People that actually own an iPhone or iPod touch know that Flash isn't needed to view the web.
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.
If it did we'd have at least gotten a 64-bit version of Flash by now. \ They can't even deliver that so are we suppose to think they have any real interest in supporting Mac OS (umbrella term) in any other capacity.
This site let tekstud back on? Seriously? Do you guys want these threads to suck?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
And it continue to be included with every Mac you buy, just not on iDevices with limited resources, especially power.
And it will keep some from buying those devices. There are people who understand that it is a power hog yet still would like to have the option available when it is needed.
And it will keep some from buying those devices. There are people who understand that it is a power hog yet still would like to have the option available when it is needed.
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?
If it did we'd have at least gotten a 64-bit version of Flash by now. \ They can't even deliver that so are we suppose to think they have any real interest in supporting Mac OS (umbrella term) in any other capacity.
As a question, what if the DON'T really want to support Apple. What if Adobe made the decision that it would only give token support to Mac Ox
Doesn't Adobe have the right to make their own decisions regarding their product and their business plan, just as Apple has the right not to put Flash on their products.
Doesn't Adobe have the right to make their own decisions regarding their product and their business plan, just as Apple has the right not to put Flash on their products.
Absolutely, but if Adobe's not going to properly support Flash then we shouldn't be pointing the finger at Apple and expecting them to pick up the slack. Nor should be upset at Apple and Google for finding and developing better solutions.
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. HTML5 has Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, and all the other weblings hoo-rahing for it.
But Steve Jobs cult insists this is 'proprietary vs. open standards.' Well, if that is true, then what I said above covers it. So why all the extra blather and bluster from Steve Jobs? Because Flash is NOT dying. It is morphing into a competitor to the iPhone OS and the crApp store.(www.openscreenproject.org) And Steve can't stand that! It is a battle of proprietary Steve vs. proprietary Flash/AIR. Steve doesn't want the Apple customer to be able to choose. He insists you have decided when you bought his gadget.
There's nothing noble about that; nothing noble about keeping Flash off iPhone or iPad. It's just about Steve's money flow and having dictatorial control over what runs on your iPhone.
All the other stuff, about 'open', 'obsolete', cpu hog, etc, is going to take care of itself, whether Flash is on the iThing or not. Isn't 'open' supposed to be about being able to use things as you'd like, without some turtleneck cashier sticking his hand out everytime you try to do something? Isn't Steve the tollkeeper here?
Absolutely, but if Adobe's not going to properly support Flash then we shouldn't be pointing the finger at Apple and expecting them to pick up the slack. Nor should be upset at Apple and Google for finding and developing better solutions.
I agree with you 100%, that no one should expect Apple to pick up the slack, nor should anyone be upset at Apple finding an alternative. OTOH, there is a difference between finding an alternative and calling for the elimination of Flash.
Then the games could be based on ActionScript 2 compatible with Flash Lite or ActionScript 3 compatible with Flash 10.1.
How many sites are using old Flash compared to new Flash?
Who is going to rewrite all these old sites, how much will it cost them to buy the required tools from Adobe?
I notice Adobe is being very quiet on this bag of hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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?
Is that like a Casper the Friendly Ghost DVD or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD
...now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed...
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 !!!!
So what's wrong with teaching people to read rather than sitting there interacting with cartoons?
Now this comment is nothing to do with Flash or H.264 or anything like that. But from your comment, you haven't taught someone to read before, you don't need to use an expensive device like a tablet (iPad or any other one really), or a computer at all. Books, and other aids to teach someone to read are very cheap, and more durable than any electronic device will be.
It's one thing to have opinion, it's another thing to outright lie. All you need to do is due the simple test outlined above, at your request to see the resource spike from using using Flash over the HTML5 video tag in YouTube.
How is stating that OSX has a low market share lying? Link please or go on vacation ALREADY!
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. ...
You don't do logic much do you?
It ain't capitalism, it's web standards. The "market" isn't going to sort it out.
1) The conversation is about Flash being a resource hog compared to other options, not in comparison to different OSes where it's clear Flash is less developed on Mac OS X.
2) As you have astutely pointed out, Flash is a resource hog on Mac OS X, requiring an Intel Core Duo 2.66GHz processor or better, so why would you even argue that Flash would work just fine on the 412MHz to 600MHz iPhone ARM processors or the 1GHz processor in the iPad? Game. Set. Match.
I have never argued that Flash would work great on mobile devices including the iPad. However being the "geek" that I am when there is a software issue I look at fixing the issue not trying to kill the product as I see your buddy Quadra is trying to promote...lol.
You said the other member was incorrect and the fact is he isn't, Flash is clearly more of an issue for OSX then it is for Windows so you aren't going to kill Flash when 5% of the market has an issue with it.
What should happen is Adobe and Apple should work together to see why Flash is an issue for OSX.
Technology trends like this change very slowly, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon and the only people that suffer is the end users if they can't view all the content on the internet. When someone looks at a Mac if a website they like doesn't work they aren't going to blame Adobe they are going to walk away from buying a Mac.
Many consumers just want something to work, they don't care how it works or why it works but if it doesn't work they will simply look at it as Apple fault.
To sum up my points what I am saying is fix the issue instead of talking forever about trying to kill something you can't kill or kill anytime soon. Apple is not big enough even at its peak and doesn't have the market share to kill Flash or for that matter anything Adobe has to offer.
If Steve Jobs really wanted to give his users the best browsing experience ever he would work with Adobe to correct the issue instead of trying to force techology in another direction which he doesn't have the power to do.
While Flash may go away at some point you and I both know that isn't going to be anytime soon.
While Flash may not be the best option for mobile devices including the iPad there is simply no reason why it shouldn't perform better on a system running OSX.
I agree with you 100%, that no one should expect Apple to pick up the slack, nor should anyone be upset at Apple finding an alternative. OTOH, there is a difference between finding an alternative and calling for the elimination of Flash.
I've never called for the elimination of Flash. I've stated on many occasions that Canvas is far from being able to replicate Flash animations as there is no development kit for it. I've even posted some interactive Canvas demos that push your CPU the way Flash does.
The only thing I'm prognosticating is that Flash for video streaming will be going downhill in favor of HTML5 video from here on out. But note that Flash for video is current on Mt. Everest so this will not happen overnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Who is going to rewrite all these old sites, how much will it cost them to buy the required tools from Adobe?
I notice Adobe is being very quiet on this bag of hurt.
They've already made a way to convert Flash to Cocoa Touch so they at least have that going for them. I was surprised they even went that route at all. I'd much rather have a 64-bit version of Flash for Mac OS X.
While I look forward to Flash's demise in favor of an open standard, your lengthy explanation leaves out concerns about h.264's patents. Mozilla is pushing for the competing OGV video codec which, though slightly inferior in benchmark performance, benefits from being completely free and unencumbered by patents.
With patents on h.264 not scheduled to expire for many years, shouldn't we be concerned that the patent holders will try to monetize h.264 on the web once it's established as a standard? And if royalty payments were imposed in the future, couldn't that effectively destroy any free software that relies on it?
I have never argued that Flash would work great on mobile devices including the iPad. However being the "geek" that I am when there is a software issue I look at fixing the issue not trying to kill the product as I see your buddy Quadra is trying to promote...lol.
You said the other member was incorrect and the fact is he isn't, Flash is clearly more of an issue for OSX then it is for Windows so you aren't going to kill Flash when 5% of the market has an issue with it.
What should happen is Adobe and Apple should work together to see why Flash is an issue for OSX.
Technology trends like this change very slowly, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon and the only people that suffer is the end users if they can't view all the content on the internet. When someone looks at a Mac if a website they like doesn't work they aren't going to blame Adobe they are going to walk away from buying a Mac.
