Fair points. My gripe with this though is always the same: It's not Apple who have failed to develop Flash for mobile devices, it's Adobe. This is almost always misreported. If Flash worked well and didn't kill battery, Apple might look again (at least there'd be suspicion if they didn't). Apple cannot develop a browser with Flash support, because there is no such plugin to support!...
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
Why? The whole point is that web apps should work regardless of platform, it's why the standards were developed in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they cold do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
Flash is most certainly not open source. The SWF format is a partially open specification, but no implementation can even come close as it's missing much of what Flash implements. As for Apple's PDF support, that was partially true prior to 10.6 (though their PDF output has always been best of the industry), when Preview's PDF support got a massive upgrade.
Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.
The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.
Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
The Acid3 test was written by a Google employee...
I wouldn't like to be in Daniel Eran's shoes when he dreams. I'd say it's like an Apple versus Google EPIC cliffhanger, where he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating and panting, and foaming at the mouth murmuring: "jobs? jobs? jobs."
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? Google aren't, Microsoft aren't. HTML5 is Apple's weapon of choice; that's where they're investing. If Adobe want to seal the web in endless loading bars, let them develop the battery-murdering plugin.
Steve Jobs made it clear in his open letter than he sees Flash as old technology. He's not going to invest in developing it.
At the risk of arguing your point for you, I would take Preview over Adobe Reader on Windows every day of the week. I avoid it these days, but last time I looked you couldn't merge two PDFs in Adobe Reader on Windows. In Preview, it's a 2-second job and has saved me on more than one occasion when I've been time-constrained.
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.
There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.
Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.
There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.
Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? ...
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
I wouldn't like to be in Daniel Eran's shoes when he dreams. I'd say it's like an Apple versus Google EPIC cliffhanger, where he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating and panting, and foaming at the mouth murmuring: "jobs? jobs? jobs."
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.
Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.
sounds like adobe said, "help us fix this POS, but don't take any credit for it."
Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.
The reason it's germane is because the article in the OP reinforces what Flash proponents have always argued: browsers will always be so fragmented that there's really no such thing as "standard" in HTML/CSS/JavaScript: no complex web page or web application can look or perform the same in all browsers (without writing a bunch of browser-specific hacks).
I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero
You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.
I had actually misunderstood, particularly the following statements. It appeared as though the act of downloading, ie making an electronic copy, was expressly forbid - how could you develop using the SWF specification when the only legal way to obtain it is getting a hard copy right from Adobe? But I retract.
You know I used to think that companies like MS, RIM, Motorola, etc., could put out subpar products with subpar interfaces/SW and the buying public would buy them over the obviously superior Apple products.
This is no longer the case.
For example the Zune's inglorious demise speaks to this, in that Apple has indeed turned a corner with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The three post PC products have proven to the public Apple's attention to detail. I love it!
It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Just because it's in Apple's interest doesn't mean it's not also in the interest of the broader web community (both devs and users). Adobe excluded, of course.
(Almost) everyone agrees that Flash is ultimately unnecessary as open standards proliferate and become more advanced. Apple is simply dropping support for what they consider to be old technology - this is NOTHING new, they have done this repeatedly throughout their history. It's the reason they are able to be so nimble and innovative. They aren't bogged down by legacy support, etc.
They dropped SCSI ports; they dropped optical drives (in certain cases); they are essentially skipping blu-ray and USB 3 altogether; they announced they will stop supporting PowerPC computers while Microsoft promises to support XP until 2020 (give or take, i forget) which is almost two decades after it was released. The list goes on. Apple simply has no qualms abandoning old tech.
If we've learned anything from the success of non-flash iDevices, and the corresponding childish ranting and crying from the Flash camp, it's that Adobe needs iOS a lot more than iOS needs adobe. P.E.R.I.O.D. End of story.
WebKit version 533.17.9, which it says is "a very recent build"
Sorry, but please define ``a very recent build.'' Safari Mobile is no where near recent builds of WebKit Nightly. I can't even leverage webkit-gradients in backgrounds which opened up back in January.
They dropped SCSI ports; they dropped optical drives (in certain cases); they are essentially skipping blu-ray and USB 3 altogether; they announced they will stop supporting PowerPC computers while Microsoft promises to support XP until 2020 (give or take, i forget) which is almost two decades after it was released. The list goes on. Apple simply has no qualms abandoning old tech....
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (and there are more things Flash can do that HTML can't, than vice versa).
Comments
Fair points. My gripe with this though is always the same: It's not Apple who have failed to develop Flash for mobile devices, it's Adobe. This is almost always misreported. If Flash worked well and didn't kill battery, Apple might look again (at least there'd be suspicion if they didn't). Apple cannot develop a browser with Flash support, because there is no such plugin to support!...
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
Why? The whole point is that web apps should work regardless of platform, it's why the standards were developed in the first place.
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they cold do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
Flash is most certainly not open source. The SWF format is a partially open specification, but no implementation can even come close as it's missing much of what Flash implements. As for Apple's PDF support, that was partially true prior to 10.6 (though their PDF output has always been best of the industry), when Preview's PDF support got a massive upgrade.
Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.
The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.
Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
The Acid3 test was written by a Google employee...
Actually the Flash Player is open source (has been since 2008). There are non-Adobe flash players. Apple could build a Flash Player (like they built a PDF reader) if they wanted to (or thought they could do a better job--they didn't do a very good job on their version of a PDF reader).
The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? Google aren't, Microsoft aren't. HTML5 is Apple's weapon of choice; that's where they're investing. If Adobe want to seal the web in endless loading bars, let them develop the battery-murdering plugin.
Steve Jobs made it clear in his open letter than he sees Flash as old technology. He's not going to invest in developing it.
At the risk of arguing your point for you, I would take Preview over Adobe Reader on Windows every day of the week. I avoid it these days, but last time I looked you couldn't merge two PDFs in Adobe Reader on Windows. In Preview, it's a 2-second job and has saved me on more than one occasion when I've been time-constrained.
Flash is most certainly not open source.
not Flash; the Flash Player:
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.
There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.
Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."
-Adobe
not Flash; the Flash Player:
"The core engine of Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla Foundation, where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe.
There are no restrictions on the development of SWF authoring tools, and anyone can build their own SWF or FLV/F4V player.
Flex, the primary application framework for the Adobe Flash Platform, is also open source and is actively maintained and developed by Adobe and the community."
-Adobe
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
The flaw in that logic is that you are asking Apple to invest significant sums of money in developing a plugin that Adobe can't seem to develop themselves. Why should Apple do it? ...
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
I wouldn't like to be in Daniel Eran's shoes when he dreams. I'd say it's like an Apple versus Google EPIC cliffhanger, where he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating and panting, and foaming at the mouth murmuring: "jobs? jobs? jobs."
JeJeJeJe... JaJaJaJa
.
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Ado...t_spec_v10.pdf
Very second page. In fact, I can't even legally quote the part I'm speaking of. Second page, the copyright info, third sentence. That seems to me like one hell of a restriction.
You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.
Bit more research, it seems Flash's EULA explicitly prohibits you from developing a competing SWF player. So you can't develop an alternative and use Adobe Flash at all. Further, the SWF documentation explicitly prohibits copying in any form without direct written consent.
sounds like adobe said, "help us fix this POS, but don't take any credit for it."
Fair point but I'm not sure why that affects this debate. Flash doesn't exist for these browsers. Apple won't change that, and Adobe seems unable to. It's that simple.
The reason it's germane is because the article in the OP reinforces what Flash proponents have always argued: browsers will always be so fragmented that there's really no such thing as "standard" in HTML/CSS/JavaScript: no complex web page or web application can look or perform the same in all browsers (without writing a bunch of browser-specific hacks).
I want you to be right as it serves my argument but...I'm not seeing anything there. All that refers to is the documentation itself. It's pretty standard stuff...
You must be joking. That copyright statement has to do with redistributing/reselling the manual.
I had actually misunderstood, particularly the following statements. It appeared as though the act of downloading, ie making an electronic copy, was expressly forbid - how could you develop using the SWF specification when the only legal way to obtain it is getting a hard copy right from Adobe? But I retract.
This is no longer the case.
For example the Zune's inglorious demise speaks to this, in that Apple has indeed turned a corner with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The three post PC products have proven to the public Apple's attention to detail. I love it!
Best
It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Just because it's in Apple's interest doesn't mean it's not also in the interest of the broader web community (both devs and users). Adobe excluded, of course.
(Almost) everyone agrees that Flash is ultimately unnecessary as open standards proliferate and become more advanced. Apple is simply dropping support for what they consider to be old technology - this is NOTHING new, they have done this repeatedly throughout their history. It's the reason they are able to be so nimble and innovative. They aren't bogged down by legacy support, etc.
They dropped SCSI ports; they dropped optical drives (in certain cases); they are essentially skipping blu-ray and USB 3 altogether; they announced they will stop supporting PowerPC computers while Microsoft promises to support XP until 2020 (give or take, i forget) which is almost two decades after it was released. The list goes on. Apple simply has no qualms abandoning old tech.
If we've learned anything from the success of non-flash iDevices, and the corresponding childish ranting and crying from the Flash camp, it's that Adobe needs iOS a lot more than iOS needs adobe. P.E.R.I.O.D. End of story.
WebKit version 533.17.9, which it says is "a very recent build"
Sorry, but please define ``a very recent build.'' Safari Mobile is no where near recent builds of WebKit Nightly. I can't even leverage webkit-gradients in backgrounds which opened up back in January.
I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.
Apple can cut some esoteric HTML rendering options if they want, but please please please don't support Flash!!! Seriously.
They dropped SCSI ports; they dropped optical drives (in certain cases); they are essentially skipping blu-ray and USB 3 altogether; they announced they will stop supporting PowerPC computers while Microsoft promises to support XP until 2020 (give or take, i forget) which is almost two decades after it was released. The list goes on. Apple simply has no qualms abandoning old tech....
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (and there are more things Flash can do that HTML can't, than vice versa).