wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac.
This argument comes up a lot - "It's not Flash, it's the poor implementations!" Maybe it's possible to author a rich, lightweight, cross-platform web site using Flash, but I've seen very few examples amidst the continents of Flash wrecking-yards.
A while back I was doing some rather web-intensive research and at the end of the day had over 100 browser windows open. My dual-core CPU was completely maxed out and Safari crashed (big surprise there.) I disabled plug-ins in the preferences and reopened all the windows using the history feature. With no Flash getting loaded the CPU was practically idle. I shut down Safari, re-enabled plug-ins and with the exact same windows the CPU jumped back up to 95% utilization. Thanks a lot, Flash.
Now with ClickToFlash I only load it when I want it (not the web designer), and Flash is reduced to being a mere nuisance. The sooner it goes away for good the sooner we can reclaim our own computing resources. I simply don't understand why Flash-advocates are incapable of understanding this.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there.
jobs excuses are merely causing a distraction to the real problem, he doesn't want applications to be run on the iphone that threaten his 30% markup (and control over distribution), plain and simple. this is about money not cpu resources.
html 5 and css 3 are very interesting and offer up some promise in the years to come, but do you really think that it mysteriously doesn't use any cpu resources? when poorly developed sites start popping up, you think that all those memory leaks won't hit the processor --- maybe even worse than flash??? one thing is for sure, getting all browsers to display html5/css3 content will never happen with the same code, developers will have to hack their code to look the same across all browsers (welcome back to 1998).
no offense but some of what you're saying is wrong. First off you're mentioning that Jobs doesn't want Flash to compete with the App Store. That is nonsense. If Jobs had it his way there would be no App Store. Apple really doesn't care about the revenues it receives from there no matter how large they are. Already some of the technologies that they are putting in Webkit would allow for gaming by leveraging the graphics card under HTML5.
As for your last paragraph, we don't exactly know what the CPU resource usage will be but from what I can tell from some pages that are written with HTML5 the usage seems normal unlike Flash. These sites already perform well with the iPhone. For a comparison go look at Engadget's video review of The HTC Android phone with Flash. The video stuttered and even the reviewer said it was "unbearable" while oddly enough still saying it is nice to have. As to your mentioning of hacks, Adobe is already doing it with different versions of Flash, mobile and desktop across many platforms, and it is clearly not working.
All I can say is that on my end-of-line DSP service, every Flash video jirks and sputters every second, while Quicktime loads and stays, so I can actually watch in continuity! Also, you should dig back and look at this site's stories of Bill Gates directly stealing Quicktime and the copied code being shown in a law suit-MicroSoft had to cough., admit to the theft, then change the code, rewrite it uniquely to "create" WMVs! SOUNDS FAMILIAR?
It is actually good to study history! You find all kinds of truths that people deny and pretend that Windows is a unique and useful tool! Send just one penny for every mouse MS has sold to it's actual inventor, Douglas Engelbart, so he can amass his own fortune.
Interesting article. After reading the debate going on here, let me preface the following question with the disclaimer that I have no technical computer expertise and am doing my best to understand the general concepts of this article.
It sounds like the main point of this story is the strategic importance (to each of the companies involved) of control over the future internet standards for video. It also sounds like RealPlayer and WMV are assumed to be dead ends and the battle is between Silverlight (MS), Flash (Adobe), and H.264 (Apple & Google?). (Is the HTML 5 battle between H.264 & Ogg Theora (Mozilla?) decided then?) With Flash having the current lion's share of the market by default but Silverlight & H.264 being newer & better and fighting to be the contender?
Somebody correct me if I misunderstand please.
Is so, then my question is why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe and end future development of Flash in favor of H.264? (Wouldn't it also be good for them to own Display Postscript out right anyway since it is at the core of OS/X?) Not that I understand corporate finances either, but it looks like Apple has 10 times the market value as Adobe and could just buy Adobe with cash and still have a pile in the bank.
Two thirds of Adobe's sales are to Windows and linux users. What would Apple gain from owning a large software company that depends on non Apple sales for its existence?
Apple would either have to assure those customers that Apple isn't going to abandon them, and then pour in large sums to support their competitors. Or, they could wind those operations down and lose two thirds of the business, and have to shut down a number of products that are not Mac operable, or spend large sums to make them so, while alienating all those people and companies who are no longer customers.