Many consumers just want something to work, they don't care how it works or why it works but if it doesn't work they will simply look at it as Apple fault.
To sum up my points what I am saying is fix the issue instead of talking forever about trying to kill something you can't kill or kill anytime soon. Apple is not big enough even at its peak and doesn't have the market share to kill Flash or for that matter anything Adobe has to offer.
If Steve Jobs really wanted to give his users the best browsing experience ever he would work with Adobe to correct the issue instead of trying to force techology in another direction which he doesn't have the power to do.
While Flash may go away at some point you and I both know that isn't going to be anytime soon.
While Flash may not be the best option for mobile devices including the iPad there is simply no reason why it shouldn't perform better on a system running OSX.
Apple, Google, Mozilla, and a few other companies are betting on Flash's demise. This isn't an Apple vs. Adobe fight.
While I look forward to Flash's demise in favor of an open standard, your lengthy explanation leaves out concerns about h.264's patents. Mozilla is pushing for the competing OGV video codec which, though slightly inferior in benchmark performance, benefits from being completely free and unencumbered by patents.
With patents on h.264 not scheduled to expire for many years, shouldn't we be concerned that the patent holders will try to monetize h.264 on the web once it's established as a standard? And if royalty payments were imposed in the future, couldn't that effectively destroy any free software that relies on it?
It's free until 2016. By then H.265 should be the next best thing. Even if it isn't OGG doesn't perform well as the bitrate increases, Apple, MS, Google, Intel and even Adobe are behind H.264. It's HW accelerated, while OGG is not. It's a losing game no matter you cut it. For once the superior quality beat the more convenient one out of the gate.
I don't see many sites adding OGG as an alternative option. I think a plugin will likely be made to give Firefox H.264 support and the site will check for the browser and if the codec is available. If not, it will simply put up a link telling the Firefox user they need to install the plugin to play the video, the same way Flash does. For older browser Flash will be used for a long time to come but it will still be streaming H.264.
Comments
People that actually own an iPhone or iPod touch know that Flash isn't needed to view the web.
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.
Flash doesn't drive Apple products.
If it did we'd have at least gotten a 64-bit version of Flash by now.
And it continue to be included with every Mac you buy, just not on iDevices with limited resources, especially power.
And it will keep some from buying those devices. There are people who understand that it is a power hog yet still would like to have the option available when it is needed.
So when is Apple Insider going to stop using Flash? I'm seeing some very annoying Flash adverts at the moment.
I'm not seeing them.
I use ClickToFlash.
And it will keep some from buying those devices. There are people who understand that it is a power hog yet still would like to have the option available when it is needed.
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?
If it did we'd have at least gotten a 64-bit version of Flash by now.
As a question, what if the DON'T really want to support Apple. What if Adobe made the decision that it would only give token support to Mac Ox
Doesn't Adobe have the right to make their own decisions regarding their product and their business plan, just as Apple has the right not to put Flash on their products.
Doesn't Adobe have the right to make their own decisions regarding their product and their business plan, just as Apple has the right not to put Flash on their products.
Absolutely, but if Adobe's not going to properly support Flash then we shouldn't be pointing the finger at Apple and expecting them to pick up the slack. Nor should be upset at Apple and Google for finding and developing better solutions.
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. HTML5 has Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, and all the other weblings hoo-rahing for it.
But Steve Jobs cult insists this is 'proprietary vs. open standards.' Well, if that is true, then what I said above covers it. So why all the extra blather and bluster from Steve Jobs? Because Flash is NOT dying. It is morphing into a competitor to the iPhone OS and the crApp store.(www.openscreenproject.org) And Steve can't stand that! It is a battle of proprietary Steve vs. proprietary Flash/AIR. Steve doesn't want the Apple customer to be able to choose. He insists you have decided when you bought his gadget.
There's nothing noble about that; nothing noble about keeping Flash off iPhone or iPad. It's just about Steve's money flow and having dictatorial control over what runs on your iPhone.
All the other stuff, about 'open', 'obsolete', cpu hog, etc, is going to take care of itself, whether Flash is on the iThing or not. Isn't 'open' supposed to be about being able to use things as you'd like, without some turtleneck cashier sticking his hand out everytime you try to do something? Isn't Steve the tollkeeper here?
Absolutely, but if Adobe's not going to properly support Flash then we shouldn't be pointing the finger at Apple and expecting them to pick up the slack. Nor should be upset at Apple and Google for finding and developing better solutions.
I agree with you 100%, that no one should expect Apple to pick up the slack, nor should anyone be upset at Apple finding an alternative. OTOH, there is a difference between finding an alternative and calling for the elimination of Flash.
How many sites are using old Flash compared to new Flash?
Who is going to rewrite all these old sites, how much will it cost them to buy the required tools from Adobe?
I notice Adobe is being very quiet on this bag of hurt.
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?
Is that like a Casper the Friendly Ghost DVD or something?
...now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed...
(It might take some work: - OMG!)
HTML5 isn't (any of the above).
So what's wrong with teaching people to read rather than sitting there interacting with cartoons?
Now this comment is nothing to do with Flash or H.264 or anything like that. But from your comment, you haven't taught someone to read before, you don't need to use an expensive device like a tablet (iPad or any other one really), or a computer at all. Books, and other aids to teach someone to read are very cheap, and more durable than any electronic device will be.
It's one thing to have opinion, it's another thing to outright lie. All you need to do is due the simple test outlined above, at your request to see the resource spike from using using Flash over the HTML5 video tag in YouTube.
How is stating that OSX has a low market share lying? Link please or go on vacation ALREADY!
Bottom Line:
If Flash is so bad, and HTML 5 is so good, then Apple needs to do nothing. 'It's no big deal. Just put Flash on the device.' Flash will wither and die anyway, and your customers will be happy along the way. ...
You don't do logic much do you?
It ain't capitalism, it's web standards. The "market" isn't going to sort it out.
1) The conversation is about Flash being a resource hog compared to other options, not in comparison to different OSes where it's clear Flash is less developed on Mac OS X.
2) As you have astutely pointed out, Flash is a resource hog on Mac OS X, requiring an Intel Core Duo 2.66GHz processor or better, so why would you even argue that Flash would work just fine on the 412MHz to 600MHz iPhone ARM processors or the 1GHz processor in the iPad? Game. Set. Match.
I have never argued that Flash would work great on mobile devices including the iPad. However being the "geek" that I am when there is a software issue I look at fixing the issue not trying to kill the product as I see your buddy Quadra is trying to promote...lol.
You said the other member was incorrect and the fact is he isn't, Flash is clearly more of an issue for OSX then it is for Windows so you aren't going to kill Flash when 5% of the market has an issue with it.
What should happen is Adobe and Apple should work together to see why Flash is an issue for OSX.
Technology trends like this change very slowly, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon and the only people that suffer is the end users if they can't view all the content on the internet. When someone looks at a Mac if a website they like doesn't work they aren't going to blame Adobe they are going to walk away from buying a Mac.
Many consumers just want something to work, they don't care how it works or why it works but if it doesn't work they will simply look at it as Apple fault.
To sum up my points what I am saying is fix the issue instead of talking forever about trying to kill something you can't kill or kill anytime soon. Apple is not big enough even at its peak and doesn't have the market share to kill Flash or for that matter anything Adobe has to offer.
If Steve Jobs really wanted to give his users the best browsing experience ever he would work with Adobe to correct the issue instead of trying to force techology in another direction which he doesn't have the power to do.
While Flash may go away at some point you and I both know that isn't going to be anytime soon.
While Flash may not be the best option for mobile devices including the iPad there is simply no reason why it shouldn't perform better on a system running OSX.
