Right 3 years from now but right now and when Apple released the iPad two years ago, Flash was still the top internet video streaming plugin. You don't notice it because you have apps that have taken over that reponsibility and Youtube supports iPad. If you go on to Youtube without a iPad though it still streams using Flash and so does everyone else or mostly everyone who streams TV shows or movies anyway.
Fine Flash is dead but someone forgot to tell a lot of people because I keep running into sites tht need it.
Someone forgot to tell a lot of pc makers that the floppy was dead and they continued to incorporate floppy drives.
When's the last time you used a floppy disc?
Apple has sold well over a hundred million iOS devices and continues to increase its sales. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about flash.
Someone forgot to tell a lot of pc makers that the floppy was dead and they continued to incorporate floppy drives.
When's the last time you used a floppy disc?
Apple has sold well over a hundred million iOS devices and continues to increase its sales. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about flash.
Flash is dead.
Can I ask you how you watch TV online then? Without using a special app of course. Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population. It's a lot but not the entire market. Look I don't want to argue because I know with 100 percent certainty that I still need Flash if I want to enjoy sreaming video or really great web apps like http://audiotool.com/app / ...and the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population.
There are only, what, 1.2 billion people online? And no, 100 million isn't one ten-thousanth of the population of either the Earth or the Internet.
One trillion people haven't even lived YET.
I thought it was 250,000,000 devices by Apple, but maybe that's all iDevices and not just iOS. In fact, that's probably right.
Quote:
...the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
As I've stated multiple times just in this thread and as thousands of others have stated in hundreds of threads across dozens of websites, no, that's no the 'only reason'.
Can I ask you how you watch TV online then? Without using a special app of course. Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population. It's a lot but not the entire market. Look I don't want to argue because I know with 100 percent certainty that I still need Flash if I want to enjoy sreaming video or really great web apps like http://audiotool.com/app / ...and the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
What's your problem? If you have a tablet with Flash that works for you, by all means knock yourself out. Why are you so worried about other people not needing it or wanting the battery hit?
And what's so horrible about "special apps"? It sounds like you have to pretend like there's something distasteful about an app because otherwise you'd have to admit that you can watch pretty much anything you want on an iPad.
You know why? Because Apple sells vastly more iPads than any Flash enabled Android tablet, so streaming sites have been quick to accommodate that technology. I wonder why that is? I mean, you'd think given the absolute critical necessity of Flash that consumers would have flocked to the tablets that offered same, but they really, really haven't.
As I say, if streaming video without "special apps" (and is it really much harder to click on an icon that it is to click on a bookmark?) is more important to you than excellent battery life, a vast selection of applications, and a vibrant ecosystem of accessories, then I say: more power to you.
Just don't pretend that your personal tastes have anything to do with where the market is, because they clearly don't.
There are only, what, 1.2 billion people online? And no, 100 million isn't one ten-thousanth of the population of either the Earth or the Internet.
One trillion people haven't even lived YET.
I thought it was 250,000,000 devices by Apple, but maybe that's all iDevices and not just iOS. In fact, that's probably right.
As I've stated multiple times just in this thread and as thousands of others have stated in hundreds of threads across dozens of websites, no, that's no the 'only reason'.
Ooops I meant to type .01 100,000,000 divided by 7,000,000,000. The other reason is the realationship between Adobe and Apple but yes the main reason is iTunes. Look again who cares it doesn't concern me what the reason is. The fact is Flash is still being used by a whole lot of sites that stream video, I know because I am a media whore. In fact 80 percent of the that sites that stream video on a webpage use Flash, not with a app but webpages. Only 35 percent of the sites available on the web have Flash. These numbers are from Flash Magazine as of December 2012.
What's your problem? If you have a tablet with Flash that works for you, by all means knock yourself out. Why are you so worried about other people not needing it or wanting the battery hit?
And what's so horrible about "special apps"? It sounds like you have to pretend like there's something distasteful about an app because otherwise you'd have to admit that you can watch pretty much anything you want on an iPad.
You know why? Because Apple sells vastly more iPads than any Flash enabled Android tablet, so streaming sites have been quick to accommodate that technology. I wonder why that is? I mean, you'd think given the absolute critical necessity of Flash that consumers would have flocked to the tablets that offered same, but they really, really haven't.
As I say, if streaming video without "special apps" (and is it really much harder to click on an icon that it is to click on a bookmark?) is more important to you than excellent battery life, a vast selection of applications, and a vibrant ecosystem of accessories, then I say: more power to you.
Just don't pretend that your personal tastes have anything to do with where the market is, because they clearly don't.
Oh I don't care now that I have a device that can do everything I need it to do. I was just scolding those who were going after the thread starter. Then it turned into a fun game with Tallest Skil. Oh and it's just Apple iPad users like myself who don't use Flash. Everyone else does, for streaming online video that is. I mentioned apps because sites like Hulu charge you 7.99 a month. When it's free for Flash users for recent aired shows. The argument was Flash is dead and it it might be dead but those who stream video don't know that yet and because Apple is the most popular device these sites were forced to write apps so iPad users can watch. However I keep hearing that these site are supposed to go to HTML5 and that just isn't happening, at least not yet or especially two years ago when the iPad was released.
Ooops I meant to type .01 100,000,000 divided by 7,000,000,000. The other reason is the realationship between Adobe and Apple but yes the main reason is iTunes. Look again who cares it doesn't concern me what the reason is. The fact is Flash is still being used by a whole lot of sites that stream video, I know because I am a media whore. In fact 80 percent of the that stream video on a webpage, not with a app but webpage use Flash. Only 35 percent of the sites available on the web have Flash. These numbers are from Flash Magazine as of December 2012.
I still don't get why you are so concerned that Apple doesn't have Flash. The majority of people could care less and every year that goes by Flash will diminish even more.
Adobe has killed mobile flash. Why did they do that? because they want people to use iTunes??
I still don't get why you are so concerned that Apple doesn't have Flash. The majority of people could care less and every year that goes by Flash will diminish even more.
Adobe has killed mobile flash. Why did they do that? because they want people to use iTunes??
I only care because most sites that stream video are still using Flash. I live in Switzeland and I want to watch American shows without buying a epidode from iTunes. Well actually I don't care anymore, my Asus Slider plays every codec possible including Flash. So I have my geek toy and I will now just use my iPad for Music creation. Which is what I really bought it for in the first place.
I only care because most sites that stream video are still using Flash. I live in Switzeland and I want to watch American shows without buying a epidode from iTunes. Well actually I don't care anymore, my Asus Slider plays every codec possible including Flash. So I have my geek toy and I will now just use my iPad for Music creation. Which is what I really bought it for in the first place.
Flash is a relic of poor programming, and the Flash protocol is so poorly constructed that it really doesn't matter whether a few of the top of the line mobile devices can play it reasonably well... it absolutely deserves to be replaced by something more modern and efficient. Had Apple not raised the bar, this wouldn't be happening.
It's just like someone in the 90's asking, "Why doesn't Apple ship their computers with Windows? Give the customers the choice!"
Windows sucked. Apple had something better. If Apple had shipped computers with Windows, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of OS technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash sucks. There are better protocols. If Apple had shipped an iPhone or iPad that fully supports Flash, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of media, animation and interactive website technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash is a relic of poor programming, and the Flash protocol is so poorly constructed that it really doesn't matter whether a few of the top of the line mobile devices can play it reasonably well... it absolutely deserves to be replaced by something more modern and efficient. Had Apple not raised the bar, this wouldn't be happening.
It's just like someone in the 90's asking, "Why doesn't Apple ship their computers with Windows? Give the customers the choice!"
Windows sucked. Apple had something better. If Apple had shipped computers with Windows, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of OS technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash sucks. There are better protocols. If Apple had shipped an iPhone or iPad that fully supports Flash, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of media, animation and interactive website technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Actually, I know all of this.
I wanted to hear Relic explain it to me because he/she seems to believe that Apple's main reason is connected to iTunes. I wanted to know how Adobe's decision was connected to iTunes.
I wanted to hear Relic explain it to me because he/she seems to believe that Apple's main reason is connected to iTunes. I wanted to know how Adobe's decision was connected to iTunes.
It's a she I took over my husbands account after I found Appleinsider in his bookmarks and enjoyed reading the posts. He told me to open a new account but he's been on this site so long I didn't want to start with 0 posts.
Anyway I never linked Adobe to iTunes not sure where you got that. Everyone keeps saying Flash is dead, Flash is dead. I know I've read the same articles everyone else has. I just want to know if it's so dead then why do I need it to watch streaming video on every single site that provides such services. Which tells me that Flash has at least has another 6 months of life left if not more, it also tells me that if Flash is still being used then why did Apple not include it on the iPad 2 years ago.
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you. Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes. Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101. Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead. It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter. Again I'm just debating with you fine people who are online now. I don't care anymore now that I have a Asus Slider in my life.
I just want to know if it's so dead then why do I need it to watch streaming video on every single site that provides such services.
Truly, that is a valid question.
I would proffer that it's because they're too fricking lazy to standardize their crap. That's not hyperbole, but it's a little vague, so I'll expound on that.
Flash makes it REALLY easy to create all kinds of lockdowns and security* measures. And since the entire thing is proprietary, you can code yourself a nice, tight little system where you can have trillions of restrictions on the way people view and interact with what you push through it. Stuff can be sent to people's computers and they can have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to save it to their devices or interact with it at all if the creator is so inclined.
It's not as easy to do the same sort of locking down with HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. And they're too lazy to figure out how.
*Well, you know, "security".
Quote:
Which tells me that Flash has at least has another 6 months of life left if not more,
Once Adobe discontinues the DESKTOP Flash application, Flash will have 6 months of life left for sites that actually care about their visitors (and which therefore actually matter) and a year of life left for everyone else.
Until then, Flash is still legally "alive".
Quote:
...if Flash is still being used then why did Apple not include it on the iPad 2 years ago.
For the dozens and dozens of reasons we've stated already.
Quote:
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you.
Or so the story goes, yep.
Quote:
Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology.
Yes, that was part of it. You can't say that sort of thinking isn't in Apple's DNA.
Quote:
There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
Not in the slightest, as we've all said many times.
Quote:
Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101.
Not mine. Every single video I have ever wanted to see on YouTube I've been able to see in MP4 format. Sometimes it even loads the proper HTML5 player for me instead of QuickTime, but I really hate that in comparison because, again, those controls are designed to lock the viewer out of as much as humanly possible. I prefer the QuickTime controls.
Quote:
Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead.
If it isn't, why did they start converting all of their stuff to MP4 (and WebCrap, you worthless stupid fricking Google piece of... )? If companies aren't seeing the writing on the wall, why did YouTube and Vimeo bother to waste their storage space with the other formats? And why are sites moving away from hideous Flash ads, interactive Flash elements on their pages,
Pro tip: this stuff started happening before the iPhone even existed.
Quote:
It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter.
We know better. That's why we don't use Flash. I have the standalone projector of Flash 11.2 on my Mac Pro. I do not have the plugin installed in Safari on any of my computers nor do I have the projector on any of my other computers. If there's a Flash element I desire to see, I download it and run it in the projector. Absolutely every other aspect of my browsing shows up perfectly without Flash.
Quote:
I don't care anymore now that I have a Asus Slider in my life.
What happens when they drop support for that? I mean more than they have now, since software updates are few and far between. What happens when it dies and you're forced to buy a new whatever-you-want that can't run Flash?
Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
This is a common assumption given that Apple's end-to-end model often has proprietary components.
Flash is not the open alternative to iTunes. Flash is owned, developed and controlled by a single company - Adobe. Proponents of Flash are suggesting that all of the rich media content online should be authored through proprietary software costing $700 that (until recently) had no competition.
For suitable performance, Adobe has to build and optimise a plugin for every hardware configuration and in many cases excludes hardware/GPU acceleration.
Let's say that for whatever reason, Adobe went bankrupt. No more Flash plugin development, no more sales of the Flash authoring software. What happens to the online rich media? That scenario is not a nice one. A far better scenario is one where anyone on any OS can author rich content for free and any browser and OS developer can support it and hardware accelerate it themselves for free.
That solution is HTML5 - Apple developed one of the fundamental components for this called Canvas and it's open to use by anyone. It doesn't have as large a browser share as Flash yet and it lacks some things Flash provides but it is the alternative to Flash media.
Where apps come in is for very advanced functionality. Advanced apps tend to be very heavy on resources so in Flash, require heavy downloads and a download every time you visit a web page. They are also web-dependent so no internet = no app (I know there is Flex but we are talking about Flash). Consumers have spoken in this regard and declared that web apps behind a bookmark are not as good as native apps that run smoothly and don't have to be downloaded every time.
Flash = proprietary, Adobe controls all rich content online
HTML5 = open, anyone can author and render rich content online
Apps = proprietary per platform but more advanced than Flash and run better; single download
Flash was always a stop-gap and it should never have grown to the extent it did. Our dependence on it became detrimental and dangerous to the future of the internet. Consumers do miss out not having access to Flash but this is the fault of publishers resisting change and if Apple had included it, nothing would change and we'd all continue to have a poor experience in some incarnation. A prime example when it comes to streaming video apps is BBC iPlayer. Android users want them to build the app (which uses Flash) like the iPad app, which doesn't:
"choppy video", "audio out of sync", "Would be better if this was a native app, but the BBC have decided spend license payers cash on iPhone & implemented this in Flash. Stupid and wrong!", "keeps cutting out after a few minutes playback", "Stopped working on low video setting and laggy on any other setting", "Jumps and stutters even with latest flash", "it telling me it's not compatible with my Android Tablet (Asus Transformer TF101 - the King ot tablets). Pathetic", "This app is complete rubbish. It just uses flash so might as well use website. BBC is only focused on Apple devices at the expense of Android users!"
There's also the requirement to install and update the plugin before you can view any rich content - even for apps that use Flash. I personally don't understand why Android users advocate such a closed, proprietary option as Flash in the face of HTML5, other than as another way of projecting dislike towards Apple.
You could even author HTML5 content using Android, Windows Phone and iOS devices. The same can't be said about Flash content.
This discussion needs to change from being about Apple vs Adobe/Flash. There were many players involved that led to the decisions made. Adobe caters primarily to creative professionals and until Microsoft started adhering to web standards (IE9 2011), they had no choice but to override browser functionality. Apple caters primarily to consumers and if the experience isn't good enough, they override the status quo with a better standard. This created a conflict due to Apple shaking up the mobile industry so quickly and Microsoft holding back the web for so long.
Adobe was just doing what it felt was best for creative pros
Apple was just doing what it felt was best for consumers
Microsoft was just doing what it felt was best for Microsoft
If there's blame to be apportioned, the majority of it should go to neither Adobe nor Apple. But at this stage, we're past blaming people for mistakes. Microsoft is on board with HTML5 standards, Adobe has HTML5 authoring tools and Apple is still doing what's best for the consumer experience so everyone's boat is pointing in the right direction.
But at this stage, we're past blaming people for mistakes. Microsoft is on board with HTML5 standards, Adobe has HTML5 authoring tools and Apple is still doing what's best for the consumer experience so everyone's boat is pointing in the right direction.
But what about the continued existence of Flash and the CREATION of Silverlight? So does Microsoft really think they have to come down the staircase of stupidity one step at a time?
And do you think we might see Edge become a full application in CS6? Could it replace Flash in CS6?
I've seen this before. People believe that if they use a certain piece of tech then it must be good and therefore everyone should use that piece of tech.
I can see the same person back at the turn of the 20th century still using a horse and buggy and not understanding why some manufacturers had started producing cars and asking why they don't give people a choice.
The question still stands. If mobile Flash is so great then why did Adobe stop supporting it? [meant for Relic]
Maybe some people believe that Apple has much more influence than Android.
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you. Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
YouTube and iTunes have absolutely nothing to do with each other. YouTube is free content... iTunes is for commercial "pay for it" content. The comparison of the two has nothing to do with Flash whatsoever. If you would rather use a streaming service that's not available on iOS, then by all means, don't buy an iPad!
... but what streaming service do you want to use that you can't get to on an iPad? YouTube, Netflix, various commercial networks... they all stream video to an iPad just fine... and without the need for Flash. Apple isn't holding you back or forcing you to iTunes against your will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101. Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead. It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter.
You are seeing it through Flash because you have Flash installed... but Flash isn't NECESSARY to watch youtube videos. You could watch those same videos withOUT using flash if you would force your browser to view them using HTML5/mp4.
But what about the continued existence of Flash and the CREATION of Silverlight? So does Microsoft really think they have to come down the staircase of stupidity one step at a time?
Silverlight arrived in 2007, long before Microsoft's move to HTML5 in 2011. Silverlight failed to gain much traction on the desktop, would never unseat Flash for publishers and would never make it into mobile devices besides Windows Phones (1% marketshare). It will probably be discontinued in due time:
Like Flash, it won't disappear overnight (it'll go quicker though) because Microsoft and Adobe don't like to take away the investment their customers have made in an instant. As Apple showed with FCPX, they have the balls to do just that and sometimes it's necessary.
HTML5 is also lacking in some respects vs Flash. Flash supports hardware 3D and DRM video and has a familiar IDE. Silverlight and Flash are used to deliver DRM video. Netflix uses Silverlight for streaming video on the desktop. I think DRM can be done with HTML5 but not as easily as it will have to send out a DRM stream and have a suitable decoder on the user end but that's where apps work well.
There is significant financial investment for a big company to migrate to HTML5 because they have to get the right tools, skilled staff and server infrastructure and most will have already invested in Flash. Nobody wants to spend more money to stand still and HTML5 is really just moving sideways. Adobe and Microsoft won't want to cost their customers more money for the sake of being more open so they will phase their alternatives out over time.
They just want to ensure publishers have suitable options and tools and IMO, the move would have gone quicker if Apple had done the same back in 2007. I can't believe there isn't a plethora of HTML5 authoring apps out there after 4.5 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And do you think we might see Edge become a full application in CS6? Could it replace Flash in CS6?
I think it will eventually replace Flash but Flash will be phased out - I think it would be better to cut it down to only cover functionality missing from HTML5. It looks like it won't be part of the CS6 package but the Creative Cloud subscription:
Flash exports HTML5 though. Adobe wants to push people into the Creative Cloud setup instead of the standalone purchase model but they need to make it more cost-effective than standalone to achieve this.
HTML5 will replace Flash the day that Adobe can make HTML5 do what Flash can do. That day sadly is not today but it will come and the only way it will come is by forcing people to adopt it.
I've seen this before. People believe that if they use a certain piece of tech then it must be good and therefore everyone should use that piece of tech.
I can see the same person back at the turn of the 20th century still using a horse and buggy and not understanding why some manufacturers had started producing cars and asking why they don't give people a choice.
The question still stands. If mobile Flash is so great then why did Adobe stop supporting it? [meant for Relic]
Maybe some people believe that Apple has much more influence than Android.
Gasoline powered cars are dead. So why hasn't everyone replaced their car with an electric one yet? Why are people still continuing to buy gasoline powered cars, clearly a dead technology?
Look, its true that the long term prospects of Flash aren't that great, but as it stands today, it is still used through a significant portion of the web. And at the rate HTML5 adoption is going, like it or not, flash is still going to be used well after your ipad2 and iphone4 have passed into obsolescence.
Given that android can implement flash without affecting battery life or performance at all via on demand setting, the case for not allowing flash support by Apple is pretty weak.
Gasoline powered cars are dead. So why hasn't everyone replaced their car with an electric one yet? Why are people still continuing to buy gasoline powered cars, clearly a dead technology?
What the fuck are you talking about.
If you are going to come into the discussion please, at the very least, make some sense.
Comments
Right 3 years from now but right now and when Apple released the iPad two years ago, Flash was still the top internet video streaming plugin. You don't notice it because you have apps that have taken over that reponsibility and Youtube supports iPad. If you go on to Youtube without a iPad though it still streams using Flash and so does everyone else or mostly everyone who streams TV shows or movies anyway.
Fine Flash is dead but someone forgot to tell a lot of people because I keep running into sites tht need it.
Someone forgot to tell a lot of pc makers that the floppy was dead and they continued to incorporate floppy drives.
When's the last time you used a floppy disc?
Apple has sold well over a hundred million iOS devices and continues to increase its sales. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about flash.
Flash is dead.
Someone forgot to tell a lot of pc makers that the floppy was dead and they continued to incorporate floppy drives.
When's the last time you used a floppy disc?
Apple has sold well over a hundred million iOS devices and continues to increase its sales. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about flash.
Flash is dead.
Can I ask you how you watch TV online then? Without using a special app of course. Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population. It's a lot but not the entire market. Look I don't want to argue because I know with 100 percent certainty that I still need Flash if I want to enjoy sreaming video or really great web apps like http://audiotool.com/app / ...and the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population.
There are only, what, 1.2 billion people online? And no, 100 million isn't one ten-thousanth of the population of either the Earth or the Internet.
One trillion people haven't even lived YET.
I thought it was 250,000,000 devices by Apple, but maybe that's all iDevices and not just iOS. In fact, that's probably right.
...the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
As I've stated multiple times just in this thread and as thousands of others have stated in hundreds of threads across dozens of websites, no, that's no the 'only reason'.
Can I ask you how you watch TV online then? Without using a special app of course. Oh yes over 100 million is a lot but 100 million world wide is .0001% of the population. It's a lot but not the entire market. Look I don't want to argue because I know with 100 percent certainty that I still need Flash if I want to enjoy sreaming video or really great web apps like http://audiotool.com/app / ...and the only reason why Apple doesn't support it on iPad is because they want their users to purchase content from iTunes.
What's your problem? If you have a tablet with Flash that works for you, by all means knock yourself out. Why are you so worried about other people not needing it or wanting the battery hit?
And what's so horrible about "special apps"? It sounds like you have to pretend like there's something distasteful about an app because otherwise you'd have to admit that you can watch pretty much anything you want on an iPad.
You know why? Because Apple sells vastly more iPads than any Flash enabled Android tablet, so streaming sites have been quick to accommodate that technology. I wonder why that is? I mean, you'd think given the absolute critical necessity of Flash that consumers would have flocked to the tablets that offered same, but they really, really haven't.
As I say, if streaming video without "special apps" (and is it really much harder to click on an icon that it is to click on a bookmark?) is more important to you than excellent battery life, a vast selection of applications, and a vibrant ecosystem of accessories, then I say: more power to you.
Just don't pretend that your personal tastes have anything to do with where the market is, because they clearly don't.
There are only, what, 1.2 billion people online? And no, 100 million isn't one ten-thousanth of the population of either the Earth or the Internet.
One trillion people haven't even lived YET.
I thought it was 250,000,000 devices by Apple, but maybe that's all iDevices and not just iOS. In fact, that's probably right.
As I've stated multiple times just in this thread and as thousands of others have stated in hundreds of threads across dozens of websites, no, that's no the 'only reason'.
Ooops I meant to type .01 100,000,000 divided by 7,000,000,000. The other reason is the realationship between Adobe and Apple but yes the main reason is iTunes. Look again who cares it doesn't concern me what the reason is. The fact is Flash is still being used by a whole lot of sites that stream video, I know because I am a media whore. In fact 80 percent of the that sites that stream video on a webpage use Flash, not with a app but webpages. Only 35 percent of the sites available on the web have Flash. These numbers are from Flash Magazine as of December 2012.
What's your problem? If you have a tablet with Flash that works for you, by all means knock yourself out. Why are you so worried about other people not needing it or wanting the battery hit?
And what's so horrible about "special apps"? It sounds like you have to pretend like there's something distasteful about an app because otherwise you'd have to admit that you can watch pretty much anything you want on an iPad.
You know why? Because Apple sells vastly more iPads than any Flash enabled Android tablet, so streaming sites have been quick to accommodate that technology. I wonder why that is? I mean, you'd think given the absolute critical necessity of Flash that consumers would have flocked to the tablets that offered same, but they really, really haven't.
As I say, if streaming video without "special apps" (and is it really much harder to click on an icon that it is to click on a bookmark?) is more important to you than excellent battery life, a vast selection of applications, and a vibrant ecosystem of accessories, then I say: more power to you.
Just don't pretend that your personal tastes have anything to do with where the market is, because they clearly don't.
Oh I don't care now that I have a device that can do everything I need it to do. I was just scolding those who were going after the thread starter. Then it turned into a fun game with Tallest Skil. Oh and it's just Apple iPad users like myself who don't use Flash. Everyone else does, for streaming online video that is. I mentioned apps because sites like Hulu charge you 7.99 a month. When it's free for Flash users for recent aired shows. The argument was Flash is dead and it it might be dead but those who stream video don't know that yet and because Apple is the most popular device these sites were forced to write apps so iPad users can watch. However I keep hearing that these site are supposed to go to HTML5 and that just isn't happening, at least not yet or especially two years ago when the iPad was released.
Ooops I meant to type .01 100,000,000 divided by 7,000,000,000. The other reason is the realationship between Adobe and Apple but yes the main reason is iTunes. Look again who cares it doesn't concern me what the reason is. The fact is Flash is still being used by a whole lot of sites that stream video, I know because I am a media whore. In fact 80 percent of the that stream video on a webpage, not with a app but webpage use Flash. Only 35 percent of the sites available on the web have Flash. These numbers are from Flash Magazine as of December 2012.
I still don't get why you are so concerned that Apple doesn't have Flash. The majority of people could care less and every year that goes by Flash will diminish even more.
Adobe has killed mobile flash. Why did they do that? because they want people to use iTunes??
I still don't get why you are so concerned that Apple doesn't have Flash. The majority of people could care less and every year that goes by Flash will diminish even more.
Adobe has killed mobile flash. Why did they do that? because they want people to use iTunes??
I only care because most sites that stream video are still using Flash. I live in Switzeland and I want to watch American shows without buying a epidode from iTunes. Well actually I don't care anymore, my Asus Slider plays every codec possible including Flash. So I have my geek toy and I will now just use my iPad for Music creation. Which is what I really bought it for in the first place.
I only care because most sites that stream video are still using Flash. I live in Switzeland and I want to watch American shows without buying a epidode from iTunes. Well actually I don't care anymore, my Asus Slider plays every codec possible including Flash. So I have my geek toy and I will now just use my iPad for Music creation. Which is what I really bought it for in the first place.
... but why did Adobe kill mobile Flash?
... but why did Adobe kill mobile Flash?
Flash is a relic of poor programming, and the Flash protocol is so poorly constructed that it really doesn't matter whether a few of the top of the line mobile devices can play it reasonably well... it absolutely deserves to be replaced by something more modern and efficient. Had Apple not raised the bar, this wouldn't be happening.
It's just like someone in the 90's asking, "Why doesn't Apple ship their computers with Windows? Give the customers the choice!"
Windows sucked. Apple had something better. If Apple had shipped computers with Windows, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of OS technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash sucks. There are better protocols. If Apple had shipped an iPhone or iPad that fully supports Flash, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of media, animation and interactive website technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash is a relic of poor programming, and the Flash protocol is so poorly constructed that it really doesn't matter whether a few of the top of the line mobile devices can play it reasonably well... it absolutely deserves to be replaced by something more modern and efficient. Had Apple not raised the bar, this wouldn't be happening.
It's just like someone in the 90's asking, "Why doesn't Apple ship their computers with Windows? Give the customers the choice!"
Windows sucked. Apple had something better. If Apple had shipped computers with Windows, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of OS technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Flash sucks. There are better protocols. If Apple had shipped an iPhone or iPad that fully supports Flash, we would be nowhere near where we are today in terms of media, animation and interactive website technology. It would have been an idiotic move.
Actually, I know all of this.
I wanted to hear Relic explain it to me because he/she seems to believe that Apple's main reason is connected to iTunes. I wanted to know how Adobe's decision was connected to iTunes.
Actually, I know all of this.
I wanted to hear Relic explain it to me because he/she seems to believe that Apple's main reason is connected to iTunes. I wanted to know how Adobe's decision was connected to iTunes.
It's a she I took over my husbands account after I found Appleinsider in his bookmarks and enjoyed reading the posts. He told me to open a new account but he's been on this site so long I didn't want to start with 0 posts.
Anyway I never linked Adobe to iTunes not sure where you got that. Everyone keeps saying Flash is dead, Flash is dead. I know I've read the same articles everyone else has. I just want to know if it's so dead then why do I need it to watch streaming video on every single site that provides such services. Which tells me that Flash has at least has another 6 months of life left if not more, it also tells me that if Flash is still being used then why did Apple not include it on the iPad 2 years ago.
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you. Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes. Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101. Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead. It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter. Again I'm just debating with you fine people who are online now. I don't care anymore now that I have a Asus Slider in my life.
I just want to know if it's so dead then why do I need it to watch streaming video on every single site that provides such services.
Truly, that is a valid question.
I would proffer that it's because they're too fricking lazy to standardize their crap. That's not hyperbole, but it's a little vague, so I'll expound on that.
Flash makes it REALLY easy to create all kinds of lockdowns and security* measures. And since the entire thing is proprietary, you can code yourself a nice, tight little system where you can have trillions of restrictions on the way people view and interact with what you push through it. Stuff can be sent to people's computers and they can have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to save it to their devices or interact with it at all if the creator is so inclined.
It's not as easy to do the same sort of locking down with HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. And they're too lazy to figure out how.
*Well, you know, "security".
Which tells me that Flash has at least has another 6 months of life left if not more,
Once Adobe discontinues the DESKTOP Flash application, Flash will have 6 months of life left for sites that actually care about their visitors (and which therefore actually matter) and a year of life left for everyone else.
Until then, Flash is still legally "alive".
...if Flash is still being used then why did Apple not include it on the iPad 2 years ago.
For the dozens and dozens of reasons we've stated already.
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you.
Or so the story goes, yep.
Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology.
Yes, that was part of it. You can't say that sort of thinking isn't in Apple's DNA.
There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
Not in the slightest, as we've all said many times.
Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101.
Not mine. Every single video I have ever wanted to see on YouTube I've been able to see in MP4 format. Sometimes it even loads the proper HTML5 player for me instead of QuickTime, but I really hate that in comparison because, again, those controls are designed to lock the viewer out of as much as humanly possible. I prefer the QuickTime controls.
Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead.
If it isn't, why did they start converting all of their stuff to MP4 (and WebCrap, you worthless stupid fricking Google piece of...
Pro tip: this stuff started happening before the iPhone even existed.
It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter.
We know better. That's why we don't use Flash. I have the standalone projector of Flash 11.2 on my Mac Pro. I do not have the plugin installed in Safari on any of my computers nor do I have the projector on any of my other computers. If there's a Flash element I desire to see, I download it and run it in the projector. Absolutely every other aspect of my browsing shows up perfectly without Flash.
I don't care anymore now that I have a Asus Slider in my life.
What happens when they drop support for that? I mean more than they have now, since software updates are few and far between. What happens when it dies and you're forced to buy a new whatever-you-want that can't run Flash?
Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
This is a common assumption given that Apple's end-to-end model often has proprietary components.
Flash is not the open alternative to iTunes. Flash is owned, developed and controlled by a single company - Adobe. Proponents of Flash are suggesting that all of the rich media content online should be authored through proprietary software costing $700 that (until recently) had no competition.
For suitable performance, Adobe has to build and optimise a plugin for every hardware configuration and in many cases excludes hardware/GPU acceleration.
Let's say that for whatever reason, Adobe went bankrupt. No more Flash plugin development, no more sales of the Flash authoring software. What happens to the online rich media? That scenario is not a nice one. A far better scenario is one where anyone on any OS can author rich content for free and any browser and OS developer can support it and hardware accelerate it themselves for free.
That solution is HTML5 - Apple developed one of the fundamental components for this called Canvas and it's open to use by anyone. It doesn't have as large a browser share as Flash yet and it lacks some things Flash provides but it is the alternative to Flash media.
Where apps come in is for very advanced functionality. Advanced apps tend to be very heavy on resources so in Flash, require heavy downloads and a download every time you visit a web page. They are also web-dependent so no internet = no app (I know there is Flex but we are talking about Flash). Consumers have spoken in this regard and declared that web apps behind a bookmark are not as good as native apps that run smoothly and don't have to be downloaded every time.
Flash = proprietary, Adobe controls all rich content online
HTML5 = open, anyone can author and render rich content online
Apps = proprietary per platform but more advanced than Flash and run better; single download
Flash was always a stop-gap and it should never have grown to the extent it did. Our dependence on it became detrimental and dangerous to the future of the internet. Consumers do miss out not having access to Flash but this is the fault of publishers resisting change and if Apple had included it, nothing would change and we'd all continue to have a poor experience in some incarnation. A prime example when it comes to streaming video apps is BBC iPlayer. Android users want them to build the app (which uses Flash) like the iPad app, which doesn't:
https://market.android.com/details?i...player.android
"choppy video", "audio out of sync", "Would be better if this was a native app, but the BBC have decided spend license payers cash on iPhone & implemented this in Flash. Stupid and wrong!", "keeps cutting out after a few minutes playback", "Stopped working on low video setting and laggy on any other setting", "Jumps and stutters even with latest flash", "it telling me it's not compatible with my Android Tablet (Asus Transformer TF101 - the King ot tablets). Pathetic", "This app is complete rubbish. It just uses flash so might as well use website. BBC is only focused on Apple devices at the expense of Android users!"
There's also the requirement to install and update the plugin before you can view any rich content - even for apps that use Flash. I personally don't understand why Android users advocate such a closed, proprietary option as Flash in the face of HTML5, other than as another way of projecting dislike towards Apple.
You could even author HTML5 content using Android, Windows Phone and iOS devices. The same can't be said about Flash content.
This discussion needs to change from being about Apple vs Adobe/Flash. There were many players involved that led to the decisions made. Adobe caters primarily to creative professionals and until Microsoft started adhering to web standards (IE9 2011), they had no choice but to override browser functionality. Apple caters primarily to consumers and if the experience isn't good enough, they override the status quo with a better standard. This created a conflict due to Apple shaking up the mobile industry so quickly and Microsoft holding back the web for so long.
Adobe was just doing what it felt was best for creative pros
Apple was just doing what it felt was best for consumers
Microsoft was just doing what it felt was best for Microsoft
If there's blame to be apportioned, the majority of it should go to neither Adobe nor Apple. But at this stage, we're past blaming people for mistakes. Microsoft is on board with HTML5 standards, Adobe has HTML5 authoring tools and Apple is still doing what's best for the consumer experience so everyone's boat is pointing in the right direction.
But at this stage, we're past blaming people for mistakes. Microsoft is on board with HTML5 standards, Adobe has HTML5 authoring tools and Apple is still doing what's best for the consumer experience so everyone's boat is pointing in the right direction.
But what about the continued existence of Flash and the CREATION of Silverlight? So does Microsoft really think they have to come down the staircase of stupidity one step at a time?
And do you think we might see Edge become a full application in CS6? Could it replace Flash in CS6?
I can see the same person back at the turn of the 20th century still using a horse and buggy and not understanding why some manufacturers had started producing cars and asking why they don't give people a choice.
The question still stands. If mobile Flash is so great then why did Adobe stop supporting it? [meant for Relic]
Maybe some people believe that Apple has much more influence than Android.
Adobe had a plugin all ready to go but Apple said no thank you. Why, it wasn't because Apple didn't want to subject it's users to a dying technology. There is only one reason, Apple wanted people to view videos that were streamed threw Flash on iTunes.
YouTube and iTunes have absolutely nothing to do with each other. YouTube is free content... iTunes is for commercial "pay for it" content. The comparison of the two has nothing to do with Flash whatsoever. If you would rather use a streaming service that's not available on iOS, then by all means, don't buy an iPad!
... but what streaming service do you want to use that you can't get to on an iPad? YouTube, Netflix, various commercial networks... they all stream video to an iPad just fine... and without the need for Flash. Apple isn't holding you back or forcing you to iTunes against your will.
Oh now I am on youtube and guess what, it's using Flash 11.1.31.101. Youtube the worlds largest video streaming site, yea Flash is dead. It's dead to those who only own a iPad and don't know anybetter.
You are seeing it through Flash because you have Flash installed... but Flash isn't NECESSARY to watch youtube videos. You could watch those same videos withOUT using flash if you would force your browser to view them using HTML5/mp4.
But what about the continued existence of Flash and the CREATION of Silverlight? So does Microsoft really think they have to come down the staircase of stupidity one step at a time?
Silverlight arrived in 2007, long before Microsoft's move to HTML5 in 2011. Silverlight failed to gain much traction on the desktop, would never unseat Flash for publishers and would never make it into mobile devices besides Windows Phones (1% marketshare). It will probably be discontinued in due time:
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/9/25...r-next-release
Like Flash, it won't disappear overnight (it'll go quicker though) because Microsoft and Adobe don't like to take away the investment their customers have made in an instant. As Apple showed with FCPX, they have the balls to do just that and sometimes it's necessary.
HTML5 is also lacking in some respects vs Flash. Flash supports hardware 3D and DRM video and has a familiar IDE. Silverlight and Flash are used to deliver DRM video. Netflix uses Silverlight for streaming video on the desktop. I think DRM can be done with HTML5 but not as easily as it will have to send out a DRM stream and have a suitable decoder on the user end but that's where apps work well.
There is significant financial investment for a big company to migrate to HTML5 because they have to get the right tools, skilled staff and server infrastructure and most will have already invested in Flash. Nobody wants to spend more money to stand still and HTML5 is really just moving sideways. Adobe and Microsoft won't want to cost their customers more money for the sake of being more open so they will phase their alternatives out over time.
They just want to ensure publishers have suitable options and tools and IMO, the move would have gone quicker if Apple had done the same back in 2007. I can't believe there isn't a plethora of HTML5 authoring apps out there after 4.5 years.
And do you think we might see Edge become a full application in CS6? Could it replace Flash in CS6?
I think it will eventually replace Flash but Flash will be phased out - I think it would be better to cut it down to only cover functionality missing from HTML5. It looks like it won't be part of the CS6 package but the Creative Cloud subscription:
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-edge...ot-in-cs6.html
Flash exports HTML5 though. Adobe wants to push people into the Creative Cloud setup instead of the standalone purchase model but they need to make it more cost-effective than standalone to achieve this.
HTML5 will replace Flash the day that Adobe can make HTML5 do what Flash can do. That day sadly is not today but it will come and the only way it will come is by forcing people to adopt it.
I've seen this before. People believe that if they use a certain piece of tech then it must be good and therefore everyone should use that piece of tech.
I can see the same person back at the turn of the 20th century still using a horse and buggy and not understanding why some manufacturers had started producing cars and asking why they don't give people a choice.
The question still stands. If mobile Flash is so great then why did Adobe stop supporting it? [meant for Relic]
Maybe some people believe that Apple has much more influence than Android.
Gasoline powered cars are dead. So why hasn't everyone replaced their car with an electric one yet? Why are people still continuing to buy gasoline powered cars, clearly a dead technology?
Look, its true that the long term prospects of Flash aren't that great, but as it stands today, it is still used through a significant portion of the web. And at the rate HTML5 adoption is going, like it or not, flash is still going to be used well after your ipad2 and iphone4 have passed into obsolescence.
Given that android can implement flash without affecting battery life or performance at all via on demand setting, the case for not allowing flash support by Apple is pretty weak.
Gasoline powered cars are dead. So why hasn't everyone replaced their car with an electric one yet? Why are people still continuing to buy gasoline powered cars, clearly a dead technology?
What the fuck are you talking about.
If you are going to come into the discussion please, at the very least, make some sense.