Pornographers next to dump Flash for HTML5 - Page 3

MS & Intel backing didn't "seal the fate" of HD-DVD, but it did turn some companies against the format, for at least two reasons:

1. MS & Intel wanted to sell Home Theatre PCs, and lobbied for both formats to allow a "managed copy" of the movie to be placed on Windows-based home servers, using Windows DRM. Blu-ray camp balked at requiring all content to be copied to HTPCs, and would only specifiy it as optional - while the HD-DVD camp agreed to require all content to be copyable to HTPCs.

That is when MS & Intel threw their support behind HD-DVD.

That is also when content-owners who didn't like the idea of any digital copies of their content being made decided to shift emphasis to Blu-ray.

2. Believe it or not, several consumer electronics companies were less than thrilled with the idea of MS establishing the same kind of monopoly on HD-content distribution that MS has in computer OS, and Apple has in music sales.

How many people here honestly believe that their kids won't be able to see any pornographic material on the web if Flash isn't installed?

"Porn. Advancing technology since 1976."

It seems that an old myth continues to be perpetuated and adapted for modern times, and it is that adult entertainment industry was the catalyst for VHS-Beta outcome, and subsequently similar catalist for DVD-DIVX short war, and some even say tipped the scales in favour of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.

These are all myths. It is possible that those working in porn like to think this way and enjoy perpetuating the myth, but it is simply not true.

Porn is currently just a bit over a $billion a year industry. Compare that to Hollywood, which brings in over $80billion, not to mention broadcast TV, cable TV and other forms of (mainstream) video entertainment, and in that context, adult entertainment represents barely over 1% of annual revenue. As such, it has practically zero influence over anything.

The main point of this article isn't that the choice of HTML5 by Digital Playground will significantly help in marginalisation of Flash. It is that even porn industry is clearly seeing that their customers are increasingly trying to access their content from Flash-less devices. Rather than offer parallel solutions for Flash and Flashless devices, they are deciding to look to the future and avoid Flash altogether. In other words, along with New York Times, Virgin America and many others who have successfully migrated to Flash-free web sites, porn is shedding its Flash shackles.

Kinda ironic, no?

If you feel that spending time with kids and know what they do is a burden than I am really happy that you are not my parent.

Any censorship is bad thing. It is either criminal act (e.g. child pornography) and then no censorship is needed, rather police should take care about the content provider and make sure it is shut down, or it is objectionable to some and should by at the parents discretion what to do with kids not to see it (in that case they need some guidance - rating should provide this to parents) or it is OK to see it. In all three cases no censorship is necessary. It is just relict of the past, hope this goes away.

Speaking of rating and guidance to the parents, we went to the Pixar's "UP" movie with my two little kids based on rather innocent ad for this movie. But we have to leave early as the kids were frightened by all that violence from the idiot dogs in the movie - not experience I'd expect nor welcome and I would really appreciate if there is rating system that I can use to make sure I want to see the movie with the kids.

Wait, "DP" stands for "Digital Playground?"

I was way off...

Two points:

1. $1B/year is definitely a lowball estimate, based on a Forrester Research study from 1998. So this is an old number and Forrester isn't really a reliable source. The only real analysis (i.e., someone not just stating numbers) I can find is a Forbes article from 2001 that pegged it at $2.6B to $3.9B*. That's almost 10 years ago (and just for the US) so it's not unreasonable that it might be in the $5-10B range today, substantially higher worldwide.

2. The issue isn't so much the relative sizes of whole industries here, but, more importantly a) what percentage of paid online video it represents, and b) what percentage overall online video. I have no idea what these numbers are, but the former I would feel safe in assuming is a significant percentage, the latter a not insignificant percentage.


By itself, the porn industry probably isn't a deciding factor in the struggle to free the web of Flash, however, it probably is a significant factor and could possibly represent a tipping point, or at the very least, a factor that pushes things closer to the tipping point.

(I'm using "tipping point" somewhat loosely here. In my opinion, the issue is already decided and Flash is fated to become at most a niche technology. By "tipping point" here, I simply mean the point at which that becomes glaringly obvious to everyone.)



* http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html

Just as you may consider censorship bad, I consider it a bad thing to force someone to sell something they don't want to sell.

By your logic, Walmart should have to sell Playboy - and adult toys. After all, they're legal and parents can monitor their kids all the time if they don't want the kids buying adult toys.

Apple has made a brand image decision - and they have every right to do so. If you want to see something that's not accessible on the iPhone, but you'll have to see it elsewhere.


Then you should watch movies before you take your kids to them. That's a great example of why rating systems don't solve the problem. Your kids are apparently far more sensitive than the average kid.

Bottom line is that Apple is a business which has a brand it wishes to protect. Just like Walmsrt's decision not to sell Playboy (or even racier magazines), Apple has made a decision on what they want to sell. It's not censorship, it's a simple decision on what to sell and what not to sell.

Except that my eyes and brain do not have DRM or platform-specificity. If I can't get Playboy or Out magazine at Walmart, I can get it somewhere else or directly from the publisher.

I cannot get some applications for my iPhone or iPad because (a) Apple bans them from its store and (b) it's a monopoly store for that platform.

They can't have it both ways.

And skip the HTML5/web app argument. There are lots of things (like photo uploading) that can't be done with a web app that you can do with a native app.

The problem is that it's not only porn that gets censored/banned. It's been proven time and again that more innocuous things get caught in the crush as well (art/medical texts/etc...). I would just prefer the option of managing what my family and kids can access rather than leaving that up to someone else.

Apple does a great job of ensuring that nothing malicious appears in the app store. I applaud them for it. With no other avenue for apps though (without jailbreaking) I wish they'd produce a solution that would allow a broader range of content than it does currently.

I realize that a good deal of the content in question could easily be accessed via the web on the phone as well. The thing is, a lot of the time, a dedicated app can provide a better user experience (screen size/controls/etc...). Until such time as websites provide more quality mobile browsing experiences apps are really the best option.

The porn industry has voted. The battle is over.

Good riddance to Flash!

Why go in blind? There are plenty of resources to save you time, money, effort and spare you and your children whatever trauma you wish to avoid.

Here is a very popular site that now has an iPhone app.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute. Maybe someday, but right now there are just too many problems with it to make it perform anything close to the capabilities of Flash. Sure you can point to dozens of great looking interactive sites without Flash but have you ever tried to program that stuff? Major headache.

Until we get something even close to the programming environment offered by Flash, HTML 5 animation is not going to go mainstream. Sure video players are popping up but those are simply reusable templates, not new applications. And even those players that are being offered don't have the full capabilities that the Flash ones have.

Furthermore when/if we ever get a truly polished HTML 5 programming environment, it won't be free so you can kiss the Flash is expensive and proprietary goodbye because it will be the same deal with a different name when some other company finally brings something like that to market.

The porn industry uses exactly one Flash function- 'video component'. If you think that is all Flash does then you are simply addicted to video. Sure Adobe didn't mind that the whole web video industry standardized on their platform, but that was far from their original intent.

You should be careful what you wish for in terms of the death of Flash, because the major internet companies are not going to play nice in the html 5 video arena either. Maybe when/if things start to standardize on h264 then we will see some compatibility but for now Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Adobe all appear to be backing different standards for video so it could end up in a very similar mess that led to Flash originally taking over.

One thing is for sure. If you want to target video on Apple mobile devices you are going to have to do it with Apple's video app which takes you out of the web page. You therefore need to write a separate web page for those devices anyway. End result is that, as many different client platforms become popular, developers will have to write individual web pages specifically designed for that platform. There is no universal silver bullet format that is ever going to be suitable for all clients.

There are hundreds of different cell phones out there. You're free to buy any of them. Your argument is not a rational justification for forcing Apple to sell something they don't want to sell.


It doesn't matter if it's porn or if Apple doesn't want to promote drinking so they don't sell apps with alcoholic beverages in them. Or if Apple simply doesn't like the color blue and won't sell an app with a blue icon.

Apple is free to choose what to sell or what not to sell in their store - just as Walmart is free to choose what to sell in THEIR store. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.

Yes, it has already been announced that Flash is better for lazy developers.

I'm not interested in making life easier for lazy developers. I want quality software on my iPhone -and Flash doesn't cut it. The fact that even Adobe doesn't claim to have a working Flash for the iPhone (or any phone at all other than one or two token examples) proves that it's not ready for prime time on mobile devices - no matter how much you lazy developers wish it was.

There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.

You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?

It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.

Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.

What are talking about? There are plenty of other options for you to choose. Android, for example.

And even on the iPhone there is mobileSafari which uses the latest open web technologies, which Apple made using the WebKit browser they funded, all or which are well out of their control.

What you want is to control iOS making it a socialized OS that is also completely open. You want Apple to have no say in the way they run their store. You may not even realize it but is exactly what you and others are saying everytime you take offense with a company choosing to do business a certain way in a free market. Remember, before it's your product, it's their product and they have rights, too.

Your previous statement started off with: "Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute.". You've set your post up for failure. Flash cannot compete with several aspects of HTML5 already in place. Over the phone I could walk my mother through setting up HMTL5 to stream video from a website. I can't do that with Flash. I can make HTML5 video work on any modern smartphone, but that's not possible with Flash. Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient and easier on the very limited battery life in these portables. Flash is not a substitute for the most prolific and common use of Flash today for non-ad content: video.

At first I was going to agree that Apple keeping porn out of the store was a good idea. But I've changed my mind because there are other ways to handle this. As long as porn titles are properly rated, Apple can simply have a configuration option in the store as to whether they are viewable or not.

The problem with keeping them out of the store completely is that while I agree with the intent, it leads to a slippery slope, because there are fuzzy lines. The recent rejection/acceptance of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is an example. A collection of photographic art can also exist on that fuzzy line. I recently photographed the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island and even though this is a public parade held in the street, there is some nudity and Apple might stop a related app from appearing in the store, even though such nudity is most certainly not pornographic.

IMO


No set up involved with either one unless the browser doesn't support HTML 5 in which case you are SOL, or Flash is not installed and the browser should ask to install it.


Blackberry is not a smart phone? Also if you use Quicktime's export video for web and mobile devices with html markup and post that in a web page, only Safari can figure it out in my experience. Not Android and not BB nor desktop browsers.


Flash is not suitable for iPhone or any other mobile device that I am familiar with.

How can you think Flash "rules" if don't think it's suitable for mobile devices? Smartphones unit sales will outnumber PCs shortly. That will make them more than 50% (and rapidly growing) part of the internet accessible market. Flash has its benefits that no open standard can yet tackle, but those areas simply aren't the most common uses of Flash and won't save it from the open standards slowly creeping in and taking over because Adobe has failed to make Flash viable for the future of computing.

I enjoy using my iPhone and I've actually paid for a fair number of applications that I enjoy using regularly. Given that I'd prefer to keep using my iPhone there is a single store to acquire apps (I'm not interested in jailbreaking).


I already stated quite clearly that the web is an option. The problem there is the varying experience. Apps, quite simply, provide a superior experience to most web pages. That could change but until it does, there's a real gap.


This comment is outright wrong. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I even hinted at this and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it. I'm speaking only about content and content alone.


To reiterate my points previously, Apple has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the apps available are safe to use. That's great. Objective scrutiny is crucial to the whole app ecosystem.

Content, on the other hand, is subjective. I'm not saying I want to stuff my phone with porn. I'm saying that content could be managed differently. Once an app is determined to be safe, it should be provided a rating (or the provided rating should be verified). One set of rules to govern all supported content is a potential shortcoming.

I'm really inclined to believe that fear of litigation is what makes Apple so conservative with what content they'll support in the app store.

Slightly off topic:
You know, I think I've tried to make my points in a civil tone. The responses seem to imply that I'm charging Apple's gates with torches and pitchforks. I'm not claiming that "Apple is Doomed!' or "I'm leaving and never coming back to Apple!". I'm simply saying that some evolution may need to take place as the mobile market matures. It's a little sad that some posters are so high strung that they see attacks, dissent and drama where there really is none (not specifically calling you out Solipsism but you really did read more into my comments than there was). I come here to have reasoned discussions and most of the time that's what I get.

For the reason that the tiny screen and lack of power and limited battery make Flash too intensive for mobile devices. Sales don't equal page views. There are far more page views from desktop browsers. I don't even need to look it up but feel free if you are interested. Like I said before, give me the tools and the compatibility and I'm all in.

Actually it's been predicted that 80% of iPhone sales this year will not be in the US. The other markets do not share the same values which might be safe to help maintain sales in the US market. The other 80% of buyers may not always welcome a set of different morals that does not reflect their own or those of their community.

AppleInsider disagrees:

Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...advantage.html

So that 12.39% being lower than any other stat just goes over your head, not to mention the fact this is comparing modern desktop processing, not ARM processing in mobile devices.

I re-read your initial comment about you wanting control, not Apple having control over it's store. You did state "prefer", not that Apple "should" so I withdraw my comment as being directed toward you. Mea culpa.

What is wrong with you people?

Let's take this post one bit at a time:



How, precisely, do you and anyone who likes this particular use of the xxx TLD propose to move all porn to xxx (and this seems to be the subject of several posts in this thread)?

*First lets talk definitions.

Define porn! "I know it when I see it" aint gonna cut it here.

Would that belt commercial from a few years ago in the netherlands, the one with the cute gal in nothing but a leather belt dancing, be porn?

How about a fair amount of the artwork on deviantart? How about a NatGeo documentary with nudity? How about the how-tos and reviews on babeland's site (babeland is a retailer of adult toys btw, a very good one).

*Now let's talk feasibility, technical limitations, and enforcement

You say you hope it gets "passed"... Passed by whom? Having the TLD as available is one thing, but you imply something more, an enforcement of porn restricted to .xxx. Whom do you propose to enforce this, *how* do you propose to enforce this? Scan every site and move them if anything objectionable is found? We've already talked about definitions...

Then you have issues with domain collisions if you move everyone. A quick dig tells me that porn.com and porn.net don't appear to be owned by the same people, which one of them gets porn.xxx? How do you compensate the owners of porn.com/org/net/whatever who didnt get the .xxx and apparently need to change from a valuable name to something else to fit into the xxx TLD?


There are already a lot of solutions to that, the solution isnt to censor *everybody's* internet, it's to filter your connection. depending on how draconian you want to be there are a lot of solutions already in existence. I respectfully submit that in your case, as a parent, one of the best is to watch your kids. If you need to keep their computer in a place where you can watch them until they're old enough for you to have "the talk" with them, and in the process explain porn.

I also respectfully submit that libraries should police behavior, and not content. If I'm writing a paper on sexuality (and I've written several), my library should be providing me unfettered access to the internet. If someone is using it illegally, or wanking in the library, etc arrest them, but a library is a place of knowledge, not just "clean" knowledge.


I understand the sentiment, but you need ot watch your children and explain to them why they shouldn't look at inappropriate sites, etc - not censor the internet. Would you let your children onto a gun range without safety training? The internet is similar.

-----

To get back on track with the thread. Apple needs to have clear guidelines, and since they already do allow some adult content (like playboy's app), they should just be putting any apps they rate "adult" but fall in line with coding and stability guidelines into their AO section. It's rather hypocritical otherwise, and their rather puritanical stance may prove a bad PR decision in the long term internationally.

Porn sites moving to html5 only make this more clear, since the content is available anyway.

Really? No one else makes cell phones? Nokia and RIM and HTC and the rest simply dropped out of the market?

I guess I missed that.


That's the entire point - Flash has no place on mobile devices. That's all that anyone has been saying - and you've been disagreeing with them. It is 100% clear that Flash has no place on mobile devices.

Now, that means that if someone wants to have their site accessible on mobile devices, they either need 2 sites (one for mobile and one for desktop/laptop access) or one site that works for both. Which one do you think is more efficient in the long run?

I addressed this above in my response to solipsism.


The whole "if you don't like it just leave" meme doesn't leave a lot of room for rational discussion.

No one is telling you to leave, not that I saw anyway. It's the "if you doesn't suit your needs then maybe it's not the product for you" meme.

I need to get all my meme's straight.

Definitely at least 2, even if there is no Flash on either. More likely it will be several as different types of devices become popular. You may remember quite a few years ago when we had to program for several platforms including WebTV. Those days are coming back in spades, and it won't be pretty, especially for the developers trying to make it home before dinner gets cold. All you have to do is look at how many companies have dedicated iPhone sites to see where this is heading.

If true, that's a shame. It still doesn't justify Adobe's attempts to shove Flash down Apple's throats for mobile devices, though.

No disagreement here. I'm just a pitcher in the bull pen not the manager or one of the attendees in the stands. They just call me in to do what I do - code, program, design and more code. I use whatever means I have to accomplish the desired goal and sometimes it is Flash.

I use a service called Campaign Monitor to send out email blasts, and today that company announced they will be dropping Flash used to display charts and graphs, and instead will be using HTML 5 and Javascript to provide the same info.

The dominoes are starting to fall.

How ironic...given Jobs comments about Flash and porn.

While you were busy dismissing people who disagree with Apple as "whiners", your response did nothing to address his statement of:

"When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all."