I agree with Steve..... Flash sucks ass...... just get some kind of widget to monitor CPU and memory usage. Then log into Youtube which I'm pretty sure is using flash...or any other heavy flash site and watch all the pretty spikes. Steve is not as full of crap as some might think. If they don't make some kind of significant improvements soon I'd like to see Flash go the way of the doo doo.
Why not leave this up to the consumer? If I don't want flash or I agree with Steve's claim that it is old, slow and buggy, then I won't install it. But if I want flash, perhaps Apple could allow them to sell a plugin or something at the App Store. Flash may be old, but it is well established and has A LOT of users. Some of us don't create entire sites out of flash, but rather use it to add hints of animation to our sites, in small increments.
If the 75-year-old church lady buys an iPad because it's an affordable alternative to a computer, I personally would prefer for her to be able to see her church's entire website, the way I designed it. Not just the parts that Apple "approves" of.
Also, last I checked Flash creation software is quite costly. Some of us have a lot of money, time and effort tied up in software and skill to produce Flash content.
Changing and improving technology is very helpful and can offer great benefits -- but not when it comes at the expense of alienating the less capable users or perhaps designers with more modest budgets.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
Why not leave this up to the consumer? If I don't want flash or I agree with Steve's claim that it is old, slow and buggy, then I won't install it.
There are a a few reasons. 1) The iPhone is Apple's long before it ever becomes our property. They have a responsibility to the product and if they don't want to support it they have that right. 2) People think they need Flash so they will install it or it will be installed and the user experience will drop as pages don't load fast anymore, Hulu still won't play, batteries drain in a fraction of the time, etc., but they won't make the correlation to Flash because it works fine on their Windows PC, so it must be Apple's fault. Why would Apple want to go through all to support a technology that was never designed to run on phones?
It's impossible to avoid without completely breaking most web pages.
this is absolutely, categorically untrue. i surf all day long with click2flash enabled and i dont break any of the sites i go to..I do save myself from viewing a shed-load of adverts, intros, etc. but i certainly DO NOT break web sites...got any more FUD to spread?
...He has to restart his Mac because Flash sucks so much, blimping Safari up above 750MB of processor intensive Adobe blubber, wallowing in its own nasty digital shame...
Great turn of phrase. Shameful indeed.
And so , now that Apple has realized it is a "Mobile Devices" company, what do you do about software that sucks battery life? Sure, they could support Flash, and kill the rest of the user experience? Handle millions of complaints about "poor battery performance"? No way. It's untenable.
So Apple's stance is really the only logical way for them to proceed. Fortunately, they have leverage. As the iPhone/Ipod/iPad user base grows, the leverage is there to either make Flash obsolete, or get Adobe to optimize their friggin' code. Normally that wouldn't sound like too much to ask from a software company. Hell, Wozniak could probably do it in a Saturday afternoon.
this is absolutely, categorically untrue. i surf all day long with click2flash enabled and i dont break any of the sites i go to..I do save myself from viewing a shed-load of adverts, intros, etc. but i certainly DO NOT break web sites...got any more FUD to spread?
Maybe you just visit simple web sites then. The sites I go to, such as BBC NEWS, BBC iPlayer, Kotaku, Engadget, The Guardian, and IGN are all full of flash videos.
Please by all means pretend these sites do not rely on flash for all their video content, but when you awake from your dreamy slumber you'll find that in fact, they all use flash.
I believe Hulu uses flash too, although as I don't live in the US that site is meaningless to me.
Adobe claims it's making progress, and that could be true. But we will have to wait and see if the result is good enough and how long it will take them to finalize it.
J.
I thought Firefox's HTML 5 support was still early and not really working. Certainly if you try and use the YouTube HTML 5 beta it won't let you in with Firefox, and CSS animations don't work in Firefox either.
Having to rewrite sites from Flash to HTML5 could be a good thing. It could open a lot of jobs for a lot of people. In this economy jobs aren't such a bad things right now.
When times are tough people work better keep job for less.
I do think before I write. Is it perhaps possible that we can both have different opinions on something and that both of us equally have the right to differences?
I thought Firefox's HTML 5 support was still early and not really working. Certainly if you try and use the YouTube HTML 5 beta it won't let you in with Firefox, and CSS animations don't work in Firefox either.
The HTML video tag is supported, and thats a big one. Other support is incomplete but HTML5 is still a moving target and currently impossible to implement as a whole.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
The HTML video tag is supported, and thats a big one. Other support is incomplete but HTML5 is still a moving target and currently impossible to implement as a whole.
Just to be clear, the video tag is supported but YouTube only uses the H.264 codec which Mozilla is stubbernly not supporting.
I can't see shit on those links, I'm using an iPhone.
I hope Adobe takes note of visitors like me and provides an alternative, somehow I don't think so , at least they have some viewable content unlike some dumbass Flash only sites...
