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.
If the market decides, fine by me, and we have no problem. I am all for someone developing a better delivery system. More power to them.
However, unless I missed your entire point, you want Adobe to give up Flash and be a good corporate citizen (your words), and/or some industry standards board to decide that Flash can no longer be used, and HTML 5 should be used instead.
That is not the market working, that is market intervention by a "government" body, which distorts the market forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
Mac lost that market battle. It was not the case that the government, or some industry board, came in and said that Win95 will now be the industry standard, and MacOS9 can no longer be use. That is what I understand you are advocating with Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
I understand completely why Apple does not want Flash on the iPhone. It makes perfect sense, and you get no argument there. I understand why Mac users are pissed. Heck, I do not particularly care for Flash performance on my MBP.
Where I do not understand you though is why this is justification for either outlawing flash (which is what the effect would be if HTML 5 were made the industry standard) or why Adobe should voluntary give up a revenue stream to make Mac users happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
First, this statement seems to support the contention that the reason Flash should be eliminated is because Apple users are upset.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone, no one forced me to buy an iPhone or an Apple computer. No one will force anyone to buy an iPad. You buy a product, and you have to live with the limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
Adobe does not control anything in the sense that Adobe cannot force anyone to buy their software. If people did not buy the software, because there was a better alternative, then there would not be an issue.
I know you will not see this point, but you have no problem with Apple saying that some types of programs will not be allowed on Apple products because it is an Apple product. Why doesn't Adobe have the right to code for whatever operating systems it wants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
You are wrong here. My point is that your apparent argument with Adobe is that it is proprietary. The thing is, if you have a problem with proprietary software, then you should be running open source software. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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 agree with you 100%. It should be handled by HTML and licensable codecs. The argument against it, is that you are essentially depriving a company of business by "government" intervention. The difference between you and I is that you seem to feel that it is justifiable to shut Adobe/flash down, essentially by government fiat, to have that achieved, whereas I think the market should work it out by itself.
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.
Not quite yet, but getting there. More annoying than this Flash business is the fact that there are still quite a few corporations (including mine) who are still basing their websites on IE6...! An 'open' web is still quite far away. Also to get the ball rolling, both IE and Firefox need to include support for HTML5, since they are the majority browsers (IE9 is going to have it, I believe).
I doubt iDevices will be that hurt by a lack of Flash. It's still "good enough" for desktops. If standards boards worked at all effectively, we wouldn't be stuck with Flash in the first place.
It you, iGenius and extremeskater are getting your knickers in a twist because apple people do not like Flash and prefer HTML5.
I have never said anything like this. Not even remotely like this.
My position is that Joe Shmoe does not care about Flash, nor does he care about HTML5. What he will care about is that his shiny new "best way to surf the web" does NOT "just work" on many of his favorite web sites.
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?
The point is that when color TV s came out, folks still watched and bought BW TVs for many years after color became available .
Flash will be with us for a while longer. If someone wants to cut themselves off from stuff like watching TV reruns on the 'net, that's perfectly fine.
But I find it a bit silly to discuss whether its "survival" is "justified". It will survive forever.
If you've wondered why there haven't been many Gears releases or posts on the Gears blog lately, it's because we've shifted our effort towards bringing all of the Gears capabilities into web standards like HTML5. We're not there yet, but we are getting closer.
I'm so curious about the mentality that can't see how both technologies can co-exist. How growing HTML5 support in no way means that Flash is going to be "gone" from the internets.
They will without a doubt co-exist. You really need to read. I never said they couldn't co-exist, they do now. By the way I am not the one posting Kill Flash or have Flash Die in my signature. Maybe those are the ones you should lecture.
Then we have some that said they prefer HTML5 over Flash when most of them wouldn't know the difference if it hit them in the head. You had to explain it to members about five times already what the difference is or how to tell which is running. Its a freaking joke just because SJ said he doesn't like Flash so the koolaid driinkers follow along.
What I don't understand is why you reflect others insane points of view onto me when I don't share them.
I will say it again. While the trend is moving towards HTML5 the fact is Flash is not going anywhere anytime soon. We both understand this fact. So if Flash is going to be around and it doesn't perform well fixing it should be the issue seeing we are going to have to deal with it for years.
They will be angry that Adobe snubbed them. That's basically the situation with Flash on the Mac. It works fine on Windows, but not on the Mac.
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
I just can't understand why people want to kill Flash.
It's a great tool, and even if it does seem a bit expensive, at least it works.
