or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Why does Apple resist Flash Player?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why does Apple resist Flash Player? - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

...flash is still going to be used well after your ipad2 and iphone4 have passed into obsolescence.

Not if Adobe has anything to say about it.

Quote:
Given that android can implement flash without affecting battery life or performance at all...

Okay.

Quote:
...via on demand setting...

The heck does this mean?

Quote:
...the case for not allowing flash support by Apple is pretty weak.

Other than the dozens of valid reasons we've already posted.
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Other than the dozens of valid reasons we've already posted.

Not the least of which is the fact that Adobe is abandoning it.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Not the least of which is the fact that Adobe is abandoning it.

You wish:

Quote:
Adobe, which has spent the last few years trying to dig out of a deep hole of vulnerabilities and buggy code, is making a major change to Flash, adding a sandbox to the version of the player that runs in Firefox. The sandbox is designed to prevent many common exploit techniques against Flash. The move by Adobe comes roughly a year after the company added a sandbox to Flash for Google Chrome. Flash, which is perhaps the most widely deployed piece of software on the Internet, has been a common attack vector for several years now, and the attacks in some cases have been used to get around exploit mitigations added by the browser vendors. The sandbox is designed to prevent many of these attacks by not allowing exploits against Flash to break out into the browser itself.

That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?
post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

You made the absurd analogy that everyone should've abandoned the horse and buggy once cars were invented. I just updated that to modern times. But since you can't make that connection, I'll explain it in terms of your original analogy:

Yes, the car eventually replaced the horse and buggy, but it didn't happen overnight. There was a long transitional period where both were in use. So completely abandoning support for the horse and buggy the moment the first cars rolled off the lines wasn't a good idea.

Imagine if New York banned horse and buggies, and only allowed cars on its streets in 1890, Or if San Francisco banned gasoline cars and only allowed electric cars on its streets in 2012. This is basically what Apple is doing with Flash. You may claim this as "forward thinking," but it comes as a great inconvenience to a significant portion of the population.

1. We are at the point where the #1 buggy part maker just said that they will no longer be making buggy parts (buggy parts... I like it, describes Adobe precisely).

2. One of the major manufacturers of the buggy had abandoned making buggies some time ago and their new horseless carriage sells better than any model of buggy. People cry and whine because they want the manufacturer to build buggies. The manufacturer says, "Are you kidding??!! We make more money than anyone who is still making the buggy!".

3. Eventually the other manufacturers, unable to get buggy parts, abandon the buggy altogether but, still today, you occasionally see them in museums or around Amish communities.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime View Post

You wish:

That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?

We're talking about mobile flash. Keep up or get out of the way.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime View Post

That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?

The link about them adding a sandbox is strong evidence against using Flash until Apple can do the same:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/f...firefox-020612

Apple doesn't allow any code to run in a virtual machine that isn't developed by Apple. Flash Player is a virtual machine that runs bytecode.

One way it could work is if Adobe Flash is packaged as an application and not a browser plugin. Whenever you come across an embedded Flash video or animation, it could show up as a link to open in Flash Player.

This application would have to be assigned a very restrictive sandbox with no access to shared resources or contacts. It could even be restricted to video playback only. The sandbox for this app would dictate that it isn't left open in memory when you leave the app so no performance degradation.

But if they do this, I think it will slow adoption of HTML5 further and this is not in the best interests of the internet for the long term. The functionality that Flash allows should be available to every browser and every platform.
post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Imagine if New York banned horse and buggies, and only allowed cars on its streets in 1890, Or if San Francisco banned gasoline cars and only allowed electric cars on its streets in 2012. This is basically what Apple is doing with Flash. You may claim this as "forward thinking," but it comes as a great inconvenience to a significant portion of the population.

I live in a community surrounded by a ton of Amish (not Pennsylvania; we're way further west). They are a MASSIVE inconvenience to everyone here. Their horse feces litter our streets. Their buggies slow our traffic. If you get behind one in town, you can't possibly pass it. It's easier to turn off onto a side street, speed down two blocks, and turn back onto the main road ahead of the buggy than to stay behind it. Not to mention the looks of condescension from their children, whether you be driving behind their buggy or walking around somewhere.

This is 2012, not 1890. They are the Flash users. That's all there is to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

In on demand mode, flash content is only loaded when the user explicitly enables it. So browsing a flash-heavy site will impart no effect on performance or battery life unless you explicitly demand to load the flash elements.

Oh, so it's like a built-in Click2Flash.

Quote:
Given that implementation is demonstratively possible, the argument that Apple doesn't include Flash in its devices because it 'degrades the user experience' doesn't hold much water.

