Your previous statement started off with: "Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute.". You've set your post up for failure.
IMO
Quote:
Flash cannot compete with several aspects of HTML5 already in place. Over the phone I could walk my mother through setting up HMTL5 to stream video from a website. I can't do that with Flash.
No set up involved with either one unless the browser doesn't support HTML 5 in which case you are SOL, or Flash is not installed and the browser should ask to install it.
Quote:
I can make HTML5 video work on any modern smartphone, but that's not possible with Flash.
Blackberry is not a smart phone? Also if you use Quicktime's export video for web and mobile devices with html markup and post that in a web page, only Safari can figure it out in my experience. Not Android and not BB nor desktop browsers.
Quote:
Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient and easier on the very limited battery life in these portables. Flash is not a substitute for the most prolific and common use of Flash today for non-ad content: video.
Flash is not suitable for iPhone or any other mobile device that I am familiar with.
Flash is not suitable for iPhone or any other mobile device that I am familiar with.
How can you think Flash "rules" if don't think it's suitable for mobile devices? Smartphones unit sales will outnumber PCs shortly. That will make them more than 50% (and rapidly growing) part of the internet accessible market. Flash has its benefits that no open standard can yet tackle, but those areas simply aren't the most common uses of Flash and won't save it from the open standards slowly creeping in and taking over because Adobe has failed to make Flash viable for the future of computing.
What are talking about? There are plenty of other options for you to choose. Android, for example.
I enjoy using my iPhone and I've actually paid for a fair number of applications that I enjoy using regularly. Given that I'd prefer to keep using my iPhone there is a single store to acquire apps (I'm not interested in jailbreaking).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
And even on the iPhone there is mobileSafari which uses the latest open web technologies, which Apple made using the WebKit browser they funded, all or which are well out of their control.
I already stated quite clearly that the web is an option. The problem there is the varying experience. Apps, quite simply, provide a superior experience to most web pages. That could change but until it does, there's a real gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
What you want is to control iOS making it a socialized OS that is also completely open.
This comment is outright wrong. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I even hinted at this and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it. I'm speaking only about content and content alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You want Apple to have no say in the way they run their store. You may not even realize it but is exactly what you and others are saying everytime you take offense with a company choosing to do business a certain way in a free market. Remember, before it's your product, it's their product and they have rights, too.
To reiterate my points previously, Apple has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the apps available are safe to use. That's great. Objective scrutiny is crucial to the whole app ecosystem.
Content, on the other hand, is subjective. I'm not saying I want to stuff my phone with porn. I'm saying that content could be managed differently. Once an app is determined to be safe, it should be provided a rating (or the provided rating should be verified). One set of rules to govern all supported content is a potential shortcoming.
I'm really inclined to believe that fear of litigation is what makes Apple so conservative with what content they'll support in the app store.
Slightly off topic:
You know, I think I've tried to make my points in a civil tone. The responses seem to imply that I'm charging Apple's gates with torches and pitchforks. I'm not claiming that "Apple is Doomed!' or "I'm leaving and never coming back to Apple!". I'm simply saying that some evolution may need to take place as the mobile market matures. It's a little sad that some posters are so high strung that they see attacks, dissent and drama where there really is none (not specifically calling you out Solipsism but you really did read more into my comments than there was). I come here to have reasoned discussions and most of the time that's what I get.
How can you think Flash "rules" if don't think it's suitable for mobile devices? Smartphones unit sales will outnumber PCs shortly. That will make them more than 50% (and rapidly growing) part of the internet accessible market. Flash has its benefits that no open standard can yet tackle, but those areas simply aren't the most common uses of Flash and won't save it from the open standards slowly creeping in and taking over because Adobe has failed to make Flash viable for the future of computing.
For the reason that the tiny screen and lack of power and limited battery make Flash too intensive for mobile devices. Sales don't equal page views. There are far more page views from desktop browsers. I don't even need to look it up but feel free if you are interested. Like I said before, give me the tools and the compatibility and I'm all in.
The US is their largest market. Why do people want them to prove some bogus 1st amendment point for little financial gain, but large financial risk?
Actually it's been predicted that 80% of iPhone sales this year will not be in the US. The other markets do not share the same values which might be safe to help maintain sales in the US market. The other 80% of buyers may not always welcome a set of different morals that does not reflect their own or those of their community.
