HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 100
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate, and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff. Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes. Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.



    Then there are secondary reasons, such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous. Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.



    Lastly, just as a personal annoyance of mine, I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.



    Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.





    Well said Sir. I wish I had written that.
  • Reply 42 of 100
    wildagwildag Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorre View Post


    1) Exactly why is Flash superior from a technological point of view? The plugin runs abysmal on anything but Windows machines. On all other platforms, it uses 3-4times as many CPU cycles as necessary... Add that over the millions of devices, and that's a lot of wasted energy and carbon emissions...



    Runs fine on my OSX and linux machines.Yes, I know that a lot people have problems with flash in OSX, I'm just not one of those. Adobe demoed hardware accelerated Flash in mobile phones (all but iPhone) yesterday.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorre View Post


    2) Yes AS3 is Object-Oriented, but so is JavaScript, albeit a bit more limited. However, the implementation is rather vague and it's rarely obvious to the coder what's going on behind the scenes. Without going into too much technical details, you'll end up with memory leaks and infinite loops without even realising it. If you really want to write web-apps in a full powered OO-language, use GWT.



    You're right that Javascript can barely claim OO status. However, the latest Safari and Firefox developer tools are brining JavaScript to enterprise status. I don't know anything about GWT.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorre View Post


    3) Yup, HTML5 can't draw graphs or provide for augmented reality apps. That's what the open standard JavaScript and the numerous open-source frameworks are for. (As SproutCore, Objective-J, etc)



    There are very few Javascript libraries that draw graphs. And those that do pale in feature and ease of use comparison with Flex. There is no way to perform augmented reality in Javascript, as there is no web cam access, and certainly no way to process that data in real time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorre View Post


    4) My main gripe is that the web is supposed to be an open place, free for all, with no limitations. The more and more people want to use Flash, the more and more Adobe takes control of the internet. Do you really want an internet where one company is in control of everything? Imagine all RIA's, all graphics, all videos etc on every single site being made in Flash. Adobe then can do whatever they want. I'm aware that the Flex libraries and swf's are rather open, but the Flash plugins themselves are not, so Adobe could incorporate anything they want in those plugins and we'd have to swallow it. All web pages would simply be Adobe's puppets on strings.I don't see how this can possibly benefit end-users or developers.





    I much prefer a web where the design tools are regulated and determined by a large group of companies and associations, and I hope you agree.



    Adobe isn't taking over the web. No adobe technology developer would ever tell you to use Flash for content presentation. Flash is great for interactive visualizations, and media presentations. No real developer uses Flash for content. That's what HTML is for.
  • Reply 43 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andy_McDonald View Post


    I've been reading this site for a few years now and I'd say the articles are generally well researched and written in a balanced fashion however, it seems that this journalistic integrity disappears whenever Flash is discussed. Furthermore, I just don't get why there is SO much anti-Flash sentiment in the comments. For example this article states:



    "Flash 'applications' replace open and standard web content created using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with Adobe's proprietary .swf, a closed binary file that wraps up web content files (such as graphics and movies) with the company's own variant of ECMAScript (JavaScript), called ActionScript."



    ...when in fact, Adobe published the SWF specification as part of the Open Screen Project (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/...t_spec_v10.pdf) - that's a pretty significant inaccuracy that I hope will be corrected by the author.



    The fact that Adobe has documented the SWF file format specification has nothing to do with .swf files being closed or "opaque" binary files as opposed to being open, human readable HTML/CSS. There is nothing about a file type's open specification that results in its contents being open source. The web has always been open by design. Flash is an attempt to make content and information into a binary blob that can only be interpreted via the Flash runtime.



    We might as well just replace web page with Windows .exe files! Or whatever binary file AOL used to use before the web browser.



    Please correct your misleading comment, as it is likely to confuse users into thinking that Flash is an acceptable alternative to the open web.





    Quote:

    Regarding my second point, I think people are failing to recognise that Flash is just a tool. Whilst I accept that the Flash Player (and Adobe products in general) has become slightly bloated, this is just a function of it's enormous popularity as a easy-to-use multi-purpose tool. Most of the crashes that people experience with Flash content can probably be attributed to poorly written code on the part of the designer / developer - something that the strictly-typed nature of ActionScript 3.0 seeks to address.



    The Flash runtime is notorious for crashing and maxing out the processor just when playing YouTube videos. There is not any likelihood of any "bad third party code" this can be attributed to. It is Adobe's bloated plugin and overreaching architecture which attempts to deliver a closed web-alternative that it completely owns.





