For everyone that claims they don't need Flash on the iPhone, I guess you have never been to a website that required Flash. A real pain in the ass on the iPhone when that happens. So it is not really a full internet experience.
Of course problem would be solved if the web developers always offered a Non-Flash version, but most don't.
"The Cupertino-based iPhone maker", "The iPhone and Mac maker"... WTF? Sounds like AI just copied and pasted these tabloid-style comments right off another website. AppleOutsider more like.
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
An Adobe spokeswoman told Dow Jones Tuesday (today) that Flash Lite needs more help from Apple than iPhone maker has traditionally afforded its developers. She then refused to confirm whether Apple and Adobe are working together, possibly signaling that the two are not working as closely as previously thought.
Who on earth thought they were working closely together? Adobe & Apple haven't seen eye-to-eye since Adobe snubbed the Mac by pulling Premiere and Apple's response with FCP relieved Adobe of their market share.
The iPhone alone is a real kick in the arse to Flash as it proves life is better without it. I think Apple should port the full version as is but with a power drain warning when flash content is encountered, let it drain everyone's battery and provide an off switch in preferences. Flash is just a bad way to package h.264 - RIP & good riddance!
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
Two points...
First, Objective C is 'open' just like any other language where you can buy a book and learn it. There is nothing hidden from you, there are no secret keywords that only the maker(s) of the compiler (which, i believe is usually gcc so you can go get the source code for that) would know about and not you. Of course you already know there are plenty of things you can do with C that you can't do with Java, but can you please define how java is more accessible than C? Or is that just because all the script kiddies like to write stuff in java because that's what they teach you in college..
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly. Sure, some are great.. but not everything. This is the reason (or one of them) we are stuck with flash in the first place. Sure embedded video is great in a website, or animated graphics. But the video should be H.264 or some other standard and should NOT require a plugin or activex control. As a previous poster explained, it should be a stream to the media processing APIs of your browser or operating system. If you built an internet facing site that requires the user to install a plugin (even Flash), you built it WRONG.... Yes you did, please no arguing or you will receive a timeout
Also, having said that, to those who complain about flash only sites.. can you provide some examples? I'm sure they're not anything remotely important (granted that 'important' is a subjective term).
Any 'important' site will have accessibility built in to it. Text only to enable browser support for the visually impaired (think TTS for the blind, font scaling due to poor vision, text to braile machines and so forth). Just choose another site that doesn't require you to belabor your browser and CPU to support whiz-bang animations.
Objective-C is open, but Cocoa/XCode/Interface Builder as well as Apple's own APIs are decidedly closed-source. Java, with the exception of the browser plugin, Java Web Start, and the SNMP code is completely open source, including the Netbeans IDE.
Unfortunately, there are far too many sites that require Flash. Most restaurant sites and all movie sites require Flash. I have no admin rights to my computer at work, but I was able to install Firefox without Flash. I'm shocked at the number of sites I visit on a daily basis that complain that I don't have Flash installed, even though, thankfully, I can still access most of those sites.
Flash definitely has to go. It's an abomination that chews up my CPU. Unfortunately, it's the only way to deliver video in a cross-browser way. Otherwise, YouTube would not require Flash, because Google would be first in line along with Apple to get rid of Flash entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by landy
Two points...
First, Objective C is 'open' just like any other language where you can buy a book and learn it. There is nothing hidden from you, there are no secret keywords that only the maker(s) of the compiler (which, i believe is usually gcc so you can go get the source code for that) would know about and not you. Of course you already know there are plenty of things you can do with C that you can't do with Java, but can you please define how java is more accessible than C? Or is that just because all the script kiddies like to write stuff in java because that's what they teach you in college..
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly. Sure, some are great.. but not everything. This is the reason (or one of them) we are stuck with flash in the first place. Sure embedded video is great in a website, or animated graphics. But the video should be H.264 or some other standard and should NOT require a plugin or activex control. As a previous poster explained, it should be a stream to the media processing APIs of your browser or operating system. If you built an internet facing site that requires the user to install a plugin (even Flash), you built it WRONG.... Yes you did, please no arguing or you will receive a timeout
Also, having said that, to those who complain about flash only sites.. can you provide some examples? I'm sure they're not anything remotely important (granted that 'important' is a subjective term).
Any 'important' site will have accessibility built in to it. Text only to enable browser support for the visually impaired (think TTS for the blind, font scaling due to poor vision, text to braile machines and so forth). Just choose another site that doesn't require you to belabor your browser and CPU to support whiz-bang animations.
The original web app implementation was half baked at best. But developers did quickly make over 2000 web apps. Web apps have no real access to system-level features. The iPhone OS 1.0 did not have optimized javascript rendering.
Their were leaks from WWDC 2008 that Apple has future plans to build a better web app development platform. Javascript rendering is magnitudes better in iPhone OS 2.0. Web apps will have access to system level features and launch without the need of a browser. Google's Book Search for iPhone is an example of this. Book Search for iPhone is a web app that does not launch within a browser window. Essentially the same development method for the Palm Pre.
Objective C is the development platform Apple uses for Mac OS X. Its only natural to leverage the same tools for the iPhone. Developers for the Mac can easily learn how to create iPhone apps. New developers to the iPhone may also become developers for the Mac.
The iPhone actually does not support java at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rmacuser
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
No its not really. Many iPhone apps are simply front end UI for a web service. These apps would work perfectly fine as web apps, they only need the ability to access system services the way native apps can, and the ability to launch without a browser and you would see little difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by landy
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly.
No its not really. Many iPhone apps are simply front end UI for a web service. These apps would work perfectly fine as web apps, they only need the ability to access system services the way native apps can, and the ability to launch without a browser and you would see little difference.
Wow, I really enjoyed reading all the techy stuff from you clever guys. Do any of you see Apple brining out a more sophisticated web development app for us 'users' that keeps the ease of iWeb but moves in to the pro development arena? I migrated from Premier way back when to FCPro and never looked back, I'd love an Apple web development tool with the same leap in power.
I used to want flash on the iphone before I'd bought one. Well, I bought one. and now I don't want flash on the iphone. Leave flash to die with the desktop - and I'll create RIAs for the iphone as applications.
There is only one reason Apple is doing this - to preserve QuickTime's relevance. They can't get that to work on the phone without draining the battery so the don't want to help Adobe. Period. Adobe should get antitrust regulators involved as they are in Europe and will b/c of restrictions around the AppStore!
Apple isn't pushing Quicktime, Apple is pushing embedded H.264 and AAC. Both are open standards that any media player can play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treymaier
There is only one reason Apple is doing this - to preserve QuickTime's relevance. They can't get that to work on the phone without draining the battery so the don't want to help Adobe. Period. Adobe should get antitrust regulators involved as they are in Europe and will b/c of restrictions around the AppStore!
Objective-C is open, but Cocoa/XCode/Interface Builder as well as Apple's own APIs are decidedly closed-source. Java, with the exception of the browser plugin, Java Web Start, and the SNMP code is completely open source, including the Netbeans IDE.
Unfortunately, there are far too many sites that require Flash. Most restaurant sites and all movie sites require Flash. I have no admin rights to my computer at work, but I was able to install Firefox without Flash. I'm shocked at the number of sites I visit on a daily basis that complain that I don't have Flash installed, even though, thankfully, I can still access most of those sites.
Flash definitely has to go. It's an abomination that chews up my CPU. Unfortunately, it's the only way to deliver video in a cross-browser way. Otherwise, YouTube would not require Flash, because Google would be first in line along with Apple to get rid of Flash entirely.
I think maybe I misunderstood you a little or you misunderstood me a little...
By open, I don't mean 'open source'. I'm referring to the fact that, like java, with Ob-C/Cocoa/IB you can go out and buy a book and write software - except Ob-C code is more efficient. I agree though that yes, Java is everywhere... I just think it's a poor choice to write software, although it's a wonderful scripting language.
I think maybe I misunderstood you a little or you misunderstood me a little...
By open, I don't mean 'open source'. I'm referring to the fact that, like java, with Ob-C/Cocoa/IB you can go out and buy a book and write software - except Ob-C code is more efficient. I agree though that yes, Java is everywhere... I just think it's a poor choice to write software, although it's a wonderful scripting language.
I would argue that Java is more efficient, since it has better garbage collection, doesn't require header files, exception handling, a richer API, a wealth of third party libraries (log4j, ant, junit, to name a few), and the language is much more readable. Plus, Java is the language of choice for large enterprises.
Eclipse and Netbeans are superior IDEs to XCode (with the notable exception of GUI builders). I found XCode lacking in features that I take for granted in the Java IDEs.
Plus, if you really don't want to code in Java, you have a wealth of choice of languages to use with the JVM, including Ruby, Python, Groovy, and Scala, not to mention JavaFX Script.
Java is not the language of choice of any major consumer development platform. Mobile devices being the newest platforms in the early stages of development standardization, if Java was superior they could choose to use it, but the major players are choosing HTML/CSS/javascript.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Plus, Java is the language of choice for large enterprises.
Comments
Of course problem would be solved if the web developers always offered a Non-Flash version, but most don't.
They're investing in HTML 5.0 and related tech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
An Adobe spokeswoman told Dow Jones Tuesday (today) that Flash Lite needs more help from Apple than iPhone maker has traditionally afforded its developers. She then refused to confirm whether Apple and Adobe are working together, possibly signaling that the two are not working as closely as previously thought.
Who on earth thought they were working closely together? Adobe & Apple haven't seen eye-to-eye since Adobe snubbed the Mac by pulling Premiere and Apple's response with FCP relieved Adobe of their market share.
The iPhone alone is a real kick in the arse to Flash as it proves life is better without it. I think Apple should port the full version as is but with a power drain warning when flash content is encountered, let it drain everyone's battery and provide an off switch in preferences. Flash is just a bad way to package h.264 - RIP & good riddance!
McD
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
Two points...
First, Objective C is 'open' just like any other language where you can buy a book and learn it. There is nothing hidden from you, there are no secret keywords that only the maker(s) of the compiler (which, i believe is usually gcc so you can go get the source code for that) would know about and not you. Of course you already know there are plenty of things you can do with C that you can't do with Java, but can you please define how java is more accessible than C? Or is that just because all the script kiddies like to write stuff in java because that's what they teach you in college..
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly. Sure, some are great.. but not everything. This is the reason (or one of them) we are stuck with flash in the first place. Sure embedded video is great in a website, or animated graphics. But the video should be H.264 or some other standard and should NOT require a plugin or activex control. As a previous poster explained, it should be a stream to the media processing APIs of your browser or operating system. If you built an internet facing site that requires the user to install a plugin (even Flash), you built it WRONG.... Yes you did, please no arguing or you will receive a timeout
Also, having said that, to those who complain about flash only sites.. can you provide some examples? I'm sure they're not anything remotely important (granted that 'important' is a subjective term).
Any 'important' site will have accessibility built in to it. Text only to enable browser support for the visually impaired (think TTS for the blind, font scaling due to poor vision, text to braile machines and so forth). Just choose another site that doesn't require you to belabor your browser and CPU to support whiz-bang animations.
</rant>
Unfortunately, there are far too many sites that require Flash. Most restaurant sites and all movie sites require Flash. I have no admin rights to my computer at work, but I was able to install Firefox without Flash. I'm shocked at the number of sites I visit on a daily basis that complain that I don't have Flash installed, even though, thankfully, I can still access most of those sites.
Flash definitely has to go. It's an abomination that chews up my CPU. Unfortunately, it's the only way to deliver video in a cross-browser way. Otherwise, YouTube would not require Flash, because Google would be first in line along with Apple to get rid of Flash entirely.
Two points...
First, Objective C is 'open' just like any other language where you can buy a book and learn it. There is nothing hidden from you, there are no secret keywords that only the maker(s) of the compiler (which, i believe is usually gcc so you can go get the source code for that) would know about and not you. Of course you already know there are plenty of things you can do with C that you can't do with Java, but can you please define how java is more accessible than C? Or is that just because all the script kiddies like to write stuff in java because that's what they teach you in college..
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly. Sure, some are great.. but not everything. This is the reason (or one of them) we are stuck with flash in the first place. Sure embedded video is great in a website, or animated graphics. But the video should be H.264 or some other standard and should NOT require a plugin or activex control. As a previous poster explained, it should be a stream to the media processing APIs of your browser or operating system. If you built an internet facing site that requires the user to install a plugin (even Flash), you built it WRONG.... Yes you did, please no arguing or you will receive a timeout
Also, having said that, to those who complain about flash only sites.. can you provide some examples? I'm sure they're not anything remotely important (granted that 'important' is a subjective term).
Any 'important' site will have accessibility built in to it. Text only to enable browser support for the visually impaired (think TTS for the blind, font scaling due to poor vision, text to braile machines and so forth). Just choose another site that doesn't require you to belabor your browser and CPU to support whiz-bang animations.
</rant>
Flash is evil. Death to Flash!
I concur. I hate advertisements.
