.
Parental controls, while welcomed, is still a band-aid. It's easy to say that it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids do but the reality is that it's just one extra task that will burden them and eventually fall through the cracks over time.
If you feel that spending time with kids and know what they do is a burden than I am really happy that you are not my parent.
Any censorship is bad thing. It is either criminal act (e.g. child pornography) and then no censorship is needed, rather police should take care about the content provider and make sure it is shut down, or it is objectionable to some and should by at the parents discretion what to do with kids not to see it (in that case they need some guidance - rating should provide this to parents) or it is OK to see it. In all three cases no censorship is necessary. It is just relict of the past, hope this goes away.
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
... Porn is currently just a bit over a $billion a year industry. Compare that to Hollywood, which brings in over $80billion, not to mention broadcast TV, cable TV and other forms of (mainstream) video entertainment, and in that context, adult entertainment represents barely over 1% of annual revenue. As such, it has practically zero influence over anything. ...
Two points:
1. $1B/year is definitely a lowball estimate, based on a Forrester Research study from 1998. So this is an old number and Forrester isn't really a reliable source. The only real analysis (i.e., someone not just stating numbers) I can find is a Forbes article from 2001 that pegged it at $2.6B to $3.9B*. That's almost 10 years ago (and just for the US) so it's not unreasonable that it might be in the $5-10B range today, substantially higher worldwide.
2. The issue isn't so much the relative sizes of whole industries here, but, more importantly a) what percentage of paid online video it represents, and b) what percentage overall online video. I have no idea what these numbers are, but the former I would feel safe in assuming is a significant percentage, the latter a not insignificant percentage.
By itself, the porn industry probably isn't a deciding factor in the struggle to free the web of Flash, however, it probably is a significant factor and could possibly represent a tipping point, or at the very least, a factor that pushes things closer to the tipping point.
(I'm using "tipping point" somewhat loosely here. In my opinion, the issue is already decided and Flash is fated to become at most a niche technology. By "tipping point" here, I simply mean the point at which that becomes glaringly obvious to everyone.)
Any censorship is bad thing. It is either criminal act (e.g. child pornography) and then no censorship is needed, rather police should take care about the content provider and make sure it is shut down, or it is objectionable to some and should by at the parents discretion what to do with kids not to see it (in that case they need some guidance - rating should provide this to parents) or it is OK to see it. In all three cases no censorship is necessary. It is just relict of the past, hope this goes away.
Just as you may consider censorship bad, I consider it a bad thing to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys. After all, they're legal and parents can monitor their kids all the time if they don't want the kids buying adult toys.
Apple has made a brand image decision - and they have every right to do so. If you want to see something that's not accessible on the iPhone, but you'll have to see it elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
Then you should watch movies before you take your kids to them. That's a great example of why rating systems don't solve the problem. Your kids are apparently far more sensitive than the average kid.
Bottom line is that Apple is a business which has a brand it wishes to protect. Just like Walmsrt's decision not to sell Playboy (or even racier magazines), Apple has made a decision on what they want to sell. It's not censorship, it's a simple decision on what to sell and what not to sell.
Just as you may consider censorship bad, I consider it a bad thing to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys. After all, they're legal and parents can monitor their kids all the time if they don't want the kids buying adult toys.
Apple has made a brand image decision - and they have every right to do so. If you want to see something that's not accessible on the iPhone, but you'll have to see it elsewhere.
Bottom line is that Apple is a business which has a brand it wishes to protect. Just like Walmsrt's decision not to sell Playboy (or even racier magazines), Apple has made a decision on what they want to sell. It's not censorship, it's a simple decision on what to sell and what not to sell.
Except that my eyes and brain do not have DRM or platform-specificity. If I can't get Playboy or Out magazine at Walmart, I can get it somewhere else or directly from the publisher.
I cannot get some applications for my iPhone or iPad because (a) Apple bans them from its store and (b) it's a monopoly store for that platform.
They can't have it both ways.
And skip the HTML5/web app argument. There are lots of things (like photo uploading) that can't be done with a web app that you can do with a native app.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys.
The problem is that it's not only porn that gets censored/banned. It's been proven time and again that more innocuous things get caught in the crush as well (art/medical texts/etc...). I would just prefer the option of managing what my family and kids can access rather than leaving that up to someone else.