So that 12.39% being lower than any other stat just goes over your head, not to mention the fact this is comparing modern desktop processing, not ARM processing in mobile devices.
This comment is outright wrong. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I even hinted at this and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it. I'm speaking only about content and content alone.
I re-read your initial comment about you wanting control, not Apple having control over it's store. You did state "prefer", not that Apple "should" so I withdraw my comment as being directed toward you. Mea culpa.
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn.
Don't get me wrong, I dig porn just as much as the next guy. But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
What is wrong with you people?
Let's take this post one bit at a time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
How, precisely, do you and anyone who likes this particular use of the xxx TLD propose to move all porn to xxx (and this seems to be the subject of several posts in this thread)?
*First lets talk definitions.
Define porn! "I know it when I see it" aint gonna cut it here.
Would that belt commercial from a few years ago in the netherlands, the one with the cute gal in nothing but a leather belt dancing, be porn?
How about a fair amount of the artwork on deviantart? How about a NatGeo documentary with nudity? How about the how-tos and reviews on babeland's site (babeland is a retailer of adult toys btw, a very good one).
*Now let's talk feasibility, technical limitations, and enforcement
You say you hope it gets "passed"... Passed by whom? Having the TLD as available is one thing, but you imply something more, an enforcement of porn restricted to .xxx. Whom do you propose to enforce this, *how* do you propose to enforce this? Scan every site and move them if anything objectionable is found? We've already talked about definitions...
Then you have issues with domain collisions if you move everyone. A quick dig tells me that porn.com and porn.net don't appear to be owned by the same people, which one of them gets porn.xxx? How do you compensate the owners of porn.com/org/net/whatever who didnt get the .xxx and apparently need to change from a valuable name to something else to fit into the xxx TLD?
Quote:
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn
There are already a lot of solutions to that, the solution isnt to censor *everybody's* internet, it's to filter your connection. depending on how draconian you want to be there are a lot of solutions already in existence. I respectfully submit that in your case, as a parent, one of the best is to watch your kids. If you need to keep their computer in a place where you can watch them until they're old enough for you to have "the talk" with them, and in the process explain porn.
I also respectfully submit that libraries should police behavior, and not content. If I'm writing a paper on sexuality (and I've written several), my library should be providing me unfettered access to the internet. If someone is using it illegally, or wanking in the library, etc arrest them, but a library is a place of knowledge, not just "clean" knowledge.
Quote:
But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
I understand the sentiment, but you need ot watch your children and explain to them why they shouldn't look at inappropriate sites, etc - not censor the internet. Would you let your children onto a gun range without safety training? The internet is similar.
-----
To get back on track with the thread. Apple needs to have clear guidelines, and since they already do allow some adult content (like playboy's app), they should just be putting any apps they rate "adult" but fall in line with coding and stability guidelines into their AO section. It's rather hypocritical otherwise, and their rather puritanical stance may prove a bad PR decision in the long term internationally.
Porn sites moving to html5 only make this more clear, since the content is available anyway.
There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.
Really? No one else makes cell phones? Nokia and RIM and HTC and the rest simply dropped out of the market?
I guess I missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
That's the entire point - Flash has no place on mobile devices. That's all that anyone has been saying - and you've been disagreeing with them. It is 100% clear that Flash has no place on mobile devices.
Now, that means that if someone wants to have their site accessible on mobile devices, they either need 2 sites (one for mobile and one for desktop/laptop access) or one site that works for both. Which one do you think is more efficient in the long run?
Now, that means that if someone wants to have their site accessible on mobile devices, they either need 2 sites (one for mobile and one for desktop/laptop access) or one site that works for both. Which one do you think is more efficient in the long run?
Definitely at least 2, even if there is no Flash on either. More likely it will be several as different types of devices become popular. You may remember quite a few years ago when we had to program for several platforms including WebTV. Those days are coming back in spades, and it won't be pretty, especially for the developers trying to make it home before dinner gets cold. All you have to do is look at how many companies have dedicated iPhone sites to see where this is heading.
Definitely at least 2, even if there is no Flash on either. More likely it will be several as different types of devices become popular. You may remember quite a few years ago when we had to program for several platforms including WebTV. Those days are coming back in spades, and it won't be pretty, especially for the developers trying to make it home before dinner gets cold. All you have to do is look at how many companies have dedicated iPhone sites to see where this is heading.
