Why does Apple resist Flash Player?

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    Hey, at least I tried not to be biased until towards the end =)



    Yeh... trouble is you were wrong... right from the start!
  • Reply 62 of 71
    Without starting a riot, could we talk about what you don't agree with?



    Is it specifics or the overall reasoning? You do not think my post is a plausible?





    (shortened it up a bit to get more to the point)
  • Reply 63 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,202moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    Without starting a riot, could we talk about what you don't agree with?



    The part about the Jews killing Jesus Christ. Everybody knows it was the dinosaurs who killed her.



    The point about Apple's marketshare determining the success or failure of mobile Flash has some weight to it but it excludes the reasons why Apple rejected it.



    You have to remember that Apple brought out their phone 5 years ago. You are talking about the state of mobile Flash now with dual-core phones and fast GPUs as a justification for not blocking it back then.



    Also, do you really think that Adobe should be the sole conduit for all rich media online? You are forced to either pay $700 to author content online or steal Adobe's software. If Adobe controlled authoring HTML entirely and you had to buy an app from them to publish a website, don't you think people would eventually try to find a way to block Adobe's stranglehold?



    When it comes to embedded video, this is a fundamental component of the web now and it's mostly authored through Adobe software. This is wrong and it needed to change. Apple has changed the web for the better. You can view, author and deploy rich content on any platform you choose for free.
  • Reply 64 of 71
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Just to amplify on Marvin's remarks, the popular idea of Apple "blocking" mobile Flash has always been a bit of a sham. Adobe didn't even ship an optimized version of Flash for mobile until last year, so for most of the "Apple hates Flash" saga we were talking about an entirely theoretical world where it was really out of line for Apple to eschew what Adobe was going to be doing Real Soon Now.



    As Jobs said in his "Notes on Flash" posting, Adobe kept pushing out the ship date for a properly optimized mobile Flash, and even when they got something into customers hands it left a lot to be desired on the hardware available.



    So in point of fact, the point at which the mobile software and hardware can even begin to do an acceptable job with Flash (and that's without even getting into the battery issues) has only arrived in the last few months, which means the time between Adobe's announcement that they are abandoning their efforts and Adobe actually shipping something worth having are practically coincident.



    How is that Apple's fault? Were they supposed to publicly commit to a poorly performing technology for 4 years with the idea that at some point it might get good enough to use, but they needed to hang in there because without their support Flash wouldn't have the market penetration it needed to survive? Or is it on Adobe to create a competitive product that was good enough to rise on its own merits?



    The fact is, given its obvious shortcomings, I doubt Google would have even bothered with mobile Flash if they didn't think it provided a convenient club to use on Apple. The whole vibe of Flash on Android was more "We give you choice that Apple doesn't'!" rather than "We give you technology that works well and enhances your user experience."



    Propping up a lousy piece of software because of some notion that your have a responsibility to ubiquitous tools, no matter how compromised, because without ubiquity those tools become useless is pretty convoluted reasoning.
  • Reply 65 of 71
    ...he/she/it kept mentioning "penetration" followed by "breakfast in bed"... and, well... I kinda lost my ability to concentrate on whatever else was in that post.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    ...Is it specifics or the overall reasoning? You do not think my post is a plausible?



    Just because it is "plausible" does not make it "truth" or "fact", as you asserted.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    Marvin, addabox.



    I understand your angle. and agree this situation is very slippery.



    My only rebuttal would be to your following comments...



    Quote:

    Also, do you really think that Adobe should be the sole conduit for all rich media online? You are forced to either pay $700 to author content online or steal Adobe's software. If Adobe controlled authoring HTML entirely and you had to buy an app from them to publish a website, don't you think people would eventually try to find a way to block Adobe's stranglehold?



    Adobe creates the best web authoring tools period, whether they publish to an open standard, or their own plugin makes no difference. If you want to create the most engaging experiences on the web you are going to be reliant on Adobe and their tools.



    If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.



    So on this point I fail to see any merit beyond trying to dictate what you believe is an ethical market for a business to be in, or how they should act. This is no different than the Apple is closed argument.





    Quote:

    Apple has changed the web for the better.



    This has yet to be seen. The removal of interactivity, animations and media on the web may be seen by some as better, but I would doubt it can be claimed as fact.



    We have yet to see a web where Flash is replaced, in fact due to the absence of Flash we have created an entirely new system for transporting that same content, and it's called AppStores.



    If anything, the web has been taken back many years, and until I see engaging interactive content outside of Flash in masse I can not agree with you yet that "Apple has made the web better".
  • Reply 67 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    Adobe creates the best web authoring tools period, whether they publish to an open standard, or their own plugin makes no difference.



