or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Condé Nast plans for iPad, but is caught in Apple-Adobe Flash fight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Condé Nast plans for iPad, but is caught in Apple-Adobe Flash fight

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
Magazine publisher Condé Nast revealed this week it will create iPad versions of Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, but not all of the publications will receive full interactivity due to the ongoing dispute between Apple and Adobe over Flash.

The New York Times revealed this week an internal memo from Condé Nast announced the company will have the April edition of GQ available for the iPad. That will soon be followed by June issues of Vanity Fair and Wired, while The New Yorker and Glamour will follow in the summer. The publisher will reportedly test a number of different prices, types of advertising, and approaches to reproducing content for the iPad as it experiments with the new format.

According to Peter Kafka of MediaMemo, the different approaches will mean that iPad versions of most Condé Nast magazines will be similar to their existing iPhone versions. While the publisher did show off a highly interactive version of Wired that it intends to release for the iPad, other publications allegedly will not receive the same treatment.

"Conde is still creating a digital version of its tech magazine for the device," Kafka wrote. "But the influential publisher says it wont create similar iPad apps for other titles unless Apple and Adobe figure out how to work together."

Condé Nast Chief Executive Chuck Townsend said that the interactive version of Wired was originally created with Adobe's help and uses the Adobe Flash platform. Apple's iPad does not support Flash, which will lead the publisher to have "two parallel development tracks," MediaMemo reported.

When asked if his company would embrace the Adobe format if the iPad were compatible with Flash content, Townsend also reportedly said it would be "an easy yes."

"The GQ app for the iPhone is pretty good, by the way, and Im assuming it will work well on the iPad, too," Kafka wrote. "But it's a pretty straightforward transfer of the print version into digital form, and doesnt feature the bells and whistles that Wired and Adobe dreamed up."

Adobe has announced plans to circumvent the inability of both the iPad and iPhone to run Flash content, with a native app porting feature built into its forthcoming Creative Suite 5. While Adobe has pushed for years to have Flash on the iPhone since it launched, Apple has not budged. The company's rejection of Flash and move towards alternatives such as HTML5 suggest the Web plugin will not likely appear on the iPad.

As he has promoted the forthcoming iPad, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has been attributed as saying Adobe Flash is a "CPU hog," and calling the prevalent Web format "old technology." Another report alleged that Jobs called Adobe "lazy," and said most Mac crashes are due to Flash.

For more on why Apple isn't likely to support Flash in the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
post #2 of 82
Sounds like this to me:

"Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."
post #3 of 82
Condé Nast needs to cut their losses on Flash and move on. Even without Apples help Flash is on the decline, it's only true supporters coming from the advertising industry, for it's ability to force feed ads.
post #4 of 82
The NYT and AP have plans for iPad versions of their publications, now magazine powerhouse Conde Nast has announced its intent to create iPad versions of its magazines. I don't think this will hurt their print sales so much. Possibly some. But overall, it may mean more readers, and more eyes on their ads - which is what they ultimately want.
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
post #5 of 82
If it will be loaded with FLASH crap, then no subscription for you.
post #6 of 82
It doesn't sound like the readers of their publication are going to miss the Flash content much. If it catches on Conde Nast will find a way.

By the way, Conde Nast-- if you port away from Flash you won't have "two baselines to support"... you'll have one. HTML5.
post #7 of 82
Dear Condé Nast,

Jobs is right.

Flash sucks. It is a resource hog, it is old web technology, and it does cause most of the application crashes on Mac OS X.

If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites lest you see your readership go elsewhere for content. We can already see how your arrogance is blinding you from the realities of 21st century publishing (e.g., Gourmet, House and Garden).

Sincerely,

Joe Consumer
post #8 of 82
Okay here's the choice, go with a small tech company that produces buggy software for photographers and desktop publishing. A company which insist that your content be distributed in an aging web technology (Flash) or go with a big tech company that is leading the industry and creating devices that will get your content into the hands of subscribers but insist you use a technology (HTML 5) that from everyone (except Adobe) agrees is the future of an interactive web?
Seems like it is not just Adobe that will be called lazy if publishers go with Flash.
post #9 of 82
Conde Nast - Shut up and code!
post #10 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Dear Condé Nast,

Jobs is right.