    Quote:

    In my opinion, Flash plays a vital role alongside standards such as HTML and CSS in that it's low barrier to entry (from a development perspective) enables a great deal of amazing creativity (as well as a lot of crap). It is this experimentation that drives standards to incorporate new features as they reach critical mass (Flash video is a perfect example).



    As a researcher with no formal CS training, I use Flash to develop applications that allow people to interactively design their own textile products (using Nintendo Wiimotes, RFID, Augmented Reality, microphone / webcam input, etc) and have the compositions re-generated at high-resolution in Illustrator / Photoshop ready to be digitally printed onto fabric. Not something that would be easily done in HTML5.



    You are entitled to your opinion, but the web had video before Flash. And given the clean, open, and plugin free nature of the web and HTML5, there really isn't any reason to return to Flash for new projects, unless one is a Photoshop user without any web skills and only interested in throwing together a prototype.



    The only reason for advocating Flash is if you prefer the web to be owned by Adobe rather than being developed in web standards that allow Google, Mozilla, Apple, and the FOSS community to cooperate and compete independently toward improving the web. There's nothing Apple and Google can do to accelerate Flash ActionScript, bug both have delivered new and innovative approaches to rapidly speed up JavaScript.



    Flash encourages unskilled people to create inaccessible, slow, and poorly designed replacements for web pages, and forces the rest of us to use Adobe's poor quality plugins to render them.



    Not that our individual opinions matter much; Apple and Google are committed to replacing Flash with HTML5. Adobe can't do much but advertise how many phones license Flash, as if that even matters. Those phones also run Java. Neither is very relevant in the future of mobile software.



    As for banner ads, yes they'll be around without Flash, but at least they won't kill your mobile CPU just to deliver a simple animation. Ads and video presentation are together 95% of the Flash in use on the web. Neither needs Flash.
  • Reply 44 of 100
    irelandireland Posts: 17,590member
    ClickToFlash needs the ability to auto-play QT videos on YouTube.COM. The current iteration requires too many clicks.



    If I'm on YT and I click a thumbnail I want to watch the video!!



    Saw this tweet on YT today.
  • Reply 45 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate, and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff. Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes. Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.



    Then there are secondary reasons, such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous. Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.



    Lastly, just as a personal annoyance of mine, I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.



    Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.



    C'mon bro' tell the truth. Look, the kind of hatred you see for Flash comes about for only one reason - being threatened. My experience with it - is it's usually an HTML'er that either doesn't have the aptitude to code Flash or the work ethic to be a full-fledged programmer. Harsh - but true. I mean - not like it - OK - but ME HATE FLASH!!!! A little too extreme.
  • Reply 46 of 100
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Get to the heart of the problem: Adobe. Flash as a program language has a lot of abilities and potential. But adobe's ownership of flash player plug in delivery ruins that because it's crap. Hence the opposing views here by programmers and consumers.



    Apple should have bought adobe and fixed flash instead of trying to marginalize it as now. But it's all adobe's fault.
  • Reply 47 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sympleton View Post


    C'mon bro' tell the truth. Look, the kind of hatred you see for Flash comes about for only one reason - being threatened. My experience with it - is it's usually an HTML'er that either doesn't have the aptitude to code Flash or the work ethic to be a full-fledged programmer. Harsh - but true. I mean - not like it - OK - but ME HATE FLASH!!!! A little too extreme.



    The only extremity I see is your categorization of people who don't like Flash as inept programmers. You're posting on a forum full of end users, the people who load up their browsers and use the sites that Flash designers help create. And they don't like what they're seeing.



    Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sentiment because you think it has to do with programmers who dislike the format is ridiculous.



    As stated earlier, Flash is a tool. The trouble is that it seems to be the only tool in web designers' arsenals. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  • Reply 48 of 100
    irelandireland Posts: 17,590member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


    Its performance on Mac OSX is APPALLING - its the single greatest source of misery when browsing.



    Some people here won't listen to that truthful statement you just said. I keep hearing: It runs perfect for me. It's like you and me are living in the Twilight Zone here.
  • Reply 49 of 100
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,142member
    "But that doesn't translate to the mobile realm, where battery life and processing power constraints make the fat desktop Flash plugin and its pair of virtual machines unworkable."



    Or indeed the portable market. A friend of mine recently bought a MacBook Pro & though loving it, thought that 2-3 hours battery life meant she had a faulty unit. The store insisted there was no problem so a quick run through her browser history revealed a Facebook Farmville addiction. The insane 100% CPU useage (whilst idle!) took her battery way down.



