I cannot tell you how many times I hit a webpage using flash on a PC and Chrome and it caused the PC to hang. Flash is just a screwed up mess. Steve was the only one with Balls enough to say the king was not wearing any cloths and everyone wanted to crucify him over it.
Screw that Solips... I'm doing a clean-install of OSX... why go to such extremes???
Because some of us don't have the luxury of using our computers just for play. I have 14+ years of data on my 2013 MacBook Air, and it seamlessly migrates to each new machine that I get. No way I could start from ground zero...
I can live with the ads, but it's all the stupid overlays that people add to the videos that can get annoying. Watching a music video or something, and little popups are appearing all over the video as the author wants you to check out this and that, and over there... so annoying!
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the reason Adobe gave up on mobile precisely because iOS didn't support it so zero market? Didn't early Android mobile devices brag about supporting Flash?
Apple's refusal to let Flash onto its iOS devices was one of several factors.
However, Adobe could never get Flash to run well on other platforms: Android, BlackBerry, Symbian, Windows Phone (or whatever it was called back then). In terms of overall worldwide marketshare (units), iPhone is about 16%.
Had Adobe been able to get Flash running well on other platforms, they could conceivably be on 80+% of the smartphones running today. Flash is a resource pig and was an egregious battery hog on phones which is why Adobe threw in the towel, even though they did have it running on other platforms like Android. It did so poorly.
Because some of us don't have the luxury of using our computers just for play. I have 14+ years of data on my 2013 MacBook Air, and it seamlessly migrates to each new machine that I get. No way I could start from ground zero...
I have a 2014 Macbook Pro, and a 2009 iMac and they are not "just for play". I use both almost exclusively for work and I can at any point wipe them out and re-install them because I don't keep any user files on the machines themselves. Of course, I'd have to reinstall whatever applications I was using but that's minimal as I have backups of those, or they are on the App store or cloud service. Case closed.
My Macbook Pro just broke down on me two days ago. Keyboard and Trackpad stopped working. It's at an Apple store getting repaired. It's my main work machine at the office. The technician warned me I may lose everything on the drive and I simply told him "go for it". Even though I had perfect reliability with all my Macs, I always assume they could be gone tomorrow so my data resides in a central, redundant location.
So what will happen if your MBA crashes or gets stolen, or something else drastic? Do you not do backups?
I have a 2014 Macbook Pro, and a 2009 iMac and they are not "just for play".
So what will happen if your MBA crashes or gets stolen, or something else drastic? Do you not do backups?
I was simply responding to your suggestion that anybody, at any time, should be able to wipe their drive and start over with a fresh installation of OS X. It's just not that simple. Of course I use cloud services (Dropbox, iCloud, etc.) and backups for all of my data. That's how I've been able to migrate to new machines with minimal effort. But I also have a ton of software installed via MacPorts and manual installations that I would not choose to have backed up or restored from a backup.
I hope you haven't jinxed me.. I, too, have enjoyed hardware and software euphoria with my Macs over the years. May it stay that way for many more years (assuming that Apple gets their head out of their *ss about the design of Yosemite).
Apple's refusal to let Flash onto its iOS devices was one of several factors.
However, Adobe could never get Flash to run well on other platforms: Android, BlackBerry, Symbian, Windows Phone (or whatever it was called back then). In terms of overall worldwide marketshare (units), iPhone is about 16%.
Had Adobe been able to get Flash running well on other platforms, they could conceivably be on 80+% of the smartphones running today. Flash is a resource pig and was an egregious battery hog on phones which is why Adobe threw in the towel, even though they did have it running on other platforms like Android. It did so poorly.
Hardware share and web-usage share are very different numbers. iOS has been shown to have a very high web usage share across all mobile devices. Flash on all of the rest wouldn't have changed this much since clearly Flash wasn't important enough to consumers to choose a non-iOS device.
Here are some pretty charts for you from 2013.... and not much has changed since then.
Huh?! I hadn't heard about this, but a quick search shows this happened months ago.
And it happened because Microsoft is deprecating Silverlight, which is what Netflix was using.
If HTML 5 didn't have the recent DRM and encryption capability, they'd have had to revert to another plug-in. HTML's slow development is the main reason these plug-ins exist and usually why any plug-in in any software exists - to fill in missing functionality. The more native capabilities software gets, the less relevant the plug-ins become.
The locked down nature and different interaction scheme on mobile devices would always have killed plug-ins. Trying to get 1 billion mobile users to update their plugins regularly would never work well.
Youtube's move will help remove Flash dependence but there needs to be more effort in deployment solutions for users hosting their own video e.g a Handbrake-type solution where users just drop a file on and out comes HTML5 video streams (even split/encrypted for protection).
And it happened because Microsoft is deprecating Silverlight, which is what Netflix was using.
This article isn't about Silverlight but since you brought it up, I still have to load Silverlight to view Netflix on my Mac (refuse to). It's an older iMac but still capable of running HTML5 just fine (2.93 Core 2 Duo) even though Netflix continues to say it isn't.
This article isn't about Silverlight but since you brought it up, I still have to load Silverlight to view Netflix on my Mac (refuse to). It's an older iMac but still capable of running HTML5 just fine (2.93 Core 2 Duo) even though Netflix continues to say it isn't.
[image]
1) I imagine it's because of the other additionsl for security that [@]Marvin[/@] mentioned above.
2) I noticed that Firefox isn't supported at all. I thought they finally caved in and support the H.264 codec.
3) I also noticed that Google Chrome will only support 720p streams from Netflix, while IE and Safari will support 1080p streams. I wonder why that is.
Hardware share and web-usage share are very different numbers. iOS has been shown to have a very high web usage share across all mobile devices. Flash on all of the rest wouldn't have changed this much since clearly Flash wasn't important enough to consumers to choose a non-iOS device.
Here are some pretty charts for you from 2013.... and not much has changed since then.
1) I imagine it's because of the other additional for security that @Marvin mentioned above.
If I had a 2012 iMac Netflix would be streaming using HTML5 and unless Apple did some magic, I don't remember any additional hardware security between a 2009 and 2012 iMac. I remember reading it was about CPU and GPU speed. I bought the fully loaded iMac in early 2009 which wasn't a slouch. Netflix just doesn't want to have to deal with people who bought a lower end iMac before 2012, justifying why their stream doesn't work. I also have 105Mbps Comcast so I don't have issues. Netflix needs to run some kind of system validation to see if it can handle the stream instead of just chopping all older Macs off at the knees.
2) I noticed that Firefox isn't supported at all. I thought they finally caved in and support the H.264 codec.
Firefox has supported H.264 for at least a couple of stable releases.
The Problem Firefox has, and still has was Hollywood's phallic shaped fetish for DRM sneaking itself into HTML5. They finally gave in and decided that they would only allow EME execution on Youtube and keep it off for everything else by default IIRC.
Comments
Verily, this is welcome news.
Now, get rid of all the advertisements.
That's not going to happen. It's how Youtube makes it's money.
I cannot tell you how many times I hit a webpage using flash on a PC and Chrome and it caused the PC to hang. Flash is just a screwed up mess. Steve was the only one with Balls enough to say the king was not wearing any cloths and everyone wanted to crucify him over it.
Screw that Solips... I'm doing a clean-install of OSX... why go to such extremes???
Because some of us don't have the luxury of using our computers just for play. I have 14+ years of data on my 2013 MacBook Air, and it seamlessly migrates to each new machine that I get. No way I could start from ground zero...
Verily, this is welcome news.
Now, get rid of all the advertisements.
I can live with the ads, but it's all the stupid overlays that people add to the videos that can get annoying. Watching a music video or something, and little popups are appearing all over the video as the author wants you to check out this and that, and over there... so annoying!
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the reason Adobe gave up on mobile precisely because iOS didn't support it so zero market? Didn't early Android mobile devices brag about supporting Flash?
Apple's refusal to let Flash onto its iOS devices was one of several factors.
However, Adobe could never get Flash to run well on other platforms: Android, BlackBerry, Symbian, Windows Phone (or whatever it was called back then). In terms of overall worldwide marketshare (units), iPhone is about 16%.
Had Adobe been able to get Flash running well on other platforms, they could conceivably be on 80+% of the smartphones running today. Flash is a resource pig and was an egregious battery hog on phones which is why Adobe threw in the towel, even though they did have it running on other platforms like Android. It did so poorly.
Now if only Facebook will do the same.
Because some of us don't have the luxury of using our computers just for play. I have 14+ years of data on my 2013 MacBook Air, and it seamlessly migrates to each new machine that I get. No way I could start from ground zero...
I have a 2014 Macbook Pro, and a 2009 iMac and they are not "just for play". I use both almost exclusively for work and I can at any point wipe them out and re-install them because I don't keep any user files on the machines themselves. Of course, I'd have to reinstall whatever applications I was using but that's minimal as I have backups of those, or they are on the App store or cloud service. Case closed.
My Macbook Pro just broke down on me two days ago. Keyboard and Trackpad stopped working. It's at an Apple store getting repaired. It's my main work machine at the office. The technician warned me I may lose everything on the drive and I simply told him "go for it". Even though I had perfect reliability with all my Macs, I always assume they could be gone tomorrow so my data resides in a central, redundant location.
So what will happen if your MBA crashes or gets stolen, or something else drastic? Do you not do backups?
Motorola ad, circa 2010:
Flash Websites?
There isn't even a museum for that.
I have a 2014 Macbook Pro, and a 2009 iMac and they are not "just for play".
So what will happen if your MBA crashes or gets stolen, or something else drastic? Do you not do backups?
I was simply responding to your suggestion that anybody, at any time, should be able to wipe their drive and start over with a fresh installation of OS X. It's just not that simple. Of course I use cloud services (Dropbox, iCloud, etc.) and backups for all of my data. That's how I've been able to migrate to new machines with minimal effort. But I also have a ton of software installed via MacPorts and manual installations that I would not choose to have backed up or restored from a backup.
I hope you haven't jinxed me.. I, too, have enjoyed hardware and software euphoria with my Macs over the years. May it stay that way for many more years (assuming that Apple gets their head out of their *ss about the design of Yosemite).
Apple's refusal to let Flash onto its iOS devices was one of several factors.
However, Adobe could never get Flash to run well on other platforms: Android, BlackBerry, Symbian, Windows Phone (or whatever it was called back then). In terms of overall worldwide marketshare (units), iPhone is about 16%.
Had Adobe been able to get Flash running well on other platforms, they could conceivably be on 80+% of the smartphones running today. Flash is a resource pig and was an egregious battery hog on phones which is why Adobe threw in the towel, even though they did have it running on other platforms like Android. It did so poorly.
Hardware share and web-usage share are very different numbers. iOS has been shown to have a very high web usage share across all mobile devices. Flash on all of the rest wouldn't have changed this much since clearly Flash wasn't important enough to consumers to choose a non-iOS device.
Here are some pretty charts for you from 2013.... and not much has changed since then.
http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/?iid=tl-page-mostpop1
If HTML 5 didn't have the recent DRM and encryption capability, they'd have had to revert to another plug-in. HTML's slow development is the main reason these plug-ins exist and usually why any plug-in in any software exists - to fill in missing functionality. The more native capabilities software gets, the less relevant the plug-ins become.
The locked down nature and different interaction scheme on mobile devices would always have killed plug-ins. Trying to get 1 billion mobile users to update their plugins regularly would never work well.
Youtube's move will help remove Flash dependence but there needs to be more effort in deployment solutions for users hosting their own video e.g a Handbrake-type solution where users just drop a file on and out comes HTML5 video streams (even split/encrypted for protection).
And it happened because Microsoft is deprecating Silverlight, which is what Netflix was using.
This article isn't about Silverlight but since you brought it up, I still have to load Silverlight to view Netflix on my Mac (refuse to). It's an older iMac but still capable of running HTML5 just fine (2.93 Core 2 Duo) even though Netflix continues to say it isn't.
1) I imagine it's because of the other additionsl for security that [@]Marvin[/@] mentioned above.
2) I noticed that Firefox isn't supported at all. I thought they finally caved in and support the H.264 codec.
3) I also noticed that Google Chrome will only support 720p streams from Netflix, while IE and Safari will support 1080p streams. I wonder why that is.
Hardware share and web-usage share are very different numbers. iOS has been shown to have a very high web usage share across all mobile devices. Flash on all of the rest wouldn't have changed this much since clearly Flash wasn't important enough to consumers to choose a non-iOS device.
Here are some pretty charts for you from 2013.... and not much has changed since then.
http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/?iid=tl-page-mostpop1
Ah, but Adobe killed mobile Flash in 2011 when Android and Apple had similar numbers in web traffic.
http://www.mobify.com/blog/iphone-and-android-2011-marketshare-real-world-data/
Quoting numbers two years after mobile Flash's demise is not relevant.
1) I imagine it's because of the other additional for security that @Marvin mentioned above.
If I had a 2012 iMac Netflix would be streaming using HTML5 and unless Apple did some magic, I don't remember any additional hardware security between a 2009 and 2012 iMac. I remember reading it was about CPU and GPU speed. I bought the fully loaded iMac in early 2009 which wasn't a slouch. Netflix just doesn't want to have to deal with people who bought a lower end iMac before 2012, justifying why their stream doesn't work. I also have 105Mbps Comcast so I don't have issues. Netflix needs to run some kind of system validation to see if it can handle the stream instead of just chopping all older Macs off at the knees.
Delete Flash from your computer and get ClickToFlash.
Not only will you NOT be served the disgusting YouTube video window, you’ll be given a QuickTime frame.
1. You can preload the ENTIRE file instead of YouTube’s idiotic partial loading.
2. You can download the file with a right-click, since Safari 8 and Yosemite have downloading built right in.
3. NO ADS. AT ALL. NO popups, NO pre-video ads.
2) I noticed that Firefox isn't supported at all. I thought they finally caved in and support the H.264 codec.
Firefox has supported H.264 for at least a couple of stable releases.
The Problem Firefox has, and still has was Hollywood's phallic shaped fetish for DRM sneaking itself into HTML5. They finally gave in and decided that they would only allow EME execution on Youtube and keep it off for everything else by default IIRC.
Delete Flash from your computer and get ClickToFlash.
Not only will you NOT be served the disgusting YouTube video window, you’ll be given a QuickTime frame.
1. You can preload the ENTIRE file instead of YouTube’s idiotic partial loading.
2. You can download the file with a right-click, since Safari 8 and Yosemite have downloading built right in.
3. NO ADS. AT ALL. NO popups, NO pre-video ads.
I take it you want me to install ClickToFlash? Will do on my new iMac when it arrives!
Best. Day. Ever.