or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy

post #1 of 106
Thread Starter 
Web development tools vendor Sencha examined Apple's iPad 2 and Motorola's Xoom running Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb, crediting Apple with "a top rate, no compromises HTML5 browser" while calling Android "not ready for primetime, even for HTML4."

Sencha's "HTML5 Developer Scorecard" has profiled RIM's mobile BlackBerry browser, Apple's iOS Safari, and Google's mobile browser in both Android 2.2 on the Galaxy Tab last fall, and the new tablet-optimized Android 3.0 appearing on the Motorola Xoom (and forthcoming Galaxy Tab and Acer Iconia Tab products later this summer).

While all of these mobile browsers are based upon WebKit, they're not equal in their support for web standards. WebKit provides a rendering engine for handling DOM and CSS, but specific browsers based on it provide their own implementations of things like caching, screen drawing, location services, memory management, and usability features such as tabs, gestures, and printing.

Further, WebKit itself is rapidly evolving. Sencha notes that Apple's iOS 4.3 just introduced a new implementation of Safari based upon WebKit version 533.17.9, which it says is "a very recent build" and incorporates Apple's Nitro JavaScript engine. The latest Safari 5.0.4 update for Mac OS X uses WebKit version 533.20.27. Android 3.0 uses WebKit 534.13.

In contrast, Sencha wrote, "our experience to date with Android has been lackluster, starting with the disappointing browser in the Galaxy Tab and the Xoom [running Android 3.0 Honeycomb]." Note that various Android licensees rarely replace or enhance Google's included web browser, so Sencha's findings on the Motorola Xoom will also relate to the web performance of other Honeycomb tablets, including new models from Acer, Samsung, and Toshiba.

Acid3

The latest Android and iOS browsers both score 100/100 in the Acid3 test, but both exhibited rendering issues. Apple's browser had "a few light red squares in the top right and in the bottom right of the test results," Sencha reported. "Without a doubt, the iPad 2's Acid3 results are solid, but it would have been nice to see this come up to full compliance."



Google's Android 3.0 browser in the Xoom "has two noticeable rendering bugs first, the letters 'Acid3' are the wrong color and are missing the drop shadow. Second, in the top right theres a small red box, which is an obvious rendering bug. The Xoom has a perfect numeric score, but it still fails Acid3," the site noted.



Modernizr

The firm next noted the findings of Modernizr, which reports the modern browser features each platform can support. "As we found in our earlier scorecards, just because a browser says something is there, it doesn't mean it works," the company stated.

"Nearly all the major browser features are supported on the iPad 2," Sencha says. "Modernizr found support for SVG, CSS 2D transforms, CSS 3D transforms, CSS transitions, WebGL and Web Sockets. Interestingly enough, Modernizer reported that there was no Inline SVG although we were able to try a few demo sites and saw that it did in fact work, and it also reported that the browser supports WebGL, which we couldn't get to work."

For Android 3.0, Sencha reported that "many features that were not supported in the Galaxy Tab [running Android 2.2] are now supported. Modernizr detects a fairly complete range of HTML5 features, including SVG, Inline SVG and CSS3 3D transformations. There are still features lacking such as WebGL support and Web Sockets and Web Workers." However, the firm again stated that "just because something is present, doesnt mean it works," as it detailed in its performance tests.

Performance

The fast new processors of both the iPad 2 and Xoom provide a big boost in SunSpider JavaScript benchmarks, with both new devices neck in neck in delivering the fastest scores, well in advance of last year's iPad and Galaxy Tab.



In real world tests, Sencha observed that "Without a doubt, the iPad's Mobile Safari browser has the best CSS3 support of any mobile browser we've seen," adding that in both complex animations and web ads, "the iPad 2 nails CSS3." Its tests also reported that "Canvas support on the iPad 2 is first rate," and in embedded HTML5 audio and video, "again, the iPad 2 nails it. Audio plays back quickly and lets you pause and resume. Video comes up quickly and streams without issue in the browser page. The iPad 2's media support is solid."

In contrast, with the Android 3.0 Xoom Sencha reported that "CSS3 animations are almost completely broken. We often found even for the most basic animations the browser skipped frames, incorrectly rendered elements, or didnt run the animation to completion. If Animations were simply slow, that would be one thing, but the Xoom CSS3 Animation support faces basic correctness issues."

In more complex animation tasks, Android 3.0 provides "an improvement from the Galaxy Tab [running Android 2.2]; the animations actually render. On the other hand, again, they render incorrectly. We found that text sometimes doesnt appear, parts of the artwork are clipped incorrectly, fonts are rendered poorly, and frames of the animation are dropped. For some of the 3D effects, the browser simply drops the 3D or tries and fails to render the effects. For anything but the most basic CSS transitions and animations the Xoom does not make the grade."

A year after Apple shipped the iPad, Sencha says it is "still incredibly surprised that Google and Motorola have yet to build a mobile browser that has a correct and high-performance CSS3 implementation."

Sencha noted other improvements in Android 3.0, including support for SVG that was missing in the original Galaxy Tab's Android 2.2. Tests of Canvas found "the framerate isnt great but it does actually work. So generally speaking, Canvas support gets a gentlemans C." In tests of embedded HTML5 audio and video, the firm said, "we are able to get HTML5 audio to work, although we find that sometimes the audio plays even after we left the page or even closed the browser. We were unable to get HTML5 video to work at all."

Overall web browser capabilities

"We were excited about the first true Android operating system for tablets and had high hopes for a mobile browser that was as powerful as the platform," Sencha observed regarding Android 3.0. "Sadly, the Xoom and Honeycomb are a real disappointment. We found consistent and reproducible issues in CSS3 Animations and CSS3 Transitions among other things. We had issues where the browser either hung or crashed. Regular scrolling was slow or below full framerate. We had issues where media playback failed or performed incorrectly. At times it felt like we were using a preproduction device, but we bought our test device from a Verizon Wireless store."

The report added, "until Google and Motorola ship a patch to update the browser to production quality, dont expect good results from the Motorola Xoom. We said it in the Galaxy Tab review, and well say it again now: were still waiting for the first awesome Android tablet."

For the iPad 2, Sencha reported, "in our testing we tried to throw everything we could at the browser and it had no issues keeping up with the most advanced HTML5 and CSS3 sites. For any developer building for the mobile web, the iPad 2 provides an outstanding platform from which you can use modern browser features." The report also noted the difference between iOS' Safari and its embedded UIWebView browser used by web apps running in Full Screen or within an app, which lack Nitro JavaScript acceleration and some other performance related features.

In conclusion, the company reported, "Apple's devices are leading the vanguard of mobile browser innovation and for the HTML5 app developer this is great news. We're excited to see not only the rate at which Apple adds new features, but the quality of their implementation."
post #2 of 106
You could say that Android delivers the Full web -- except for HTML4, HTML5, CSS... and some other minor stuff. But it has Flash... or it will, RSN
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #3 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You could say that Android delivers the Full web -- except for HTML4, HTML5, CSS... and some other minor stuff. But it has Flash... or it will, RSN

But.. but... but... Android is... oh.. nevermind.
post #4 of 106
But but but Asheron told me in the last thread by DED that android was better at HTML than safari!!
post #5 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You could say that Android delivers the Full web -- except for HTML4, HTML5, CSS... and some other minor stuff. But it has Flash... or it will, RSN

I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.
post #6 of 106
This makes painful reading for Google and Motorola. I am constantly astonished at the lack of intelligence present at Apple's competitors. How on earth can they release a tablet like the Xoom -teasing Apple along the way for a lack of Flash support - without a fully-functional browser!?

They KNOW what tests will be run and how their browser will be judged. They KNOW that their browser will be a major feature point of the device. It just looks to me like they didn't care tuppence about HTML5 et al because they thought Flash support was their trump card...and it hasn't arrived. It's embarrassing.

P.S. Just look at those Galaxy Tab figures!! I pity the fools that bought one of those! It was awful just using it in the shop, I have no idea how anyone in their right mind could use it for 10 minutes and thing decide to get their wallet out and part with actual cash for one when there's an iPad right next to it in so many cases!
post #7 of 106
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
post #8 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.

That's not quite the whole issue though. If you develop websites it is incredibly frustrating to know you cannot use certain superb features of a set of standards that ought to be ubiquitous because you will have a certain portion of your audience unable to view them.

Everyone developing high-quality, standards-compliant browsers is in everyone's interests except Adobe's. If they all had 100% HTML compliance, you'd see a richer web because developers could bank on the new features being supported and could make use of them in commercial work.
post #9 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)

Link me to the Flash for Android page please...
post #10 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.

Then your path is clear, buy a clone not the real thing. Choice is good
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #11 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

But but but Asheron told me in the last thread by DED that android was better at HTML than safari!!

Exactly what I was thinking. I just read that thread a few minutes ago (after coming across this article) and I found it quite funny that he was comfortable writing such a lie. It's sad really.

Edit: I'm talking about Asherion (a commenter) and not DED.
post #12 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewperson View Post

Exactly what I was thinking. I just read that thread a few minutes ago (after coming across this article) and I found it quite funny that he was comfortable writing such a lie. It's sad really.

A good portion of this article is quotations. It'd serve you to notice this and stop slurring a perfectly good article. It's not DED's views being expressed, it's a report on a third-party article.
post #13 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

That's not quite the whole issue though. If you develop websites it is incredibly frustrating to know you cannot use certain superb features of a set of standards that ought to be ubiquitous because you will have a certain portion of your audience unable to view it.

Everyone developing high-quality, standards-compliant browsers is in everyone's interests except Adobe's. If they all had 100% HTML compliance, you'd see a richer web because developers could bank on the new features being supported and could make use of them in commercial work.

This is always going to be the case though, you can't force everyone on previous versions of browsers to upgrade. I'm sure that most web developers are more concerned with how their sites look on the majority of systems, and that certainly isn't any of the tablets mentioned in this article (including iPad).

The fact is that as a consumer, I want to be able to access the websites I visit now. I don't buy an iPad today in the hope that in three or four years, web developers have learned how to match the flexibility offered by Flash using HTML5.

For a designer, Flash (the tool) offers an environment that is easy to use and that can produce consistent results across platforms. Replicating many of the things they do in HTML5 would require learning a new skill - programming. Flash also remains the only widely-adopted way to display DRM protected video in a browser and nothing HTML 5 offers can replace that.

I'd also love to see the end of Flash as a plugin, but the reality is that there is no alternative. Again it seems like Apple is producing products for the future, that simply cannot provide the features that are needed right now.
post #14 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

A good portion of this article is quotations. It'd serve you to notice this and stop slurring a perfectly good article. It's not DED's views being expressed, it's a report on a third-party article.

Are you replying to the right person?
post #15 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

A good portion of this article is quotations. It'd serve you to notice this and stop slurring a perfectly good article. It's not DED's views being expressed, it's a report on a third-party article.

That is the problem on blogs these days isn't it? Context seems to be irrelevant! People just knee jerk without reading carefully. Perhaps they don't teach punctuation and grammar these days and therefore the fact he was quoting was totally missed. I blame those BBs texting for destroying reading comprehension
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #16 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

This is always going to be the case though, you can't force everyone on previous versions of browsers to upgrade. I'm sure that most web developers are more concerned with how their sites look on the majority of systems, and that certainly isn't any of the tablets mentioned in this article (including iPad).

The fact is that as a consumer, I want to be able to access the websites I visit now - I don't buy an iPad today in the hope that in three or four years, web developers have learned how to match the flexibility offered by Flash.

For a designer, Flash (the tool) offers an environement that is easy to use and that can produce consistent results across platforms. Replicating many of the things they do in HTML5 would require learning a new skill - programming. Flash also remains the only widely-adopted way to display DRM protected video in a browser and nothing HTML 5 offers can replace that.

I'd also love to see the end of Flash as a plugin, but the reality is that there is no alternative. Again it seems like Apple is producing products for the future, that simply cannot provide the features that are needed right now.

Fair points. My gripe with this though is always the same: It's not Apple who have failed to develop Flash for mobile devices, it's Adobe. This is almost always misreported. If Flash worked well and didn't kill battery, Apple might look again (at least there'd be suspicion if they didn't). Apple cannot develop a browser with Flash support, because there is no such plugin to support!

You're right that browsers will always lag behind the cutting edge standards. But when they lag THIS far behind, it's a real problem and hurts everyone. That was my point. As time goes on, these mobile browsers are going to surpass even desktop/notebook browsers in terms of importance. They need to be better than this. iPad doesn't do Flash, but NOBODY does. That's Adobe's fault. Let's be clear about that.

At least the iPad supports the features that it can support well. This Honeycomb browser seems to be poor even at HTML4, which is ancient!!
post #17 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

A good portion of this article is quotations. It'd serve you to notice this and stop slurring a perfectly good article. It's not DED's views being expressed, it's a report on a third-party article.

He is not referring to DED. He is referring to another poster on a previous article who claimed that Android tablets are better at web browsing.
post #18 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewperson View Post

Are you replying to the right person?

Yes. Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you said but it appeared you were suggesting some contradiction from the author. My point is simply that the author of this article isn't really relevant as most of the article is quotations and the article merely reports on another site's findings.

Can you link to the other article you are talking about?
post #19 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)

I pity the fool that goes by MicroNix! MicroBrain might be more apt.
post #20 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

He is not referring to DED. He is referring to another poster on a previous article who claimed that Android tablets are better at web browsing.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. It was quite confusing. My apologies.
post #21 of 106
The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.

Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
post #22 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Fair points. My gripe with this though is always the same: It's not Apple who have failed to develop Flash for mobile devices, it's Adobe. This is almost always misreported. If Flash worked well and didn't kill battery, Apple might look again (at least there'd be suspicion if they didn't). Apple cannot develop a browser with Flash support, because there is no such plugin to support!...

Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
post #23 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.

Why? The whole point is that web apps should work regardless of platform, it's why the standards were developed in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they cold do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).

Flash is most certainly not open source. The SWF format is a partially open specification, but no implementation can even come close as it's missing much of what Flash implements. As for Apple's PDF support, that was partially true prior to 10.6 (though their PDF output has always been best of the industry), when Preview's PDF support got a massive upgrade.

Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.
post #24 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.

Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.

The Acid3 test was written by a Google employee...
post #25 of 106
I wouldn't like to be in Daniel Eran's shoes when he dreams. I'd say it's like an Apple versus Google EPIC cliffhanger, where he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating and panting, and foaming at the mouth murmuring: "jobs jobs jobs."
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #26 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).

The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? Google aren't, Microsoft aren't. HTML5 is Apple's weapon of choice; that's where they're investing. If Adobe want to seal the web in endless loading bars, let them develop the battery-murdering plugin.

Steve Jobs made it clear in his open letter than he sees Flash as old technology. He's not going to invest in developing it.

At the risk of arguing your point for you, I would take Preview over Adobe Reader on Windows every day of the week. I avoid it these days, but last time I looked you couldn't merge two PDFs in Adobe Reader on Windows. In Preview, it's a 2-second job and has saved me on more than one occasion when I've been time-constrained.
post #27 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Flash is most certainly not open source.

not Flash; the Flash Player:
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.

There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.

Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."

-Adobe
post #28 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

not Flash; the Flash Player:
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.

There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.

Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."

-Adobe

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf

Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
post #29 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? ...

I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.

I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
post #30 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I wouldn't like to be in Daniel Eran's shoes when he dreams. I'd say it's like an Apple versus Google EPIC cliffhanger, where he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating and panting, and foaming at the mouth murmuring: "jobs jobs jobs."

JeJeJeJe... JaJaJaJa

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf

Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.

I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...
post #32 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf

Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.

You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.
post #33 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.

I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.

Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.
post #34 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.

sounds like adobe said, "help us fix this POS, but don't take any credit for it."
post #35 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.

The reason it's germane is because the article in the OP reinforces what Flash proponents have always argued: browsers will always be so fragmented that there's really no such thing as "standard" in HTML/CSS/JavaScript: no complex web page or web application can look or perform the same in all browsers (without writing a bunch of browser-specific hacks).
post #36 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.

I had actually misunderstood, particularly the following statements. It appeared as though the act of downloading, ie making an electronic copy, was expressly forbid - how could you develop using the SWF specification when the only legal way to obtain it is getting a hard copy right from Adobe? But I retract.
post #37 of 106
You know I used to think that companies like MS, RIM, Motorola, etc., could put out subpar products with subpar interfaces/SW and the buying public would buy them over the obviously superior Apple products.

This is no longer the case.

For example the Zune's inglorious demise speaks to this, in that Apple has indeed turned a corner with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The three post PC products have proven to the public Apple's attention to detail. I love it!

Best
post #38 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero View Post

It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.

I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.

Just because it's in Apple's interest doesn't mean it's not also in the interest of the broader web community (both devs and users). Adobe excluded, of course.

(Almost) everyone agrees that Flash is ultimately unnecessary as open standards proliferate and become more advanced. Apple is simply dropping support for what they consider to be old technology - this is NOTHING new, they have done this repeatedly throughout their history. It's the reason they are able to be so nimble and innovative. They aren't bogged down by legacy support, etc.

They dropped SCSI ports; they dropped optical drives (in certain cases); they are essentially skipping blu-ray and USB 3 altogether; they announced they will stop supporting PowerPC computers while Microsoft promises to support XP until 2020 (give or take, i forget) which is almost two decades after it was released. The list goes on. Apple simply has no qualms abandoning old tech.

If we've learned anything from the success of non-flash iDevices, and the corresponding childish ranting and crying from the Flash camp, it's that Adobe needs iOS a lot more than iOS needs adobe. P.E.R.I.O.D. End of story.
post #39 of 106
Quote:
WebKit version 533.17.9, which it says is "a very recent build"

Sorry, but please define ``a very recent build.'' Safari Mobile is no where near recent builds of WebKit Nightly. I can't even leverage webkit-gradients in backgrounds which opened up back in January.
post #40 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.

Apple can cut some esoteric HTML rendering options if they want, but please please please don't support Flash!!! Seriously.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy