Inside Apple's iPad: Adobe Flash - Page 13

MORALS ??
Illegal copies ?
?me ??

dual mean it plays reg dvd and BD discs my fine feathered friend.
i rent BD FROM NF play them and return them.
HOW or why do you think that i make copies ??

and some have morals ??? like no sex with 2 chicks at once morals or
buying bootleg movies morals ??

please don't bible thump on my dime dude !!

hrrfpf


9

Always a trade off. The real truth about the Nexus One display: http://www.displaymate.com/Nexus_One_ShootOut.htm

I think it is all about money. App Store is redundant if flash were available on iphone and ipad. It is an artificial restriction. If flash is so awful, then it should also not work on OSX and it works on my macs perfectly. Steve wants to juice out more revenues which I can't blame him for, but by closing these mobile platforms more and more, I feel innovation is hurt and an opening for others are starting to emerge.

Whether it was lack of multi tasking on OS 9 or lack of multi tasking (on official iphones), or IPAD, and the closed and tightly controlled nature of these new platforms, Apple has been on the wrong side of history.

Thanks.

Try to use http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/ and see how fast your mac suddenly is browsing through the net, and how fine youtube can be in Quicktime . I think this is the best proof for Steve Jobs to be right .

But your screen winds up looking so fugly - so like what's the point?

What's fugly to some, is "the best web browsing experience" to others.

I look forward to buying an iPad and enjoying the best web browsing experience, unencumbered by stinking, useless Adobe Flash.

I've given up after reading two pages of comments so maybe this is covered and I just didn't read it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how much a control freak Steve Jobs is. He nor Apple cannot control it. That's one of the major reasons why Flash isn't on the iPhone or iPad, nor will it be.

Mind you, I think that attitude helped him bring Apple back from the brink.

It's very likely that flash wouldn't perform well on an iPad. Remember that not only is flash optimized for PCs but it is even more so optimized for Intel architecture. If you put Flash on an AppleTV this can be seen when trying to watch a hulu video in 360p, just a horrible experience.

Apple is rightly proclaiming that people should stop settling for crap from Adobe & push the web in a direction where you don't need a big beefy computer to run simple flash games or video! Anyone wanting to know what such a world looks like without flash need only install clicktoflash. Not having flash isn't really all that prohibitive for the average web browser, in fact most big name sites have moved to alternatives.

Oh? And the answer is to settle for crap from Apple? I don't think so.

The answer is Apple can choose how to support its products, Adobe can choose how to support its products and you can choose not to buy or use products from companies that don't suit your needs. It's absolutely great system!

well said.

That could be true, but even if so, Apple is taking years of full Internet experience from us.

I would settle for this: give us Flash however crappy it is, let us disable it if we choose to, and keep pushing industry in right direction.

Even better, make Flash disabled by default for clueless people, and on attempt to enable it, prompt message in line with "Enabling Flash on this device will significantly decrease battery life and performance, and might be source for system instability. Apple is advising against enabling Flash. Flash functionality issues are not covered by warranty and Apple will not provide support for Flash related problems", with big fat ACCEPT and DECLINE buttons under that.

But I don't think that could happen. I'm more and more positive Apple is not only against Flash because of performance - in fact I'd bet Apple is using Flash performance as excuse to axe it, but real reason is Apps Store and iTunes purchase content.

Which is still perfectly OK if people accept it. It is just not my cup of tea.

I dont disagree more with Apple as i do with this whole Flash/HTML5/iPhone/iPad conflict.
Who the hell are they anyway to decide what a user should or should not do with their own device.
I dont say that they have to embed flash in every sold device, but just let the user choose to install FlashLite or not through the AppStore would be more than appropiate.
I think Apple hides behind the OpenWeb and HTML5 with their own righteous mind of what a user experience should be. My point is; coming from a true Linux background, the user should be empowered to do what he seems best.
There is a lot of flash based content around, and it would help a great deal if the iPhone/iPad would even support flash for its video content.
Right now, its only possible to embed a limited version of QT (so why on earth are they slagging of the FlashLite version)?.
On a Android device, people will be able to use both FlashLite and HTML5 and if Steve is going stubborn about this one.. well i think he is displeasing quiete a lot of users.
Dont get me wrong here, the iPhone is a great piece of hw+os, but Apple really needs to open their mind and stop hidding that they are true OpenSource supporters. We all now its about controlling the market, and nothing less.

