iPhone workshop sparks grassroots development

[AppleInsider]

While Apple has yet to host any programming conferences of its own for the iPhone, the unofficial iPhoneDevCamp has already produced a collection of web apps that signaled a quick start to the development community.

Adobe, Yahoo, and numerous other companies as well as hobbyists spent the past weekend at the event held on Adobe's San Francisco campus, helping each other optimize web-based programs and more traditional websites for the days-old Apple communicator.

In some cases, the iPhone's limits have proven frustrating, which organizers themselves revealed in the BarCamp-inspired gathering's opening speech (PDF). Although Apple's web interface follows web standards to the letter and includes the promised ties to calling, e-mail, and maps, any non-Apple plugins -- including Flash, Java, and SVG vector images -- were already known to be unsupported as of July.

The iPhone's ability to dynamically resize the browser window depending on the physical angle has also created a unique problem for coders who want to fit their site to the iPhone's 320x480 screen: site designers have to include a special exception that detects a change in the site resolution, developers found.

Nevertheless, some developers have already created miniature web programs that bypass several of the perceived limits. Although many of the programs fall into the categories of web games or equivalents to Mac OS X Dashboard widgets, a few utilities have effectively tried to replace full-fledged programs that would otherwise be needed.

Among the examples readied for the weekend were SonicLiving + iTMS, which lets its users browse, sample, and queue up songs to buy later through the iTunes Store's shopping cart method; iPhogo, a Flickr-like utility that uploads iPhone photos to the web through e-mail; and Telekinesis, a remote control suite that steers iTunes music and captures images from the desktop or the iSight camera. Many of these utilities often require a workaround such as other web servers or Mac apps installed outside of the actual phone.

But while the software on display at iPhoneDevCamp has represented a significant step forward for expanding the iPhone beyond its 12 core programs, Adobe itself disclaimed the event from the beginning by placing some of the responsibility for nurturing the phone's development community at Apple's door.

"We suggest that folks speak to Apple directly about what technologies the iPhone will support and integrate," the company says in its FAQ for the event. "Naturally we believe that support for Flash is essential for any mobile device that wants to deliver a great experience for customers."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Blah64]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Adobe says:
"We suggest that folks speak to Apple directly about what technologies the iPhone will support and integrate," the company says in its FAQ for the event. "Naturally we believe that support for Flash is essential for any mobile device that wants to deliver a great experience for customers."

Oops, slip of the toungue. What they meant to say was:

"Naturally, we believe that Flash on iPhone is in Adobe's best interest, and we want all of you developers to bug Apple about it."

Flash sucks CPU, and therefore battery life. And 90% of the time it's a big waste of bandwidth and attention too. Gee, just what I wanted, scrolling, animating, flashing crappy ads -- now on my iPhone too! The longer Apple waits before putting Flash on the iPhone, the better, IMO. In fact, "never" would be a great release date as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention that Apple is pushing h.264 as a video format standard, and are going to great lengths to get youtube videos re-encoded. Why would they want to include Flash on the iPhone when that would detract from that movement?

[AISI]

Originally Posted by Blah64

Not to mention that Apple is pushing h.264 as a video format standard, and are going to great lengths to get youtube videos re-encoded. Why would they want to include Flash on the iPhone when that would detract from that movement?

Ask Steve Jobs, he went on record to say that Flash support was a possibility, even though Flash is not necessary to show YouTube videos.

Markoff: “And what are you thinking about Flash and Java?”

Jobs: “Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain.”

Markoff: “Flash?”

Jobs: “Well, you might see that.”

Markoff: “What about YouTube–”

Jobs: “Yeah, YouTube—of course. But you don’t need to have Flash to show YouTube. All you need to do is deal with YouTube. And plus, we could get ‘em to up their video resolution at the same time, by using h.264 instead of the old codec.”

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by Blah64

Oops, slip of the toungue. What they meant to say was:

"Naturally, we believe that Flash on iPhone is in Adobe's best interest, and we want all of you developers to bug Apple about it."

