Flash is a solution to a problem that no longer exists, and now has become a problem in its own right. My view is that something as important as the delivery method for multimedia content over the internet should absolutely not be owned by any one company. Period.
Ok, you can have your opinion, and I am trying to understand this.
First, why not let the market sort this out? If Flash is such a problem, then some company should be able to come in and develop a better alternative.
Second, who is going to decide what the new standard is? SJ? As much as I admire the guy, he has an agenda, and why wouldn't he pick standards that would benefit Apple and hurt MS and everyone else.
Third, let us say some standards body comes along, decides Flash is evil and can no longer be used. Who and how is Adobe to be compensated for their loss? Essentially, some entity will have come along and eliminated a large chunk of their revenue stream. If they are not to be compensated, then you are punishing success, and if you can do it to Adobe, then it can be done to any company, Apple included, at a later date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
The fact that Flash doesn't happen to work well on the Mac is really just an aside, but also amplifies the importance of fostering licensable industry standards that create a level playing field for competition and for consumers alike. Using the argument that Apple's marketshare doesn't entitle them or their customers to reasonable access to internet resources, aside from being specious, actually points out the flaw of allowing a company such as Adobe to arbitrarily decide who gets to play.
First, it does not seem to be an aside, as poor performance seems to be the MAIN gripe leveled against flash. To me, it seems to be the main reason for calling for Flash's death.
Second, I may be confused, but how are Apple or Apple users in any way denied access to internet resources? I surf and use the net everyday from my MBP, including flash sites. I am in do way denied access to any resources.
Third, again, I may be confused, but how does Adobe decide who gets to play?
Lastly, what kind of computer do you own. Like I said above, if you are REALLY concerned about open standards, etc, then the consistent position is to be for open source, and hence you should be running Linux, and associated software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
It's just wrong, and unless you're an Adobe shareholder, a Flash developer, or just simply hate Apple (or anybody else that isn't in Adobe's graces), then there is really no valid argument for Adobe to have such control over multimedia distribution.
Again, how does Adobe control this? I am not trying to be difficult. People buy Adobe's products, people use Adobe's products. Adobe cannot force people to buy and use their software.
Such a short-sighted comment. Lets say Flash went away tomorrow for good. Do you really believe that irritating ads are going away when Flash is gone? You'll be crying for ClickToHTML5. Adobe will resolve the Flash problems....Remember, these are the guys who wrote Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and InDesign and developed PDF as a Standard. Most of Adobe's tools are industry standards that have made careers for thousands and thousands of people. Flash CS5 allows developers to compile native iPhone/iPad apps ready for the App store. there are currently 5 Million Flash developers today. There is going to be a flood of new apps when CS5 is released......some great and some crappy just like there is now. Once Apple sees the new revenue stream on the App store along with Adobes efforts to re-tool Flash for a consistent CPU-hog free experience, Apple will embrace Flash. I love all that Steve Jobs has done so far, he's a true visionary, but, he WILL lose the war over Flash. HTML 5 will share the same fate as Silverlight, why? you may ask.....Developers! I wish Adobe would play hardball with Steve and tell him that if he can talk crap and ban Flash from the iPhone, then Adobe can talk crap and ban Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Premiere and After Effects from running on the Mac. I wonder what would happen.
I find your comment as very short sighted. I do not use ClicktoFalsh only to remove ads. There are issues with Flash and by disabling it I don't miss much on the web.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Flash did serve a good purpose when there were many issues playing video on the web. It provided developers ability to create nice UI with animations with relative ease. And Adobe made good money on selling development tools. But it is getting a bit behind curve with some of the expectations/ requirements for mobile computing.
Now regarding the iPhone/iPad support for Flash. So far it has helped Apple significantly. Lack of Flash has made the developers use iPhone SDK to develop iPhone specific Apps. Sometimes an easy way out is not the best way. With Flash support on iPhone a lot of these developers would have chosen that route and actually missed on the rich features of iPhone OS (touch, etc).
For Adobe, it is in their interest to keep building the Flash based ecosystem rich and making more features for developers easily. As long as that exists developers will keep using it. Not every developer thinks about following the standard but more about getting the project done quick with less effort. But they have nothing to play hardball with. It would be a big gamble and potentially a huge loss for them.