Apple does a great job of ensuring that nothing malicious appears in the app store. I applaud them for it. With no other avenue for apps though (without jailbreaking) I wish they'd produce a solution that would allow a broader range of content than it does currently.
I realize that a good deal of the content in question could easily be accessed via the web on the phone as well. The thing is, a lot of the time, a dedicated app can provide a better user experience (screen size/controls/etc...). Until such time as websites provide more quality mobile browsing experiences apps are really the best option.
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
Why go in blind? There are plenty of resources to save you time, money, effort and spare you and your children whatever trauma you wish to avoid.
Here is a very popular site that now has an iPhone app.
Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute. Maybe someday, but right now there are just too many problems with it to make it perform anything close to the capabilities of Flash. Sure you can point to dozens of great looking interactive sites without Flash but have you ever tried to program that stuff? Major headache.
Until we get something even close to the programming environment offered by Flash, HTML 5 animation is not going to go mainstream. Sure video players are popping up but those are simply reusable templates, not new applications. And even those players that are being offered don't have the full capabilities that the Flash ones have.
Furthermore when/if we ever get a truly polished HTML 5 programming environment, it won't be free so you can kiss the Flash is expensive and proprietary goodbye because it will be the same deal with a different name when some other company finally brings something like that to market.
The porn industry uses exactly one Flash function- 'video component'. If you think that is all Flash does then you are simply addicted to video. Sure Adobe didn't mind that the whole web video industry standardized on their platform, but that was far from their original intent.
You should be careful what you wish for in terms of the death of Flash, because the major internet companies are not going to play nice in the html 5 video arena either. Maybe when/if things start to standardize on h264 then we will see some compatibility but for now Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Adobe all appear to be backing different standards for video so it could end up in a very similar mess that led to Flash originally taking over.
One thing is for sure. If you want to target video on Apple mobile devices you are going to have to do it with Apple's video app which takes you out of the web page. You therefore need to write a separate web page for those devices anyway. End result is that, as many different client platforms become popular, developers will have to write individual web pages specifically designed for that platform. There is no universal silver bullet format that is ever going to be suitable for all clients.
Except that my eyes and brain do not have DRM or platform-specificity. If I can't get Playboy or Out magazine at Walmart, I can get it somewhere else or directly from the publisher.
I cannot get some applications for my iPhone or iPad because (a) Apple bans them from its store and (b) it's a monopoly store for that platform.
They can't have it both ways.
And skip the HTML5/web app argument. There are lots of things (like photo uploading) that can't be done with a web app that you can do with a native app.
There are hundreds of different cell phones out there. You're free to buy any of them. Your argument is not a rational justification for forcing Apple to sell something they don't want to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho
The problem is that it's not only porn that gets censored/banned. It's been proven time and again that more innocuous things get caught in the crush as well (art/medical texts/etc...). I would just prefer the option of managing what my family and kids can access rather than leaving that up to someone else.
It doesn't matter if it's porn or if Apple doesn't want to promote drinking so they don't sell apps with alcoholic beverages in them. Or if Apple simply doesn't like the color blue and won't sell an app with a blue icon.
Apple is free to choose what to sell or what not to sell in their store - just as Walmart is free to choose what to sell in THEIR store. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.
Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute. Maybe someday, but right now there are just too many problems with it to make it perform anything close to the capabilities of Flash. Sure you can point to dozens of great looking interactive sites without Flash but have you ever tried to program that stuff? Major headache.
Yes, it has already been announced that Flash is better for lazy developers.
I'm not interested in making life easier for lazy developers. I want quality software on my iPhone -and Flash doesn't cut it. The fact that even Adobe doesn't claim to have a working Flash for the iPhone (or any phone at all other than one or two token examples) proves that it's not ready for prime time on mobile devices - no matter how much you lazy developers wish it was.
Yes, it has already been announced that Flash is better for lazy developers.
I'm not interested in making life easier for lazy developers.... [snip]... - no matter how much you lazy developers wish it was.
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.
What are talking about? There are plenty of other options for you to choose. Android, for example.
And even on the iPhone there is mobileSafari which uses the latest open web technologies, which Apple made using the WebKit browser they funded, all or which are well out of their control.