I'm not seeing them.
I use ClickToFlash.
You mean you're not having " the best web experience"?
I agree with you 100%, that no one should expect Apple to pick up the slack, nor should anyone be upset at Apple finding an alternative. OTOH, there is a difference between finding an alternative and calling for the elimination of Flash.
I've never called for the elimination of Flash. I've stated on many occasions that Canvas is far from being able to replicate Flash animations as there is no development kit for it. I've even posted some interactive Canvas demos that push your CPU the way Flash does.
The only thing I'm prognosticating is that Flash for video streaming will be going downhill in favor of HTML5 video from here on out. But note that Flash for video is current on Mt. Everest so this will not happen overnight.
Who is going to rewrite all these old sites, how much will it cost them to buy the required tools from Adobe?
I notice Adobe is being very quiet on this bag of hurt.
They've already made a way to convert Flash to Cocoa Touch so they at least have that going for them. I was surprised they even went that route at all. I'd much rather have a 64-bit version of Flash for Mac OS X.
With patents on h.264 not scheduled to expire for many years, shouldn't we be concerned that the patent holders will try to monetize h.264 on the web once it's established as a standard? And if royalty payments were imposed in the future, couldn't that effectively destroy any free software that relies on it?
I have never argued that Flash would work great on mobile devices including the iPad. However being the "geek" that I am when there is a software issue I look at fixing the issue not trying to kill the product as I see your buddy Quadra is trying to promote...lol.
You said the other member was incorrect and the fact is he isn't, Flash is clearly more of an issue for OSX then it is for Windows so you aren't going to kill Flash when 5% of the market has an issue with it.
What should happen is Adobe and Apple should work together to see why Flash is an issue for OSX.
Technology trends like this change very slowly, Flash isn't going anywhere anytime soon and the only people that suffer is the end users if they can't view all the content on the internet. When someone looks at a Mac if a website they like doesn't work they aren't going to blame Adobe they are going to walk away from buying a Mac.
Many consumers just want something to work, they don't care how it works or why it works but if it doesn't work they will simply look at it as Apple fault.
To sum up my points what I am saying is fix the issue instead of talking forever about trying to kill something you can't kill or kill anytime soon. Apple is not big enough even at its peak and doesn't have the market share to kill Flash or for that matter anything Adobe has to offer.
If Steve Jobs really wanted to give his users the best browsing experience ever he would work with Adobe to correct the issue instead of trying to force techology in another direction which he doesn't have the power to do.
While Flash may go away at some point you and I both know that isn't going to be anytime soon.
While Flash may not be the best option for mobile devices including the iPad there is simply no reason why it shouldn't perform better on a system running OSX.
Apple, Google, Mozilla, and a few other companies are betting on Flash's demise. This isn't an Apple vs. Adobe fight.
While I look forward to Flash's demise in favor of an open standard, your lengthy explanation leaves out concerns about h.264's patents. Mozilla is pushing for the competing OGV video codec which, though slightly inferior in benchmark performance, benefits from being completely free and unencumbered by patents.
With patents on h.264 not scheduled to expire for many years, shouldn't we be concerned that the patent holders will try to monetize h.264 on the web once it's established as a standard? And if royalty payments were imposed in the future, couldn't that effectively destroy any free software that relies on it?
It's free until 2016. By then H.265 should be the next best thing. Even if it isn't OGG doesn't perform well as the bitrate increases, Apple, MS, Google, Intel and even Adobe are behind H.264. It's HW accelerated, while OGG is not. It's a losing game no matter you cut it. For once the superior quality beat the more convenient one out of the gate.
I don't see many sites adding OGG as an alternative option. I think a plugin will likely be made to give Firefox H.264 support and the site will check for the browser and if the codec is available. If not, it will simply put up a link telling the Firefox user they need to install the plugin to play the video, the same way Flash does. For older browser Flash will be used for a long time to come but it will still be streaming H.264.