That is the nature of business. You have choose to exclude some to include others. If people think that Flash will work the same way as it does on a Mac?which as extremeskater points out requires at least an Intel Core 2.66GHz processor?then the user experience drops. When they try to watch Hulu and realize that they can't even begin to stream the content because it's too much or a resource hog or it's using Flash Lite, if we go back to 2007 and assume the iPhone came it.
And what abut banner ads chocking the loading of pages, we've already seen the iPhone beat on android phones with Flash Lite installed for that very reason? Or how about when they try to play their favorite Flash game or app and can't because they were designed for a keyboard and mouse, not a finger-based touchscreen?
There are just too many issues that Adobe failed to address that makes it a non-starter for a lot of companies, not just Apple. It's 2010 and Adobe is still working on Flash 10.1 for mobile OSes. Where are the public Betas? Would Adobe have even been to this point of development of Flash 10.1 if not for Apple pointing out how pathetic it really is? I don't think so. They surely didn't move to offer the H.264 codec or HW acceleration until MS Silverlight did.
Apple isn't making their iDevices for geeks at CES they are making it for consumers as a whole who aren't going to know why this or that doesn't work, they're only going to know it works on their Windows PC at work but not on their iDevice so not including it is the best method possible.
Adobe has been lying to people for over 3 years now about how easy it would be to run Flash on the iPhone which is OS X and yet no 64-bit Flash plugin for Mac OS. What gives?
IT DOES NOT Require a 2.66ghz processor to show flash well on the Mac. My Mac Mini 2.0 GHz worked extremely well.... Just stating the truth....
What I don't really understand is why those reasons are sufficient to call for Flash's death, and the denial of other users' rights to use software and programs they want.
The issue here is that Adobe refuses to relinquish ownership over internet delivery of multimedia content to licensable internet standards oversight. It would appear, as well, that they are trying to sabotage the HTML5 approval process, although this fact is disputed.
I personally have no problem with Adobe developing and maintaining a propriety programming runtime, just so long as it is not any kind of "defacto" standard for internet functionality. The fact that its performance is inconsistent (to be kind) makes it all the more egregious that they seem unwilling to relent and allow standards to prevail.
Short of Adobe acting like a good corporate citizen, what is left but for other companies to try to kill Flash?
Flash is proprietary! Made by one and only one vendor. Of course, Adobe wants to continue the addiction. "The web must have Flash." = DON'T make me stop the HEROINE !!!!
(It might take some work: - OMG!)
HTML5 isn't (any of the above).
However, the H.264 codex that Apple is pushing IS proprietary and your argument is again moot...
Now if Apple would also stated H.264 is proprietary and we should not use it in conjunction with HTML5 you might have a logical leg to stand on....
Both of these devices have done just fine (in fact astoundingly fine) without Flash. No reason to think it will be any different for the iPad. Flash doesn't drive Apple products. A Superior UI, beautiful hardware, and a wonderful User Experience does. This has been the case for years now.
Of course they were NOT billed as the best web experience ever.....
Then maybe you should go back and read the original post that my response was answering. The point is that Adobe DOES care that Flash doesn't work on iPhone, iPod Touch, and now iPad. The reason is that Apple is selling millions of these devices every quarter, and Flash advertising does not reach those devices.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. The argument that Apple's marketshare is so small that Adobe doesn't need to care that Apple shuns Flash is bogus.
I understand your point. I could easily be wrong, but my feeling that the reason Adobe cares about Apple is damage control. Apple and SJ get LOTS and LOTS of press. If SJ goes around saying that your product sucks, etc. Then Adobe has to respond to protect its image and its product.
However, the H.264 codex that Apple is pushing IS proprietary and your argument is again moot...
Now if Apple would also stated H.264 is proprietary and we should not use it in conjunction with HTML5 you might have a logical leg to stand on....
H.264 is licensable, and the HTML5 spec will be open for anybody to develop for. That's the difference. FLASH is a proprietary runtime that afford device vendors no control over the implementation on their products. They are simply at the mercy of Adobe.
It's beyond me why people don't see the problem with this scenario.