What you want is to control iOS making it a socialized OS that is also completely open. You want Apple to have no say in the way they run their store. You may not even realize it but is exactly what you and others are saying everytime you take offense with a company choosing to do business a certain way in a free market. Remember, before it's your product, it's their product and they have rights, too.
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
Your previous statement started off with: "Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute.". You've set your post up for failure. Flash cannot compete with several aspects of HTML5 already in place. Over the phone I could walk my mother through setting up HMTL5 to stream video from a website. I can't do that with Flash. I can make HTML5 video work on any modern smartphone, but that's not possible with Flash. Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient and easier on the very limited battery life in these portables. Flash is not a substitute for the most prolific and common use of Flash today for non-ad content: video.
You do have a point and for the real pornography I can agree with you. However, e.g. in Germany regular newspaper have to make changes so that they get their app approved by Apple. This is too much. Newspapers call this 'they have to make the Iran version for the App store.' The whole problem is that when Apple started this kind of policing they are the ones drawing the line - something that - in case of newspapers - is the job of the government/society.
At first I was going to agree that Apple keeping porn out of the store was a good idea. But I've changed my mind because there are other ways to handle this. As long as porn titles are properly rated, Apple can simply have a configuration option in the store as to whether they are viewable or not.
The problem with keeping them out of the store completely is that while I agree with the intent, it leads to a slippery slope, because there are fuzzy lines. The recent rejection/acceptance of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is an example. A collection of photographic art can also exist on that fuzzy line. I recently photographed the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island and even though this is a public parade held in the street, there is some nudity and Apple might stop a related app from appearing in the store, even though such nudity is most certainly not pornographic.
Comments
These are all myths. It is possible that those working in porn like to think this way and enjoy perpetuating the myth, but it is simply not true.
Porn is currently just a bit over a $billion a year industry. Compare that to Hollywood, which brings in over $80billion, not to mention broadcast TV, cable TV and other forms of (mainstream) video entertainment, and in that context, adult entertainment represents barely over 1% of annual revenue. As such, it has practically zero influence over anything.
The main point of this article isn't that the choice of HTML5 by Digital Playground will significantly help in marginalisation of Flash. It is that even porn industry is clearly seeing that their customers are increasingly trying to access their content from Flash-less devices. Rather than offer parallel solutions for Flash and Flashless devices, they are deciding to look to the future and avoid Flash altogether. In other words, along with New York Times, Virgin America and many others who have successfully migrated to Flash-free web sites, porn is shedding its Flash shackles.
The main point of this article isn't that the choice of HTML5 by Digital Playground will significantly help in marginalisation of Flash. It is that even porn industry is clearly seeing that their customers are increasingly trying to access their content from Flash-less devices.
Kinda ironic, no?
Parental controls, while welcomed, is still a band-aid. It's easy to say that it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids do but the reality is that it's just one extra task that will burden them and eventually fall through the cracks over time.
If you feel that spending time with kids and know what they do is a burden than I am really happy that you are not my parent.
Any censorship is bad thing. It is either criminal act (e.g. child pornography) and then no censorship is needed, rather police should take care about the content provider and make sure it is shut down, or it is objectionable to some and should by at the parents discretion what to do with kids not to see it (in that case they need some guidance - rating should provide this to parents) or it is OK to see it. In all three cases no censorship is necessary. It is just relict of the past, hope this goes away.
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
I was way off...
... Porn is currently just a bit over a $billion a year industry. Compare that to Hollywood, which brings in over $80billion, not to mention broadcast TV, cable TV and other forms of (mainstream) video entertainment, and in that context, adult entertainment represents barely over 1% of annual revenue. As such, it has practically zero influence over anything. ...
Two points:
1. $1B/year is definitely a lowball estimate, based on a Forrester Research study from 1998. So this is an old number and Forrester isn't really a reliable source. The only real analysis (i.e., someone not just stating numbers) I can find is a Forbes article from 2001 that pegged it at $2.6B to $3.9B*. That's almost 10 years ago (and just for the US) so it's not unreasonable that it might be in the $5-10B range today, substantially higher worldwide.
2. The issue isn't so much the relative sizes of whole industries here, but, more importantly a) what percentage of paid online video it represents, and b) what percentage overall online video. I have no idea what these numbers are, but the former I would feel safe in assuming is a significant percentage, the latter a not insignificant percentage.
By itself, the porn industry probably isn't a deciding factor in the struggle to free the web of Flash, however, it probably is a significant factor and could possibly represent a tipping point, or at the very least, a factor that pushes things closer to the tipping point.
(I'm using "tipping point" somewhat loosely here. In my opinion, the issue is already decided and Flash is fated to become at most a niche technology. By "tipping point" here, I simply mean the point at which that becomes glaringly obvious to everyone.)
* http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html
Any censorship is bad thing. It is either criminal act (e.g. child pornography) and then no censorship is needed, rather police should take care about the content provider and make sure it is shut down, or it is objectionable to some and should by at the parents discretion what to do with kids not to see it (in that case they need some guidance - rating should provide this to parents) or it is OK to see it. In all three cases no censorship is necessary. It is just relict of the past, hope this goes away.
Just as you may consider censorship bad, I consider it a bad thing to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys. After all, they're legal and parents can monitor their kids all the time if they don't want the kids buying adult toys.
Apple has made a brand image decision - and they have every right to do so. If you want to see something that's not accessible on the iPhone, but you'll have to see it elsewhere.
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
Then you should watch movies before you take your kids to them. That's a great example of why rating systems don't solve the problem. Your kids are apparently far more sensitive than the average kid.
Bottom line is that Apple is a business which has a brand it wishes to protect. Just like Walmsrt's decision not to sell Playboy (or even racier magazines), Apple has made a decision on what they want to sell. It's not censorship, it's a simple decision on what to sell and what not to sell.
Just as you may consider censorship bad, I consider it a bad thing to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys. After all, they're legal and parents can monitor their kids all the time if they don't want the kids buying adult toys.
Apple has made a brand image decision - and they have every right to do so. If you want to see something that's not accessible on the iPhone, but you'll have to see it elsewhere.
Bottom line is that Apple is a business which has a brand it wishes to protect. Just like Walmsrt's decision not to sell Playboy (or even racier magazines), Apple has made a decision on what they want to sell. It's not censorship, it's a simple decision on what to sell and what not to sell.
Except that my eyes and brain do not have DRM or platform-specificity. If I can't get Playboy or Out magazine at Walmart, I can get it somewhere else or directly from the publisher.
I cannot get some applications for my iPhone or iPad because (a) Apple bans them from its store and (b) it's a monopoly store for that platform.
They can't have it both ways.
And skip the HTML5/web app argument. There are lots of things (like photo uploading) that can't be done with a web app that you can do with a native app.
By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys.
The problem is that it's not only porn that gets censored/banned. It's been proven time and again that more innocuous things get caught in the crush as well (art/medical texts/etc...). I would just prefer the option of managing what my family and kids can access rather than leaving that up to someone else.
Apple does a great job of ensuring that nothing malicious appears in the app store. I applaud them for it. With no other avenue for apps though (without jailbreaking) I wish they'd produce a solution that would allow a broader range of content than it does currently.
I realize that a good deal of the content in question could easily be accessed via the web on the phone as well. The thing is, a lot of the time, a dedicated app can provide a better user experience (screen size/controls/etc...). Until such time as websites provide more quality mobile browsing experiences apps are really the best option.
Good riddance to Flash!
Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.
Why go in blind? There are plenty of resources to save you time, money, effort and spare you and your children whatever trauma you wish to avoid.
Here is a very popular site that now has an iPhone app.
Until we get something even close to the programming environment offered by Flash, HTML 5 animation is not going to go mainstream. Sure video players are popping up but those are simply reusable templates, not new applications. And even those players that are being offered don't have the full capabilities that the Flash ones have.
Furthermore when/if we ever get a truly polished HTML 5 programming environment, it won't be free so you can kiss the Flash is expensive and proprietary goodbye because it will be the same deal with a different name when some other company finally brings something like that to market.
The porn industry uses exactly one Flash function- 'video component'. If you think that is all Flash does then you are simply addicted to video. Sure Adobe didn't mind that the whole web video industry standardized on their platform, but that was far from their original intent.
