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

11213141517

Comments

  • Reply 321 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    For someone who seems to be all up in arms and ready to lay down smack you seem to be startling ill-informed.



    I don't know what version of "Flash" you think that Nokia phones have "had for a long time now" but here's a hint: Flash Lite is not the Flash we're talking about.



    And what we in fact "all know" is that the initial release of Windows Mobile 7 phones will not have Flash, because both Adobe and MS have said so.



    Android and Adobe have managed to put together a beta of some software that requires the latest, highly specced phones to even run and by all accounts does grim things to battery life and browsing speed. Where are all these phones that are getting OTA Froyo updates and merrily running real Flash even as we speak? Maybe when we have some actual phones to consider we can make some judgements about how useful this version of Flash actually is.



    brilliant. SOmeone has brain cells.



    Glad you researched and saw the nokia phones had flash lite. I only said that a 100 times in previous 'flash threads'.



    And yes, we knew that the initial release of win7 will likely not include the new flash player, but we know it -will- have it. Very old news. Congrats.



    And don't believe the horseshit videos, flash is running rather well on froyo, the nonsense is just tiring. Oh I know, there'll be a link war of apparent videos. Really now, how many videos are out there showing iphones running like a dog? It takes 5 brain cells to make one. Hell one could make one without thinking certainly with a 3G iphone with iOS 4 couldn't we now?



    I'm well aware of adobe's mis steps, and the knuckle dragging. But there's no reason to act like moron screeching the same over done crap patting ourselves on the back what great disciples we are.



    As I said, it's hard to know how this will turn out, but anyone who thinks this is a done deal, is in for some surprises on a number of levels. The "down smack" isn't about flash will survive and is great, it's cut the crap.
  • Reply 322 of 348
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    And yes, we know that the initial release of win7 will likely not include the new flash player, but we know it -will- have it.



    Funny, that's almost exactly what Adobe said about the iPhone - and we all know how that worked out.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    You've been told multiple times, by multiple people, that the new plugin just out in public beta very recently. You've also been told that froyo is the first one to have it included publicly, and even that, was in beta, and is being rolled out on a limited basis.



    That's right. It's rolled out on a very limited basis to a very tiny number of phones and on those phones, it's buggy, slow, and eats batteries for lunch. IOW, it is NOT a significant part of the mobile Internet at this point - which is exactly what I've been saying all along.



    Now, if Adobe ever releases a version of Flash that is capable of running well on IPhone 2 and IPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS class phones (which were the phones around when Adobe promised Flash for the iPhone), then you can say you were right. But so far, after 3 years of trying, there is absolutely no evidence that Adobe will EVER have Flash running on those phones. In fact, the evidence is that even on iPhone 4 class phones, Flash is slow and buggy - and Apple has no desire to have crap running on their phones.



    Adobe is the one claiming that they can do it. How about some evidence? The world is through accepting their lies on faith.
  • Reply 323 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Funny, that's almost exactly what Adobe said about the iPhone - and we all know how that worked out.



    No, that isn't 'exactly' how it happened, apple refused to allow it. M$ on the otherhand, is actively working with adobe to include it. Small detail that escaped your notice.





    Quote:

    That's right. It's rolled out on a very limited basis to a very tiny number of phones and on those phones, it's buggy, slow, and eats batteries for lunch. IOW, it is NOT a significant part of the mobile Internet at this point - which is exactly what I've been saying all along.



    It runs fine here. You can yell buggy all you like, it doesn't make it so. Why don't you entertain everyone with more googled links.



    Quote:

    Now, if Adobe ever releases a version of Flash that is capable of running well on IPhone 2 and IPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS class phones (which were the phones around when Adobe promised Flash for the iPhone), then you can say you were right. But so far, after 3 years of trying, there is absolutely no evidence that Adobe will EVER have Flash running on those phones. In fact, the evidence is that even on iPhone 4 class phones, Flash is slow and buggy - and Apple has no desire to have crap running on their phones.



    Adobe is the one claiming that they can do it. How about some evidence? The world is through accepting their lies on faith.



    The evidence is out there. You just refuse to see it. If it can run on android well, and jailbroken iphones, it's running. Adobe got it's ass kicked after trying to pass off flash lite, and it's poor flash player at the time.



    And the "world", could care less about a handful of deluded forum posters reiterating the same crap over and over boring everyone. IF Adobe is able to roll it out and keep the momentum, the 'world', will want to have it.
  • Reply 324 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    So says Adobe. Yet there are plenty of things like VLC that work just fine without secrete access via Apple.



    VLC is a media player, NOT a plugin. There is a very big difference.



    Quote:

    Huh? I thought by definition open source was, well, OPEN! All the source code is there.



    It's not impossible, it's either impractical or Adobe is unwilling. But it's far from impossible since all the source code is out there in plain view. It's also silly to say "we can't make it work with all so we give up" - well, they could but that would just support the Adobe only cares about Windows argument.



    /facepalm

    No, every Distro of linux can have totally different drivers, aka totally different ways of accessing the hardware. So yes, while it's open, it would mean that adobe would have to field multiple teams in an attempt to keep up to date to all the different distros of linux.



    Quote:

    There is nothing from stopping Adobe from picking at least one distribution - say a really popular variant of Ubuntu - and making Flash work in a stellar manner there. Then they can do the open source thing and say "here is what you need to look at to make it work on other platforms". But they can't even bother to do that.



    That's why their talk about multi-platform support really ring hollow. They have a demonstrated history of being full of it.



    Actually there is. For one, the marketshare of linux for consumers is abysmal, and there are MULTIPLE versions of Ubuntu, so which one should they select? Yeah, they could get flash working perfectly on a distro that covers... lets say 10% of the consumer linux market. that just pissed the other 90% off.
  • Reply 325 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Then what's their excuse for not having a version that runs on Blackberry or Symbian or PalmOS? Or a version that runs on Android phones running less than 800 MHz (like all the earlier iPhones that they insisted Apple should put Flash on?



    Motorola droid. 550mhz processor. Runs Flash.



    Quote:

    I love the way people talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that a large percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, but when it comes to justification for Flash, they say there aren't many.



    I never said jailbroken devices were a large percentage of phones. Nice try though. What your asking adobe to do is like expecting THQ to spend the time and money to port a PC game to the xbox, but only xboxes that are hacked to run linux (or something similar).

    Quote:

    But have it your way. Forget iPhones. There are more Blackberry phones than iPhones out there. Why doesn't Flash run on Blackberry? I suppose in your crazy "let's hate Apple for any irrational reason our minds can dream up" world, that's Apple's fault.



    Adobe IS developing flash for blackberry. You do realize that they JUST got an html5 capable browser, right? and it's not even out on any phones yet. And even the Torch is still limited to their youtube player (it cannot play ANY web video)



    Quote:

    Why doesn't Flash run on Symbian? PalmOS? Or any of the other choices? Is that Apple's fault, too?



    Maybe if you actually read my posts instead of just assuming that all android users use the same arguments, you would see that I answered this.



    For one thing, PalmOS is dead and it has been for years as far as the smartphone market is concerned. The OS isn't even owned by palm/hp anymore. If you mean WebOS, Adobe is actively developing for it, or at least they were until HP bought palm out. haven't heard much of ANYTHING from palm since well before then.



    They were developing for winmo, and then dropped it once MS basically gave the finger to winmo 6.x



    Symbian? Again, a dying platform. Nokia is moving onto other platforms. Adobe is working with Nokia to bring the software to their devices.



    And YOU'RE the one talking about how flash can't run on sub 800mhz processors. All those devices you listed can barely play web video (save for youtube players) let alone playing content in browser. You can't have it both ways. Either Adobe is being "lazy" by not developing plugins for these archaic devices, or those devices were incapable of handling advanced content until recently. So choose one argument, drop the other. The two are mutually exclusive.





    Quote:

    ONCE THE UPDATES GO THROUGH. That's probably about 1% of Android phones TODAY. And about 0.1% of all phones.



    Top three android phones in the us:

    Motorola Droid (official OTA exists for 2.2 that you can dl and install, already rolling out)

    HTC Incredible (slated to get froyo)

    HTC Evo (update started going out this week, delayed because of compatibility issues)



    Yes, it's only "Currently" available for the N1 and Droid (which has a sub 600mhz processor), but that's not the issue. The fact of the matter is that it IS coming. In fact, it's already here. all it requires is for carriers and handset makers to push out some code. That's a far cry from it only being there for the N1 and no other devices no matter what.

    Quote:

    My daughter has a Motorola Backflip. Brand new and it shipped with Android 1.5 or 1.6 (I forget which). They said that eventually, it would be possible to upgrade to 2.1, but there's still no sign of an upgrade. They're not even talking about 2.2. Only a tiny percentage of Android phones are using Froyo.



    There's a reason att didn't market that phone as android (they pushed it as an advanced feature phone). You buy a glorified feature phone, you'll most likely be stuck on the firmware you got, maybe one upgrade. ATT seems to not care, at all, about android, so unlike Verizon and Sprint, I highly doubt they're pressuring Moto or anyone to push updates. Your phone has 1.5 btw because of ATT's insistance that moto remove most of the google apps from it. All other motoblur devices have 1.6, which should make the transition for them to 2.1 a lot easier.



    You want someone to be mad at about the Backflip, that's squarely att's fault. Their only decent android offering (the galaxyS variant) is basically being marketed exclusively by Samsung right now, not ATT.. I'm pretty sure they want android to fail.



    Quote:

    Face it, for all intents and purposes, Flash doesn't exist on mobile devices. ANY mobile devices (with that one minor exception). How is that Apple's fault?



    it isn't apple's fault that there isn't flash for those other OS's, but because of their arrogance it is EXPLICITLY their fault that the iphone isn't getting it, and has no chance of getting it.
  • Reply 326 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Either way, as a non-windows user Flash is a crap experience.



    That's all that's relevant to me \



    I use flash all the time on my macbook, my brother uses it all the time on his macbook pro.

    Yes, my macbook has issues, but that's because it has to use the CPU to decode everything (it's also a first generation, so it's quite old)



    My brothers macbook pro? It's basically flawless.



    Maybe you go to totally different sites than I do, but I can't remember the last time I ever had a browser crash (save for when I test beta builds). And the only time I have real issues with flash crapping out in a window is facebook chat, but facebooks coding is a pile of fail anyway.
  • Reply 327 of 348
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Really? Why are they "insane"?



    There's obviously the cost of parts, and that's where sites like iSupply generally stop but what about other costs:



    Design?

    Software?

    Manufacturing tool-up?

    Support?

    Marketing?



    and all the other overhead involved in product design? Only the blissfully ignorant or disingenuous casually throw out unfounded statements like this.



    Go look at cell phones from 10 years ago, and compare them to what we are getting now for the equivalent dollars - it's no comparison. If you think smart phones are insane, then get a dumb feature phone that will still have more functionality than cell phones from 10 years ago - and they will be under $50. Heck, you can get disposable phones these days for well under $50!



    So you read the first line and then stopped reading I take it?



    I was talking SPECIFICALLY about dumb phones, not smartphones. Even more specifically, I was talking the CDMA disparity. you CANNOT get a throwaway CDMA phone on a post paid network for $50 (if it is new) retail. Period. The MINIMUM you pay is 120, and for most of them, the cost is closer to 180+ (with retail around 200+) So for, Verizon for example, all of their phones cost them between 120-600, which is a REALLY small margin to go from the "Knack" to the "Droid x" So while the upper end is actually pretty cheap, the lower end is very inflated.



    Compare that to GSM carriers where you CAN get throwaway phones. or any prepaid carrier where the phones are again, signifigantly cheaper. Yes, there is design and patents to consider, but they don't justify for the cost.







    Quote:

    Yes, because if you are smart you never give people a real reason to hate you and actively want to ditch your platform. If people no longer use it, you aren't gong to gather licensing for it - pretty simple, really. Make the terms of the deal bad enough and people will seek a better deal elsewhere. MPEG-LA has so far demonstrated that they aren't that stupid.



    No need for conspiracy theories or whacky what-if scenarios that will never happen...



    Yes, it's not like DIRECTLY after the WebM announcement they (MPEG-LA) announced that they were going to start selling licenses to people wanting to use webM to protect them from any lawsuits MPEG-LA was going to throw at the new standard.. Yeah, they totally didn't do that.
  • Reply 328 of 348
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Is that like the license fees HTC pays Microsoft for the use of Android, you know to cover any lawsuits Microsoft may launch against patents they allege Linux infringes.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Yes, it's not like DIRECTLY after the WebM announcement they (MPEG-LA) announced that they were going to start selling licenses to people wanting to use webM to protect them from any lawsuits MPEG-LA was going to throw at the new standard.. Yeah, they totally didn't do that.



  • Reply 329 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    You would have to completely redesign all of your Flash anyway since nobody programs in Flash to target version 1. That said, I did not see any speed issues on the files that I specifically designed for v1. It was very snappy. You just couldn't get any Actionscript going which kills it for advertising purposes.



    Right, it would have to be redesigned anyway to use Gordon and yes, a waste of time.



    I personally don't make ads in Flash, I hate how annoying those can get and have Flash blockers on all of my browsers.



    Quote:

    Well you will certainly have your hands full trying to code in JS, Canvas and SVG to a level where it could be a replacement for Flash. The learning curve is REALLY, REALLY steep. In addition there are still no website deployments available for HTML5/JS in the mainstream advertising media distribution channels.



    Again, personally I don't use a lot of actionscript to begin with, I prefer to have robust html and CSS. I did change all of my Flash run slideshows and videos to be run with javacript and html5 instead. There were solutions already out there so I didn't have to write them at all.



    I use html for links and interactivity on my sites, always have (except for some same experiments it Flash) I hate websites that act like video games. All of my clients thus far prefer SEO compatibility to the wow factor of Flash based sites. I have actually been hired more often switch sites from Flash based to html based. With good CSS I can get the sites to look like the Flash sites and if their are small bits of interactivity I will use a small Flash file if I have no other choice. But as of today I have everything either out of Flash or I have coded in a comparable alternative to the Flash file that will run on the iDevices. I never thought Flash was all that great so I am not missing it much.



    Yes, you are right about coding Canvas et al. I am hoping that Apple will add that to their Xcode program. I am more interested in learning how to create iAds, so I am assuming they have or will have tools for that.



    A client of mine is launching an ad campaign through Comcast, I can submit an animated gif, I don't have to do the ad in Flash. Will it be as tricked out? No. Will people who are using Flash blockers and mobile devices see it? Yes.



    It is all a matter of choice and I choose to stay with what I have always done, well coded html, CSS and javascript.
  • Reply 330 of 348
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ggbrigette View Post




    I personally don't make ads in Flash, I hate how annoying those can get and have Flash blockers on all of my browsers



    I do whatever the client asks for and often it is Flash. I'm doing a lot of JavaScript/HTML5 now for all the back end CMS stuff. Also a lot of Ajax too. My Flash work mostly involves real applications not just fluff. However Flash is still in high demand for ads. I don't like to view ads anymore than the next person but that is what the clients want.
  • Reply 331 of 348
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ggbrigette View Post


    . I am hoping that Apple will add that to their Xcode program. I am more interested in learning how to create iAds, so I am assuming they have or will have tools for that.



    I don't think Apple is going to allow graphic artists such as yourself to ever create or submit iAds. They sell iAds and create them themselves. They distribute them as they see fit and do not need any input from regular programmers or designers such as you or me.
  • Reply 332 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    No, every Distro of linux can have totally different drivers, aka totally different ways of accessing the hardware. So yes, while it's open, it would mean that adobe would have to field multiple teams in an attempt to keep up to date to all the different distros of linux.





    Actually there is. For one, the marketshare of linux for consumers is abysmal, and there are MULTIPLE versions of Ubuntu, so which one should they select? Yeah, they could get flash working perfectly on a distro that covers... lets say 10% of the consumer linux market. that just pissed the other 90% off.



    That's why he said they should release Flash as open source. You know, open source? That stuff that just a little while ago you were arguing everything ought to be so that Mozilla can maintain their ideological purity? How you can on the one hand insist that H.264 is evil because it isn't free, open source and on the other claim that Flash is as pure a part of the web as the driven snow is a bit of a mystery to me.



    The bottom line, to which Adobe has no honest answer, is that they never have been able to properly support more than a single platform at a time, and they never will, and they don't even want to, and that's why Flash has no, and ought not have a, future.



    But, now you've circled back around and are making arguments that ignore points already made against them. I'd say you were pretty much finished about 4-5 pages ago.
  • Reply 333 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post


    No, that isn't 'exactly' how it happened, apple refused to allow it. M$ on the otherhand, is actively working with adobe to include it. Small detail that escaped your notice.



    It runs fine here. You can yell buggy all you like, it doesn't make it so. Why don't you entertain everyone with more googled links.



    The evidence is out there. You just refuse to see it. If it can run on android well, and jailbroken iphones, it's running. Adobe got it's ass kicked after trying to pass off flash lite, and it's poor flash player at the time.



    And the "world", could care less about a handful of deluded forum posters reiterating the same crap over and over boring everyone. IF Adobe is able to roll it out and keep the momentum, the 'world', will want to have it.



    Good old single issue Groovetube. Still full of it, I see. What's that? Oh, well, if you actually had a point I might respond to it, but your tired old arguments are so weak that it's really not worth the effort. Nice to see you have the hate throttled up to about 8.
  • Reply 334 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Good old single issue Groovetube. Still full of it, I see. What's that? Oh, well, if you actually had a point I might respond to it, but your tired old arguments are so weak that it's really not worth the effort. Nice to see you have the hate throttled up to about 8.



    typical troll response. Blah blah you have no point blah blah if you said something worthwhile yadda yadaa yadda you're a HATER.



    Oh yeah I'm a real HATER genius.



    says it all right there.
  • Reply 335 of 348
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The bottom line, to which Adobe has no honest answer, is that they never have been able to properly support more than a single platform at a time, and they never will, and they don't even want to, and that's why Flash has no, and ought not have a, future.



    That is a bit of an exaggeration. Honestly the same thing could be said for Apple, especially a decade ago. Adobe has been the one thing that has kept the Mac alive. Without the creative professionals the Mac would have died a long time ago - and creative professionals use what software almost exclusively? Right.



    Flash is like a wild teenage brother. You don't want him dead, you want him to grow up.
  • Reply 336 of 348
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    That is a bit of an exaggeration. Honestly the same thing could be said for Apple, especially a decade ago. Adobe has been the one thing that has kept the Mac alive. Without the creative professionals the Mac would have died a long time ago - and creative professionals use what software almost exclusively? Right. Flash is like a wild teenage brother. You don't want him dead, you want him to grow up.



    yep. Funny how people forget things.
  • Reply 337 of 348
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    [QUOTE=mstone;1692735]That is a bit of an exaggeration. Honestly the same thing could be said for Apple, especially a decade ago. /QUOTE]



    The difference is that Apple isn't trying to get the FTC to force their products on people who don't want them.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Adobe has been the one thing that has kept the Mac alive. Without the creative professionals the Mac would have died a long time ago - and creative professionals use what software almost exclusively? Right.