The issue here is that Adobe refuses to relinquish ownership over internet delivery of multimedia content to licensable internet standards oversight. It would appear, as well, that they are trying to sabotage the HTML5 approval process, although this fact is disputed.
I personally have no problem with Adobe developing and maintaining a propriety programming runtime, just so long as it is not any kind of "defacto" standard for internet functionality. The fact that its performance is inconsistent (to be kind) makes it all the more egregious that they seem unwilling to relent and allow standards to prevail.
Short of Adobe acting like a good corporate citizen, what is left but for other companies to try to kill Flash?
If Adobe is trying to sabotage HTML 5, that would be wrong. The fact that Flash's performance is inconsistent sucks, and is a pain in the ass, and is a valid reason for Apple to push an alternative. But again, if they make a business decision not to optimize the code for a Mac if they do not want to, why shouldnt that be their decision? Should Apple be forced to open the iPad to Flash?
what makes flash the "defacto" standard is that so many people use it. By any common definition, that means it is a defacto standard because it was successful. So, if they give it up, will the licensing fees be fair, which seems to be the main issue in the Nokia / Apple dispute.
H.264 is licensable, and the HTML5 spec will be open for anybody to develop for. That's the difference. FLASH is a proprietary runtime that afford device vendors no control over the implementation on their products. They are simply at the mercy of Adobe.
It's beyond me why people don't see the problem with this scenario.
I think people see the problem with the scenario. However, there are always two sides to every issue. Like I said above, having Flash die or removed by some industry standards board, is depriving Adobe of a revenue stream.
I think people see the problem with the scenario. However, there are always two sides to every issue. Like I said above, having Flash die or removed by some industry standards board, is depriving Adobe of a revenue stream.
Agreed! But what if Flash is indeed 'sloppy' and archaic? Just because it is ubiquitous does not in of itself justify its 'survival!'
No offense, but if that were the case, we would all still be watching black and white TV's. No?
Agreed! But what if Flash is indeed 'sloppy' and archaic? Just because it is ubiquitous does not in of itself justify it's 'survival!'
No offense, but if that were the case, we would all still be watching black and white TV's. No?
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
Now you are using logic and reason. I have notice that this is not recieved well on this board unless of course Steve Jobs says it is ok...
I agree that If Flash is so bad it will die on its own and there is absolutely no rational reason to keep it off of Apple mobile products. Now personally I think that the new Android phones that will soon support Flash will make many of the arguments against including on Apple products pointless....
I do have one question for the Apple fan boys ( by the way I do like the Mac )
If the new Android phones work well with Flash 10.1 enabled. What are you going to use as your technical justification for hating it so much?????
First, why not let the market sort this out? If Flash is such a problem, then some company should be able to come in and develop a better alternative.
Gazoobee had it right, you really are a troll. You will likely go on my ignore list soon. I'm definitely not going to spend the rest of my Saturday night arguing this.
The market WILL decide. Apple will sell more and more mobile devices with each and every quarter, and one by one, websites that rely on Flash will convert to alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Second, who is going to decide what the new standard is? SJ? As much as I admire the guy, he has an agenda, and why wouldn't he pick standards that would benefit Apple and hurt MS and everyone else.
Look it up for yourself. Do a websearch for HTML5 and you can read up on who is working on it, and you will also likely find articles talking about Adobe's (alleged) sabotage of the development of that spec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Third, let us say some standards body comes along, decides Flash is evil and can no longer be used. Who and how is Adobe to be compensated for their loss? Essentially, some entity will have come along and eliminated a large chunk of their revenue stream. If they are not to be compensated, then you are punishing success, and if you can do it to Adobe, then it can be done to any company, Apple included, at a later date.
No compensation is warranted, that's life, some win, some lose. What about Apple and MacOS9? Did they ever get compensated when Win 95 took off? No, they didn't. Another example? Was Apple compensated when QuickDraw was trumped by OpenGL? No again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
First, it does not seem to be an aside, as poor performance seems to be the MAIN gripe leveled against flash. To me, it seems to be the main reason for calling for Flash's death.
