or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash - Page 2

post #41 of 101
Flash can be a useful tool; I've used it on many standalone projects. However the 1st problem is with it running in the browser on non-windows machines and the 2nd problem is Adobe management. Its performance on Mac OSX is APPALLING - its the single greatest source of misery when browsing. Adobe seem to be either incapable or unwilling to do anything about that. Since it has become the defacto standard for pervasive advertising and a vehicle for 'luxury' web design companies to charge their clients monstrous fees, it must be stopped/destroyed/eradicated. ClickToFlash is like cool stream water to a man dying of thirst. Its outstanding and I love it.

Yes of course you can create crappy adverts in HTML5 -but that's not the point - there is a chance they might actually run without bringing your machine to its knees.
post #42 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate, and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff. Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes. Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.

Then there are secondary reasons, such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous. Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.

Lastly, just as a personal annoyance of mine, I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.

Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.


Well said Sir. I wish I had written that.
post #43 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

1) Exactly why is Flash superior from a technological point of view? The plugin runs abysmal on anything but Windows machines. On all other platforms, it uses 3-4times as many CPU cycles as necessary... Add that over the millions of devices, and that's a lot of wasted energy and carbon emissions...

Runs fine on my OSX and linux machines.Yes, I know that a lot people have problems with flash in OSX, I'm just not one of those. Adobe demoed hardware accelerated Flash in mobile phones (all but iPhone) yesterday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

2) Yes AS3 is Object-Oriented, but so is JavaScript, albeit a bit more limited. However, the implementation is rather vague and it's rarely obvious to the coder what's going on behind the scenes. Without going into too much technical details, you'll end up with memory leaks and infinite loops without even realising it. If you really want to write web-apps in a full powered OO-language, use GWT.

You're right that Javascript can barely claim OO status. However, the latest Safari and Firefox developer tools are brining JavaScript to enterprise status. I don't know anything about GWT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

3) Yup, HTML5 can't draw graphs or provide for augmented reality apps. That's what the open standard JavaScript and the numerous open-source frameworks are for. (As SproutCore, Objective-J, etc)

There are very few Javascript libraries that draw graphs. And those that do pale in feature and ease of use comparison with Flex. There is no way to perform augmented reality in Javascript, as there is no web cam access, and certainly no way to process that data in real time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

4) My main gripe is that the web is supposed to be an open place, free for all, with no limitations. The more and more people want to use Flash, the more and more Adobe takes control of the internet. Do you really want an internet where one company is in control of everything? Imagine all RIA's, all graphics, all videos etc on every single site being made in Flash. Adobe then can do whatever they want. I'm aware that the Flex libraries and swf's are rather open, but the Flash plugins themselves are not, so Adobe could incorporate anything they want in those plugins and we'd have to swallow it. All web pages would simply be Adobe's puppets on strings.I don't see how this can possibly benefit end-users or developers.


I much prefer a web where the design tools are regulated and determined by a large group of companies and associations, and I hope you agree.

Adobe isn't taking over the web. No adobe technology developer would ever tell you to use Flash for content presentation. Flash is great for interactive visualizations, and media presentations. No real developer uses Flash for content. That's what HTML is for.
post #44 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_McDonald View Post

I've been reading this site for a few years now and I'd say the articles are generally well researched and written in a balanced fashion however, it seems that this journalistic integrity disappears whenever Flash is discussed. Furthermore, I just don't get why there is SO much anti-Flash sentiment in the comments. For example this article states:

"Flash 'applications' replace open and standard web content created using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with Adobe's proprietary .swf, a closed binary file that wraps up web content files (such as graphics and movies) with the company's own variant of ECMAScript (JavaScript), called ActionScript."

...when in fact, Adobe published the SWF specification as part of the Open Screen Project (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/...t_spec_v10.pdf) - that's a pretty significant inaccuracy that I hope will be corrected by the author.

The fact that Adobe has documented the SWF file format specification has nothing to do with .swf files being closed or "opaque" binary files as opposed to being open, human readable HTML/CSS. There is nothing about a file type's open specification that results in its contents being open source. The web has always been open by design. Flash is an attempt to make content and information into a binary blob that can only be interpreted via the Flash runtime.

We might as well just replace web page with Windows .exe files! Or whatever binary file AOL used to use before the web browser.