If true, that's a shame. It still doesn't justify Adobe's attempts to shove Flash down Apple's throats for mobile devices, though.
If true, that's a shame. It still doesn't justify Adobe's attempts to shove Flash down Apple's throats for mobile devices, though.
No disagreement here. I'm just a pitcher in the bull pen not the manager or one of the attendees in the stands. They just call me in to do what I do - code, program, design and more code. I use whatever means I have to accomplish the desired goal and sometimes it is Flash.
I use a service called Campaign Monitor to send out email blasts, and today that company announced they will be dropping Flash used to display charts and graphs, and instead will be using HTML 5 and Javascript to provide the same info.
Then go build your own phone and application store. No one's stopping you.
Every company has a brand and it is important for companies to strengthen the brand so it means something. Apple's brand image includes wholesomeness and, yes, American value. Why should they abandon their core values simply because of a few whiners on AI?
While you were busy dismissing people who disagree with Apple as "whiners", your response did nothing to address his statement of:
"When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all."
While you were busy dismissing anyone who disagrees with Apple as "whiners", your response did nothing to address his statement of:
"When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all."
Their vetting process isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that they have a right to decide what they want to sell and what they don't.
Or perhaps it has to do with whether there's value beyond the porn. Playboy DOES have articles, after all.
Comments
Your previous statement started off with: "Flash rules! HTML 5 sucks as a substitute.". You've set your post up for failure.
IMO
Flash cannot compete with several aspects of HTML5 already in place. Over the phone I could walk my mother through setting up HMTL5 to stream video from a website. I can't do that with Flash.
No set up involved with either one unless the browser doesn't support HTML 5 in which case you are SOL, or Flash is not installed and the browser should ask to install it.
I can make HTML5 video work on any modern smartphone, but that's not possible with Flash.
Blackberry is not a smart phone? Also if you use Quicktime's export video for web and mobile devices with html markup and post that in a web page, only Safari can figure it out in my experience. Not Android and not BB nor desktop browsers.
Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient and easier on the very limited battery life in these portables. Flash is not a substitute for the most prolific and common use of Flash today for non-ad content: video.
Flash is not suitable for iPhone or any other mobile device that I am familiar with.
Flash is not suitable for iPhone or any other mobile device that I am familiar with.
How can you think Flash "rules" if don't think it's suitable for mobile devices? Smartphones unit sales will outnumber PCs shortly. That will make them more than 50% (and rapidly growing) part of the internet accessible market. Flash has its benefits that no open standard can yet tackle, but those areas simply aren't the most common uses of Flash and won't save it from the open standards slowly creeping in and taking over because Adobe has failed to make Flash viable for the future of computing.
What are talking about? There are plenty of other options for you to choose. Android, for example.
I enjoy using my iPhone and I've actually paid for a fair number of applications that I enjoy using regularly. Given that I'd prefer to keep using my iPhone there is a single store to acquire apps (I'm not interested in jailbreaking).
And even on the iPhone there is mobileSafari which uses the latest open web technologies, which Apple made using the WebKit browser they funded, all or which are well out of their control.
I already stated quite clearly that the web is an option. The problem there is the varying experience. Apps, quite simply, provide a superior experience to most web pages. That could change but until it does, there's a real gap.
What you want is to control iOS making it a socialized OS that is also completely open.
This comment is outright wrong. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I even hinted at this and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it. I'm speaking only about content and content alone.
You want Apple to have no say in the way they run their store. You may not even realize it but is exactly what you and others are saying everytime you take offense with a company choosing to do business a certain way in a free market. Remember, before it's your product, it's their product and they have rights, too.
To reiterate my points previously, Apple has done a fantastic job of ensuring that the apps available are safe to use. That's great. Objective scrutiny is crucial to the whole app ecosystem.
Content, on the other hand, is subjective. I'm not saying I want to stuff my phone with porn. I'm saying that content could be managed differently. Once an app is determined to be safe, it should be provided a rating (or the provided rating should be verified). One set of rules to govern all supported content is a potential shortcoming.
I'm really inclined to believe that fear of litigation is what makes Apple so conservative with what content they'll support in the app store.