Poor performance is why Mac users are pissed. The fact that Flash is a proprietary runtime is why Apple doesn't want to use it because they have no way to optimize it's performance on their products. SDK states NO THIRD PARTY RUNTIMES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Second, I may be confused, but how are Apple or Apple users in any way denied access to internet resources? I surf and use the net everyday from my MBP, including flash sites. I am in do way denied access to any resources.
Huh? iPhone doesn't have access to PROPRIETARY FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. My own desktop experience trying to access FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT is very poor. I use clicktoflash in order to minimize browser crashes and sluggishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
Third, again, I may be confused, but how does Adobe decide who gets to play?
How do they not? The Flash plugin is Adobe software. The code is not available for third parties to implement in their products in a way that they can optimize the performance. It only works on any given platform as well as Adobe's engineers are allowed to make it work.
The rest of your post is nonsense. What computer I use is not relevant, and I'm not going to use Linux, sorry. What you're trying to say is "it's not the road, it's your car". I just don't buy that argument.
It's 2010. HTML and multimedia codecs have evolved to the point where the proprietary Flash technology for distributing multimedia is no longer necessary, and can be handled in HTML with licensable codecs. Nobody has a sound argument for why this technology shouldn't be standardized and available for everybody to have equal access to.
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
I see your points...I too remember WordPerfect, blue background and white letters!
And I take your point about 'Boards' but is the consensus not that Flash is 'Sloppy.'
Snow leopard certainly was a successful attempt at reducing 'bloat!' I don't see the same attempts to curb 'bloat' from MS or Adobe....I think this is what Stevo is getting at.
Flash was conceived and developed for the desktop, and it may be great for that arena, but the technology has moved on to to new form of computing, and Adobe must evolve Flash to run on it, not the other way around. Most everyone seems to agree that it is a resource hog, so who would want a device that has t.... The bottom line is: Flash must evolve for mobile devices or face death.
This is why Steve-no is mad. Adobe is evolving Flash right onto his lunch. www.openscreenproject.org, and view the developer interviews that describe how 10.1 is taking the full Flash player down to all the smartphones.
Steve could be one of the CEOs in the interviews saying he is on board. Instead, Steve is NOT on board, not because Adobe is 'old,' but because they are too-new for his own margin of safety. He is flying around the country trying to derail Flash before they can release 10.1. But as others have pointed out, it takes a long time to stop a juggernaut like Flash.
Premature. Today, a device made for web surfing that can't use Flash is a crippled device. Sure, HTML 5 will probably make Flash obsolete in a few years ... maybe then the iPad will be relevant as a multimedia web browser.
I love the form factor but I'm going to have to go with a non-crippled tablet instead. Not just for Flash audio/video that is all over the web ... My kids spend a huge amount of their Internet time playing Flash games (both for entertainment and learning ... pbskids.org etc). With no Flash support, the iPad is useless to them.
For reading, the iPad looks great. That's where its strength lies. But for Jobs to get up there and say the iPad offers "the best browsing experience" when it doesn't support the most widely used multimedia Web platform is just arrogant.
I think that disingenuous is a better description than arrogant, but otherwise, I agree.
While I appreciate what Apple is trying to do with Flash (not accept sub-par software), that does not necessarily mean they aren't robbing users of a full web experience on the iPad.
What's good for the iPhone is not necessarily going to be acceptable for the iPad. That's quite a leap in faith. Web usage on the iPad is going to be different from how iPhone users use the web. It'll be a lot closer to desktop web browsing patterns. And this is why users will expect and want Flash integration.
The average Apple fan may think Flash is junk and that it shouldn't be polluting his device. But the average user will want a $500 internet appliance to let him surf the whole internet. He could not care less for Apple's politics with Adobe. That won't stop them from buying an iPad or surfing the web on it. But they are going to look at it as a defect and an annoyance. No question about that. And I am wondering if they'll blame Apple for it.
Comments
Why shouldn't it die?
Flash is a solution to a problem that no longer exists, and now has become a problem in its own right. My view is that something as important as the delivery method for multimedia content over the internet should absolutely not be owned by any one company. Period.
Ok, you can have your opinion, and I am trying to understand this.
First, why not let the market sort this out? If Flash is such a problem, then some company should be able to come in and develop a better alternative.