Flash sucks. It is a resource hog, it is old web technology, and it does cause most of the application crashes on Mac OS X.

If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites lest you see your readership go elsewhere for content. We can already see how your arrogance is blinding you from the realities of 21st century publishing (e.g., Gourmet, House and Garden).

Sincerely,

Joe Consumer

Hey I'm also Joe Consumer and I want more flash sites. Sorry to hear that OSX has so many issues with it, but PC's don't, and currently PC's dominate the market.

The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. Hell, if my windows mobile phone can run flash apps without a hitch, the iphone definitely can.

If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash in order to push html5 into mainstream. Just show why html5 is better and let consumers decide.
post #11 of 82
Condé Nast needs to have a standards-based website, and only use plug-in technology like Flash for content as an alternate view. There is a difference between offering content using Flash and offering Flash-only content.

Anyone who develops a Flash-only website is just being lazy, and the stakeholders that pay their salaries should know just how lazy they are...

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #12 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Hey I'm also Joe Consumer and I want more flash sites. Sorry to hear that OSX has so many issues with it, but PC's don't, and currently PC's dominate the market.

The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. Hell, if my windows mobile phone can run flash apps without a hitch, the iphone definitely can.

If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash in order to push html5 into mainstream. Just show why html5 is better and let consumers decide.

But Windows Mobile Phones CAN'T run Flash without a hitch. It's slow and resource hungry there too. Watch a flash stream and tell me how long your battery takes to drain. Yeah right...

Jobs' isn't making anything up. You just said above that Flash and OS X have issues... then contradict yourself below... you are trolling and this is flame bait. And I know you are full of it because no one WANTS more Flash on the net. People want videos and interactive content, whether that's Flash or not is outside the fact.

The bottom line is it took Apple to make all the shortcomings of Flash public knowledge. Adobe knew they had a dead horse long ago. And rather than come up with a new system, they rode their market share and enjoyed the revenue. But technology changes fast and they pretty much got caught with their pants around their ankles. It happens to everyone; just a byproduct of being a massive corporation. It'll happen to Apple one day too...
post #13 of 82
Flash / HTML5 debate may rage on... yet some are still waiting for subscription content that would be considered purchasable and right now, those coming to the party are your typical who's who from one left coast to the other and hold no significance to the majority in "fly over" country.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #14 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Sounds like this to me:

"Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."

spot on analysis
post #15 of 82
Talk about a bunch of winers.
post #16 of 82
If you are a New Yorker subscriber and access its current content on the Web, you know that Condé-Nast needs to get to work. The digital reader by realview, their turnkey digital media platform that they use, is a real dog.Because most of my on-line reading of magazine content occurs on html-formatted pages or .pdf files, the cramped realview format with tiny landing points for navigating the magazine drives you crazy. As wrote to realview

The format furnished by RealView Technologies for the digital version of the New Yorker is really bad. In addition to the inordinate amount of surround space, the article text, which would be perfectly well rendered in an Adobe reader format is greyed and fuzzy without considerable magnification. Reading the digital edition is so tedious, I just have to wait for the printed version in my mailbox. One gets the feeling that this format is not intended as a service to the reader but as it is some form of protection for the client.

Unfortunately, the realview website has a line: "Click here to register for iPad updates!" God help us!
post #17 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by doshea View Post

If you are a New Yorker subscriber and access its current content on the Web, you know that Condé-Nast needs to get to work. The digital reader by realview, their turnkey digital media platform that they use, is a real dog.Because most of my on-line reading of magazine content occurs on html-formatted pages or .pdf files, the cramped realview format with tiny landing points for navigating the magazine drives you crazy. As wrote to realview

The format furnished by RealView Technologies for the digital version of the New Yorker is really bad. In addition to the inordinate amount of surround space, the article text, which would be perfectly well rendered in an Adobe reader format is greyed and fuzzy without considerable magnification. Reading the digital edition is so tedious, I just have to wait for the printed version in my mailbox. One gets the feeling that this format is not intended as a service to the reader but as it is some form of protection for the client.

