Publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 158
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    Let publishers criticize Apple's anti-Flash stance all they want. Fine by me.

    I would rather use an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch than visit Flash-based sites on some other Flash-loving device. I avoid Flash-filled sites when surfing on any computer, and I'll avoid them on my Apple mobile devices.

    My charge to those sites - change and adapt or stay stagnant and die.
  • Reply 122 of 158
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    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.



    Flash 10.1 for mobile hasn't actually been released yet, right? We've only seen videos. When it's released, who knows, Apple might add it then.



    But I doubt it since I think the real issue is that Flash is not part of the open Web standards. It's Adobe-proprietary. When will Adobe submit it to a standards body?



    Quote:

    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%.



    Apple has made all the appropriate APIs available for graphics and video to execute well on a GPU. Apple and other developers use it and it works fine. Why should Apple allow another low-level avenue into its hardware, and in the long run, create more hassles for their OS and hardware flexibility?
  • Reply 123 of 158
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 801member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    When will Adobe submit it to a standards body?



    Probably the same day Apple allows Mac OS X and the iPhone OS to be an open for use on any device.
  • Reply 124 of 158
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    If Adobe is as lazy as Steve says. If Flash is a data hog as Apple says. If Flash hasn't been updated for Mac as some posters have said resulting in endless beach balls on the Mac while the improved Flash for PC works great, even on Netbooks... Then maybe it is time Apple created its own "version" to satisfy all those squeaky wheel iPad wannabe content providers and Apple can call this new 'flash'-like software... drumroll please:



    'Gone in a Flash!'



    Precisely. And it's called NO-FLASH (or HTML5)...
  • Reply 125 of 158
    An easy solution to the cpu and battery hog nature of flash on the web is to just not run it by default. I use the Chrome browser on OS X with the FlashBlock extension. By default it replaces all flash browser elements with a grayed out box of the same size plus a small F icon in the top left. The advantages of this are:



    1) Faster load times due to not loading the flash code



    2) MBP runs cooler



    3) cpu usage is much lower



    4) battery life is longer



    5) If I want to run a Flash element then I click on the small F icon and just run that one flash instance on its own. I would do this for example on the BBC news web site to view a small video report.



    6) Very important: I don't block any other form of advertising, so I encourage the site owner to provide adverts/content using non Flash methods.



    7) Even more important: I'm not left out if I don't want to be. It's MY choice.



    This works really well on my MBP and would work equally as well on my iPhone or on an iPad. There is no technical reason why this could not be done.
  • Reply 126 of 158
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post


    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.



    Settle down, Beavis. First of all, it's kind of obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. "Much smaller than AVI" isn't the kind of thing any actual professional would say, because a professional knows that AVI is merely a container format (and a quaintly obsolete one at that), and that the size of a file is determined by the codec used on its contents, not the container type. A professional would also know that Flash video uses an FLV-type container, but that the actual data within is pure H.264, just like everybody else uses. In other words, Flash video is neither superior nor inferior to any other type of Internet-delivered video. They're all based on exactly the same technology.



    And the "takes 1/10th the time to render" thing? No idea what you're talking about there. Did you mean encode, or decode? Cause obviously you're wrong either way —*see above, re: H.264 — but you should at least stick to the right terms.



    Clearly you're getting all worked up about this. Perhaps you should go for a walk or have some Sunny D or something. It's not good for you to let yourself get so excited.
  • Reply 127 of 158
    dayrobotdayrobot Posts: 133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post


    [snip]

    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.]

    [/snip]

    CGC



    I appreciate hearing a user's point of view



    However, to most developers, the 'Microsoft' platform == consistency.



    They don't want to have to touch anything else, or re-learn without necessity (sadly). So, it's Windows® + x86....forever



    i386...i486..etc, etc...to now, with the dual and quad-core chips...



    The only real major change in Windows, was going from 16-bit to 32-bit, as far as i know.

    Old software still runs and continues to run, with only minor tweaks.



    DOS software continues to be usable, at least to some degree



    Also funny that, Linux has started out on the x86 architecture as well.





    Apple on the other hand, has gone thru several processor changes, so that has got to spook devs, at least a bit. Perhaps it only means a recompile in higher-level languages like C, but when you are writing device drivers, it's slightly more complicated.



    Plus a major OS change....