Slightly off topic:
You know, I think I've tried to make my points in a civil tone. The responses seem to imply that I'm charging Apple's gates with torches and pitchforks. I'm not claiming that "Apple is Doomed!' or "I'm leaving and never coming back to Apple!". I'm simply saying that some evolution may need to take place as the mobile market matures. It's a little sad that some posters are so high strung that they see attacks, dissent and drama where there really is none (not specifically calling you out Solipsism but you really did read more into my comments than there was). I come here to have reasoned discussions and most of the time that's what I get.
How can you think Flash "rules" if don't think it's suitable for mobile devices? Smartphones unit sales will outnumber PCs shortly. That will make them more than 50% (and rapidly growing) part of the internet accessible market. Flash has its benefits that no open standard can yet tackle, but those areas simply aren't the most common uses of Flash and won't save it from the open standards slowly creeping in and taking over because Adobe has failed to make Flash viable for the future of computing.
For the reason that the tiny screen and lack of power and limited battery make Flash too intensive for mobile devices. Sales don't equal page views. There are far more page views from desktop browsers. I don't even need to look it up but feel free if you are interested. Like I said before, give me the tools and the compatibility and I'm all in.
...
The US is their largest market. Why do people want them to prove some bogus 1st amendment point for little financial gain, but large financial risk?
Actually it's been predicted that 80% of iPhone sales this year will not be in the US. The other markets do not share the same values which might be safe to help maintain sales in the US market. The other 80% of buyers may not always welcome a set of different morals that does not reflect their own or those of their community.
Even when Flash does finally get released across all Android devices HTML5 video will still be considerably more efficient...
AppleInsider disagrees:
Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...advantage.html
AppleInsider disagrees:
Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...advantage.html
So that 12.39% being lower than any other stat just goes over your head, not to mention the fact this is comparing modern desktop processing, not ARM processing in mobile devices.
This comment is outright wrong. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I even hinted at this and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it. I'm speaking only about content and content alone.
I re-read your initial comment about you wanting control, not Apple having control over it's store. You did state "prefer", not that Apple "should" so I withdraw my comment as being directed toward you. Mea culpa.
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn.
Don't get me wrong, I dig porn just as much as the next guy. But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
What is wrong with you people?
Let's take this post one bit at a time:
Good news. But the best news is the idea all internet porn to have a .xxx suffix instead of .com. I hope it gets passed and adopted.
How, precisely, do you and anyone who likes this particular use of the xxx TLD propose to move all porn to xxx (and this seems to be the subject of several posts in this thread)?
*First lets talk definitions.
Define porn! "I know it when I see it" aint gonna cut it here.
Would that belt commercial from a few years ago in the netherlands, the one with the cute gal in nothing but a leather belt dancing, be porn?
How about a fair amount of the artwork on deviantart? How about a NatGeo documentary with nudity? How about the how-tos and reviews on babeland's site (babeland is a retailer of adult toys btw, a very good one).
*Now let's talk feasibility, technical limitations, and enforcement
You say you hope it gets "passed"... Passed by whom? Having the TLD as available is one thing, but you imply something more, an enforcement of porn restricted to .xxx. Whom do you propose to enforce this, *how* do you propose to enforce this? Scan every site and move them if anything objectionable is found? We've already talked about definitions...
Then you have issues with domain collisions if you move everyone. A quick dig tells me that porn.com and porn.net don't appear to be owned by the same people, which one of them gets porn.xxx? How do you compensate the owners of porn.com/org/net/whatever who didnt get the .xxx and apparently need to change from a valuable name to something else to fit into the xxx TLD?
This will allow parents, libraries and businesses to block porn
There are already a lot of solutions to that, the solution isnt to censor *everybody's* internet, it's to filter your connection. depending on how draconian you want to be there are a lot of solutions already in existence. I respectfully submit that in your case, as a parent, one of the best is to watch your kids. If you need to keep their computer in a place where you can watch them until they're old enough for you to have "the talk" with them, and in the process explain porn.
I also respectfully submit that libraries should police behavior, and not content. If I'm writing a paper on sexuality (and I've written several), my library should be providing me unfettered access to the internet. If someone is using it illegally, or wanking in the library, etc arrest them, but a library is a place of knowledge, not just "clean" knowledge.
But I wouldn't want my children exposed to it.
I understand the sentiment, but you need ot watch your children and explain to them why they shouldn't look at inappropriate sites, etc - not censor the internet. Would you let your children onto a gun range without safety training? The internet is similar.