Unfortunately, the realview website has a line: "Click here to register for iPad updates!" God help us!

OMG! If that's the kind of "reader software" to expect on the iPad, I just may have to revise my projections!!!

Same-O, same-o trash like Flash: UNREADABLE embedded text and fonts, that when zoomed in doesn't scale, but just gets fuzzier. Just what all of the people that actually want a large iPod Touch, DON'T WANT!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #18 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Sounds like this to me:

"Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."

basically. Conde Nast needs to get over it. there's no Flash on the iPad. And they are not special enough for Apple to change that to make them happy. Either make something that does work with what is there or don't. As much as I was to see magazines make digital mags with all the bells and whistles, I'd be happy with a straight PDF for now for many titles and let them improve it in bits and pieces. Which of course means they will try to find a way to up the price (a plain version and a enhanced version).

of course I wish the lower production costs of not having to print, mail etc could mean less advertising but I figure that will never happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

If it will be loaded with FLASH crap, then no subscription for you.

well, happy day for slapppy cause if it is running on the Ipad, it can't be loaded with Flash crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites

they can keep the flash versions for actual computers. there's less of an issue there cause you aren't draining battery etc. although you might still crash some browsers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash,

if you believe that then you don't understand what the problem is.

Because the problem isn't OSX, it's the way that Flash for Mac was written. Adobe hasn't hidden that they took the Flash for Windows and changed perhaps 5 lines to make it work on Mac and never optimized it to work right. And this was in like 2005 and they haven't bothered to do any major fixes since then. Apple has been forced to create band aid measures to keep this hastily and poorly written code from killing browsers, freezing computers etc because Adobe won't fix the software. Their reply has been "it works great on Windows and the two versions of the code are 99.9% the same, so we don't understand how Macs could be having any problems".

Quote:
If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash

he didn't have to make up any bullshit. numerous years of independent review by software developers, tech mags etc have built up a slew of facts and those facts speak for themselves. no bull needed.

The fact is that Adobe agrees with your "there are more PCs so make things for them and screw Macs" attitude and that's what they have done. Apple is not willing to screw their customers by having that kind of junk on the iphone etc. Which is something to be applauded. Pity that the popularity of the iphone hasn't convinced Adobe to do something about their crapware

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os.

It's the other way around. Flash has issues with OS X.

And you think Apple should code their OS to fit applications, not vice-versa?
And that Apple should "fix" Flash since Adobe is not doing it?
post #20 of 82
well joe consumer, a few months ago, i just created a very short flash movie for a client, using flash's motion editor. i exported to both flash 9 and flash 10 players.

after testing, the client comes back to me and tells me to check my coding because the movie isn't playing on all their tested browsers.

there was no code involved, and i told them as much. there were pissed at me. there was nothing i could do. i went on all the forums to find out if there was anything i was doing wrong. turns out adobe simply put out a crappy product and the fault was in their own technology.

i'm already looking to html5. knock yourself out with your flash animations.
post #21 of 82
I really hope that each "subscription" isn't its own application. It really makes things feel clunky; I would much prefer for the content to "plug into" a reader application or just browser. Too many of the apps currently on the AppStore have too many different interfaces that it feels awkward.
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. Hell, if my windows mobile phone can run flash apps without a hitch, the iphone definitely can.

Once again with the meme that it's Apple's responsibility to fix Adobe's software.
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Anyone who develops a Flash-only website is just being lazy, and the stakeholders that pay their salaries should know just how lazy they are...

Adobe, infecting the world with lazy.
post #24 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

well joe consumer, a few months ago, i just created a very short flash movie for a client, using flash's motion editor. i exported to both flash 9 and flash 10 players.

after testing, the client comes back to me and tells me to check my coding because the movie isn't playing on all their tested browsers.

there was no code involved, and i told them as much. there were pissed at me. there was nothing i could do. i went on all the forums to find out if there was anything i was doing wrong. turns out adobe simply put out a crappy product and the fault was in their own technology.

i'm already looking to html5. knock yourself out with your flash animations.