Please correct your misleading comment, as it is likely to confuse users into thinking that Flash is an acceptable alternative to the open web.


Quote:
Regarding my second point, I think people are failing to recognise that Flash is just a tool. Whilst I accept that the Flash Player (and Adobe products in general) has become slightly bloated, this is just a function of it's enormous popularity as a easy-to-use multi-purpose tool. Most of the crashes that people experience with Flash content can probably be attributed to poorly written code on the part of the designer / developer - something that the strictly-typed nature of ActionScript 3.0 seeks to address.

The Flash runtime is notorious for crashing and maxing out the processor just when playing YouTube videos. There is not any likelihood of any "bad third party code" this can be attributed to. It is Adobe's bloated plugin and overreaching architecture which attempts to deliver a closed web-alternative that it completely owns.


Quote:
In my opinion, Flash plays a vital role alongside standards such as HTML and CSS in that it's low barrier to entry (from a development perspective) enables a great deal of amazing creativity (as well as a lot of crap). It is this experimentation that drives standards to incorporate new features as they reach critical mass (Flash video is a perfect example).

As a researcher with no formal CS training, I use Flash to develop applications that allow people to interactively design their own textile products (using Nintendo Wiimotes, RFID, Augmented Reality, microphone / webcam input, etc) and have the compositions re-generated at high-resolution in Illustrator / Photoshop ready to be digitally printed onto fabric. Not something that would be easily done in HTML5.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the web had video before Flash. And given the clean, open, and plugin free nature of the web and HTML5, there really isn't any reason to return to Flash for new projects, unless one is a Photoshop user without any web skills and only interested in throwing together a prototype.

The only reason for advocating Flash is if you prefer the web to be owned by Adobe rather than being developed in web standards that allow Google, Mozilla, Apple, and the FOSS community to cooperate and compete independently toward improving the web. There's nothing Apple and Google can do to accelerate Flash ActionScript, bug both have delivered new and innovative approaches to rapidly speed up JavaScript.

Flash encourages unskilled people to create inaccessible, slow, and poorly designed replacements for web pages, and forces the rest of us to use Adobe's poor quality plugins to render them.

Not that our individual opinions matter much; Apple and Google are committed to replacing Flash with HTML5. Adobe can't do much but advertise how many phones license Flash, as if that even matters. Those phones also run Java. Neither is very relevant in the future of mobile software.

As for banner ads, yes they'll be around without Flash, but at least they won't kill your mobile CPU just to deliver a simple animation. Ads and video presentation are together 95% of the Flash in use on the web. Neither needs Flash.
post #45 of 101
ClickToFlash needs the ability to auto-play QT videos on YouTube.COM. The current iteration requires too many clicks.

If I'm on YT and I click a thumbnail I want to watch the video!!

Saw this tweet on YT today.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #46 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate, and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff. Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes. Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.

Then there are secondary reasons, such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous. Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.

Lastly, just as a personal annoyance of mine, I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.

Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.

C'mon bro' tell the truth. Look, the kind of hatred you see for Flash comes about for only one reason - being threatened. My experience with it - is it's usually an HTML'er that either doesn't have the aptitude to code Flash or the work ethic to be a full-fledged programmer. Harsh - but true. I mean - not like it - OK - but ME HATE FLASH!!!! A little too extreme.
post #47 of 101
Get to the heart of the problem: Adobe. Flash as a program language has a lot of abilities and potential. But adobe's ownership of flash player plug in delivery ruins that because it's crap. Hence the opposing views here by programmers and consumers.

Apple should have bought adobe and fixed flash instead of trying to marginalize it as now. But it's all adobe's fault.
post #48 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by sympleton View Post

C'mon bro' tell the truth. Look, the kind of hatred you see for Flash comes about for only one reason - being threatened. My experience with it - is it's usually an HTML'er that either doesn't have the aptitude to code Flash or the work ethic to be a full-fledged programmer. Harsh - but true. I mean - not like it - OK - but ME HATE FLASH!!!! A little too extreme.

The only extremity I see is your categorization of people who don't like Flash as inept programmers. You're posting on a forum full of end users, the people who load up their browsers and use the sites that Flash designers help create. And they don't like what they're seeing.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sentiment because you think it has to do with programmers who dislike the format is ridiculous.

