If Adobe doesn't get their act together, it will just disolve into thin air.
Some will give up trying to explain why they use flash and just stop using it.
Some needing the capability will go with the Microsoft product du jour.
And some will hang on claiming they need it and no other product will work.
If you took the number of programmer hours taken to build ways to hide or avoid flash in browser companies, and applied ANY of that to a better solution we could actually have that capability supplied in a way that would be a real standard.
Until then, some like Apple will ignore it.
Some like the people with the FF browser, will use the Flash swamp as a need for a "feature" to help you avoid it.
(they will actually make money because of how bad it is, and promote Flash to make money)
What we need is a way to deliver content and functionality that does not spring up a sub-culture designed to help you avoid it!
I am not "pretending". I really hate to say this, but there ARE people out there that cannot understand the BIG SIGN + contract idea. I dealt with many of them when I was in the army and they would not agree with you regarding the half the cost idea. There are also some seriously smart folks out there that would also disagree as they would see the purchase of a cell phone as to include the contract cost. Now if Apple didn't get a penny of that contract money, then the argument would stand firm (actually the 2nd iPhone is only 47.84% as expensive, so it is less than half the cost), but if Apple receives any of the money paid to the carriers, the the half the cost argument can be thrown out the window.
AT&T and Apple officially announced that revenue sharing is out with the 3G iPhone. regardless, what AT&T is charging for the iPhone data and voice plan is the same whether you have a 2 year contract or not. Beside, those monthly voice and data plans are paid for, well, the access of voice and data services on third party equipment!! I would agree with people who consider monthly fees to count toward the iPhone cost if and only if those fees are in additional fees that AT&T is charging the iPhone owners on top of what it charges everyone else. But AT&T actually charges iPhone owners $5 less for the data plan. So with the iPhone you actually save $120 over the 2 years contract for the same services than if you use other phones. But I don't see anyone talking about that
Really? Flash, Java and background tasks are all possible on Nokia's latest smartphones. How many reports of poor battery life have you heard about the Nokia, say, E71? The only times I've heard complaints is when Nokia have chosen to include a ridiculously small battery (i.e. the N95).
This has been an issue with other phones and will continue to be an issue. They are offering a feature at teh expense of another. There isn't much they can do about that. If I have Flash running I use considerable more juice, tax my CPU and make my webpages render much more slowly. I personally don't want Flash on my iPhone, but I do welcome it as an option for those who want it. But Apple was smart not to try to port the crappy version of OS X's Flash to work on ARM, and we know that Adobe has done very little to get anything better than Flash 7 to work on ARM. So even with Flash on the iPhone the ad is still false because it can't play plenty of the Flash sites currently out there. This is up to Adobe to resolve if they want Flash on the iPhone, not Apple. WebKit is free for all develeopers and part of the SDK so all they need to do is create an Adobe browser running WebKit that loads Flash within its sandboxing. But where are they are at with that?
Battery life seems to be a catch-all excuse for all of the iPhone's current limitations. If battery life is such a concern, why bother with a 3.5" color screen?[/QUOTE]
I've heard this excuse but the iPhone has 10 hours GSM phone usage and 5 hours of 3G phones usage. I think only the Sprint Samsung Instinct can best it, and that is only on 3G because it uses CDMA for it's phone calls.
Apple and Nokia are like a naughty couple of school kids not doing their homework, they need to have their heads knocking together and get on with getting some flash plug ins for their phones.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
Apple and Nokia are like a naughty couple of school kids not doing their homework, they need to have their heads knocking together and get on with getting some flash plug ins for their phones.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
What. Flash has been out for a while. I run it on my N82. Have had it since the last upgrade a few months ago.
Sorry but you have me confused. I never mentioned half the cost. You seem to be lost in your own spiral of ignorance.
You might remember, I was one of many here that have refuted and debunked another of your wasted arguments. Refresher: Nokia never said they had flash. Go back and read the thread or have someone do it for you.
Yes, I count advertising in that figure. No advertising = no revenue = no website.
Because you can't do advertising without flash? Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"? Now you're grasping at straws. I still haven't seen any research on how many websites (on the entire internet) require flash to function. If you're any good at creating a website, there are ways of detecting browsers and adjusting content.
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
Because you can't do advertising without flash? Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"? Now you're grasping at straws. I still haven't seen any research on how many websites (on the entire internet) require flash to function. If you're any good at creating a website, there are ways of detecting browsers and adjusting content.
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
I wonder if everyone thinks that pdf files are part of the internet, and you can't get the full experience if you don't have capability?
Apple and Nokia are like a naughty couple of school kids not doing their homework, they need to have their heads knocking together and get on with getting some flash plug ins for their phones.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
Ugh no we don't. The only part of Flash I miss are the videos, and I sacrifice those to be without ads.
As Solpism mentioned earlier their is little the phone manufacture can do about flash. It's up to Adobe to improve it.
Apple plans to push HTML 5 to replace Flash. Improved CSS, javascript, and scalable vector graphics are all elements of HTML that are planned to replace proprietary frameworks like Flash.
Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"?
Advertising is the reason why this website can afford to pay its bills and its the reason why services like GMail, YouTube, Facebook can be given away to the end user for free. Without advertising, the Internet would either be very expensive or it'd go back to a collection of amatuer sites.
Quote:
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
I never said that Flash was the core component of those websites, I just said that 90% of big websites use it. Whether it's advertising, embedded video or a stupid intro - most sites do use it in some capacity. I don't base that 90% figure on any kind of official statistic, just my personal experience.
I used the example of AI for a reason - it's a website that you won't expect to use Flash. A lot of people on iPhones visit AI and some of the writers for AI are strongly opposed to Flash.
Apple plans to push HTML 5 to replace Flash. Improved CSS, javascript, and scalable vector graphics are all elements of HTML that are planned to replace proprietary frameworks like Flash.
Will all current websites that utilize flash now also have to re-write all of their content? They would have to replace it as well so your talking like many years down the road- no? And thirdly- why would they?
Of course our broadband internet is a joke here in the U.S. I have a friend teaching Japanese near Isahaya, Kyuushu and for about 60 bucks a month he is getting 50MB download and 15MB upload. Grrrrrr.......Charter, thieves at best.
Broadband speed is another item under the "misleading" advertisements --- which makes people think that Americans are in some backward country and everybody else around the world is getting cheaper and faster broadband internet access.
The reality is that the rest of the world is lying about their broadband speed. For example, only 4% of UK broadband users get the "claimed" speed.
Comments
What generally replaces Flash, anyway? Ajax?
Silverlight, which is another part of the Internet... and another part of the Internet that is inaccessible to the iPhone.
***BEEP****BEEP****BEEP*****
The sound of backing up......
Nice try.
Half the cost, as advertised.
***BEEP****BEEP****BEEP*****
The sound of backing up......
deleted
What generally replaces Flash, anyway? Ajax?
If Adobe doesn't get their act together, it will just disolve into thin air.
Some will give up trying to explain why they use flash and just stop using it.
Some needing the capability will go with the Microsoft product du jour.
And some will hang on claiming they need it and no other product will work.
If you took the number of programmer hours taken to build ways to hide or avoid flash in browser companies, and applied ANY of that to a better solution we could actually have that capability supplied in a way that would be a real standard.
Until then, some like Apple will ignore it.
Some like the people with the FF browser, will use the Flash swamp as a need for a "feature" to help you avoid it.
(they will actually make money because of how bad it is, and promote Flash to make money)
What we need is a way to deliver content and functionality that does not spring up a sub-culture designed to help you avoid it!
Agh... I'm sure they'll just reword it to something which basically means the same thing but is immune to these cry-baby complaints.
They are right though.
I am not "pretending". I really hate to say this, but there ARE people out there that cannot understand the BIG SIGN + contract idea. I dealt with many of them when I was in the army and they would not agree with you regarding the half the cost idea. There are also some seriously smart folks out there that would also disagree as they would see the purchase of a cell phone as to include the contract cost. Now if Apple didn't get a penny of that contract money, then the argument would stand firm (actually the 2nd iPhone is only 47.84% as expensive, so it is less than half the cost), but if Apple receives any of the money paid to the carriers, the the half the cost argument can be thrown out the window.
AT&T and Apple officially announced that revenue sharing is out with the 3G iPhone. regardless, what AT&T is charging for the iPhone data and voice plan is the same whether you have a 2 year contract or not. Beside, those monthly voice and data plans are paid for, well, the access of voice and data services on third party equipment!! I would agree with people who consider monthly fees to count toward the iPhone cost if and only if those fees are in additional fees that AT&T is charging the iPhone owners on top of what it charges everyone else. But AT&T actually charges iPhone owners $5 less for the data plan. So with the iPhone you actually save $120 over the 2 years contract for the same services than if you use other phones. But I don't see anyone talking about that
Really? Flash, Java and background tasks are all possible on Nokia's latest smartphones. How many reports of poor battery life have you heard about the Nokia, say, E71? The only times I've heard complaints is when Nokia have chosen to include a ridiculously small battery (i.e. the N95).
This has been an issue with other phones and will continue to be an issue. They are offering a feature at teh expense of another. There isn't much they can do about that. If I have Flash running I use considerable more juice, tax my CPU and make my webpages render much more slowly. I personally don't want Flash on my iPhone, but I do welcome it as an option for those who want it. But Apple was smart not to try to port the crappy version of OS X's Flash to work on ARM, and we know that Adobe has done very little to get anything better than Flash 7 to work on ARM. So even with Flash on the iPhone the ad is still false because it can't play plenty of the Flash sites currently out there. This is up to Adobe to resolve if they want Flash on the iPhone, not Apple. WebKit is free for all develeopers and part of the SDK so all they need to do is create an Adobe browser running WebKit that loads Flash within its sandboxing. But where are they are at with that?
