or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash [Part 1 of 3]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash [Part 1 of 3] - Page 2

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashmanBurgess View Post

If you had done your embed code correctly, it would have automatically updated the plug-in. At least it would have prompted you to do so.

Actually I did, the company chose not to for what ever reason. I did not, however, design a non-Flash player version. Did not think I had too. I was applying for a Flash job!

Point that I was making is Adobe's figures are skewed. Most people think that when Adobe states that 95% of the users have Flash Player installed on their browser, their assumption is that it is Flash Player 9 dot something. Not true.

Another point to be taken, Apple has a much better software update for Quicktime than Adobe does for Flash Player.

Ed
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVMediaSolutions View Post

Actually I did, the company chose not to for what ever reason.

Flash and Quicktime both need Administrator privileges to be updated. Many times, in corporate environments, they have to call IT to upgrade which is usually a huge PIA.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabrace1984 View Post

I have to respectfully disagree. Flash is a plug-in that pretty much every computer has. Not everyone has QuickTime, RealPlayer, or Windows Media Player. In order to reach the largest audience possible, Flash is the way to go.

Sigh, If only that were true. Macromedia/Adobe hasn't had a supported Flash plugin for OS/2 for years. Our last version is 7.14 and that was an escaped beta of a wrapper for the win32 version. But the Macromedia win32 Flash license specifically stated that it could only be run on windoze. :-( Macromedia swore they would rectify that, or at least allow the developer of the escaped version to release an updated version, but then it got bought out by Adobe and nothing has been seen since.

What is so freaking annoying are sites that can't be accessed at all without the latest Flash. What kind of an idiot develops a site that locks out anybody but those who have the latest version of a stupid plugin?

Hopefully they do release it as an open source project. Then eComStation users (the latest version of OS/2) can finally get an up-to-date Flash plugin.

Mark
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel View Post

Sigh, If only that were true. Macromedia/Adobe hasn't had a supported Flash plugin for OS/2 for years.

Hasn't it been 6 years since OS/2 was officially updated? I wouldn't be holding your breath, Mark. What aspects of OS/2 do you feel are better than a more modern OS?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabrace1984 View Post

Then I guess those people don't like browsing the Internet.

Ah, there's the rub.
MS tried to define the internet as whatever could be displayed by IE.
I similarly reject the definition of 'the real internet' as the ability to display a proprietary format, i.e. Flash.
There are standards based formats that do the same or better, as I'm sure will be shown in parts 2/3.
post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

you guys spend your time arguing over the pettiest shit.
makes me laugh.

also makes me come back to the comments portion again and again.

Addicting, ain't it?
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodleguy View Post

Actually, it is 'pretty much everyone'.

http://www.adobe.com/products/player...netration.html

I don't understand why people get so mad about Flash. Javascript opens pop ups .. GIFs can animate. If you don't like Flash .. uninstall the player in your browser and see how much you enjoy the interweb.

Flash is good because it is lightweight, widely supported, doesn't break in certain browsers, offers the best video deployment on the web, it's safe for the end user .. the list can go on and on. I think people who don't really know what Flash is are the people that hate it the most. In my opinion, poorly implemented Javascript is way worse than poorly implemented Flash.

noooodles!

Well that settles it then. I always turn to the party with a dog in the fight for objective evidence.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

J Like keeping a private history that isn't cleared when you remove your history or empty your cache?

Please elaborate... I'm unfamiliar with this and would like more information. (Particularly info on how to force clearing of such a cache.)
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel View Post

Sigh, If only that were true. Macromedia/Adobe hasn't had a supported Flash plugin for OS/2 for years. Our last version is 7.14 and that was an escaped beta of a wrapper for the win32 version. But the Macromedia win32 Flash license specifically stated that it could only be run on windoze. :-( Macromedia swore they would rectify that, or at least allow the developer of the escaped version to release an updated version, but then it got bought out by Adobe and nothing has been seen since.

What is so freaking annoying are sites that can't be accessed at all without the latest Flash. What kind of an idiot develops a site that locks out anybody but those who have the latest version of a stupid plugin?

Hopefully they do release it as an open source project. Then eComStation users (the latest version of OS/2) can finally get an up-to-date Flash plugin.

Mark

Why should Adobe spend any money or resources on an operating system that is apparently less than 0.00 % of the market - at least according to Net Applications which doesn't even track it?