In reality, it would be even worse. I thought that when Macromedia went on the block, Apple should have bought them instead of letting Adobe do that. But that's water under the bridge now.
it may be, but in that case apple should share some resources like they do with other companies and giving them a hand and a couple of apple engineers. clearly, with adobe, they never wanted that.
lack of x64 is just a point of no interest. if they were able to make photoshop x64, and it's extremely fast, i believe they could make flash player x64 if they wanted to. the big problem they don't want to yet.
There isn't any point in having 64 bit Flash yet. The greatest number of computers and even servers, are still 32 bit. As time goes on, this will obviously change. but as Flash must work with every computer, a 64 bit version would just complicate things while likely not making the use of it any better.
NonVendorFan has successfully monopolised this discussion with his nonsense. Who is concerned about grammar? Why does he disagree with EVERYTHING? What kind of chip does he carry on his shoulder?
I think we can expect to see NonVendorFan carried off by the men in white coats any minute now...
Well thats what a TROLL does. Disagree with everything no matter how wrong they are. They will continue to disagree, and then try to move to other subjects to perpetuate the argument. TROLLS are lonely and they get off on the attention.
I see a lot of "If's" and "will likely" which is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking on your part.
Just because you hope it happens doesn't mean it will as you were told countless times at Mac Rumors.
It's not all about what you want.
Its all about what the companies that create and maintain websites want. If HTML5 will give them less headaches , help streamline code and lessen costs, then Flash is toast.
Just seems like HTML will be the way that it goes - less proprietary.
P.S. How does Adobe, with their substandard engineering talent, expect to deliver video efficiently on mobile devices?
I doubt that Adobe has substandard engineering talent. They probably have substandard management which decides points the business in specific areas. Engineering generally bows down to business.
I doubt that Adobe has substandard engineering talent. They probably have substandard management which decides the course that the business takes. Engineering generally bows down to business.
I always read Solipsism's posts here with great pleasure. Just saying.
Thanks, Eluard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T
Well, if you are going to be so critical you need to go to basics yourself my friend. Learn the difference between 'You are'; 'your'; and: 'you're'.
Numbnuts.
These I tend to let slide because they are easily overlooked when writing fast. If he were writing the article itself, and not just a forum post I would be more critical.
Who cares about grammar? I am just glad they don't struggle with spelling in this day of auto correction and instant dictionary look up.
Now, ‘grammer' and ‘akiles' I simply can’t excuse. The former because of the irony the latter because it’s not even close. The spelling of Achilles cracks me up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Guys, it's LTD. And yes, I post on Macrumors as well.
Solipsism is more or less correct about MR, though. I've gotten several PMs over there asking me to please please oh please stop voicing my lack of interest in GV because if I continue to do that, I'll be preventing the supporters from ever getting it. And they really want it. Despite the fact that no one off these Mac sites cares about it or has even heard of it. Yes, that's right. I've gotten PMs asking me to stop posting because it'll make it harder for them to get it.
Anyway, enjoy the HTML 5 thread.
That is just crazy, but it is MR. You make great posts here that I enjoy reading but I have doubts that your oeuvre are powerful enough to sway a committee in the GV approval at Apple. If they are, then i suggest you start your own site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosqueda
It is also block on nearly every government computer (millions of computers I might add) because of the security threat.
Speaking of security threats. I wonder if OpenGL may eventually cause a problem and have to blocked the way Flash is on secure computers. I have no specific scenerios, but giving your web browser direct hardware access could potentially be a security risk, I think.
Otherwise, I agree the article was really too detailed for this medium, it's like the guy took a chapter from his book and dropped into AI. <yawn>
That is pretty much every article by Daniel Eran Dilger, aka Prince Mclean. The historical parts of the articles tend to be either loved or hated, as you can see from the posts. I’ve read it all before many times so I just tend to skip over it, but I’m glad DED takes the time to included it as there are new readers every day that don’t know the history of computing. One side effect of these AI’s articles compared to other sites that tend to only post a 100 word blurb is that it tends to keep a more mature crowd in the audience and in the forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
… scrolling through Flash video sucks, you typically can't download it. Overall, it's a terrible user experience.
It does suck to scroll in Flash. QuickTime X and HTTP Streaming seem to be better, but I haven’t tested it enough to be certain. One of my biggest peeves is that if i send someone a link to a video clip they have to watch the entire thing or I have to inform them of the times in which to start (and sometimes stop it).
This is so nettling to me that I wrote Ian Hickson a letter suggesting humbly that the new video tags in HTML5 also have attributes that can tell the streaming server to pull from a specific time in the video and end a specific time. Essentially doing an instant streaming crop of the video if you were to add it to your site, like how YouTube videos are posted on other’s webpages. I even suggested built in HTML5 controls that that can disabled by the site owners, but if turned on can allow self cropping of the video streaming in the URL so that you can send the link to a friend without them having to watch the entire video.