Second, who is going to decide what the new standard is? SJ? As much as I admire the guy, he has an agenda, and why wouldn't he pick standards that would benefit Apple and hurt MS and everyone else.
Third, let us say some standards body comes along, decides Flash is evil and can no longer be used. Who and how is Adobe to be compensated for their loss? Essentially, some entity will have come along and eliminated a large chunk of their revenue stream. If they are not to be compensated, then you are punishing success, and if you can do it to Adobe, then it can be done to any company, Apple included, at a later date.
The fact that Flash doesn't happen to work well on the Mac is really just an aside, but also amplifies the importance of fostering licensable industry standards that create a level playing field for competition and for consumers alike. Using the argument that Apple's marketshare doesn't entitle them or their customers to reasonable access to internet resources, aside from being specious, actually points out the flaw of allowing a company such as Adobe to arbitrarily decide who gets to play.
First, it does not seem to be an aside, as poor performance seems to be the MAIN gripe leveled against flash. To me, it seems to be the main reason for calling for Flash's death.
Second, I may be confused, but how are Apple or Apple users in any way denied access to internet resources? I surf and use the net everyday from my MBP, including flash sites. I am in do way denied access to any resources.
Third, again, I may be confused, but how does Adobe decide who gets to play?
Lastly, what kind of computer do you own. Like I said above, if you are REALLY concerned about open standards, etc, then the consistent position is to be for open source, and hence you should be running Linux, and associated software.
It's just wrong, and unless you're an Adobe shareholder, a Flash developer, or just simply hate Apple (or anybody else that isn't in Adobe's graces), then there is really no valid argument for Adobe to have such control over multimedia distribution.
Again, how does Adobe control this? I am not trying to be difficult. People buy Adobe's products, people use Adobe's products. Adobe cannot force people to buy and use their software.
Such a short-sighted comment. Lets say Flash went away tomorrow for good. Do you really believe that irritating ads are going away when Flash is gone? You'll be crying for ClickToHTML5. Adobe will resolve the Flash problems....Remember, these are the guys who wrote Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and InDesign and developed PDF as a Standard. Most of Adobe's tools are industry standards that have made careers for thousands and thousands of people. Flash CS5 allows developers to compile native iPhone/iPad apps ready for the App store. there are currently 5 Million Flash developers today. There is going to be a flood of new apps when CS5 is released......some great and some crappy just like there is now. Once Apple sees the new revenue stream on the App store along with Adobes efforts to re-tool Flash for a consistent CPU-hog free experience, Apple will embrace Flash. I love all that Steve Jobs has done so far, he's a true visionary, but, he WILL lose the war over Flash. HTML 5 will share the same fate as Silverlight, why? you may ask.....Developers! I wish Adobe would play hardball with Steve and tell him that if he can talk crap and ban Flash from the iPhone, then Adobe can talk crap and ban Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Premiere and After Effects from running on the Mac. I wonder what would happen.
I find your comment as very short sighted. I do not use ClicktoFalsh only to remove ads. There are issues with Flash and by disabling it I don't miss much on the web.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Flash did serve a good purpose when there were many issues playing video on the web. It provided developers ability to create nice UI with animations with relative ease. And Adobe made good money on selling development tools. But it is getting a bit behind curve with some of the expectations/ requirements for mobile computing.
Now regarding the iPhone/iPad support for Flash. So far it has helped Apple significantly. Lack of Flash has made the developers use iPhone SDK to develop iPhone specific Apps. Sometimes an easy way out is not the best way. With Flash support on iPhone a lot of these developers would have chosen that route and actually missed on the rich features of iPhone OS (touch, etc).
For Adobe, it is in their interest to keep building the Flash based ecosystem rich and making more features for developers easily. As long as that exists developers will keep using it. Not every developer thinks about following the standard but more about getting the project done quick with less effort. But they have nothing to play hardball with. It would be a big gamble and potentially a huge loss for them.
That is the nature of business. You have choose to exclude some to include others. If people think that Flash will work the same way as it does on a Mac?which as extremeskater points out requires at least an Intel Core 2.66GHz processor?then the user experience drops. When they try to watch Hulu and realize that they can't even begin to stream the content because it's too much or a resource hog or it's using Flash Lite, if we go back to 2007 and assume the iPhone came it.