You should be careful what you wish for in terms of the death of Flash, because the major internet companies are not going to play nice in the html 5 video arena either. Maybe when/if things start to standardize on h264 then we will see some compatibility but for now Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Adobe all appear to be backing different standards for video so it could end up in a very similar mess that led to Flash originally taking over.
One thing is for sure. If you want to target video on Apple mobile devices you are going to have to do it with Apple's video app which takes you out of the web page. You therefore need to write a separate web page for those devices anyway. End result is that, as many different client platforms become popular, developers will have to write individual web pages specifically designed for that platform. There is no universal silver bullet format that is ever going to be suitable for all clients.
Except that my eyes and brain do not have DRM or platform-specificity. If I can't get Playboy or Out magazine at Walmart, I can get it somewhere else or directly from the publisher.
I cannot get some applications for my iPhone or iPad because (a) Apple bans them from its store and (b) it's a monopoly store for that platform.
They can't have it both ways.
And skip the HTML5/web app argument. There are lots of things (like photo uploading) that can't be done with a web app that you can do with a native app.
There are hundreds of different cell phones out there. You're free to buy any of them. Your argument is not a rational justification for forcing Apple to sell something they don't want to sell.
The problem is that it's not only porn that gets censored/banned. It's been proven time and again that more innocuous things get caught in the crush as well (art/medical texts/etc...). I would just prefer the option of managing what my family and kids can access rather than leaving that up to someone else.
It doesn't matter if it's porn or if Apple doesn't want to promote drinking so they don't sell apps with alcoholic beverages in them. Or if Apple simply doesn't like the color blue and won't sell an app with a blue icon.
Apple is free to choose what to sell or what not to sell in their store - just as Walmart is free to choose what to sell in THEIR store. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.
Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute. Maybe someday, but right now there are just too many problems with it to make it perform anything close to the capabilities of Flash. Sure you can point to dozens of great looking interactive sites without Flash but have you ever tried to program that stuff? Major headache.
Yes, it has already been announced that Flash is better for lazy developers.
I'm not interested in making life easier for lazy developers. I want quality software on my iPhone -and Flash doesn't cut it. The fact that even Adobe doesn't claim to have a working Flash for the iPhone (or any phone at all other than one or two token examples) proves that it's not ready for prime time on mobile devices - no matter how much you lazy developers wish it was.
If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.
There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.
Yes, it has already been announced that Flash is better for lazy developers.
I'm not interested in making life easier for lazy developers.... [snip]... - no matter how much you lazy developers wish it was.
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.
What are talking about? There are plenty of other options for you to choose. Android, for example.
And even on the iPhone there is mobileSafari which uses the latest open web technologies, which Apple made using the WebKit browser they funded, all or which are well out of their control.
What you want is to control iOS making it a socialized OS that is also completely open. You want Apple to have no say in the way they run their store. You may not even realize it but is exactly what you and others are saying everytime you take offense with a company choosing to do business a certain way in a free market. Remember, before it's your product, it's their product and they have rights, too.
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
Your previous statement started off with: "Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute.". You've set your post up for failure. Flash cannot compete with several aspects of HTML5 already in place. Over the phone I could walk my mother through setting up HMTL5 to stream video from a website. I can't do that with Flash. I can make HTML5 video work on any modern smartphone, but that's not possible with Flash. Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient and easier on the very limited battery life in these portables. Flash is not a substitute for the most prolific and common use of Flash today for non-ad content: video.
You do have a point and for the real pornography I can agree with you. However, e.g. in Germany regular newspaper have to make changes so that they get their app approved by Apple. This is too much. Newspapers call this 'they have to make the Iran version for the App store.' The whole problem is that when Apple started this kind of policing they are the ones drawing the line - something that - in case of newspapers - is the job of the government/society.
At first I was going to agree that Apple keeping porn out of the store was a good idea. But I've changed my mind because there are other ways to handle this. As long as porn titles are properly rated, Apple can simply have a configuration option in the store as to whether they are viewable or not.
The problem with keeping them out of the store completely is that while I agree with the intent, it leads to a slippery slope, because there are fuzzy lines. The recent rejection/acceptance of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is an example. A collection of photographic art can also exist on that fuzzy line. I recently photographed the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island and even though this is a public parade held in the street, there is some nudity and Apple might stop a related app from appearing in the store, even though such nudity is most certainly not pornographic.