or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe ships Flash 10.1 to mobile device makers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe ships Flash 10.1 to mobile device makers - Page 3

post #81 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, we wouldn't, because Flash is outdated technology that is holding back progress. It needs to die so the web can progress.

This is a pattern repeated over and over again with technologies, just like fossil fuel technology needs to die so that energy technology can progress. Resistance to change isn't anything new, and changes can be uncomfortable, even painful, but they have to be put to rest so we can advance to something better.

Why because Steve told you so? Suggesting flash is holding back the internet is just moronic. Sorry. Technologies that remain relevant to developers and end users will continue. If they don't, they will fail without the help of a handful of forum know-it-alls and bloggers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So you're claiming that Flash files are machine code?

I don't need to -claim- anything. Go do some research on the compiler. If you're going to jump all over someone, at least know what you're talking about k?
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #82 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

In other words, does it really support all of the Flash content out there on Android etc?

No it does not support all of the Flash content out there. Only the sour content, so we wouldn't want to have it anyways.
post #83 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They really have no principles that they live by other than greed, and their only commitment is to do anything they can to undermine whatever stands in their way.

Yes. And incorporating the world's most popular video format into thier mobile OS is a perfect example of this
post #84 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes
Funny. I suspect the world would still be waiting for mobile Flash if SJ hadn't made such a public deal of it not being released.

Wow. So the vast majority of smartphone users will be happy that the Apple minority was screaming about how sour the grapes were!

Ironic, ain't it?

actually, he's probably right. If adobe -does- get it right, (I said IF before the forum shriekers shit their pants...) the one thing steve jobs may have done would be to help flash actually survive. Ironically.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #85 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTBlomberg View Post


I still don't get the big deal over Flash. 95% of the flash content on the web is vomited out crap

That statistic is applicable to the App Store too. And videos. And music. And books. And TV shows.

The trick is to use your time to peruse the remaining 5%.
post #86 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Why because Steve told you so?

You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.

Quote:
I don't need to -claim- anything. Go do some research on the compiler. If you're going to jump all over someone, at least know what you're talking about k?

I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.
post #87 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

Adobe says Apple is holding them hostage. But if Apple continues to rely on an outside provider (Flash) then Adobe can hold Apple hostage pretty much anytime they want to. A cleaner example would be: What if Apple did not provide iWork. Then Microsoft could hold Apple hostage over a wordprocesser.


No, the better example would be if Apple didn't make iWork, but made the OS in such a way that Office would not work on iOS.

And then iOS fans would tell us that we are all better off without Office functionality! Because someday, in the unknown future, Office format will be dead, replaced by a standard that nobody uses yet.
post #88 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibeam View Post

There is simply no good reason to have Flash on a phone.

I consider watching web videos to be a good reason to have Flash on a phone. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
post #89 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

But now imagine if all web developers jumped on Flash because it was a universal and portable standard, and suddenly ALL the content you viewed and used (including your apps from the AppStore) was Flash. Not so good.


What would be worse is if all developers switched to a format that IE doesn't support.

Now THAT would affect a significant amount of users!
post #90 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

In the end, if the capability is not there, who's losing out? Me.


Not if you are an Apple Soldier marching off to war! By using a product that does not have that capability, you are making the world a better place. Or so say some...
post #91 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Yes. And incorporating the world's most popular video format into thier mobile OS is a perfect example of this

You are referring to H.264, I guess, tekstud?
post #92 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

If that's true (and not I'm saying it is or isn't) then Apple didn't make the decision to ban Flash from Appledom for the sake of its users, but did so for the sake of its business interests. Nothing wrong with that. But they should be honest about it.


Here's a vantage point for evaluating the decisions of any multinational mega-corporation:

Everything they do, EVERYTHING, is for the sake of their business interests.

Banning Flash is for the sake of their business interests. Not being honest about it is for the sake of their business interests.

If they ever did anything for any other reason, they would be doing something that would allow their shareholders to sue them.
post #93 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

But, seriously, I think your own experience points out quite clearly that Google and Adobe are just giving people false hope here. Flash just isn't suitable for mobile,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
post #94 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.

You have shown multiple times shown you only know what you read on a blog and what Apple says.

Quote:
I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.

Well that's a surprise. Ever heard of JIT compiler?
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #95 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There are two parts to this. First, Apple doesn't want Flash or any meta-platform because it gets in the way of developers taking advantage of native capabilities. Secondly, they don't want Flash player because they don't want performance and user experience to suck. In both of these cases, what's good for Apple is also good for users. So, are they doing it for themselves or for the users? The right answer isn't apparent if you engage in dichotomous thought. In fact, they do it for users because it's good for them too, which doesn't mean they are being entirely altruistic, nor does it mean they are being entirely selfish. It means that they can and do make choices that are good for both parties, and it's mistaken to try to paint them into either corner.

What you say is true, but you mistake the means fir an end.

A good UX is not an end. It is a means to greater profits.

Apple is 0% altruistic. They are 100% profit motivated. Their means to that end is to sell product. Their means to that end is to give the best UX they can, so long as it does not reduce profits.
post #96 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

You have shown multiple times shown you only know what you read on a blog and what Apple says.

Like I said, you have no argument to make.

Quote:
Well that's a surprise. Ever heard of JIT compiler?

Yes, I have heard of a JIT compiler, and the input to a JIT compiler is not machine code. Maybe you need to do a little research.
post #97 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post


i fucking hate flash on mac. they REALLY need to fix it in a big way and stop dicking around making new products to leverage their flash frameworks.


I think they announced many years ago that they will deploy their resources in a manner intended to maximize profits. I think they said that therefore, they would put development resources into the Mac in proportion to its user base.

If I were Adobe, I would put very little investment into Mac software, and instead, concentrate on the established and the emerging markets, where there is money to be made.

ISTM that they are doing exactly that.
post #98 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

I think they care about open, but they care about making money more.


They are bound by law to care only about making money.

If open is a good path towards making money, they might choose it. If they decide that another path is better, they will choose another path.

This is not very complicated.
post #99 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Like I said, you have no argument to make.



Yes, I have heard of a JIT compiler, and the input to a JIT compiler is not machine code. Maybe you need to do a little research.

I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL

A slight backup from flash doesn't do machine code me thinks...
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #100 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by vorst View Post

Flash is past and get over it. Look at the future.


I think that you mean that Flash is past and present. In the future, I'll likely have the capability to use the future tech. But in the present, it is nice to have tech which works in the present.

Some people disagree, and they value other things more highly than the ability to watch the vast majority of web videos. I can live with that.
post #101 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL

Well, as they say, he who laughs last, laughs best. So which part of my statement of fact that Flash files do not contain machine code are you disagreeing with? LOLOL
post #102 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlcmh View Post

Speedtest.net is a free app on the iOS platform, and launches way quicker than even on a desktop browser.


But compared to owners of other mobile devices, instead of simply going to the standard website, you need to:

Know the app is available.
Go to the App Store ad find it.
Download it and install it.
Find it in Launchpad or whatever the UI is called.
Execute it.
Store it in memory.

I think a web app is more convenient.
post #103 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Riiiight. Unfortunately, for me, the CBC website live streams World Cup matches using a Flash Player. If somebody can point me to a website that uses an alternative I'd use that.


Just wait. You are living in the past. Instead, as an Apple Soldier, you should be refusing to watch soccer until they switch to the format that cannot be viewed in the vast majority of currently installed web browsers.
post #104 of 149
In all fairness, Flash does run decently if it's set to "on demand". Even the reviewers have said that. But if you leave it on, all the time, like on a desktop, you'll definitely take a performance hit.

It's not so much Flash video that's the problem, it's Flash ads. No surprise there. That's why the "on demand" option, something to familiar to anybody who uses click2Flash is a good way to implement a resource hungry utility like Flash.

I would have considered uninstalling it before I tried it out set to "on demand". With the click2flash concept, I've got no complains. Let's me enjoy my comment without damaging the rest of my user experience on the phone.
post #105 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, as they say, he who laughs last, laughs best. So which part of my statement of fact that Flash files do not contain machine code are you disagreeing with? LOLOL

you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.

Now stop going in circles.

My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.

The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #106 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

I was curious if Adobe ever gave a release date?

Did you read the headline of the story you are responding to? It has been released.

The vapor meme is now dead. But there are plenty of others to use.

Adobe is lazy.
I don't want Flash anyways.
I like the iPhone.
post #107 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

YouTube, and most video sites, works without Flash.

Get a clue.

"For the end user like me, content is important. I just want to be able to watch some football. Is that so wrong?"


You have your answer. Don't watch football. Watch You Tube.
post #108 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick.b View Post

It wasn't the best quality but like you said it was better than nothing. (my boss is european and a big football fan so he was alright with it)


IPad with no Flash: Better than nothing?

I don't see that as a ringing endorsement.
post #109 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'd just use Logmein to get to my desktop computer and fire up Flash there.


But that is for Geeks.

What about The Rest of Us? We need access to web videos!
post #110 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What Jobs specifically said about his stance on Flash for the iPhone. Is that Apple has limited resources.


Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.

I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.
post #111 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.

Now stop going in circles.

My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.

The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.

Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.

It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?

Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.
post #112 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If it works perfectly fine. Why is it only on one phone of one operating system?


Because it was just released.
post #113 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Because it was just released.

And yet, iOS 4.0 was just released and it's already on the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch 2G and iPod Touch 3G.

According to your reasoning and Android update cycle history it should hit the Touch 3G first for some unknown reason, shouldn't be available for the iPhone 4 even though it just came out, Apple will say that it's up to AT&T to update the 3GS who will promise us it's eventually coming, and anything else would have already been forgotten about or only had the update via the hacker community.
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 #114 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.

The Flash engine is machine code, while the SWFs distributed on the web are bytecode.

In CS5 Adobe also delivered a means of compiling the SWF bytecode to native machine code, in compliance with Apple's published SDK at the time.

But of course we saw what happened with that: Apple changed the rules to add the "originally written in clause", and then held back that version of the SDK until two business days before the release of CS5.

Once the damage was done, Apple changed the rules again just a few weeks later when the outcry from developers was too intense: now they allow interpreted and bytecode languages on a case-by-case basis at Apple's sole discretion.

Just not for Adobe.
post #115 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.

It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?

Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.

as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.

You said flash doesn't do machine code. You were wrong. End of storey. You never made the distinction about whether it used a JIT compiler or not at all. But now that you realized your error, now you are.

Run around in circles all you like calling me pathetic, it's all you have. It's all you ever have, in any discussion. Which is why discussions are never in any way productive with you or a few others here, because now we've completely forgotten about the original issue, which I stated my position on, and you never even bothered to address. Because right now, the only thing important to you, is not the actual issue, but saving face.

And you call others, pathetic.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #116 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

YouTube, and most video sites, works without Flash.

Get a clue.

Is youtube live streaming World Cup matches?
post #117 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.

It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.

You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.
post #118 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.

You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.

I am not "supporting flash" at all in my position on it. See there's your problem. You're so blind in your rage against flash you selectively read what people say and shoot off like a, er, jack-in-the-box...

If you slow down, and take the time to read, you will see I disagreed that flash can be considered more efficient because of it's ability to make use of a JIT compiler. And you're flipping out because you think I'm supprting flash?

Grow up.

and here, allow me to remind you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Premise:
Conclusion:

If flash content were compiled to machine code a) why would you need a player, and b) it wouldn't run on multiple platforms. (OK, he could almost be right if we take (b) as a defining test.)

Your premise is false, your conclusion incorrect as well as unsupported, and you really shouldn't be writing about stuff you have no clue about. You aren't doing yourself or Flash any favors.

Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #119 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.

There you go again, taking it out of the context of the thread.

And you not here to support Flash? As anyone can see, by looking at your posting history, that's a pretty funny claim by you.

You like to throw out the talking in circles thing at others, but a discussion with you is never anything but that. I guess just repeating your talking points over and over again, pretending they haven't been shown hollow or false, regardless of, and without addressing, anything anyone actually says is one way to argue when that's all you have to say, but after a while it's tiresome to come up with novel refutations of the same discredited assertions.

You may now have the last word in this particular discussion, if you wish.
post #120 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I consider watching web videos to be a good reason to have Flash on a phone. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

You can watch web videos on an iPhone. YouTube is already there, Hulu will be there soon, Netflix is there now. Major TV networks are starting to convert their content to work on iPads.

Granted, you can't watch EVERYTHING, but you can complain to Adobe (because they never produced a version of Flash that worked on the iPhone) and the media vendors (for using a technology which doesn't work on 99.8% of mobile devices), not Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

They are bound by law to care only about making money.

Not quite. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. That is not the same as 'making money'. For example, many companies give to charity or support charitable activities because it fits with the desires and beliefs of their shareholders. If the goal were simply 'making money', they'd have to prove that they got enough additional revenues to cover the expense. In reality, they can contribute to charity simply on the basis of shareholder value - NOT tied to profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

In all fairness, Flash does run decently if it's set to "on demand".

I guess I can't argue with that. Flash isn't too bad as long as you don't use it. I'll buy that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

But that is for Geeks.

What about The Rest of Us? We need access to web videos!

Youtube, Hulu, ABC, CBS, and more every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.

I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.

Sorry, I'll choose to believe someone who has a legal responsibility to tell the truth rather than from some anonymous troll who can't even get his most basic facts right (hint: you can look up both Apple's R&D expense and Adobe's market cap if you would like to take your first step out of ignorance).
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Adobe ships Flash 10.1 to mobile device makers