    I'm sure there are good applications but generally Flash=Malware. I can't wait to install this plug-in & get her to do the same to help her kick the habit.



    McD
  • Reply 50 of 100
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,142member
    ...and as for killing multi-touch & scrollball. It's a total UI throw-back!



    McD
  • Reply 51 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Simple: Flash is a resource pig. It consumes CPU and battery life at a high rate,



    Somewhat true, depending on the developer and the platform.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    and the tasks it performs is not worth the resource tradeoff.



    Completely relative statement based on personal preference. There are many web users who visit flash sites that would disagree.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Dynamic manipulation of web pages can be achieved through HTML and CSS with a mere fraction of the performance hit that Flash imposes.



    This is true in a literal sense, meaning you can dynamically manipulate pages with xhtml/css/xml/js, but its not the same set of capabilities as flash so it's apples to oranges in a sense.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Streaming internet video can be handled with H264, WMV, and a few other video codecs, oftentimes hardware accelerated, with higher quality and lower system impact.



    For a professional developer who cares about cross browser compatibility, it's much less work to deploy video with flash that to accommodate IE 8 (XHTML 4.1 w WMV) and WebKit (HTML 5 w Quicktime) or Oog. That's not to say its better, just easier.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    such as Flash being the primary vehicle of intrusive web ads. It's gotten so ridiculous that the Internet is barely usable without a good ad filter. Just attempt to read an article at IGN.com and you'll be bombarded on all sides by ads--top, left, right, inline text, even superimposed over the text. It's gotten completely ridiculous.



    People have such short memories. I was producing annoying adds way before flash and im sure I will be after flash is gone. Those ads by the way, pay for the content you are viewing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Users want quick access to content. Flash is an obstacle to that quick access: it increases load time with no tangible improvement or enhancement to the content itself.



    This problem is not singular to flash at all, in fact, it is just as possible to weigh down the load times of a page with static images and fancy js.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    I dislike pages that are presented entirely in Flash. If I want to save an image or bookmark a specific section of the page, Flash prevents me from doing either. I can't save specific portions, and if I create a bookmark, I have to navigate the Flash interface back to the section I want to see.



    Completely untrue....google swfadress and flash SEO. The problem being of course that this sort of thing is "harder" to implement and requires a bit more code and as a result is often left out. The truth is however it is entirely possible to "deeplink "in flash and bookmark pages within an entirely flash site. And as for saving images, most of my clients don't want you doing that anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Flash is a graphic designer's wet dream and an end user's absolute nightmare.



    Thats a bit dramatic isnt it? I always though an end users worst nightmare was IE.





    Anyway, I agree with an earlier posters sentiments that AppleInsider seems to be going down hill. This thread was hardly "news" at all, but was but really does seem to me to be more of an attempt at increasing traffic with a polarizing topic.. anyway, here we go again.
  • Reply 52 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    The only extremity I see is your categorization of people who don't like Flash as inept programmers.



    I use flash, as well as XHTML, XML, JS, CSS....I dont consider myself an inept programmer. In fact, I have clients the specially request flash. I guess I could call them stupid and turn them down because flash is lame.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    You're posting on a forum full of end users, the people who load up their browsers and use the sites that Flash designers help create. And they don't like what they're seeing.



    I use this forum and I am an end user, and I like lots of flash sites. There are many mac in my company with other user like me who feel the same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sentiment because you think it has to do with programmers who dislike the format is ridiculous.



    I completely agree, actually I dont even know a programmer who doesn't do flash as well as XHTML, JS, XML and CSS. These are the standards now a days.. and a lot of people would throw PHP and MySQL into that mix as well....sigh..I need to learn that some day.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    As stated earlier, Flash is a tool. The trouble is that it seems to be the only tool in web designers' arsenals. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.



    This isn't true of anyone I know or work with at all.
  • Reply 53 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrKSB View Post


    the negative effect will be that users who block ads from news websites will be forced to pay for the content \

    Danish newspaper JP.dk have started blocking users from visiting their sites if they detect flash blockers.



    Well, if they're going to block access to a site for using a flash blocker, then I'm not going to visit that site anyway.



    I've had it with all the "hit the <insert stupid thing here> and win a prize!," "people dancing because you can get a mortgage with a low rate," "CONGRATULATIONS blared out of my speaker at high volume" (those sites get closed immediately and I don't ever go back), and worst of all, the ads that open up and block your view of the actual content that take ten minutes to find the close button.