It is not even worth 15 minutes of an attorney's time to write up a contract to allow eComstation to release a patched version. Flash 7 is good enough for most sites and the ones that require higher versions are built by idiots according to your reasoning, so why would you want to go to a site designed by idiots anyway?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

There's no QT for linux though is there? There is Flash though. Also what about stuff like the Wii, the PS3 etc, you can't "install" QT on them, but they come with Flash because Flash is a "standard" for web browsing.

No, Flash is not any kind of 'standard' any more than ActiveX was.
post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel View Post

Sigh, If only that were true. Macromedia/Adobe hasn't had a supported Flash plugin for OS/2 for years. Our last version is 7.14 and that was an escaped beta of a wrapper for the win32 version. But the Macromedia win32 Flash license specifically stated that it could only be run on windoze. :-( Macromedia swore they would rectify that, or at least allow the developer of the escaped version to release an updated version, but then it got bought out by Adobe and nothing has been seen since.

What is so freaking annoying are sites that can't be accessed at all without the latest Flash. What kind of an idiot develops a site that locks out anybody but those who have the latest version of a stupid plugin?

Hopefully they do release it as an open source project. Then eComStation users (the latest version of OS/2) can finally get an up-to-date Flash plugin.

Mark

Actually I think the idiots are the ones who buy their PCs from Best Buy and never do maintenance or update anything. Oh.. do I have to do that?

Flash designers and developers use the latest Flash Player because of it's advances and advantages.

The true idiots are the ones who buy and use Microsoft products such as IE ( the new Netscape ) and Windows Vista. Actually I feel bad for them. They do not know any better.

Ed
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

People who criticize Flash almost always ignore the fact that Flash is a totally integrated programming environment with virtually no limitations. Actionscript 3 is sort of like having php built into a graphics animation package. With all that power, of course it is going to be a bit bloated, but the swfs are remarkably small for what they can do.

Maybe it doesn't belong on an iPhone but I have say that I find it quite useful and will continue to develop with it until something better comes along.

Exactly the argument made in favor of everyone's favorite Virus vector, VB.
Your interest as a developer and mine as a consumer do NOT necessarily intersect.
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

You should probably turn off Flash and enjoy what's left of the internet.

yup... 100% of it.
Flash <> 'the internet'
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdstudios View Post

Although by that time (especially if Intel can deliver 80 core processors) Flash may not be that big of a memory hog in comparison.



That's funny.
post #55 of 71
If they actually think just opening it up the FOSS Community who they've mocked with their request for a 64 bit Linux version [not this schroot/chroot 32bit product of today] than they truly are naive.
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Hasn't it been 6 years since OS/2 was officially updated? I wouldn't be holding your breath, Mark. What aspects of OS/2 do you feel are better than a more modern OS?

Actually IBM stopped updating OS/2 in 2005 and ended all public support at the end of 2006. They still provide contracted support for large customers. However, though core components like the kernel can't be updated, they can be replaced. there is a project to do just that, called Voyager. and in the mean time eComStation is an OEM version that updates a lot of the GUI components, and is providing development support for a few things that other OS users take for granted like OpenOffice.org. and there is a lot of porting of open source projects. In fact prior to pulling the plug IBM provided a lot of support to open source projects like Mozilla and open sourcing the OS/2 version of the JFS filesystem.

This really isn't the forum for this so I will stop here. You can find out more about eCS at http://www.ecomstation.com

To answer your question, I have tried Linux and have Mac OSX 10.5 here and have been using Macs for 5-6 years. I can not use any microsoft products due to the ethical lapses of the company and the fact that their products are basically a piece of crap. I use what gets the job done, and for basic things eComStation works well and the way I like to work. For things like video processing the Mac works great. I've yet to find a reason to spend any time on Linux.

Mark
post #57 of 71
Kind of surprised the article didn't get into Adobe's adoption of H.264 as the "blessed" codec for Flash 9. This is a HUGE deal when it comes down to delivery of video online, which I think we can all agree is only at its baby stages and will only grow dramatically moving forward. This pretty much makes Adobe and Apple "allies" when it comes to the online video streaming format wars, with WMV (and Real, and On2) taking a major hit. For someone who is producing content, if you wanted to be able to stream using Flash, you would have to buy some encoding software that itself had licensed the On2 VP6 codec. Now, anyone with a Mac or Quicktime Pro can generate "Flash video" for free/much much cheaper. Cool stuff!
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by w00master View Post

Just an FYI, Flash is on 99% of all desktop browsers.

w00master

But I notice you said "desktop." Safari on iPhone is already #1 in terms of all mobile device browsing in its short life. So one can see that Flash's "ubiquity" referred to in another post is not guaranteed to be eternal, as Apple leads the way in changing the modal mode in which people interact with the cloud.......

