Where's Apple's Dreamweaver and Flash App alternatives.
On that note, where is Adobe's version of Flash that runs well on Mac OS X? They're working on it! Where is Adobe's version of Flash that uses native APIs, like Core Animation and OpenCL, to make animation more efficient? They're working on it!
Where is the Flash for mobile OSes that use ARM processors? They're working on it!
Where is the Flash for iPhone OS back in 2007? They expect you to use Flash Lite? yeah Right!
Adobe dug their own whole with complacency and apathy and now they're playing catch up in a mobile world that is outpacing them. It's not Apple's fault, in fact they helped get Adobe off their ass. Not is it the publisher's fault, but they will have to take the brunt of it if they wish to make an iPhone OS compatible product. if not for Silverlight attacking Flash on yet another front Adobe would be in an even worse position as it was because of MS that they added H.264 and HW acceleration when they did.
I'd love to see Apple release some dev tools for designers who really, really, really want to create HTML5 compliant design work. It would be nice and clean, no doubt.
Yeah, I thought the iTunes LP and iTunes Extras with SproutCore and PastryKit was an early demo for publishers for the inevitable tablet we knew they were working on. Maybe they are, it's not like they have to release it with the device to make it viable; just look at the iPhone OS SDK and App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
It doesn't have to be Apple. Whoever creates these tools, even Adobe, can make a ton of cash. The only reason why Adobe doesn't already do it is because they control the market for Flash.
As for this article, it's fne to me that some of these devs complain. Chances are i wasn't using your site if it was so dependant on Flash. Make new jobs and hire some proper coders. I'll do just fine without you when I get my iPad.
Adobe makes Dreamweaver so they have a vested interest in making the best web development tools.
FLASH runs just fine on any low-end PC even Netbooks.
You're seriously out of your depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD
You obviously can't disprove my comment- so you typically just dismiss it.
I must agree with Ireland. There are so many times when I read your posts and I wonder sometimes if you are indeed working in a science and technology environment to arrogate the assumed username.
I had been a user of both the original Apple II and the DOS MIcrosoft PC and experienced the evolution of these computers as well as others now no longer manufactured. Once Apple developed an operating system much better than DOS. I never looked back. I do not want to waste my time. [However, in science and technology, especially in the biomedical field, sometimes we are forced to use costly scientific equipment that are Windows-based because the manufacture decided to use MS software only. So, I used both operating systems and familiar with them.]
I use several Adobe products for the Mac. They are very costly, including the cost of their upgrades. Thus, if I can find comparable softwares, I tend to use these alternatives.
Once, I want to upgrade one Adobe product because I had a higher grade OSX. I called them but they don't have an upgrade to that OSX version. They did not have plans yet to develop for the latest version of the OSX, if I wanted to buy a new Mac.
Obviously, developing Mac-compatible Adobe products -- that are comparable to their MS-compatible products -- is not Adobe's priority.
The only choice I was given by Adobe is to buy a Windows-based PC, for me to be able to use their product. Or, run the Windows operating system in the latest verion of the Mac. That means buying the MS OS and the Adobe product -- both are not cheap.
This is not limited to Adobe though. This has been the case with products from Microsoft (e.g., MS Office), and many other software developers, especially in science research. I had to purchase MS-based software technology
They do not care much about the needs of Mac users because they consider them an insignificant minority.
The result is that Mac users are handicapped, if they use Mac computers.
Should Apple just accept this status quo for users of its products and should Apple product users be accepting of such treatment?
Now that Apple has the upperhand in certain areas (e.g, their advances in mobile computing), these predominantly Windows-centric developers expect Apple to just accept their technology?
As far as I am concerned, as a predominantly Mac user, these Windows=centric developers get what they deserve.
The reality is this:
The music industry already embraced the the iPhone OS and so did many in the gaming industry. All of the more than 150,000 (and growing) Apps submitted to Apple Apps also are compatible with a Flash-free system. Other popular technologies (including You Tube) have developed alternatives to Flash.