As stated earlier, Flash is a tool. The trouble is that it seems to be the only tool in web designers' arsenals. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
post #49 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post

Its performance on Mac OSX is APPALLING - its the single greatest source of misery when browsing.

Some people here won't listen to that truthful statement you just said. I keep hearing: It runs perfect for me. It's like you and me are living in the Twilight Zone here.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #50 of 101
"But that doesn't translate to the mobile realm, where battery life and processing power constraints make the fat desktop Flash plugin and its pair of virtual machines unworkable."

Or indeed the portable market. A friend of mine recently bought a MacBook Pro & though loving it, thought that 2-3 hours battery life meant she had a faulty unit. The store insisted there was no problem so a quick run through her browser history revealed a Facebook Farmville addiction. The insane 100% CPU useage (whilst idle!) took her battery way down.

I'm sure there are good applications but generally Flash=Malware. I can't wait to install this plug-in & get her to do the same to help her kick the habit.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #51 of 101
...and as for killing multi-touch & scrollball. It's a total UI throw-back!

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #52 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate,

Somewhat true, depending on the developer and the platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff.

Completely relative statement based on personal preference. There are many web users who visit flash sites that would disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes.

This is true in a literal sense, meaning you can dynamically manipulate pages with xhtml/css/xml/js, but its not the same set of capabilities as flash so it's apples to oranges in a sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.

For a professional developer who cares about cross browser compatibility, it's much less work to deploy video with flash that to accommodate IE 8 (XHTML 4.1 w WMV) and WebKit (HTML 5 w Quicktime) or Oog. That's not to say its better, just easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous.

People have such short memories. I was producing annoying adds way before flash and im sure I will be after flash is gone. Those ads by the way, pay for the content you are viewing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.

This problem is not singular to flash at all, in fact, it is just as possible to weigh down the load times of a page with static images and fancy js.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.

Completely untrue....google swfadress and flash SEO. The problem being of course that this sort of thing is "harder" to implement and requires a bit more code and as a result is often left out. The truth is however it is entirely possible to "deeplink "in flash and bookmark pages within an entirely flash site. And as for saving images, most of my clients don't want you doing that anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.

Thats a bit dramatic isnt it? I always though an end users worst nightmare was IE.


Anyway, I agree with an earlier posters sentiments that AppleInsider seems to be going down hill. This thread was hardly "news" at all, but was but really does seem to me to be more of an attempt at increasing traffic with a polarizing topic.. anyway, here we go again.
post #53 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

The only extremity I see is your categorization of people who don't like Flash as inept programmers.

I use flash, as well as XHTML, XML, JS, CSS....I dont consider myself an inept programmer. In fact, I have clients the specially request flash. I guess I could call them stupid and turn them down because flash is lame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

You're posting on a forum full of end users, the people who load up their browsers and use the sites that Flash designers help create. And they don't like what they're seeing.

I use this forum and I am an end user, and I like lots of flash sites. There are many mac in my company with other user like me who feel the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sentiment because you think it has to do with programmers who dislike the format is ridiculous.

I completely agree, actually I dont even know a programmer who doesn't do flash as well as XHTML, JS, XML and CSS. These are the standards now a days.. and a lot of people would throw PHP and MySQL into that mix as well....sigh..I need to learn that some day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

As stated earlier, Flash is a tool. The trouble is that it seems to be the only tool in web designers' arsenals. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This isn't true of anyone I know or work with at all.
post #54 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrKSB View Post

the negative effect will be that users who block ads from news websites will be forced to pay for the content \
Danish newspaper JP.dk have started blocking users from visiting their sites if they detect flash blockers.

Well, if they're going to block access to a site for using a flash blocker, then I'm not going to visit that site anyway.

I've had it with all the "hit the <insert stupid thing here> and win a prize!," "people dancing because you can get a mortgage with a low rate," "CONGRATULATIONS blared out of my speaker at high volume" (those sites get closed immediately and I don't ever go back), and worst of all, the ads that open up and block your view of the actual content that take ten minutes to find the close button.

Those are highly annoying and detract from a site. I've heard site owners complain when users complain about the ads. Case in point... MacNN gets ads that people complain about. The administrators just remove those ads from the rotation. Fine and dandy, but they say they have no control over the ads that get served. They say they have tried to request that certain obnoxious ads not be put into the rotation in the first place but that their requests have repeatedly gone ignored. Well, if the requests go ignored, THEN FIRE THE AD COMPANY AND GO WITH ONE WHO *WILL* LISTEN TO YOU!
post #55 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonMan View Post

Well, if they're going to block access to a site for using a flash blocker, then I'm not going to visit that site anyway.