Battery life seems to be a catch-all excuse for all of the iPhone's current limitations. If battery life is such a concern, why bother with a 3.5" color screen?[/QUOTE]
I've heard this excuse but the iPhone has 10 hours GSM phone usage and 5 hours of 3G phones usage. I think only the Sprint Samsung Instinct can best it, and that is only on 3G because it uses CDMA for it's phone calls.
we know that Adobe has done very little to get Flash 7 to work on ARM.
Flash 8 is already out for Nokia's S60 browser. I believe all S60 phones are ARM-based.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
Apple and Nokia are like a naughty couple of school kids not doing their homework, they need to have their heads knocking together and get on with getting some flash plug ins for their phones.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
What. Flash has been out for a while. I run it on my N82. Have had it since the last upgrade a few months ago.
Nice try.
Half the cost, as advertised.
Sorry but you have me confused. I never mentioned half the cost. You seem to be lost in your own spiral of ignorance.
You might remember, I was one of many here that have refuted and debunked another of your wasted arguments. Refresher: Nokia never said they had flash. Go back and read the thread or have someone do it for you.
Refresher: Nokia never said they had flash. Go back and read the thread or have someone do it for you.
Hey, buy a clue.
If you can show me anywhere that I said Noki said anything about flash, I'd be amazed.
(I don't amaze easily, and certainly by anything you would post)
Yes, I count advertising in that figure. No advertising = no revenue = no website.
Because you can't do advertising without flash? Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"? Now you're grasping at straws. I still haven't seen any research on how many websites (on the entire internet) require flash to function. If you're any good at creating a website, there are ways of detecting browsers and adjusting content.
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
Because you can't do advertising without flash? Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"? Now you're grasping at straws. I still haven't seen any research on how many websites (on the entire internet) require flash to function. If you're any good at creating a website, there are ways of detecting browsers and adjusting content.
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
I wonder if everyone thinks that pdf files are part of the internet, and you can't get the full experience if you don't have capability?
Apple and Nokia are like a naughty couple of school kids not doing their homework, they need to have their heads knocking together and get on with getting some flash plug ins for their phones.
All mobile users would like this...PLEASE!!!
Something else for a better IPhone. I love Apples use of multi touch technology, but my N81 has two pretty decent speakers, so my clients and friends can watch and hear videos - headphones are soo limiting.
Ugh no we don't. The only part of Flash I miss are the videos, and I sacrifice those to be without ads.
As Solpism mentioned earlier their is little the phone manufacture can do about flash. It's up to Adobe to improve it.
What generally replaces Flash, anyway? Ajax?
Apple plans to push HTML 5 to replace Flash. Improved CSS, javascript, and scalable vector graphics are all elements of HTML that are planned to replace proprietary frameworks like Flash.
Advertising is what gives us "THE FULL INTERNET EXPERIENCE"?
Advertising is the reason why this website can afford to pay its bills and its the reason why services like GMail, YouTube, Facebook can be given away to the end user for free. Without advertising, the Internet would either be very expensive or it'd go back to a collection of amatuer sites.
Like I said, I love flash. I use flash. But last time I checked, flash was a plug-in not an internet requirement. I don't consider it to be the missing link to the internet - particularly 90% of the internet. Just a personal opinion, not a fact.
Nothing personal. I'm just calling you out on the statistic (or lack of support for a statistic).
I never said that Flash was the core component of those websites, I just said that 90% of big websites use it. Whether it's advertising, embedded video or a stupid intro - most sites do use it in some capacity. I don't base that 90% figure on any kind of official statistic, just my personal experience.
I used the example of AI for a reason - it's a website that you won't expect to use Flash. A lot of people on iPhones visit AI and some of the writers for AI are strongly opposed to Flash.
Apple plans to push HTML 5 to replace Flash. Improved CSS, javascript, and scalable vector graphics are all elements of HTML that are planned to replace proprietary frameworks like Flash.
Will all current websites that utilize flash now also have to re-write all of their content? They would have to replace it as well so your talking like many years down the road- no? And thirdly- why would they?
Of course our broadband internet is a joke here in the U.S. I have a friend teaching Japanese near Isahaya, Kyuushu and for about 60 bucks a month he is getting 50MB download and 15MB upload. Grrrrrr.......Charter, thieves at best.
Broadband speed is another item under the "misleading" advertisements --- which makes people think that Americans are in some backward country and everybody else around the world is getting cheaper and faster broadband internet access.
The reality is that the rest of the world is lying about their broadband speed. For example, only 4% of UK broadband users get the "claimed" speed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eed=technology
The threat of massive class action lawsuits --- keeps American carriers pretty honest about 3G speed and broadband speed.