Similarly, many of the leaders in the publishing industry (books, news, magazine, etc.) and mass media (television, movies, etc.) are already developing or are considering development of alternatives to Flash.
Why? These industries cannot ignore the growing iPhone OS-based technology users -- iPhone, iPod Touch and in a few days iPad. And whether we like it or not, these users happen to have higher disposable income, or understand the value of paying for higher-cost Apple produts. These consumers are likely to be the same targets for the products of the aforementioned industries.
Apple keeps changing it's OS so darn much, it's hard for any developer to keep up and make a profit.
As opposed to Windows which changes stuff all and still has security issues from NT4? That makes sense. Apple should just sit on its laurels and not innovate just like every other computer manufacturer and OS developer out there.
That's why Apple is selling so well despite being such a small player in the market. It innovates but it doesn't completely kill off backwards support unless it really has to.
Also Apple didn't really add much to Snow Leopard in fact Apple took more away from it to make it streamlined and superfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
The CPU's crank on Mac's because Apple doesn't allow GPU hardware acceleration.
Yes it does if developers use the Frameworks Apple tells them to. Adobe doesn't because it wants to do things its own way and as a result it will never gain hardware acceleration until it does support those frameworks. It's not Apple's fault Flash Player sucks it's 100% Adobe's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
Does Apple really think publishers are going to give up the ease of use and creativity of Flash and hire a bunch of costly HTML5/JavaScript coders just to meet the needs of a underpowered iPad hardware?
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
Yep, 150,000 native apps on the App Store means the iPad is in trouble... Oh wait, the iPad can run ALL of those as well as those designed specifically for the iPad which are already showing up on the Store. Yep, the iPad is in serious trouble because it doesn't support Flash.
Adobe confessed that Flash has been not properly developed for OSX (documented fact in earlier article) and their need to do more work and you come with above comments. As I said you love to hear your own voice.
And what exactly does that confession imply? They're obviously not sweating to the oldies trying to get it "properly developed " for Macs when it works just fine on 90% of the world's computers. What is their incentive? Has Apple offered to pay them to fix it? It benefits Apple more than Adobe to fix it. Apple should put up the chump change now with their money bags or stop whining.
Do you even ponder what you write and the consistency of your arguments in your various posts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD
... They're obviously not sweating to the oldies trying to get it "properly developed " for Macs when it works just fine on 90% of the world's computers. ...
Apple has responded to that status quo:
Adobe and many Windows-centric software developers decided to ignore Apple products users -- simply because they are not part of the 90% of the world that you cite.
Apple's primary goal is to provide the best experience for people who embrace its products -- not for the other 90% of the world that may not likely embrace Apple products.
Apple, mindful of the aforementioned attitude of Adobe and many Windows-centric software developers, decided to exclude those technologies. e.g., Flash. that ignored the needs of those that embraced Apple products.
Whether it will prove to be the case in the long run, Apple happen to have introduced products based on technologies that are being emulated by others, or embraced by various consumer-based industries (music, gaming, mass media, etc.) that see potential profit to ride the Apple-based bandwagon.
As such, it can dictate the rules, or guide the direction of the technologies where it has the upperhand.
"Using Flash for interactive graphics is irreplaceable," the producer "Not just slideshows, but special section graphics and interactive presentations can be embedded on story pages quickly and easily. Oh, sure, just use Javascript: well guess what, we don't have a bunch of code junkies in our newsroom. We do have some great designers who've picked up Flash and enough Actionscript to be very effective."
The above perspective is from someone who does not fully understand the evolution of technologies. It cannot be used to justify the entrenchment of what is now universally accepted technologies.
All technologies are replaceable or at least improved upon. Sometimes the development of new technologies may render entrenched technologies obsolete.
Even Apple products and technologies may someday become obsolete or improved upon.
You'll soon discover that in dealing with this buffoon, you are one hand clapping.
anantksundaram,
I am not really new here. I have been reading Apple Insider and a few other sites for a number of years. I just do not post that often.
Actually, I challenged the person to shut up -- if it turns out that iPad is a success. He predicted that the iPad will be a failure, in one of his many posts ***.