P.S. I posted before how Firefox for Maemo dumped support for Flash plug ins due to performance issues.
"Initially, Firefox for N900 does not support browser plug-ins. Due to performance problems using Adobe Flash within Firefox on many websites, especially those with multiple plug-ins on them, we have disabled plugins for Firefox for Maemo 1.0. We plan to provide a browser add-on that will enable you to selectively enable plugins on certain sites, because some sites, like YouTube, work well."
Adobe are grasping at straws, they should have done this years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
Overall an excellent post, and very well put. However, if Adobe made the decision that Mac was not worth the effort, is that a reason to kill it off if it runs reasonably well on other systems, and given my wife's experience, it seems to work just fine on Windows 7. Or is much of this just sour grapes, so to speak.
...
Again, well said, and you are entitled to your opinion. But the question you raised, has to be answered. What about all those people addicted to Flash games (and my daughter is one of them). If Flash were to "die" as many people here want, all those "millions?" of other people would be denied their entertainment, at least until an alternative were found.
For the record, I want to point out that my primary beef with Adobe (and the community of Flash developers) is the current state of Flash as a defacto standard for delivery of multimedia content over the internet. That situation benefits the aforementioned parties and no one else. It is certainly within Adobe's rights to produce software applications that only run on Widows 7, but a product such as that imo has no business being promoted as, or adopted as a standard, defacto or otherwise.
I'll leave the discussion of Farmville to others and/or for another day.
Shoehorning a desktop OS into a tablet has been so successful. A decade or tablet sales and yet the iPad is what you're talking about, not all decade of tablets that have come and gone without fanfare because they were soooo Innovative.
PS: How did your troll math come out to a 51% gross margin?
PPS: Don't be jealous of my mad business skills.
I posted the gross margins on the iPad in a different thread. I believe the 32GB version without 3G had a 51% gross margin. It really isn't hard to find that kind of info. Apple has always been around teh 50% gross margin when it comes to most of its hardware sales.
Remember I am not jeaslous of anything we can compare Apple stock options anytime you want. Want to bet I can buy and sell you 10x over and still have change?
Comments
If the 75-year-old church lady buys an iPad because it's an affordable alternative to a computer, I personally would prefer for her to be able to see her church's entire website, the way I designed it. Not just the parts that Apple "approves" of.
Also, last I checked Flash creation software is quite costly. Some of us have a lot of money, time and effort tied up in software and skill to produce Flash content.
Changing and improving technology is very helpful and can offer great benefits -- but not when it comes at the expense of alienating the less capable users or perhaps designers with more modest budgets.
Why not leave this up to the consumer?
Because iSteve knows best. Just trust him, and you'll be better off.
Why not leave this up to the consumer?
For the same reason the average Joe can't come up with a new strategy for the military and think that he'll be taken seriously
This sort of personal attack has no place on this forum.
I thought he was giving an opinion on their behaviour. You should be glad, he left you out because I think you fit his comments quite well
But Hey just my opinion
I am pretty sure you are wrong.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
http://webkit.org/blog-files/leaves/index.html
C.
To be fair, there are interactive Canvas demos that appear to use just as much or more resources than Flash.
Here is an example: http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/
Why not leave this up to the consumer? If I don't want flash or I agree with Steve's claim that it is old, slow and buggy, then I won't install it.
There are a a few reasons. 1) The iPhone is Apple's long before it ever becomes our property. They have a responsibility to the product and if they don't want to support it they have that right. 2) People think they need Flash so they will install it or it will be installed and the user experience will drop as pages don't load fast anymore, Hulu still won't play, batteries drain in a fraction of the time, etc., but they won't make the correlation to Flash because it works fine on their Windows PC, so it must be Apple's fault. Why would Apple want to go through all to support a technology that was never designed to run on phones?
It's impossible to avoid without completely breaking most web pages.
this is absolutely, categorically untrue. i surf all day long with click2flash enabled and i dont break any of the sites i go to..I do save myself from viewing a shed-load of adverts, intros, etc. but i certainly DO NOT break web sites...got any more FUD to spread?
Flash should sort out its crappy codec or step aside.
As the saying goes, lead me, follow me or get out the way. Flash is in the way.
...He has to restart his Mac because Flash sucks so much, blimping Safari up above 750MB of processor intensive Adobe blubber, wallowing in its own nasty digital shame...
Great turn of phrase. Shameful indeed.
And so , now that Apple has realized it is a "Mobile Devices" company, what do you do about software that sucks battery life? Sure, they could support Flash, and kill the rest of the user experience? Handle millions of complaints about "poor battery performance"? No way. It's untenable.
