or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance - Page 4

post #121 of 158
Let publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance all they want. Fine by me.
I would rather use an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch than visit Flash-based sites on some other Flash-loving device. I avoid Flash-filled sites when surfing on any computer, and I'll avoid them on my Apple mobile devices.
My charge to those sites - change and adapt or stay stagnant and die.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #122 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

There really isn't any reason for there to be any emotional response to this entire topic. The simple fact is Adobe let Flash go to shit but they have made marked improvements with Flash 10.1.

Flash 10.1 for mobile hasn't actually been released yet, right? We've only seen videos. When it's released, who knows, Apple might add it then.

But I doubt it since I think the real issue is that Flash is not part of the open Web standards. It's Adobe-proprietary. When will Adobe submit it to a standards body?

Quote:
If Adobe and Apple could leave the past in the past they would work together to make Flash a decent option on any Apple product by simply accessing the correct API's and invoking hardware acceleration via the GPU. This is why Safari on OSX uses 37% CPU and Safari for Windows uses less then 8%.

Apple has made all the appropriate APIs available for graphics and video to execute well on a GPU. Apple and other developers use it and it works fine. Why should Apple allow another low-level avenue into its hardware, and in the long run, create more hassles for their OS and hardware flexibility?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #123 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

When will Adobe submit it to a standards body?

Probably the same day Apple allows Mac OS X and the iPhone OS to be an open for use on any device.
post #124 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

If Adobe is as lazy as Steve says. If Flash is a data hog as Apple says. If Flash hasn't been updated for Mac as some posters have said resulting in endless beach balls on the Mac while the improved Flash for PC works great, even on Netbooks... Then maybe it is time Apple created its own "version" to satisfy all those squeaky wheel iPad wannabe content providers and Apple can call this new 'flash'-like software... drumroll please:

'Gone in a Flash!'

Precisely. And it's called NO-FLASH (or HTML5)...
post #125 of 158
An easy solution to the cpu and battery hog nature of flash on the web is to just not run it by default. I use the Chrome browser on OS X with the FlashBlock extension. By default it replaces all flash browser elements with a grayed out box of the same size plus a small F icon in the top left. The advantages of this are:

1) Faster load times due to not loading the flash code

2) MBP runs cooler

3) cpu usage is much lower

4) battery life is longer

5) If I want to run a Flash element then I click on the small F icon and just run that one flash instance on its own. I would do this for example on the BBC news web site to view a small video report.

6) Very important: I don't block any other form of advertising, so I encourage the site owner to provide adverts/content using non Flash methods.

7) Even more important: I'm not left out if I don't want to be. It's MY choice.

This works really well on my MBP and would work equally as well on my iPhone or on an iPad. There is no technical reason why this could not be done.
post #126 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

ITS ALL ANOUT ITUNES. WHY GET FIR FREE WHST JOBS CSN MAKE YOU PAY FOR!!!

Am dam# glad the media is makingba big deal out of this. 99% of all media sites use flash, from ABC, espn to major leauge baseball all use flash it'd fast, is much smaller than avi takes 1/10th the time to render comparded to Quicktime. I mean it'd always something with Spple. No dvr on app TV. No express port on 15" or smaller. It was $150 more just to have a black MacBook. I mean winning is one thing. Greed at evey corner is something else. I can't wait for rainbow turtle neck to retire.

Settle down, Beavis. First of all, it's kind of obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. "Much smaller than AVI" isn't the kind of thing any actual professional would say, because a professional knows that AVI is merely a container format (and a quaintly obsolete one at that), and that the size of a file is determined by the codec used on its contents, not the container type. A professional would also know that Flash video uses an FLV-type container, but that the actual data within is pure H.264, just like everybody else uses. In other words, Flash video is neither superior nor inferior to any other type of Internet-delivered video. They're all based on exactly the same technology.

And the "takes 1/10th the time to render" thing? No idea what you're talking about there. Did you mean encode, or decode? Cause obviously you're wrong either way —*see above, re: H.264 — but you should at least stick to the right terms.

Clearly you're getting all worked up about this. Perhaps you should go for a walk or have some Sunny D or something. It's not good for you to let yourself get so excited.
post #127 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

[snip]
I had been a user of both the original Apple II and the DOS MIcrosoft PC and experienced the evolution of these computers as well as others now no longer manufactured. Once Apple developed an operating system much better than DOS. I never looked back. I do not want to waste my time. [However, in science and technology, especially in the biomedical field, sometimes we are forced to use costly scientific equipment that are Windows-based because the manufacture decided to use MS software only. So, I used both operating systems and familiar with them.]
[/snip]
CGC

I appreciate hearing a user's point of view

However, to most developers, the 'Microsoft' platform == consistency.