For instance, say an entire video of Family Guy, which is 22 minutes is posted on Hulu’s new, all HTML, CSS, and JS revision, but I wanted to post a link here about a specific scene that reminds me of NonVendorFan being obtuse, I could do that without having the rigamarole of me informing everyone of appropriate start time. On top of that, Hulu doesn’t have to edit their videos to allow for these excerpts as they can now just have the one video on there servers and simply point a link to it in HTML5 using the video and attribute tags to have the start and stop times appear when they choose them. This save a lot of storage space and editing time for the content distributers.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there. jobs excuses are merely causing a distraction to the real problem, he doesn't want applications to be run on the iphone that threaten his 30% markup (and control over distribution), plain and simple. this is about money not cpu resources.
No one here said that it was just about Flash being a resource hog nor that other processes don’t use resources. WebKit uses a lot less resources than Flash. A lot less does not mean none. Flash Lite is what it is because no phone HW can reasonably take the Flash on desktop OSes. Flash Lite can’t play video from sites like Hulu, which seems to be the biggest reason I hear as to why people want Flash on their phone, despite it not making sense.
Your reasoning that Flash Lite will affect Apple’s App Store is not sound. Apple is pushing very lightweight web apps with HTML5 that can be cached and played locally with the standard’s new DB function. Simple games and other apps that can be added to the home screen as a Web Icon are more likely to affect the App Store than anything Flash Lite can produce, especially once OpenGL get utilized. But more importantly, Flash Lite is no match for Cocoa. It’s a great platform to code for that keeps getting better and better since the first iPhone SDK release back in March 2008.
Flash doesn't work for most mobile computing platforms and isn't always the same on every PC. It is also block on nearly every government computer (millions of computers I might add) because of the security threat. Active content is not a good thing, though it might appear slick, it's an opportunity for Cybercriminals. I hope and pray for its demise. Otherwise, I agree the article was really too detailed for this medium, it's like the guy took a chapter from his book and dropped into AI. <yawn>
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Oh, come on Dick, you know better than that. I think we all got the point the article was making.
My point, though thinly disguised, is why clutter up an, otherwise, interesting article with politics or bias against MS, Adobe, etc.
There are many assertions of "fact" in this article-- some are true, some are not. The author does himself, and his readers, a disservice by including half-truths that support his multiple, personal, agendas (and ignoring, or glossing over, facts that do not).
I generally like Apple and Apple products-- but they are far from perfect.
I generally dislike MS but they are not all bad.
I dislike Flash (my experience is only on Macs). Flash has evolved to be overly complex and a resource hog. To take some liberty with a stated goal of Flash RIAs-- they provide Rich, Reach and Retch!
When I was developing web sites, I preferred ColdFusion, as it was high-level, efficient and self documenting.
I do not think technical articles or technical web sites are the proper forum for personal politics or personal bias.
Technical history can be an interesting read, but it is only as good as the research and the objective presentation of "facts". Even then, different people come at a given set of "facts" from different perspectives and have different interpretations, as a result. (You and I had quite a discussion, a while back, of our different interpretations of some historical facts).
So, I like to examine everything I read and ask myself: "What is being said, and why is being said that way?"
Flash isn't just used on YouTube. Almost every major Television network and News Media Web site uses Flash as the standard for providing Video content.
Hulu has become one of the most popular video content providers and they use Flash to stream media as well.
Only Mac users don't like Flash because it runs like shit on all OS's of Apple OS. It runs extremely well on PC's.
If Apple didn't piss off another major Vendor than Adobe would probably put more time into making it run better on the Mac.
You'll probably see Google apps to start being resource hogs here soon as Apple did a great job of screwing up that partnership.
Get over it. Flash is here and will be here for Years to come.
The only reason why "major" TV and media sites use flash is because they have no choice at the time. Regardless of what you say, flash will continue to be a resource hog. The worst part about it is "accessibility" and the sloppy use of Flash via lazy designers. Plus, it is very cumbersome to work on other designer's code to implement new content.
I'm a "New Media" designer and lately I've rarely used Flash. Instead I've focused on HTML5, CSS3, DOM, and AJAX, because they separate content from design and the "accessibility".
My point, though thinly disguised, is why clutter up an, otherwise, interesting article with politics or bias against MS, Adobe, etc.
