FTC believed to be investigating Apple's anti-Flash stance

191012141518

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    ... Take it how you want it, but Apple can't just point the finger entirely at Adobe when clearly it runs fine in Windows.



    There I fixed it for you.



    But, your whole argument is a bit silly. Flash could have run fine on Mac OS X if Adobe wasn't insistent on implementing it as a Windows application. Flash is a big pit of bad web design, Adobe is utterly incompetent and will never be able to support Flash on 7 or 8 platforms, and frankly, once it's gone, no one will look back missing it.
  • Reply 222 of 348
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    LOL! There's a reason why they're all OSX users also.



    I haven't had flash crash on me in Windows since macromedia owned it.



    Funny, I've had many instances of Flash crash on me and cases where flash based advertising in an open browser bogged the computer down horribly so WoW ran like utter crap until I found which tab had the offending ad and blew it away. I don't even own a Mac and use Windows, so clearly it isn't all OSX people who have problems with Flash. I've disliked Flash for the better part of a decade
  • Reply 223 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    Funny, I've had many instances of Flash crash on me and cases where flash based advertising in an open browser bogged the computer down horribly so WoW ran like utter crap until I found which tab had the offending ad and blew it away. I don't even own a Mac and use Windows, so clearly it isn't all OSX people who have problems with Flash. I've disliked Flash for the better part of a decade



    Firefox users have had complete control over that for years. If Apple felt strongly about this maybe they could provide their users with the same flexibility in Safari that the rest of the world enjoys.
  • Reply 224 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    Take it how you want it, but Apple can't just point the finger entirely at Adobe when clearly it runs fine in other operating systems.



    But they will anyway, just as Steve did in his easily-debunked "Thoughts on Flash" in which he made a big stink about Adobe not having completed the costly transition from Carbon to Cocoa without noting that Apple themselves have failed in the exact same way with Final Cut Pro and even the most commonly-used part of OS X, the Finder.



    Apple finally stomached the development expense of that transition with the Finder, but only as recently as Snow Leopard, almost as many years as they chastised Adobe for not spending their own money on that sort of thing.



    Last I heard Apple's Final Cut Pro is still not "OS X-native" as Steve puts it.



    Oops.
  • Reply 225 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    Blah, blah blah ... "Thoughts on Flash" ... transition from Carbon to Cocoa ... Final Cut Pro ... Finder. ...



    The difference is, FCP and the Finder never sucked, Flash always did.
  • Reply 226 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    This is what I mean about how Flash, as a medium, essentially sucks because it causes "developers" to focus more on the presentation (and, let's face it, most just aren't talented enough to get away with that) than on the message. In the best case, it doesn't add anything, In the worst it detracts. And, as a video container, it's just a complete waste of resources.



    Agreed, I probably just lost a client because they wanted a website just like one they saw on the web that is completely done in Flash, with dancing images that took forever to load and just wasn't very informational as to what the company was doing. So all "flash" and no substance.



    Well, I refused, the client was incensed, how dare I refuse to create what they want? I explained to them that while I could use Flash I didn't have lots of experience with it and that recently I decided to spend my time learning html5 instead of increasing my Flash skills. I also explained that the site they liked probably took a bank of programmers to create and that it was quite expensive (way out of this clients budget for sure) I also pointed out that it took forever and many clicks to get to any real information and while that may be fun for a fifteen year old, anyone who is busy wants the information they are seeking within the first 30 seconds of their coming to a site. I also pointed out the fact that all the SEO companies tell me to take Flash off of sites they are optimizing, so I am not willing to put together something that I will need to take off anyway. Yep, that pissed them off.



    But who is going to pay for my time to learn Flash to the level it is needed? Not this client for sure. So let them go find a Flash programmer that will charge double of what my fee is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    A lot of people do, but it's just plain irrelevant.



    The FTC has no more right to tell Apple that they should support Flash iOS apps than they do to tell them to support Flash plug-ins. If they go down that path, what's next? Telling Apple that Mac OS X has to run Windows apps natively without purchasing other software? Telling Microsoft that Windows has to be written in Objective C? Or maybe telling Sony that they're not allowed to sell a DVD player that doesn't play Blu-Ray as well as DVDs. Or maybe telling Ford and GM that they have to design their cars so engine parts are interchangeable.



    It's just not within FTC's purview to tell Apple that they have to support Flash plugins OR Flash apps.



    Yep, just like no client can make me learn more Flash if I don't want to. If they want Flash they can go somewhere else.