    No, that's entirely subjective.



    Quote:

    If anything, the web has been taken back many years,



    Oh, this is one of those 'wipe a tear from your eye' moments.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    I'm just saying look at the state of the web on mobile, and then look at the desktop, look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?



    I see the mobile web as a place intentionally locked down to serve a private App Market. A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage. A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.



    ---



    Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context. It should have been followed by the rest of it..



    Quote:

    If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.



    --



    Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage.



    That's the decision of the website creator to waste their time making a "mobile" version when there's absolutely no reason for such sites since the iPhone and all other modern phones will render the actual site properly.



    Quote:

    A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.



    Download/upload? It's a phone. I'm sure Android allows that, at least. And what's a 'basic web operation' that can't be served by a smartphone?



    Quote:

    Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context.



    The rest of it has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't make what you said true. You can't say "Ford makes the best cars, and this is true because you don't have to buy a Ford."



    What is that supposed to mean?



    Quote:

    Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.



    We have. Throughout this entire thread. It's your choice to ignore that.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    I'm just saying look at the state of the web on mobile, and then look at the desktop, look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?



    I see the mobile web as a place intentionally locked down to serve a private App Market. A place where my device will take me to a webpage that says it has no content available, yet when I click a button "desktop view" I get a full webpage. A place where I can not download/upload or do even basic web operations without again serving the private App Market.



    ---



    Your "subjective" remark is the truth, when my quote is taken out of context. It should have been followed by the rest of it..







    --



    Let's move past the spatting, give me some real substance.



    Well, again, any or all of that might be arguably true of Flash for desktop (although performance of same on Macs has always been pretty dreadful, which for my money sort of blows the whole "best interactive web experience angle"), but it's definitely not true of the vast majority of Flash for mobile instances, of which there are relatively few.



    Just because Flash has the potential to deliver rich interactivity, or might in fact deliver rich interactivity (assuming you're on the right platform with the right hardware with the right iteration of Flash) doesn't mean that it has ever been that for mobile.



    Apple wasn't reacting to some idealized version of Flash that might or might not have eventually realized its potential and actually delivered the goods on a cellphone. They brought the iPhone into a market where Flash for mobile didn't exist, except as the dreadfully hobbled "Flash lite" variant. The iPhone has spent the majority of its life in a world where Flash for mobile still didn't exist, and has seen a market where any version at all, even a poorly performing one, has only existed in the last year. And, again, it's only been in the last few months that optimizations and hardware advances have been able to deliver anything close to acceptable performance, albeit with a pretty severe battery life hit.



    So Flash's status as a web enabling technology is moot, as far as Apple is concerned. Even if they had really wanted to put Flash on the iPhone they couldn't , until very recently. And not much longer after that recently Adobe cancelled development of Mobile Flash, so that's that.



    Android partisanship and expedient blustering have served to obscure these facts. You would have thought that Apple simply turned its nose up at this great, super useful software that everyone else was enjoying, just out of spitefulness or bitterness or greed, and that simply isn't true. Make's a fun point of attack for Apple's many detractors, but it isn't true. It's Adobe that dropped the ball, pure and simple, and now they're admitting it. Blaming Apple is pointless.
  • Reply 71 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,202moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    If you chose not to use their tools to create engaging web content so be it, you can make that choice today, yesterday, and tomorrow whether Adobe Flash exists or not.



    You couldn't choose an alternative until Apple pushed HTML5 forward because as you pointed out, you need a high marketshare rich-content rendering platform. This has only been available since 2011 (thank you Microsoft for being last across the line as usual).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    This has yet to be seen. The removal of interactivity, animations and media on the web may be seen by some as better, but I would doubt it can be claimed as fact.



    Behold HTML5 in all its interactive, animated, media-rich Flashless glory. BTW, Adobe have authoring tools for this stuff now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    We have yet to see a web where Flash is replaced, in fact due to the absence of Flash we have created an entirely new system for transporting that same content, and it's called AppStores.



    App Stores don't replace embedded video, which has been the main use of Flash besides advertising, which nobody misses. Youtube can exist entirely without Flash so all embedded video can too.



    For interactive content that behaves like an app, an app works better as the above example shows. Better security, no multiple downloads, direct access to hardware.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz


    look at where all the inovation is taking place on mobile (apps) how can you say the mobile web is better?



    Apps allow you to monetize content, Flash makes it much harder because people expect it for free. Same with digital magazines, books etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.