That's not the only point. The fact that running Flash elements crash all the freaking time is the point. Sure, I can choose not to run them. I'm choosing not to run them right now by using iOS devices. The second I click on a Flash element and have it load, I'm shaking hands with danger (*twangy guitar riff*).
post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinfoto View Post

Perhaps now that Jobs has passed on, someone at Apple will get their heads out of their butts and allow their customers some choice. Lose the arrogant attitude....

Look who's got their heads up their butts now.

Chrome for Android won't support Flash, Adobe*confirms

Lose the stupid attitude!
post #49 of 68
Apple, Adobe, and Google are the currently fastest growing 800-pound gorillas in the mass IT markets. Where they are not in cahoots they are competitors. They certainly won't be doing each other any favors detrimental to their own interests. So they'll never voluntarily support the other's formats of course, in order to cut them, and to at the same create a walled garden in which to 'capture' – imprison is a more realistic term – their customers.

So all of them are providing their customers – their ultimate financiers! – a disservice!

On the bright side: the more those big corporations will be encapsulating their customers, the greater the pressure and demand for converters, translators, interpretators, or other work-arounds. It's the waterbed effect. They are creating their own Nemeses.
post #50 of 68
You probably shouldn't post when you're high.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You probably shouldn't post when you're high.

Neither should you when you're an asshole.
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime View Post

Neither should you when you're an asshole.

I think that's what he actually meant.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime View Post

Neither should you when you're an asshole.

Since what you wrote made no sense whatsoever I figured I would ascribe the problem to intoxication rather than something more dire, but:

Quote:
Apple, Adobe, and Google are the currently fastest growing 800-pound gorillas in the mass IT markets. Where they are not in cahoots they are competitors.

Adobe is not a fast growing gorilla in the "mass IT market", whatever that even means.

Quote:
They certainly won't be doing each other any favors detrimental to their own interests. So they'll never voluntarily support the other's formats of course, in order to cut them, and to at the same create a walled garden in which to 'capture' – imprison is a more realistic term – their customers.

So Adobe is never going to support, um, their own formats? Or Apple's and Google's "formats"? What? But then Flash is apparently a Google format which is why Apple doesn't support it? Hello?

Quote:
So all of them are providing their customers – their ultimate financiers! – a disservice!

So then again Adobe is providing a disservice by not supporting something something, and Google is providing a disservice by not supporting, um, iOS? And of course Apple is bad for not supporting the now discontinued Flash for mobile, which means no one supports it. And they're all in cahoots? Because..... there's money to be made by support open web standards?

Quote:
On the bright side: the more those big corporations will be encapsulating their customers, the greater the pressure and demand for converters, translators, interpretators, or other work-arounds.

So Adobe, Apple and Google are "encapsulating" customers by abandoning a poorly performing, battery hogging, proprietary tech in favor of open web standards. And I guess we enter an era of open web standard work arounds?

Quote:
It's the waterbed effect. They are creating their own Nemeses.

If I knew what those things were I'd probably disagree, as it is I'm just horrified.

See, the problem being this a stock "big corporations want to eat our souls" rant yoked to a particular case wherein you don't seem to care much about those particulars. That never works out very well. Abandoning a proprietary tech in favor of open standards is actually the opposite of what you think you're railing against.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #54 of 68
What's Flash?
post #55 of 68
TRUTH - in Black and White.


Here's the real deal on mobile Flash, the truth, the facts. No fanboyism or hyperbole.


----

Adobe is a tools creator. They create tools that allow developers and designers to create rich interactive applications that would otherwise be impossible.

One of their tool sets is for the Adobe Flash plugin.

The Flash plugin reaches nearly 99% of all internet connected pc's. Making a "safe" medium for developers and designers to use on the web. Without this massive penetration rate it would not matter if Adobe Flash could make you breakfast in bed, if not everyone can use it, it has little value.

----

Adobe's reasoning behind dropping support for mobile is in no way an admission that Flash can not be a mobile web plugin, or that Adobe was not able to get it to work well, in fact these points are blatantly false.

Adobe is a tools creator, and just like on the pc, Adobe needs a very massive penetration percentage in order for people to deploy content in the Flash format, again, it would not matter if mobile Flash could make you breakfast in bed, without a massive penetration percentage no one will use it.

---

This brings us to the final, and real reason behind Adobe's dropping of mobile flash.

Apple, who would be the easiest manufacturer for Adobe to support with the plugin because of their limited hardware configurations has decided to block the plugin. and at the same time Apple has captured nearly 65% of the mobile market.

This means that even if Adobe could get all other manufacturers on board, they only stand to reach a 35% penetration rate, which is not enough for developers and designers to deploy to the format.

