Apple developing Flash alternative named Gianduia - Page 4

Because HTML5 is a totally new rewritten HTML. They just tack on new code to old Flash code.

How am I parroting Steve when there is clear evidence? Android, Symbian, iPhone, soon Blackberry OS all have HTML5 supported web browsers. None can fully support Flash. This is simply the truth.



I'm not even arguing that Flash is going to go away. I believe it will be used for some time to come. But it won't hold the same role at had in the past.

They will all soon also be sorting 10.1 player. Very soon. If it turns out to be a good player, and run as I had seen it, things will indeed change very quickly.

And yes there can be no doubt that flash's role will evolve, and I see that, as a very good thing.

Well no, HTML5 is the medium for delivering H.264 on the web, but the iPhone doesn't use HTML5 to play YouTube videos via H.264 as an alternative to Flash.

Flash is not just a container, it's a playback medium. Its features in that regard can be replicated in JavaScript on the web, but back in 2005 JS and browsers weren't standardized enough and fast enough to make that easy enough to do, hence Flash being used as a video playback mechanism.

Today, there's no compelling reason to use Flash just to present videos. It is irrelevant that Flash can use the H.264 codec now, because the codec isn't the issue. It's whether or not you need a freaking huge, insecure, slow web plugin to play back standard video files when all modern browsers can do that natively (save for the zealots at Mozilla), and mobile devices can do it with the benefit of hardware compression.

And while there are lots of things Flash "can do," the vast majority of existing Flash video is not H.264, it's Sorensen Spark, a proprietary version of H.263 that is not supported in hardware compression. So more irrelevance on your part.

The problem for Adobe is that video playback is the killer app for Flash. That and Farmville. So while Adobe has a lot of grandiose plans for Flex and AIR, its empire is going to collapse as Flash loses its main reason for being, which is to play videos.

After that happens, and it already has on the iPhone OS, there will be much less compelling reason to do anything new in Flash, because 100 million of the world's best customers won't be able to see it. And that's why Adobe is coming unglued.

Uh. Ok. First of all, don't change your storey. You said:

H.264 is NOT an alternative to flash, html5 -is-. That's the point. Don't go around in circles.

And if there is lots of video that isn't H.264 and can't use hardware acceleration, well, I guess it's time for an upgrade isn't it, Just like a whole lot of content on the web, that needs rebuilding. It's a never ending cycle as better technologies and realities emerge, and keeps guys like me, employed.

And let's keep things in perspective. I find most apple fanbois always revert to this 'flash is nothing but video and they'll die without it BS', but if you stop and think about it rationally, you'll remember that flash had dominance in the high 90s percent long before they had video support. Video, was never added until flash 6, and even then was in it's infancy, and didn't really come into it's own until flash 8. So flash grew and became huge without, the ability to play video.

Absolutely, there will be changes in what we use to deploy requirements. If we can do it easily in HMTML5, or php, or what have you and it makes better sense than flash, well then DUH. of course you would.

Why this is of some great revelation is a grand mystery. It's been that way, for a long time.

Really? IPhone won't have Flash 10.1. Windows Mobile won't have it. There's no formal announcement about any other platform except Android - and that requires an 800 MHz A8 - which leaves out the vast majority of phones on the market.

So EVEN IF Adobe manages to hit their latest target and even if it actually works well (which doesn't appear to be the case with the betas), AT BEST a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices will have Flash.


I hope Adobe is paying you well. After all, it must be worth something the way you've thrown your integrity out the window to shill for them.

ok, let's talk about integrity, since you brought it up.

If you want to chat about this subject, at least pretend to do some research. It is well known microsoft and adobe are working together, to bring the new flash player to windows mobile. So you're wrong. So much for integrity.

And flash player will indeed be brought to Symbian. Wrong again. And, it will also, be brought to blackberry.

And, as you mentioned, we all know it'll on android. And you said 'it doesn't appear to working well'. Really. Have you seen it? I have, in person, and you're full of it. It is indeed working very well.

So yes, let's talk about integrity. But first, you should do a little research first and not embarrass yourself.