-----
To get back on track with the thread. Apple needs to have clear guidelines, and since they already do allow some adult content (like playboy's app), they should just be putting any apps they rate "adult" but fall in line with coding and stability guidelines into their AO section. It's rather hypocritical otherwise, and their rather puritanical stance may prove a bad PR decision in the long term internationally.
Porn sites moving to html5 only make this more clear, since the content is available anyway.
There is no "somewhere else". That's part of the problem.
Really? No one else makes cell phones? Nokia and RIM and HTC and the rest simply dropped out of the market?
I guess I missed that.
You quoted my question but didn't answer it. Have you ever tried to program HTML 5 animations?
It has nothing to do with lazy, more like efficiency. Was movable type invented for lazy scribes? Were cars invented because horses are lazy? No, but laziness can be the mother of invention so invent me a more efficient and productive format than Flash and I'm all in.
Just because it doesn't run on an iPhone doesn't make it all bad. Flash has its uses, just iPhone isn't one of them. Sorry you will have to live without it on your underpowered tiny screen.
That's the entire point - Flash has no place on mobile devices. That's all that anyone has been saying - and you've been disagreeing with them. It is 100% clear that Flash has no place on mobile devices.
Now, that means that if someone wants to have their site accessible on mobile devices, they either need 2 sites (one for mobile and one for desktop/laptop access) or one site that works for both. Which one do you think is more efficient in the long run?
Really? No one else makes cell phones? Nokia and RIM and HTC and the rest simply dropped out of the market?
I guess I missed that.
I addressed this above in my response to solipsism.
The whole "if you don't like it just leave" meme doesn't leave a lot of room for rational discussion.
I addressed this above in my response to solipsism.
The whole "if you don't like it just leave" meme doesn't leave a lot of room for rational discussion.
No one is telling you to leave, not that I saw anyway. It's the "if you doesn't suit your needs then maybe it's not the product for you" meme.
No one is telling you to leave, not that I saw anyway. It's the "if you doesn't suit your needs then maybe it's not the product for you" meme.
I need to get all my meme's straight.
Now, that means that if someone wants to have their site accessible on mobile devices, they either need 2 sites (one for mobile and one for desktop/laptop access) or one site that works for both. Which one do you think is more efficient in the long run?
Definitely at least 2, even if there is no Flash on either. More likely it will be several as different types of devices become popular. You may remember quite a few years ago when we had to program for several platforms including WebTV. Those days are coming back in spades, and it won't be pretty, especially for the developers trying to make it home before dinner gets cold. All you have to do is look at how many companies have dedicated iPhone sites to see where this is heading.
Definitely at least 2, even if there is no Flash on either. More likely it will be several as different types of devices become popular. You may remember quite a few years ago when we had to program for several platforms including WebTV. Those days are coming back in spades, and it won't be pretty, especially for the developers trying to make it home before dinner gets cold. All you have to do is look at how many companies have dedicated iPhone sites to see where this is heading.
If true, that's a shame. It still doesn't justify Adobe's attempts to shove Flash down Apple's throats for mobile devices, though.
If true, that's a shame. It still doesn't justify Adobe's attempts to shove Flash down Apple's throats for mobile devices, though.
No disagreement here. I'm just a pitcher in the bull pen not the manager or one of the attendees in the stands. They just call me in to do what I do - code, program, design and more code. I use whatever means I have to accomplish the desired goal and sometimes it is Flash.
The dominoes are starting to fall.
Then go build your own phone and application store. No one's stopping you.
Every company has a brand and it is important for companies to strengthen the brand so it means something. Apple's brand image includes wholesomeness and, yes, American value. Why should they abandon their core values simply because of a few whiners on AI?
While you were busy dismissing people who disagree with Apple as "whiners", your response did nothing to address his statement of:
"When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all."
While you were busy dismissing anyone who disagrees with Apple as "whiners", your response did nothing to address his statement of:
"When you add to that, the absolute hypocrisy of Apple letting in the Playboy app as well as hundreds of movies, songs, and TV shows with absolutely horrific content ... well it just makes no sense at all."
Their vetting process isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that they have a right to decide what they want to sell and what they don't.
Or perhaps it has to do with whether there's value beyond the porn. Playboy DOES have articles, after all.
But you're free to ask Apple.