There are many assertions of "fact" in this article-- some are true, some are not. The author does himself, and his readers, a disservice by including half-truths that support his multiple, personal, agendas (and ignoring, or glossing over, facts that do not).
I generally like Apple and Apple products-- but they are far from perfect.
I generally dislike MS but they are not all bad.
I dislike Flash (my experience is only on Macs). Flash has evolved to be overly complex and a resource hog. To take some liberty with a stated goal of Flash RIAs-- they provide Rich, Reach and Retch!
When I was developing web sites, I preferred ColdFusion, as it was high-level, efficient and self documenting.
I do not think technical articles or technical web sites are the proper forum for personal politics or personal bias.
Technical history can be an interesting read, but it is only as good as the research and the objective presentation of "facts". Even then, different people come at a given set of "facts" from different perspectives and have different interpretations, as a result. (You and I had quite a discussion, a while back, of our different interpretations of some historical facts).
So, I like to examine everything I read and ask myself: "What is being said, and why is being said that way?"
*
I don't agree with the assertion that they are half truths. I think that they are truths. It's pretty well known where these companies put their money. It's also pretty well known what they have on the line here. I think he nailed it.
I doubt that Adobe has substandard engineering talent. They probably have substandard management which decides the course that the business takes. Engineering generally bows down to business.
Then Adobe management has a lot to answer for with Acrobat. That piece of bloatware is as bad as Flash in terms of poor performance and resource use. (And then there are all the execrable installers associated with their various software packages...)
If what you claim is true, then the engineers at Adobe should stage a revolt and clear out the executive suites. I doubt that's the sole source of their problems, though.
Now, ?grammer' and ?akiles' I simply can?t excuse. The former because of the irony the latter because it?s not even close. The spelling of Achilles cracks me up.
Yeah, you might say spelling was his vulnerability!
Quote:
Speaking of security threats. I wonder if OpenGL may eventually cause a problem and have to blocked the way Flash is on secure computers. I have no specific scenerios, but giving your web browser direct hardware access could potentially be a security risk, I think.
It does suck to scroll in Flash. QuickTime X and HTTP Streaming seem to be better, but I haven?t tested it enough to be certain. One of my biggest peeves is that if i send someone a link to a video clip they have to watch the entire thing or I have to inform them of the times in which to start (and sometimes stop it).
This is so nettling to me that I wrote Ian Hickson a letter suggesting humbly that the new video tags in HTML5 also have attributes that can tell the streaming server to pull from a specific time in the video and end a specific time. Essentially doing an instant streaming crop of the video if you were to add it to your site, like how YouTube videos are posted on other?s webpages. I even suggested built in HTML5 controls that that can disabled by the site owners, but if turned on can allow self cropping of the video streaming in the URL so that you can send the link to a friend without them having to watch the entire video.
That's a very good request! You used to be able do something like that with non-streamed video and Quicktime using SMIL. Your solution is even better because it reduces bandwidth to the minimum, both for the length of content and quality of the connection.
Then Adobe management has a lot to answer for with Acrobat. That piece of bloatware is as bad as Flash in terms of poor performance and resource use. (And then there are all the execrable installers associated with their various software packages...)
If what you claim is true, then the engineers at Adobe should stage a revolt and clear out the executive suites. I doubt that's the sole source of their problems, though.
What you're claiming is an exaggeration. You don't need to do that to make a point.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there.
Tell me how apple is supposed to hardware accelerate flash (thus reduce battery drain for playing video) the way they hardware accelerate h.264 decoding?
I don't agree with the assertion that they are half truths. I think that they are truths. It's pretty well known where these companies put their money. It's also pretty well known what they have on the line here. I think he nailed it.
I'll revisit my original citation:
...American NCSA, which had been funded by congressman Al Gore...
Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, this is a half-truth at best. The last time I looked, the House Ways and Means committee appropriates "funding". This is then voted by the entire House and Senate, signed by the President, and paid for (funded) by the taxpayers.
I don't mean to belittle Al Gore's contribution, but to give him credit, as above, is a real stretch!
DED Knows this!
So I ask myself: Why did he do it, and why in that way?
Comments
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac.
This argument comes up a lot - "It's not Flash, it's the poor implementations!" Maybe it's possible to author a rich, lightweight, cross-platform web site using Flash, but I've seen very few examples amidst the continents of Flash wrecking-yards.
