Originally Posted by nkhm
Adobe already support HTML5. HTLM5 != a flash replacement.
HTML5 is the successor to HTML4 - hyper text mark up language - its nothing new, and most professional developers already use it. It's the core language of web page development, nothing else. It's not some brand new black magic and seems to be very misunderstood on these posts.
The tools aren't as mature as Flash yet but without any shadow of doubt, the HTML 5 demoes that exist replace over 90% of the applications that Flash is used for:http://www.chromeexperiments.com/
- web fonts
- vector graphics animation and interactive control
- embedded video and audio
Not only this but HTML 5 + JS separates the loading out so it's not just one long wait for a 5MB SWF to download before you can do anything and it's accessible so it downgrades for older browsers or screen readers. Just because Google says things like HTML 5 can't replace Flash on Youtube, they just mean not yet. Any minor features will be added in time like being able to skip to part of a clip without waiting for the whole movie to load.
Originally Posted by djsherly
Most people seem to think that html+js is a viable alternative to flash now that html5 is around. I would challenge those people to go to a website like http://10k.aneventapart.com/
and see how their iphone just EATS IT UP. It won't.
To me the real reason Flash sucks is that the horsepower isn't there. Not for flash, and in my experience, not for html5+js, either.
I agree that many HTML 5 apps aren't designed for touch just like Flash so the iPhone won't work well with them and interpreted code in Flash is slow as is JS. But HTML 5 + JS isn't worse than Flash performance-wise and it's open for any manufacturer to implement, they don't have to wait on Adobe doing it.
Originally Posted by Newtron
If not for Adobe, the Mac Pro would be unlikely to still exist. You should be kissing their feet for supporting Apple.
Only After Effects in the CS Suite would tax a Mac Pro, there are many more apps that a workstation is needed for. Also, Apple made Adobe what they are and I think their love notes to Apple show that they know this. Both companies have driven each other's business models so I think there is a mutual respect. This conflict had to arise at some point though and they just have to work through it - neither company will suffer as a result.
Originally Posted by mstone
Probably an indirect reference to Flash. The way some advanced Flash programmers write applications is to create a shell application that loads other swf files (compiled code) into the main stage. These other swf files could actually come from a internet and not reside in the local app package. I think that is the part that is prohibited.
It means interpreted code, which is all Flash code. Flash is authored as bytecode as you said, which is downloaded and run on a virtual machine. The Flash packager converts to native code at compile time so there can be no dynamic code run with it.
Originally Posted by mstone
It is actually kind of a bummer though because it could serve as a great platform to deliver animated magazine subscriptions which are loaded into the reader app, if they allowed it.
Originally Posted by Dr.Millmoss
Any app that calls for data to be delivered from a server could execute something which is arguably "code" from that server. How can this be prevented entirely?
That's what the sandbox is for. To run code, something has to allow it to run. In the case of interpreted code, that's up to the VM, in the case of native code, it's the system kernel. On the iPhone, you'd want to call a function like system() with the path to a binary that you'd downloaded but a non-jailbroken iPhone won't let you. Plus if they did allow it, Apple would quarantine it before release to ensure the calls only ran code that was bundled with the app.
For example, Apple could allow you to run an emulator so long as every emulated call was to run code bundled with the app and nothing else.