    Bottom line, I test all of my sites on my 2G iPod touch, the html5 stuff always runs smooth (all of the demos on Apple's site run perfectly) So for me it is a matter of investing my time into a format that works the best, if that was Flash, I would be there, but it isn't, it really isn't. That said, I still like the animation tools in the Flash program itself so I will create animations using that program and export to a video format instead of a swf format. As a website developer I find using javascript, CSS and html far more challenging, yet far more rewarding than using Flash and all of its proprietary action script. It is confusing for me, being mostly a designer, to learn one set of scripting commands then have to learn a whole different set of commands that are similar but very different for Flash.



    So I lost one small client, but one of my other potential clients, the Goodwill site for the local area, just was handed a memo from the central office saying that all Goodwill sites should be created in standards compliant formats instead of Flash. Their reasons are mostly for access for handicapped, but there it is. They want all sites recreated in html5 when it comes time to upgrade again. That is why they are considering using my services, it would be a nice big client, we'll see, but I will be ready to give them what they want.
  • Reply 227 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    ...as a video container, it's just a complete waste of resources.



    AppleInsider disagrees with you:



    Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage

    A comparison of streaming video via the Adobe Flash and HTML5 formats with numerous different browsers on both Mac and Windows produced wildly different results based on the operating system and browser, making neither a clear winner.

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...advantage.html



    As most here know, the bulk of the work with video is done in the codec; any wrapper will be a very small contributor to total CPU usage.



    What specific percentage of cycles do you attribute to the Flash player as separate from the codec, and how did those measure for you when you ran similar tests with HTML5?



    Can you give us any details on the testing methodology you used to arrive at your claim?
  • Reply 228 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    AppleInsider disagrees with you:



    Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage



    Well, if Flash doesn't have a performance advantage, then it's unnecessary, so, by definition, a waste of resources.
  • Reply 229 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, there's where, not unexpectedly, you go wrong. I'm not surprised, it's a common mistake, and one that the use of meta-platforms encourages. The correct exercise is:
    1. Find a substantial Flash site.

    2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.

    3. Build a new site that presents the content more effectively using HTML5.

    The idea that HTML5 sites ought to mimic Flash sites misses the point entirely. As long as you think like you do, you are stuck in the past.



    Your response to a post about comparative productivity is to try to change the subject to matters of personal aesthetic preference.



    Don't you have any confidence at all in HTML5 being able to reproduce things made with Flash?



    Try this one:



    http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL



    Say what you will about Google, that's a pretty nice presentation of stock data. And it happens to be made in Flash.



    Is there no one using HTML5 who can make such a thing in the same or better time?
  • Reply 230 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, if Flash doesn't have a performance advantage, then it's unnecessary, so, by definition, a waste of resources.



    Cool. Can you share with us the HTML tag we'd use to get videos to play on as many current browsers as Flash is used on?
  • Reply 231 of 348
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    . Apple is allowed to do things that might drive developers away, so your entire premise disproves your belief that Apple is doing something wrong by not supporting Flash.





    This is a common misconception among the haters. Hey Haters - If Apple is ALLOWED to do something, then by definition, they cannot be doing something wrong.



    Simple.
  • Reply 232 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Sometimes, I really wonder at your lack of simple understanding. Flash is harmful because the implementation, which pretends to be part of the www, is tied to specific platforms, which web content ought not be. Sorry, everyone, for having to state the obvious to the oblivious.



    You mean like how html5 videos can directly access the gpu to streamline the experience (and lessen cpu load)? Or how safari, chrome,firefox, and opera will all be updated this year to support over a dozen new api hooks that allow web content access to your hardware specifically because they need to do this to make content interactive. So does this mean html5 is now harmful?



    Flash doesn't require a specific platform to run, it requires those platforms to work with adobe.
  • Reply 233 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    You mean like how html5 videos can directly access the gpu to streamline the experience (and lessen cpu load)? Or how safari, chrome,firefox, and opera will all be updated this year to support over a dozen new api hooks that allow web content access to your hardware specifically because they need to do this to make content interactive. So does this mean html5 is now harmful?



    No, I don't mean that at all. I clearly mean Adobe's historically demonstrated inability to properly support Flash on multiple platforms, making the lousy user experience, or lack thereof, entirely dependent on a single company. What various browser vendors do, independently, but based on standards that are open to all of them is exactly what should happen.



    Quote:

    Flash doesn't require a specific platform to run, it requires those platforms to work with adobe.