    Those are highly annoying and detract from a site. I've heard site owners complain when users complain about the ads. Case in point... MacNN gets ads that people complain about. The administrators just remove those ads from the rotation. Fine and dandy, but they say they have no control over the ads that get served. They say they have tried to request that certain obnoxious ads not be put into the rotation in the first place but that their requests have repeatedly gone ignored. Well, if the requests go ignored, THEN FIRE THE AD COMPANY AND GO WITH ONE WHO *WILL* LISTEN TO YOU!
  • Reply 54 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PersonMan View Post


    Well, if they're going to block access to a site for using a flash blocker, then I'm not going to visit that site anyway.



    I've had it with all the "hit the <insert stupid thing here> and win a prize!," "people dancing because you can get a mortgage with a low rate," "CONGRATULATIONS blared out of my speaker at high volume" (those sites get closed immediately and I don't ever go back), and worst of all, the ads that open up and block your view of the actual content that take ten minutes to find the close button.



    Those are highly annoying and detract from a site. I've heard site owners complain when users complain about the ads. Case in point... MacNN gets ads that people complain about. The administrators just remove those ads from the rotation. Fine and dandy, but they say they have no control over the ads that get served. They say they have tried to request that certain obnoxious ads not be put into the rotation in the first place but that their requests have repeatedly gone ignored. Well, if the requests go ignored, THEN FIRE THE AD COMPANY AND GO WITH ONE WHO *WILL* LISTEN TO YOU!



    HTML 5 will allow both video and audio in adds...this wont go away with flash...it will just cause someone to create a video/audio blocker plug-in...which probably isn't a bad thing.



    Also, I hate to say this because it is a bit of biting the hand that feeds me, but if you had any idea how "misinformed" clients are, and how much they beg for louder more obnoxious things....you would be stunned.
  • Reply 55 of 100
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Everybody understands the necessity for ads - unfortunate but necessary. That's not in dispute. What I don't want is for those ads to dominate and detract from the performance of my machine. Also I ABSOLUTELY do not want to visit sites that are Flash only (as in every 'Luxury Brand' and auto manufacturer site). The experience is an exercise in frustration and disbelief at the poor usability that stems from 'novelty' navigation systems.



    Utter stupidity.



    For the people that believe their browsing experience is not being compromised by Flash, just try ClickForFlash for a few days - it's an extraordinary relief.
  • Reply 56 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post


    There are many web users who visit flash sites that would disagree.



    Beyond Newgrounds, YouTube, and Gametrailers, I can't think of very many sites that absolutely must rely on Flash to deliver specific content, and YouTube and GameTrailers of course have H264 as an alternative.



    There are even sites that use Flash solely for form submission, which is just a silly application and a perfect example of the extent to which Flash has degraded the web.



    Quote:

    This is true in a literal sense, meaning you can dynamically manipulate pages with xhtml/css/xml/js, but its not the same set of capabilities as flash so it's apples to oranges in a sense.



    Given the intrusive nature of Flash on the web, this is welcome.



    Quote:

    That's not to say its better, just easier.



    A perfect description of why Flash persists. It has little to do with competitive advantage or the capability of the technology.



    Quote:

    Those ads by the way, pay for the content you are viewing.



    I have nothing against advertisements. I have everything against excessive amounts of and overly intrusive advertisements. Being opposed to Flash is not a de facto opposition to advertisements: stop misinterpreting my post that way.



    And by the way, my IGN subscription pays for the content I'm viewing, not the enormous Sprite ad that fills the screen and won't go away until I locate the intentionally-obscure close button. (The fact that an advertisement has a close button in the first place is rather telling, wouldn't you agree?)



    Quote:

    This problem is not singular to flash at all, in fact, it is just as possible to weigh down the load times of a page with static images and fancy js.



    "Javascript can bog down a system too!" is not a real response to "Flash can be counted on to bog down a system." This is a silly non-response, especially in an era in which browser Javascript performance improves almost weekly.



    Quote:

    Completely untrue....google swfadress and flash SEO. The problem being of course that this sort of thing is "harder" to implement and requires a bit more code and as a result is often left out.



    I rest my case.



    Quote:

    Thats a bit dramatic isnt it? I always though an end users worst nightmare was IE.



    No, a web developer's worst nightmare is IE. Don't confuse your list of dreaded technology with your users' dreaded technology.
  • Reply 57 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wildag View Post


    These anti-flash articles on Apple Insider are becoming pathetic. Apple Insider should check their words, as THIS VERY SITE USES FLASH FOR ADS. I'm really considering emailing your advertisers to let them know that Apple Insider is advocating its users use a blocker for its own ads.