As a tools creator, Adobe rely's on the purchasing of their tools to stay in business. The cost of enabling every new hardware configuration that comes out to run Adobe Flash player is at a huge cost to Adobe, which is difficult to justify when the end goal is at best a 40% market share... no one is going to use software that few people can access.


So in conclusion, the real reason Adobe is dropping support for mobile flash has nothing to do with performance, battery life, or Adobe's inability to make it work well. They are dropping support because Apple blocks them, and Apple has reached a huge market share.


In truth, the easiest manufacturer for Adobe to support would be apple due to it's few variances in hardware, and large market share, but without the support of Apple, it would not matter if Mobile Flash made you breakfast in bed, it needs to reach 95% penetration before developers or designers would even consider using it, and that just ins't going to happen as long as Apple is relavent.
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

TRUTH - in Black and White.

<snip> a whole ton of bullshit...</snip>

( to me, it's the worst thing a company has ever done, add in the miss-information, and to me it ranks right up there with watching the jews kill Jesus Christ )

We got a live one, boys...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #57 of 68
Hey, at least I tried not to be biased until towards the end =)
post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

Hey, at least I tried not to be biased until towards the end =)

Yeh... trouble is you were wrong... right from the start!
post #59 of 68
Without starting a riot, could we talk about what you don't agree with?

Is it specifics or the overall reasoning? You do not think my post is a plausible?


(shortened it up a bit to get more to the point)
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

Without starting a riot, could we talk about what you don't agree with?

The part about the Jews killing Jesus Christ. Everybody knows it was the dinosaurs who killed her.

The point about Apple's marketshare determining the success or failure of mobile Flash has some weight to it but it excludes the reasons why Apple rejected it.

You have to remember that Apple brought out their phone 5 years ago. You are talking about the state of mobile Flash now with dual-core phones and fast GPUs as a justification for not blocking it back then.

Also, do you really think that Adobe should be the sole conduit for all rich media online? You are forced to either pay $700 to author content online or steal Adobe's software. If Adobe controlled authoring HTML entirely and you had to buy an app from them to publish a website, don't you think people would eventually try to find a way to block Adobe's stranglehold?

When it comes to embedded video, this is a fundamental component of the web now and it's mostly authored through Adobe software. This is wrong and it needed to change. Apple has changed the web for the better. You can view, author and deploy rich content on any platform you choose for free.
post #61 of 68
Just to amplify on Marvin's remarks, the popular idea of Apple "blocking" mobile Flash has always been a bit of a sham. Adobe didn't even ship an optimized version of Flash for mobile until last year, so for most of the "Apple hates Flash" saga we were talking about an entirely theoretical world where it was really out of line for Apple to eschew what Adobe was going to be doing Real Soon Now.

As Jobs said in his "Notes on Flash" posting, Adobe kept pushing out the ship date for a properly optimized mobile Flash, and even when they got something into customers hands it left a lot to be desired on the hardware available.

So in point of fact, the point at which the mobile software and hardware can even begin to do an acceptable job with Flash (and that's without even getting into the battery issues) has only arrived in the last few months, which means the time between Adobe's announcement that they are abandoning their efforts and Adobe actually shipping something worth having are practically coincident.

How is that Apple's fault? Were they supposed to publicly commit to a poorly performing technology for 4 years with the idea that at some point it might get good enough to use, but they needed to hang in there because without their support Flash wouldn't have the market penetration it needed to survive? Or is it on Adobe to create a competitive product that was good enough to rise on its own merits?

The fact is, given its obvious shortcomings, I doubt Google would have even bothered with mobile Flash if they didn't think it provided a convenient club to use on Apple. The whole vibe of Flash on Android was more "We give you choice that Apple doesn't'!" rather than "We give you technology that works well and enhances your user experience."

Propping up a lousy piece of software because of some notion that your have a responsibility to ubiquitous tools, no matter how compromised, because without ubiquity those tools become useless is pretty convoluted reasoning.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #62 of 68
...he/she/it kept mentioning "penetration" followed by "breakfast in bed"... and, well... I kinda lost my ability to concentrate on whatever else was in that post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

...Is it specifics or the overall reasoning? You do not think my post is a plausible?

Just because it is "plausible" does not make it "truth" or "fact", as you asserted.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #63 of 68
Marvin, addabox.

I understand your angle. and agree this situation is very slippery.

My only rebuttal would be to your following comments...

Quote:
Also, do you really think that Adobe should be the sole conduit for all rich media online? You are forced to either pay $700 to author content online or steal Adobe's software. If Adobe controlled authoring HTML entirely and you had to buy an app from them to publish a website, don't you think people would eventually try to find a way to block Adobe's stranglehold?

Adobe creates the best web authoring tools period, whether they publish to an open standard, or their own plugin makes no difference. If you want to create the most engaging experiences on the web you are going to be reliant on Adobe and their tools.

If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.

So on this point I fail to see any merit beyond trying to dictate what you believe is an ethical market for a business to be in, or how they should act. This is no different than the Apple is closed argument.


Quote:
Apple has changed the web for the better.

This has yet to be seen. The removal of interactivity, animations and media on the web may be seen by some as better, but I would doubt it can be claimed as fact.

We have yet to see a web where Flash is replaced, in fact due to the absence of Flash we have created an entirely new system for transporting that same content, and it's called AppStores.

If anything, the web has been taken back many years, and until I see engaging interactive content outside of Flash in masse I can not agree with you yet that "Apple has made the web better".
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

Adobe creates the best web authoring tools period, whether they publish to an open standard, or their own plugin makes no difference.

No, that's entirely subjective.

Quote:
If anything, the web has been taken back many years,

Oh, this is one of those 'wipe a tear from your eye' moments.
post #65 of 68
I'm just saying look at the state of the web on mobile, and then look at the desktop, look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?

I see the mobile web as a place intentionally locked down to serve a private App Market. A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage. A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.

---

Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context. It should have been followed by the rest of it..

Quote:
If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.

--

Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage.

That's the decision of the website creator to waste their time making a "mobile" version when there's absolutely no reason for such sites since the iPhone and all other modern phones will render the actual site properly.

Quote:
A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.

Download/upload? It's a phone. I'm sure Android allows that, at least. And what's a 'basic web operation' that can't be served by a smartphone?

Quote:
Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context.

The rest of it has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't make what you said true. You can't say "Ford makes the best cars, and this is true because you don't have to buy a Ford."

What is that supposed to mean?

Quote:
Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.

We have. Throughout this entire thread. It's your choice to ignore that.
post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

I'm just saying look at the state of the web on mobile, and then look at the desktop, look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?

I see the mobile web as a place intentionally locked down to serve a private App Market. A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage. A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.

---

Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context. It should have been followed by the rest of it..



--

Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.

Well, again, any or all of that might be arguably true of Flash for desktop (although performance of same on Macs has always been pretty dreadful, which for my money sort of blows the whole "best interactive web experience angle"), but it's definitely not true of the vast majority of Flash for mobile instances, of which there are relatively few.

Just because Flash has the potential to deliver rich interactivity, or might in fact deliver rich interactivity (assuming you're on the right platform with the right hardware with the right iteration of Flash) doesn't mean that it has ever been that for mobile.

Apple wasn't reacting to some idealized version of Flash that might or might not have eventually realized its potential and actually delivered the goods on a cellphone. They brought the iPhone into a market where Flash for mobile didn't exist, except as the dreadfully hobbled "Flash lite" variant. The iPhone has spent the majority of its life in a world where Flash for mobile still didn't exist, and has seen a market where any version at all, even a poorly performing one, has only existed in the last year. And, again, it's only been in the last few months that optimizations and hardware advances have been able to deliver anything close to acceptable performance, albeit with a pretty severe battery life hit.

So Flash's status as a web enabling technology is moot, as far as Apple is concerned. Even if they had really wanted to put Flash on the iPhone they couldn't , until very recently. And not much longer after that recently Adobe cancelled development of Mobile Flash, so that's that.

Android partisanship and expedient blustering have served to obscure these facts. You would have thought that Apple simply turned its nose up at this great, super useful software that everyone else was enjoying, just out of spitefulness or bitterness or greed, and that simply isn't true. Make's a fun point of attack for Apple's many detractors, but it isn't true. It's Adobe that dropped the ball, pure and simple, and now they're admitting it. Blaming Apple is pointless.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.

You couldn't choose an alternative until Apple pushed HTML5 forward because as you pointed out, you need a high marketshare rich-content rendering platform. This has only been available since 2011 (thank you Microsoft for being last across the line as usual).

Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

This has yet to be seen. The removal of interactivity, animations and media on the web may be seen by some as better, but I would doubt it can be claimed as fact.

Behold HTML5 in all its interactive, animated, media-rich Flashless glory. BTW, Adobe have authoring tools for this stuff now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz View Post

We have yet to see a web where Flash is replaced, in fact due to the absence of Flash we have created an entirely new system for transporting that same content, and it's called AppStores.

App Stores don't replace embedded video, which has been the main use of Flash besides advertising, which nobody misses. Youtube can exist entirely without Flash so all embedded video can too.

For interactive content that behaves like an app, an app works better as the above example shows. Better security, no multiple downloads, direct access to hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truimagz

look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?

Apps allow you to monetize content, Flash makes it much harder because people expect it for free. Same with digital magazines, books etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Why does Apple resist Flash Player?