It's likely because of 2 things (the 2nd more probable):
1) SJ says so, so all Apple lovers agree immediately
2) Mac users have a grudge against Adobe because of the sluggish plugin
I love HTML5. I think it will GRADUALLY replace Flash. However, if you want it to
have any major place in the internet, JS+CSS (DHTML) must be sped up.
Also, the HTML5 video codec must be free from patents (and free in terms of money).
H.264 does beat OGG in lots of ways, but does that mean we use it as a standard?
MPEGLA is infamous for charging extreme licensing fees for even the simplist of their products.
All they are trying to do is to secure their place in standards, and then when the majority has
joined, change the licensing fee to a significantly high price. Then, the Internet will halt, because Apple/Microsoft/Mozilla will have to charge for their browsers.
(And I'm using Ubuntu 9.10 as I type this. Macs are way too slow for my general use, as well as Windows... )
So how do we fix the HTML5 <video problem?
It's all on a line. Recently, Google bought On2, which has a very nice codec AND beats H.264.
The question is this: will they change the rules and make it FOSS and free of patents? Or will they take it for themselves, and charge licensing fees for it? Only time will tell.
If the codec does become FOSS, Flash is guaranteed an accelerated death. Adobe is scared already by the <canvas element. As a full time web developer, I really see the potential for that element. It really becomes the Flash killer. There are kinks here and there which really should be fixed before HTML5 becomes official, but otherwise, it's almost ready!
Please, DON'T think Apple can kill Flash. SJ is just a whiner who sees and tries to kill competition.
Flash will wither with time, and at the same time, HTML5 will grow.
Esteemed experts, now that its about over for Flash I need to port numerous sites and web apps from Flash to the new technology.
First up is a record label site with integrated music player. Site loads its data async in binary format from mysql using AMFPHP. Also it loads a collada model of a helicopter and animates it in 3d as part of the navigation. Can anyone point me to a replacement 3d engine in javascipt that can do this? Also there are video layers within the 3d, and animated flash sprites mapped as textures to some of the other 3d models.
Then I have a multiuser system with a broadcast app that sends live video to connected users via Flash Media Server, which records the video stream on the server for later on-demand use, and allows the broadcaster to control aspects of the remote synchronized clients via a shared object on the server. I can get the Flash out of the server by porting to the excellent Java based, open source Red5 server, but I need a replacement for the client system that gets the video stream and sends it to the server, as well as connecting to the server shared object. Can someone point me towards that?
I used to do some of the 3d stuff in Director/shockwave, and Java was good for some stuff that required serious coding on the client side, or accessing the local machine, but when Flash came along and did all this better, and especially when so many good opensource actionscript frameworks and code libs became available for Actionscript, those old technologies fell by the wayside. Now I guess its time to move on again.
If you folks can look at this list of frameworks and suggest replacements in Javascript/html I'd much appreciate it! http://www.adrianparr.com/?p=83
P.S. I'm frosty with JQuery/JQueryUI and Mootools. Love the stuff for simple things like image rotation, lazy data loading, accordions etc.
Tell me something though. Oh ps, can laptop owners get that power update they released for mac pros and audio?
Anyway, where are the complaints coming from?
We have Tiger 10.11, Leopard 10.8 and SL 10.2 and we never have a problem, especially with streaming.
Just curious. I mean the chips are intel x86 less the ipad and I could see how maybe laptops with non dedicated gpu as well as G4 might have problems but we've never seen any problems. Knock on wood. Praise God!!! (grin) as we would hate to seecptoblems all of a sudden.
Shout peeps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Yes read the entire thread and then comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
If the market decides, fine by me, and we have no problem. I am all for someone developing a better delivery system. More power to them.
However, unless I missed your entire point, you want Adobe to give up Flash and be a good corporate citizen (your words), and/or some industry standards board to decide that Flash can no longer be used, and HTML 5 should be used instead.
That is not the market working, that is market intervention by a "government" body, which distorts the market forces.
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.
Mac lost that market battle. It was not the case that the government, or some industry board, came in and said that Win95 will now be the industry standard, and MacOS9 can no longer be use. That is what I understand you are advocating with Flash.
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.
I understand completely why Apple does not want Flash on the iPhone. It makes perfect sense, and you get no argument there. I understand why Mac users are pissed. Heck, I do not particularly care for Flash performance on my MBP.
Where I do not understand you though is why this is justification for either outlawing flash (which is what the effect would be if HTML 5 were made the industry standard) or why Adobe should voluntary give up a revenue stream to make Mac users happy.
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.
