... Apple specifically states now that you should avoid Flash in their "iPhone development guidelines". They could've omitted that if the flash update was so near.
Even if the phone were capable of flash, that would still be an excellent guideline
I agree with you about the YouTube support question. That would seem strange.
But, proprietary or not, Flash is still the most important standard on the web for this purpose. In that sense, it's almost an open format.
Not having some sort of Flash support is a big negative.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
I'm not sure if I was clear enough in my earlier comments. I'm suggesting Flash developers should be using swfobject with alt content ALL the time not just because of iPhone. There is no switching involved, it's just the right way to embed Flash especially for IE 7.
m
Sorry, but it wasn't.
Talking about the iPhone, you said:
Quote:
Absent Flash, it should encourage Flash developers to actually use swfobject with alt content so users will see an image file instead if Flash is not enabled.
I'm not sure if I was clear enough in my earlier comments. I'm suggesting Flash developers should be using swfobject with alt content ALL the time not just because of iPhone. There is no switching involved, it's just the right way to embed Flash especially for IE 7.
m
Screw IE7. They should embed flash in the least ie friendly way. Go FF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grady
It would only make sense that you be able to capture video on your iphone that you may or may not want to upload to youtube....
It will cost you $5 for Apple to unlock the video capture feature on your iPhone.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
It seems as though most of the worlds developers disageee with your statement about using it
If Apple has a bad implementation, that doesn't make it bad in itself.
Flash on iPhone would mean that AT&T could get their SMS gateway and voice services bypassed by an embedded flash App. Flash plug-in has the capability of sending voice/video/data so it's banned. Apple/AT&T can't block folks from spending more money on minutes and SMS messages.
Flash on iPhone would mean that AT&T could get their SMS gateway and voice services bypassed by an embedded flash App. Flash plug-in has the capability of sending voice/video/data so it's banned. Apple/AT&T can't block folks from spending more money on minutes and SMS messages.
Well, we'll have to see if Mossberg is right. he usually is.
Screw IE7. They should embed flash in the least ie friendly way.
If I were living in 'Apple Fantasy Land' as your location label states, maybe I would agree, but 90% of the people offering me money to develop programming are IE users so I try to accommodate their needs. It's not really Microsoft's fault that they were targeted with the EOLAS lawsuit, they just had the deepest pockets.
Flash on iPhone would mean that AT&T could get their SMS gateway and voice services bypassed by an embedded flash App. Flash plug-in has the capability of sending voice/video/data so it's banned. Apple/AT&T can't block folks from spending more money on minutes and SMS messages.
That's the general idea. Of course Apple could disable the microphone and camera while safari was running if they wanted to. Flash has to ask permission to access the mic or camera.
The problem is that there isn't currently a Flash runtime for the ARM processor and if there was, how fast would it really be?
In addition to the counterexample already presented, there is also a Flash runtime available for Sony-manufactured Palm handhelds (running on an ARM processor), and for PocketPC 2003 and Windows Mobile 5 (both running on ARM processors). They're not forging new territory in this one respect, at least.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
Maintaining alternate content is a silly waste of development resources because those people without Flash would comprise of maybe 1-2% of web users, last I saw any installed base numbers. Doubling development time to catch that 1% is not a good use of time. Save for maybe Silverlight, there is no other web interactivity standard out there that I am aware of that can do what Flash can do.
Maintaining alternate content is a silly waste of development resources because those people without Flash would comprise of maybe 1-2% of web users, last I saw any installed base numbers. Doubling development time to catch that 1% is not a good use of time. Save for maybe Silverlight, there is no other web interactivity standard out there that I am aware of that can do what Flash can do.
If making a simple jpeg or screen capture of your flash title screen DOUBLES your development time then there is something wrong with your development process. Error trapping is not a waste of time. We also put in "title" and "alt" tags in all of our images because some browsers use "title" and some "alt". Another reason to use alt content in Flash is if you are targeting a particular version, you don't want it to be a big ugly "YOU NEED TO UPGRADE YOUR FLASH". It's all about attention to detail from an artistic perspective. That's why we use Macs, we're artists.
If making a simple jpeg or screen capture of your flash title screen DOUBLES your development time then there is something wrong with your development process. Error trapping is not a waste of time. We also put in "title" and "alt" tags in all of our images because some browsers use "title" and some "alt". Another reason to use alt content in Flash is if you are targeting a particular version, you don't want it to be a big ugly "YOU NEED TO UPGRADE YOUR FLASH". It's all about attention to detail from an artistic perspective. That's why we use Macs, we're artists.
What I meant is using something else that does the exact thing as the flash unit did, which to me is more than just a lame image substitution, because that's not interactive.
What I meant is using something else that does the exact thing as the flash unit did, which to me is more than just a lame image substitution.
Well I don't think anyone expects you to write a Java application as alt content. As lame as it may seem to you, image substitution is just a small step toward making a Flash app a little more error proof. The alt image lets the viewer see the intended artistic balance of the page instead of big blank holes with broken icons. Is that so wrong?
Most of the time I can't stand websites developed using Flash. I wouldn't be bothered at all if iPhone never supports Flash (or Java). AJAX-based sites seem so much cooler (and more useful).
Most of the time I can't stand websites developed using Flash. I wouldn't be bothered at all if iPhone never supports Flash (or Java). AJAX-based sites seem so much cooler (and more useful).
I don't know why I bother defending Flash over and over in this argument. Flash is like a can of paint. When used for graffiti on the side of a building, it is annoying, when used on a canvas in an art gallery it can be valued in the millions of dollars. It all depends on who's doing the painting.
I think people are underestimating what a can of worms supporting Flash would be for Apple. Too many complications with all of the poorly written UIs out there. There's no equivalent to rollover on iPhone. No equivalent to drag and drop. And Flash would probably be a MAJOR resource hog and battery drainer.
I can't see Apple convincing Google to convert the entire YouTube catalog from Flash to H.264, and then coming out with full Flash support two months later, anyway. Why help Adobe push a non-standard proprietary file format, when you can sell enough iPhones to force the industry to conform to open standards? Especially when the user experience of Flash on iPhone will probably be mediocre at best for many sites.
I agree with this, and I've said the same myself in previous threads. Apple is all about dumping old standards it doesn't like when it releases new products (e.g., the iMac with USB and no floppy), despite what people think should happen because "that's the way things are done." I think Mossberg is wrong here, and I doubt he really heard this from someone in the know at Apple.
I agree with this, and I've said the same myself in previous threads. Apple is all about dumping old standards it doesn't like when it releases new products (e.g., the iMac with USB and no floppy), despite what people think should happen because "that's the way things are done." I think Mossberg is wrong here, and I doubt he really heard this from someone in the know at Apple.
After speaking with Walt I would say he knows what he is talking about.
Comments
... Apple specifically states now that you should avoid Flash in their "iPhone development guidelines". They could've omitted that if the flash update was so near.
Even if the phone were capable of flash, that would still be an excellent guideline
I agree with you about the YouTube support question. That would seem strange.
But, proprietary or not, Flash is still the most important standard on the web for this purpose. In that sense, it's almost an open format.
Not having some sort of Flash support is a big negative.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
I'm not sure if I was clear enough in my earlier comments. I'm suggesting Flash developers should be using swfobject with alt content ALL the time not just because of iPhone. There is no switching involved, it's just the right way to embed Flash especially for IE 7.
m
Sorry, but it wasn't.
Talking about the iPhone, you said:
Absent Flash, it should encourage Flash developers to actually use swfobject with alt content so users will see an image file instead if Flash is not enabled.
I'm not sure if I was clear enough in my earlier comments. I'm suggesting Flash developers should be using swfobject with alt content ALL the time not just because of iPhone. There is no switching involved, it's just the right way to embed Flash especially for IE 7.
m
Screw IE7. They should embed flash in the least ie friendly way. Go FF
It would only make sense that you be able to capture video on your iphone that you may or may not want to upload to youtube....
It will cost you $5 for Apple to unlock the video capture feature on your iPhone.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
It seems as though most of the worlds developers disageee with your statement about using it
If Apple has a bad implementation, that doesn't make it bad in itself.
Flash on iPhone would mean that AT&T could get their SMS gateway and voice services bypassed by an embedded flash App. Flash plug-in has the capability of sending voice/video/data so it's banned. Apple/AT&T can't block folks from spending more money on minutes and SMS messages.
Well, we'll have to see if Mossberg is right. he usually is.
Screw IE7. They should embed flash in the least ie friendly way.
If I were living in 'Apple Fantasy Land' as your location label states, maybe I would agree, but 90% of the people offering me money to develop programming are IE users so I try to accommodate their needs. It's not really Microsoft's fault that they were targeted with the EOLAS lawsuit, they just had the deepest pockets.
Flash on iPhone would mean that AT&T could get their SMS gateway and voice services bypassed by an embedded flash App. Flash plug-in has the capability of sending voice/video/data so it's banned. Apple/AT&T can't block folks from spending more money on minutes and SMS messages.
That's the general idea. Of course Apple could disable the microphone and camera while safari was running if they wanted to. Flash has to ask permission to access the mic or camera.
The problem is that there isn't currently a Flash runtime for the ARM processor and if there was, how fast would it really be?
In addition to the counterexample already presented, there is also a Flash runtime available for Sony-manufactured Palm handhelds (running on an ARM processor), and for PocketPC 2003 and Windows Mobile 5 (both running on ARM processors). They're not forging new territory in this one respect, at least.
Nothing proprietary can ever be an open standard. As kong as Adobe owns it, it's not open. And as long as it's not open, it doesn't help Apple much to support it, especially if the end experience is going to be sub par.
Flash may be popular, but no responsible design should ever require it. As someone pointed out earlier, you can put Flash into the site, but always provide alternate content to those who don't have it, or who have purposely disabled it.
Maintaining alternate content is a silly waste of development resources because those people without Flash would comprise of maybe 1-2% of web users, last I saw any installed base numbers. Doubling development time to catch that 1% is not a good use of time. Save for maybe Silverlight, there is no other web interactivity standard out there that I am aware of that can do what Flash can do.
Maintaining alternate content is a silly waste of development resources because those people without Flash would comprise of maybe 1-2% of web users, last I saw any installed base numbers. Doubling development time to catch that 1% is not a good use of time. Save for maybe Silverlight, there is no other web interactivity standard out there that I am aware of that can do what Flash can do.
If making a simple jpeg or screen capture of your flash title screen DOUBLES your development time then there is something wrong with your development process. Error trapping is not a waste of time. We also put in "title" and "alt" tags in all of our images because some browsers use "title" and some "alt". Another reason to use alt content in Flash is if you are targeting a particular version, you don't want it to be a big ugly "YOU NEED TO UPGRADE YOUR FLASH". It's all about attention to detail from an artistic perspective. That's why we use Macs, we're artists.
If making a simple jpeg or screen capture of your flash title screen DOUBLES your development time then there is something wrong with your development process. Error trapping is not a waste of time. We also put in "title" and "alt" tags in all of our images because some browsers use "title" and some "alt". Another reason to use alt content in Flash is if you are targeting a particular version, you don't want it to be a big ugly "YOU NEED TO UPGRADE YOUR FLASH". It's all about attention to detail from an artistic perspective. That's why we use Macs, we're artists.
What I meant is using something else that does the exact thing as the flash unit did, which to me is more than just a lame image substitution, because that's not interactive.
What I meant is using something else that does the exact thing as the flash unit did, which to me is more than just a lame image substitution.
Well I don't think anyone expects you to write a Java application as alt content. As lame as it may seem to you, image substitution is just a small step toward making a Flash app a little more error proof. The alt image lets the viewer see the intended artistic balance of the page instead of big blank holes with broken icons. Is that so wrong?
Most of the time I can't stand websites developed using Flash. I wouldn't be bothered at all if iPhone never supports Flash (or Java). AJAX-based sites seem so much cooler (and more useful).
I don't know why I bother defending Flash over and over in this argument. Flash is like a can of paint. When used for graffiti on the side of a building, it is annoying, when used on a canvas in an art gallery it can be valued in the millions of dollars. It all depends on who's doing the painting.
m
I don't know why I bother defending Flash over and over in this argument.
Yet you continue to. We get it. People who get paid to use Flash like it. Those who don't...
I think people are underestimating what a can of worms supporting Flash would be for Apple. Too many complications with all of the poorly written UIs out there. There's no equivalent to rollover on iPhone. No equivalent to drag and drop. And Flash would probably be a MAJOR resource hog and battery drainer.
I can't see Apple convincing Google to convert the entire YouTube catalog from Flash to H.264, and then coming out with full Flash support two months later, anyway. Why help Adobe push a non-standard proprietary file format, when you can sell enough iPhones to force the industry to conform to open standards? Especially when the user experience of Flash on iPhone will probably be mediocre at best for many sites.
I agree with this, and I've said the same myself in previous threads. Apple is all about dumping old standards it doesn't like when it releases new products (e.g., the iMac with USB and no floppy), despite what people think should happen because "that's the way things are done." I think Mossberg is wrong here, and I doubt he really heard this from someone in the know at Apple.
I agree with this, and I've said the same myself in previous threads. Apple is all about dumping old standards it doesn't like when it releases new products (e.g., the iMac with USB and no floppy), despite what people think should happen because "that's the way things are done." I think Mossberg is wrong here, and I doubt he really heard this from someone in the know at Apple.
After speaking with Walt I would say he knows what he is talking about.