They don't want to have to touch anything else, or re-learn without necessity (sadly). So, it's Windows® + x86....forever

i386...i486..etc, etc...to now, with the dual and quad-core chips...

The only real major change in Windows, was going from 16-bit to 32-bit, as far as i know.
Old software still runs and continues to run, with only minor tweaks.

DOS software continues to be usable, at least to some degree

Also funny that, Linux has started out on the x86 architecture as well.


Apple on the other hand, has gone thru several processor changes, so that has got to spook devs, at least a bit. Perhaps it only means a recompile in higher-level languages like C, but when you are writing device drivers, it's slightly more complicated.

Plus a major OS change....

And then bit endianness factor as well, also important when it comes to hardware. (Which, by the way, always confuses users who are setting up SheepShaver on Intel macs, since those don't come with Classic, thus needing an emulator for all those PPC apps. Users complain that all the files they transfer look strange and are unusable, with strangely scrambled names )

So, what the developer sees:

68K to PPC, @ old Mac OS: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures;
PPC @ old Mac OS to OS X (unix): has Classic, still time to rewrite the whole product;
PPC to x86, @ OS X: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures, doesn't have Classic anymore. Unlucky users have to use SheepShaver.

When you have the source code, you can just recompile with some minor changes. But if you for some reason still have to rely on a library that's been compiled long ago, and the source has been lost, then the only choice is rewriting from scratch.



So in biomed, i do understand the idea of "write once, run forever"...

P.S. Sorry for the long rant, that is somewhat off topic, but is still relevant. I hope it is somewhat readable at this point. \
post #128 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Not even a chance. TS lacks the testicular fortitude to make any to make any such admission. There will be some reason why the iPad has failed to meet expectations. Like the sales figures for June -- December 2009 showed that the Kindle out sold the iPad over 500 to 1.

As far as changing the posts, edits to posts are noted, reason why post was edited should be stated --although the reason for the edit is voluntary, the fact that the post was edited is still recorded.

I guess we'll never know what TS will have to say, not only has the troll been BANNED but all of TS's posts have been stripped from this thread.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #129 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I guess we'll never know what TS will have to say, not only has the troll been BANNED but all of TS's posts have been stripped from this thread.

Stripping all posts is easy to do for the Mods. It's modifying of deleting individual posts that can be a chore.

He was here today under his mr koolaid alias. Not sure if he was given a PM warning or decided it was not worth a permanent ban.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #130 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Stripping all posts is easy to do for the Mods. It's modifying of deleting individual posts that can be a chore.

He was here today under his mr koolaid alias. Not sure if he was given a PM warning or decided it was not worth a permanent ban.

Yeh, I read your comment, but not sure who mr koolaid was. But this really surprised me, never seen it where the Mods stripped all of the post from a thread---would be nice to announce that this is what happens to trolls on AI.

I know that TS apparently had a signature line that upset some members yesterday @

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=108096

but don't know if TS changed it, looks like the post is still there.

oh well TS won't be missed.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #131 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post

I agree 100%. If Apple or even Adobe want to sell some software that lets you do the same thing a with a different type of file export, then more power to them. Obviously there's an impasse here, someone write a solution and make some cash.

While many people believe that QuickTime interactive (QTi) bought the farm when Jobs put Hypercard out of its misery in 2001 the reality was the ability to make Quicktime interactive remained and was taken to the next level in "QTKit Framework Reference and Core Video Programming Guide"

LiveStage Pro showed these features can be used cross platform so alterantive are already in place it just that no one has even tried to use them.
post #132 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

A huge chunk of the internet is built on Flash. It is a feature in some circumstances. It is a shame to see Apple taking yet another feature out because of its refusal to upgrade OS X underpinnings especially when even underpowered windows machines can run flash perfectly.

You really haven't been paying attention have you? Part of the reason Apple is annoyed with Flash is Adobe wants direct access to parts of the OS that no program should really have if you don't want internet security to go down the toilet. Microsoft has long allowed programmers to do things that from a security aspect are insane so of course flash works wells there.

And before you go into the marketshare BS may I remind you that the Mac had more viruses and malware with either System 6 or System 7 then it does now and that was when 1) it was on a totally different hardware platform, 2) had less a marketshare than today, and 3) the jerks who write viruses and malware had to deal with an OS that was a wild mishmash of 68000 Assembly, pascal, and C code (ie not that easy to program for)

Windows users still get drive by infection (usually thanks to the security joke known as Internet Explorer) while the OS X crowd generally has to be social engineered out the wazzo or not skeptical enough install anything that comes their way
post #133 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot View Post

So, what the developer sees:

68K to PPC, @ old Mac OS: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures;
PPC @ old Mac OS to OS X (unix): has Classic, still time to rewrite the whole product;
PPC to x86, @ OS X: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures, doesn't have Classic anymore. Unlucky users have to use SheepShaver.

When you have the source code, you can just recompile with some minor changes. But if you for some reason still have to rely on a library that's been compiled long ago, and the source has been lost, then the only choice is rewriting from scratch.

Windows has seen APIs come and go. For person was having all kind of problems running Day of the Tentacle and I directed them to ScummVM under the assumption that an API had drastically changed and the report that the their game now ran properly.

Windows 7 has to rely on a VM to run really old programs. So instead of Classic where the old API were sent to MacOS you can have this insane situation of Windows 7 emulating a PC via a VM running Windows XP using Program Compatibility Mode
As for an program that directly touched the hardware forget it.

I should point out that the problem with SheepShaver is that it is a port of an BeOS and Linux emulator. What is really needed is a compatibility layer like what Classic was and what WINE was and still is though I don't know how viable this is.
post #134 of 158
As a graphic designer who creates small animation in Flash for business and government clients, to not have an IDE that allows me to be efficient at my job will cost me and my company money. Quite frankly i could care less if the iPad runs Flash or not. But to say "kill flash" is very short sided. We have thousands of man hours tied up in animations of mechanical systems that are quite pleasing to our client.

For me to turn to our clients and say HTML5 development will now take 2-3 times as long for perhaps less quality results will get me laughed out of the meeting room. Flash is (pardon the phrase) embedded in business and government work so deep now it is going to be like turning a battleship.

I can only guess, but if and when HTML5 code is widely adopted, that there will be an option in Flash Builder to save to HTML5 format. If that ever happens, then much of this debate will go away. I can keep my crew on time and budget and comply with the new code base.
post #135 of 158
AppleInsider seems to report information but does not seem to publicly advocate for or against particular positions.

However, regarding flash, the site itself is littered with flash content from advertisers. Having recently installed ClickToFlash, the site is now substantially more readable, the page downloads are faster, the pages are cleaner, my focus is not constantly impeded by the ads.

Now, I've got the best environment. I get to see only the important content of the site, the jetsam of flash ads are gone, and my Mac is now stable. What's there not to like?

My purpose of being online is to collect information and anything that impedes me is a strong detriment. Thus, I avoid as much as possible all video content. Time is valuable to me and the ratio of content to time is miniscule for audio and visual. A typical news video of say 2 minutes contains around 150 words of content, which for me means less than 15 seconds of reading time.

And take some news video sites, like CNN, where a new video is preceded by a 30 second ad --it simply irks me to no end.

I understand that advertisers believe that ads bring in revenue so sites are financially supported by advertisers, but it just annoys me. I suppose what might "work" for people like me is advertising written up as news. For example, online Forbes is filled with news/opinions just like that and this site intentionally or unintentionally works the same.

Now that I have ClickToFlash, I'm in favor of Flash, since it can and is filtered out. If HTML5 wins the day, then I'm back to sites of low content to jetsam ratio.
post #136 of 158
I'm glad that Steve doesn't let Flash onto my iStuff. It is a CPU hog, made by a lazy company, and it is a major security hole.

Good riddance! Kill Flash!
post #137 of 158
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post
It not because of FLASH, it's because of OSX.
FLASH runs just fine on any low-end PC even Netbooks.

It runs fine on the Atom N450, which is a recent Intel netbook chip.

The Snapdragon is reported to handle it just fine, as well.
post #138 of 158
Hey look, it's iGenius gracing us with his presence yet again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleRulez View Post

I'm glad that Steve doesn't let Flash onto my iStuff. It is a CPU hog, made by a lazy company, and it is a major security hole.

Good riddance! Kill Flash!

Haven't you learned yet that balanced, thoughtout posts are what keep people from thinking you are a troll. All you're doing is reinforcing that with this new alias.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #139 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Flash? iPad?

Uh-oh.

Might as well stop reading right now. This thread is guaranteed to head downhill in no time. The troglodytes will be out in force......

yeah anyone who wants flash on an ipad is a troglodyte.

everyone who accepts whatever Steve Jobs tells them is a genius.
post #140 of 158
Here's what I get from this whole stupid "debate":

The iPad will sell great, which means companies should definitely consider html5 versions of their website specifically for the ipad. They and everyone else should just accept that Apple has decided no flash, and no matter how many good reasons there are to bring flash, there are twice as many made-up reasons that keep it off the ipad.

Flash is NOT dead, nor is it dying. In fact, the next versions of flash on Windows will actually have hardware support, so it's moving forward in a big way.

So what does all of this mean? Simple: Website will have two versions. HTML5 for ipad, and flash for anyone else.

That's it. That's the end of it. No more need to discuss it. That's how it will be and there's nothing anyone can say to change it.
post #141 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Not to mention Flash "doesn't" run "just fine" on netbooks. They become hot and the fans go crazy. And battery life is dramatically decreased. In this day and age little animated web games shouldn't make your computer seem like it wants to catch fire. You're comments assume none of use Windows machines to test your bullshit claims.

Have you tried a Dell Mini 10 with an Atom n450 chip? It handles Flash just fine, and it has no fan at all. With a 6 cell battery, the life is over 8 hours.

I agree that some older netbooks were inadequate.
post #142 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post

.


...
and took 100's of years to sort out which "System" was truly the "best" and which would be the "Standard" in the Kingdom.
...

Starting to see how we can learn from History ?


Yeah - unless you are able to interoperate and use all popular current systems, you'll be screwed for a long, long time.
post #143 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Right, so you didn't actually own one like me, my sister, my brother or my friend. This is telling.

Which architecture do their netbooks use?
post #144 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Here's what I get from this whole stupid "debate":

The iPad will sell great, which means companies should definitely consider html5 versions of their website specifically for the ipad. They and everyone else should just accept that Apple has decided no flash, and no matter how many good reasons there are to bring flash, there are twice as many made-up reasons that keep it off the ipad.

Flash is NOT dead, nor is it dying. In fact, the next versions of flash on Windows will actually have hardware support, so it's moving forward in a big way.

So what does all of this mean? Simple: Website will have two versions. HTML5 for ipad, and flash for anyone else.

That's it. That's the end of it. No more need to discuss it. That's how it will be and there's nothing anyone can say to change it.

That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
  • HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
  • Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
  • Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
  • Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
  • When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
  • When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
  • An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...too name a few.

PS: Flash has no EOL in sight, but parts are clearly being ready to be offloaded to more efficient options.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #145 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet View Post

This works really well on my MBP and would work equally as well on my iPhone or on an iPad. There is no technical reason why this could not be done.

Everybody is moving on over to HTML5. And besides, Adobe is lazy.
post #146 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

decided it was not worth a permanent ban.

Those permanent bans are impossible to get around. Not worth it.
post #147 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bedouin View Post

The real reason publishers don't want to give up Flash is because its a generally fool proof, highly intrusive method of ad syndication.

Most people aren't using Click2Flash or FlashBlock -- yet.

You have no idea how much more enjoyable web browsing is for me with Click2Flash. You don't realize how much Flash debilitates your computer until you dump it.

Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.
post #148 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kimball View Post

Great post. In addition to web pages in which I get frustrated because in order to see a two paragraph story I have to endure megabytes of flash downloading with flashing colors that could induce a seizure in an epileptic and annoying horn honks and "Congratulations! You've just won a FREE iPod Touch" soundovers, many sites have a splash screen that takes a long time to load and doesn't do anything except make a graphic swoop around the page and have a title come into focus.
Maybe 20% of my objection to Flash is performance based. The other 80% is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of Flash content is intrusive, annoying and practically never adds any value to the web page.

Unfortunately, the future of ads will be to use webcode and there won't a simple way of turning it off like there is with ClickToFlash. With JS, CSS Animations and Canvas all these current annoyances can already be created, albeit with more effort at this point and time.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #149 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Members of the media have expressed disagreement with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' position that ditching Adobe Flash is a "trivial" move for publishers.

Contacts from a variety of media outlets, ranging from newspapers to advertisers to large mainstream media outlets spoke with Valleywag to talk about the difficulties they face in potentially abandoning Flash. The publication referred to comments from Jobs as "anti-Flash propaganda.".