Agree that Apple is primarily using performance as an excuse to exclude Flash from their mobiles, and they are trying to kill it, but I don't believe it has anything to do with iTMS whatsoever.

That is FUD in my view. Apple's business model is and always has been about making their profit from selling hardware. Content is to make the hardware more desirable. Otherwise why would they encourage free apps?

But you don't think that a company "should be empowered to do what [it] seems best" for business?


Here is where the issue lies. Let's forget all about the resources it uses for a minute, even on a 2.66GHz C2D, or that Adobe still hasn't even made a 64-bit version of Flash for Mac OS X despite Windows having it for years. Let's focus on what you want and they are incompatible.

You mentioned Flash Lite earlier and then you mentioned playing video, yet most Flash-based video players require Flash 10.x, a few may still only require Flash 9.x, but not a single one of the major sites will play videos with Flash Lite.

Now lets get back to resources. Flash is a resource hog and that is before you start having to download, decode and playback video. This may be a fast ARM processor but it's still an ARM processor. I think it could handle 480p from Hulu but at what cost and why should Apple have to support something that degrades the user experience in such a drastic way by reducing that 10 hour battery down to 2 hours?

The rebuttal you're probably thinking of is "but the lack of Flash reduces the user experience for me". I'm sure it does, but it's Apple product, not yours, so they have the right to design and market it as best suits their needs. Just as you have the right now to buy it.


Android and other devices are getting Flash 10.1 this year. You'll be able to buy an Android tablet at some point, I'm sure. That may be the best option for you.


I'm not sure what market they are controlling by supporting the HTML5 video tag and creating HTTP Live Streaming then making it free for every one to use. It surely means that Hulu can push their TV shows and Netflix can push their movies in an efficient method that works well for mobiles, without ever having the user go the iTunes Store. This is a good thing.

Besides that there is also an issue with games and apps and website working on touchscreen when they were designed for a mouse and keyboard. Hopefully Adobe can finally get Flash out to mobiles soon, albeit more than 3 years after the finger-pointing toward Apple began, so we can see how well a 400MHz-1GHz ARM can do at processing video from Flash sites. So far, the Alpha demos haven't been promising.

Welcome to the forum.

"They" are not Adobe, it's up to Adobe to make Flash for iPhone OS, something that Steve Jobs asked for in 2007.

Apple can't allow what doesn't exist so they have to explore alternatives.

Apple can not exclude SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST get Adobe to make Flash for iPhone OS and then Apple can choose whether to exclude or include it.

I'm getting sick of people overlooking this major point

You're saying flash for iPhone OS doesn't exist? How would you know that, rather than it being that it does exist, but not allowed to be released? Do you really have access to reliable enough back channels in Apple or Adobe to really know that for sure?

I may completely misunderstand the issue, and it is likely, but apple has said no proprietary software on the iPhone. Flash is proprietary and thus cannot be on the iPhone. So there are only 3 options. The status quo. Apple relents, which is unlikely and from apple's POV untenable (I agree). Adobe relents and either gives flash up completely or makes it open source/hand the code to apple. From Adobe's POV that does not make a whole lot of sense

I understand that, and I think that's an important consideration. But I'm not convinced by a sweeping absolute statement that Flash for iOS doesn't exist in some functional form, somewhere.

But I think the "exclude" is more of a rhetorical statement, not one that affirms or assumes the existence of such a project, more of a hypothetical construct for discussion.

Great read: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292

sorry I was not clear. My post was mostly asking if my understanding of the situation is correct, especially give my earlier misunderstanding of industry standards

I am willing to be that adobe has a functional flash for the iPhone. I have no idea how functional it is, but currently both have policies/decisions in place that preclude a resolution of the matter

Warning to anyone wanting to read that article without getting a headache; invert your screen colors. (command-option-ctrl-8)

Indeed.

Agreed that performance isn't the biggest reason for Apple's opposition to flash. I think the real reason is that Adobe poses a competitive risk to the iPhone platform.

Imagine flash becomes widespread in the mobile handset space in the next couple of years. By then, the smartphone market is likely a contest between iPhone and Android. As has been mentioned several times, Adobe can choose to spend it's engineering resources however it wants. Suppose, for whatever reason, Adobe decides to really make flash on Android the best thing ever and passes off each new release to a second-rate intern to do an iPhone port a couple months later.

