All I can say to this is I'd rather pay a fair price for my apps then get apps with ads. I refuse to use any apps that have ads period.
How about the best of both worlds for developers and users:
1) Have apps with iAds available free -- to allow a user to see if the app serves his needs.
2) Allow the user an in-app purchase to turn iAds off, if desired.
BTW, I suspect that we will see iAd options available for:
-- desktop apps
-- desktop browsers
-- mobile apps
-- mobile browser apps
-- AppleTV and other TV enhancers
BTW 2: AppleTV 2 will hit 1 million unit sales sometime this week (less than 3 months) -- the number of iOS devices, unadulterated by Flash, just continues to grow.
Apple should pick them up, if not Panic. I would love to see Panic develop Coda into a proper cocoa native web development IDE, perhaps Sencha Animator could be an additional tool along with CSS Edit and Sequel Pro.
Apple also needs to focus on server side development and take on .Net
A mixed attack with open source tools and languages along with server side object c would go a long way.
Remember just a year or two ago when Flash proponents were saying HTML5 was "ten years out" and that no browsers supported enough of the spec to be useful?
Yep and then the porn industry realized folks can't see their Flashy sites on their big iPads, and started the switch to HTML5. and that will be the end of that
Make no mistakes folks, it won't be Apple that kills Flash, it will be the porn folks
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhoneLuvr1
Yes, that is certainly true. Apple might consider licensing iOS to other vendors if it wants to keep a critical mass. Otherwise, it will eventually be an also-ran ecosystem.
The day that Apple licenses os or MacOS is the day that the Gov't tells them they must. And they will likely burn down the house to avoid it. Seriously, everyone will lay down their magic mice and walk out. Right before th place imploded. Retail stores will clap themselves out right before laying waste to their stock of computers etc. They will drink their koolaid while dancing around bonfires of those dumb matching t-shirts.
Indeed. Insidiously clever: while Flash blockers are all over the place and it's dirt simple for even the lamest rube to have complete control over it, with JavaScript-based ads the only way you can turn them off is to disable your web apps.
Over simplification? Really not that difficult to figure out. Just like anti-virus software works. You develop a signature of how the ads work and you insert some CSS display:none or innerHTML on the div. Same click to view is also really easy.
Okey, I'm having a bad cold so I might have misunderstood something, but how can iAd Producer be a blow to Flash when the ads produced with it only run on a platform where Flash is not available anyway? I thought that competition requires to have a choice in the first place but Flash and IAds run in mutually exclusive spaces.
That is simply AI spin doctoring and the anti-Adobe zealots are happy to run with it.
Flash has a lot going for it as does Javascript. I think the big difference in what Apple is trying to do is bring a bit of class to web advertising. Nobody likes a page full of annoying Flash ads for products you probably have no interest in. The ad industry is lazy and they just want to shove an ad in a div and let the client pick up the tab. It is a numbers game. More volume = more money.
Conversely Apple wants to develop high quality ads with cinematic like qualities for products and brands that everyone admires, recognizes and respects to begin with. Their approach is to start with a nonintrusive static banner and upon clicking it expands into a full screen experience. Not to say that others will not try to exploit JS ads by animating them in place and sling the same old crap but I think Apple will deliver a high quality advertisement that people will want to watch whether they are in the market for that product or not.
For now the iAds only work in the iOS app environment but it is not much of a leap to see them run on the web as well. As noted earlier that will necessitate Apple controlling the entire page but some high profile sites may be cooperative in that endeavor.
Over simplification? Really not that difficult to figure out. Just like anti-virus software works. You develop a signature of how the ads work and you insert some CSS display:none or innerHTML on the div. Same click to view is also really easy.
Brilliant and foolproof, because of course once you share your solution it's not like the multi-billion-dollar ad industry would have any motivation to change the patterns in their code.
Gee, 'llI bet it's really easy to write anti-virus software too...
If you guys think that HTML5 has any chance to be a serious competition to Adobe you are on for a trip beside being delusional.
Apple has never shown any serious ability to produce software, all they do is to buy third parties. Meanwhile Adobe has ruled the creative market for decade and has some of the best software rocket scientists on the planet.
Delusions about the present failure of Flash aside, you are familiar with the fact the Adobe didn't have anything to do with Flash's development, right? It competed against Flash with open web-based tools including SVG? until it ACQUIRED MACROMEDIA in 2005!
Brilliant and foolproof, because of course once you share your solution it's not like the multi-billion-dollar ad industry would have any motivation to change the patterns in their code..
That would make sense if we didn't have the evidence that the ad industry is so lazy they don't even bother to check if you are running a Flash blocker and offer up a different format. Or for that matter to even create a different format for devices that can't read Flash. There are only certain standard sizes and positions for web ads plus the urls have a very distinct format as do the names of the divs. So yes they are very predictable. There are already a few ad blockers available that do exactly what I described.
Delusions about the present failure of Flash aside, you are familiar with the fact the Adobe didn't have anything to do with Flash's development, right? It competed against Flash with open web-based tools including SVG? until it ACQUIRED MACROMEDIA in 2005!
The article doesn't say that Apple is the only responsible for MS making IE9 compliant.
It says that Apple's push has created awareness in the market. Developers liked the idea and pressured MS. And it took some time for that to happen... Apple partnered with Opera and other players and started WHAT-WG some years ago!
So, Apple is not the only responsible for MS making IE9 compliant, but they sure helped shape the movement that ended up forcing MS to "behave".
Cheers,
_iCeb0x_
It doesn't spell it out but it definitely tries to imply that it is the biggest/main factor behind it and it just isn't true.
Apple didn't push it ice box, developers were already complaining and as soon as Firefox began to take off the developer complaints started to increase greatly. Apple isn't a reason at all for why IE is becoming standards complaint.
The only thing Apple has possibly really done is try end things like Adobe flash and prevent Microsoft Silverlight from becoming dominant in terms of video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I wouldn't be so sure. Microsoft essentially copied Apple's playbook with Windows 7. More and more users are on mobile devices using Apple's webkit. Safari and Chrome are just two. When IE was the only game in town, Developers had to bend over for Microsoft. Developers are now in a position to insist on compliance.
You already hear some developers grumbling that they have to support HTML 5 as there are so many iOS devices rejecting Flash. Microsoft would do itself a huge favor if it switched over to Webkit.
I would be considering that up until Google Chrome, webkit only had about <5% of market share and firefox had around 20-25%.
Mobile web browsing has definitely increased but the vast majority of the web is still done using desktop versions of browser primarily IE and Firefox. Developers are now in a position to insist on compliance because of firefox. Not apple. Apple has only recently become important.
Why would they do themselves a huge favor using webkit? IE 9's Trident 5.0 engine in a lot of ways just as good as webkit. Webkit is probably one of the most buggiest engines out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Nonsense, of course it does. The market is moving dynamically in unison because of Apple digging in its heals. Why else would it be happening? Apple is creating the critical mass to finally bury proprietary crapware like silverlight and flash.
No it is primarily because of Firefox, as I said before, the only thing it can take credit for is flash and silverlight. Thats it. Firefox is the real reason why standard compliance became an issue, because developers finally had a choice because of them, it was the first and still is the number #1 competitor to Microsofts market share.
truthfully, the minute I see "html5 vs flash" I begin zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As long as it garners hits, it'll still be flogged. It's for fools.
ATM though, I'm trying to figure out how html5 alt iAds to flash, on a platform which only runs on iOS, and disallows flash, is an "alternative. Alternative to something that isn't on... iOS? Wha??
Thank you. I've been waiting for a response from you. Apples and Oranges. They are mutually exclusive products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
truthfully, the minute I see "html5 vs flash" I begin zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As long as it garners hits, it'll still be flogged. It's for fools.
ATM though, I'm trying to figure out how html5 alt iAds to flash, on a platform which only runs on iOS, and disallows flash, is an "alternative. Alternative to something that isn't on... iOS? Wha??
This doesn't seem to be publicly available. I wasn't able to download it using my free developer account.
I thought I was going crazy - you log in and then the next page has no links for the iAd Producer. Then you make a search and the only result takes you back where you started ...so you log in
So yes they are very predictable. There are already a few ad blockers available that do exactly what I described.
Advanced ad blockers like Adblock Plus can also filter out requests before they are send. Only using CSS hiding is very fragile, still downloads the ads, still uploads statistics to the ad server and can't deal with every type of ad (e.g. in-video ads) so it's only employed if blocking is not possible or to clear up a page. For instance, the Adblock Plus filter subscription EasyList uses a mix of general filters as well as site-specific filters to deal with advertisement. Fortunately the majority of advertisement on the web is served by only several dozens of advertisement domains so it's easy to deal with 80+ percent of advertisement with a comparatively little amount of filters.
Sure but the on load event issue and css class conflicts remain. There are undoubtably more knowledgeable developers than me who could shed light on this situation.
Namespacing and building sites using JavaScript classes (as opposed to just a bunch of global functions) can definitely help with this. There are various ways around the issue of onload conflicts: it's possible to register multiple event handlers for a single event, like onload or onbeforeunload; global code can sometimes be used to achieve a similar effect (or to register event handlers); and the order of script and css loading (the order they are specified in the source) can be used to some extent to affect how things execute.
But, of course, one needs to design one's pages and site around what's going to be on them. This is no less true when using Flash than when using JavaScript. Just randomly plunking content into a page is always a recipe for disaster. So, even if many of today's sites are built around the fact that they are serving ads with Flash, companies redesign sites all the time, and competent developers will be able to deal with the issues involved, whether they be Flash or JavaScript related.
So, this is not a "JavaScript issue", it's a general issue of all web development.
Comments
Adobe has ruled the creative market for decade and has some of the best software rocket scientists on the planet.
Let's see... what might be some the attributes of software written by rocket scientists:
-- takes forever to launch
-- often crashes
-- inflexible to operate
-- costs a lot of money
-- some questions as to ROI
-- over engineered
-- unintelligible to the average user
Yeah, that sums it up!
BTW, someone named @flexengineer, who joins AI to make his first post to a Flash thread... raises a few eyebrows!
All I can say to this is I'd rather pay a fair price for my apps then get apps with ads. I refuse to use any apps that have ads period.
How about the best of both worlds for developers and users:
1) Have apps with iAds available free -- to allow a user to see if the app serves his needs.
2) Allow the user an in-app purchase to turn iAds off, if desired.
BTW, I suspect that we will see iAd options available for:
-- desktop apps
-- desktop browsers
-- mobile apps
-- mobile browser apps
-- AppleTV and other TV enhancers
BTW 2: AppleTV 2 will hit 1 million unit sales sometime this week (less than 3 months) -- the number of iOS devices, unadulterated by Flash, just continues to grow.
https://pennies.interactivebrokers.c...1221.nWNAB0491
All I can say to this is I'd rather pay a fair price for my apps then get apps with ads. I refuse to use any apps that have ads period.
How did you delete Safari?
Apple should pick them up, if not Panic. I would love to see Panic develop Coda into a proper cocoa native web development IDE, perhaps Sencha Animator could be an additional tool along with CSS Edit and Sequel Pro.
Apple also needs to focus on server side development and take on .Net
A mixed attack with open source tools and languages along with server side object c would go a long way.
Server side object c:
SOPE
Bombaxtic
Bombax Source Code
Frothkit
Cappuccino
Or perhaps Apple should focus on server side JavaScript or an Adobe AIR alternative like Titanium Appcelerator
Remember just a year or two ago when Flash proponents were saying HTML5 was "ten years out" and that no browsers supported enough of the spec to be useful?
Yep and then the porn industry realized folks can't see their Flashy sites on their big iPads, and started the switch to HTML5. and that will be the end of that
Make no mistakes folks, it won't be Apple that kills Flash, it will be the porn folks
Yes, that is certainly true. Apple might consider licensing iOS to other vendors if it wants to keep a critical mass. Otherwise, it will eventually be an also-ran ecosystem.
The day that Apple licenses os or MacOS is the day that the Gov't tells them they must. And they will likely burn down the house to avoid it. Seriously, everyone will lay down their magic mice and walk out. Right before th place imploded. Retail stores will clap themselves out right before laying waste to their stock of computers etc. They will drink their koolaid while dancing around bonfires of those dumb matching t-shirts.
Indeed. Insidiously clever: while Flash blockers are all over the place and it's dirt simple for even the lamest rube to have complete control over it, with JavaScript-based ads the only way you can turn them off is to disable your web apps.
Over simplification? Really not that difficult to figure out. Just like anti-virus software works. You develop a signature of how the ads work and you insert some CSS display:none or innerHTML on the div. Same click to view is also really easy.
Okey, I'm having a bad cold so I might have misunderstood something, but how can iAd Producer be a blow to Flash when the ads produced with it only run on a platform where Flash is not available anyway? I thought that competition requires to have a choice in the first place but Flash and IAds run in mutually exclusive spaces.
That is simply AI spin doctoring and the anti-Adobe zealots are happy to run with it.
Flash has a lot going for it as does Javascript. I think the big difference in what Apple is trying to do is bring a bit of class to web advertising. Nobody likes a page full of annoying Flash ads for products you probably have no interest in. The ad industry is lazy and they just want to shove an ad in a div and let the client pick up the tab. It is a numbers game. More volume = more money.
Conversely Apple wants to develop high quality ads with cinematic like qualities for products and brands that everyone admires, recognizes and respects to begin with. Their approach is to start with a nonintrusive static banner and upon clicking it expands into a full screen experience. Not to say that others will not try to exploit JS ads by animating them in place and sling the same old crap but I think Apple will deliver a high quality advertisement that people will want to watch whether they are in the market for that product or not.
For now the iAds only work in the iOS app environment but it is not much of a leap to see them run on the web as well. As noted earlier that will necessitate Apple controlling the entire page but some high profile sites may be cooperative in that endeavor.
How did you delete Safari?
I really don't use mobile Safari that much (only when I have to). I use firefox with adblock plus on my desktop computers.
Over simplification? Really not that difficult to figure out. Just like anti-virus software works. You develop a signature of how the ads work and you insert some CSS display:none or innerHTML on the div. Same click to view is also really easy.
Brilliant and foolproof, because of course once you share your solution it's not like the multi-billion-dollar ad industry would have any motivation to change the patterns in their code.
Gee, 'llI bet it's really easy to write anti-virus software too...
If you guys think that HTML5 has any chance to be a serious competition to Adobe you are on for a trip beside being delusional.
Apple has never shown any serious ability to produce software, all they do is to buy third parties. Meanwhile Adobe has ruled the creative market for decade and has some of the best software rocket scientists on the planet.
Delusions about the present failure of Flash aside, you are familiar with the fact the Adobe didn't have anything to do with Flash's development, right? It competed against Flash with open web-based tools including SVG? until it ACQUIRED MACROMEDIA in 2005!
Are you really that ignorant?
Brilliant and foolproof, because of course once you share your solution it's not like the multi-billion-dollar ad industry would have any motivation to change the patterns in their code..
That would make sense if we didn't have the evidence that the ad industry is so lazy they don't even bother to check if you are running a Flash blocker and offer up a different format. Or for that matter to even create a different format for devices that can't read Flash. There are only certain standard sizes and positions for web ads plus the urls have a very distinct format as do the names of the divs. So yes they are very predictable. There are already a few ad blockers available that do exactly what I described.
Delusions about the present failure of Flash aside, you are familiar with the fact the Adobe didn't have anything to do with Flash's development, right? It competed against Flash with open web-based tools including SVG? until it ACQUIRED MACROMEDIA in 2005!
Are you really that ignorant?
If Flash is a failure, then what is SVG?
The article doesn't say that Apple is the only responsible for MS making IE9 compliant.
It says that Apple's push has created awareness in the market. Developers liked the idea and pressured MS. And it took some time for that to happen... Apple partnered with Opera and other players and started WHAT-WG some years ago!
So, Apple is not the only responsible for MS making IE9 compliant, but they sure helped shape the movement that ended up forcing MS to "behave".
Cheers,
_iCeb0x_
It doesn't spell it out but it definitely tries to imply that it is the biggest/main factor behind it and it just isn't true.
Apple didn't push it ice box, developers were already complaining and as soon as Firefox began to take off the developer complaints started to increase greatly. Apple isn't a reason at all for why IE is becoming standards complaint.
The only thing Apple has possibly really done is try end things like Adobe flash and prevent Microsoft Silverlight from becoming dominant in terms of video.
I wouldn't be so sure. Microsoft essentially copied Apple's playbook with Windows 7. More and more users are on mobile devices using Apple's webkit. Safari and Chrome are just two. When IE was the only game in town, Developers had to bend over for Microsoft. Developers are now in a position to insist on compliance.
You already hear some developers grumbling that they have to support HTML 5 as there are so many iOS devices rejecting Flash. Microsoft would do itself a huge favor if it switched over to Webkit.
I would be considering that up until Google Chrome, webkit only had about <5% of market share and firefox had around 20-25%.
Mobile web browsing has definitely increased but the vast majority of the web is still done using desktop versions of browser primarily IE and Firefox. Developers are now in a position to insist on compliance because of firefox. Not apple. Apple has only recently become important.
Why would they do themselves a huge favor using webkit? IE 9's Trident 5.0 engine in a lot of ways just as good as webkit. Webkit is probably one of the most buggiest engines out there.
Nonsense, of course it does. The market is moving dynamically in unison because of Apple digging in its heals. Why else would it be happening? Apple is creating the critical mass to finally bury proprietary crapware like silverlight and flash.
No it is primarily because of Firefox, as I said before, the only thing it can take credit for is flash and silverlight. Thats it. Firefox is the real reason why standard compliance became an issue, because developers finally had a choice because of them, it was the first and still is the number #1 competitor to Microsofts market share.
You are joking right?
truthfully, the minute I see "html5 vs flash" I begin zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As long as it garners hits, it'll still be flogged. It's for fools.
ATM though, I'm trying to figure out how html5 alt iAds to flash, on a platform which only runs on iOS, and disallows flash, is an "alternative. Alternative to something that isn't on... iOS? Wha??
People actually buy this trumped up crap? Really?
truthfully, the minute I see "html5 vs flash" I begin zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As long as it garners hits, it'll still be flogged. It's for fools.
ATM though, I'm trying to figure out how html5 alt iAds to flash, on a platform which only runs on iOS, and disallows flash, is an "alternative. Alternative to something that isn't on... iOS? Wha??
People actually buy this trumped up crap? Really?
This doesn't seem to be publicly available. I wasn't able to download it using my free developer account.
I thought I was going crazy - you log in and then the next page has no links for the iAd Producer. Then you make a search and the only result takes you back where you started ...so you log in
(and then the whole thing repeats itself).
What am I missing?
So yes they are very predictable. There are already a few ad blockers available that do exactly what I described.
Advanced ad blockers like Adblock Plus can also filter out requests before they are send. Only using CSS hiding is very fragile, still downloads the ads, still uploads statistics to the ad server and can't deal with every type of ad (e.g. in-video ads) so it's only employed if blocking is not possible or to clear up a page. For instance, the Adblock Plus filter subscription EasyList uses a mix of general filters as well as site-specific filters to deal with advertisement. Fortunately the majority of advertisement on the web is served by only several dozens of advertisement domains so it's easy to deal with 80+ percent of advertisement with a comparatively little amount of filters.
Sure but the on load event issue and css class conflicts remain. There are undoubtably more knowledgeable developers than me who could shed light on this situation.
Namespacing and building sites using JavaScript classes (as opposed to just a bunch of global functions) can definitely help with this. There are various ways around the issue of onload conflicts: it's possible to register multiple event handlers for a single event, like onload or onbeforeunload; global code can sometimes be used to achieve a similar effect (or to register event handlers); and the order of script and css loading (the order they are specified in the source) can be used to some extent to affect how things execute.
But, of course, one needs to design one's pages and site around what's going to be on them. This is no less true when using Flash than when using JavaScript. Just randomly plunking content into a page is always a recipe for disaster. So, even if many of today's sites are built around the fact that they are serving ads with Flash, companies redesign sites all the time, and competent developers will be able to deal with the issues involved, whether they be Flash or JavaScript related.
So, this is not a "JavaScript issue", it's a general issue of all web development.