Their were leaks from WWDC 2008 that Apple has future plans to build a better web app development platform. Javascript rendering is magnitudes better in iPhone OS 2.0. Web apps will have access to system level features and launch without the need of a browser. Google's Book Search for iPhone is an example of this. Book Search for iPhone is a web app that does not launch within a browser window. Essentially the same development method for the Palm Pre.
Objective C is the development platform Apple uses for Mac OS X. Its only natural to leverage the same tools for the iPhone. Developers for the Mac can easily learn how to create iPhone apps. New developers to the iPhone may also become developers for the Mac.
The iPhone actually does not support java at all.
I kinda agree with JavaCowboy on the RIA issue. If HTML/CSS is the way to go for developing apps, why did the iPhone app market take off only after the SDK was released? Web based iPhones apps languished for a year until the SDK. And all the advertisements Apple is doing are for the "desktop" apps on the iPhone, not Safari-only HTML ones.
And if Apple is promoting open standards and open source, why the emphasis on a more obscure language like Objective-C? Java is definitely more open and accessible than Objective-C.
Funny how Apple tried to force developers to create HTML apps only to switch a year later and then profit from it by getting a cut of the action through the iTunes store. They couldn't have done that with browser apps.
Second, with regards to Apple offering HTML apps vs native apps and the whole timing issue... what a great opportunity to show people that trying to webify all apps is silly.
No its not really. Many iPhone apps are simply front end UI for a web service. These apps would work perfectly fine as web apps, they only need the ability to access system services the way native apps can, and the ability to launch without a browser and you would see little difference.
Wow, I really enjoyed reading all the techy stuff from you clever guys. Do any of you see Apple brining out a more sophisticated web development app for us 'users' that keeps the ease of iWeb but moves in to the pro development arena? I migrated from Premier way back when to FCPro and never looked back, I'd love an Apple web development tool with the same leap in power.
I could care less if Flash ever makes it to the iPhone....
Really?
How much less could you care? A little less? A whole lot less?
For everyone that claims they don't need Flash on the iPhone, I guess you have never been to a website that required Flash.
Yes, none of those people have ever been to a website that required Flash.
Do you just post whatever pops into your head?
Really?
How much less could you care? A little less? A whole lot less?
You beat the language police to it.
There is only one reason Apple is doing this - to preserve QuickTime's relevance. They can't get that to work on the phone without draining the battery so the don't want to help Adobe. Period. Adobe should get antitrust regulators involved as they are in Europe and will b/c of restrictions around the AppStore!
Objective-C is open, but Cocoa/XCode/Interface Builder as well as Apple's own APIs are decidedly closed-source. Java, with the exception of the browser plugin, Java Web Start, and the SNMP code is completely open source, including the Netbeans IDE.
Unfortunately, there are far too many sites that require Flash. Most restaurant sites and all movie sites require Flash. I have no admin rights to my computer at work, but I was able to install Firefox without Flash. I'm shocked at the number of sites I visit on a daily basis that complain that I don't have Flash installed, even though, thankfully, I can still access most of those sites.
Flash definitely has to go. It's an abomination that chews up my CPU. Unfortunately, it's the only way to deliver video in a cross-browser way. Otherwise, YouTube would not require Flash, because Google would be first in line along with Apple to get rid of Flash entirely.
I think maybe I misunderstood you a little or you misunderstood me a little...
By open, I don't mean 'open source'. I'm referring to the fact that, like java, with Ob-C/Cocoa/IB you can go out and buy a book and write software - except Ob-C code is more efficient. I agree though that yes, Java is everywhere... I just think it's a poor choice to write software, although it's a wonderful scripting language.
I think maybe I misunderstood you a little or you misunderstood me a little...
By open, I don't mean 'open source'. I'm referring to the fact that, like java, with Ob-C/Cocoa/IB you can go out and buy a book and write software - except Ob-C code is more efficient. I agree though that yes, Java is everywhere... I just think it's a poor choice to write software, although it's a wonderful scripting language.
I would argue that Java is more efficient, since it has better garbage collection, doesn't require header files, exception handling, a richer API, a wealth of third party libraries (log4j, ant, junit, to name a few), and the language is much more readable. Plus, Java is the language of choice for large enterprises.
Eclipse and Netbeans are superior IDEs to XCode (with the notable exception of GUI builders). I found XCode lacking in features that I take for granted in the Java IDEs.
Plus, if you really don't want to code in Java, you have a wealth of choice of languages to use with the JVM, including Ruby, Python, Groovy, and Scala, not to mention JavaFX Script.
Plus, Java is the language of choice for large enterprises.