    I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
  • Reply 234 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    Your response to a post about comparative productivity is to try to change the subject to matters of personal aesthetic preference.



    Don't you have any confidence at all in HTML5 being able to reproduce things made with Flash?



    I have confidence that it can produce things better than what is made with Flash. Why would anyone want to exactly recreate crappy Flash based websites using more advanced technology?



    This has already been discussed earlier in this thread, so nothing more needs to be said, unless you have some new point to raise, which I very much doubt.
  • Reply 235 of 348
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Adobe aren't going to put any effort into Flash on the iPhone unless Apple give the ok for mobile Safari plug-ins (which obviously isn't going to happen!)



    Then how do you explain that there's no flash for PalmOS or Symbian or WinMobile, either?



    And why should Apple violate their security controls to allow Adobe access to OS internals when no one else needs it?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    The more astute reader will note that that's not exactly what I wrote. This is commonly called a "straw man attack", obvious enough in itself and your coupling it with ad hominem attacks further on only draws attention to the lack of merit in your post.



    Actually, the reader with even one eye half open will be able to see your nonsense for the unmitigated BS that it is. Readers with both eyes open are mostly just laughing their a$$e$ off at how foolish you look.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    While there is no fixed percentage of market control defining a trust per se, those who follow antitrust litigation will observe what this analyst notes:



    "As Glazer sees it, the powers that be won’t even consider an antitrust suit until a company has 40 per cent share of the affected market."

    http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_ne...e2a2a10&page=2





    Indeed, I fully agree that Apple has no obligation to make it easy for developers to deploy to iOS, and developers are responding in kind:



    Developers migrate from iPhone to Android in droves

    Research finds 60 percent of developers working on Android

    http://www.techeye.net/mobile/develo...roid-in-droves



    Come with this handy chart:







    Very nice. Your own graph shows that Android OS has more developer interest than iOS - and several others are close behind.



    If Apple is right in the middle of the pack with a large number of competitors in the OS space, what's your rationalization for singling Apple out for investigation? (Other than your rabid hatred of everything Apple does, of course).



    It's also interesting how far down the list Flash and Flash Lite are. Looks like your own chart proves that Flash is not so critical.



    Oh, and btw, I've seen that chart before. I wonder how all the Android fanboys rationalize that with their complaint that Apple gets 96% of online software sales? Must be a lot of android developers doing a lot of work for nothing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    ...or Nintendo insisting that you can only deliver games for their platform on cartridges they manufacture:



    Nintendo DS Flash Cards are Legal Says Judge

    Nintendo lost its case against flash card manufacturer Divineo, accused of locking out developers.

    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Nintendo...news-5270.html



    That's nice. So when are you going to sue Nintendo because your xBox 360 games won't run on it? That's the nearest analogy to the Apple situation.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    It's been said before: Flash runs great in Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe. The only effort that's needed for OSX is on Apple's part, but they don't want Flash to have the same access to the innards of the OS as it does in Windows, because Apple is convinced it's a security flaw.



    That's just Adobe's rationalization. No one else has access to the internals of Mac OS X - and other apps do things that are even more complicated than Flash without having access to the internals.



    Heck, Photoshop slings pixels around like there's no tomorrow - why can't Flash even handle a 640x480x8 bit static image without sending my CPU usage to 120%?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    Your response to a post about comparative productivity is to try to change the subject to matters of personal aesthetic preference.



    No, the issue is that EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM IS TRUE, it is meaningless. Apple has no obligation to make life easier for developers. If they do a bad job of supporting their developers, then the developers will leave - which HELPS the competition. So your silly claim actually DISPROVES your claim that Apple is stifling competition.
  • Reply 236 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    Cool. Can you share with us the HTML tag we'd use to get videos to play on as many current browsers as Flash is used on?



    The VIDEO element, if it isn't already, will soon be working on more browsers and platforms than Flash. Yes, I know you want to include IE6 and other legacy browsers in your count, but that depends on never advancing the technology of the web in any way, so is a bit of a ridiculous position to adopt, just to try to win a debate point. But, if you wish, feel free, and I will grant your point, as an entirely meaningless one.
  • Reply 237 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The VIDEO element, if it isn't already, will soon be working on more browsers and platforms than Flash..



    "will soon be" = "doesn't exist right now"



    Therefore:



    earlier post = fantasy
  • Reply 238 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That is total BS.