And what abut banner ads chocking the loading of pages, we've already seen the iPhone beat on android phones with Flash Lite installed for that very reason? Or how about when they try to play their favorite Flash game or app and can't because they were designed for a keyboard and mouse, not a finger-based touchscreen?
There are just too many issues that Adobe failed to address that makes it a non-starter for a lot of companies, not just Apple. It's 2010 and Adobe is still working on Flash 10.1 for mobile OSes. Where are the public Betas? Would Adobe have even been to this point of development of Flash 10.1 if not for Apple pointing out how pathetic it really is? I don't think so. They surely didn't move to offer the H.264 codec or HW acceleration until MS Silverlight did.
Apple isn't making their iDevices for geeks at CES they are making it for consumers as a whole who aren't going to know why this or that doesn't work, they're only going to know it works on their Windows PC at work but not on their iDevice so not including it is the best method possible.
Adobe has been lying to people for over 3 years now about how easy it would be to run Flash on the iPhone which is OS X and yet no 64-bit Flash plugin for Mac OS. What gives?
IT DOES NOT Require a 2.66ghz processor to show flash well on the Mac. My Mac Mini 2.0 GHz worked extremely well.... Just stating the truth....
What I don't really understand is why those reasons are sufficient to call for Flash's death, and the denial of other users' rights to use software and programs they want.
The issue here is that Adobe refuses to relinquish ownership over internet delivery of multimedia content to licensable internet standards oversight. It would appear, as well, that they are trying to sabotage the HTML5 approval process, although this fact is disputed.
I personally have no problem with Adobe developing and maintaining a propriety programming runtime, just so long as it is not any kind of "defacto" standard for internet functionality. The fact that its performance is inconsistent (to be kind) makes it all the more egregious that they seem unwilling to relent and allow standards to prevail.
Short of Adobe acting like a good corporate citizen, what is left but for other companies to try to kill Flash?
Flash is proprietary! Made by one and only one vendor. Of course, Adobe wants to continue the addiction. "The web must have Flash." = DON'T make me stop the HEROINE !!!!
(It might take some work: - OMG!)
HTML5 isn't (any of the above).
However, the H.264 codex that Apple is pushing IS proprietary and your argument is again moot...
Now if Apple would also stated H.264 is proprietary and we should not use it in conjunction with HTML5 you might have a logical leg to stand on....
Both of these devices have done just fine (in fact astoundingly fine) without Flash. No reason to think it will be any different for the iPad. Flash doesn't drive Apple products. A Superior UI, beautiful hardware, and a wonderful User Experience does. This has been the case for years now.
Of course they were NOT billed as the best web experience ever.....
Then maybe you should go back and read the original post that my response was answering. The point is that Adobe DOES care that Flash doesn't work on iPhone, iPod Touch, and now iPad. The reason is that Apple is selling millions of these devices every quarter, and Flash advertising does not reach those devices.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. The argument that Apple's marketshare is so small that Adobe doesn't need to care that Apple shuns Flash is bogus.
I understand your point. I could easily be wrong, but my feeling that the reason Adobe cares about Apple is damage control. Apple and SJ get LOTS and LOTS of press. If SJ goes around saying that your product sucks, etc. Then Adobe has to respond to protect its image and its product.
However, the H.264 codex that Apple is pushing IS proprietary and your argument is again moot...
Now if Apple would also stated H.264 is proprietary and we should not use it in conjunction with HTML5 you might have a logical leg to stand on....
H.264 is licensable, and the HTML5 spec will be open for anybody to develop for. That's the difference. FLASH is a proprietary runtime that afford device vendors no control over the implementation on their products. They are simply at the mercy of Adobe.
It's beyond me why people don't see the problem with this scenario.
The issue here is that Adobe refuses to relinquish ownership over internet delivery of multimedia content to licensable internet standards oversight. It would appear, as well, that they are trying to sabotage the HTML5 approval process, although this fact is disputed.
I personally have no problem with Adobe developing and maintaining a propriety programming runtime, just so long as it is not any kind of "defacto" standard for internet functionality. The fact that its performance is inconsistent (to be kind) makes it all the more egregious that they seem unwilling to relent and allow standards to prevail.