Just another click bait article. Some small number of anonymous people don't like Flash big deal.

If you look at the real world, every major publisher but one has signed up for the iPad bookstore. Many magazine and newspaper publisher are supporting iPad.

The only ones who are complaining are the ones who complain about EVERYTHING Apple does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

If Adobe is as lazy as Steve says. If Flash is a data hog as Apple says. If Flash hasn't been updated for Mac as some posters have said resulting in endless beach balls on the Mac while the improved Flash for PC works great, even on Netbooks... Then maybe it is time Apple created its own "version" to satisfy all those squeaky wheel iPad wannabe content providers

Why would Apple want to do that? There are open alternatives (Javascript and html 5). Why should Apple create something new. That would be insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post

I agree 100%. If Apple or even Adobe want to sell some software that lets you do the same thing a with a different type of file export, then more power to them. Obviously there's an impasse here, someone write a solution and make some cash.

No impasse at all. Apple says 'no flash'. Microsoft says 'no flash' on WIndows Mobile 7. Android says "limited Flash without full Flash capabilities - but it's late and no one knows when it will be out and it still stinks".

Meanwhile, youtube, Hulu, CBS, NYT, and others are rapidly creating their non-Flash web sites.

No impasee that I can see. Adobe lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

A huge chunk of the internet is built on Flash. It is a feature in some circumstances. It is a shame to see Apple taking yet another feature out because of its refusal to upgrade OS X underpinnings especially when even underpowered windows machines can run flash perfectly.

Bull. A bunch of porn and silly games is built on Flash. A number of lazy programmers use Flash - but they're rapidly dropping it as they realize that tens of millions (soon to be hundreds of millions) of the trendiest, most affluent Internet users can't access their web sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swinge View Post

I'm the biggest Apple fan boy, but I think SB is making a huge mistake here..... I think it's an issue that really divides people... give me a ClickToFlash type tool and let ME decide what content I can access....The problem (as the article states) is the divide between devs and designers.... Designers know Photoshop, illustrator, Flash, etc... There needs to be some kind of authoring environment for HTML5... I know Wookie Boy will disagree and have links to tutorials.... But until the majority of existing Flash content is replaced with HTML5 content, users will be unhappy with this. Until the iPad can offer a better experience, I'm sticking with my 3GS and my laptop.

Notice that the 3GS won't access Flash, either. If you insist on using a slow, buggy, insecure software, feel free. But no one else should suffer.

There's a good reason why Apple doesn't offer the option. Because people would be tempted to enable Flash. Then, when their system performance drops, battery life plummets, and the iPad gets to hot to hold on their lap, they'd blame Apple. Apple is right to drop it entirely.

Furthermore, if Apple offered Flash on the iPad, you wouldn't see all the developers reworking their websites into html 5 and Javascript as they're doing now - so Apple would be stuck with buggy Flash forever. It's much like the floppy drive thing. Sure, dropping the floppy drive caused a very small number of people minor inconvenience, but if they hadn't dropped it, they'd STILL be stuck with that lousy technology.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #150 of 158
I use to be all about Adobe software and based that on Photoshop which I first started using Photoshop in 1997, so version 4.0.
Loved it, thought it was great software. I told many people that it was the best software out there. Photoshop did its job better than any other software did in its category. I fully believed that, up until Photoshop 7.
Since then it's become too bloated, too cumbersome, and it's just not fun to use anymore.
Flash; my opinion is above.
Quark XPress was much better and far easier to use than PageMaker. It pains me to say this ... but even Microsoft Publisher is easier to use than PageMaker ever was. Though trying to create something using Publisher as nice as I could PageMaker is an impossibility.
Dreamweaver is crap, though I used the Macromedia versions.
So yeah, with Adobe software ... I seek alternatives.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #151 of 158
The iPhone has changed the way that people browse the web. They actually do it all the time on their iPhones that already don't run Flash. So tell me, if you are going to a media publisher that already disregards over 42 million eyeballs on the web, do you really worry about their ability to stop the success of iPads simply because they won't play flash?
post #152 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Hey look, it's iGenius gracing us with his presence yet again.



Haven't you learned yet that balanced, thoughtout posts are what keep people from thinking you are a troll. All you're doing is reinforcing that with this new alias.

Yep. Although he can't seem to decide which persona to go with: fatuous fan boy or relentless critic.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #153 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by elehcdn View Post

..... media publisher that already disregards over 42 million eyeballs ......

42x2.
post #154 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isn't it, nor the end of it and there is much to discuss. Other issues to discuss...
  • HTML5 over Flash for more modern and mobile browsers
  • Adobe et al. making better tools to harness the power of modern of webcode
  • Firefox getting official or unoffical H.264 support since Ogg Theora is a deadend
  • Flash 10.1 actually being released this year for all Android platforms having the same abilities as webcode and not affecting the battery life, performance, or user experience too badly
  • When and how the larger video sites will convert their sites to HTML5 video as deafault with Flash as the backup option (they'll almost all already using H.264)
  • When will certain elements outside of the HTML5 video tag, like the slideshow on Flickr or graph on Google Finance, offer a webcode option
  • An Adobe employee's blog working on the Mac version has announced future use of Core Animation which should reduce the load substanially
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...too name a few.

PS: Flash has no EOL in sight, but parts are clearly being ready to be offloaded to more efficient options.

1: The best browsers will support both
2: pass
3: Who cares if it does? It's one browser out of like what, 5 big ones?
4: As much as I love Android, these forums are for Apple news lol
5: It's easy to determine what browser a person is using. HTML5 as default for those that don't support flash is easy. HTML5 as default for everyone? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY! Flash is better than html5. BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?
6: Who here could know that?
7: That's good news. Always good to hear something that completely undermines the misinformation the majority of people around here constantly try to push (which is that Adobe is lazy and doesn't care about flash on osx.)

post #155 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

BTW, I was at the Apple store today and I ran hulu on a macbook air. It ran fine! What's all the hubub, bub?

Was that ever in question? netbooks with Atom processors and 1GB RAM which are much slower than C2D and 2GB RAM, which the MBA uses can play Hulu just fine in 360p but would stutter on 480p with Flash ≤10.0.x, with Windows of OSx86.

Still, technically being able to run isn't the only concern for, not an Atom processor, but an ARM processor. The performance of the rest of the system, usability from a touch UI and the battery consumption are still major issues that Adobe, at the end of March 2010, is still working on for an open platform that has been public long before iPhone OS.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #156 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Late to this party but take a look at history.

Computers and processors used to get faster and faster.

But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb cooling system and battery for a laptop.

Software and plug ins got more complicated with features and everyone got used to that.

But now a whole line of new products appear with less capable processors and integrated graphics.


So now all those plug ins like Flash are overweight for the hardware, is it Adobe's fault?

According to what I read on Slashdot, Flash really doesn't take too much more CPU than HTML5 or Javascript. It's was designed to be easier for designers to be creative and not technical.

It's the hardware that has been purposely crippled, Flash is a victim.

Apple keeps changing it's OS so darn much, it's hard for any developer to keep up and make a profit.

The CPU's crank on Mac's because Apple doesn't allow GPU hardware acceleration.

Does Apple really think publishers are going to give up the ease of use and creativity of Flash and hire a bunch of costly HTML5/JavaScript coders just to meet the needs of a underpowered iPad hardware?

It's not looking too good for the iPad.

What kind of nonsense is this?!? Snow Leopard expressly states that to use QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration and OpenCL the Mac in question you need a graphic card that has a GPU such as NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT or ATI Radeon HD 4850 and newer.

Apples does allow GPU hardware acceleration; its part of Snow Leopard.

COme back when you have a clue on what the Mac can and cannot do. Sheesh.
post #157 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Late to this party but take a look at history.

Computers and processors used to get faster and faster.

Yeh, bummer, they just keep getting more powerful at the same clock speed

.http://9to5mac.com/arrandale-benchma...-intel-2309439

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

But they hit a thermal wall, it's not practical to lug along a 500lb
cooling system and battery for a laptop.

Partly true. As CPU's get more powerful they generate more heat. Thinner CPU's getting better about heat produced and power consumption. My MBP unibody doesn't weight weigh more than older MBP's or power books and its less that 500 lbs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

It's not looking too good for the iPad.

Yeh, just increased production figures for 2010 to 8-10M up from previous 5M figure.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #158 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

I make flash games (third year now), and I have to say that Flash Player works just fine on OSX, on my 2.0GHz Core2Duo Macbook. It could be faster if Apple enabled those hooks the Flash Player needs for hardware acceleration... Steve must be furious, because he didn't invent Flash.

Apple has enabled those hooks in Snow Leopard and Adobe in it infinite stupidity still hasn't made use of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance