Unfortunately, no. From the PR, the server will send the video wrapped in Flash if your browser reports you have Flash available [which it will if you have Click2Flash installed].
So what you really want to do is uninstall Flash. Then you can also uninstall Click2Flash and enjoy a longer battery life on your portable device!
I wonder if Click2Flash can come up with a clever update that can fool the new Adobe server into believing Flash isn't installed. They already have a check box to force h264 if available, why not something for this?
I wonder if Click2Flash can come up with a clever update that can fool the new Adobe server into believing Flash isn't installed. They already have a check box to force h264 if available, why not something for this?
It's because the web server doesn't report whether it's Flash server or some other server serving up content, so they can't check to see if that's the case.
It's called, iPad is bigger than they and most expected - iPad is taking sales away from netbooks and other Windows PCs - showing people they don't need Flash. All that is making Adobe nervous, that if people keep buying the iPad and not having access to Flash they will forget about it and developers (many already are) will slow down their Flash development. Adobe must 'blink' first, the consumer is forcing them to do so by where they're spending their money - Apple.
I work for a financial company, we still use and develop with Flash, but slowly we are starting to create our demos and tools into HTML & JavaScript (AJAX and later HTML5 when more standardized) as the business folks worry about Apple products and want their tools/demos iPad friendly. Only one company, but I'm sure most if not all are doing the same, many probably faster then my job.
I agree with those who choose not to see this Flash issue as a war between Apple and Adobe. It's nothing of the kind. Apple rejected Flash on technical grounds but said they would re-examine the issue as soon as Adobe came up with a secure version that didn't eat batteries. So far as I know, that remains their position.
I think what has happened is that wiser heads inside Adobe have concluded there is no way they can browbeat Apple into accepting Flash as it is, and equally, there is no chance of making Flash as reliable as it needs to be, and as power efficient as mobile devices require without a re-write. I imagine they had hoped an adverse market reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash would force the company to retreat, but instead the market embraced HTML5 at an even faster pace.
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash. Their design products significantly add to Apple's appeal, and Apple's strong position in the media sector is obviously important to Adobe. As in the past, a strong partnership will benefit both companies, and more importantly, the end user.
I agree with those who choose not to see this Flash issue as a war between Apple and Adobe. It's nothing of the kind. Apple rejected Flash on technical grounds but said they would re-examine the issue as soon as Adobe came up with a secure version that didn't eat batteries. So far as I know, that remains their position.
I think what has happened is that wiser heads inside Adobe have concluded there is no way they can browbeat Apple into accepting Flash as it is, and equally, there is no chance of making Flash as reliable as it needs to be, and as power efficient as mobile devices require without a re-write. I imagine they had hoped an adverse market reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash would force the company to retreat, but instead the market embraced HTML5 at an even faster pace.
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash. Their design products significantly add to Apple's appeal, and Apple's strong position in the media sector is obviously important to Adobe. As in the past, a strong partnership will benefit both companies, and more importantly, the end user.
End of Sermon. Let us pray.
Exactly. Adobe an the media created the Apple vs. Adobe story. The truth is: Apple said NO to all plug-ins: no Flash, no Silverlight, no Java, no <whatever>. More broadly speaking, no non-native apps. Adobe spent real money to acquire Flash and hoped to turn it into the client-side platform that Java originally dreamed of becoming.
Apple could care less that you're supporting their standard for streaming.
They will stream all their products with it and since it's part of WebKit they can stream to all their WebKit ready devices in the Apple Ecosystem.
It's Adobe that has to adapt or become obsolete. They would be wise to adopt HTML5 Video directly and use Flash as a fall back. Apple could care less about Flash.
Flash disappoints on Android and it will never be on iOS from Apple.
Ah, the deparate throes Apple Insider's pursuit of cash.
Oh please. Apple didn't cave. I love how those who cite this as Apple "caving" fail to also cite the clear language that "We don't care what tool you use as long as your App isn't overly duplicative and doesn't suck".
Yup, Apple caved all right
Quote:
Back to The Register, MacRumors, and other real news sites?.
When I saw "caves" in the headline I was almost certain it was another Digler piece, but since Ong has been studying at the Digler School of Unnecessarily Inflamatory Journalism I guess it's not all that surprising that it was him instead. Emotion-laden headlines drive eyeballs, and that drives ad revenue, which is AI's only raison d'etre. They'll get it, by any means possible, even skirting the edges of the truth or contradictingthemselves.
In this case, what we have here is neither "caving" nor necessarily "a gesture of goodwill", but simply a good business decision that supports their customer base well.
While Adobe delivers their products for both Mac and Windows and Win has nearly 90% of the market, despite Apple Insider's whorish anti-Adobe campaign the fact is that Mac folks love Adobe, contributing disproportionaltely to the company's revenue (last I heard it was nearly 50%).
To AI's credit, they did finally acknowledge who started the war between Apple and Adobe:
But it would be too much to expect a consistently even hand from the writers here, so while they used "caves" in the headline with regard to Adobe they didn't use it when describing an even clearing caving by Apple:
Ah, the deparate throes Apple Insider's pursuit of cash.
Back to The Register, MacRumors, and other real news sites?.
+1 It is largely for this reason I have largely left AI. Did get a bit of a laugh that another site was able to get them to post the 2009 release of FCP as breaking news to FCP X (it eas deleted shortly after being posted) though this highlights their need to push out anything regardless of how accurate it is.
Excellent list. We need to be reminded of it, every now and then.
I would add a couple:
Form versus (All) Function as opposed to Form and (Most) Function
'Yes' to bad web stuff vs. 'No' to bad web stuff
Winning praise with computer-geeks vs. Who cares about computer-geeks
I'll add another one:
Fanboys vs. shareholders
"Play big or go home."
(Yes, I know this will infuriate some AI commenters. If you want to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. Put your money where your mouth is: AAPL. Buy into the company and believe the management will take good care of your investment. And yes, I have a diversified portfolio; AAPL represents less than 5% of my total investments across all accounts, including ETFs like QQQ or SPY.)
What I find most beneficial is for the MacBook line. Presumably it is now possible to avoid installing flash onto a laptop (there by removes battery drain by around 33%?). This will prove helpful for all those who use there MacBooks predominantly for web browsing.
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
Flash is dying as an application platform because the good developers left the Flash community after it got perverted by advertisers and half assed designers who have no taste. The only redeeming value it had was video delivery which uses less than 1% of the Actionscript functions available to real programmers. Besides, all of the 'fancy' things that Flash can do have become passé, sort of like the faux gold badging on autos that was popular in the late 90's. Stlyes for web development in this era have become more subtle and less garish, hence not so much Flash.
Sure Flash Player is not suitable for low powered mobile device with small batteries, but it is over on the desktop as well because it is all about information not whirling gizmos. There are some types of presentations that cannot be done in any other format but those are few and far between.
Quote:
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash.
Postscript did not bite the dust. Every PDF file is pure Postscript. OpenType and TrueType fonts are vector bezier curves with metrics which are converted to Postscript compatible glyphs by the Adobe PDF printer driver.
It's Adobe that has to adapt or become obsolete. They would be wise to adopt HTML5 Video directly and use Flash as a fall back. Apple could care less about Flash..
HTML5 <video> is a bag of hurt. I don't want to encode my video 4 times.
mstone says "Postscript did not bite the dust. Every PDF file is pure Postscript. OpenType and TrueType fonts are vector bezier curves with metrics which are converted to Postscript compatible glyphs by the Adobe PDF printer driver."
You're right to point out PDF certainly includes a subset of PostScript, but nonetheless from Adobe's viewpoint, PostScript is a bit like the Norwegian Blue: as a major profit maker this product is dead, defunct, devoid of life, motionless, it has ceased to be (not quite since there are still PostScript RIPs being sold at the high end, but compared to the halcyon days when Adobe coined over $1000 in royalty payments from Apple FOR EVERY SINGLE LASERWRITER sold, and who knows what from every other PostScript printer produced, PostScript income to Adobe must be a dribble these days. Yes? No?) In any event, they missed the boat by not coming out with a PostScript replacement at a much lower price that they could license to printer makers.
OH God! Did you see that the video on the Xoom is laggy as hell? What a piece of crap!
It was only for a few moments on screen but I too noticed a bunch of dropped frames on the Zoom while the iPad and Flash-on-Mac were both playing smoothly.
PostScript income to Adobe must be a dribble these days. Yes? No?) In any event, they missed the boat by not coming out with a PostScript replacement at a much lower price that they could license to printer makers.
All of that cash flow went from Postscript licensing to Acrobat sales including PDF plugins for Office. Unlike the old days where PC Windows almost exclusively used the HP printing protocol which did not traditionally have Postscript compatibility, although I had an HP with Postscript back in the day, they were rare. However, once Acrobat came out, that became the the new Postscript and they sold it by the millions to PC Windows and Mac users alike. So no, the Postscript revenue did not dry up at all. The entire CS Suite printing format is all Postscript but down grades gracefully if you don't have a true Postscript printer.
Comments
Unfortunately, no. From the PR, the server will send the video wrapped in Flash if your browser reports you have Flash available [which it will if you have Click2Flash installed].
So what you really want to do is uninstall Flash. Then you can also uninstall Click2Flash and enjoy a longer battery life on your portable device!
I wonder if Click2Flash can come up with a clever update that can fool the new Adobe server into believing Flash isn't installed. They already have a check box to force h264 if available, why not something for this?
I wonder if Click2Flash can come up with a clever update that can fool the new Adobe server into believing Flash isn't installed. They already have a check box to force h264 if available, why not something for this?
It's because the web server doesn't report whether it's Flash server or some other server serving up content, so they can't check to see if that's the case.
I work for a financial company, we still use and develop with Flash, but slowly we are starting to create our demos and tools into HTML & JavaScript (AJAX and later HTML5 when more standardized) as the business folks worry about Apple products and want their tools/demos iPad friendly. Only one company, but I'm sure most if not all are doing the same, many probably faster then my job.
I think what has happened is that wiser heads inside Adobe have concluded there is no way they can browbeat Apple into accepting Flash as it is, and equally, there is no chance of making Flash as reliable as it needs to be, and as power efficient as mobile devices require without a re-write. I imagine they had hoped an adverse market reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash would force the company to retreat, but instead the market embraced HTML5 at an even faster pace.
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash. Their design products significantly add to Apple's appeal, and Apple's strong position in the media sector is obviously important to Adobe. As in the past, a strong partnership will benefit both companies, and more importantly, the end user.
End of Sermon. Let us pray.
Flash vs. no Flash on iOS devices.
Replaceable battery vs. space saving non-replaceable batteries.
Specs. (ie. other tablets) vs. iPad's capabilities.
Fragmented approach vs. Apple's integrated approach.
No ecosystem vs. Apple's ecosystem.
Stylus vs. finger(s).
Poor customer service vs. excellent customer service.
Market share vs. Margins, ie., profit.
"free" vs. paid, as in iTunes music.
I'm sure there are many more!
One by one, Apple is winning "arguments."
Flash vs. no Flash on iOS devices.
Replaceable battery vs. space saving non-replaceable batteries.
Specs. (ie. other tablets) vs. iPad's capabilities.
Fragmented approach vs. Apple's integrated approach.
No ecosystem vs. Apple's ecosystem.
Stylus vs. finger(s).
Poor customer service vs. excellent customer service.
Market share vs. Margins, ie., profit.
"free" vs. paid, as in iTunes music.
I'm sure there are many more!
Excellent list. We need to be reminded of it, every now and then.
I would add a couple:
Form versus (All) Function as opposed to Form and (Most) Function
'Yes' to bad web stuff vs. 'No' to bad web stuff
Winning praise with computer-geeks vs. Who cares about computer-geeks
In 2000 I had to work hard at convincing people to deploy Flash. 10 years later, I have to convince them *not* to use Flash.
Live and learn. At least you admit your mistakes!
I agree with those who choose not to see this Flash issue as a war between Apple and Adobe. It's nothing of the kind. Apple rejected Flash on technical grounds but said they would re-examine the issue as soon as Adobe came up with a secure version that didn't eat batteries. So far as I know, that remains their position.
I think what has happened is that wiser heads inside Adobe have concluded there is no way they can browbeat Apple into accepting Flash as it is, and equally, there is no chance of making Flash as reliable as it needs to be, and as power efficient as mobile devices require without a re-write. I imagine they had hoped an adverse market reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash would force the company to retreat, but instead the market embraced HTML5 at an even faster pace.
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash. Their design products significantly add to Apple's appeal, and Apple's strong position in the media sector is obviously important to Adobe. As in the past, a strong partnership will benefit both companies, and more importantly, the end user.
End of Sermon. Let us pray.
Exactly. Adobe an the media created the Apple vs. Adobe story. The truth is: Apple said NO to all plug-ins: no Flash, no Silverlight, no Java, no <whatever>. More broadly speaking, no non-native apps. Adobe spent real money to acquire Flash and hoped to turn it into the client-side platform that Java originally dreamed of becoming.
They will stream all their products with it and since it's part of WebKit they can stream to all their WebKit ready devices in the Apple Ecosystem.
It's Adobe that has to adapt or become obsolete. They would be wise to adopt HTML5 Video directly and use Flash as a fall back. Apple could care less about Flash.
Flash disappoints on Android and it will never be on iOS from Apple.
they didn't use it when describing an even clearing caving by Apple:
Ah, the deparate throes Apple Insider's pursuit of cash.
Oh please. Apple didn't cave. I love how those who cite this as Apple "caving" fail to also cite the clear language that "We don't care what tool you use as long as your App isn't overly duplicative and doesn't suck".
Yup, Apple caved all right
Back to The Register, MacRumors, and other real news sites?.
Don't let the door hit ya...
Welcome to Apple Insider.
When I saw "caves" in the headline I was almost certain it was another Digler piece, but since Ong has been studying at the Digler School of Unnecessarily Inflamatory Journalism I guess it's not all that surprising that it was him instead. Emotion-laden headlines drive eyeballs, and that drives ad revenue, which is AI's only raison d'etre. They'll get it, by any means possible, even skirting the edges of the truth or contradicting themselves.