Short of Adobe acting like a good corporate citizen, what is left but for other companies to try to kill Flash?
If Adobe is trying to sabotage HTML 5, that would be wrong. The fact that Flash's performance is inconsistent sucks, and is a pain in the ass, and is a valid reason for Apple to push an alternative. But again, if they make a business decision not to optimize the code for a Mac if they do not want to, why shouldnt that be their decision? Should Apple be forced to open the iPad to Flash?
what makes flash the "defacto" standard is that so many people use it. By any common definition, that means it is a defacto standard because it was successful. So, if they give it up, will the licensing fees be fair, which seems to be the main issue in the Nokia / Apple dispute.
I think this debate is pretty much settled...Apple/Jobs is cutting edge and every other CEO seems lame in comparison...or is it just me?
Too much 'Foresight'=Jobs
Other CEO's=Too much 'Foreskin!'
clicktoflash FTW!
H.264 is licensable, and the HTML5 spec will be open for anybody to develop for. That's the difference. FLASH is a proprietary runtime that afford device vendors no control over the implementation on their products. They are simply at the mercy of Adobe.
It's beyond me why people don't see the problem with this scenario.
I think people see the problem with the scenario. However, there are always two sides to every issue. Like I said above, having Flash die or removed by some industry standards board, is depriving Adobe of a revenue stream.
I think people see the problem with the scenario. However, there are always two sides to every issue. Like I said above, having Flash die or removed by some industry standards board, is depriving Adobe of a revenue stream.
Agreed! But what if Flash is indeed 'sloppy' and archaic? Just because it is ubiquitous does not in of itself justify its 'survival!'
No offense, but if that were the case, we would all still be watching black and white TV's. No?
Agreed! But what if Flash is indeed 'sloppy' and archaic? Just because it is ubiquitous does not in of itself justify it's 'survival!'
No offense, but if that were the case, we would all still be watching black and white TV's. No?
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
Now you are using logic and reason. I have notice that this is not recieved well on this board unless of course Steve Jobs says it is ok...
I agree that If Flash is so bad it will die on its own and there is absolutely no rational reason to keep it off of Apple mobile products. Now personally I think that the new Android phones that will soon support Flash will make many of the arguments against including on Apple products pointless....
I do have one question for the Apple fan boys ( by the way I do like the Mac )
If the new Android phones work well with Flash 10.1 enabled. What are you going to use as your technical justification for hating it so much?????
First, why not let the market sort this out? If Flash is such a problem, then some company should be able to come in and develop a better alternative.
Gazoobee had it right, you really are a troll. You will likely go on my ignore list soon. I'm definitely not going to spend the rest of my Saturday night arguing this.
The market WILL decide. Apple will sell more and more mobile devices with each and every quarter, and one by one, websites that rely on Flash will convert to alternatives.
Second, who is going to decide what the new standard is? SJ? As much as I admire the guy, he has an agenda, and why wouldn't he pick standards that would benefit Apple and hurt MS and everyone else.
Look it up for yourself. Do a websearch for HTML5 and you can read up on who is working on it, and you will also likely find articles talking about Adobe's (alleged) sabotage of the development of that spec.
Third, let us say some standards body comes along, decides Flash is evil and can no longer be used. Who and how is Adobe to be compensated for their loss? Essentially, some entity will have come along and eliminated a large chunk of their revenue stream. If they are not to be compensated, then you are punishing success, and if you can do it to Adobe, then it can be done to any company, Apple included, at a later date.
No compensation is warranted, that's life, some win, some lose. What about Apple and MacOS9? Did they ever get compensated when Win 95 took off? No, they didn't. Another example? Was Apple compensated when QuickDraw was trumped by OpenGL? No again.
First, it does not seem to be an aside, as poor performance seems to be the MAIN gripe leveled against flash. To me, it seems to be the main reason for calling for Flash's death.
Poor performance is why Mac users are pissed. The fact that Flash is a proprietary runtime is why Apple doesn't want to use it because they have no way to optimize it's performance on their products. SDK states NO THIRD PARTY RUNTIMES.