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVMediaSolutions View Post

Actually I think the idiots are the ones who buy their PCs from Best Buy and never do maintenance or update anything. Oh.. do I have to do that?

Flash designers and developers use the latest Flash Player because of it's advances and advantages.

The true idiots are the ones who buy and use Microsoft products such as IE ( the new Netscape ) and Windows Vista. Actually I feel bad for them. They do not know any better.

Ed

Exactly! many men can't understand some simple obvious things.

I was a Flash designer and used to love Flash but people should understand it is a love child that nobody took good care of so it grew up in to something unmanageable, in designer as well as developer perspectives.

And then it made hell on the web for end users that they don't even smart to figure out that what they missed will otherwise zoho, google, iphone (Ajax) things would have come aeons ago. Flash did blocked and halted the development of new web (web 2.0 as some call it) for a prolonged period like MS did with IE until Firefox, Opera clan came in. Then I guess Apple did liberate the web omitting Flash on iPhone. People miss it cos they are forced to like Flash. But Steve Jobs or anyone has used an iPhone, Google Gmail or Google search knows the rich experience they get without Flash.

YouTube is a different culprit for this Flash miss concept. See, if properly done YouTube can be without Flash too (iPhone)

Rich Interactivity is not solely Flash, it is a wrong concept. Online games or porn sites are not the best web experience for the same reason.

You can read more on Flash here Dreamsmademe Bolg on this...
post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Javascript and GIFs don't send your CPU utilization to 100%.

Gifs do in Firefox and with js it depends on the code just like in Flash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Javascript and GIFs aren't huge memory hogs.

Dynamic Javascript objects can leak memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Javascript and GIFs work perfectly well on slower machines.

True but Gifs are limited to 256 colors and you have to premultiply the transparency and you can't get half the effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

It's horribly inefficient.

You mean inefficient in the sense that an animated menu in Flash would use up maybe 4k but to do it with scriptaculous requires you to execute a 250k script? See how slow Apple's site loads - there's a reason for that and it isn't Flash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Maybe QuickTime isn't as ubiquitous but so what - throw up MP4 files and let the user download their own plugin be it QuickTime or something else.

Last time I checked, mp4 files load as text in my version of Safari. Flash means that videos display as they should with the right interface and controls to everyone.

Flash is the closest thing we have to truly cross-platform applications short of Java Applets, which are slow and don't always work properly cross-platform.

As always, don't hate Flash because people use it wrongly - in other words the people who use really irritating ads to slow down browsers so you will notice them. If they could use any other tech to get the same result, they would and you'd hate that just the same.
post #61 of 71
I use flashblock in Firefox to prevent flash, as far as I'm concerned it is one of the banes of the interweb, switching off all that inane advertising makes browsing a much nicer experience. Plus those sites that use flash for no reason except to flagellate the ego of the developer/designer, so annoying. I have seen good use of flash but it is extremely rare. And don't get me started on acrobat reader, I deeply hate that product and I can't understand how they can create something that takes up so much memory and cpu to render their own document specification so badly.

However adobe air is a completely different kettle of giblets. As a web developer the issues I face constantly are all about browser versions and compatibility issues. It's a nightmare. Adobe air provides a consistent and rich development ecosystem that works on MS, Apple, and Linux (rsn I think) and is probably something that is familiar enough for users to not be concerned about downloading/installing because everyone knows Adobe via flash and acrobat reader. This thing has ubiquity written all over it and there is already a decent community of developers. Personally I think flex/air will be huge, not for information sites but definitely for internet applications.
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveclarke View Post

I use flashblock in Firefox to prevent flash, as far as I'm concerned it is one of the banes of the interweb, switching off all that inane advertising makes browsing a much nicer experience. Plus those sites that use flash for no reason except to flagellate the ego of the developer/designer, so annoying. I have seen good use of flash but it is extremely rare. And don't get me started on acrobat reader, I deeply hate that product and I can't understand how they can create something that takes up so much memory and cpu to render their own document specification so badly.

However adobe air is a completely different kettle of giblets. As a web developer the issues I face constantly are all about browser versions and compatibility issues. It's a nightmare. Adobe air provides a consistent and rich development ecosystem that works on MS, Apple, and Linux (rsn I think) and is probably something that is familiar enough for users to not be concerned about downloading/installing because everyone knows Adobe via flash and acrobat reader. This thing has ubiquity written all over it and there is already a decent community of developers. Personally I think flex/air will be huge, not for information sites but definitely for internet applications.

Frankly I don't get the whole "Air" thing for general web design. For in house projects such as training and presentations, I think it is applicable. But for general web use, I do not want 100 different apps on my desktop.
I hear that Flex 3 is lighter in weight but you still run into the same SEO problems as Flash. Is it really benificial for a client to pay twice for the same product?
Don't get me wrong. I like and use Flash. Especially for slideshow presentations. I think Apple is a little bit behind in their multimedia application models. Ever try to present a slideshow in Quicktime? Not nearly as flexable as Flash.

I wish Apple would pay more attention to multimedia intergration as Adobe does. Web Galleries are nice but unusable on the pro level. Imagine a Quicktime slideshow with a custom designed UI, transitions, linked to an xml database.

If Apple wants the iPhone to be Flash free, then they should give us the tools to develop for it.

Ed
post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVMediaSolutions View Post

Frankly I don't get the whole "Air" thing for general web design. For in house projects such as training and presentations, I think it is applicable. But for general web use, I do not want 100 different apps on my desktop.
I hear that Flex 3 is lighter in weight but you still run into the same SEO problems as Flash. Is it really benificial for a client to pay twice for the same product?
Don't get me wrong. I like and use Flash. Especially for slideshow presentations. I think Apple is a little bit behind in their multimedia application models. Ever try to present a slideshow in Quicktime? Not nearly as flexable as Flash.

I wish Apple would pay more attention to multimedia intergration as Adobe does. Web Galleries are nice but unusable on the pro level. Imagine a Quicktime slideshow with a custom designed UI, transitions, linked to an xml database.

If Apple wants the iPhone to be Flash free, then they should give us the tools to develop for it.

Ed

I think we're on the same page - when I say I'm a web developer I work for a bank writing internet banking applications which have the double-whammy of browser compatibility issues back to version 4 browsers and trying to create consistent input forms. There is plenty of pain to go around, not least to do with the total lack of understanding by my current management of web development best practices. Frankly the ability to write to a single specification and have it run consistently and without great effort on the three main OS's would be a huge boon and I'm sure I'm not the only developer who feels this way.
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveclarke View Post

I think we're on the same page - when I say I'm a web developer I work for a bank writing internet banking applications which have the double-whammy of browser compatibility issues back to version 4 browsers and trying to create consistent input forms. There is plenty of pain to go around, not least to do with the total lack of understanding by my current management of web development best practices. Frankly the ability to write to a single specification and have it run consistently and without great effort on the three main OS's would be a huge boon and I'm sure I'm not the only developer who feels this way.

I feel your pain. I work for a company that still uses FrontPage 2000 and will not embed Quicktime because of "security issues". This company loves MS and Flash even though our bandwith is worst than dial up. What company? NY Air National Guard.

I think everyone except Microsoft is working towards a singular standard. I am afraid that until the masses can ween themselves off of Microsoft, we will always have cross browser issues.

Ed
post #65 of 71
There is a significant omission in this article, the Flash community. There are millions of people that create Flash content as evidenced by the millions of sites that use Flash content. I think that it is interesting exercise to do a filetype search on google to see what kind of Flash content is on a given companies site: filetype:swf site:apple.com if you just do a filetype:swf you will find 37,400,000 results that has to say something about the community.

With Creative Suite 3 Adobe included Device Central which has been distributed to millions of users of Creative Suite. Device Central provides device intelligence and emulation for the devices that have the Flash Lite player to nearly every application in Creative Suite including Illustrator, Photoshop, Flash and Dreamweaver. When Flash Lite gives way to the Adobe Integrated Runtime on devices you will be able to use Flex Builder to develop applications for the devices that have that runtime. An obvious question is when will that happen and how will Adobe get that runtime onto devices? As part of the Open Screens Project Adobe will require that anyone that wants to distribute that runtime will have to make the runtime upgradeable. In other words you can have it free of charge but you have to make it upgradeable. This has been a missing piece of the puzzle for devices.
post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVMediaSolutions View Post

Actually I think the idiots are the ones who buy their PCs from Best Buy and never do maintenance or update anything. Oh.. do I have to do that?
Ed

Those are ridiculous statements. Some people like to see how heavy and big a laptop are at a BestBuy before buying a laptop. As for maintenance or updates - when was the last time you
did one for your television or stereo? No wonder why a lot of people hate PC's - we have engineers developing PC's for engineers and not consumers.

Computer manufacturers, Microsoft and software developers need to do a better job making computers easier to use and educating them about them getting maintenance and updates. (i.e. most drivers know that they need to get their oil changed every so often and have maintenance done on their car).
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnklin View Post

Those are ridiculous statements. Some people like to see how heavy and big a laptop are at a BestBuy before buying a laptop. As for maintenance or updates - when was the last time you
did one for your television or stereo? No wonder why a lot of people hate PC's - we have engineers developing PC's for engineers and not consumers.

Computer manufacturers, Microsoft and software developers need to do a better job making computers easier to use and educating them about them getting maintenance and updates. (i.e. most drivers know that they need to get their oil changed every so often and have maintenance done on their car).

Your right, a majority of people treat computers like their TVs which is exactly my point. That is what keeps Microsoft in business. Stellar products....NO... PC user ingnorance, that there are much better products available. Using Microsoft products is like using a TV with rabbit ears.

When I can connect a ethernet cable to my TV I am sure there will be updates.

Ed
post #68 of 71
Macromedia goofed by not rolling Director and Flash into a single application. Frankly the drawing tools with Flash are pretty darned dreadful, as is the support for vector art in Director (resulting in untenably large file sizes), but Director's interface and overall approach was much more user friendly.

By the time of the acquisition by Adobe, the user base had become enormous and the fusion of Flash and Director was no longer a viable concept. Director still exists, but its reign as the top banana interactive app ended a long time ago.

Frankly, I wish that Apple had bought Flash instead of Macromedia. Having the capabilities of Flash with the interface of Motion would have been to die for...and Flash would have been on the iPhone since day one.
post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by troberts View Post

I am sure there are some sites that use Flash appropriately, but more often than not, it is an annoyance, usually in a banner ad. Either the banner strobes or you hear a sound, usually a fly buzzing until you mute it which requires you to look at the banner to find the button.

Flash has become like animated GIF (remember that?) and javascript--used for things that could easily have been done with HTML. It is like you have a bunch of kids who want to show off their new "toy".
post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveclarke View Post

I think we're on the same page - when I say I'm a web developer I work for a bank writing internet banking applications which have the double-whammy of browser compatibility issues back to version 4 browsers and trying to create consistent input forms. There is plenty of pain to go around, not least to do with the total lack of understanding by my current management of web development best practices. Frankly the ability to write to a single specification and have it run consistently and without great effort on the three main OS's would be a huge boon and I'm sure I'm not the only developer who feels this way.

The problem is while there is a single specification for HTML (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) that has been around since May 2000 it is still hampered by browser behavior. So even if you stick to ISO HTML odds are the browser is going to do something totally bizarre with it. Until that problem is fixed web page development will always be a disjointed mess.
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYancy View Post

Macromedia goofed by not rolling Director and Flash into a single application. Frankly the drawing tools with Flash are pretty darned dreadful, as is the support for vector art in Director (resulting in untenably large file sizes), but Director's interface and overall approach was much more user friendly.

By the time of the acquisition by Adobe, the user base had become enormous and the fusion of Flash and Director was no longer a viable concept. Director still exists, but its reign as the top banana interactive app ended a long time ago.

Frankly, I wish that Apple had bought Flash instead of Macromedia. Having the capabilities of Flash with the interface of Motion would have been to die for...and Flash would have been on the iPhone since day one.

Apple was working on HyperCard 3.0 in 1996 which was planned to integrate with Quicktime via QuickTime interactive (QTi) so there was no incentive for them to buy Flash. By the time QTi was abandoned in favor of QuickTime 4.x with its streaming video Flash was already becoming popular.

Given the fate of QTi and even with developments of QuickTime VR (5.x), had Active X scripting (6.x), and developed QTKit (Cocoa framework) I doubt Apple would have done anything productive with Flash. Especially given that even by pre-QTKit standards Flash was an insane resource hog.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash [Part 1 of 3]