Inside Apple's iPad: Adobe Flash - Page 8

Each site would make its own decisions as to what they support. No standards body can tell sites what to use or not. Flash is a plug-in using standard plug-in architecture, as long as Adobe supports Flash, it will remain available, it can't be killed except by abandonment by all those that use it.

How HTML5 gets exaggerated to some sort of anti-capitalist thing, I don't know, especially when most of the members of the WC3 are businesses.

Sort of joking, exposing the "whole of the Internet" myth, for what it is.

Therefore all these "whole of the Internet" whiners are getting upset over something that doesn't exist.

I can just use car parts, Transmission, Clutch & Handbrake to get me to where I want to go

What site uses 1080p? Or did you wander from the discussion regarding Flash?

HTML 5 is not necessarily anti-capitalist. How things are proceeding are capitalist, and completely fine by me. Adobe doesn't support Mac OS to its fullest, and Apple looks for an alternative.

I am not in the computer area, rather in the biomedical area, so it might be different. There you follow the industry standard. in any proceeding one of the first questions asked is "did you/it follow industry standard practices/standards?" If you did, you are in reasonably good shape, if not, you are screwed.

There is group that ratifies HTML and other open standards but what it sounds your suggesting is to force browsers to utilize it. Check out this browser comparison chart for HTML5. You can see that the support doesn't grow evenly. Also note that unique features that are added by one browser can adopted by the standards committee.

•

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...engines_(XHTML) Supporting both is great, if each are viable for that platform. So far, Adobe hasn't delivered Flash 10.1 to mobile devices or Mac OS X. When do we can evaluate how feasible it could become.

There won't ever be a blanket support or no support switch being made for something as complex as HTML5. aspects of HTML5 will be added when the developer sees fit. Right now, the video tag is looking great for many reasons. it's supported in every major browser, expect IE, in a partial capacity since not all values for the element are yet enabled. They may never be completely enabled.


It is going through the market, hence these heated debates we get into about Flash.

YouTube started adding 1080p playback for applicable uploads a few months ago. The bitrate isn't great but for a 'free' internet streaming service it's pretty nice.

edit: Looks like it might be 5Mbps, about the same as iTunes Store 720p. Anyone wanting to test different qualities can do so here: http://keepvid.com/

I see where you're coming from, I understand that. Web site technologies are very different. When a web site goes down or doesn't work properly, usually people don't die. Biomedical processes going wrong can hurt people. That, and I think it spreads the liability pretty thinly, and gives the impression that you're using the best knowledge available at the time.

No people don't die, but a lot of money can be lost if a site goes down. Plus, and again I very well may be wrong, if your site got hacked, I would think a defense would be "i followed the industry standard."

I didn't realize that. I didn't see any YouTube above 720p until you pointed it out, though it seems unnecessary given the bitrate. Not bad, though 5Mbps is skimpy for 1080p, I'd argue that it's often pushing it for 720p, even with h.264. It really depends on the footage.

LOL I just tested two 1080p videos. One is 3.3Mbps and the other 3.7Mbps. That is well below iTS HD but it's the number before the little 'p' that is marketable, not bitrate.

edit: For another point of reference it looks like the iTunes Store SD content I have ranges from 1.5Mbps to 2.2Mbps.

90% of you on here are complete morons and are blinded by what Jobs/Apple dictates.

Soooo let's get this out of the way first, I think Apple computers are superior, I think the company is the best out there, but come on...

Flash/Flex is a development platform and a superior one at that. Have fun doing this w/W3C Compliant XHTML/CSS or javascript:

http://www.bluecollaragency.com/

or this:

http://okaydave.com/

or this:

http://iso50.com/iso50.html

and there are hundreds of other examples out there as good as these that use Flash/Flex as their chosen development platform.

So many of you on here are like "NOOOOOOOOOO FLASH IS SOOOOOO BAD!!!!!" when I think a lot of you have no experience with the platform. It's not that hard to learn, unless you are stupid; Action Script has some fundamentals in Object Oriented Programming - oh, but wait, you dumb ass CSS/XHTML developers have little knowledge of that don't you? C++, Java, etc. is stupid isn't it? More than likely you don't have the ability to comprehend it.

Visual design is influenced by motion graphics, so get over it. Flash isn't the standard for web design and will never be, but admit that it will do some things better than HTML5-10-20 or whatever.

The same people on here who bitch about Flash complain, endlessly, about Photoshop and Illustrator and these are incredible tools. Like they are too hard to use or something? I've read a lot of Adobe hate this week, well here is something positive. LEARN SOMETHING from a great resource about how awesome Adobe tools can be:

http://veerle.duoh.com/

The personal attacks are uncalled for, and do not belong on this site.

can not believe you posted this reply and thought it was rational comment to reply to previous person's opinions/facts.
comment about "cool looking calendar that pretty innovative" you lack the wit or humor to be actually be sarcastic. Lets stick to the discussion at hand, which is Flash is CPU hog on OSX, has never been properly optimized for OSX and now Adobe are trying to fix this, little to late.

Flash is BAD for OSX that is fact, not sure why you are ranting and Adobe have admitted to that fact. As for the rest of your comments, oh well hope it makes you more relaxed to get your frustrations out in open.
Not sure if you read the discussion thread or just decided that venting was a good thing, anyway the discussion is Flash on OSX at consumer level.

Point taken, but these discussion always take the turn of how bad/evil Adobe/Flash is and I don't agree. \

I can agree on the above point, but you will also read same bad/evil comments about Apple not supporting Flash from irrational people and I wonder why.

You can disagree, heck I agree with you on the point, but you do not have to be insulting about it. The forum is supposedly for the rational and civil discussion of issues.

I apologize, but I think my points are very valid. The hundreds of ADOBE SUCKS posts are overwhelming; especially this week.

apology accepted.

yes, the posts have been overwhelming, and I am on plenty of peoples' ignore list, and been called a troll multiple times for questioning the anti-Adobe crowd. However, I have done so to try and understand their viewpoint, and hopefully always in a respectful manner.

Number 14
Who and what are you referring to when you wrote Phil, and W&K? Where did you get this information from? Can you link the source(s)? I'm really interested

Not necessary. We're not blind... and we're not morons. A large number of posters here are hoping and looking for better solutions to Flash and it's intrinsic problems... on ALL platforms!


Obviously you don't "really" believe that, because you just called Apple/SJ a dictator.


And exactly why would anyone want to? The above sites are naturally image branding sites for people that are trying to get work, and show off their own, in interactive media. Til now, that meant working with Flash.

If the tools came out... which a few people have mentioned that needs to be done soon (and why not from Apple?!)... to do the same thing using standards-based technology, why would those people above not use it? Truth is, AT THE MOMENT... shall I repeat, AT THE MOMENT... using Flash is the easiest tool of choice to accomplish the above websites.

However, do you also see the limitations of those sites as well? Extremely difficult to read on a hi-res display, zooming into text only causes it to be pixelated. Actually, they all fail when it comes to communicating a coherent message.... considering YOU CAN NOT READ IT! If you're only looking at what it looks like... great work! Form over function though, is not good communications design. You even have a graphic (nice!) titled "Form-Function"... so now understand what that means.


Apart from your name-calling, you make the point exactly why the tools necessary to spit out compliant code shouldn't be that difficult for Adobe. In the near term, it is supposedly a new feature in Flash CS5.

I still would like an alternative program, or a total breakout into professional level development using the Apple iWeb app to do it better and easier. Possibly as an extended WYSIWYG frontend to the frameworks in the iPhone/iPad SDK(?)


So you absolutely, positively see HTML standing still and stagnating for possibly the next 40-50 years? I was on the internet way back in '94, when Mosaic was still in it's infancy. Look where we are now. You're proclaiming (as many falsely do), that innovation is at an end, similar to "we will never need more than 56mb of RAM" (or something like that, quoted from a very famous person).

As to motion graphics. Influenced, yes... but necessary in all mediums...no. And the most efficient and effective way to get your message across.... ABSOLUTELY NOT. One or 2 static words on a black screen, or a solitary picture worth a 1000, is sometimes MORE effective than confusing the message with motion. I've said often to young designers that I work and collaborate with,"... what do you have to hide, that you're taking my attention away from squeezing that "possibly" very relative chunk of info into my media over-loaded mind? Am I supposed to remember the message, or how great you twirled that text and barn-doored/window-blinded me to death.

Just to show I'm not totally against motion graphics, I'm looking forward to the day (and hopefully still being active i.e. alive ), when e-ink becomes ubiquitous, and we can use it as inlays or panels on packaging design (my main profession), as well as interactive POS ads and displays. Although I'll absolutely hate to see what the Japanese do with it in their markets in Tokyo... it could still be pretty cool stuff... IF used sparingly, tastefully... AND it's effective for the product.


If those examples of "great sites" you linked to are so fantastic, why does YOUR site also not go that route, considering you're also a "Flash Actionscript Developer"?

Could it be that truthfully, you as well as the rest of your potential fans/clients find your accessible and compliant site much more useful?

Actually... I like your work very much! From your site, you don't strike me as someone that would come onto another blog/forum and start calling people names.

Have a bad day or something? Understandable. The biz is a bitch, and I've done the same here on other topic threads. Just keep the personal attacks and generalization of the readers/posters intellect here to a minimum in the future. We're not ALL morons, blind, or stupid... just those with "stud, genius, da, and skater" in their names

Re: my personal "freaking" and "bad-day-posts" = my cat still loves me

PS: The "bitching" about Adobe's toolbox is more about where it "should be" at this point in time, rather than where it's "been" i.e. stagnating for about the last 5 years... or as others have maintained, since they bought Macromedia.

The company and management has become bloated and "happy with itself"... now that they ARE the standard (much like MS). But for how long if they continue to stand still????

My issues with Adobe's bulls%$t goes well back before I owned a Mac, to 2004 in fact when I had to run Firefox in 32bit compatibility mode in order to see their crappy content on my 64 bit Linux system.

I can't see your f%#king examples on my iPhone they are useless to me, just like Adobe crap Flash, so to be honest I don't give a f%#k about what they show.

So apparently the Android hackers have already imported HTC Desire's firmware into the Nexus One with Flash 10.1 enabled.

And it runs perfectly. On a phone.

Battery life hasn't been shown in any of the demos yet, but that's definitely going to be a bullet point in competitors Android handsets now.

Let me get this right, you are bitching that Adobe didn't port Flash to 64bit Linux in 2004 when 64bit Linux for AMD had only been out for months, and next to no one would have been using it? A little self righteous I think...

Who do you think is more valuable to an advertiser, the legions of people on the web playing Farmville on IE6, or the folks with the discretionary info to buy Macs, iPhones and iPads?

Look - I just wish Flash would die and that we can have a more open standards based Internet but just recently I needed to find a vector editor for a simple logo I was designing. I can't afford the ridiculous prices Adobe wants for Illustrator so I had a look around the web for a free alternative.

Obviously I found Inkscape(which is great btw) but I also found these series of tools at Aviary (http://www.aviary.com).

These are written in Flash and despite the hit on the CPU etc are actually a pretty useful set of tools.

Doesn't change my opinion of Flash but just shows what the toolset is capable of in decent hands.

I've noticed that the UK newspaper the Guardian's website is capable of bringing my 4GB 2008 MacBook to its knees even with ClickToFlash blocking the site's plentiful Flash elements.

I get the usual symptoms - a pegged CPU, stuttering system and fans whirring away.

Could some other script be causing this? Can anyone tell me how to diagnose the problem?

Funny thing is, I've got a series of tabs open in firefox - 9to5mac, looprumors, apple insider, mac rumors and world of apple.

These sites are ALL drowning in flash adverts and my computer is running like a POS - latest annoying bug is that my cursor disappears on flash heave pages.

I have 'flash' on my HTC running android - for the record, it doesn't work and crashes/hangs the phone, or at the least causes masses lag when trying to use it for anything.

This isn't just an Apple issue, flash also runs like a POS on my vaio laptop - Flash is a lazy pieve of bloatware that needs fixing. Even if it was included on the 'Pad, it wouldn't work, so there is no point allowing it there. The only thing most people 'need' flash for is farmville/café world - and neither of these work with a touch interface, so what's the point?

I also don't understand why the fact that Youtube doesn't need flash is new to most people - this is meant to be a tech community ffs. The video experience on youtube is far superior in the absence of flash, as is BBC iPlayer. No doubt the Hulu app will be just the same - able to scrub through playback without a massive delay, or the movie just giving up.

It's shocking, why on earth Adobe aren't focussing their efforts 100% on rewriting this plug-in from the ground up is beyond me. They are about to lose the market through laziness, lethargy and a determination to ignore the real world issues with the software they bought.

From experience - No, it doesn't. Well, it does - providing you don't mind 10 - 15 second delays everytime you to try to do anything (scroll the content, enter a new URL, follow a link, switch from your browser back to another app, or fit any content into the viewing area, or play farmville, or any interaction that requires rollover). The plug-in functions. Yes, it does. However, it provides no functionality, slows the device and decimates battery life.

I am one of these users, this is from experience, not speculation.

A simple fact is that if you own mac that is older than 4 yrs your system get crippled all the time from adobe gpu hog FLASH .
FOR the average joe smhoe who is not so computer savvy he just suffers thru slow loading pages

Many of us installed clicktoflash and have had a wonderful flash free time . We get to choose when to allow flash to run ..

Apple >> Adobe had a tiff 7 or 8 yrs ago and since then adobe has been f ing slow to update any thing APPLE

So apple fans respond with a fcuk ADOBE quote'S .The intense responce should TEACH you that adobe has pissed off a lot of people / defending adobe is stupid when apple people got attacked in the first place /

ok dude

Nope, it doesn't - it causes issues on windows too. That this is only an issue on apple devices is a fallacy. Not as many issues on windows, maybe, but it's also prone to being a resource hog and very unstable.

can a tiny computer screen even handle 1080p ??

Is that an HP Envy?

no internet on your va ca home ??
have a great time dude .

peace 9

I criticise Adobe not because i use Apple computers, but because i update their software every 18months/2 years at considerable expense and see a continual degradation in the quality of the essential work tools they provide. With each new release the software has become less intuitive, there is less integration between the apps and they are unstable with poorly defined, inconsistent interfaces.

Simple examples - the close window icons on their palettes are tiny - it's a game trying to click them - and even when you do they don't behave as expected (the files window on dreamweaver CS4 drives me crazy). You can't successfully copy and paste even simple elements between applications - all sorts of corruption happens. Even the keyboard shortcuts for aligning elements differ between the apps. They are a poorly cobbled together suite of independent products, with different interfaces, keyboard shortcuts and icons for similar/same functions, very far from the integrated 'suite' of software apparantly on offer and are massively overpriced with archaic installation/activation procedures and appalling software updating.

Most users just need their work tools to work - Adobe software no longer 'just works' - it's an uphill struggle and processes take longer than they did several years ago. Come back Macromedia, all is forgiven.

Yes the Mac OS has some issues - it's £90 however, with the recent upgrade being a tiny fee - it doesn't excuse the issues, but they hurt a little less given that i haven't spent over ten thousand pounds over the last ten or so years buying it. When spending 1 - 2 thousand pounds (plus) on a suite of software, you expect it to work and be at least two versions backwards compatible. That I can't save Indesign CS4 files back to print bureau running Indesign CS2 is beyond ridiculous, and an incentive to not upgrade.

The flash plug-in is just another outdated, unstable POS that adobe purchased and have no intention of bringing into the 21st century - we don't need more bells and whistles, we want a stable, refined core at the heart of the software. Adobe are incapable of providing this it would seem.

There are lots of great uses of Flash - some flash web sites are great. The issue is not the potential of this software, but the stability of the plug-in which powers it. I have no problem with the principle of flash and what it has the ability to do. However, it should be open sourced, fixed by people who know what they're doing and become a part of open web standards for the developer community to devour, refine and bring into the 21st century.

First question: Are you using a Mac? That might be it. They have problems surfing the 'web. They crash when viewing many popular websites.

It depends on the computer. My Dell's 15 inch screen is 1080p. That's one reason I decided that the MBP was not the machine for me - it doesn't offer a high-res screen. There's lots of other stuff the MBP was missing that Dell offers too.

Agree 100% - in it's current form and usage it needs to die. If it was opened up to the wider open standards of the Internet then I think it does have a place. The chances of that happening are low though given that Adobe are involved.

is it really 1080p ??
my screen expert tells me that on below 42' TV's 720 and 1080 are hard to tell a part at 12 ft or less viewing area
so how can a dell 15" jam so much rich resolution in such a small area . ??

or have I missed or failed to understand 1080 p ??