Second, I may be confused, but how are Apple or Apple users in any way denied access to internet resources? I surf and use the net everyday from my MBP, including flash sites. I am in do way denied access to any resources.
Huh? iPhone doesn't have access to PROPRIETARY FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. My own desktop experience trying to access FLASH DELIVERED MULTIMEDIA CONTENT is very poor. I use clicktoflash in order to minimize browser crashes and sluggishness.
Third, again, I may be confused, but how does Adobe decide who gets to play?
How do they not? The Flash plugin is Adobe software. The code is not available for third parties to implement in their products in a way that they can optimize the performance. It only works on any given platform as well as Adobe's engineers are allowed to make it work.
The rest of your post is nonsense. What computer I use is not relevant, and I'm not going to use Linux, sorry. What you're trying to say is "it's not the road, it's your car". I just don't buy that argument.
It's 2010. HTML and multimedia codecs have evolved to the point where the proprietary Flash technology for distributing multimedia is no longer necessary, and can be handled in HTML with licensable codecs. Nobody has a sound argument for why this technology shouldn't be standardized and available for everybody to have equal access to.
I have no doubt that flash is sloppy. Personally I have the feeling most code is sloppy, largely because storage space is so cheap. I am nearly 50. My first computer had 2 5.25" floppies, with the OS on one floppy and WordPerfect on the other. Yes, things have gotten more complicated but when an operating system now requires multiple GB's of space, sloppiness is probably there.
Like I said before, if Flash is so bad, then someone will come along with something better.
Isn't that what SJ did with Apple?
Why does it have to be the case that some standards board, with all its politics, has to be involved.
I see your points...I too remember WordPerfect, blue background and white letters!
And I take your point about 'Boards' but is the consensus not that Flash is 'Sloppy.'
Snow leopard certainly was a successful attempt at reducing 'bloat!' I don't see the same attempts to curb 'bloat' from MS or Adobe....I think this is what Stevo is getting at.
Flash was conceived and developed for the desktop, and it may be great for that arena, but the technology has moved on to to new form of computing, and Adobe must evolve Flash to run on it, not the other way around. Most everyone seems to agree that it is a resource hog, so who would want a device that has t.... The bottom line is: Flash must evolve for mobile devices or face death.
This is why Steve-no is mad. Adobe is evolving Flash right onto his lunch. www.openscreenproject.org, and view the developer interviews that describe how 10.1 is taking the full Flash player down to all the smartphones.
Steve could be one of the CEOs in the interviews saying he is on board. Instead, Steve is NOT on board, not because Adobe is 'old,' but because they are too-new for his own margin of safety. He is flying around the country trying to derail Flash before they can release 10.1. But as others have pointed out, it takes a long time to stop a juggernaut like Flash.
Premature. Today, a device made for web surfing that can't use Flash is a crippled device. Sure, HTML 5 will probably make Flash obsolete in a few years ... maybe then the iPad will be relevant as a multimedia web browser.
I love the form factor but I'm going to have to go with a non-crippled tablet instead. Not just for Flash audio/video that is all over the web ... My kids spend a huge amount of their Internet time playing Flash games (both for entertainment and learning ... pbskids.org etc). With no Flash support, the iPad is useless to them.
For reading, the iPad looks great. That's where its strength lies. But for Jobs to get up there and say the iPad offers "the best browsing experience" when it doesn't support the most widely used multimedia Web platform is just arrogant.
I think that disingenuous is a better description than arrogant, but otherwise, I agree.
What's good for the iPhone is not necessarily going to be acceptable for the iPad. That's quite a leap in faith. Web usage on the iPad is going to be different from how iPhone users use the web. It'll be a lot closer to desktop web browsing patterns. And this is why users will expect and want Flash integration.
The average Apple fan may think Flash is junk and that it shouldn't be polluting his device. But the average user will want a $500 internet appliance to let him surf the whole internet. He could not care less for Apple's politics with Adobe. That won't stop them from buying an iPad or surfing the web on it. But they are going to look at it as a defect and an annoyance. No question about that. And I am wondering if they'll blame Apple for it.
Ok, but why?
Because Steve hates Adobe. The rest is just boring details.