    Adobe quickly took Macromedia's Flash platform from a "spiffy graphics only" package and made it an extremely useful business tool. There are tens of thousands of developers making lots of money creating business intelligence, and analytics tools with the Flash/Flex platform.



    Your readers would do themselves a great favor in reading about modern uses of Flash, and how they can benefit from what the rest of the world has already discovered.



    SWF IS NOT A CLOSED SOURCE BINARY. The swf file format has been open and well documented for almost 6 years now.



    IF YOU DON'T WANT FLASH, UNINSTALL THE PLUGIN! Don't install another and scoff at the use of flash.



    ADOBE SUPPORTS OPEN SOURCE and open formats, with large monetary and production contributions. HTML 5 is a great standard that's sorely needed. The flash platform tackles a completely different set of work. Adobe doesn't sell Flash, or closed formats. They sell tools that make building Flash content (swf) easy. They also sell libraries of code that can be used in Flash. Its the same as a Microsoft Front Page and iWeb for HTML.



    THE FLASH PLATFORM AND HTML 5 ARE NOT COMPETING. They have totally separate uses. Have you ever seen a graph rendered in HTML? No, because that's not what HTML is for. That's what Flex (flash) is for. Have you ever seen an augmented reality application in HTML? Again, no, because HTML can't do that.



    Apple Insider is a great site for Apple news, and a terrible way to misinform yourself about the Flash platform. This kind of sensationalistic, misinforming and generally negatively charged journalism should be a crime.



    Amen!
  • Reply 58 of 100
    pjb00pjb00 Posts: 16member
    Okay, so let's see. Adobe announces a mobile-optimized full-fledged flash player 10 for every single smartphone but the iPhone, and then announces the ability to convert flash content to the iPhone. First AppleInsider marginalizes the announcements, and then the next day comes out with this "groundbreaking" news that a FlashBlocker Plugin that has been available on Firefox (46% browser share) for several years (all the the while Flash Player adoption has only accelerated with each consecutive version) is now available for Safari (3% browser share), and somehow this spells the death of the Flash Player... huh?? Feeling a bit paranoid are we??



    Seriously, all I ever hear from Apple Insider and Apple Fanboys is the holy trinity of Flash-bashing... resource hog, proprietary, battery drain. If it's that bad, just uninstall the stinkin' plugin... simple as that. done and done. Now lets get on to some real news. Geeeesh.
  • Reply 59 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by desides View Post


    Beyond Newgrounds, YouTube, and Gametrailers, I can't think of very many sites that absolutely must rely on Flash to deliver specific content, and YouTube and GameTrailers of course have H264 as an alternative.



    There are even sites that use Flash solely for form submission, which is just a silly application and a perfect example of the extent to which Flash has degraded the web.







    Given the intrusive nature of Flash on the web, this is welcome.







    A perfect description of why Flash persists. It has little to do with competitive advantage or the capability of the technology.







    I have nothing against advertisements. I have everything against excessive amounts of and overly intrusive advertisements. Being opposed to Flash is not a de facto opposition to advertisements: stop misinterpreting my post that way.



    And by the way, my IGN subscription pays for the content I'm viewing, not the enormous Sprite ad that fills the screen and won't go away until I locate the intentionally-obscure close button. (The fact that an advertisement has a close button in the first place is rather telling, wouldn't you agree?)







    "Javascript can bog down a system too!" is not a real response to "Flash can be counted on to bog down a system." This is a silly non-response, especially in an era in which browser Javascript performance improves almost weekly.







    I rest my case.







    No, a web developer's worst nightmare is IE. Don't confuse your list of dreaded technology with your users' dreaded technology.



    Meh, think what you want I guess, clearly I am not going to convince you of anything and I don't actually care anyway. I just enjoy conversations about web trends because it's what I do for a living but your kind of rude so I can't be bothered.



    You may not want not believe it, and you may find my opinions "silly", but there are lots of people who do like flash content, flash sites and flash as a tool and they aren't all developers. There really are people who do see a value for it and a use for it. I know because I see it all the time. As a result it's not going away until its replaced by something else that serves the role flash serves now. There will always be annoying adds even when users pay for content, because often times subscription models don't pay all the bills. Whether you agree with that or not won't change the actual business model of developing web content.



    Anyhow, take it for what you will...that's just my two cents.
  • Reply 60 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monkeystation View Post


    Amen!



    Agreed. How I long for the days of ThinkSecret.





    EDIT: I should add that while the Macrumors forums aren't any better really, the news actually is.
Sign In or Register to comment.