I've had it with all the "hit the <insert stupid thing here> and win a prize!," "people dancing because you can get a mortgage with a low rate," "CONGRATULATIONS blared out of my speaker at high volume" (those sites get closed immediately and I don't ever go back), and worst of all, the ads that open up and block your view of the actual content that take ten minutes to find the close button.

Those are highly annoying and detract from a site. I've heard site owners complain when users complain about the ads. Case in point... MacNN gets ads that people complain about. The administrators just remove those ads from the rotation. Fine and dandy, but they say they have no control over the ads that get served. They say they have tried to request that certain obnoxious ads not be put into the rotation in the first place but that their requests have repeatedly gone ignored. Well, if the requests go ignored, THEN FIRE THE AD COMPANY AND GO WITH ONE WHO *WILL* LISTEN TO YOU!

HTML 5 will allow both video and audio in adds...this wont go away with flash...it will just cause someone to create a video/audio blocker plug-in...which probably isn't a bad thing.

Also, I hate to say this because it is a bit of biting the hand that feeds me, but if you had any idea how "misinformed" clients are, and how much they beg for louder more obnoxious things....you would be stunned.
post #56 of 101
Everybody understands the necessity for ads - unfortunate but necessary. That's not in dispute. What I don't want is for those ads to dominate and detract from the performance of my machine. Also I ABSOLUTELY do not want to visit sites that are Flash only (as in every 'Luxury Brand' and auto manufacturer site). The experience is an exercise in frustration and disbelief at the poor usability that stems from 'novelty' navigation systems.

Utter stupidity.

For the people that believe their browsing experience is not being compromised by Flash, just try ClickForFlash for a few days - it's an extraordinary relief.
post #57 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post

There are many web users who visit flash sites that would disagree.

Beyond Newgrounds, YouTube, and Gametrailers, I can't think of very many sites that absolutely must rely on Flash to deliver specific content, and YouTube and GameTrailers of course have H264 as an alternative.

There are even sites that use Flash solely for form submission, which is just a silly application and a perfect example of the extent to which Flash has degraded the web.

Quote:
This is true in a literal sense, meaning you can dynamically manipulate pages with xhtml/css/xml/js, but its not the same set of capabilities as flash so it's apples to oranges in a sense.

Given the intrusive nature of Flash on the web, this is welcome.

Quote:
That's not to say its better, just easier.

A perfect description of why Flash persists. It has little to do with competitive advantage or the capability of the technology.

Quote:
Those ads by the way, pay for the content you are viewing.

I have nothing against advertisements. I have everything against excessive amounts of and overly intrusive advertisements. Being opposed to Flash is not a de facto opposition to advertisements: stop misinterpreting my post that way.

And by the way, my IGN subscription pays for the content I'm viewing, not the enormous Sprite ad that fills the screen and won't go away until I locate the intentionally-obscure close button. (The fact that an advertisement has a close button in the first place is rather telling, wouldn't you agree?)

Quote:
This problem is not singular to flash at all, in fact, it is just as possible to weigh down the load times of a page with static images and fancy js.

"Javascript can bog down a system too!" is not a real response to "Flash can be counted on to bog down a system." This is a silly non-response, especially in an era in which browser Javascript performance improves almost weekly.

Quote:
Completely untrue....google swfadress and flash SEO. The problem being of course that this sort of thing is "harder" to implement and requires a bit more code and as a result is often left out.

I rest my case.

Quote:
Thats a bit dramatic isnt it? I always though an end users worst nightmare was IE.

No, a web developer's worst nightmare is IE. Don't confuse your list of dreaded technology with your users' dreaded technology.
post #58 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildag View Post

These anti-flash articles on Apple Insider are becoming pathetic. Apple Insider should check their words, as THIS VERY SITE USES FLASH FOR ADS. I'm really considering emailing your advertisers to let them know that Apple Insider is advocating its users use a blocker for its own ads.

Adobe quickly took Macromedia's Flash platform from a "spiffy graphics only" package and made it an extremely useful business tool. There are tens of thousands of developers making lots of money creating business intelligence, and analytics tools with the Flash/Flex platform.