First, this statement seems to support the contention that the reason Flash should be eliminated is because Apple users are upset.
No one forced you to buy an iPhone, no one forced me to buy an iPhone or an Apple computer. No one will force anyone to buy an iPad. You buy a product, and you have to live with the limitations.
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.
Adobe does not control anything in the sense that Adobe cannot force anyone to buy their software. If people did not buy the software, because there was a better alternative, then there would not be an issue.
I know you will not see this point, but you have no problem with Apple saying that some types of programs will not be allowed on Apple products because it is an Apple product. Why doesn't Adobe have the right to code for whatever operating systems it wants?
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.
You are wrong here. My point is that your apparent argument with Adobe is that it is proprietary. The thing is, if you have a problem with proprietary software, then you should be running open source software. End of story.
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 agree with you 100%. It should be handled by HTML and licensable codecs. The argument against it, is that you are essentially depriving a company of business by "government" intervention. The difference between you and I is that you seem to feel that it is justifiable to shut Adobe/flash down, essentially by government fiat, to have that achieved, whereas I think the market should work it out by itself.
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.
Not quite yet, but getting there. More annoying than this Flash business is the fact that there are still quite a few corporations (including mine) who are still basing their websites on IE6...! An 'open' web is still quite far away. Also to get the ball rolling, both IE and Firefox need to include support for HTML5, since they are the majority browsers (IE9 is going to have it, I believe).
I doubt iDevices will be that hurt by a lack of Flash. It's still "good enough" for desktops. If standards boards worked at all effectively, we wouldn't be stuck with Flash in the first place.
It you, iGenius and extremeskater are getting your knickers in a twist because apple people do not like Flash and prefer HTML5.
I have never said anything like this. Not even remotely like this.
My position is that Joe Shmoe does not care about Flash, nor does he care about HTML5. What he will care about is that his shiny new "best way to surf the web" does NOT "just work" on many of his favorite web sites.
Why shouldn't it die?
It probably will eventually fade into obscurity. It is unlikely to ever die.
But in the meantime, it works great on 80 or 90 percent (or some other huge percent) of the computers that access the 'web.
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?
The point is that when color TV s came out, folks still watched and bought BW TVs for many years after color became available .
Flash will be with us for a while longer. If someone wants to cut themselves off from stuff like watching TV reruns on the 'net, that's perfectly fine.
But I find it a bit silly to discuss whether its "survival" is "justified". It will survive forever.
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?????
They will be angry that Adobe snubbed them. That's basically the situation with Flash on the Mac. It works fine on Windows, but not on the Mac.
If the market decides, fine by me, and we have no problem. I am all for someone developing a better delivery system. More power to them.
Adobe choosing not to advance Flash and Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. choosing not to rely on it as much is the market deciding.
Google on HTML5...
I'm so curious about the mentality that can't see how both technologies can co-exist. How growing HTML5 support in no way means that Flash is going to be "gone" from the internets.
They will without a doubt co-exist. You really need to read. I never said they couldn't co-exist, they do now. By the way I am not the one posting Kill Flash or have Flash Die in my signature. Maybe those are the ones you should lecture.
Then we have some that said they prefer HTML5 over Flash when most of them wouldn't know the difference if it hit them in the head. You had to explain it to members about five times already what the difference is or how to tell which is running. Its a freaking joke just because SJ said he doesn't like Flash so the koolaid driinkers follow along.
What I don't understand is why you reflect others insane points of view onto me when I don't share them.
I will say it again. While the trend is moving towards HTML5 the fact is Flash is not going anywhere anytime soon. We both understand this fact. So if Flash is going to be around and it doesn't perform well fixing it should be the issue seeing we are going to have to deal with it for years.
They will be angry that Adobe snubbed them. That's basically the situation with Flash on the Mac. It works fine on Windows, but not on the Mac.
And after all the postings in this thread the other, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason Mac users want Flash gone, is because the almighty Apple was ignored.
It probably will eventually fade into obscurity. It is unlikely to ever die.
But in the meantime, it works great on 80 or 90 percent (or some other huge percent) of the computers that access the 'web.
It'll end up like Java or Shockwave. When was the last time you went to a site that required either one?
Saying that Flash works great on Windows is laughable. Performance is simply acceptable on a modern computer.
Adobe choosing not to advance Flash and Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. choosing not to rely on it as much is the market deciding.
True, and I have no problem with that. That is a perfect example of the market working.