I have said several times, I'm only interested in truth here. But the bunch of you have turned this into a us and them arguement full of holes, and have tried accusing me of having an agenda, and now 'shilling for adobe'. could hope for an interesting discussion on new emerging technologies like html5, what it means for things like flash, the wars going on, but it seems all you guys are interested in, I guess, is "shilling for apple"... rather than seeing through the sensationalism and the BS.

Is that all you got? Let's try debating the actual subject without having to resort to stooping hmmm k?

Everything you wrote grading WebGL is what I'm counting on. As a mechanical engineer with a computer science backup I'm counting on it to be robust and not for designers to get all gaga.

It's funny how I've been hearing how great Flash for mobiles is for years. Adobe even saying they had Flash ready for the iPhone back in 2008, then saying it's more difficult than they thought even imploring Apple for assistance, then declaring the project dead all while pushing Flash for Android farther an farther back so that going into the middle of 2010 it's still not released. But everyone "in the know" says it's great, it doesn't affect battery life, and it's all Apple's fault it's been delayed. :rollseyes:

do some research, go see for yourself in person before mouthing off about something you obviously know zero about. It's annoying to see the constant barrage of crap posted everywhere by apple fanbois that has little merit, or basis in fact at all.

It's already been said that adobe certainly missed the boat, has been lazy, blah blah. I already said I firmly believe and support apple's decision NOT to put flash in it's current form on the iphone. And, it's now up to adobe, to deliver. And I meant it.

But the BS has to stop at some point. I love apple stuff too, but that doesn't mean I swallow and parrot everything his Steveness spouts.

Flash works fine on modern netbooks too.

That makes a lot of sense. You should post here more often.

Don't add to Groovetube's lies and anti-Apple/pro-Adobe agenda. What do you define as "modern"? Would you say a 6 month old netbook is still a modern computing device? I would. Since Flash 10.1 is only a Beta, using it to say "well if such and such's grandma wants to play Hulu videos on their netbook without stuttering all they have to do is install the Flash Beta for 10.1. Duh.".

Here is some evidence that Flash 10.0.x.x on Atom-based machine is not "working fine".

http://www.pcworld.com/article/18233...s_nettops.html
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-d...-arm-40088854/

point out where I have lied. I bet you fail.

Quick like a bunny, or we'll just assume you're mouthing off again.

That's a pretty good one. So you quote someone on a web forum who claims that 'they are working together'.

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Adobe have both stated that Windows Mobile 7 will not have Flash, at least at launch:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/14/a...dows-mobile-7/

So who do we believe- Adobe and Microsoft or some anonymous Adobe shill?


Sorry, Adobe is a master of vaporware. As I said, it is not on any of those phones AT PRESENT. Your own link confirms that.


I see that no one has explained the concept of verb tenses to you. It will supposedly be on Android AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. That is not the present.

We DO have a widely publicized Adobe demo where Flash 10.1 crashed. We have countless reports that it's still choppy and slow. AND, even if by some magic they are able to get it working well, it requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it wouldn't run on the iPhone even if Apple allowed it.


So far, you've added nothing but lies and distortions. NONE of the things that you provided give the least reason to believe that Flash works on any existing mobile devices TODAY - as you claimed repeatedly.

Why not go back to Adobe, collect your paycheck, and tell them they need to find a more skilled shill?

I suppose it's hard to accept the truth. I know, when you got nothing, right?

btw the confirmation of the windows7 adobe thing, came straight from mike chambers, if you even bothered to read the supplied link. Don't believe me, contact him yourself, and get it direct. I know that's likely not going to happen since you seem happy to believe the BS spewed eh? While you're at it ask him about the android demos. Recent ones. in case you're wondering, mike chambers, isn't 'someone on a web forum'...

And educate yourself what is happening with new flash player on android. It;'s running beautifully, will be out soon, and thousands and thousands of web developers have seen it running already very recently.

What are you going to do if adobe does releases it on android in a couple months and it runs amazing huh?

I have been frank, truthful about the state of where flash is currently and that it absolutely needed to be fixed, and what I have seen first hand, and what I'm hoping will transpire very soon.

Which is more than I can say for a few of you who seem to have trouble focusing on a subject. The usual is accusing me of being paid by adobe. Speaks volumes there genius...

LOL

Shit in one hand and wish in the other.

See which ones fills up first.

Flash mobile is vaporware as of yet. Nothing has it. You can make arguments that it is coming and that it is going to be great, but that's all conjecture at this point. jragost has pretty much nailed that point.

I do not think Flash will be gone tomorrow by any means, but it is definitely a declining platform and some pretty major sites and companies are moving away from it.

Apple just made it obvious.

jragost has nailed nothing but spewing BS. He didn't even get the link to mike chambers correct, where else do you go with a totally word salad post like that?

Yes you're correct, technically, flash 10.1 hasn't been officially released for android, or the others yet. However, it has been previewed (saw it 2 weeks ago at a major conference) and seen by a lot of people so it's gone past vapourware, and there needed to be -some- dispelling of the nonsense being spewed that only android would get the new player.

It simply ain't true. So what exactly, did he nail other than more lies?

I like that phrase, 'word salad.'

As Exhibit A, I recommend re-reading your own posts. The grammar, the punctuation, the vocabulary and the ideas are mostly an incomprehensible mess.

Please explain, and include links! Thanks! My guess is that you mean this:

Create separate sites in iWeb, and tell GoDaddy (in my case) to point my Domains to the Home/Welcome Page using Domain Masking, which always shows domainname.com and not the actual URL's? If that's so, then it's not too practical, when I'd want to share a particularly page, cause I would be able to provide a direct link!

Would the following work as a workaround?

Use index.html as the Home/Welcome Page? Would that get me around Domain Masking, or would I still see the the entire original URL?

Also, what method would you advise as iWebs "equivalent" of Dreamweaver's Templates, where a change in a Template, in DW, would effect every page based on that Template? The only one that I can think of is: Duplicate/Rename = Save As, but that would effect future pages built as Duplicate/Rename = Save As... In DW Templates I can Apply Various Templates to older pages, overwriting the existing Templates that a page is based on.

That's why I say: Apple should do what DW does, but better, more elegantly, and take it to the next level! Also that Apple App should Import/Convert DW Site Folders, and take over from there, so that DW users can make a seamless smooth transition!

THAT would be a DREAM, for me, and a NIGHTMARE for Adobe!


I can't argue with you, cause I haven't seen Flash on Windows. Add to that the Hardware Differences! My PB G4 1.67 is obviously slower, cause it was a top dog in 2006, Power PC, not Intel, or AMD!

I understand why Adobe is upset: they want to protect their Flash Platform, which is a Cross Platform Translator=Wrapper, whatever label one prefers. The way I understand and agree with Steve Jobs: he wants the apps to be Native to the OS, with no Translator=Wrapper in between! Yes, it would be more costly to some developers, but then Nothing would get lost in translation, less finger pointing, and the developers won't have to keep buying Adobe's Apps... Less finger pointing!!!

I'd like this Apple Adobe Conflict to goes away ASAP! Let them all cooperate towards bringing HTML5 ASAP! Then, may the best WYSIWYG Authoring Tools win! Users will pick what they are most comfortable using instead of being kept hostage...

Obviously, I am simplifying things, but not by much!

In the end, it should be more about the Content, and less about the Eye Candy as the way for the web designers to show off, and overshadow the content, which should be most user-friendly: searching, navigation etc. That kind of Flash Showmanship is what makes me NOT a Fan of Flash! Add to that my Flash Slow Speed, cause I am on a Mac, which is also 4 years old...

I don't know who Mike Chambers is, but I can't believe you're expecting me to believe someone named Mike Chambers even though it conflicts with official announcements from both Adobe and Microsoft. Sorry, I'll go with the official announcements rather than someone who's obviously an Adobe shill like you.

So we can conclude one of two things:

1. You don't understand the difference between your original statement that 'Flash is CURRENTLY available on mobile devices' and a hypothetical 'Flash might some day work on mobile devices'

Or

2. You're lying

Which is it?

my god man. You want official? Look up who mike chambers is. It simply doesn't get, 'more official' than that... Here. Let me help since google is suddenly failing you. http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/about/

This is embarrassing guys, come on. Get it together if you're gonna hate flash, at least have some credible arguments rather than this lame crap you're spouting!

And show me where I said flash is currently available for mobile devices. Flash lite is however. Can you get it straight man!

Facts don't matter, only hero worship matters.

Vomiting that puddle of misinformation was a gamble he believes he can afford to play because he mistakes magazine covers for market share. Most of the coverage emanating from the infamous Reality Distortion Field is getting its play in the lay press, where the writers have no clue at all what he's talking about "so it must be smart!"

Apple + Hubris = 1,470,000 hits.

ROTFLMAO. So he's a product manager for Adobe. He says that Adobe and Microsoft are 'working together' (whatever that means).

Meanwhile, there is an official press release from both Adobe and Microsoft saying that Flash will not appear on Windows Mobile 7, at least at launch. Official press releases are approved at levels much higher than 'product manager'.

Yet, somehow, you've managed to delude yourself into believing that 'we're working together' from a project manager means that Flash is available today on the platform - even in spite of all the obvious facts that it's not -- and official press releases from both companies.

Sorry, I can't help you. If you're that far divorced from reality, you really need professional help.


Sadly, you Adobe shills are apparently incapable of rational discussion. Since when is 'vomiting that puddle of misinformation' supposed to be a rational rebuttal?

Heck, even the Microsoft trolls were better than you Adobe trolls.

oh so you figured it out eh. Not some guy on a forum, but one of the top product managers for flash at adobe. Opooopsie eh! LOL. God you guys couldn't string 3 true sentences together if you tried can you. Well, fire up your printer, and run yerself off a certificate of genius!

I'm still awaiting solipsism's response to where I lied. You pair of apple fellers can't seem to stay on topic, nor get your storey straight! When I nail you with your inaccurate regurgitations, you all run around in circles and forget what you said in the first place.

Of course flash will not be on win7 at launch you smart smart fellow you! Any halfwit can figure this out really. But you said, that flash would only be on android, and you are wrong. It will roll out on every platform I listed throughout 2010, except the iphone. Which, at present day numbers could see flash on over 70% of all new smartphones.

I have maintained from the start. Adobe is lazy. Flash sucks for mobile in it's current form. There is a lot we developers dislike about adobe. But a massive number of interactive shops use flash (obviously...) and love the platform for development. Anyone who works on it hopes, that Adobe will get their act together, and put out a killer player for mobile. We had out doubts based on past offerings like flash lite, 10.1 had promise, but after the latest flurry of demonstrations many thousands of us have seen with our own two eyes, it's no longer vapourware as the ones who haven't seen squat mouth off about, it's very close to actual release, and we will begin to start seeing a rollout on each platform. We know it'll be on android, blacklberry, win7, and symbian. (not sure about webOS but suspect so).

I don't know how successful it will be, but odds are, it will be. But I guess we'll have to see and revisit this thread eh?

So far, I've seen nothing but wrong information, snide remarks that have no basis in fact, the inability to even read much less fathom the links provided it seems.

Come on, like -try- to counter with -something- credible k?

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE NAME

Freaking language bigots...

if you'd like to take on the subject matter head on, be my guest. Otherwise, you're just a hit and runner with nothing to bring to the table.

The percentage they take on iAds is the industry standard in advertising. You contract with AdMob or any other agency, that's what they take. You don't have to find the advertiser, design the ad, or anything, and you get 60% of the money. Good deal. Plus, no Flash crap.

It's not a new product, it's a framework. Quite certainly, it will be open. Unlike Flash. I get the idea that many people will rejoice, not just Apple.

The prior moment this reminds me of is Microsoft and Apple's collaboration in TrueType and OpenType, to escape the onerous licensing that Adobe was charging when it had the font monopoly. And in this context, the only monopoly here is Adobe.

The fact is that Flash runs well on every platform except the Mac.

The fact is that Flash 10.1 is currently in Beta for mobile devices (except iDevices) and it appears to run well.

Beyond these facts, there is much opinion.

Atom N450 is SOTA. Flash probably plays fine on the Diamondville chips too, but I don't have any first-hand experience. All I know is that Flash plays fine on my kid's Dell Netbook. Full disclosure: To play YouTube full screen at 450p, the other running apps need to be closed. If you do that, the video plays without stutters.


All that Grandma needs to do is to to go to Hulu using any regular web browser. No beta necessary.



Believe whatever you prefer. Right here, right now, using a normal version of Firefox, Flash plays fine on a regular, cheap Netbook.

Someone who finally knows what they're talking about.

nicely summed up.

That was my first reaction to seeing the name as well. Marketing department gets the old Hag of Hammers award for really bad name.

Hey, you used the phrase. I didn't. Chill.

I am just enjoying watching you get into a tizzy defending what a lot of us think -- and your Adobe-shilling rants aren't going to change that -- is luddite software.

Pass the popcorn......

yes, but it would drop by about 90% if you would turn off your computer and stop posting here.


That is only a 'fact' for Adobe shills.

In the real world, Flash sucks on Mac OS X and Linux. It runs adequately (some of the time) on Windows. It doesn't run at all on the rest of the platforms out there.


What part of Beta don't you understand?

Not to mention that it's only in Beta for Android and only for systems with > 800 MHz A8. No Symbian. No WebOS. No Windows Mobile. No iPhoneOS. That's only a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices - even if they DO manage to get it working well.

But most reports are that it's choppy and slow even on Android.

And that is all without the Android version in play. There are rumours it will require v2.2 while other rumours say it will come with v2.2 but will be installable as a package on earlier versions of Android, but since this is still a Beta and Adobe is still struggling to figure out how to make it viable it's all really up in the air. In any regard, we still have BRAND NEW Android phones being sold with v1.x that will likely not v2.x. It's like saying Flash is coming to iPhone OS, but only to the iPad and only the 3G version; it's just a shitty design all around.

And while I think Adobe will get Flash 10.1 to stream 360p and 480p video with stuttering (because they have to or it will be a complete fail), 720p or greater is unlikely and that still doesn't address the battery usage issue. According to Groovetube and WilliamG Flash doesn't affect the battery anymore than HTML5 video. I can't wait for Flash 10.1 to finally land and these kids have to scramble to redefine their arguments once again.

That's way too factual. Don't waste your breath. These guys don't (make that, won't) comprehend.

I have no information on battery life vs. HTML 5 and have never offered an opinion on the subject.

However, I can't imagine that watching a 3 minute video once in a while will do much of anything to battery life.

The very example you gave is Flash not running so well. It plays full screen if it gets to have all system resources to itself.


From what I've seen so far is Flash playing one video clip, on one website, on one phone. That is not nearly representative of all Flash video, on every website, on every phone.


The only problem with this blanket statement is that Flash video is so varied. Entirely different resolutions and bit rates. Can you say a 720P Flash video plays with no problem on a cheap netbook?

We know that 720P H.264 plays with no problem on the iPad.

I'm not sure which one you've seen, but this might be number two.

•

http://www.flashmobileblog.com/2010/...-on-nexus-one/ This blog attempts to make excuses as to why the battery life dropped by 25% in the 3 minute video. What's so great about this blog are the excuses as to why they didn't go full screen with the video (they wanted to show the battery stats on screen in realtime, not at the end of the test), why the video looks choppy (it's the compression, not their fault), and that 3 hours of Flash video with a low-bitrate in 1/4 of the display using HW acceleration is fantastic. They also oddly use 199Mbits to state the video size, not MBytes, which would only less than 24.8MB for a 17 minute video. That's under 200Kbps. For video!

I'd say this shows Adobe has come a long way with Flash — and that's great, in and of itself— but they are so far behind being able to compete with with real world option that they are just kidding themselves by trying. What they should be doing is demonstrating that it's a good option to have for the occasional sites you go to that require Flash and what they've done to make mouse and keyboard inputs work just fine with stubby fingers.


That is a key point. All these qualifiers and excuses for Flash. I can't be walking my mom through all these issues saying that she needs to see if the source file in H.264 for HW acceleration, what the baseline it is, what the bit rate is, etc. It's silly on every level. I know what iPhone OS will do and independent testing shows that Apple's numbers are honest and straightforward.

BTW, I've had two netbooks and neither could could play Hulu video in 480p fullscreen without stuttering using Flash 10.0.x.x. I love his, if you shut down every other app it's fine and lack of data on the battery life. I can play HTML5 video full screen just fine in 480p with other apps open. Battery is alway shit with video, but Flash just killed it a fraction of the time.