He predicated of course. So, I even asked him to define or quantify the measure of success that iPad must meet. Again, he qualified his measure of success.
At least, he proclaimed the Kindle to be successful. Thus, if the iPad will eclipsed the Kindle; using his own criteria, the iPad would be a success.
Let us see if he will have the balls enough to accept his mistake when the time comes that iPad will eclipse Kindle.
When that time comes, all people here has to do is to quote his past predictions to discredit his pontifications -- much like Balmer's shortsightedness (and lack of understanding of technology) was immortalized by his prediction of the iPhone.
CGC
N.B.
*** It appears, he might have removed (or edited) some of his posts. but he cannot remove the quotations of these posts.
Too bad it's just version 1, 2 though (ActionScript doesn't come in until like Flash 3 or 4 right? and does version 2 only support super low FPS?) It's a great work around though and maybe the best solution for the moment....hopefully companies like the WSJ and NYT get hip to this.... Thanks for the link!
Who cares? It is only advertisements. It moves, it is distracting, it clicks to a link. That is all advertisers want. Sure it has no transparency and the other Actionscript features but it works just fine for ads.
Not to mention Flash "doesn't" run "just fine" on netbooks. They become hot and the fans go crazy. And battery life is dramatically decreased. In this day and age little animated web games shouldn't make your computer seem like it wants to catch fire. You're comments assume none of use Windows machines to test your bullshit claims.
Sounds like you're the one spreading the BS. My $250 netbook runs flash perfectly. No crashes, no heat issues, and the battery life is just fine.
"Kevin Elevin, a Flash developer with a large vested interest in Flash...."
There. Fixed it.
Newspapers that don't embrace the future are doomed to repeat past mistakes. Probably to their complete demise next time around. They should be training their valued employees in new technology on an on-going basis.
Might as well stop reading right now. This thread is guaranteed to head downhill in no time. The troglodytes will be out in force......
Perhaps but I never had a problem on any mac and flash.
IT'S ALL ABOUT ITUNES SELLING FREE SHOWS, PERIOD!!!
Flash is used on nearly 99% of entertainment sites to espn, sports etc.
Why pay iTunes when you can get most of it free. Note the lack of a DVR ON APPLE TV. AGAIN, all about iTunes. You can't even record with Apple TV and the sad thing is if it wasn't for iTunes, Apple could create a great media center allowing for DVD, torrents for those that don't want to watch commercials, and many other codecs.
I work in entertainment too and am glad that they are making a fuss. Apple also fears Adobes gaming structure too. Just google it. \
Let us see if he will have the balls enough to accept his mistake when the time comes that iPad will eclipse Kindle.
When that time comes, all people here has to do is to quote his past predictions to discredit his pontifications -- much like Balmer's shortsightedness (and lack of understanding of technology) was immortalized by his prediction of the iPhone.
CGC
N.B.
*** It appears, he might have removed (or edited) some of his posts. but he cannot remove the quotations of these posts.
Not even a chance. TS lacks the testicular fortitude to make any to make any such admission. There will be some reason why the iPad has failed to meet expectations. Like the sales figures for June -- December 2009 showed that the Kindle out sold the iPad over 500 to 1.
As far as changing the posts, edits to posts are noted, reason why post was edited should be stated --although the reason for the edit is voluntary, the fact that the post was edited is still recorded.
Help kill Adobe's Flash. Join YouTube's HTML5 beta and on Vimeo just click the "Switch to HTML5 player" link below any video http://www.youtube.com/html5
I must admit I have not seen this in a couple years, but I was impacted not only by my own experience as a kid with low vision, which thanks to science and some great docs has been remedied, but I have also sen blind and vision impaired people attempt to use computers and the web, screen readers just see flash as a file name, and perhaps will read the alt tag, how are you supposed to navigate a flash based UI if you cant have the assistive technology read it to you? Once the spec is finalized, I know that all screen readers will become HTML5 compatible, but it may still just say "nav_bar.swf" for flash stuff...
