Apple highlights iPad-ready, Adobe Flash-free Web sites

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
A number of major Web sites have prepared their content for Saturday's launch of the iPad -- in part by embracing HTML5 video -- and Apple has highlighted a number of them.



Apple on its Web site has profiled a number of Web sites that rely on Web standards without Adobe Flash, making them ideal for viewing iPad content. Entitled "iPad ready," the page lists sites and includes a submission form to allow new sites to be added to the "growing list" of standard-compliant pages.



"iPad features Safari, a mobile web browser that supports the latest web standards ? including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript," the site reads. "Here are just a few of the sites that take advantage of these web standards to deliver content that looks and functions beautifully on iPad."



A great deal of the focus in the list of a dozen Web pages is the inclusion of HTML5 video, an in-progress standard that Apple has backed as the company has shunned Flash by not allowing it on iPhone OS devices, including the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.



Sites on the list include CNN, Reuters, The New York Times, Major League Baseball, Vimeo, The White House, Virgin America, Flickr, and Sports Illustrated.



The exclusion of Adobe Flash from the iPad and subsequent comments attributed to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, in which he allegedly called the Web standard a "CPU hog," have led to a considerable amount of debate over its merits and shortcomings. Although Jobs reportedly said he believes it is "trivial" for Web developers to switch from Flash, some employees of leading publishers recently said they believe such a move wouldn't be so simple.







Last month, it was revealed that National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal were creating specific versions of their Web sites completely devoid of Flash for iPad users. Virgin America, too, dropped Flash content from its Web site in order to allow users of iPhones to check in for flights.



And this week it was revealed that Brightcove has contracted with Time and The New York Times to allow HTML5 to seamlessly replace Flash video content on the publications' Web sites. The new platform provides support for intelligent device detection, playlist rendering, and playback of H.264 encoded content.



Last week it was revealed that U.S. broadcast TV network CBS is testing HTML5 for video playback on the iPad. Both it and ABC plan to offer streaming shows on the iPad when the device launches Saturday.



For more on Apple and Flash, and why the Web format will likely never be available on the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 122
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Although Jobs reportedly said he believes it is "trivial" for Web developers to switch from Flash, some employees of leading publishers recently said they believe such a move wouldn't be so simple.



    Thats because it wouldn't be so simple.
  • Reply 2 of 122
    you have to give Steve J credit for being able to change the world. Can't wait to see the next iPhone.
  • Reply 3 of 122
    ibillibill Posts: 392member
    Brave new world. Thanks Steve!
  • Reply 4 of 122
    applerulezapplerulez Posts: 108member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    For more on Apple and Flash, and why the Web format will likely never be available on the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.



    If Adobe wasn't a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing slugs, they could be on the iPad too!
  • Reply 5 of 122
    ilogicilogic Posts: 298member
    You can add your site... fuel for the fuego
  • Reply 6 of 122
    pkstreetpkstreet Posts: 21member
    Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites. Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option. Since when did Apple become an enemy of Adobe and all the designers who use their products? And for the user who wants to look at a million other sites beside this handful? Hopefully Chrome or someone else has the sense to work out a solution where we can view Flash content if WE choose to...
  • Reply 7 of 122
    applerulezapplerulez Posts: 108member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post


    Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites. Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option. Since when did Apple become an enemy of Adobe and all the designers who use their products? And for the user who wants to look at a million other sites beside this handful? Hopefully Chrome or someone else has the sense to work out a solution where we can view Flash content if WE choose to...



    If you like Flash so much, why don't you go to Windows and just crow about it?



    Flash is a CPU hog and Adobe is lazy. That is why we hate them.
  • Reply 8 of 122
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 988member
    Death to Flash!
  • Reply 9 of 122
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Last month, it was revealed that National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal were creating specific versions of their Web sites completely devoid of Flash for iPad users. Virgin America, too, dropped Flash content from its Web site in order to allow users of iPhones to check in for flights.





    Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?



    I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.
  • Reply 10 of 122
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    This is the beginning of the end as more and more web sites drop flash!



    It will take a little while, but it will happen because Adobe is not nimble enough to counter the all mighty hedge... errr Steve!



    KRR
  • Reply 11 of 122
    So how do I get to these Flashless sites in desktop Safari? Or Chrome on my Windows 7 machine at work?

    Then again, ClicktoFlash means no animated dancing bimbo selling mortgages. I can only assume these sites will have low quality advertising via HTML5. Do people really click these things?



    Gordon
  • Reply 12 of 122
    neilmneilm Posts: 598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post


    Sure NYT has the cash to switch, but for the rest of us, it is a costly option.



    First, whether it's costly to switch doesn't depend on whether you've got the cash or not. It's either costly or it isn't.



    Second, apparently you haven't been paying attention to the state of the newspaper industry in the last few years. The NYT is deeply in the red. They're supporting HTML5 for mobile device such as the iPad because they've decided they need to, not because they're awash in cash.
  • Reply 13 of 122
    isaidsoisaidso Posts: 750member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?



    I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.



    While there probably are things that can be done with Flash that are not possible (yet?) with HTML5, I think the situation with (at least many) of these sites is that they are, in fact, "replacing" their main Flash based website with HTML5 versions. If anybody is maintaing two different versions of their site, it is probably just temporary.

    (all speculation on my part)
  • Reply 14 of 122
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    Thats because it wouldn't be so simple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post


    Great for huge firms who have the money to retool but Apple has long been sustained by smaller design centric firms many of whom have employed Flash in their sites.



  • Reply 15 of 122
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    It would depend on what they were using Flash for. If Flash is used within crucial functionality of the page, then they would need to design an entirely different HTML5 page for the iPad.



    If Flash is primarily used to play video, then their is no need to create an entirely different page. The same page can play either Flash or HTML5 video.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?



    I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.



  • Reply 16 of 122
    pkstreetpkstreet Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?



    I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
  • Reply 17 of 122
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    I honestly cannot understand why anyone would defend Flash for the iDevice. Why would anyone want it? Games? The App store has better free games that were designed specifically for the device. Ads? Really? Videos? There are countless methods of displaying video, all better and more efficient, not to mention, more accessible than Flash.



    Also, is Flash really a killer feature for mobile devices? How many mobile devices are able to run Flash? Which of the iPhone's major competitors run Flash? The iPad would actually be the first, mainstream, mobile, none computer device to run Flash. Why does everything else get a pass for the lack of Flash? Apple is the only company publicly saying that Flash is crap. Everyone else has been trying for a long time to come up with a suitable implementation of Flash and failing, thus, proving Apple's claim. If Flash was so easy and such a good idea, all mobile devices would be doing it. Why do pundits call out Apple mobile products for their lack of Flash when, 1. either no one else has it, or 2. no one seems to care about the handful of devices that do have it?



    I am sick of this debate. You can't run a desktop version of PS on this device either. The fact that you can't do it on any other competing device does not seem to matter. Can Android run Flash? If so, it just recently gained that ability, and then only for the most recent phones. The Droid is out of Luck. Can the Pre run Flash? One day, perhaps, but not today. Heck, even netbooks have trouble running flash. Why is it suddenly the benchmark for a good mobile device. Answer, IT'S NOT! It is just a cheap club for beating up Apple mobile devices. I have never heard of another device being criticized for lacking Flash. Time to throw this straw man in the fire once and for all.
  • Reply 18 of 122
    uberbenuberben Posts: 62member
    I notice that I see the small "flash" boxes (that come with Click To Flash) come up on Apple sites.



    Not sure how to post pictures but it's in my public folder. http://files.me.com/ben120/m1ssap



    The link that comes up when you hover your mouse over the Click to Flash thing says /flash/uploader.swf?756 and is the 'choose' button for uploading your own files to your iDisk space. Or is this something completely different I'm not understanding?
  • Reply 19 of 122
    originalgoriginalg Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pkstreet View Post


    I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.



    I was thinking 'which sites do I visit that have flash functionality that is essential aside from video' and I really don't think I can think of any. Then I thought 'if there some, was flash really the proper choice, or was it just the easiest thing to use at the time'?



    Can you list some that you visit where flash is essential that isn't used to play video? I'm curious.
  • Reply 20 of 122
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    It would depend on what they were using Flash for. If Flash is used within crucial functionality of the page, then they would need to design an entirely different HTML5 page for the iPad.



    Thanks for the answer.



    If that's the case, and they have to create an entirely different HTML5 page for iPad, why would they not just use that as their website? If Safari on the iPad displays it, and HTML 5 can do all the functions of Flash, wouldn't you make that site the one Safari on the Mac displays as well?
Sign In or Register to comment.