    And then bit endianness factor as well, also important when it comes to hardware. (Which, by the way, always confuses users who are setting up SheepShaver on Intel macs, since those don't come with Classic, thus needing an emulator for all those PPC apps. Users complain that all the files they transfer look strange and are unusable, with strangely scrambled names )



    So, what the developer sees:



    68K to PPC, @ old Mac OS: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures;

    PPC @ old Mac OS to OS X (unix): has Classic, still time to rewrite the whole product;

    PPC to x86, @ OS X: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures, doesn't have Classic anymore. Unlucky users have to use SheepShaver.



    When you have the source code, you can just recompile with some minor changes. But if you for some reason still have to rely on a library that's been compiled long ago, and the source has been lost, then the only choice is rewriting from scratch.







    So in biomed, i do understand the idea of "write once, run forever"...



    P.S. Sorry for the long rant, that is somewhat off topic, but is still relevant. I hope it is somewhat readable at this point. \
  • Reply 128 of 158
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    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.



    I guess we'll never know what TS will have to say, not only has the troll been BANNED but all of TS's posts have been stripped from this thread.
  • Reply 129 of 158
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    I guess we'll never know what TS will have to say, not only has the troll been BANNED but all of TS's posts have been stripped from this thread.



    Stripping all posts is easy to do for the Mods. It's modifying of deleting individual posts that can be a chore.



    He was here today under his mr koolaid alias. Not sure if he was given a PM warning or decided it was not worth a permanent ban.
  • Reply 130 of 158
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Stripping all posts is easy to do for the Mods. It's modifying of deleting individual posts that can be a chore.



    He was here today under his mr koolaid alias. Not sure if he was given a PM warning or decided it was not worth a permanent ban.



    Yeh, I read your comment, but not sure who mr koolaid was. But this really surprised me, never seen it where the Mods stripped all of the post from a thread---would be nice to announce that this is what happens to trolls on AI.



    I know that TS apparently had a signature line that upset some members yesterday @



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=108096



    but don't know if TS changed it, looks like the post is still there.



    oh well TS won't be missed.
  • Reply 131 of 158
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post


    I agree 100%. If Apple or even Adobe want to sell some software that lets you do the same thing a with a different type of file export, then more power to them. Obviously there's an impasse here, someone write a solution and make some cash.



    While many people believe that QuickTime interactive (QTi) bought the farm when Jobs put Hypercard out of its misery in 2001 the reality was the ability to make Quicktime interactive remained and was taken to the next level in "QTKit Framework Reference and Core Video Programming Guide"



    LiveStage Pro showed these features can be used cross platform so alterantive are already in place it just that no one has even tried to use them.
  • Reply 132 of 158
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    A huge chunk of the internet is built on Flash. It is a feature in some circumstances. It is a shame to see Apple taking yet another feature out because of its refusal to upgrade OS X underpinnings especially when even underpowered windows machines can run flash perfectly.



    You really haven't been paying attention have you? Part of the reason Apple is annoyed with Flash is Adobe wants direct access to parts of the OS that no program should really have if you don't want internet security to go down the toilet. Microsoft has long allowed programmers to do things that from a security aspect are insane so of course flash works wells there.



    And before you go into the marketshare BS may I remind you that the Mac had more viruses and malware with either System 6 or System 7 then it does now and that was when 1) it was on a totally different hardware platform, 2) had less a marketshare than today, and 3) the jerks who write viruses and malware had to deal with an OS that was a wild mishmash of 68000 Assembly, pascal, and C code (ie not that easy to program for)



    Windows users still get drive by infection (usually thanks to the security joke known as Internet Explorer) while the OS X crowd generally has to be social engineered out the wazzo or not skeptical enough install anything that comes their way
  • Reply 133 of 158
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DayRobot View Post


    So, what the developer sees:



    68K to PPC, @ old Mac OS: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures;

    PPC @ old Mac OS to OS X (unix): has Classic, still time to rewrite the whole product;

    PPC to x86, @ OS X: 'fat' binaries, to support both architectures, doesn't have Classic anymore. Unlucky users have to use SheepShaver.



    When you have the source code, you can just recompile with some minor changes. But if you for some reason still have to rely on a library that's been compiled long ago, and the source has been lost, then the only choice is rewriting from scratch.



    Windows has seen APIs come and go. For person was having all kind of problems running Day of the Tentacle and I directed them to ScummVM under the assumption that an API had drastically changed and the report that the their game now ran properly.