Flash sucks CPU, and therefore battery life. And 90% of the time it's a big waste of bandwidth and attention too. Gee, just what I wanted, scrolling, animating, flashing crappy ads -- now on my iPhone too! The longer Apple waits before putting Flash on the iPhone, the better, IMO. In fact, "never" would be a great release date as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention that Apple is pushing h.264 as a video format standard, and are going to great lengths to get youtube videos re-encoded. Why would they want to include Flash on the iPhone when that would detract from that movement?

it is true that there is a lot of crap content that is made with Flash, but there is a lot of quality stuff too. For advanced media rich interfaces, it is the leading delivery platform - mainly because of it portability... this is a promise that can be made with multiple platforms, multiple browsers - not something that is capable by Java, JScript, or any other competing technology, with the possible exception of MS Silverlight (if not yet totally portable, will be soon).

Your argument for not supporting Flash is sort of like saying... hey developers, we want you to stick to Applescript to make applications and stay away from Obj-C. (example used only for illustrative purposes) There are a lot of apps out there made with Obj-C that are buggy and crash. Although this is a true statement, it ignores the fact that in order to do more powerful things, one has to use the more advanced tools and the fact that there are many very powerful prime time apps made with Obj-C.

With Flash, web developers can make a sight that autodetects the appropriate resolution and make a single target for all Flash compliant devices. iPhone should be able to run full Flash Player 9 and not have to run Flash Lite. Otherwise, you are asking Flash developers, who in reality are the standard that websites are built upon, (for Media rich sites) to make an exception for the iPhone so that we have just "iPhone" sites, and then other more grown up sites for full Flash compliant browsers.

...and here is why supporting Adobe is supporting Apple's health. If market share falls away from Adobe, it is going to be gained by Microsoft Silverlight. If Apple does not support Adobe, they are in effect almost directly supporting Microsoft.

For some people, Flash means video... specifically YouTube video. In this specific case, Apple has happened to shoved enough money into the machine to effect a change. Personally, I could care less about YouTube, almost never watch it, and I sure don't really want to see more advertisements... yet I find a compelling reason to have Flash support so I do get the "Real Internet" and mainly, because of my attraction to the Flash/Flex programmable capabilities of the runtime for RIA - effectively equivalent to the power of traditional applications, especially if the executable can be stored local on the iPhone's memory, rather than having to be served remotely.

[TitoC]

Originally Posted by tsvisser

it is true that there is a lot of crap content that is made with Flash, but there is a lot of quality stuff too. For advanced media rich interfaces, it is the leading delivery platform - mainly because of it portability... this is a promise that can be made with multiple platforms, multiple browsers - not something that is capable by Java, JScript, or any other competing technology, with the possible exception of MS Silverlight (if not yet totally portable, will be soon).

Your argument for not supporting Flash is sort of like saying... hey developers, we want you to stick to Applescript to make applications and stay away from Obj-C. (example used only for illustrative purposes) There are a lot of apps out there made with Obj-C that are buggy and crash. Although this is a true statement, it ignores the fact that in order to do more powerful things, one has to use the more advanced tools and the fact that there are many very powerful prime time apps made with Obj-C.

With Flash, web developers can make a sight that autodetects the appropriate resolution and make a single target for all Flash compliant devices. iPhone should be able to run full Flash Player 9 and not have to run Flash Lite. Otherwise, you are asking Flash developers, who in reality are the standard that websites are built upon, (for Media rich sites) to make an exception for the iPhone so that we have just "iPhone" sites, and then other more grown up sites for full Flash compliant browsers.

...and here is why supporting Adobe is supporting Apple's health. If market share falls away from Adobe, it is going to be gained by Microsoft Silverlight. If Apple does not support Adobe, they are in effect almost directly supporting Microsoft.

For some people, Flash means video... specifically YouTube video. In this specific case, Apple has happened to shoved enough money into the machine to effect a change. Personally, I could care less about YouTube, almost never watch it, and I sure don't really want to see more advertisements... yet I find a compelling reason to have Flash support so I do get the "Real Internet" and mainly, because of my attraction to the Flash/Flex programmable capabilities of the runtime for RIA - effectively equivalent to the power of traditional applications, especially if the executable can be stored local on the iPhone's memory, rather than having to be served remotely.

Couldn't agree with you more. Many people think that h.264 is somehow going to "magically" replace Flash (try building a site entirely in h.264 while handling data from a php file, xml, etc.) or because Apple had YouTube make copies (remember the YouTube site still uses Flash) of their videos in the h.264 format as well as in the Flash FLV format, that somehow this meant that Apple is never going to support Flash. Nothing could be further from reality. The iPhone was not released supporting Flash because their wasn't a version of Flash available that wouldn't eat a good chunk of iPhone's battery life (as well as why 3G wasn't supported among other reasons). H.264 was used since it relies mostly on hardware/software and uses a lot less battery compared to FLV video or Flash in general. Rumor has it that there is a version of Flash coming doesn't the pike that uses a less CPU power and is made specifically for the iPhone's OS X. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

Flash is much more than animated cartoon sites and crappy banners. When are people going to start realizing that? If that's all there was to them, why do you think that the omission of Flash on the iPhone has been one of the top 3 complaints on the iPhone? So people can see animated cartoons and crappy banners? I don't think so, I don't think so . . .

That is all I am going to say on the subject because every time I get more into this subject, I get railed by other members and told I should "upgrade my resume" (being that I am a Flash developer) since "Flash is on it's way out." So I will stop here and say no more.

[cubedcompanies]

oh wow, iPhogo is getting a little attention. i've been a member here for awhile but not an active poster... i'm one of the guys workin on this side project.

we had the idea last week... my buddy Dimitry programmed it and attended the iPhone dev session. what is currently on the site is a very, very rough framework of what we have planned... we're switching hosts right now because it's been pretty slow today.

thanks for link AI!! We should have some really cool stuff next week... <3

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by Blah64

Flash sucks CPU, and therefore battery life. And 90% of the time it's a big waste of bandwidth and attention too. Gee, just what I wanted, scrolling, animating, flashing crappy ads -- now on my iPhone too! The longer Apple waits before putting Flash on the iPhone, the better, IMO. In fact, "never" would be a great release date as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, because we can't be given that much choice to do what we want....

I usually appreciate Jobs' desire for tight control as things emerge, but this isn't new technology and there should be iPhones sitting in Adobe labs with Flash beta testing apps, not just waiting for hacks.

Same with Java ... why not let some java folks just play around and see if something comes up? You could always put them under contract to that they don't pull a Microsoft on you.

[mrjoec123]

Originally Posted by TitoC

Couldn't agree with you more. Many people think that h.264 is somehow going to "magically" replace Flash (try building a site entirely in h.264 while handling data from a php file, xml, etc.) or because Apple had YouTube make copies (remember the YouTube site still uses Flash) of their videos in the h.264 format as well as in the Flash FLV format, that somehow this meant that Apple is never going to support Flash. Nothing could be further from reality. The iPhone was not released supporting Flash because their wasn't a version of Flash available that wouldn't eat a good chunk of iPhone's battery life (as well as why 3G wasn't supported among other reasons). H.264 was used since it relies mostly on hardware/software and uses a lot less battery compared to FLV video or Flash in general. Rumor has it that there is a version of Flash coming doesn't the pike that uses a less CPU power and is made specifically for the iPhone's OS X. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

Flash is much more than animated cartoon sites and crappy banners. When are people going to start realizing that? If that's all there was to them, why do you think that the omission of Flash on the iPhone has been one of the top 3 complaints on the iPhone? So people can see animated cartoons and crappy banners? I don't think so, I don't think so . . .

That is all I am going to say on the subject because every time I get more into this subject, I get railed by other members and told I should "upgrade my resume" (being that I am a Flash developer) since "Flash is on it's way out." So I will stop here and say no more.

You are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter that Flash is powerful, or that it's popular. It only matters that Adobe owns and controls it. Therefore, it does Apple no good to support it on iPhone.