Your readers would do themselves a great favor in reading about modern uses of Flash, and how they can benefit from what the rest of the world has already discovered.

SWF IS NOT A CLOSED SOURCE BINARY. The swf file format has been open and well documented for almost 6 years now.

IF YOU DON'T WANT FLASH, UNINSTALL THE PLUGIN! Don't install another and scoff at the use of flash.

ADOBE SUPPORTS OPEN SOURCE and open formats, with large monetary and production contributions. HTML 5 is a great standard that's sorely needed. The flash platform tackles a completely different set of work. Adobe doesn't sell Flash, or closed formats. They sell tools that make building Flash content (swf) easy. They also sell libraries of code that can be used in Flash. Its the same as a Microsoft Front Page and iWeb for HTML.

THE FLASH PLATFORM AND HTML 5 ARE NOT COMPETING. They have totally separate uses. Have you ever seen a graph rendered in HTML? No, because that's not what HTML is for. That's what Flex (flash) is for. Have you ever seen an augmented reality application in HTML? Again, no, because HTML can't do that.

Apple Insider is a great site for Apple news, and a terrible way to misinform yourself about the Flash platform. This kind of sensationalistic, misinforming and generally negatively charged journalism should be a crime.

Amen!
post #59 of 101
Okay, so let's see. Adobe announces a mobile-optimized full-fledged flash player 10 for every single smartphone but the iPhone, and then announces the ability to convert flash content to the iPhone. First AppleInsider marginalizes the announcements, and then the next day comes out with this "groundbreaking" news that a FlashBlocker Plugin that has been available on Firefox (46% browser share) for several years (all the the while Flash Player adoption has only accelerated with each consecutive version) is now available for Safari (3% browser share), and somehow this spells the death of the Flash Player... huh?? Feeling a bit paranoid are we??

Seriously, all I ever hear from Apple Insider and Apple Fanboys is the holy trinity of Flash-bashing... resource hog, proprietary, battery drain. If it's that bad, just uninstall the stinkin' plugin... simple as that. done and done. Now lets get on to some real news. Geeeesh.
post #60 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Beyond Newgrounds, YouTube, and Gametrailers, I can't think of very many sites that absolutely must rely on Flash to deliver specific content, and YouTube and GameTrailers of course have H264 as an alternative.

There are even sites that use Flash solely for form submission, which is just a silly application and a perfect example of the extent to which Flash has degraded the web.



Given the intrusive nature of Flash on the web, this is welcome.



A perfect description of why Flash persists. It has little to do with competitive advantage or the capability of the technology.



I have nothing against advertisements. I have everything against excessive amounts of and overly intrusive advertisements. Being opposed to Flash is not a de facto opposition to advertisements: stop misinterpreting my post that way.

And by the way, my IGN subscription pays for the content I'm viewing, not the enormous Sprite ad that fills the screen and won't go away until I locate the intentionally-obscure close button. (The fact that an advertisement has a close button in the first place is rather telling, wouldn't you agree?)



"Javascript can bog down a system too!" is not a real response to "Flash can be counted on to bog down a system." This is a silly non-response, especially in an era in which browser Javascript performance improves almost weekly.



I rest my case.



No, a web developer's worst nightmare is IE. Don't confuse your list of dreaded technology with your users' dreaded technology.

Meh, think what you want I guess, clearly I am not going to convince you of anything and I don't actually care anyway. I just enjoy conversations about web trends because it's what I do for a living but your kind of rude so I can't be bothered.

You may not want not believe it, and you may find my opinions "silly", but there are lots of people who do like flash content, flash sites and flash as a tool and they aren't all developers. There really are people who do see a value for it and a use for it. I know because I see it all the time. As a result it's not going away until its replaced by something else that serves the role flash serves now. There will always be annoying adds even when users pay for content, because often times subscription models don't pay all the bills. Whether you agree with that or not won't change the actual business model of developing web content.

Anyhow, take it for what you will...that's just my two cents.
post #61 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeystation View Post

Amen!

Agreed. How I long for the days of ThinkSecret.