Basically it is this simple, at least a few years back when I last saw the technologies available, if you hate the blind and dont want their business, use flash, if yo want to help the blind frequent your business, use open standards.
I am not much for government intervention in the private enterprise, but I think perhaps flash should be required to work with readers, like your grocery store is required to have wheelchair ramps on the sidewalk and handicapped spaces.
Might as well stop reading right now. This thread is guaranteed to head downhill in no time. The troglodytes will be out in force......
ITS ALL ANOUT ITUNES. WHY GET FIR FREE WHST JOBS CSN MAKE YOU PAY FOR!!!
Am dam# glad the media is makingba big deal out of this. 99% of all media sites use flash, from ABC, espn to major leauge baseball all use flash it'd fast, is much smaller than avi takes 1/10th the time to render comparded to Quicktime. I mean it'd always something with Spple. No dvr on app TV. No express port on 15" or smaller. It was $150 more just to have a black MacBook. I mean winning is one thing. Greed at evey corner is something else. I can't wait for rainbow turtle neck to retire.
Maybe a better headline would be "Valleywag manages to find a few critics of Apple's Flash stance."
Or perhaps, "Some Flash Designers Worry About Job Security."
The smart, good ones will quickly transition to HTML5, the others will suffer the fate that awaits those who don't advance with technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
There really isn't any reason for there to be any emotional response to this entire topic. The simple fact is Adobe let Flash go to shit but they have made marked improvements with Flash 10.1.
If Adobe and Apple could leave the past in the past they would work together to make Flash a decent option on any Apple product by simply accessing the correct API's and invoking hardware acceleration via the GPU. This is why Safari on OSX uses 37% CPU and Safari for Windows uses less then 8%.
You keep pushing this, "It's Apple's fault that Flash sucks," theory, which, as I've already pointed out in another thread, has no basis in fact. As I've also pointed out in another thread, saying it's Apple's fault contradicts your assertion that Flash 10.1 is the bomb.
I mean, I don't really mind that you undermine your own arguments, but, it's a bit pathetic that you keep repeating them after they've already been shown to be nonsense.
Comments
Where's Apple's Dreamweaver and Flash App alternatives.
On that note, where is Adobe's version of Flash that runs well on Mac OS X? They're working on it! Where is Adobe's version of Flash that uses native APIs, like Core Animation and OpenCL, to make animation more efficient? They're working on it!
Where is the Flash for mobile OSes that use ARM processors? They're working on it!
Where is the Flash for iPhone OS back in 2007? They expect you to use Flash Lite? yeah Right!
Adobe dug their own whole with complacency and apathy and now they're playing catch up in a mobile world that is outpacing them. It's not Apple's fault, in fact they helped get Adobe off their ass. Not is it the publisher's fault, but they will have to take the brunt of it if they wish to make an iPhone OS compatible product. if not for Silverlight attacking Flash on yet another front Adobe would be in an even worse position as it was because of MS that they added H.264 and HW acceleration when they did.
I'd love to see Apple release some dev tools for designers who really, really, really want to create HTML5 compliant design work. It would be nice and clean, no doubt.
Yeah, I thought the iTunes LP and iTunes Extras with SproutCore and PastryKit was an early demo for publishers for the inevitable tablet we knew they were working on. Maybe they are, it's not like they have to release it with the device to make it viable; just look at the iPhone OS SDK and App Store.
It doesn't have to be Apple. Whoever creates these tools, even Adobe, can make a ton of cash. The only reason why Adobe doesn't already do it is because they control the market for Flash.
As for this article, it's fne to me that some of these devs complain. Chances are i wasn't using your site if it was so dependant on Flash. Make new jobs and hire some proper coders. I'll do just fine without you when I get my iPad.
Adobe makes Dreamweaver so they have a vested interest in making the best web development tools.
It not because of FLASH, it's because of OSX.
FLASH runs just fine on any low-end PC even Netbooks.
You're seriously out of your depth.
You obviously can't disprove my comment- so you typically just dismiss it.