One of the biggest headaches we've all bee enduring over the past decade is due to the browser wars between IE and Netscape. When one company owns or controls a particular technology on the web, that control is ultimately wielded to create dominance on the web. IE's 80%+ market share is the root of most of the issues surrounding incompatibilities and inconsistencies with other browsers. This is why the W3C was started in the first place, and why Firefox is gaining ground in market share. People are tired of Microsoft's control.

Adobe wants to be another Microsoft with Flash. They want to own the web the way Microsoft continues to try to control the web with IE and now Silverlight. This has to be stopped.

Ajax and HTML 5 do and will offer an open, standard set of technologies for producing rich media applications for the Web. Because they are open, they will render equally everywhere, on every platform, on every device. This is how it should be.

With iPhone, Apple has a unique opportunity to help the adoption of standards (which is in Apple's own best interests, since it has so small a market share), rather than facilitating another Microsoft or Adobe monopoly. Which would you choose?

If Adobe were to reach critical mass with Flash as the definitive source of rich media on the web (a feat which Macromedia never came close to pulling off) where would that leave Apple? At the mercy of Adobe, who has a history of slow and lame Mac development when it sees fit.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

You are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter that Flash is powerful, or that it's popular. It only matters that Adobe owns and controls it. Therefore, it does Apple no good to support it on iPhone. If Adobe were to reach critical mass with Flash as the definitive source of rich media on the web (a feat which Macromedia never came close to pulling off) where would that leave Apple? At the mercy of Adobe, who has a history of slow and lame Mac development when it sees fit.

You are wrong about that. Just look at the Mac OS and Quartz's implementation of pdf's in everything. Adobe controls pdf tech and Apple has to lisense it. It hasn't hurt Apple much; it actually helps to keep pdf's a standard. So why not the same with Flash unless Apple plans on its own Flash-killer.

Flash is good technology for a lot of what Apple could do and if it would actually optimize Core Animation for it, then it would become the BEST Flash development platform for the new era of graphics and video ... Flash adds to H.246 and to other QuickTime tech.

Apple and Adobe compete on several fronts but not on basic streaming of video content. Both need to keep MS at bey.

[pmjoe]

The solution here would be for Apple to release a real SDK for the iPhone rather than force the web on their development community. Developers ought to boycott the iPhone and these types of workshops until they do. What does Apple expect? So much effort into making the web compatible across different browsers and hardware, and easier to manipulate the style and layout of pages to what the designer wants to present ... then what does Apple want? For people to code web pages specifically for the iPhone??? Sure, maybe a handful of people will do this, but most web development these days is geared toward being cross platform and and across most browsers. Good web developers would and should scoff at the idea of coding web pages specifically for this device.

It'd be sad if this turns into a thread about Flash garbage. Give developers a real SDK and let Adobe write their own damn plug-in.

[TerrinB]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

You are wrong about that. Just look at the Mac OS and Quartz's implementation of pdf's in everything. Adobe controls pdf tech and Apple has to lisense it. It hasn't hurt Apple much; it actually helps to keep pdf's a standard. So why not the same with Flash unless Apple plans on its own Flash-killer.

Flash is good technology for a lot of what Apple could do and if it would actually optimize Core Animation for it, then it would become the BEST Flash development platform for the new era of graphics and video ... Flash adds to H.246 and to other QuickTime tech.

Apple and Adobe compete on several fronts but not on basic streaming of video content. Both need to keep MS at bey.

PDF and Flash are not the same thing. PDF is an open standard, that anyone can use for free, provided they adhere to Adobe's guidelines. PDF has been around forever and it serves Apple well because you can easily share documents with your PC friends. If I recall, Adobe wasn't super happy about Apple using PDF with Quartz because Apple didn't license PDF from Adobe, but created its own version. Flash is different because it is not an open standard and it is not everywhere. It is interesting that Adobe just made Flex Open Source. I suspect Apple is pressuring Adobe to get something it wants. Apple often does that to Adobe to get licensing concessions.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

If Adobe were to reach critical mass with Flash as the definitive source of rich media on the web (a feat which Macromedia never came close to pulling off)

They are already beyond critical mass, beyond dominance. Depending on region, it's between 95 and 99% installed base.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

Ajax and HTML 5 do and will offer an open, standard set of technologies for producing rich media applications for the Web. Because they are open, they will render equally everywhere, on every platform, on every device. This is how it should be.

If that were true and Ajax could do everything that Flash can and also had an application development environment that was as easy to use as Flash then I would be the first one on board.

m

[mstone]

Originally Posted by TerrinB

Flash is different because it is not an open standard and it is not everywhere. It is interesting that Adobe just made Flex Open Source. I suspect Apple is pressuring Adobe to get something it wants. Apple often does that to Adobe to get licensing concessions.

Flash is not technically an open standard but the full specification for Flash 3 was disclosed in 1998. The are several open source applications that can produce swf files and also a few readers other than Flash Player however the current Adobe versions are quite superior.

[Blah64]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

They are already beyond critical mass, beyond dominance. Depending on region, it's between 95 and 99% installed base.

I haven't delved into this recently, but back when I did the higher-end numbers were either directly or indirectly based on Adobe or Macromedia data. Hardly an impartial source.

There are a couple other things to consider: version, and availability. So much crap requires a certain version level of Flash, which will almost always reduces your audience significantly (without forcing a download). And you'd better have an awfully compelling app if you think typical people are going to download the latest Flash just for you! The other thing to consider is how many people turn off Flash (or even all plug-ins, thanks to Flash crappola everywhere). I fall into the latter camp. On rare occasions I turn it on for something special, but generally I get a nice blank area on the page, as opposed to animated, scrolling garbage that's so distracting I can barely read the "real" page content. Try it some time, you'll find your web experience much more relaxing!

BTW, I have no problem with ads, even occasionally clicking through to see what's up. But Flash ads don't even get -seen- by me, let alone clicked.

Also, for you Flash lovers and developers; this is not to say that cool stuff can't be done with Flash technology. It certainly can. But as a 'consumer', t's just not worth all the other sewage that floats along with it.

[TitoC]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

You are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter that Flash is powerful, or that it's popular. It only matters that Adobe owns and controls it. Therefore, it does Apple no good to support it on iPhone.

One of the biggest headaches we've all bee enduring over the past decade is due to the browser wars between IE and Netscape. When one company owns or controls a particular technology on the web, that control is ultimately wielded to create dominance on the web. IE's 80%+ market share is the root of most of the issues surrounding incompatibilities and inconsistencies with other browsers. This is why the W3C was started in the first place, and why Firefox is gaining ground in market share. People are tired of Microsoft's control.

Adobe wants to be another Microsoft with Flash. They want to own the web the way Microsoft continues to try to control the web with IE and now Silverlight. This has to be stopped.

Ajax and HTML 5 do and will offer an open, standard set of technologies for producing rich media applications for the Web. Because they are open, they will render equally everywhere, on every platform, on every device. This is how it should be.

With iPhone, Apple has a unique opportunity to help the adoption of standards (which is in Apple's own best interests, since it has so small a market share), rather than facilitating another Microsoft or Adobe monopoly. Which would you choose?

If Adobe were to reach critical mass with Flash as the definitive source of rich media on the web (a feat which Macromedia never came close to pulling off) where would that leave Apple? At the mercy of Adobe, who has a history of slow and lame Mac development when it sees fit.

I understand your frustration, but you were missing my point. My point had nothing to do with the monopoly of a technology, but rather the impact and value (design and otherwise) of Flash and what it could offer.

But let's go over some of your points:
(1)

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

I.E's 80%+ market share is the root of most of the issues surrounding incompatibilities and inconsistencies with other browsers. This is why the W3C was started in the first place . . .

Actually, the W3C was created in 1994 as a collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), with support from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the European Commission. This was a body to set up common and usable standards among ALL browsers and platforms, not just problems and issues with Microsoft and I.E. Netscape was having many issues as well as Mosaic (the first browser), not just I.E. Plus, Microsoft is one of it's members. I would find it hard to believe that Microsoft would be a part of anything that was condemn their own company.

(2)

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

Adobe wants to be another Microsoft with Flash. They want to own the web the way Microsoft continues to try to control the web with IE and now Silverlight. This has to be stopped.

I don't even know how to respond with this one. So, if this reasoning holds true, does that mean that Adobe also wants to "control the world" with Photoshop, and Google wants to "dominate us" with their Maps, and . . . well you get the picture. I agree with you about not letting one company having too much control in one market, which could lead to the stifling of that market, but on the same grounds, you must also allow that product to compete in a free market. If someone comes along with a better product, the let them compete. It will either fail or pass depending on it's OWN merits, not some outside source dictating its path. It's true that Ajax can do some great things, but it still can't even come close to what Flash can do. If someone can come up with a better product (especially if it's open-source) then more power to them. Plus, there are ways to create SWF files just using Perl and not having to use the Flash application.

(3)

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

If Adobe were to reach critical mass with Flash as the definitive source of rich media on the web (a feat which Macromedia never came close to pulling off) . . .

Umm . . . I don't know. I would say a 95% - 98% installer base is pretty damn good. No other Rich Media or RIA product can come claim this feat. Of all the other types of RIA (Rich Internet Applications) Flash is the most dominant. In fact, Macromedia coined the term RIA in one of their white papers and is now widely used as a a term in the industry. I would use this term more than Rich Media, since Rich Media is much more of a broader term and is more outdated. Although Flash can definitely be considered a "Rich Media."

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point of dominance by Adobe (I was mad as hell when they disbanded Freehand after taking over Macromedia and still pissed off about it). But I also think that before we start throwing out the baby with the bath water, we should let the market decide if the other alternatives can compete. And if this means that Apple decides to not use Flash, so be it. I guess we'll just have to see if the majority of users and the market will allow this or voice enough opinions to make Apple change their minds. All we can do is wait and see.

[vinea]

Flash is kinda a no brainer whenever Apple wants to do it. I would hope we get Silverlight support at the same time. Too many .NET/MS based shops around to expect Silverlight NOT to get net presence.

Vinea

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

Ajax and HTML 5 do and will offer an open, standard set of technologies for producing rich media applications for the Web. Because they are open, they will render equally everywhere, on every platform, on every device. This is how it should be.

With iPhone, Apple has a unique opportunity to help the adoption of standards (which is in Apple's own best interests, since it has so small a market share), rather than facilitating another Microsoft or Adobe monopoly. Which would you choose?

So, we're supposed to wait for browser developers to fully support standards, esp. Ajax and HTML 5, then wait for web site developers to decide a critical mass of peoples have said browser upgrades to support said standards? Hell, we're not even sure Safari supports that yet and whether it will! Considering the glacial pace of such adoptions in the past, we're basically waiting years for this to occur, rather then have Apple put flash on the iphone (because, as we know, all the web now revolves around what will and won't work on the iPhone, and once people realize it doesn't support flash or java, those technologies will become the archaic remnants of days gone by).

And can Apple actually promote the iPhone has having a full and complete web browser (and mocking those on other phones), yet not use what some would consider a de-facto web standard?

Originally Posted by Blah64

There are a couple other things to consider: version, and availability. So much crap requires a certain version level of Flash, which will almost always reduces your audience significantly (without forcing a download). And you'd better have an awfully compelling app if you think typical people are going to download the latest Flash just for you!

Nice point. Completely off-topic, but nice point. However, I'd argue the same holds true with any web content and browsers (going back to the wonderful days of going to a web site and seeing a notice that says "Your browser doesn't support frames!"). As standards evolve and enhance, would you not need to potentially upgrade your browser in order to view content?

And I'd argue that there's only a very small minority of all web users who turn off flash outright. I also recall people would turn javascript off, for it was 'useless' and all. How things have changed, as its now the backbone of the grand web 2.0.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by Louzer

And I'd argue that there's only a very small minority of all web users who turn off flash outright. I also recall people would turn javascript off, for it was 'useless' and all. How things have changed, as its now the backbone of the grand web 2.0.

I wish that browsers would give the user more control over the plug-ins - not just enable or disable. Some behavior like showing a gray box (or alt content image) for Flash until you roll over which would display a dialog box asking to show Flash content or not, on a case by case basis. That way you could easily ignore ads and be only one click away from enjoying Flash applications of merit. At least then, the honorable Flash developers wouldn't have to take the bad rap for the 'misuse' of Flash.

m

[TitoC]

Originally Posted by mstone

I wish that browsers would give the user more control over the plug-ins - not just enable or disable. Some behavior like showing a gray box (or alt content image) for Flash until you roll over which would display a dialog box asking to show Flash content or not, on a case by case basis. That way you could easily ignore ads and be only one click away from enjoying Flash applications of merit. At least then, the honorable Flash developers wouldn't have to take the bad rap for the 'misuse' of Flash.

m

Really good point. Could definitely see this type of control being addressed within the browser for each type of plug-in or media handler. That way you can tell your browser to play ALL Quicktime media but let you "review" Flash content on a per-basis view. I think something like that would be highly accepted.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by TitoC

Really good point. Could definitely see this type of control being addressed within the browser for each type of plug-in or media handler. That way you can tell your browser to play ALL Quicktime media but let you "review" Flash content on a per-basis view. I think something like that would be highly accepted.

Yeah, and then they should make TV's that make watching advertisements optional without the need for recording tech. Also newspapers should have all of the advertisements in the back so that they don't get in the way of the news stories.

Nice idea, wrong economic model.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Yeah, and then they should make TV's that make watching advertisements optional without the need for recording tech. Also newspapers should have all of the advertisements in the back so that they don't get in the way of the news stories.

Nice idea, wrong economic model.

That's why Flash alternate image content is recommended its the motion that is the problem. But to use your analogy - What if the commercials on tv ran concurrently with the show in boxes all around the screen? That might detract from the story-line just a bit, although in some cases it could actually help to improve the content of a few shows

[TitoC]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Yeah, and then they should make TV's that make watching advertisements optional without the need for recording tech. Also newspapers should have all of the advertisements in the back so that they don't get in the way of the news stories.

Nice idea, wrong economic model.

Well, they already give you the choice of turning off particular plug-ins ENTIRELY now, so I don't think it's THAT much of a stretch. If you are a company that creates a plug-in (as is Adobe with Flash), what would you rather have? Browsers that either turn off completely your plug-in (as is the case now) or a browser that gives you a choice to view that plug-in whenever you want?

You are confusing two completely different things: Advertisements with ALL Flash or any media content for that matter. They are apples and oranges. You are comparing ALL Flash content (or any media that requires a plug-in) with ALL advertisements. I hate to burst your bubble here, but Flash content is not always an advertising banner.

Who's to say that someone can't invent a Firefox extension that would do just that? Also, who would be telling you that you CAN'T do that? Adobe? I don't think so. They would have no control on how a particular plug-in is controlled within a browser (the browser manufacturer does that), only on how the SWF is created.

Nice comment, wrong examples.

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by mstone

I wish that browsers would give the user more control over the plug-ins - not just enable or disable. Some behavior like showing a gray box (or alt content image) for Flash until you roll over which would display a dialog box asking to show Flash content or not, on a case by case basis. That way you could easily ignore ads and be only one click away from enjoying Flash applications of merit. At least then, the honorable Flash developers wouldn't have to take the bad rap for the 'misuse' of Flash.

Safari:
http://fsbsoftware.com/SafariBlock.html
Firefox:
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

[mstone]

Originally Posted by pmjoe

Safari:
http://fsbsoftware.com/SafariBlock.html
Firefox:
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

Thanks for the links. I wish it worked a little more intuitively. I would just like to just choose play or not play. I can't seem to understand logic of the the block filter theory.

m

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by mstone

Thanks for the links. I wish it worked a little more intuitively. I would just like to just choose play or not play. I can't seem to understand logic of the the block filter theory.

They don't work exactly the same, but they both have a preference panel and when you control-click on the Flash frame, you get a context menu(s). FlashBlock (Firefox), if I remember right, blocks everything and then you can add sites to a whitelist to allow Flash from that site. SafariBlock allows everything and then you can add sites to a blacklist to not allow Flash from that site. Personally, I prefer the block everything and then I choose to allow approach, but the software is free, so I guess I can't be too picky.