EDIT: I should add that while the Macrumors forums aren't any better really, the news actually is.
post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjb00 View Post

Okay, so let's see. Adobe announces a mobile-optimized full-fledged flash player 10 for every single smartphone but the iPhone, and then announces the ability to convert flash content to the iPhone. First AppleInsider marginalizes the announcements, and then the next day comes out with this "groundbreaking" news that a FlashBlocker Plugin that has been available on Firefox (46% browser share) for several years (all the the while Flash Player adoption has only accelerated with each consecutive version) is now available for Safari (3% browser share), and somehow this spells the death of the Flash Player... huh?? Feeling a bit paranoid are we??

Seriously, all I ever hear from Apple Insider and Apple Fanboys is the holy trinity of Flash-bashing... resource hog, proprietary, battery drain. If it's that bad, just uninstall the stinkin' plugin... simple as that. done and done. Now lets get on to some real news. Geeeesh.

Right there with you.
post #63 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjb00 View Post

Seriously, all I ever hear from Apple Insider and Apple Fanboys is the holy trinity of Flash-bashing... resource hog, proprietary, battery drain. If it's that bad, just uninstall the stinkin' plugin... simple as that. done and done. Now lets get on to some real news. Geeeesh.

Hey! I am an apple fan-boy...(I think) and I could hardly be called a flash basher...although I spent the day dealing with cross-server sanbox security issues caused by xml/flash so I'm not exactly LOVING flash today....although in fairness I understand the security issues around this and why it is that way.
post #64 of 101
Count me among those who hate flash. Thank you ClickToFlash!
post #65 of 101
What the Frick kind of a lame ass header is that for an article?

Let us all know when the ground troops are going in to Fight those damn Adobe enemies.

This article is a Flame at Adobe at best and a very BAD one.

Flash is here for the next few years at the VERY least.
HTML 5 is going to be cluster for at Least the next few Years.

Adobe is introducing FLASH on every smart phone platform except the iPhone. It has a watered downd version of a pos recompiled garbage that even Adobe today has said can never let the end user experience the full potential of Flash.

Now that is what I call an assault on Apple. Pitiful Spin on a GREAT ADOBE ACHIEVEMENT.

Hulu Rules with Flash and it's Free.
post #66 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post

Meh, think what you want I guess, clearly I am not going to convince you of anything and I don't actually care anyway. I just enjoy conversations about web trends because it's what I do for a living but your kind of rude so I can't be bothered.

Which of my statements was rude? Perhaps I got a little brisk in the part about advertisements, especially since those defending Flash in this thread have collectively operated under the assumption that those of us who dislike Flash adopted that way of thinking due solely to advertisements, but nothing that approached rudeness.

If the conversation is to be about web trends, then it should be about HTML5, CSS3, OGG/Theora, H264, AJAX, JS performance, and adapting design for MIDs. Flash is not a web trend: it is an entrenched protocol.

Quote:
You may not want not believe it, and you may find my opinions "silly", but there are lots of people who do like flash content, flash sites and flash as a tool and they aren't all developers. There really are people who do see a value for it and a use for it. I know because I see it all the time.

I never claimed otherwise. As before, you seem to be missing my point: Flash as a tool for presenting content is both misused and overused. This would still be somewhat bearable if not for the platform's resource intensive nature. In general, sites that use Flash do so without a specific need for its unique features, which means those of us who load up those Flash pages take a battery life and performance hit for no good reason.

No one is arguing that Flash shouldn't exist. We're arguing that Flash should only be used when there is a specific need for its unique features, and that the platform itself needs to be rewritten and streamlined to have as minimal a system footprint as possible. If we're to talk about trends, then rewrites and performance improvements are a major trend right now: witness Snow Leopard and Windows 7.

Quote:
As a result it's not going away until its replaced by something else that serves the role flash serves now.

This is what HTML5, CSS3, H264, OGG/Theora, and others are trying to do.

Quote:
There will always be annoying adds even when users pay for content, because often times subscription models don't pay all the bills. Whether you agree with that or not won't change the actual business model of developing web content.

Again, you're arguing against something that was never said. Of course there will be advertisements even in a Flash-less web. That's not why some of us want to see its use curbed.
post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waalter View Post

Because that's our job. Asking why a designer is allowed to design something is like asking why an architect is allowed to architect something.



Some of you people are acting as though Flash is the root of all the bad design on the web. As if there's no HTML site without a splash page or superfluous graphics. As if no HTML content has ever been divided into 5 pages when it should have been all on one page, or been megabytes in size when it should have been split into multiple pages. Or what about custom CSS-based scrollbars? How about sites where enormous 3MB images have been embedded all over the place?

