or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple highlights iPad-ready, Adobe Flash-free Web sites
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple highlights iPad-ready, Adobe Flash-free Web sites

post #1 of 115
Thread Starter 
A number of major Web sites have prepared their content for Saturday's launch of the iPad -- in part by embracing HTML5 video -- and Apple has highlighted a number of them.

Apple on its Web site has profiled a number of Web sites that rely on Web standards without Adobe Flash, making them ideal for viewing iPad content. Entitled "iPad ready," the page lists sites and includes a submission form to allow new sites to be added to the "growing list" of standard-compliant pages.

"iPad features Safari, a mobile web browser that supports the latest web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript," the site reads. "Here are just a few of the sites that take advantage of these web standards to deliver content that looks and functions beautifully on iPad."

A great deal of the focus in the list of a dozen Web pages is the inclusion of HTML5 video, an in-progress standard that Apple has backed as the company has shunned Flash by not allowing it on iPhone OS devices, including the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.

Sites on the list include CNN, Reuters, The New York Times, Major League Baseball, Vimeo, The White House, Virgin America, Flickr, and Sports Illustrated.

The exclusion of Adobe Flash from the iPad and subsequent comments attributed to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, in which he allegedly called the Web standard a "CPU hog," have led to a considerable amount of debate over its merits and shortcomings. Although Jobs reportedly said he believes it is "trivial" for Web developers to switch from Flash, some employees of leading publishers recently said they believe such a move wouldn't be so simple.



Last month, it was revealed that National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal were creating specific versions of their Web sites completely devoid of Flash for iPad users. Virgin America, too, dropped Flash content from its Web site in order to allow users of iPhones to check in for flights.

And this week it was revealed that Brightcove has contracted with Time and The New York Times to allow HTML5 to seamlessly replace Flash video content on the publications' Web sites. The new platform provides support for intelligent device detection, playlist rendering, and playback of H.264 encoded content.

Last week it was revealed that U.S. broadcast TV network CBS is testing HTML5 for video playback on the iPad. Both it and ABC plan to offer streaming shows on the iPad when the device launches Saturday.

For more on Apple and Flash, and why the Web format will likely never be available on the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
post #2 of 115
you have to give Steve J credit for being able to change the world. Can't wait to see the next iPhone.
post #3 of 115
Brave new world. Thanks Steve!
post #4 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


For more on Apple and Flash, and why the Web format will likely never be available on the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.

If Adobe wasn't a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing slugs, they could be on the iPad too!
post #5 of 115
You can add your site... fuel for the fuego
post #6 of 115
Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites. Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option. Since when did Apple become an enemy of Adobe and all the designers who use their products? And for the user who wants to look at a million other sites beside this handful? Hopefully Chrome or someone else has the sense to work out a solution where we can view Flash content if WE choose to...
post #7 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites. Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option. Since when did Apple become an enemy of Adobe and all the designers who use their products? And for the user who wants to look at a million other sites beside this handful? Hopefully Chrome or someone else has the sense to work out a solution where we can view Flash content if WE choose to...

If you like Flash so much, why don't you go to Windows and just crow about it?

Flash is a CPU hog and Adobe is lazy. That is why we hate them.
post #8 of 115
Death to Flash!

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #9 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Last month, it was revealed that National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal were creating specific versions of their Web sites completely devoid of Flash for iPad users. Virgin America, too, dropped Flash content from its Web site in order to allow users of iPhones to check in for flights.


Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?

I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.
post #10 of 115
This is the beginning of the end as more and more web sites drop flash!

It will take a little while, but it will happen because Adobe is not nimble enough to counter the all mighty hedge... errr Steve!

KRR
post #11 of 115
So how do I get to these Flashless sites in desktop Safari? Or Chrome on my Windows 7 machine at work?
Then again, ClicktoFlash means no animated dancing bimbo selling mortgages. I can only assume these sites will have low quality advertising via HTML5. Do people really click these things?

Gordon
post #12 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option.

First, whether it's costly to switch doesn't depend on whether you've got the cash or not. It's either costly or it isn't.

Second, apparently you haven't been paying attention to the state of the newspaper industry in the last few years. The NYT is deeply in the red. They're supporting HTML5 for mobile device such as the iPad because they've decided they need to, not because they're awash in cash.
post #13 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?

I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.

While there probably are things that can be done with Flash that are not possible (yet?) with HTML5, I think the situation with (at least many) of these sites is that they are, in fact, "replacing" their main Flash based website with HTML5 versions. If anybody is maintaing two different versions of their site, it is probably just temporary.
(all speculation on my part)
post #14 of 115
You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?


Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Thats because it wouldn't be so simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites.
post #15 of 115
It would depend on what they were using Flash for. If Flash is used within crucial functionality of the page, then they would need to design an entirely different HTML5 page for the iPad.

If Flash is primarily used to play video, then their is no need to create an entirely different page. The same page can play either Flash or HTML5 video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?

I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.
post #16 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?

I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
post #17 of 115
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would defend Flash for the iDevice. Why would anyone want it? Games? The App store has better free games that were designed specifically for the device. Ads? Really? Videos? There are countless methods of displaying video, all better and more efficient, not to mention, more accessible than Flash.

Also, is Flash really a killer feature for mobile devices? How many mobile devices are able to run Flash? Which of the iPhone's major competitors run Flash? The iPad would actually be the first, mainstream, mobile, none computer device to run Flash. Why does everything else get a pass for the lack of Flash? Apple is the only company publicly saying that Flash is crap. Everyone else has been trying for a long time to come up with a suitable implementation of Flash and failing, thus, proving Apple's claim. If Flash was so easy and such a good idea, all mobile devices would be doing it. Why do pundits call out Apple mobile products for their lack of Flash when, 1. either no one else has it, or 2. no one seems to care about the handful of devices that do have it?

I am sick of this debate. You can't run a desktop version of PS on this device either. The fact that you can't do it on any other competing device does not seem to matter. Can Android run Flash? If so, it just recently gained that ability, and then only for the most recent phones. The Droid is out of Luck. Can the Pre run Flash? One day, perhaps, but not today. Heck, even netbooks have trouble running flash. Why is it suddenly the benchmark for a good mobile device. Answer, IT'S NOT! It is just a cheap club for beating up Apple mobile devices. I have never heard of another device being criticized for lacking Flash. Time to throw this straw man in the fire once and for all.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #18 of 115
I notice that I see the small "flash" boxes (that come with Click To Flash) come up on Apple sites.

Not sure how to post pictures but it's in my public folder. http://files.me.com/ben120/m1ssap

The link that comes up when you hover your mouse over the Click to Flash thing says /flash/uploader.swf?756 and is the 'choose' button for uploading your own files to your iDisk space. Or is this something completely different I'm not understanding?
post #19 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.

I was thinking 'which sites do I visit that have flash functionality that is essential aside from video' and I really don't think I can think of any. Then I thought 'if there some, was flash really the proper choice, or was it just the easiest thing to use at the time'?

Can you list some that you visit where flash is essential that isn't used to play video? I'm curious.
post #20 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It would depend on what they were using Flash for. If Flash is used within crucial functionality of the page, then they would need to design an entirely different HTML5 page for the iPad.

Thanks for the answer.

If that's the case, and they have to create an entirely different HTML5 page for iPad, why would they not just use that as their website? If Safari on the iPad displays it, and HTML 5 can do all the functions of Flash, wouldn't you make that site the one Safari on the Mac displays as well?
post #21 of 115
The economic logic for these websites to switch is overpowering.

Who do you think are in the 6%-8% that are consuming Apple products (incl. the $1000+ notebooks)? The 'Apple-share-is-tiny' crowd can crow all they want, but these are the socio-economic and customer segments that consumer product firms (and eyeballs that advertisers) lust after.

The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
post #22 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?

I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.

See above.
post #23 of 115
When is AI going it make itself truly iPad/iPhone-ready?

C'mon guys, we've been waiting a while now!
post #24 of 115
Holy cow! You mean the web can survive without Flash? Who'da thunk...
post #25 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberben View Post

I notice that I see the small "flash" boxes (that come with Click To Flash) come up on Apple sites.

Not sure how to post pictures but it's in my public folder. http://files.me.com/ben120/m1ssap

The link that comes up when you hover your mouse over the Click to Flash thing says /flash/uploader.swf?756 and is the 'choose' button for uploading your own files to your iDisk space. Or is this something completely different I'm not understanding?

The ClickToFlash you are using is confused. There is no Flash on MobileMe.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #26 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens View Post

Holy cow! You mean the web can survive without Flash? Who'da thunk...

Flash isn't leaving lol
post #27 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Thats because it wouldn't be so simple.