In this case, what we have here is neither "caving" nor necessarily "a gesture of goodwill", but simply a good business decision that supports their customer base well.
While Adobe delivers their products for both Mac and Windows and Win has nearly 90% of the market, despite Apple Insider's whorish anti-Adobe campaign the fact is that Mac folks love Adobe, contributing disproportionaltely to the company's revenue (last I heard it was nearly 50%).
To AI's credit, they did finally acknowledge who started the war between Apple and Adobe:
But it would be too much to expect a consistently even hand from the writers here, so while they used "caves" in the headline with regard to Adobe they didn't use it when describing an even clearing caving by Apple:
Ah, the deparate throes Apple Insider's pursuit of cash.
Back to The Register, MacRumors, and other real news sites?.
+1 It is largely for this reason I have largely left AI. Did get a bit of a laugh that another site was able to get them to post the 2009 release of FCP as breaking news to FCP X (it eas deleted shortly after being posted) though this highlights their need to push out anything regardless of how accurate it is.
Excellent list. We need to be reminded of it, every now and then.
I would add a couple:
Form versus (All) Function as opposed to Form and (Most) Function
'Yes' to bad web stuff vs. 'No' to bad web stuff
Winning praise with computer-geeks vs. Who cares about computer-geeks
I'll add another one:
Fanboys vs. shareholders
"Play big or go home."
(Yes, I know this will infuriate some AI commenters. If you want to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. Put your money where your mouth is: AAPL. Buy into the company and believe the management will take good care of your investment. And yes, I have a diversified portfolio; AAPL represents less than 5% of my total investments across all accounts, including ETFs like QQQ or SPY.)
In the light of newer technologies that have come along since Flash made its appearance more than a decade ago, doubtless Adobe has concluded the days of Flash dominance are in the past and if they want to remain relevant, they need to enthusiastically develop on the new platforms.
Flash is dying as an application platform because the good developers left the Flash community after it got perverted by advertisers and half assed designers who have no taste. The only redeeming value it had was video delivery which uses less than 1% of the Actionscript functions available to real programmers. Besides, all of the 'fancy' things that Flash can do have become passé, sort of like the faux gold badging on autos that was popular in the late 90's. Stlyes for web development in this era have become more subtle and less garish, hence not so much Flash.
Sure Flash Player is not suitable for low powered mobile device with small batteries, but it is over on the desktop as well because it is all about information not whirling gizmos. There are some types of presentations that cannot be done in any other format but those are few and far between.
I say all power to them. Adobe makes some really wonderful products (InDesign is incredible), but just as their first flagship product PostScript bit the dust, they need to move on from Flash.
Postscript did not bite the dust. Every PDF file is pure Postscript. OpenType and TrueType fonts are vector bezier curves with metrics which are converted to Postscript compatible glyphs by the Adobe PDF printer driver.
It's Adobe that has to adapt or become obsolete. They would be wise to adopt HTML5 Video directly and use Flash as a fall back. Apple could care less about Flash..
HTML5 <video> is a bag of hurt. I don't want to encode my video 4 times.
You're right to point out PDF certainly includes a subset of PostScript, but nonetheless from Adobe's viewpoint, PostScript is a bit like the Norwegian Blue: as a major profit maker this product is dead, defunct, devoid of life, motionless, it has ceased to be (not quite since there are still PostScript RIPs being sold at the high end, but compared to the halcyon days when Adobe coined over $1000 in royalty payments from Apple FOR EVERY SINGLE LASERWRITER sold, and who knows what from every other PostScript printer produced, PostScript income to Adobe must be a dribble these days. Yes? No?) In any event, they missed the boat by not coming out with a PostScript replacement at a much lower price that they could license to printer makers.
OH God! Did you see that the video on the Xoom is laggy as hell? What a piece of crap!
It was only for a few moments on screen but I too noticed a bunch of dropped frames on the Zoom while the iPad and Flash-on-Mac were both playing smoothly.
PostScript income to Adobe must be a dribble these days. Yes? No?) In any event, they missed the boat by not coming out with a PostScript replacement at a much lower price that they could license to printer makers.
All of that cash flow went from Postscript licensing to Acrobat sales including PDF plugins for Office. Unlike the old days where PC Windows almost exclusively used the HP printing protocol which did not traditionally have Postscript compatibility, although I had an HP with Postscript back in the day, they were rare. However, once Acrobat came out, that became the the new Postscript and they sold it by the millions to PC Windows and Mac users alike. So no, the Postscript revenue did not dry up at all. The entire CS Suite printing format is all Postscript but down grades gracefully if you don't have a true Postscript printer.
Which means Click2Flash will have less work to do.
Will HTML5 be a carrier of obnoxious animated ads? I sure hope there's an HTML5 blocker in the works - like Click2HTML5 (with a better name).