    Windows 7 has to rely on a VM to run really old programs. So instead of Classic where the old API were sent to MacOS you can have this insane situation of Windows 7 emulating a PC via a VM running Windows XP using Program Compatibility Mode

    As for an program that directly touched the hardware forget it.



    I should point out that the problem with SheepShaver is that it is a port of an BeOS and Linux emulator. What is really needed is a compatibility layer like what Classic was and what WINE was and still is though I don't know how viable this is.
  • Reply 134 of 158
    As a graphic designer who creates small animation in Flash for business and government clients, to not have an IDE that allows me to be efficient at my job will cost me and my company money. Quite frankly i could care less if the iPad runs Flash or not. But to say "kill flash" is very short sided. We have thousands of man hours tied up in animations of mechanical systems that are quite pleasing to our client.



    For me to turn to our clients and say HTML5 development will now take 2-3 times as long for perhaps less quality results will get me laughed out of the meeting room. Flash is (pardon the phrase) embedded in business and government work so deep now it is going to be like turning a battleship.



    I can only guess, but if and when HTML5 code is widely adopted, that there will be an option in Flash Builder to save to HTML5 format. If that ever happens, then much of this debate will go away. I can keep my crew on time and budget and comply with the new code base.
  • Reply 135 of 158
    AppleInsider seems to report information but does not seem to publicly advocate for or against particular positions.



    However, regarding flash, the site itself is littered with flash content from advertisers. Having recently installed ClickToFlash, the site is now substantially more readable, the page downloads are faster, the pages are cleaner, my focus is not constantly impeded by the ads.



    Now, I've got the best environment. I get to see only the important content of the site, the jetsam of flash ads are gone, and my Mac is now stable. What's there not to like?



    My purpose of being online is to collect information and anything that impedes me is a strong detriment. Thus, I avoid as much as possible all video content. Time is valuable to me and the ratio of content to time is miniscule for audio and visual. A typical news video of say 2 minutes contains around 150 words of content, which for me means less than 15 seconds of reading time.



    And take some news video sites, like CNN, where a new video is preceded by a 30 second ad --it simply irks me to no end.



    I understand that advertisers believe that ads bring in revenue so sites are financially supported by advertisers, but it just annoys me. I suppose what might "work" for people like me is advertising written up as news. For example, online Forbes is filled with news/opinions just like that and this site intentionally or unintentionally works the same.



    Now that I have ClickToFlash, I'm in favor of Flash, since it can and is filtered out. If HTML5 wins the day, then I'm back to sites of low content to jetsam ratio.
  • Reply 136 of 158
    I'm glad that Steve doesn't let Flash onto my iStuff. It is a CPU hog, made by a lazy company, and it is a major security hole.



    Good riddance! Kill Flash!
  • Reply 137 of 158
    Quote:

    :

    Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

    It not because of FLASH, it's because of OSX.

    FLASH runs just fine on any low-end PC even Netbooks.



    It runs fine on the Atom N450, which is a recent Intel netbook chip.



    The Snapdragon is reported to handle it just fine, as well.
  • Reply 138 of 158
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Hey look, it's iGenius gracing us with his presence yet again.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleRulez View Post


    I'm glad that Steve doesn't let Flash onto my iStuff. It is a CPU hog, made by a lazy company, and it is a major security hole.



    Good riddance! Kill Flash!



    Haven't you learned yet that balanced, thoughtout posts are what keep people from thinking you are a troll. All you're doing is reinforcing that with this new alias.
  • Reply 139 of 158
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    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......



    yeah anyone who wants flash on an ipad is a troglodyte.



    everyone who accepts whatever Steve Jobs tells them is a genius.

  • Reply 140 of 158
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Here's what I get from this whole stupid "debate":



    The iPad will sell great, which means companies should definitely consider html5 versions of their website specifically for the ipad. They and everyone else should just accept that Apple has decided no flash, and no matter how many good reasons there are to bring flash, there are twice as many made-up reasons that keep it off the ipad.



    Flash is NOT dead, nor is it dying. In fact, the next versions of flash on Windows will actually have hardware support, so it's moving forward in a big way.



    So what does all of this mean? Simple: Website will have two versions. HTML5 for ipad, and flash for anyone else.



    That's it. That's the end of it. No more need to discuss it. That's how it will be and there's nothing anyone can say to change it.
Sign In or Register to comment.