You're probably correct. Judging from the quality of the news delivered and NYT's multiple attempts to get an iPhone app working, it is probably very difficult for publishers to switch.

More a condemnation of the news media than technology.
post #28 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

The ClickToFlash you are using is confused. There is no Flash on MobileMe.

I assumed as such it seems very unlikely, but why did it give a link to a .swf file?
post #29 of 115
The list should be longer. I can't wait until it's so.
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 #30 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonPrice67 View Post

So how do I get to these Flashless sites in desktop Safari? Or Chrome on my Windows 7 machine at work?
Then again, ClicktoFlash means no animated dancing bimbo selling mortgages. I can only assume these sites will have low quality advertising via HTML5. Do people really click these things?

Gordon

In my iPad simulator they are simply still images with links to their advertiser's site.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #31 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

I was thinking 'which sites do I visit that have flash functionality that is essential aside from video' and I really don't think I can think of any. Then I thought 'if there some, was flash really the proper choice, or was it just the easiest thing to use at the time'?

Can you list some that you visit where flash is essential that isn't used to play video? I'm curious.

You are absolutely right - you may not need the Flash plug-in for your use of the Web.

For many years, the cutting edge designs on the Web used Flash. Many small businesses, artists, designers and photographers have designed their sites, portfolios in Flash because HTML has never offered pixel precise layouts with animation that worked seamlessly across many different operating systems and different browsers. Flash offered that and still does. It may be a CPU hog and it's interface may have become ever more difficult thanks to Adobe, but it still works.

I am not bashing the iPad or iPhone (the latter of which I own and love). I question Apple and others openly bashing Flash. It isn't good business or netiquette IMHO.
post #32 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.

Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.

The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #33 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.

The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.

I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.
post #34 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

When is AI going it make itself truly iPad/iPhone-ready?

C'mon guys, we've been waiting a while now!

Personally, I've been hoping for an AI reader/posting app. It would be really cool having an iPad formatted app also... oh, Kasper!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 115
Yeah, industry will change, even if people are lazy to.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #36 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I honestly cannot understand why anyone would defend Flash for the iDevice. Why would anyone want it? Games? The App store has better free games that were designed specifically for the device. Ads? Really? Videos? There are countless methods of displaying video, all better and more efficient, not to mention, more accessible than Flash.

This is all that really needs to be said. And that technology should keep moving forward and improving, not hanging back on lame, outdated tech.
post #37 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.

Let's look at this the other way. When Apple were developing the iPhone, they would have had key design requirements, one of which would have been good battery life, set against smallness and lightness. They would have had prototypes running, and no doubt would have seen insufficient battery performance, and when analysing the data would have seen that Flash was a big, probably the biggest, drain. So they had to make a decision, broken down into roughly three options; 1) make the phone bigger and heavier than they wanted; 2) accept lower battery performance than they wanted or 3) don't allow Flash to work on the device. There would have been a lot of serious thinking right the way up to Jobs on such a key decision, and in the end they made what I would say was the brave decision of option 3.

Regarding open standards, it was that decision made by Apple which is the single biggest factor in the big push to HTML5 that is now underway. The success of the i-devices is forcing the issue, without which it would still be meandering along in its own sweet time. As you point out, this move is also working against the short to middle term interests of a number of constituencies, but there are always casualties during a technology transition, it's progress, evolution, and people are just going to have to adapt to survive. Hopefully, in five years time Flash will be back where it should be, as a useful development tool in certain situations, and one fundamental aspect of the web will not be dependent upon, and thus held hostage to, a complacent proprietary technology. This will benefit everybody, including many of the people who are going to lose out in the short term.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #38 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Flash isn't leaving lol

No, but people sure are leaving Flash!
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #39 of 115
Not necessarily. When Firefox and Safari came to the scene to force the web to support HTML standards they did not allow the proprietary IE code that most websites at the time were using to degrade gracefully. They just did not support it at all. Eventually the majority of the web began using HTML standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post

I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
post #40 of 115
HTML5 is still a work in progress, it cannot yet replicate all of the functionality of Flash, but its getting there. Apple is laying the ground work for HTML5 to replace Flash once its ready.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Thanks for the answer.

If that's the case, and they have to create an entirely different HTML5 page for iPad, why would they not just use that as their website? If Safari on the iPad displays it, and HTML 5 can do all the functions of Flash, wouldn't you make that site the one Safari on the Mac displays as well?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple highlights iPad-ready, Adobe Flash-free Web sites