Suddenly Apple is at a competitive disadvantage due to something they can't improve. Avoiding that situation is why Apple will never, ever allow flash on the iPhone/iPad unless it has absolutely no choice.

Adobe did the same thing to Apple back when Apple owned the desktop publishing market and Adobe decided to make the windows versions of its tools better than the Mac versions and release them sooner. Apple isn't going to let Adobe screw them twice.

If Adobe were serious about making flash an "internet standard", they would license it so Apple and others could do their own implementations. If that happened Apple might well develop a version of flash on the iPhone. However, Adobe have been quite clear that they wish to own flash and all the runtimes and have no intention of making it a standard.

No Flash = No Sale

For me, No Flash = Sale

In fact, I'll be waiting for the Flashtards to return their iPads so that I can get the nice refurb price from the Apple Store.

Do you have any clue, even a small one, of just how pervasive Flash is on the internet? It sure doesn't sound like it. Especially with your name calling of people.

Try this. Install Firefox and the the Flashblock addon. Do not use any Flash at all for a week and then report back to us on your internet experience. I will venture to say that you either do not realize how widespread the use of Flash is or you do not use much of the internet.

Cheers

1) Being widespread doesn't mean that it's feasible on a slow ARM processor designed to run on battery nearly all the time for most people.

2) Every single smartphone has been doing pretty well without having Flash on it. Flash Lite doesn't count.

3) What is the point of Flash if you still can't play games, run apps, navigate websites or play video on an ARM-based touchscreen phone? Those are just some of the problems.

4) Check out this blog. It goes into a lot of detail as to the many ways Adobe put themselves into this predicament. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292

5) Almost all of us use Flash and it can do some great things that other technologies can't compete with on the desktop, but it has its problems as detailed in the article link above.

I use clicktoflash for Safari, and I'm extremely aware of the use of Flash on the internet. I just don't care for most of the content that is distributed using it, and also don't care for the experience of it either.

I consider that owning an iPad that is Flash free will bolster the numbers of non Flash users seen in website statistics and will help to contribute to its eventual demise.

I'm also totally serious about buying an iPad, and will almost certainly get one refurb.


Edit: Believe it or not, I became more aware of how prevalent Flash is after I started using clicktoflash.

Good for you! (Seriously) You will be an informed buyer.

It is not that I am a fan of Flash, because I am not, but because I am unable to access far too many websites without it. If Flash were to go "poof" and disappear tomorrow I would not be in the slightest bit upset. In a few days the websites would be doing something different and we could all get on to the content we are after without dealing with this problem.

Unfortunately, Flash will not go away because of Steve, Apple or the iPad. The only way Steve can rid the 'net of Flash is to buy Adobe and slay the "dragon up close and personal". He would enjoy that!

I don't get why anything about making the web better is automatically an Apple-centric comment about eliminating Flash from the planet. Have we forgotten that Microsoft, Mozilla and Google, to name a few are also working on alternatives to supporting Flash because of its many problems?

Demo of Flash 10.1 Running on Nexus One: http://vimeo.com/9596010

Does the demo require Flash?

No it doesn't, it plays perfectly fine on my iPhone, better in fact than what was being shown on the Nexus.

I can't wait for Flash 10.1 to be officially released for mobiles so we can see all the comparative tests of speed of loading video, usability of the majority of unaltered flash sites and the battery usage.

From that video it appears that battery indicator drops from 50% to 25% in about 5 minutes time. The performance looks remarkable over previous Flash 10.1 demos and even compared to Flash 9.x.x and 10.0.x on netbooks.

I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.

Really? Why Apple and not Adobe? Adobe's Flash is on almost all computing devices that use the web, isn't that a bigger anti-trust concern? It sounds like a double standard here, you want to pick on the the company with the smaller market share and leave the one with a bigger market share alone.

You can buy other brand tablets and phones to look at the web, many of which offer Flash compatibility. There aren't any alternative implementations to Flash, it has to be Adobe's plug-in or nothing. Tell me, which is really a bigger anti-trust problem? I think it's more likely that you're angry at Apple.

I'd like to run Lynx on an iPad. Now THAT would be the "best"! No pictures, no animation, no nothing except words...

JeffDM,

Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad. The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!

If Apple at WWDC 2010 announces the rollout of HTML 5.0 development tools, including converting Flash programming calls to its HTML 5.0 equivalents, then I wouldn't be so concerned, since that means a lot less need to recode pages from scratch (and the expense involved!) in HTML 5.0 compatible form.