    What does that have to do with it? A lot of Apple users have used some good Adobe software in the past so Apple is somehow obligated to use crappy Adobe software?



    That doesn't even make sense at first glance, much less reasonable consideration.
  • Reply 338 of 348
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    [QUOTE=jragosta;1692810]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    That is a bit of an exaggeration. Honestly the same thing could be said for Apple, especially a decade ago. /QUOTE]



    The difference is that Apple isn't trying to get the FTC to force their products on people who don't want them.







    What does that have to do with it? A lot of Apple users have used some good Adobe software in the past so Apple is somehow obligated to use crappy Adobe software?



    That doesn't even make sense at first glance, much less reasonable consideration.



    You are mistaken. Adobe wants their users to be able to create applications that run on iPhone. You are not obligated to download any program that you don't want.



    Sorry my original post was slightly off topic as I was replying to someone who made a general comment about Flash and not about the investigation.
  • Reply 339 of 348
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    That is a bit of an exaggeration. Honestly the same thing could be said for Apple, especially a decade ago.



    It's not an exaggeration at all. And, you are probably correct, Apple probably couldn't support some software product adequately on as many platforms as Adobe would need to support Flash on, which is all platforms. Probably no one could. Combine that with the argument that some platforms aren't big enough to justify the cost is exactly the point of why closed proprietary technologies like Flash have no business on the web. The correct model for these things is multiple vendors support various platforms, coding to open standards, and even the smallest most "insignificant" platforms like Linux* will get decently performing browsers supporting HTML5, but they will never get decently performing Flash.



    Quote:

    Adobe has been the one thing that has kept the Mac alive. Without the creative professionals the Mac would have died a long time ago - and creative professionals use what software almost exclusively? Right.



    Or, the Mac has been the one thing that has kept Adobe alive, over the years, depending on how you look at it.



    Quote:

    Flash is like a wild teenage brother. You don't want him dead, you want him to grow up.



    Flash is more like your neighbor's drunken 40 year-old son who pukes in your driveway every night: you don't want him dead, you just want him to move out already, preferably to another state.





    * This characterization is that of those who, in this thread, have argued that Linux doesn't deserve to be a full class web citizen, and is not a view I share.
  • Reply 340 of 348
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Apple probably couldn't support some software product adequately on as many platforms as Adobe would need to support Flash on, which is all platforms.



    No only the platforms they wish to support. Like iTunes. Linux users decided to use that OS knowing full well that iTunes and Flash and QuickTime and lots of other stuff will not be available.



    And if Mac users don't want to use Flash they don'y have to. If every Mac user stopped using Flash today, it would not diminish the prevalence of Flash on the web one bit.



    Quote:

    Flash is more like your neighbor's drunken 40 year-old son who pukes in your driveway every night: you don't want him dead, you just want him to move out already, preferably to another state.



    However amusing your characterization, Adobe has only had control of Flash for a few years so I would give them the benefit of the doubt. They are making a sincere effort to move the platform in a much more business oriented direction with Flex and Air. I my opinion it is the 40 year old advertising exec and the teenage dork who have given Flash a bad name.



    Sure their are some performance issues that have been reported, but they have rarely if ever caused any significant inconveniences to me and I use Flash on a Mac all the time. Until someone comes up with a suitable replacement to the functionality that Flash offers, a web minus Flash would be much less interesting. I would venture to say that anything you can do with an iPhone app you can also do with Flash. It is a full fledged application development environment which can create applications that run in a browser. Aside from Java nothing else can do that. The reason it doesn't need to be open standards based is exactly for that reason, It creates APPLICATIONS, not web pages.
Sign In or Register to comment.