You have no idea what your talking about at all. Most of what you are saying makes no sense in relationship to any kind of coherent HTML 5 vs Flash argument.

here are two reasons why:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

a few months ago, i just created a very short flash movie for a client, using flash's motion editor.

1. How will you create a movie using HTML5?

The HTML 5 <video> tag is not going to help you create movies, it does not offer an equivalent to the Flash Motion Editor. So "looking into HTML5" isn't going to help you here. IF you would like to actually CREATE animations without Flash you might want to learn Javascript or some kind of composting app like After Effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

after testing, the client comes back to me and tells me to check my coding because the movie isn't playing on all their tested browsers.

2. Did you not test what you created in ALL possible browsers BEFORE sending the project to the client?

If you do ANY kind of web development and aren't testing browsers you have problems. HTML5 isn't going to stop clients from being mad at you.

Flash may have its problems but this isn't the result of them. This is the result of you not doing proper testing and also not understanding what HTML 5 actually does.
post #25 of 82
I'm not fond of Flash, either, but I really don't like this Apple attitude of "we don't like it, so we're not going to let consumers have any choice in the matter. If you no longer have access to a large percentage of websites, that's not our problem. We know what's best for you, so suck it up." It's the very definition of a closed platform. What if they had the same attitude toward Javascript? Would people be as forgiving about Apple denying us choice about that? Why not just make a warning that says Flash may slow down your iPad and shorten your battery life? FWIW, I keep Safari open without quitting the app for weeks on end and don't have any issues with stability of either the browser or OS X, although I do use Click2Flash to block Flash content most of the time, usually animated ads.
post #26 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

I'm not fond of Flash, either, but I really don't like this Apple attitude of "we don't like it, so we're not going to let consumers have any choice in the matter. If you no longer have access to a large percentage of websites, that's not our problem. We know what's best for you, so suck it up." It's the very definition of a closed platform. What if they had the same attitude toward Javascript? Would people be as forgiving about Apple denying us choice about that? Why not just make a warning that says Flash may slow down your iPad and shorten your battery life? FWIW, I keep Safari open without quitting the app for weeks on end and don't have any issues with stability of either the browser or OS X, although I do use Click2Flash to block Flash content most of the time, usually animated ads.

I see it as forward thinking. Just like when they dropped the floppy diskette from their computers and only used CD/DVD drives. Everybody was upset and shocked...for a few months and then moved on with their lives. And when they starting phasing out CRT monitors and replaced them with flat panels. The rest of the industry started to do the same and followed Apples lead.

But you will probably say, that is different because that was hardware and this is software related and not the same thing. You might be right... but it's still forward thinking.
post #27 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

I'm not fond of Flash, either, but I really don't like this Apple attitude of "we don't like it, so we're not going to let consumers have any choice in the matter. If you no longer have access to a large percentage of websites, that's not our problem. We know what's best for you, so suck it up." It's the very definition of a closed platform.

I agree. And if consumers don't like Apple's policy they can vote with their wallets and buy an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch. Thing is, that very few if any people are doing that. Apple is selling these devices (minus the iPad since it's not out yet) like hot cakes. General consumers don't seem to care that the 'beloved' Flash isn't supported.

Apple has given the public a choice and they are choosing to forego Flash.
post #28 of 82
Ummm......

Wired is going to be free, right? I mean... Chris Anderson said:

Quote:
...the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero.

Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business


Just sayin'


gc
post #29 of 82
I don't 'hate' flash as much as some other folks seem to, but it truly is a resource hog on any platform - more so on MacOS X, but still a hog anywhere.

Flash has been abused by the advertising industry, but so will the next technology. The reason I like the idea of HTML 5 is simply the nature of open standards. Develop anything (video, animation, etc.) you want in whatever program you want to use, save it as a H.264 video file, and deploy. Easy. Works everywhere. Interactivity? Javascript.

Yes, there are probably a few holes where HTML 5, Javascript & H.264 will fall short... so, find the holes and develop a plug-in to patch them. Adobe doesn't have to drop Flash. Maybe Adobe could have their Flash tools generate standards based HTML 5 code instead of proprietary Flash code. How about that? Then the Flash plug-in could be rewritten to do nothing more than fill in the features that HTML 5, JS, and H.264 don't cover, if there are any.
post #30 of 82
You people are completely delusional if you think html5 is anywhere close to flash in terms of both functionality and codeability. Maybe in 3-5 years, but not in the short term. Also think in terms of browser support. IE doesn't even do the most recent CSS that's been out for a while now. You think html5 is going to be supported in IE any time soon? You nerds need to get out your Apple II's and go from there and let the rest of the world interact with the web the way we want to. All of this anti-flash stuff is going to regress web design and interactivity back to 1996. And don't give me this jquery crap either. It's pretty awesome, but also not anywhere close to flash. Also, AS is like any other language, if you don't code correctly, your app will be a mess. Java apps often totally suck, but nobody is killing java.

I'm a total apple fanboy, but I will not buy the ipad because of the lack of flash.
post #31 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

that works both ways


just saying


So your trying to say my opinion on flash is uneducated...
I was a flash developer from the beginning (i forget the year 1994ish), and a director dev before that. Now I write osx software. I would say I'm clued up in the relevant technologies to have an opinion.

Just sayin.
post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokheed View Post

But Windows Mobile Phones CAN'T run Flash without a hitch. It's slow and resource hungry there too. Watch a flash stream and tell me how long your battery takes to drain. Yeah right...

Jobs' isn't making anything up. You just said above that Flash and OS X have issues... then contradict yourself below... you are trolling and this is flame bait. And I know you are full of it because no one WANTS more Flash on the net. People want videos and interactive content, whether that's Flash or not is outside the fact.

The bottom line is it took Apple to make all the shortcomings of Flash public knowledge. Adobe knew they had a dead horse long ago. And rather than come up with a new system, they rode their market share and enjoyed the revenue. But technology changes fast and they pretty much got caught with their pants around their ankles. It happens to everyone; just a byproduct of being a massive corporation. It'll happen to Apple one day too...

First of all, I'm looking at an app right now called uConvert on my TP2. It runs flawlessly and needed Flash Lite 3.1 to run. Wanna keep talking about stuff you don't know about?

Secondly, don't spout off telling someone they're a troll based on little to nothing. I'm getting pretty fucking sick of being called a troll because I voice an opinion that's outside of this hive-mind mentality around here.

Now on to the whole blame game. Guess what, IT'S APPLE'S FAULT. To everyone below me, they really have drank the koolaid on this one lol.

The reason Flash doesn't work as well in OSX as it does in Windows has NOTHING TO DO with Adobe dropping the ball. Why would Adobe abandon osx when almost everyone at Adobe uses a Mac? The problem is Apple doesn't cooperate with Adobe as well as Microsoft does. Don't believe me? I can find you a quote right from Steve Jobs saying the thing he admires most of Microsoft is their ability to work well with others. It's a commonly known fact, and it stems from Apple's wanting to control as much as they can.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Adobe, the maker of photoshop, one of the most commonly used image editing programs, extremely popular in OSX, is suddenly going to say "fuck it" when it comes to flash on OSX? WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

So yes, if Apple invested more time in at least cooperating with Adobe, you all wouldn't have any flash problems and it would run as well as it does in Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Please educate yourself before forming an opinion next time.

That's really the pot calling the kettle black LOL. BTW, did this post have a purpose other than to insult me and call me stupid? Nope? Hey there !...
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Once again with the meme that it's Apple's responsibility to fix Adobe's software.

Nope, just cooperate a little and allow Adobe to make a great product for OSX users

Really, is it good business strategy for Adobe to just say screw it when it comes to osx? Again, what sense does that make?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

if you believe that then you don't understand what the problem is.

Because the problem isn't OSX, it's the way that Flash for Mac was written. Adobe hasn't hidden that they took the Flash for Windows and changed perhaps 5 lines to make it work on Mac and never optimized it to work right. And this was in like 2005 and they haven't bothered to do any major fixes since then. Apple has been forced to create band aid measures to keep this hastily and poorly written code from killing browsers, freezing computers etc because Adobe won't fix the software. Their reply has been "it works great on Windows and the two versions of the code are 99.9% the same, so we don't understand how Macs could be having any problems".