I must agree with Ireland. There are so many times when I read your posts and I wonder sometimes if you are indeed working in a science and technology environment to arrogate the assumed username.
I had been a user of both the original Apple II and the DOS MIcrosoft PC and experienced the evolution of these computers as well as others now no longer manufactured. Once Apple developed an operating system much better than DOS. I never looked back. I do not want to waste my time. [However, in science and technology, especially in the biomedical field, sometimes we are forced to use costly scientific equipment that are Windows-based because the manufacture decided to use MS software only. So, I used both operating systems and familiar with them.]
I use several Adobe products for the Mac. They are very costly, including the cost of their upgrades. Thus, if I can find comparable softwares, I tend to use these alternatives.
Once, I want to upgrade one Adobe product because I had a higher grade OSX. I called them but they don't have an upgrade to that OSX version. They did not have plans yet to develop for the latest version of the OSX, if I wanted to buy a new Mac.
Obviously, developing Mac-compatible Adobe products -- that are comparable to their MS-compatible products -- is not Adobe's priority.
The only choice I was given by Adobe is to buy a Windows-based PC, for me to be able to use their product. Or, run the Windows operating system in the latest verion of the Mac. That means buying the MS OS and the Adobe product -- both are not cheap.
This is not limited to Adobe though. This has been the case with products from Microsoft (e.g., MS Office), and many other software developers, especially in science research. I had to purchase MS-based software technology
They do not care much about the needs of Mac users because they consider them an insignificant minority.
The result is that Mac users are handicapped, if they use Mac computers.
Should Apple just accept this status quo for users of its products and should Apple product users be accepting of such treatment?
Now that Apple has the upperhand in certain areas (e.g, their advances in mobile computing), these predominantly Windows-centric developers expect Apple to just accept their technology?
As far as I am concerned, as a predominantly Mac user, these Windows=centric developers get what they deserve.
The reality is this:
The music industry already embraced the the iPhone OS and so did many in the gaming industry. All of the more than 150,000 (and growing) Apps submitted to Apple Apps also are compatible with a Flash-free system. Other popular technologies (including You Tube) have developed alternatives to Flash.
Similarly, many of the leaders in the publishing industry (books, news, magazine, etc.) and mass media (television, movies, etc.) are already developing or are considering development of alternatives to Flash.
Why? These industries cannot ignore the growing iPhone OS-based technology users -- iPhone, iPod Touch and in a few days iPad. And whether we like it or not, these users happen to have higher disposable income, or understand the value of paying for higher-cost Apple produts. These consumers are likely to be the same targets for the products of the aforementioned industries.
CGC
Apple keeps changing it's OS so darn much, it's hard for any developer to keep up and make a profit.
As opposed to Windows which changes stuff all and still has security issues from NT4? That makes sense. Apple should just sit on its laurels and not innovate just like every other computer manufacturer and OS developer out there.
That's why Apple is selling so well despite being such a small player in the market. It innovates but it doesn't completely kill off backwards support unless it really has to.
Also Apple didn't really add much to Snow Leopard in fact Apple took more away from it to make it streamlined and superfast.
The CPU's crank on Mac's because Apple doesn't allow GPU hardware acceleration.
Yes it does if developers use the Frameworks Apple tells them to. Adobe doesn't because it wants to do things its own way and as a result it will never gain hardware acceleration until it does support those frameworks. It's not Apple's fault Flash Player sucks it's 100% Adobe's fault.
Does Apple really think publishers are going to give up the ease of use and creativity of Flash and hire a bunch of costly HTML5/JavaScript coders just to meet the needs of a underpowered iPad hardware?
It's not looking too good for the iPad.
Yep, 150,000 native apps on the App Store means the iPad is in trouble... Oh wait, the iPad can run ALL of those as well as those designed specifically for the iPad which are already showing up on the Store. Yep, the iPad is in serious trouble because it doesn't support Flash.
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post
Adobe confessed that Flash has been not properly developed for OSX (documented fact in earlier article) and their need to do more work and you come with above comments. As I said you love to hear your own voice.
And what exactly does that confession imply? They're obviously not sweating to the oldies trying to get it "properly developed " for Macs when it works just fine on 90% of the world's computers. What is their incentive? Has Apple offered to pay them to fix it? It benefits Apple more than Adobe to fix it. Apple should put up the chump change now with their money bags or stop whining.
Do you even ponder what you write and the consistency of your arguments in your various posts?
... They're obviously not sweating to the oldies trying to get it "properly developed " for Macs when it works just fine on 90% of the world's computers. ...
Apple has responded to that status quo:
- Adobe and many Windows-centric software developers decided to ignore Apple products users -- simply because they are not part of the 90% of the world that you cite.
- Apple's primary goal is to provide the best experience for people who embrace its products -- not for the other 90% of the world that may not likely embrace Apple products.
- Apple, mindful of the aforementioned attitude of Adobe and many Windows-centric software developers, decided to exclude those technologies. e.g., Flash. that ignored the needs of those that embraced Apple products.
Whether it will prove to be the case in the long run, Apple happen to have introduced products based on technologies that are being emulated by others, or embraced by various consumer-based industries (music, gaming, mass media, etc.) that see potential profit to ride the Apple-based bandwagon.As such, it can dictate the rules, or guide the direction of the technologies where it has the upperhand.
CGC
Do you even ponder what you [TS] write and the consistency of your arguments in your various posts? etc etc
Ah, you must be new here.......
You'll soon discover that in dealing with this buffoon, you are one hand clapping.
"Using Flash for interactive graphics is irreplaceable," the producer "Not just slideshows, but special section graphics and interactive presentations can be embedded on story pages quickly and easily. Oh, sure, just use Javascript: well guess what, we don't have a bunch of code junkies in our newsroom. We do have some great designers who've picked up Flash and enough Actionscript to be very effective."
The above perspective is from someone who does not fully understand the evolution of technologies. It cannot be used to justify the entrenchment of what is now universally accepted technologies.
All technologies are replaceable or at least improved upon. Sometimes the development of new technologies may render entrenched technologies obsolete.
Even Apple products and technologies may someday become obsolete or improved upon.
CGC
Ah, you must be new here.......
You'll soon discover that in dealing with this buffoon, you are one hand clapping.
anantksundaram,
I am not really new here. I have been reading Apple Insider and a few other sites for a number of years. I just do not post that often.
Actually, I challenged the person to shut up -- if it turns out that iPad is a success. He predicted that the iPad will be a failure, in one of his many posts ***.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...01#post1578101
He predicated of course. So, I even asked him to define or quantify the measure of success that iPad must meet. Again, he qualified his measure of success.
At least, he proclaimed the Kindle to be successful. Thus, if the iPad will eclipsed the Kindle; using his own criteria, the iPad would be a success.
Let us see if he will have the balls enough to accept his mistake when the time comes that iPad will eclipse Kindle.
When that time comes, all people here has to do is to quote his past predictions to discredit his pontifications -- much like Balmer's shortsightedness (and lack of understanding of technology) was immortalized by his prediction of the iPhone.
CGC
N.B.
*** It appears, he might have removed (or edited) some of his posts. but he cannot remove the quotations of these posts.
Wow!! Very cool!!!!!
Too bad it's just version 1, 2 though (ActionScript doesn't come in until like Flash 3 or 4 right? and does version 2 only support super low FPS?) It's a great work around though and maybe the best solution for the moment....hopefully companies like the WSJ and NYT get hip to this.... Thanks for the link!
Who cares? It is only advertisements. It moves, it is distracting, it clicks to a link. That is all advertisers want. Sure it has no transparency and the other Actionscript features but it works just fine for ads.
Not to mention Flash "doesn't" run "just fine" on netbooks. They become hot and the fans go crazy. And battery life is dramatically decreased. In this day and age little animated web games shouldn't make your computer seem like it wants to catch fire. You're comments assume none of use Windows machines to test your bullshit claims.
Sounds like you're the one spreading the BS. My $250 netbook runs flash perfectly. No crashes, no heat issues, and the battery life is just fine.
There. Fixed it.
Newspapers that don't embrace the future are doomed to repeat past mistakes. Probably to their complete demise next time around. They should be training their valued employees in new technology on an on-going basis.
Flash? iPad?
Uh-oh.
Might as well stop reading right now. This thread is guaranteed to head downhill in no time. The troglodytes will be out in force......
Perhaps but I never had a problem on any mac and flash.
IT'S ALL ABOUT ITUNES SELLING FREE SHOWS, PERIOD!!!
Flash is used on nearly 99% of entertainment sites to espn, sports etc.
Why pay iTunes when you can get most of it free. Note the lack of a DVR ON APPLE TV. AGAIN, all about iTunes. You can't even record with Apple TV and the sad thing is if it wasn't for iTunes, Apple could create a great media center allowing for DVD, torrents for those that don't want to watch commercials, and many other codecs.
I work in entertainment too and am glad that they are making a fuss. Apple also fears Adobes gaming structure too. Just google it.
Let us see if he will have the balls enough to accept his mistake when the time comes that iPad will eclipse Kindle.
When that time comes, all people here has to do is to quote his past predictions to discredit his pontifications -- much like Balmer's shortsightedness (and lack of understanding of technology) was immortalized by his prediction of the iPhone.
CGC
N.B.
*** It appears, he might have removed (or edited) some of his posts. but he cannot remove the quotations of these posts.
Not even a chance. TS lacks the testicular fortitude to make any to make any such admission. There will be some reason why the iPad has failed to meet expectations. Like the sales figures for June -- December 2009 showed that the Kindle out sold the iPad over 500 to 1.
As far as changing the posts, edits to posts are noted, reason why post was edited should be stated --although the reason for the edit is voluntary, the fact that the post was edited is still recorded.
Basically it is this simple, at least a few years back when I last saw the technologies available, if you hate the blind and dont want their business, use flash, if yo want to help the blind frequent your business, use open standards.
I am not much for government intervention in the private enterprise, but I think perhaps flash should be required to work with readers, like your grocery store is required to have wheelchair ramps on the sidewalk and handicapped spaces.
It's over. Hopefully someone will write a converter.
Maury
Flash? iPad?
Uh-oh.
Might as well stop reading right now. This thread is guaranteed to head downhill in no time. The troglodytes will be out in force......
ITS ALL ANOUT ITUNES. WHY GET FIR FREE WHST JOBS CSN MAKE YOU PAY FOR!!!
Am dam# glad the media is makingba big deal out of this. 99% of all media sites use flash, from ABC, espn to major leauge baseball all use flash it'd fast, is much smaller than avi takes 1/10th the time to render comparded to Quicktime. I mean it'd always something with Spple. No dvr on app TV. No express port on 15" or smaller. It was $150 more just to have a black MacBook. I mean winning is one thing. Greed at evey corner is something else. I can't wait for rainbow turtle neck to retire.
Maybe a better headline would be "Valleywag manages to find a few critics of Apple's Flash stance."
Or perhaps, "Some Flash Designers Worry About Job Security."
The smart, good ones will quickly transition to HTML5, the others will suffer the fate that awaits those who don't advance with technology.
There really isn't any reason for there to be any emotional response to this entire topic. The simple fact is Adobe let Flash go to shit but they have made marked improvements with Flash 10.1.
If Adobe and Apple could leave the past in the past they would work together to make Flash a decent option on any Apple product by simply accessing the correct API's and invoking hardware acceleration via the GPU. This is why Safari on OSX uses 37% CPU and Safari for Windows uses less then 8%.
You keep pushing this, "It's Apple's fault that Flash sucks," theory, which, as I've already pointed out in another thread, has no basis in fact. As I've also pointed out in another thread, saying it's Apple's fault contradicts your assertion that Flash 10.1 is the bomb.
I mean, I don't really mind that you undermine your own arguments, but, it's a bit pathetic that you keep repeating them after they've already been shown to be nonsense.