A while back I was doing some rather web-intensive research and at the end of the day had over 100 browser windows open. My dual-core CPU was completely maxed out and Safari crashed (big surprise there.) I disabled plug-ins in the preferences and reopened all the windows using the history feature. With no Flash getting loaded the CPU was practically idle. I shut down Safari, re-enabled plug-ins and with the exact same windows the CPU jumped back up to 95% utilization. Thanks a lot, Flash.
Now with ClickToFlash I only load it when I want it (not the web designer), and Flash is reduced to being a mere nuisance. The sooner it goes away for good the sooner we can reclaim our own computing resources. I simply don't understand why Flash-advocates are incapable of understanding this.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there.
jobs excuses are merely causing a distraction to the real problem, he doesn't want applications to be run on the iphone that threaten his 30% markup (and control over distribution), plain and simple. this is about money not cpu resources.
html 5 and css 3 are very interesting and offer up some promise in the years to come, but do you really think that it mysteriously doesn't use any cpu resources? when poorly developed sites start popping up, you think that all those memory leaks won't hit the processor --- maybe even worse than flash??? one thing is for sure, getting all browsers to display html5/css3 content will never happen with the same code, developers will have to hack their code to look the same across all browsers (welcome back to 1998).
no offense but some of what you're saying is wrong. First off you're mentioning that Jobs doesn't want Flash to compete with the App Store. That is nonsense. If Jobs had it his way there would be no App Store. Apple really doesn't care about the revenues it receives from there no matter how large they are. Already some of the technologies that they are putting in Webkit would allow for gaming by leveraging the graphics card under HTML5.
As for your last paragraph, we don't exactly know what the CPU resource usage will be but from what I can tell from some pages that are written with HTML5 the usage seems normal unlike Flash. These sites already perform well with the iPhone. For a comparison go look at Engadget's video review of The HTC Android phone with Flash. The video stuttered and even the reviewer said it was "unbearable" while oddly enough still saying it is nice to have. As to your mentioning of hacks, Adobe is already doing it with different versions of Flash, mobile and desktop across many platforms, and it is clearly not working.
All I can say is that on my end-of-line DSP service, every Flash video jirks and sputters every second, while Quicktime loads and stays, so I can actually watch in continuity! Also, you should dig back and look at this site's stories of Bill Gates directly stealing Quicktime and the copied code being shown in a law suit-MicroSoft had to cough., admit to the theft, then change the code, rewrite it uniquely to "create" WMVs! SOUNDS FAMILIAR?
It is actually good to study history! You find all kinds of truths that people deny and pretend that Windows is a unique and useful tool! Send just one penny for every mouse MS has sold to it's actual inventor, Douglas Engelbart, so he can amass his own fortune.
I've, uh, told that story many times here.
Interesting article. After reading the debate going on here, let me preface the following question with the disclaimer that I have no technical computer expertise and am doing my best to understand the general concepts of this article.
It sounds like the main point of this story is the strategic importance (to each of the companies involved) of control over the future internet standards for video. It also sounds like RealPlayer and WMV are assumed to be dead ends and the battle is between Silverlight (MS), Flash (Adobe), and H.264 (Apple & Google?). (Is the HTML 5 battle between H.264 & Ogg Theora (Mozilla?) decided then?) With Flash having the current lion's share of the market by default but Silverlight & H.264 being newer & better and fighting to be the contender?
Somebody correct me if I misunderstand please.
Is so, then my question is why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe and end future development of Flash in favor of H.264? (Wouldn't it also be good for them to own Display Postscript out right anyway since it is at the core of OS/X?) Not that I understand corporate finances either, but it looks like Apple has 10 times the market value as Adobe and could just buy Adobe with cash and still have a pile in the bank.
Two thirds of Adobe's sales are to Windows and linux users. What would Apple gain from owning a large software company that depends on non Apple sales for its existence?
Apple would either have to assure those customers that Apple isn't going to abandon them, and then pour in large sums to support their competitors. Or, they could wind those operations down and lose two thirds of the business, and have to shut down a number of products that are not Mac operable, or spend large sums to make them so, while alienating all those people and companies who are no longer customers.
In reality, it would be even worse. I thought that when Macromedia went on the block, Apple should have bought them instead of letting Adobe do that. But that's water under the bridge now.
it may be, but in that case apple should share some resources like they do with other companies and giving them a hand and a couple of apple engineers. clearly, with adobe, they never wanted that.
lack of x64 is just a point of no interest. if they were able to make photoshop x64, and it's extremely fast, i believe they could make flash player x64 if they wanted to. the big problem they don't want to yet.
There isn't any point in having 64 bit Flash yet. The greatest number of computers and even servers, are still 32 bit. As time goes on, this will obviously change. but as Flash must work with every computer, a 64 bit version would just complicate things while likely not making the use of it any better.
NonVendorFan has successfully monopolised this discussion with his nonsense. Who is concerned about grammar? Why does he disagree with EVERYTHING? What kind of chip does he carry on his shoulder?
I think we can expect to see NonVendorFan carried off by the men in white coats any minute now...
Well thats what a TROLL does. Disagree with everything no matter how wrong they are. They will continue to disagree, and then try to move to other subjects to perpetuate the argument. TROLLS are lonely and they get off on the attention.
I found the article very informative, especially things like:
...American NCSA, which had been funded by congressman Al Gore...
Where else but America, could a person, alone, fund an entire government agency (on the salary of a public servant)?
*
Oh, come on Dick, you know better than that. I think we all got the point the article was making.
Why does AppleInsider feel it has to interject politics into its posts? What do you guys gain from it, except a negative increase of subscribers?
It definitely turns me off.
Since you've never been here before, it must have turned you on.
I see a lot of "If's" and "will likely" which is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking on your part.
Just because you hope it happens doesn't mean it will as you were told countless times at Mac Rumors.
It's not all about what you want.
Its all about what the companies that create and maintain websites want. If HTML5 will give them less headaches , help streamline code and lessen costs, then Flash is toast.
Just seems like HTML will be the way that it goes - less proprietary.
P.S. How does Adobe, with their substandard engineering talent, expect to deliver video efficiently on mobile devices?
I doubt that Adobe has substandard engineering talent. They probably have substandard management which decides points the business in specific areas. Engineering generally bows down to business.
Put the blame where it should be.
Put the blame where it should be
I always read Solipsism's posts here with great pleasure. Just saying.
Thanks, Eluard.
Well, if you are going to be so critical you need to go to basics yourself my friend. Learn the difference between 'You are'; 'your'; and: 'you're'.
Numbnuts.
These I tend to let slide because they are easily overlooked when writing fast. If he were writing the article itself, and not just a forum post I would be more critical.
Post #47
The writer of the article needs some serious grammer lessons as do the proof readers (if there are any) before they are posted.
Post #37
HTML 5 may be Apple's akiles heal.
Who cares about grammar? I am just glad they don't struggle with spelling in this day of auto correction and instant dictionary look up.
Now, ‘grammer' and ‘akiles' I simply can’t excuse. The former because of the irony the latter because it’s not even close. The spelling of Achilles cracks me up.
Guys, it's LTD. And yes, I post on Macrumors as well.
Solipsism is more or less correct about MR, though. I've gotten several PMs over there asking me to please please oh please stop voicing my lack of interest in GV because if I continue to do that, I'll be preventing the supporters from ever getting it. And they really want it. Despite the fact that no one off these Mac sites cares about it or has even heard of it. Yes, that's right. I've gotten PMs asking me to stop posting because it'll make it harder for them to get it.
Anyway, enjoy the HTML 5 thread.
That is just crazy, but it is MR. You make great posts here that I enjoy reading but I have doubts that your oeuvre are powerful enough to sway a committee in the GV approval at Apple. If they are, then i suggest you start your own site.
It is also block on nearly every government computer (millions of computers I might add) because of the security threat.
Speaking of security threats. I wonder if OpenGL may eventually cause a problem and have to blocked the way Flash is on secure computers. I have no specific scenerios, but giving your web browser direct hardware access could potentially be a security risk, I think.
Otherwise, I agree the article was really too detailed for this medium, it's like the guy took a chapter from his book and dropped into AI. <yawn>
That is pretty much every article by Daniel Eran Dilger, aka Prince Mclean. The historical parts of the articles tend to be either loved or hated, as you can see from the posts. I’ve read it all before many times so I just tend to skip over it, but I’m glad DED takes the time to included it as there are new readers every day that don’t know the history of computing. One side effect of these AI’s articles compared to other sites that tend to only post a 100 word blurb is that it tends to keep a more mature crowd in the audience and in the forums.
… scrolling through Flash video sucks, you typically can't download it. Overall, it's a terrible user experience.
It does suck to scroll in Flash. QuickTime X and HTTP Streaming seem to be better, but I haven’t tested it enough to be certain. One of my biggest peeves is that if i send someone a link to a video clip they have to watch the entire thing or I have to inform them of the times in which to start (and sometimes stop it).
This is so nettling to me that I wrote Ian Hickson a letter suggesting humbly that the new video tags in HTML5 also have attributes that can tell the streaming server to pull from a specific time in the video and end a specific time. Essentially doing an instant streaming crop of the video if you were to add it to your site, like how YouTube videos are posted on other’s webpages. I even suggested built in HTML5 controls that that can disabled by the site owners, but if turned on can allow self cropping of the video streaming in the URL so that you can send the link to a friend without them having to watch the entire video.
For instance, say an entire video of Family Guy, which is 22 minutes is posted on Hulu’s new, all HTML, CSS, and JS revision, but I wanted to post a link here about a specific scene that reminds me of NonVendorFan being obtuse, I could do that without having the rigamarole of me informing everyone of appropriate start time. On top of that, Hulu doesn’t have to edit their videos to allow for these excerpts as they can now just have the one video on there servers and simply point a link to it in HTML5 using the video and attribute tags to have the start and stop times appear when they choose them. This save a lot of storage space and editing time for the content distributers.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there. jobs excuses are merely causing a distraction to the real problem, he doesn't want applications to be run on the iphone that threaten his 30% markup (and control over distribution), plain and simple. this is about money not cpu resources.
No one here said that it was just about Flash being a resource hog nor that other processes don’t use resources. WebKit uses a lot less resources than Flash. A lot less does not mean none. Flash Lite is what it is because no phone HW can reasonably take the Flash on desktop OSes. Flash Lite can’t play video from sites like Hulu, which seems to be the biggest reason I hear as to why people want Flash on their phone, despite it not making sense.
Your reasoning that Flash Lite will affect Apple’s App Store is not sound. Apple is pushing very lightweight web apps with HTML5 that can be cached and played locally with the standard’s new DB function. Simple games and other apps that can be added to the home screen as a Web Icon are more likely to affect the App Store than anything Flash Lite can produce, especially once OpenGL get utilized. But more importantly, Flash Lite is no match for Cocoa. It’s a great platform to code for that keeps getting better and better since the first iPhone SDK release back in March 2008.
Flash doesn't work for most mobile computing platforms and isn't always the same on every PC. It is also block on nearly every government computer (millions of computers I might add) because of the security threat. Active content is not a good thing, though it might appear slick, it's an opportunity for Cybercriminals. I hope and pray for its demise. Otherwise, I agree the article was really too detailed for this medium, it's like the guy took a chapter from his book and dropped into AI. <yawn>
Oh, come on Dick, you know better than that. I think we all got the point the article was making.
There are many assertions of "fact" in this article-- some are true, some are not. The author does himself, and his readers, a disservice by including half-truths that support his multiple, personal, agendas (and ignoring, or glossing over, facts that do not).
I generally like Apple and Apple products-- but they are far from perfect.
I generally dislike MS but they are not all bad.
I dislike Flash (my experience is only on Macs). Flash has evolved to be overly complex and a resource hog. To take some liberty with a stated goal of Flash RIAs-- they provide Rich, Reach and Retch!
When I was developing web sites, I preferred ColdFusion, as it was high-level, efficient and self documenting.
I do not think technical articles or technical web sites are the proper forum for personal politics or personal bias.
Technical history can be an interesting read, but it is only as good as the research and the objective presentation of "facts". Even then, different people come at a given set of "facts" from different perspectives and have different interpretations, as a result. (You and I had quite a discussion, a while back, of our different interpretations of some historical facts).
So, I like to examine everything I read and ask myself: "What is being said, and why is being said that way?"
*
Flash isn't just used on YouTube. Almost every major Television network and News Media Web site uses Flash as the standard for providing Video content.
Hulu has become one of the most popular video content providers and they use Flash to stream media as well.
Only Mac users don't like Flash because it runs like shit on all OS's of Apple OS. It runs extremely well on PC's.
If Apple didn't piss off another major Vendor than Adobe would probably put more time into making it run better on the Mac.
You'll probably see Google apps to start being resource hogs here soon as Apple did a great job of screwing up that partnership.
Get over it. Flash is here and will be here for Years to come.
The only reason why "major" TV and media sites use flash is because they have no choice at the time. Regardless of what you say, flash will continue to be a resource hog. The worst part about it is "accessibility" and the sloppy use of Flash via lazy designers. Plus, it is very cumbersome to work on other designer's code to implement new content.
I'm a "New Media" designer and lately I've rarely used Flash. Instead I've focused on HTML5, CSS3, DOM, and AJAX, because they separate content from design and the "accessibility".
There are many assertions of "fact" in this article-- some are true, some are not. The author does himself, and his readers, a disservice by including half-truths that support his multiple, personal, agendas (and ignoring, or glossing over, facts that do not).
I generally like Apple and Apple products-- but they are far from perfect.
I generally dislike MS but they are not all bad.
I dislike Flash (my experience is only on Macs). Flash has evolved to be overly complex and a resource hog. To take some liberty with a stated goal of Flash RIAs-- they provide Rich, Reach and Retch!
When I was developing web sites, I preferred ColdFusion, as it was high-level, efficient and self documenting.
I do not think technical articles or technical web sites are the proper forum for personal politics or personal bias.
Technical history can be an interesting read, but it is only as good as the research and the objective presentation of "facts". Even then, different people come at a given set of "facts" from different perspectives and have different interpretations, as a result. (You and I had quite a discussion, a while back, of our different interpretations of some historical facts).
So, I like to examine everything I read and ask myself: "What is being said, and why is being said that way?"
*
I don't agree with the assertion that they are half truths. I think that they are truths. It's pretty well known where these companies put their money. It's also pretty well known what they have on the line here. I think he nailed it.
I doubt that Adobe has substandard engineering talent. They probably have substandard management which decides the course that the business takes. Engineering generally bows down to business.
Then Adobe management has a lot to answer for with Acrobat. That piece of bloatware is as bad as Flash in terms of poor performance and resource use. (And then there are all the execrable installers associated with their various software packages...)
If what you claim is true, then the engineers at Adobe should stage a revolt and clear out the executive suites. I doubt that's the sole source of their problems, though.
Now, ?grammer' and ?akiles' I simply can?t excuse. The former because of the irony the latter because it?s not even close. The spelling of Achilles cracks me up.
Yeah, you might say spelling was his vulnerability!
Speaking of security threats. I wonder if OpenGL may eventually cause a problem and have to blocked the way Flash is on secure computers. I have no specific scenerios, but giving your web browser direct hardware access could potentially be a security risk, I think.
Interesting thought!
It does suck to scroll in Flash. QuickTime X and HTTP Streaming seem to be better, but I haven?t tested it enough to be certain. One of my biggest peeves is that if i send someone a link to a video clip they have to watch the entire thing or I have to inform them of the times in which to start (and sometimes stop it).
This is so nettling to me that I wrote Ian Hickson a letter suggesting humbly that the new video tags in HTML5 also have attributes that can tell the streaming server to pull from a specific time in the video and end a specific time. Essentially doing an instant streaming crop of the video if you were to add it to your site, like how YouTube videos are posted on other?s webpages. I even suggested built in HTML5 controls that that can disabled by the site owners, but if turned on can allow self cropping of the video streaming in the URL so that you can send the link to a friend without them having to watch the entire video.
That's a very good request! You used to be able do something like that with non-streamed video and Quicktime using SMIL. Your solution is even better because it reduces bandwidth to the minimum, both for the length of content and quality of the connection.
*
Then Adobe management has a lot to answer for with Acrobat. That piece of bloatware is as bad as Flash in terms of poor performance and resource use. (And then there are all the execrable installers associated with their various software packages...)
If what you claim is true, then the engineers at Adobe should stage a revolt and clear out the executive suites. I doubt that's the sole source of their problems, though.
What you're claiming is an exaggeration. You don't need to do that to make a point.
wow... you drank the whole punchbowl of apple kool-aid. jobs wants you to believe this is all about cpu cycles, that while a chumby can run flash, his iphone can't (ha). the fact is that flash being a resource hog is due to poor flash development (memory leaks, etc) and not the flash player. yes the flash player runs better (is more optimized) on a winblows box, but on a properly developed site, it runs very well on a mac. yes, adobe is guilty of giving us mac users a substandard flash player... i would agree there.
Tell me how apple is supposed to hardware accelerate flash (thus reduce battery drain for playing video) the way they hardware accelerate h.264 decoding?
I don't agree with the assertion that they are half truths. I think that they are truths. It's pretty well known where these companies put their money. It's also pretty well known what they have on the line here. I think he nailed it.
I'll revisit my original citation:
...American NCSA, which had been funded by congressman Al Gore...
Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, this is a half-truth at best. The last time I looked, the House Ways and Means committee appropriates "funding". This is then voted by the entire House and Senate, signed by the President, and paid for (funded) by the taxpayers.
I don't mean to belittle Al Gore's contribution, but to give him credit, as above, is a real stretch!
DED Knows this!
So I ask myself: Why did he do it, and why in that way?
*