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

To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).

And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (and there are more things Flash can do that HTML can't, than vice versa).

A very good point. It's refreshing to see this happen. The iPad does stand out amongst Apple's product history as being cheaper than the competition. I think that helps people make the quality choice. It's a no-brainer with tablets at the moment.

It's a good point about HTML4 being very old, but I'd argue that Flash cannot be updated as easily as you make out. Yes it's version number is advancing nicely, but it's still a battery killer and Adobe seem to be struggling to change that. Flash doesn't even run well on my i5 MacBook Pro, I daren't think what it would be like on my iPhone!!!

Actually, it's not. Apple has no need for flash and their sales volume speaks for itself. Anyone who claims to have flash running perfectly is flat out lying. It's buggy even on windows.

Unfortunately, I've become more and more disappointed in Daniel's articles. I want NEW news.

Not OLD news dressed up as NEW news. The Sencha article was quite a while ago. When I read the title, I thought, "Oh, some interesting news!" But, then reading it, I find its really OLD news masquerading.

It's March 22, 2011.

March 12, 2011
"iPad 2: The HTML5 Developer Scorecard"
http://www.sencha.com/blog/ipad-2-th...per-scorecard/

The current wave of analysis is Playbook ships in next month, Amazon appstore launches after Apple launches lawsuit over trademark, Galaxy Tab 78910, and AT&T buys T-Mobile.

Loads of material. Stuff from over a week ago that's already been covered?

Eeeeh. Notsomuch.

And the worst thing is, I'm beginning to be able to pick out his article titles.

Take this article for instance:
"iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy"

That's really just exaggeration... not reporting.

It should be:
"iPad 2 tops HTML 5 scorecard, against Motorola XOOM and Galaxy Tab P1000"

Why bring "Honeycomb" into it, unless its just buzz worthy?

The last article title I thought was concerning was "T-Mobile gets the iPhone, Apple gets fast new HSPA+". The more accurate title: "Longterm: AT&T and Apple iPhone get T-Mobile customers and stronger coverage." 12-24 months is quite a long time, and the regulatory hurdles are HUGE... as the WSJ is reporting, people are less than certain about the outcome, which is unusual given the risks. AT&T's 3 billion dollars and ceded spectrum is a huge price to pay if it doesn't go through.

~ CB

But hey, it's "open."

I think you misread the comment. But you're right.


Please never, ever write a newspaper headline!!

He brought Honeycomb into the matter because it was pertinent. Honeycomb will be the OS the competition all use and as he points out, most will not substantially alter the default browser.

As for HSPA+, you don't really have time to go into detail about timescales in a headline...that's what the article is there for :P

This is a good post!

deleted

I have been very disappointed with the SVG reliability on Safari in particular, but also in general. Chrome does a better job with SVG but I'm beginning to think that Adobe's SVG invention is not ever going to be the solution for its acronym/abbreviation. Flash is much better for scalable vector graphics but unfortunately it is not available on many mobile platforms and if it was it would be immediately exploited by the ad tards.

you're splitting hairs, bro. By "old tech" i don't mean years or version numbers. I mean it has outlived it's useful life. Flash, in all it's buggy, unsafe, resource-intensive glory, will never die if nobody takes the first step and shows that life goes on without it. Apple has done that, and they'd do it again in a heartbeat. All the people that say "HTML5 is promising but in the meantime Apple still needs to support Flash" are missing the entire point: as long as Flash is still supported, it will never, ever die.

The iPhone was announced FOUR years ago and Adobe has yet to produce a quality release of mobile Flash. That is a fact. Yes, they're closer than they were before, but do you really thing they would have made any progress whatsoever if Apple had allowed Flash in the first place?

Flash is the past. it won't disappear overnight, but gradually. in 10 years, all gone. maybe sooner. technology evolves.

the fact that Apple iOS has been such a huge success without it proves beyond argument it is unnecessary in market terms already. and the no-Flash high-value iOS user base continues to grow rapidly, speeding up adoption of alternatives. once HTML5 is fully outfitted then Flash will be literally obsolete as a tool - just a year or two more. so Adobe is already hedging its bets with crossover tools.

and no Mac user will miss it. it's sucked for years.

none, never, all, always, is often not a good bet.

Flash is still better at many things than HTML. Eventually, I think Flash will be irrelevant but that will be predicated on the the percentage of IE 6,7,8, usage. As long as it is higher than 10% and as long as HTML cannot match the feature set of Flash, Flash should remain viable. It is all about developers providing alternatives to support their target audience and nothing to do with evangelizing one solution over another.

On a side note has anyone been playing around with Real Studio? Talk about retro implementations. I haven't heard anyone talk about FastCGI for about 10 years. Well I guess old tech doesn't always die. Let's bring back Perl too, it is really powerful although not getting so much 'glam' lately.

Almost every single statement you make here is 100% incorrect. Your assessment of what the Acid 3 test is, your categorisation of the statements of the inventors of the test, your opinion of Firefox, everything. You can't just spew BS and hope it sticks, and your not entitled to your own personal "facts."

It's not worth the time to point out all the errors one by one, so instead let's put in the giant damning section of the article that you failed to quote.

" ... 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."

Well, the tradition of ACID has always been to see how forgiving the browser is to improperly formatted code. So in that regard the poster does have a point, although I have no doubt that the Xoom sucks as much as the reviewer has described.

come on. It's "neck and neck." That's pitiful. Jesus lord christ, that's the stupidest mistake I've ever read. "neck in neck." Just think about it. You do not deserve to be writing things with words. Your brain clearly doesn't work right. Christ.

Flash is dead and it was Adobe's bugs, marketing business' blinking ads, covert tracking, and Music & Movie studio enforced DRM that killed it in the minds of average users. Mobile users don't want that crap littering their limited screen real estate or covert spyware.

The flash trolls that I knew could never pass up this thread, are just stuck in the middle, like those still hoping Blue Ray will succeed!

These are just signs that Androids revenue model doesn't work. They are not properly staffed to keep up with iOS. They keep the latest version of WebKit on Android, but all of the platform specific integration that needs to be done to make WebKit work falls short. Being a graphics oriented operating systems company probably helps too.

Google doesn't care to make Androids' revenue model work. Aside from the fact, they don't want to be party to the upcoming patent lawsuits. They have the software expertise to compete with iOS, but they only want ad money from Android. The licensing fees are just a part time job.

Microsoft hates Apple because Apple is so good at keeping their innovative technology secret long enough to stop MS from copying it. That's what they do best. Microsoft has very little innovative expertise. Everything they have they either bought, stole, or copied.

Adobe does have the expertise too make Android's revenue model work, even with the hardware fragmentation and software legacy problems in the platform, but it's not in their interest just like Google. They just want to hang on to their capitative software audience which comes from business' dollars not consumers. They sell marketing platforms like flash and overpriced software development tools not consumer products.

Everyone of these guys secretly have penis envy for what Apple has, but they hate the position they find themselves in, being forced to somehow answer Apple's successful revenue model which comes from their concern for the consumer, their innovative R&D, and economies of scale. Apple gives away free software development tools that rival Microsoft & Adobe's expensive tools.

Apple forces down the price of software for the consumer and makes more money on the hardware side. The wireless telcos, PC hardware companies, Hollywood, Music Industry, and everyone else who live to suck every dime out of the consumer, all hate Apple's business model. Apple is pro consumer first, industry second, and they have brand loyalty and huge revenues from that business model. It's the secret of Steve Jobs' success.

The only company, IMO, that Apple needs to worry about is HP and their future WebOS mobile products. HP has everything they need to be a real competitor. They have the software and hardware expertise to give Apple a run for its money.

you're right. no doubt some masochists really enjoyed all those browser freeze ups.

Flash is now almost a total non issue. Occasionally I run into a video I can't play but I literally never see a blue box on any site, and it is becoming rarer everyday that I run into a video I can't play.

Apple Ipad HTML5 spec still blows when it comes to access to hardware, sluggish interface (i'm sorry I have both a xoom and a ipad2 to develop on there's a noticeable difference) As I have to develop sites that actually work more often I have to tell clients to pic an android device if they want to get more capability/end-game out of their buck.

Also remember Honeycomb hasn't been released yet and while you can always get the latest nightly build, google's development sprints take massive leaps sometimes in functionality (ie android 1.9 to 2.x, 2.0 -> 2.now) With the ability to run GCC code prepare for a huge amount of speed on android devices.

Apple is going to be left behind I'm afraid if they don't open up the platform for more creativity and be more flexible on publishing/ad content. iAds are a joke. Safari HTML5 tags laf...It has always been their control that let them dominate platforms like mp3 stores etc in the beginning only to be left behind.

Pioneers starve, settlers prosper.

While I agree its a non-issue the reason you arent seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.

Do you mean this?

https://market.android.com/details?i...=search_result

ALL of the web is at the very least 100% reliant on HTML. And very heavily reliant on the CSS and JavaScript standards.

Of note, Flash isn't NEEDED for the web. flash is also 100% reliant on JavaScript to display web content, due the object embed patent issue in an HTML page.

Never mind.

That and most sites have alternatives to the horrible Flash (I.e. HTML5 video).

Who can fault your choice?

But, let's be more practical here. How many ordinary people really know about the nuances of

1. Flash only sites
2. those with Flash plus other options (for devices that cannot view flash, like the iOS or those choices made by the reader themselves).

Given those two options, which sites would have a larger target population that it could reach?


As pointed out in the other thread, how many sites (who are actually using their minds -- if they intend to reach a wider audience or "take advantage" of those iOS consumers who have shown proclivity to not be fazed spending money for the things they like -- would simply ignore those growing population of consumers that are unable to view Flash?


If an ordinary visitor who is not too tech savvy visits a site, and could not open a site because of uploading issues, or has too many blank space -- who are they likely to blame: Apple, Adobe or the website creator?

And for the above reasons, can you provide those most visited sites or those that really matter that still do not provide alternatives to Flash?

I think there is an Aesop's Fable or something where the people in a kingdom have gone all mad. And so the king, supposedly a sane person, decided to go mad too.

In the end, it is all about reaching your target audience. You have to reach them to connect. And, not be bogged down with technicalities or your own personal preferences.



There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.

It is anecdotal, based mainly from my own experience, in the case of New York Times, through John Gruber, as I noted in another post, I am able to partially disable Flash and thus able to compare viewing of the NYT in Camino (flash disabled) vs Firefox or Chrome, where I either did not partially disable Flash or cannot do so (Chrome). Since I am quite familiar with the NYT layout, I know where they place their ads are usually placed, as well as their key video-images modules. Most of those showing the "F" icon are actually advertisements or inane short videos. So, Flash free in this sense is a bonus. The site loads faster too, without the Flash.

That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.

CGC

And how many people so far bought the Xoom because they think like you do? There is another person in another forum who is so certain of the the "superiority of the current Xoom", he was explicit that he will remember to mark 11 March 2012 in response to those who extolled the virtues of iPad2.

Have you got your Flash and 4G already? I assume you got a two-year contract with a Xoom. Will you be OK if Motorola does not remain true to its promise, if the rumor is correct that they may discontinue the existing Xoom?




Don't say that, the "linguists" here have opined that it is all hyperbole when people use those terms. After all, we are all "educated" and fully versed with the language to understand and recognize nuance.

The lords have spoken. The words of the lords must be obeyed.


CGC

Actually, the reason why is quite simple. Companies that depend on their websites to deliver and market their products, can't ignore 160 million iOS devices (since Jan. 2011).

Add to that another foreseeable 60-70 million this year alone. And that's a conservative estimate.

Can't ignore a demographic that has also proven they're willing to pay for things as well.

Every time Flash comes up, I ask all those supporters: show me 10 websites where Flash is NEEDED and where it is superior compared to if it was coded using HTML standards... no matter whether 4 or 5. Bare-bones HTML, CSS, Java for certain client-side stuff like form-validation.

Please show me a site where fancy flying effects are needed.... and why the Flash navigation is better than an HTML-CSS-Java one.

DRM content = make an App (Apple, Android, Silverlight...whatever)

Games = make an App (see above)

Free Video and Audio = HTML5 tag

What's left for Flash to accomplish then? Nada. Kill it.

Adobe should be working on an IDE to replace Flash with standard code. Period. They're beating a seriously dead horse.

PS: and I'm sick and tired along with many other regulars here, of reminding people that there currently is NO working* Flash plugin for mobile devices. That is 4 YEARS after Apple announced the first iPhone. Adobe has proven NOTHING other than proving SJ correct on all claims against using Flash in the future. Because the future is right now... 4 years later... and *Flash is a painful experience on any of the "other" mobile devices.

Apple and SJ didn't kill Flash... ADOBE did by not getting it to work correctly and efficiently for mobile. P.E.R.I.O.D.

BTW: I went to the Android Marketplace link for Flash here.

They show Photobucket as an example of a "FULL web experience".

Interesting, because on the iPad, Photobucket works beautifully, and IMHO... much better than "the FULL web experience" on the desktop using Flash.

PS: take the time to read some of the reviews: some funny fanboi stuff, with some "poor soul" real life experiences, that I'm sure Apple is very glad not to have to deal with.

In regards to my above post, the other website that Flash Player for Android advertises is Kongregate Games.

Uhm... a good portion of the games listed will NOT work on a touch-screen device, because you need to have a keyboard to navigate the game.

NOTE: any Flash game or site that uses "hover", will also not work... Flash or no Flash.

So. Show me again, or better example(s) why Flash is needed on mobile devices.

You miss the point entirely, so it seems. People also want to have a native look and feel.
Maybe this is still partly the case for Windows users (and for Linux users who are trying so hard to live in a Windows-lookalike environment), but it certainly doesn't apply to Mac users.

But more importantly, many Flash developers try to force yet another set of GUI "conventions" (and an inconsistent one at that) down the surfer's throat. In fact, one never knows what to expect on Flash sites. Unimplemented features that are only natural in a well-thought GUI abound.

Unless Adobe recommends, -or better, almost forces developers to use- a well-defined user experience (which means, some "enhanced" common denominator GUI), using Flash will continue to be hampered by frustrations.

One thing that everyone misses is that we are talking about "Software" here folks! It doesn't matter if in is IPad, Playbook or Xoom, software can be easily improver, updated and corrected. People seem to forget just how far Apple has come with Safari on mobile devices. More so modern software doesn't even run well on older hardware.

In a nut shell it really doesn't matter what a specific browser supports as long as you can deliver the solution to your problem on that device. If you are in a rush to support the latest eye candy on a browser then that is your problem not the browsers. A good web site experience demands that the developer exhibits self control and a proper understanding of programming.

i know a flash developer (strictly pc platform) who is having to rethink her limited skillset. she's telling me the market has dried up and she's not getting any work for the past several months. granted, no one does anything from december through february, but she's really good and is usually busy that time of year. nothing. so i'd say your post has a little more truth to it than you intended.

Yeah, but the facts remain that the browsers aren't created equal. It's the software team and the development environment that makes all the difference. So let the others prove that they can also do a decent job.

Maybe the next thing you will bring up is that Safari (if made available for someone other's architecture) could well be implemented on a Turing Machine. (I know, I know, that's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point).

But you dont get it ... with flash, on Xoom you can watch movies at 2FPS and your battery life will be halved. Now find me a tablet with a feature like that

How does this fit into the Apple-users-are-sheep-that-only-like-pretty-things/our-stuff-has-better-specs narrative that the Android acolytes are so fond of spinning?

Now all 30 of the Xoom buyers will go ape on this board, citing that they could care less about proper rendering, but would rather carry around part of the cardboard Xoom retail box in their back pocket to show how highly spec'd their $800 POS is.