Yeah, again, the difference between the Windows version and OSX version was Microsoft cooperated with Adobe while Apple, in their infinite wisdom, didn't.

What's more probable here: Adobe, who writes for osx creative suite, inDesign, illustrator, photoshop, goLive, acrobat, after effects, inCopy just suddenly decided osx wasn't important enough to write flash for

OR

Apple doesnt cooperate with Adobe in making the Flash Player run better on OSX.


hmmmmmmmmmmm
post #33 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

I don't 'hate' flash as much as some other folks seem to, but it truly is a resource hog on any platform - more so on MacOS X, but still a hog anywhere.

Flash has been abused by the advertising industry, but so will the next technology. The reason I like the idea of HTML 5 is simply the nature of open standards. Develop anything (video, animation, etc.) you want in whatever program you want to use, save it as a H.264 video file, and deploy. Easy. Works everywhere. Interactivity? Javascript.

Yes, there are probably a few holes where HTML 5, Javascript & H.264 will fall short... so, find the holes and develop a plug-in to patch them. Adobe doesn't have to drop Flash. Maybe Adobe could have their Flash tools generate standards based HTML 5 code instead of proprietary Flash code. How about that? Then the Flash plug-in could be rewritten to do nothing more than fill in the features that HTML 5, JS, and H.264 don't cover, if there are any.

Have you ever tried to write more than button rollovers with javascript? It's pretty much a nightmare. Jquery brings us closer, but it's still incredibly far off from where flash is today. Maybe the equivalent would be Flash version 5. There's also no vector action happening in jquery, ultimately resulting in far larger bandwidth usage. Exporting as html5 is a pipedream, especially since IE has no html5 support. It's an interesting idea, but a dream.

At this moment, there is simply no replacement for flash for serious interactivity and data presentation.
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

It doesn't sound like the readers of their publication are going to miss the Flash content much. If it catches on Conde Nast will find a way.

By the way, Conde Nast-- if you port away from Flash you won't have "two baselines to support"... you'll have one. HTML5.

Too bad HTML5 can't do even 1% of what can be done with Flash. As soon as whatever eventually does do what Flash can do, we will all be happy to embrace it. Until then you will need to code two versions of everything, that is if you want real interactive multimedia. Of course if you just want the lowest common denominator then HTML/CSS/JS works, sort of. But who is really ever satisfied with the lowest common denominator?

Javascript is good and all, but if you don't have an intuitive development environment to work in it makes it really difficult to be productive. Someone needs to deliver the authoring software for that platform before it will become as ubiquitous as Flash.

By the way I have this nice tip for dealing with Click2Flash blocks.

Put your Flash in a div with a background image of the poster-image for your Flash. That way even though the Flash is blocked the user can see what the still image looks like. This serves two purposes. One, they might like what they see and click on it, and two, it makes the page look artistically balanced instead of an ugly gray box.

Code:


<div id="pageImageDiv" style="width:567px; height:296px; background:url(images/poster.jpg); background-repeat:no-repeat;">

<script type="text/javascript">
AC_FL_RunContent( 'codebase' ...

//the rest of your loading script here

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Too bad HTML5 can't do even 1% of what can be done with Flash. As soon as whatever eventually does do what Flash can do, we will all be happy to embrace it. Until then you will need to code two versions of everything, that is if you want real interactive multimedia. Of course if you just want the lowest common denominator then HTML/CSS/JS works, sort of. But who is really ever satisfied with the lowest common denominator?

Javascript is good and all, but if you don't have an intuitive development environment to work in it makes it really difficult to be productive. Someone needs to deliver the authoring software for that platform before it will become as ubiquitous as Flash.

Totally agree. It's not that I'm married to Flash. I could care less what the tools are as long as there's a decent IDE and API. I would flat out love if html 5 were ready to roll today and replace most of what flash can do. But the fact is that it's not. People need to drop the apple kool aid (of which I also often drink) on this. Most of the anti-flash people clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by brudy918 View Post

Jquery brings us closer, but it's still incredibly far off from where flash is today.

The problem as I see it with the JS libraries such as jQuery, Dojo, Prototype, etc. is that they all try to simplify the coding process by just substituting their own function calls for the actual JS functions behind the scenes.

For a sudo code example: ("myObj").animate("fast") ;

instead of 25 lines of real JS with a for loop and a setTimeOut function, you get a dumbed down version that you don't even understand how it works, don't know where it lives in the 100s of include files, and most of all you can't customize it beyond "Slow or Fast". And on top of that it causes conflicts with the other JS libraries and has virtually no error reporting.

Go view the source of Google's home page and tell us if you understand even one little piece of that code. That's open standards for you.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post


That's really the pot calling the kettle black LOL. BTW, did this post have a purpose other than to insult me and call me stupid? Nope? Hey there

I'm sorry, but what you said was just nonsense. I'm not sure why people have to blame Apple at every given opportunity. It is NOT apples fault that flash is buggy, and I'm fairly sure you know this.
post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I'm sorry, but what you said was just nonsense. I'm not sure why people have to blame Apple at every given opportunity. It is NOT apples fault that flash is buggy, and I'm fairly sure you know this.

No, what I said isn't nonsense, and what you said was just insulting, and completely baseless. You really think I'm just pulling this stuff out of thin air to be argumentative?

Let me ask you: If Apple didn't cooperate with Adobe in making the Flash Player run better on OSX, who's fault is it that flash is buggy? You guys can sit here and bash Adobe all you want, but what if you're wrong? What if Adobe tried to work with Apple to get Flash to work correctly but Apple very characteristically snubbed them? Suddenly Flash is outdated garbage that everyone should drop!?

I can answer the above scenario: If you were all shown beyond a doubt that you were wrong, nothing would change. Apple wouldn't listen to you pleading for them to do what they need to do to give Flash a fighting chance, and instead they would tell you html5 is better and you would convince yourselves everything Apple tells you is right, because what else can you do? Get mad at Apple? Hell to the no! It's your beloved overlord Apple

edit:

And BTW, I am more than willing to accept that the answer lies in the middle, where Apple didn't give the level of cooperation Adobe needed, so Adobe put less effort into Flash for osx as sort of a punishment to Apple. If this is true, however, Adobe gave Apple all the more reason to convince people Flash is horrible.
post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Anyone who develops a Flash-only website is just being lazy,.

Versus spending endless hours on making your site look the same on every browser and making JavaScript actually work?

I LOVE FLASH
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

No, what I said isn't nonsense, and what you said was just insulting, and completely baseless. You really think I'm just pulling this stuff out of thin air to be argumentative?

Let me ask you: If Apple didn't cooperate with Adobe in making the Flash Player run better on OSX, who's fault is it that flash is buggy? You guys can sit here and bash Adobe all you want, but what if you're wrong? What if Adobe tried to work with Apple to get Flash to work correctly but Apple very characteristically snubbed them? Suddenly Flash is outdated garbage that everyone should drop!?

I can answer the above scenario: If you were all shown beyond a doubt that you were wrong, nothing would change. Apple wouldn't listen to you pleading for them to do what they need to do to give Flash a fighting chance, and instead they would tell you html5 is better and you would convince yourselves everything Apple tells you is right, because what else can you do? Get mad at Apple? Hell to the no! It's your beloved overlord Apple

edit:

And BTW, I am more than willing to accept that the answer lies in the middle, where Apple didn't give the level of cooperation Adobe needed, so Adobe put less effort into Flash for osx as sort of a punishment to Apple. If this is true, however, Adobe gave Apple all the more reason to convince people Flash is horrible.

But what is your evidence — I mean actual evidence, not just "doesn't it make sense that…" —that Apple wouldn't cooperate, rather than Adobe just refused to put in the coding hours? You talk about not drinking the cool aid, so where is your evidence? (I mean quotes, discussions with Adobe coders or management, or Apple coders etc.)

edit: my bet btw is that you just pass silently over this question of evidence.
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Condé Nast plans for iPad, but is caught in Apple-Adobe Flash fight