So Apple's stance is really the only logical way for them to proceed. Fortunately, they have leverage. As the iPhone/Ipod/iPad user base grows, the leverage is there to either make Flash obsolete, or get Adobe to optimize their friggin' code. Normally that wouldn't sound like too much to ask from a software company. Hell, Wozniak could probably do it in a Saturday afternoon.
this is absolutely, categorically untrue. i surf all day long with click2flash enabled and i dont break any of the sites i go to..I do save myself from viewing a shed-load of adverts, intros, etc. but i certainly DO NOT break web sites...got any more FUD to spread?
Maybe you just visit simple web sites then. The sites I go to, such as BBC NEWS, BBC iPlayer, Kotaku, Engadget, The Guardian, and IGN are all full of flash videos.
Please by all means pretend these sites do not rely on flash for all their video content, but when you awake from your dreamy slumber you'll find that in fact, they all use flash.
I believe Hulu uses flash too, although as I don't live in the US that site is meaningless to me.
Your forgetting Firefox.
Adobe claims it's making progress, and that could be true. But we will have to wait and see if the result is good enough and how long it will take them to finalize it.
J.
I thought Firefox's HTML 5 support was still early and not really working. Certainly if you try and use the YouTube HTML 5 beta it won't let you in with Firefox, and CSS animations don't work in Firefox either.
When times are tough people work better keep job for less.
I do think before I write. Is it perhaps possible that we can both have different opinions on something and that both of us equally have the right to differences?
I wouldn't call it a difference in opinion.
I thought Firefox's HTML 5 support was still early and not really working. Certainly if you try and use the YouTube HTML 5 beta it won't let you in with Firefox, and CSS animations don't work in Firefox either.
The HTML video tag is supported, and thats a big one. Other support is incomplete but HTML5 is still a moving target and currently impossible to implement as a whole.
I am pretty sure you are wrong.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
http://webkit.org/blog-files/leaves/index.html
C.
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
http://www.openscreenproject.org/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...os_fp10.1.html
The HTML video tag is supported, and thats a big one. Other support is incomplete but HTML5 is still a moving target and currently impossible to implement as a whole.
Just to be clear, the video tag is supported but YouTube only uses the H.264 codec which Mozilla is stubbernly not supporting.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
http://www.openscreenproject.org/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...os_fp10.1.html
Adobe is just plain evil.
I hope Adobe takes note of visitors like me and provides an alternative, somehow I don't think so
P.S. I posted before how Firefox for Maemo dumped support for Flash plug ins due to performance issues.
"Initially, Firefox for N900 does not support browser plug-ins. Due to performance problems using Adobe Flash within Firefox on many websites, especially those with multiple plug-ins on them, we have disabled plugins for Firefox for Maemo 1.0. We plan to provide a browser add-on that will enable you to selectively enable plugins on certain sites, because some sites, like YouTube, work well."
Source:-
https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/mobile/1.0/releasenotes/
Adobe are grasping at straws, they should have done this years ago.
I have to disagree. Safari jumps to nearly 100% on G5 when that page runs. The CPU is doing the work, not the GPU. It doesn't work at all on Firefox 3.6.
Looking at these links and videos, I think you can see why Steve Jobs is so mad at Adobe.. They're about to eat his lunch.
http://www.openscreenproject.org/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...os_fp10.1.html
Overall an excellent post, and very well put. However, if Adobe made the decision that Mac was not worth the effort, is that a reason to kill it off if it runs reasonably well on other systems, and given my wife's experience, it seems to work just fine on Windows 7. Or is much of this just sour grapes, so to speak.
...
Again, well said, and you are entitled to your opinion. But the question you raised, has to be answered. What about all those people addicted to Flash games (and my daughter is one of them). If Flash were to "die" as many people here want, all those "millions?" of other people would be denied their entertainment, at least until an alternative were found.
For the record, I want to point out that my primary beef with Adobe (and the community of Flash developers) is the current state of Flash as a defacto standard for delivery of multimedia content over the internet. That situation benefits the aforementioned parties and no one else. It is certainly within Adobe's rights to produce software applications that only run on Widows 7, but a product such as that imo has no business being promoted as, or adopted as a standard, defacto or otherwise.
I'll leave the discussion of Farmville to others and/or for another day.
Shoehorning a desktop OS into a tablet has been so successful. A decade or tablet sales and yet the iPad is what you're talking about, not all decade of tablets that have come and gone without fanfare because they were soooo Innovative.
PS: How did your troll math come out to a 51% gross margin?
PPS: Don't be jealous of my mad business skills.
I posted the gross margins on the iPad in a different thread. I believe the 32GB version without 3G had a 51% gross margin. It really isn't hard to find that kind of info. Apple has always been around teh 50% gross margin when it comes to most of its hardware sales.
Remember I am not jeaslous of anything we can compare Apple stock options anytime you want. Want to bet I can buy and sell you 10x over and still have change?