I suppose you have a point, I don't see any flash there.
And I see your point. Certainly Flash is easier for the site owner to build upon for interactiveness, but for the user it’s a resource hog. Google started going that route a while ago despite the additional cost and effort, so can we assume they will continue to go that route? I don’t know, but it seems like the best course of action to me.
PS: The only Flash I can see on the site is when you initiate StreetView.
They don?t seem to use Flash on Google Maps, which has a lot more interactive options than Google Finance for manipulating interactive image details.
Google maps seems rather clunky to me. Really useful, but not smooth and polished, which are the hallmarks of Flash. Sliders that are smooth not indexed, graceful transitions that are not jerky, are really difficult if not impossible using interpreted code like javascript rather than complied code like Flash.
Sure, text is lightweight and all but so is a bicycle, a bicycle however, isn't always a good substitute for a car.
As far as Google Maps compares to Google Earth, the later is really smooth and polished. Again, using compiled code.
If Adobe was able to create an export feature in Flash such that it could produce an iPhone app, it would give Flash more credibility. Right now, it gets a bad rap because of the annoying ads that are everywhere.
Google maps seems rather clunky to me. Really useful, but not smooth and polished, which are the hallmarks of Flash. Sliders that are smooth not indexed, graceful transitions that are not jerky, are really difficult if not impossible using interpreted code like javascript rather than complied code like Flash.
Sure, text is lightweight and all but so is a bicycle, a bicycle however, isn't always a good substitute for a car.
As far as Google Maps compares to Google Earth, the later is really smooth and polished. Again, using compiled code.
If Adobe was able to create an export feature in Flash such that it could produce an iPhone app, it would give Flash more credibility. Right now, it gets a bad rap because of the annoying ads that are everywhere.
I don?t disagree that Flash is very smooth and it?s much easier to create interactive sites with Flash, but that isnt? wasn?t I was getting at. Google has obviously given up Flash in areas where transitions and motions would be snoother, richer and cheaper to develop, for a more open model that currently has some major ticks against it, so I don?t see why they?d stop all that development now to go with Flash when the future of their business model seems to be lighter-weight coding for the end user.
I don?t care about Flash ads, but I don?t like having my fans wind up because playing Hulu?s crappy (by comparison) 480p video requires so much processing. There is a huge difference in playing the same H.264 video on YouTube in Flash or Quicktime. Back to the original conversation, HTTP Streaming in the browser is not a problem and doesn?t require Flash to stream video as some hear are saying.
I don?t disagree that Flash is very smooth and it?s much easier to create interactive sites with Flash, but that isnt? wasn?t I was getting at. Google has obviously given up Flash in areas where transitions and motions would be snoother, richer and cheaper to develop, for a more open model that currently has some major ticks against it, so I don?t see why they?d stop all that development now to go with Flash when the future of their business model seems to be lighter-weight coding for the end user.
I think they are doing the right thing. When they need Flash they use it when they can live without it they use Ajax. That is exactly what I'm doing as well.
The thing about streaming video is that Flash became the lowest common denominator when the other proprietary media solution providers were busy fighting it out for control. Unfortunately nothing has changed in that respect.
Given Apple & AT&T's reluctance to allow Slingbox (Streaming Video) I don't see this ever happening.
Apple wants you to use iTunes and nothing else for revenue reasons (even as lousy as there HD is). You are in a closed Apple World. That is why my next phone will not be an iPhone.
Edit. Not to mention the fact that Netflix uses Windows DRM. Yeah, like Jobs would allow that on the iPhone.
It would be like saying... Nobody is really using iTunes so we will use Microsoft's DRM on the iPhone.
That is why we don't have Flash on the iPhone.
No Revenue to Apple means you are being kept in a closed Apple confined world.
Anything that pushes you further away is fine by me.
Comments
I suppose you have a point, I don't see any flash there.
And I see your point. Certainly Flash is easier for the site owner to build upon for interactiveness, but for the user it’s a resource hog. Google started going that route a while ago despite the additional cost and effort, so can we assume they will continue to go that route? I don’t know, but it seems like the best course of action to me.
PS: The only Flash I can see on the site is when you initiate StreetView.
They don?t seem to use Flash on Google Maps, which has a lot more interactive options than Google Finance for manipulating interactive image details.
Google maps seems rather clunky to me. Really useful, but not smooth and polished, which are the hallmarks of Flash. Sliders that are smooth not indexed, graceful transitions that are not jerky, are really difficult if not impossible using interpreted code like javascript rather than complied code like Flash.
Sure, text is lightweight and all but so is a bicycle, a bicycle however, isn't always a good substitute for a car.
As far as Google Maps compares to Google Earth, the later is really smooth and polished. Again, using compiled code.
If Adobe was able to create an export feature in Flash such that it could produce an iPhone app, it would give Flash more credibility. Right now, it gets a bad rap because of the annoying ads that are everywhere.
Google maps seems rather clunky to me. Really useful, but not smooth and polished, which are the hallmarks of Flash. Sliders that are smooth not indexed, graceful transitions that are not jerky, are really difficult if not impossible using interpreted code like javascript rather than complied code like Flash.
Sure, text is lightweight and all but so is a bicycle, a bicycle however, isn't always a good substitute for a car.
As far as Google Maps compares to Google Earth, the later is really smooth and polished. Again, using compiled code.
If Adobe was able to create an export feature in Flash such that it could produce an iPhone app, it would give Flash more credibility. Right now, it gets a bad rap because of the annoying ads that are everywhere.
I don?t disagree that Flash is very smooth and it?s much easier to create interactive sites with Flash, but that isnt? wasn?t I was getting at. Google has obviously given up Flash in areas where transitions and motions would be snoother, richer and cheaper to develop, for a more open model that currently has some major ticks against it, so I don?t see why they?d stop all that development now to go with Flash when the future of their business model seems to be lighter-weight coding for the end user.
I don?t care about Flash ads, but I don?t like having my fans wind up because playing Hulu?s crappy (by comparison) 480p video requires so much processing. There is a huge difference in playing the same H.264 video on YouTube in Flash or Quicktime. Back to the original conversation, HTTP Streaming in the browser is not a problem and doesn?t require Flash to stream video as some hear are saying.
I don?t disagree that Flash is very smooth and it?s much easier to create interactive sites with Flash, but that isnt? wasn?t I was getting at. Google has obviously given up Flash in areas where transitions and motions would be snoother, richer and cheaper to develop, for a more open model that currently has some major ticks against it, so I don?t see why they?d stop all that development now to go with Flash when the future of their business model seems to be lighter-weight coding for the end user.
I think they are doing the right thing. When they need Flash they use it when they can live without it they use Ajax. That is exactly what I'm doing as well.
The thing about streaming video is that Flash became the lowest common denominator when the other proprietary media solution providers were busy fighting it out for control. Unfortunately nothing has changed in that respect.
Can you point link to Snaps Pro X for the iPhone. Then how do you run both Netflix and Snapz with no multi-tasking?
you are right and i stand corrected...
hope SNAPz Pro X is reading this thread and comes up with a plan
well you could still do it on a Mac then convert the movie to Iphone/Ipod to watch later...
oh well... like i said - you are right..
thanks for pointing out the obvious-
(Seriously, that was refreshing and informative.)
Given Apple & AT&T's reluctance to allow Slingbox (Streaming Video) I don't see this ever happening.
Apple wants you to use iTunes and nothing else for revenue reasons (even as lousy as there HD is). You are in a closed Apple World. That is why my next phone will not be an iPhone.
Edit. Not to mention the fact that Netflix uses Windows DRM. Yeah, like Jobs would allow that on the iPhone.
It would be like saying... Nobody is really using iTunes so we will use Microsoft's DRM on the iPhone.
That is why we don't have Flash on the iPhone.
No Revenue to Apple means you are being kept in a closed Apple confined world.
Anything that pushes you further away is fine by me.
Can I use Showbox or Moviebox app on iPhone???