If Adobe is any clever they will implement Flash like QuickTime is implemented now:
Any QuickTime content embedded in a web page doesn't start to download and play right away. Instead you get a little 'Play' triangle in the bottom right corner. When you tap on it, the stand-alone QuickTime player opens and plays the movie.
Now imagine Flash content done the same way. No Flash ad gets downloaded and run right away, but you have the option of tapping on a little 'Play' icon to view it in the stand-alone Flash player.
Best of both worlds!
Those who don't want to be bombarded with Flash content, simply don't tap on the Flash 'Play' buttons. And those who do want to see it can. Selectively.
And since the 'Play' button merely launches another application, it should be easier to implement than any in-line Flash player inside Safari.
Dream on. If Adobe implemented that, advertising creators would abandon the platform in a heartbeat. And despite claims to the contrary, Flash is primarily a tool for jumping up and down in the corner to get us to look at ads. There may be other good uses, but that's what keeps the product raking in $$ for Adobe.
...but the point is one shouldn't put up with Apple artificially restricting what one can do any more than one would tolerate Microsoft or anyone else doing the same thing.
Quicktime doesn't run on my Windows Mobile phone (required for work).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That's a jaundiced opinion, and I don't care about it. I ignore those ads. It's not difficult to do.
Mobile devices don't have the real estate that other machines do. most of the time, those ads will be off screen. I'm not concerned.
The most annoying flash ads are all but impossible to ignore (which OBTW is what makes them annoying).
As to being off screen (or very small), my experience has been that the limited screen real estate makes it worse. Hopefully I'm either wrong in that regard, or that I'm right (and we'll never see Flash on the iPhone).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
If Adobe is any clever they will implement Flash like QuickTime is implemented now:
Any QuickTime content embedded in a web page doesn't start to download and play right away. Instead you get a little 'Play' triangle in the bottom right corner. When you tap on it, the stand-alone QuickTime player opens and plays the movie.
Now imagine Flash content done the same way. No Flash ad gets downloaded and run right away, but you have the option of tapping on a little 'Play' icon to view it in the stand-alone Flash player.
Best of both worlds!
Those who don't want to be bombarded with Flash content, simply don't tap on the Flash 'Play' buttons. And those who do want to see it can. Selectively.
And since the 'Play' button merely launches another application, it should be easier to implement than any in-line Flash player inside Safari.
That is precisely how the Flashblock plug-in to Firefox works. The specific implementation difference in that case is that Flash that gets picked up by the Adblock Plus filter doesn't have anything to display (the two plug-ins work in concert).
Seriously, advances in one browser eventually make it to the other browsers (even IE finally got some level of pop-up blocking). But the limited real estate for mobile Safari make it even more significant for Safari to keep up with Firefox. Esp. since Apple has made it obvious (even to Adobe, finally) that Safari is going to be the only browser for the iPhone and Touch.
But the limited real estate for mobile Safari make it even more significant for Safari to keep up with Firefox. Esp. since Apple has made it obvious (even to Adobe, finally) that Safari is going to be the only browser for the iPhone and Touch.
I'm not sure what aspect you want mobileSafari to keep up with Desktop Firefox. Add-Ons are the only real benefit I see to Firefox.
As for different browsers on the iPhone, I see no reason why Mozilla?or Microsoft for that matter?can't create a a browser for iDevices once they get Gecko trimmed down. The SDK certainly doesn't forbid it.
The most annoying flash ads are all but impossible to ignore (which OBTW is what makes them annoying).
As to being off screen (or very small), my experience has been that the limited screen real estate makes it worse. Hopefully I'm either wrong in that regard, or that I'm right (and we'll never see Flash on the iPhone).
Perhaps I'm more focussed. The small real estate, and Safari make for an interesting combination. When you first get a page, it's very small. Any animations will either be off, because of the size (they can't be rendered below a certain size in pixels), or they will be too small to be bothersome because:
You have to select a portion of the page to read it, which will knock any ad off the page.
Perhaps I'm more focussed. The small real estate, and Safari make for an interesting combination. When you first get a page, it's very small. Any animations will either be off, because of the size (they can't be rendered below a certain size in pixels), or they will be too small to be bothersome because:
You have to select a portion of the page to read it, which will knock any ad off the page.
My issue with Flash ont he iPhone is the additional time to load Safari will face if not skipping any Flash-based content and the additional drain on the battery.
My issue with Flash ont he iPhone is the additional time to load Safari will face if not skipping any Flash-based content and the additional drain on the battery.
Yes, I know, we've been through this. I'm not concerned. There are issues and tradeoffs with everything. I'm sure that both Adobe and Apple would consider all of the problems. That's why Apple doesn't have Flash now. That doesn't mean that it won't come later when these problems have been minimized.
I'm not sure what aspect you want mobileSafari to keep up with Desktop Firefox. Add-Ons are the only real benefit I see to Firefox.
I like Safari, if it had a subscription-based adblock filter (ala Adblock Plus) and a way to prevent Flash apps from firing unless I explicitly select them (ala Flashblock) then Safari would be all I would need.
My expectation (perhaps naively) would be that mobileSafari would map fairly close desktop Safari. Obviously if Apple keeps Flash off the iPhone/Touch platform, then nirvana for me would just be some way to implement effective ad blocking on the mobile platform.
First of all, I have to say that AI seems to be very slow today.
But as for Flash:
I have to go back to Job's statements again. He made it very clear that the reason why Flash is not on the phone is because the appropriate software is not available. That was very clear. Flash Lite, he said, in response to a question, was not useful, as it doesn't play most Flash web applets.
There are people now, who are confused with the iPhone. I don't expect that to change. Flash could be turned off by default. however it is done, it will be done.
I agree with the article you linked to. It seems obvious that it is exactly what is going on.
I also agree with the part of the last paragraph from it, which I quote below:
Thank you Melgross.
For some reason, I thought you would.
I would just like to add, that Jobs' position on this issue is not without significant consideration and expense. For those who contend that this is another conspiracy on Apple's part should remember that they spent nearly two hundred million dollars on the iPhone development. As such, a lot of the things one would expect or where even under the impression that they would be included aren't, simply because it doesn't comply with the current strategy or perhaps it just doesn't work at the moment.
In many cases, no in most cases, Apple has succeed by taking baby steps before running. As such, they are winning more races than anybody else.
I only wish that more, actually it only a very few, would learn how to walk. Never mind running.
I would just like to add, that Jobs' position on this issue is not without significant consideration and expense. For those who contend that this is another conspiracy on Apple's part should remember that they spent nearly two hundred million dollars on the iPhone development. As such, a lot of the things one would expect or where even under the impression that they would be included aren't, simply because it doesn't comply with the current strategy or perhaps it just doesn't work at the moment.
In many cases, no in most cases, Apple has succeed by taking baby steps before running. As such, they are winning more races than anybody else.
I only wish that more, actually it only a very few, would learn how to walk. Never mind running.
I think the stated reasons are valid. However, I think it would be foolish to take PR statements at face value, Apple's PR as well. Often, their statements are distractions, and a lot of Apple fans eat them up for some reason. As such, I remain skeptical that the stated reasons are the biggest hold-up.
I think the stated reasons are valid. However, I think it would be foolish to take PR statements at face value, Apple's PR as well. Often, their statements are distractions, and a lot of Apple fans eat them up for some reason. As such, I remain skeptical that the stated reasons are the biggest hold-up.
Perception is reality.
We monitor Apple's PR statements. And if you did, you would see that it is extremely little. What one often relates what is perceived as Apple generated statements are not. Rather blogs that are developed from other blogs? to well educated synopses based on external, i.e., non-Apple released data, research or hearsay.
Apple, like any publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. More important, it is controlled by law what, how and when can be disclosed to the public. As such, most companies say nothing. Even what so-called insider information, e.g., rumors, commonly found on the web are confirmed or even denied. Such a response, could affect the stock or warn the competition, and thus would be suicide if it were deemed company generated.
Again, follow the source. Look carefully. the so-called 'Apple PR' was not Apple originated. It wasn't what was stated or presented. It was what was interpreted or assumed. The same as what has been said about Steve's position on Flash in the iPhone.
The problem is that there have been several times that I've seen videos of Jobs saying things that were contrary to what they actually release a year later, poh-pohing an idea rather than not commenting.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
The problem is that there have been several times that I've seen videos of Jobs saying things that were contrary to what they actually release a year later, poh-pohing an idea rather than not commenting.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
We've all seen that. But it mostly pertains to when he says that Apple isn't interested in something, and then it turns out that they are. I've not seen it the other way around.
If Jobs said that Apple was very much interested in having Flash, I would believe it.
If he says that the software is not up to the job for a phone, and doesn't say that Flash will never arrive, which he hasn't, then it leaves it very much alive. Actually, he did make a statement about Flash some time ago that indicated that it might show up in the phone, but I don't remember in which bookmark it is.
I think he's trying to sound neutral on purpose. It's not like when he said that Java, rather than Javescript, will not work on the phone.
The problem is that there have been several times that I've seen videos of Jobs saying things that were contrary to what they actually release a year later, poh-pohing an idea rather than not commenting.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
To the contrary? I don't know about you, but my parents and even Santa never always came through. Did I chastise them for it?
Heck, now with my own kid, I have had to back out on occasion. So far he hasn't called all his friends or announced to his schools that his dad is a liar.
I know my dad and mom never always gave me a reason. I didn't demand it as my kid doesn't today. For sure, I have learned that commanding my son to expain his mis-promises?, only leads to confrontation. Perhaps that is because I usually understand why.
As a developer, scientists and researcher, and even though my kid knows that I am a genius (I keep telling him that daily) I can't predict the future. Therefore, I tend to take a casual presentation as not a guarantee. However, in Jobs' case, he hasn't really done that. If you can recite such an incident, i.e., with video, I would love to review such.
As for your issue on Flash, I believe he did. In all the pre-testing, remember it was over 2 years and $200 million later, they found Flash as it is right now wasn't working as required. I don't think that it takes a rocket scientist to understand why it isn't included to day. He told us everything that we had to know. Besides, why does there always have to be a 'real' reason, or that any other reason given is always a lie. Based on what is seen here, any reason would be a lie to some; best not to give one in the first place.
Jobs is not obligated to explain to us anything that he doesn't want to, or would jeopardise his responsibilities to his shareholders, to the government or to the benefit of his competition.
Comments
If Adobe is any clever they will implement Flash like QuickTime is implemented now:
Any QuickTime content embedded in a web page doesn't start to download and play right away. Instead you get a little 'Play' triangle in the bottom right corner. When you tap on it, the stand-alone QuickTime player opens and plays the movie.
Now imagine Flash content done the same way. No Flash ad gets downloaded and run right away, but you have the option of tapping on a little 'Play' icon to view it in the stand-alone Flash player.
Best of both worlds!
Those who don't want to be bombarded with Flash content, simply don't tap on the Flash 'Play' buttons. And those who do want to see it can. Selectively.
And since the 'Play' button merely launches another application, it should be easier to implement than any in-line Flash player inside Safari.
Dream on. If Adobe implemented that, advertising creators would abandon the platform in a heartbeat. And despite claims to the contrary, Flash is primarily a tool for jumping up and down in the corner to get us to look at ads. There may be other good uses, but that's what keeps the product raking in $$ for Adobe.
...but the point is one shouldn't put up with Apple artificially restricting what one can do any more than one would tolerate Microsoft or anyone else doing the same thing.
Quicktime doesn't run on my Windows Mobile phone (required for work).
That's a jaundiced opinion, and I don't care about it. I ignore those ads. It's not difficult to do.
Mobile devices don't have the real estate that other machines do. most of the time, those ads will be off screen. I'm not concerned.
The most annoying flash ads are all but impossible to ignore (which OBTW is what makes them annoying).
As to being off screen (or very small), my experience has been that the limited screen real estate makes it worse. Hopefully I'm either wrong in that regard, or that I'm right (and we'll never see Flash on the iPhone).
If Adobe is any clever they will implement Flash like QuickTime is implemented now:
Any QuickTime content embedded in a web page doesn't start to download and play right away. Instead you get a little 'Play' triangle in the bottom right corner. When you tap on it, the stand-alone QuickTime player opens and plays the movie.
Now imagine Flash content done the same way. No Flash ad gets downloaded and run right away, but you have the option of tapping on a little 'Play' icon to view it in the stand-alone Flash player.
Best of both worlds!
Those who don't want to be bombarded with Flash content, simply don't tap on the Flash 'Play' buttons. And those who do want to see it can. Selectively.
And since the 'Play' button merely launches another application, it should be easier to implement than any in-line Flash player inside Safari.
That is precisely how the Flashblock plug-in to Firefox works.
Seriously, advances in one browser eventually make it to the other browsers (even IE finally got some level of pop-up blocking). But the limited real estate for mobile Safari make it even more significant for Safari to keep up with Firefox. Esp. since Apple has made it obvious (even to Adobe, finally) that Safari is going to be the only browser for the iPhone and Touch.
But the limited real estate for mobile Safari make it even more significant for Safari to keep up with Firefox. Esp. since Apple has made it obvious (even to Adobe, finally) that Safari is going to be the only browser for the iPhone and Touch.
I'm not sure what aspect you want mobileSafari to keep up with Desktop Firefox. Add-Ons are the only real benefit I see to Firefox.
As for different browsers on the iPhone, I see no reason why Mozilla?or Microsoft for that matter?can't create a a browser for iDevices once they get Gecko trimmed down. The SDK certainly doesn't forbid it.
The most annoying flash ads are all but impossible to ignore (which OBTW is what makes them annoying).
As to being off screen (or very small), my experience has been that the limited screen real estate makes it worse. Hopefully I'm either wrong in that regard, or that I'm right (and we'll never see Flash on the iPhone).
Perhaps I'm more focussed. The small real estate, and Safari make for an interesting combination. When you first get a page, it's very small. Any animations will either be off, because of the size (they can't be rendered below a certain size in pixels), or they will be too small to be bothersome because:
You have to select a portion of the page to read it, which will knock any ad off the page.
Perhaps I'm more focussed. The small real estate, and Safari make for an interesting combination. When you first get a page, it's very small. Any animations will either be off, because of the size (they can't be rendered below a certain size in pixels), or they will be too small to be bothersome because:
You have to select a portion of the page to read it, which will knock any ad off the page.
My issue with Flash ont he iPhone is the additional time to load Safari will face if not skipping any Flash-based content and the additional drain on the battery.
My issue with Flash ont he iPhone is the additional time to load Safari will face if not skipping any Flash-based content and the additional drain on the battery.
Yes, I know, we've been through this. I'm not concerned. There are issues and tradeoffs with everything. I'm sure that both Adobe and Apple would consider all of the problems. That's why Apple doesn't have Flash now. That doesn't mean that it won't come later when these problems have been minimized.
I'm not sure what aspect you want mobileSafari to keep up with Desktop Firefox. Add-Ons are the only real benefit I see to Firefox.
I like Safari, if it had a subscription-based adblock filter (ala Adblock Plus) and a way to prevent Flash apps from firing unless I explicitly select them (ala Flashblock) then Safari would be all I would need.
My expectation (perhaps naively) would be that mobileSafari would map fairly close desktop Safari. Obviously if Apple keeps Flash off the iPhone/Touch platform, then nirvana for me would just be some way to implement effective ad blocking on the mobile platform.
First of all, I have to say that AI seems to be very slow today.
But as for Flash:
I have to go back to Job's statements again. He made it very clear that the reason why Flash is not on the phone is because the appropriate software is not available. That was very clear. Flash Lite, he said, in response to a question, was not useful, as it doesn't play most Flash web applets.
There are people now, who are confused with the iPhone. I don't expect that to change. Flash could be turned off by default. however it is done, it will be done.
I agree with the article you linked to. It seems obvious that it is exactly what is going on.
I also agree with the part of the last paragraph from it, which I quote below:
Thank you Melgross.
For some reason, I thought you would.
I would just like to add, that Jobs' position on this issue is not without significant consideration and expense. For those who contend that this is another conspiracy on Apple's part should remember that they spent nearly two hundred million dollars on the iPhone development. As such, a lot of the things one would expect or where even under the impression that they would be included aren't, simply because it doesn't comply with the current strategy or perhaps it just doesn't work at the moment.
In many cases, no in most cases, Apple has succeed by taking baby steps before running. As such, they are winning more races than anybody else.
I only wish that more, actually it only a very few, would learn how to walk. Never mind running.
Again, thank you for your comments.
I would just like to add, that Jobs' position on this issue is not without significant consideration and expense. For those who contend that this is another conspiracy on Apple's part should remember that they spent nearly two hundred million dollars on the iPhone development. As such, a lot of the things one would expect or where even under the impression that they would be included aren't, simply because it doesn't comply with the current strategy or perhaps it just doesn't work at the moment.
In many cases, no in most cases, Apple has succeed by taking baby steps before running. As such, they are winning more races than anybody else.
I only wish that more, actually it only a very few, would learn how to walk. Never mind running.
I think the stated reasons are valid. However, I think it would be foolish to take PR statements at face value, Apple's PR as well. Often, their statements are distractions, and a lot of Apple fans eat them up for some reason. As such, I remain skeptical that the stated reasons are the biggest hold-up.
I think the stated reasons are valid. However, I think it would be foolish to take PR statements at face value, Apple's PR as well. Often, their statements are distractions, and a lot of Apple fans eat them up for some reason. As such, I remain skeptical that the stated reasons are the biggest hold-up.
Perception is reality.
We monitor Apple's PR statements. And if you did, you would see that it is extremely little. What one often relates what is perceived as Apple generated statements are not. Rather blogs that are developed from other blogs? to well educated synopses based on external, i.e., non-Apple released data, research or hearsay.
Apple, like any publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. More important, it is controlled by law what, how and when can be disclosed to the public. As such, most companies say nothing. Even what so-called insider information, e.g., rumors, commonly found on the web are confirmed or even denied. Such a response, could affect the stock or warn the competition, and thus would be suicide if it were deemed company generated.
Again, follow the source. Look carefully. the so-called 'Apple PR' was not Apple originated. It wasn't what was stated or presented. It was what was interpreted or assumed. The same as what has been said about Steve's position on Flash in the iPhone.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
The problem is that there have been several times that I've seen videos of Jobs saying things that were contrary to what they actually release a year later, poh-pohing an idea rather than not commenting.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
We've all seen that. But it mostly pertains to when he says that Apple isn't interested in something, and then it turns out that they are. I've not seen it the other way around.
If Jobs said that Apple was very much interested in having Flash, I would believe it.
If he says that the software is not up to the job for a phone, and doesn't say that Flash will never arrive, which he hasn't, then it leaves it very much alive. Actually, he did make a statement about Flash some time ago that indicated that it might show up in the phone, but I don't remember in which bookmark it is.
I think he's trying to sound neutral on purpose. It's not like when he said that Java, rather than Javescript, will not work on the phone.
The problem is that there have been several times that I've seen videos of Jobs saying things that were contrary to what they actually release a year later, poh-pohing an idea rather than not commenting.
I know Jobs never said never on Flash, but I just don't think what he's said in interviews are necessarily the real reason why it's not there.
To the contrary? I don't know about you, but my parents and even Santa never always came through. Did I chastise them for it?
Heck, now with my own kid, I have had to back out on occasion. So far he hasn't called all his friends or announced to his schools that his dad is a liar.
I know my dad and mom never always gave me a reason. I didn't demand it as my kid doesn't today. For sure, I have learned that commanding my son to expain his mis-promises?, only leads to confrontation. Perhaps that is because I usually understand why.
As a developer, scientists and researcher, and even though my kid knows that I am a genius (I keep telling him that daily) I can't predict the future. Therefore, I tend to take a casual presentation as not a guarantee. However, in Jobs' case, he hasn't really done that. If you can recite such an incident, i.e., with video, I would love to review such.
As for your issue on Flash, I believe he did. In all the pre-testing, remember it was over 2 years and $200 million later, they found Flash as it is right now wasn't working as required. I don't think that it takes a rocket scientist to understand why it isn't included to day. He told us everything that we had to know. Besides, why does there always have to be a 'real' reason, or that any other reason given is always a lie. Based on what is seen here, any reason would be a lie to some; best not to give one in the first place.
Jobs is not obligated to explain to us anything that he doesn't want to, or would jeopardise his responsibilities to his shareholders, to the government or to the benefit of his competition.