    Apple hasn't decided that you can't have Flash, Adobe did. THERE IS NO FLASH ON MOBILE DEVICES WITH THE IPHONE'S CPU POWER. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Granted, the iPhone 4 has a CPU that is theoretically powerful enough to run the slow, buggy version of Flash that they have on Froyo, but this discussion has been going on for years and Adobe never released a version that would run on any earlier iPhones. It has never been demonstrated, it has never been released through Cydia, it hasn't even been rumored.



    It's not just the iPhone. Where is Flash for ANY 400-600 MHz CPU smart phone out there? Is it Apple's fault that Adobe never released a version for WinMobile or PalmOS or Blackberry or Simian?



    I have a motorola Droid. It has a 550mhz processor. I also have Flash 10.1 Beta 3 installed on my phone, I've been using flash since it first came out in public beta for android (running stock kernal so as not to skew results) It's not "slow" or "buggy" like you're claiming. Flash based video plays great. Yes, it stutters a bit over 3g, but so did my computer when I tried tethering it to my 3g connection.



    Palm Pre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpI6gA9cuME

    No, it's not out yet, but they released the API to their mobile partners. And they're still developing for it. They didn't develop for palmOS because palmOS is DEAD and has been for awhile.



    Blackberry's need a better web experience before they consider flash, that being said, Adobe does plan on developing for them. Their new HTML5 browser doesn't support even HTML5 video. They stopped development on WINMO because microsoft is dropping winmo6.5 entirely. They have said they're going to work with MS to bring it to window sphone 7.



    Quote:

    Apple has made a decision to support fully developed technologies that add value to the phone. Adobe has had years to do that and has failed. Apple finally got tired of it and said 'too late'. At the same time, developers have been realizing that Flash is a fail on mobile devices, so you see more and more formerly Flash-only sites going to html every day. Car dealers, Disney, Youtube, Hulu, NBC, NY Times, and so on. Flash is no longer needed for most people. I've never missed it on my iPhone (other than the very first year or so before all of the above conversions took place).



    HTML5 based mobile optimized sites just started appearing in the past year. That puts flash at most, 12 months "behind" the curve. Youtube didn't go full HTML until a few MONTHS ago, and neither did most of those websites you're listing. Yes, there was a youtube app, but it couldn't play all videos, and the HTML5 beta for the desktop version couldn't play all videos until very recently.



    This "years" time frame you're trying to make up is a maxium of 12 months, for most of the sites you just listed, it's 6 or fewer. So where are these "years" your speaking of? By your own contention, phones have JUST become powerful enough to support flash as it is in the past 8 months. That doesn't sound like years to me.



    Quote:

    Your demand is like someone demanding that Ford put an 8,000 pound tow hitch on a Ford Fiesta. Could they do it? Sure. But it would still be clunky and the car is incapable of safely pulling 8,000 pounds. It's just not a suitable combination.



    And that's not a suitable comparison. A better one is If ford came out and said the future of camping was collapsible space tents, so no hitches could be developed for their trucks anymore.



    Quote:

    You have a choice. You can buy an iOS device or you can buy something else. Just keep in mind that, when it comes to Flash, 'something else' limits you to about 0.1% of the phones on the market. But if Flash is critical to you, that's your choice.



    Or he can get any modern android phone that's known to be getting 2.2 which is a lot more than 1% of the market.



    Quote:

    It is really amazing how some people manage to make EVERYTHING Apple's fault. If it rains today, is that Apple's fault, too?



    Apple won't allow adobe to develop for their mobile platform (this is why it's not on Cydia. Adobe's not going to waste time making flash 10.1 for something only jailbroken devices can access) and they don't allow adobe access to api's on their desktop OS.



    Before you say they shouldn't need it, some of these API's are the SAME api's Google and others are developing HTML5 content to take advantage of. The SAME api's that apple should be building into their own safari browser by the end of the year.
  • Reply 239 of 348
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Flocking to what?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post




    Developers migrate from iPhone to Android in droves

    Research finds 60 percent of developers working on Android

    http://www.techeye.net/mobile/develo...roid-in-droves



  • Reply 240 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post


    "will soon be" = "doesn't exist right now"



    Therefore:



    earlier post = fantasy



    "will soon be" = "I haven't bothered to do an exact count"



    All of the major browser developers either support VIDEO now, or will very shortly. Then if we add the instances of browsers on platforms that Flash doesn't exist on, that adds to the count.



    earlier post = the future, which will be without Flash, in 2-5 years.



    Flash is no longer in the running for the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.