One of the reasons why Flash for the iPhone may be difficult, is that despite all the power, and memory of the iPhone, there is much more going on that is using that power. It's certainly possible that not enough horsepower is left over to run Flash?at this time. Possibly, another upgraded machine will have enough power, and battery life, and then, things may change.
I don't think he meant an insult. It reads to me that he is saying just what he did. That you sound qualified to write such an app, and that the $99 barrier is low enough for you to give it a try.
Good call melgross! On re-reading that line I realized he was referring to the SDK. Not a bad idea actually, sorry abster!
One of the reasons why Flash for the iPhone may be difficult, is that despite all the power, and memory of the iPhone, there is much more going on that is using that power. It's certainly possible that not enough horsepower is left over to run Flash—at this time. Possibly, another upgraded machine will have enough power, and battery life, and then, things may change.
So do you feel hardware needs to adapt to flash? Instead of Adobe working to improve flash hardware performance?
Translation, it's a hardware issue. Apple needs to work a little magic and create a more powerful phone that doesn't harm battery life or explode and kill the user and the user's family.
Is it out of the question for Adobe to create a chip that would allow Flash to be hardware accelerated to add performance and lessen the battery usage?
I hope this cleared some of your questions up! And plus thanks for proving me right:
(on my first post)
"All the detractors of Flash that are out there are either just totally oblivious leaches of the modern technological era that have no technical background (probably most of digg?s audience), jealous of the technology, those who know how to use it, or those own the rights to it (Stubborn developers, Steve Jobs), or just not really thinking about how ill-advised their moronic Flash-bashing really is."
I guess some people can be more than one of those at the same time...
-David H.
Talk about name calling...
A few lookups on my handle and then on my name would have quickly shown you that I have contributed more code and more standards recommendations than you can imagine. And that you probably ever will.
The fact and the matter is your response shows that you are using right now some of the code I wrote and some of the specs I pushed for. The Gecko layout engine at the heart of Firefox compiled, ran and finally rendered correctly on Macintosh for the first time ever... on my machine.
What have _you_ done to make the web a better place?
Is it out of the question for Adobe to create a chip that would allow Flash to be hardware accelerated to add performance and lessen the battery usage?
You realize the entire justification for creating a chip to accelerate something is to raise the rate of which you consume electrons, making the software you are accelerating run faster?
As a real world example: over 17 years of 3-D acceleration cards and about a dozen software API's, those have evolved and when operating full bore eat up juice 2-3 times faster than the CPUs they are slaved to.
Flash has been architected without concern for power management since before Macromedia bought it. No faults there, there wasn't any large motivation to do it any other way. Making a change to that is BIG. Making a change to that that still runs legacy Flash code properly is BiG^BIG hard. If the task is too big then the default response in the tech industry has been to wait for hardware to catch up. In this case Flash would need to wait on battery technology to deliver enough power that Flash is allowed to run as it want's to.
Either way, Adobe bears the responsibility for the decisions.
Good call melgross! On re-reading that line I realized he was referring to the SDK. Not a bad idea actually, sorry abster!
-David H.
Your apology accepted. Provided of course that you share part of the royalties with me.
And thank you Melgross for your support; you were right, but boy, I hate to admit it.
And David, having over 40 years in the healthcare, medical sciences and now computer sciences for the last 20, I have learned that a lot of my most successful developments were the consequences of somebody saying that it couldn't be done. At the same time, a lot of my demises were equally achieved for the same reason.
However, in all cases (particularly in the later years) recognizing that there were at least 3 sides to a story, understanding or attempting to appreciate the originators' perspective was paramount in succeeding. Jobs, in this endeavor has based his position based on test every aspect of one hefty, $200 million, expenditure. Last thing he wants is applications that would slow, impede or reduce the primary functionality of his baby. Remember, that a lot of people, pundits included, were very skeptical of Jobs at the beginning for even thinking about venturing in the mobile cell world. In this context, I would suggest that if one were successful in getting a Flash-type model functioning on the iPhone without compromise, he would be the first to congratulate them.
My apologies for the lecture. Force of habit and old age. As I often say to my son, senility is God's way of letting us get back to our children.
So do you feel hardware needs to adapt to flash? Instead of Adobe working to improve flash hardware performance?
No, not exactly. What I'm saying is that Flash was never designed for these kinds of devices, and even though there are apparently some using a version of it, the iPhone is so much more complex, that perhaps it can't.
But, as the iPhone becomes loaded with a more powerful processor, it might be able to.
Also, think on this, there some functions that simply can't always be re-written, so that devices not designed to run them, can run them.
When the iPhone is running a movie, that's about all it's doing. But, when it is running Flash based web applets, it's doing other things as well. It could even be running several at once. Apple had to prioritize, and we see where they did that.
You would never say that Apple doesn't make its machines faster, so that it can better run software, or even run software that it couldn't run earlier.
Of course, it's always possible that Apple will never enable Flash, even if Adobe is able to have a compatible version. We won't know that until it happens, if it does.
I also have a message for all of you Ajax fans; your applications are clunky, look boring, and take three times the amount of time and effort to code for the ever changing landscape of browsers.
Flash is the best thing that has ever happened to the Internet thus far! Flash can do what browsers should have been able to do in the first place!
I think the last part is a good enough summary as to why Flash needs to stay. Until standard web programming allows you to do what Flash allows you to do, it will always be inferior. Sure it has some advantages like the search engines and being able to specify URLs but there are more annoying issues with it.
AJAX etc still have the problem where you always need to check how your website looks in a variety of browsers. You always have to put all sorts of stupid browser checks in and hack CSS so IE doesn't render stuff incorrectly or worse crash. By the time you put all that stuff in, you are writing more code than you would with Flash and also wasting time trying to figure out where all the quirks are coming from.
Animations just look terrible and can flicker/stutter/ with AJAX. This doesn't happen with Flash and the animations can be vastly more complex.
If Flash was more open and not so dependent on one company, I'd be quite happy to have Flash and PHP and to hell with the rest of the stuff. This would be a huge hit with designers because with the 'advancement' of CSS, designers are almost forced to become coders and they don't like it one bit. If the designers I work with could pass me a flash file and I could just start adding actionscript to it and know that it would work cross platform, it cuts down the amount of time I waste by an enormous amount.
No more slicing images individually into either gif or png and trying to work around the fact IE doesn't support transparent PNGs and that you have to premultiply animated gifs with their background to prevent rough edges. No more having to float blocks around all over the place and make sure to clear them at the right times and make sure to close the divs so IE doesn't crash. No more 1000+ line CSS files and not noticing you gave a dynamic PHP element the same ID as a static one. No more padding out every piece of text and adding margins to blocks of content.
The list goes on. Even with all that headache, it's still not capable of achieving what Flash can. As DjacK says, Flash is what browsers should have been able to do in the first place. Right now, standard web programming is more difficult IMO and less functional.
No more slicing images individually into either gif or png and trying to work around the fact IE doesn't support transparent PNGs and that you have to premultiply animated gifs with their background to prevent rough edges. No more having to float blocks around all over the place and make sure to clear them at the right times and make sure to close the divs so IE doesn't crash. No more 1000+ line CSS files and not noticing you gave a dynamic PHP element the same ID as a static one. No more padding out every piece of text and adding margins to blocks of content.
Or you could not bother bending over backwards to support a non-standard-supporting web browser and suggest to your users that they use something that supports standards better like Safari. If everyone did that, you'd see the IE usage figures plummet, but as it stands people are too afraid of alienating IE users.
The web should be OPEN, not proprietary. Apple recognizes this. Maybe if Adobe open-sourced Flash, there'd be more interest. Otherwise, I don't think it's ever going to happen. And that's just fine with me. As the web becomes increasingly mobile, developers will have no choice but to move away from Flash to open standards.
And, frankly, show me one Flash site that isn't bloated, slow, and, in the end, a waste of time. Sure, all of that nifty interactivity is cool, but none of the sites I care about - news, banking, travel, Amazon, weather, etc. - reply upon Flash. Flash is all about eye candy, not substance. And, given the iPhone's huge share of the mobile web, I imagine sites that do employ Flash, ie: MySpace, will move away from it.
Proprietary isn't good for anyone, no matter how cool it appears.
A few lookups on my handle and then on my name would have quickly shown you that I have contributed more code and more standards recommendations than you can imagine. And that you probably ever will.
The fact and the matter is your response shows that you are using right now some of the code I wrote and some of the specs I pushed for. The Gecko layout engine at the heart of Firefox compiled, ran and finally rendered correctly on Macintosh for the first time ever... on my machine.
What have _you_ done to make the web a better place?
Pierre
You're right, being part of a web development team for firefox apparently means that you can make retarded statements about a web technology. I would expect anyone who has a solid grasp on web development to understand and appreciate the great advances brought by the Flash plug-in, at least to acknowledge it. But quite frankly a bunch of people who seem to consider themselves experts (you), have no problem railing a technology with the most stupid arguments.
My initial guess was that you were just plain misinformed, but I guess you have clarified that you are a well qualified and still completely wrong.
Can we quit bickering as to whether or not Flash has a proper place on the web? It most certainly does, and can compete with completely open standards in the marketplace. Let the devs vote with their tools budgets, that's where the fight belongs.
Let's just get down to asking Adobe to f^(%*ing fix it so it doesn't push unnecessary CPU cycles?
The memory footprint isn't that bad, but the inefficient desktop-centric run model is a big ball and chain right now.
I've been a Flash developer for about 10 years now, so my opinions are bias towards Adobe and Flash. Flash is the future of the web. And if Apple wants to make the iPhone support viewing of the web in all its glory, they need to work with Adobe to create a version of the Flash Player that supports the iPhone. The best websites in the world are built with Flash. Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash. With HTML? With AJAX? With Javascript? Please, I don't think so! Flash IS the future of the web and Apple needs to get on the bandwagon.
I've been a Flash developer for about 10 years now, so my opinions are bias towards Adobe and Flash. Flash is the future of the web. And if Apple wants to make the iPhone support viewing of the web in all its glory, they need to work with Adobe to create a version of the Flash Player that supports the iPhone. The best websites in the world are built with Flash. Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash. With HTML? With AJAX? With Javascript? Please, I don't think so! Flash IS the future of the web and Apple needs to get on the bandwagon.
That may be one of the best examples of Flash in a website, but that doesn't make it the best website. That site stands out among most Flash sites in that you can tab throughout the page contents and hit enter to execute. Rarely do i come across a Flash that is that slick.
But you are correct, Adobe and Apple need to work together. But Adobe really needs a better mobile version of Flash and a more optimized desktop version for OS X. I can't imagine that an iPhone version could come before these other issues are worked out.
i'm on a T1 line at work, and that website took a looooong time to load the "flash"
how about this, try flash on a desktop with similar processor speed of the iphone.....hmmm
flash hardly works on my g3 strawberry, i wish i could go back to flash 7. is or is not flash a processor hog? i think macworld did a full review of flash, aren't their better methods....i think so
Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash.
That website represents everything that is so hateful about designing a website entirely out of flash. On a high-res screen, all the text is ridiculously tiny and there's no way for the user to control its size. It is a seriously dreadful website.
I've been a Flash developer for about 10 years now, so my opinions are bias towards Adobe and Flash. Flash is the future of the web. And if Apple wants to make the iPhone support viewing of the web in all its glory, they need to work with Adobe to create a version of the Flash Player that supports the iPhone. The best websites in the world are built with Flash. Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash. With HTML? With AJAX? With Javascript? Please, I don't think so! Flash IS the future of the web and Apple needs to get on the bandwagon.
Sweet another site I can't copy or bookmark the stuff I am interested in. Every time I land on the site it is always back to page 1. Nope, this reminds me why I don't like Flash. Yes the site looks good, but that is about as much depth as I get from the average Flash enabled site.
It is a bit more work designing a pure HTML site, but good design (both presentation and content) is work. It is easily doable, but you probably won't get all the wizzy effects, which don't necessarily add much value to the site.
Comments
One of the reasons why Flash for the iPhone may be difficult, is that despite all the power, and memory of the iPhone, there is much more going on that is using that power. It's certainly possible that not enough horsepower is left over to run Flash?at this time. Possibly, another upgraded machine will have enough power, and battery life, and then, things may change.
I don't think he meant an insult. It reads to me that he is saying just what he did. That you sound qualified to write such an app, and that the $99 barrier is low enough for you to give it a try.
Good call melgross! On re-reading that line I realized he was referring to the SDK. Not a bad idea actually, sorry abster!
-David H.
One of the reasons why Flash for the iPhone may be difficult, is that despite all the power, and memory of the iPhone, there is much more going on that is using that power. It's certainly possible that not enough horsepower is left over to run Flash—at this time. Possibly, another upgraded machine will have enough power, and battery life, and then, things may change.
So do you feel hardware needs to adapt to flash? Instead of Adobe working to improve flash hardware performance?
Start praying folks.
I hope this cleared some of your questions up! And plus thanks for proving me right:
(on my first post)
"All the detractors of Flash that are out there are either just totally oblivious leaches of the modern technological era that have no technical background (probably most of digg?s audience), jealous of the technology, those who know how to use it, or those own the rights to it (Stubborn developers, Steve Jobs), or just not really thinking about how ill-advised their moronic Flash-bashing really is."
I guess some people can be more than one of those at the same time...
-David H.
Talk about name calling...
A few lookups on my handle and then on my name would have quickly shown you that I have contributed more code and more standards recommendations than you can imagine. And that you probably ever will.
The fact and the matter is your response shows that you are using right now some of the code I wrote and some of the specs I pushed for. The Gecko layout engine at the heart of Firefox compiled, ran and finally rendered correctly on Macintosh for the first time ever... on my machine.
What have _you_ done to make the web a better place?
Pierre
Is it out of the question for Adobe to create a chip that would allow Flash to be hardware accelerated to add performance and lessen the battery usage?
You realize the entire justification for creating a chip to accelerate something is to raise the rate of which you consume electrons, making the software you are accelerating run faster?
As a real world example: over 17 years of 3-D acceleration cards and about a dozen software API's, those have evolved and when operating full bore eat up juice 2-3 times faster than the CPUs they are slaved to.
Flash has been architected without concern for power management since before Macromedia bought it. No faults there, there wasn't any large motivation to do it any other way. Making a change to that is BIG. Making a change to that that still runs legacy Flash code properly is BiG^BIG hard. If the task is too big then the default response in the tech industry has been to wait for hardware to catch up. In this case Flash would need to wait on battery technology to deliver enough power that Flash is allowed to run as it want's to.
Either way, Adobe bears the responsibility for the decisions.
Good call melgross! On re-reading that line I realized he was referring to the SDK. Not a bad idea actually, sorry abster!
-David H.
Your apology accepted. Provided of course that you share part of the royalties with me.
And thank you Melgross for your support; you were right, but boy, I hate to admit it.
And David, having over 40 years in the healthcare, medical sciences and now computer sciences for the last 20, I have learned that a lot of my most successful developments were the consequences of somebody saying that it couldn't be done. At the same time, a lot of my demises were equally achieved for the same reason.
However, in all cases (particularly in the later years) recognizing that there were at least 3 sides to a story, understanding or attempting to appreciate the originators' perspective was paramount in succeeding. Jobs, in this endeavor has based his position based on test every aspect of one hefty, $200 million, expenditure. Last thing he wants is applications that would slow, impede or reduce the primary functionality of his baby. Remember, that a lot of people, pundits included, were very skeptical of Jobs at the beginning for even thinking about venturing in the mobile cell world. In this context, I would suggest that if one were successful in getting a Flash-type model functioning on the iPhone without compromise, he would be the first to congratulate them.
My apologies for the lecture. Force of habit and old age. As I often say to my son, senility is God's way of letting us get back to our children.
Bon chance.
So do you feel hardware needs to adapt to flash? Instead of Adobe working to improve flash hardware performance?
No, not exactly. What I'm saying is that Flash was never designed for these kinds of devices, and even though there are apparently some using a version of it, the iPhone is so much more complex, that perhaps it can't.
But, as the iPhone becomes loaded with a more powerful processor, it might be able to.
Also, think on this, there some functions that simply can't always be re-written, so that devices not designed to run them, can run them.
When the iPhone is running a movie, that's about all it's doing. But, when it is running Flash based web applets, it's doing other things as well. It could even be running several at once. Apple had to prioritize, and we see where they did that.
You would never say that Apple doesn't make its machines faster, so that it can better run software, or even run software that it couldn't run earlier.
Of course, it's always possible that Apple will never enable Flash, even if Adobe is able to have a compatible version. We won't know that until it happens, if it does.
I also have a message for all of you Ajax fans; your applications are clunky, look boring, and take three times the amount of time and effort to code for the ever changing landscape of browsers.
Flash is the best thing that has ever happened to the Internet thus far! Flash can do what browsers should have been able to do in the first place!
I think the last part is a good enough summary as to why Flash needs to stay. Until standard web programming allows you to do what Flash allows you to do, it will always be inferior. Sure it has some advantages like the search engines and being able to specify URLs but there are more annoying issues with it.
AJAX etc still have the problem where you always need to check how your website looks in a variety of browsers. You always have to put all sorts of stupid browser checks in and hack CSS so IE doesn't render stuff incorrectly or worse crash. By the time you put all that stuff in, you are writing more code than you would with Flash and also wasting time trying to figure out where all the quirks are coming from.
Animations just look terrible and can flicker/stutter/ with AJAX. This doesn't happen with Flash and the animations can be vastly more complex.
If Flash was more open and not so dependent on one company, I'd be quite happy to have Flash and PHP and to hell with the rest of the stuff. This would be a huge hit with designers because with the 'advancement' of CSS, designers are almost forced to become coders and they don't like it one bit. If the designers I work with could pass me a flash file and I could just start adding actionscript to it and know that it would work cross platform, it cuts down the amount of time I waste by an enormous amount.
No more slicing images individually into either gif or png and trying to work around the fact IE doesn't support transparent PNGs and that you have to premultiply animated gifs with their background to prevent rough edges. No more having to float blocks around all over the place and make sure to clear them at the right times and make sure to close the divs so IE doesn't crash. No more 1000+ line CSS files and not noticing you gave a dynamic PHP element the same ID as a static one. No more padding out every piece of text and adding margins to blocks of content.
The list goes on. Even with all that headache, it's still not capable of achieving what Flash can. As DjacK says, Flash is what browsers should have been able to do in the first place. Right now, standard web programming is more difficult IMO and less functional.
No more slicing images individually into either gif or png and trying to work around the fact IE doesn't support transparent PNGs and that you have to premultiply animated gifs with their background to prevent rough edges. No more having to float blocks around all over the place and make sure to clear them at the right times and make sure to close the divs so IE doesn't crash. No more 1000+ line CSS files and not noticing you gave a dynamic PHP element the same ID as a static one. No more padding out every piece of text and adding margins to blocks of content.
Or you could not bother bending over backwards to support a non-standard-supporting web browser and suggest to your users that they use something that supports standards better like Safari. If everyone did that, you'd see the IE usage figures plummet, but as it stands people are too afraid of alienating IE users.
And, frankly, show me one Flash site that isn't bloated, slow, and, in the end, a waste of time. Sure, all of that nifty interactivity is cool, but none of the sites I care about - news, banking, travel, Amazon, weather, etc. - reply upon Flash. Flash is all about eye candy, not substance. And, given the iPhone's huge share of the mobile web, I imagine sites that do employ Flash, ie: MySpace, will move away from it.
Proprietary isn't good for anyone, no matter how cool it appears.
Talk about name calling...
A few lookups on my handle and then on my name would have quickly shown you that I have contributed more code and more standards recommendations than you can imagine. And that you probably ever will.
The fact and the matter is your response shows that you are using right now some of the code I wrote and some of the specs I pushed for. The Gecko layout engine at the heart of Firefox compiled, ran and finally rendered correctly on Macintosh for the first time ever... on my machine.
What have _you_ done to make the web a better place?
Pierre
You're right, being part of a web development team for firefox apparently means that you can make retarded statements about a web technology. I would expect anyone who has a solid grasp on web development to understand and appreciate the great advances brought by the Flash plug-in, at least to acknowledge it. But quite frankly a bunch of people who seem to consider themselves experts (you), have no problem railing a technology with the most stupid arguments.
My initial guess was that you were just plain misinformed, but I guess you have clarified that you are a well qualified and still completely wrong.
-David H.
Let's just get down to asking Adobe to f^(%*ing fix it so it doesn't push unnecessary CPU cycles?
The memory footprint isn't that bad, but the inefficient desktop-centric run model is a big ball and chain right now.
I've been a Flash developer for about 10 years now, so my opinions are bias towards Adobe and Flash. Flash is the future of the web. And if Apple wants to make the iPhone support viewing of the web in all its glory, they need to work with Adobe to create a version of the Flash Player that supports the iPhone. The best websites in the world are built with Flash. Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash. With HTML? With AJAX? With Javascript? Please, I don't think so! Flash IS the future of the web and Apple needs to get on the bandwagon.
That may be one of the best examples of Flash in a website, but that doesn't make it the best website. That site stands out among most Flash sites in that you can tab throughout the page contents and hit enter to execute. Rarely do i come across a Flash that is that slick.
But you are correct, Adobe and Apple need to work together. But Adobe really needs a better mobile version of Flash and a more optimized desktop version for OS X. I can't imagine that an iPhone version could come before these other issues are worked out.
how about this, try flash on a desktop with similar processor speed of the iphone.....hmmm
flash hardly works on my g3 strawberry, i wish i could go back to flash 7. is or is not flash a processor hog? i think macworld did a full review of flash, aren't their better methods....i think so
i'm on a T1 line at work
Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash.
That website represents everything that is so hateful about designing a website entirely out of flash. On a high-res screen, all the text is ridiculously tiny and there's no way for the user to control its size. It is a seriously dreadful website.
I've been a Flash developer for about 10 years now, so my opinions are bias towards Adobe and Flash. Flash is the future of the web. And if Apple wants to make the iPhone support viewing of the web in all its glory, they need to work with Adobe to create a version of the Flash Player that supports the iPhone. The best websites in the world are built with Flash. Someone please tell me how you can create websites like these http://www.thefwa.com/ without Flash. With HTML? With AJAX? With Javascript? Please, I don't think so! Flash IS the future of the web and Apple needs to get on the bandwagon.
Sweet another site I can't copy or bookmark the stuff I am interested in. Every time I land on the site it is always back to page 1. Nope, this reminds me why I don't like Flash. Yes the site looks good, but that is about as much depth as I get from the average Flash enabled site.
It is a bit more work designing a pure HTML site, but good design (both presentation and content) is work. It is easily doable, but you probably won't get all the wizzy effects, which don't necessarily add much value to the site.
when i try to open a page i get an error called error lander anybody familiar to my problem??
please reply...
thanks.
__________
Weight loss
Car Hire
I'm familiar with the Mars Lander, but sorry, not this.