However, iGenius said that Adobe should either be a good corporate citizen and give Flash up (when they currently have what 75% of the market) or
a standards board should rule that HTML 5 is the industry standard, essentially shutting Flash down by government fiat.
neither of those options is the market working.
It works fine on Windows, but not on the Mac.
Open up a netbook, go to YouTube and play a video. Now change to HTML5 and play that same video. Game. Set. Match.
True, and I have no problem with that. That is a perfect example of the market working.
However, iGenius said that Adobe should either be a good corporate citizen and give Flash up (when they currently have what 75% of the market) or
a standards board should rule that HTML 5 is the industry standard, essentially shutting Flash down by government fiat.
neither of those options is the market working.
Gotcha.
It's a great tool, and even if it does seem a bit expensive, at least it works.
It's likely because of 2 things (the 2nd more probable):
1) SJ says so, so all Apple lovers agree immediately
2) Mac users have a grudge against Adobe because of the sluggish plugin
I love HTML5. I think it will GRADUALLY replace Flash. However, if you want it to
have any major place in the internet, JS+CSS (DHTML) must be sped up.
Also, the HTML5 video codec must be free from patents (and free in terms of money).
H.264 does beat OGG in lots of ways, but does that mean we use it as a standard?
MPEGLA is infamous for charging extreme licensing fees for even the simplist of their products.
All they are trying to do is to secure their place in standards, and then when the majority has
joined, change the licensing fee to a significantly high price. Then, the Internet will halt, because Apple/Microsoft/Mozilla will have to charge for their browsers.
(And I'm using Ubuntu 9.10 as I type this. Macs are way too slow for my general use, as well as Windows...
So how do we fix the HTML5 <video problem?
It's all on a line. Recently, Google bought On2, which has a very nice codec AND beats H.264.
The question is this: will they change the rules and make it FOSS and free of patents? Or will they take it for themselves, and charge licensing fees for it? Only time will tell.
If the codec does become FOSS, Flash is guaranteed an accelerated death. Adobe is scared already by the <canvas element. As a full time web developer, I really see the potential for that element. It really becomes the Flash killer. There are kinks here and there which really should be fixed before HTML5 becomes official, but otherwise, it's almost ready!
Please, DON'T think Apple can kill Flash. SJ is just a whiner who sees and tries to kill competition.
Flash will wither with time, and at the same time, HTML5 will grow.
Saying that Flash works great on Windows is laughable. Performance is simply acceptable on a modern computer.
I'll accept acceptable.
However, iGenius said that Adobe should either be a good corporate citizen and give Flash up (when they currently have what 75% of the market) or
Hey - You've got me mixed up with some sort of nutcase. I never said anything like that.
Esteemed experts, now that its about over for Flash I need to port numerous sites and web apps from Flash to the new technology.
First up is a record label site with integrated music player. Site loads its data async in binary format from mysql using AMFPHP. Also it loads a collada model of a helicopter and animates it in 3d as part of the navigation. Can anyone point me to a replacement 3d engine in javascipt that can do this? Also there are video layers within the 3d, and animated flash sprites mapped as textures to some of the other 3d models.
Then I have a multiuser system with a broadcast app that sends live video to connected users via Flash Media Server, which records the video stream on the server for later on-demand use, and allows the broadcaster to control aspects of the remote synchronized clients via a shared object on the server. I can get the Flash out of the server by porting to the excellent Java based, open source Red5 server, but I need a replacement for the client system that gets the video stream and sends it to the server, as well as connecting to the server shared object. Can someone point me towards that?
I used to do some of the 3d stuff in Director/shockwave, and Java was good for some stuff that required serious coding on the client side, or accessing the local machine, but when Flash came along and did all this better, and especially when so many good opensource actionscript frameworks and code libs became available for Actionscript, those old technologies fell by the wayside. Now I guess its time to move on again.
If you folks can look at this list of frameworks and suggest replacements in Javascript/html I'd much appreciate it! http://www.adrianparr.com/?p=83
P.S. I'm frosty with JQuery/JQueryUI and Mootools. Love the stuff for simple things like image rotation, lazy data loading, accordions etc.
TIA
Anyway, where are the complaints coming from?
We have Tiger 10.11, Leopard 10.8 and SL 10.2 and we never have a problem, especially with streaming.
Just curious. I mean the chips are intel x86 less the ipad and I could see how maybe laptops with non dedicated gpu as well as G4 might have problems but we've never seen any problems. Knock on wood. Praise God!!! (grin) as we would hate to seecptoblems all of a sudden.
Shout peeps.
Yes read the entire thread and then comment.
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.
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.
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.