I'm an interaction designer. I reluctantly took the time to learn ActionScript 3, and now develop in both it, Flex, and HTML / CSS / JS. I will tell you firsthand: Flash is a resource hog, it's overused, and it's not perfect by any means. Like many other people here, I'm on a MacBook Pro, and if there's more than one Flash file embedded on a page - even simple animations - my fans start spinning. For these reasons, tools like ClickToFlash are terrific.

But if there's something I've learned, it's that nothing should be considered a one-size-fits-all solution. That goes for Flash AND for HTML (and Silverlight if it even registers on your radar). I love HTML because it's lean, it's quick, and as of late it can do a lot of cool stuff that people would have expected from a Flash-based project. But using it to create a game (e.g. FarmVille, Quake Live) would be no small task, if not impossible. And for the people talking about H.264 support, Flash has supported that in some capacity since Flash Player 9. Perhaps most important of all, even though there are a ton of terrific things HTML5 can do, it's not backwards compatible - whereas Flash plugins work even on crummy browsers like IE6.

Use of Architect is not good example since by definition these people design and help construct a building. This means that take into account all variables to ensure that everything works for the final outcome, fully functional building/structure that is designed well in all areas.
post #68 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Use of Architect is not good example since by definition these people design and help construct a building. This means that take into account all variables to ensure that everything works for the final outcome, fully functional building/structure that is designed well in all areas.

It's not a "good example" because building a fully functional APP or building doesn't fit your description of why Flash is a great development app for multiple purposes?

Rather a convenient choice of standards...

Flash just sucks on Apple. Have you ever thought it's Apple's OS and not Adobe?
post #69 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post


Flash just sucks on Apple. Have you ever thought it's Apple's OS and not Adobe?

Of course, Apple should just rewrite their OS so that Adobe's proprietary Flash runs correctly.

I prefer to think differently. Perhaps if Adobe wanted a place on Apple's iPhone platform, they wouldn't have treated Apple and their customers like third class citizens for the last 10 years.
post #70 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I'm all for this ClickToFlash. Can't wait to see the day when Flash disappears for good. Such a damn processor hog. Intel should be pro-Adobe. Adobe will help Intel sell higher-end processors. Flash animation might be nice to look at, but I'll pass if it's gonna slow everything down. Fine for designers, but a nightmare for people with underpowered computers. As long as I can block it, then all well and good. Let the Flash people code to their heart's content as long as I don't have to see it. I'm sorry if it's the Mac OS that's screwing up the Flash plug-in coding routines or something. Then maybe Apple should do something about it if Flash works so well on Windows. Meanwhile I'll just block it for now. I don't need full screen videos so it should be fine for me.


Quit whining.....uninstall the Flash plug-in and be "happy web guy".......when you don't like a program on television, do you yell at the TV? or just change the channel?
post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Count me among those who hate flash. Thank you ClickToFlash!

Quit whining.....uninstall the Flash plug-in and be "happy web guy".
post #72 of 101
Flashless youtube? This will be strange but awesome but still kinda wierd at the same time.

Somehow I still don't see flash dieing out before a hacked flash app/browser arrives to the app store jailbroken app store. We'll see who wins out at the end.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #73 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

If you don't throw your back out from cringing at this horrible pro-Flash video, you haven't been paying attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzqd5mHWTHE

What's encouraging (to me) is the growing sentiment against Flash as represented in the comments. YouTube is more a voice (for better or worse) for the technology amateur than tech-specific sites like this. When you lose the general computer-using populace (and have already lost most of the expert audience) it's time to engage in some deep introspection. Which is something that Adobe seems to be in complete denial about.

Adobe is NOT in denial because they make millions of dollars from Flash....hey we could say Microsoft is in denial about Vista....but they make millions of dollars from a horrible OS.....they are laughing at you...they have not lost most of the general computer-using populace nor most of the expert audience....this is your delusion...Adobe's bank account says quite the opposite.....now that Flash developers have access to get paid by the App store with Flash CS5........more new users will swarm to the development tools and the App store will have 1000 more bad tip-calculators, but remember, the App store already has many terrible Apps that were created with great tools......your opinion of 100 comments that bash Flash has zero to do with the market-place my friend.

Adobe has software engineers that are just as bright as Apple's engineers.....they will fine tune the plug-in and it will be robust, they have the resources to make this happen.....you can blame Flash for bad ads....and you are correct....but I can promise you one thing with 100% certainty....web ads will not go away ever and they will never quit being intrusive or annoying no matter the technology available ....they will find you.

Now, quitely uninstall the Flash plug-in.....and be "happy web guy"
post #74 of 101
Why is this headline bright red? Where's Wolf Blitzer?

Anyway...Flash is the only reason rich interactive graphics have advanced for the web. For that I give thanks. But that was then. This is now and Flash is a pig. Unfortunately like most others reporting, when I use YT or other Flash sites my MacBook fans go crazy and bye bye CPU.

I also agree that replacing Flash will not make advertisers or bad sites go away. However if apps like ClickToFlash save massive CPU power essentially protecting my investment, then that single reason alone is good enough for me to abandon Flash. I've created a lot of great web sites using Flash and I will soon be redesigning them without Flash and making them mobile compliant at the same time. Unfortunately I will lose some of the pretty UI. I'm hoping the new load times and compatibility will make up for the loss in design flare.

I started using ClickToFlash last night from a recommendation from another thread and I was pleasantly surprised that my YT experience was 100% silent and my CPU performed great. As someone else pointed out the lack of volume controls is very odd though.
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I love ClickToFlash, but this highlights one big issue I have with their approach.

The native controls have no volume control and since every douchebag that puts a video on the internet sets the volume at plus 15 or so, this is not a good thing.

I'd really like to see someone (anyone!), focus on a solution for volume levels on web pages and internet videos. I've been on the Web since the first day, and I had problems adjusting the audio in five different locations then, and still do today.

Maybe I'm just naive or something but my iMac keyboard has an up and a down volume button on it so I don't know why you need more than that .....
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #76 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I found out about ClickToFlash by reading post threads here a month or so ago (Thank you). I downloaded it and hopefully will never have to live without it again. It was free but I'd pay $100 to keep it if I had too.
.


You don't have to, but if it will make you feel better you can send me the $100 and I'll make sure it gets into the "appropriate" hands ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #77 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Some people here won't listen to that truthful statement you just said. I keep hearing: It runs perfect for me. It's like you and me are living in the Twilight Zone here.


I think you're on to something there ... could be! in fact I think I hear the theme song now.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #78 of 101
As an end user I love ClickToFlash. Pages load faster, the content is easier to read and I never get weird delays or messages about a script on the page taking forever.

When I visit a site and find all the navigation requires Flash I go away and never return. That can't be good for business.

Whether the Flash developers like it or not, end users avoiding Flash heavy sites, installing Flash blocking plug-ins or simply browsing from their iPhones are going to change things. When half the mobile browsers and a significant number of desktop browsers stop visiting webmasters are going to sit up and take notice. Word is going to make it to CIOs that people are avoiding them because of the design of their websites and they will demand something be done to attract rather than repel visitors.

I have little kids. They love visiting cartoon sites and playing the cute little games there, but more often than not the experience is so bad, the frame rates so low that the games are unplayable.

When a tool is so bad that it can't even satisfy the low expectations of a 5 year old it's time for that tool to be replaced by something better.
post #79 of 101
Flash is a bandaid for the shortcomings of open web standards. This, in turn, has shown to be a wake up call for the standards organizations that produce open web standards. In turn, the shortcomings of the open web standards are slowly be addressed, resulting in less and less need for Flash.

It's not 1999, and Flash's days appear numbered to me.

The future is not plugins. Just as the future is not broken/half baked html rendering a la IE6. The future is Open, free, and extensible standards-based formats that do not require third party plugins which may or may not be installed.

The fact that Flash is used in such atrocious ways (ads, intro pages) is only hastening its demise. When something is irritating far more often than it is useful, well, that's when NoFlash/ClickToFlash get written. That's when TIVO gets invented. That's when iPods replace commercial radio.
post #80 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

As a consumer of graphic design, I loathe Flash. It is invariably over-engineered, fussy and altogether slow and useless in the real world.

ClickToFlash has been on my MBP for some months and I encourage every other Mac user I know to install it. It makes life a pleasure to be protected from inanities produced by out of college web designers.

Die Flash. Die.

☟☟☟☟☟ yes
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash