I'd still love to know why on my iBook G4 (but never on my iMac, Mac Pro or MacBook) I get a Flash ad from this very blog when I reply. I have everything set identically on the iBook G4 but any time I reply I get the Flash Ad. Hey AppleInsider how do i stop it as my poor little iBook G4 hates it! I don't want to get in touch with my school friends, really!
Apple should really just let Adobe release Flash through the AppStore. Then when enough people download it and see how much it sucks, they'll get rid of it
That's exactly what Adobe wants - a foot in the door. People will complain, and Adobe will string them along with promises of a better version.
I think everyone at Adobe must have custom 32-core 8Ghz machines with 10TB of RAM. How else would you account for their software's utter lack of performance? Does any Mac user actually use Acrobat any more?
That's exactly what Adobe wants - a foot in the door. People will complain, and Adobe will string them along with promises of a better version.
I think everyone at Adobe must have custom 32-core 8Ghz machines with 10TB of RAM. How else would you account for their software's utter lack of performance? Does any Mac user actually use Acrobat any more?
I for one removed Reader from every Mac I have ages ago. I prefer Preview by far.
I think that's called "writing an iPhone application".
There's nothing stopping you calling web services directly from your native application, that's how applications like blogging tools and the like work. I'd hope that the iPhone has HTTP Client classes, or at least SOAP classes. This is also how Android works (although they just needed to port the simple Java HTTPClient API).
How does this solve the problem of RIAs on the desktop?
Apple's efforts to support web standards such as HTML, JavaScript, and CSS are admirable, but these technologies will only go so far for delivering rich internet applications (RIAs). ...
You are obviously both a smart and experienced guy, so I'm not going to attempt to pick apart your argument, which is solid as far as it goes.
I would disagree with your base assumption though, that so-called RIA's are useful and necessary and that Apple "has to pick one" eventually. I just don't see it.
The only RIA's (true ones) that I can think of seeing in any kind of mainstream context are Flash games. In the new mobile environment, Flash games are simply lame next to anything the platform (especially the iPhone platform) can do natively. When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I would argue that all the other uses of Flash have either fallen by the wayside over the last few years or been supplanted in whole or in part by other emergent technologies. For instance, there was a time when every single website had a Flash intro screen, and many still exist but they are definitely "on the wane" as it were. Even when they were popular (if they could ever be said to be so), most eyes were only scanning for the "skip intro" button in order to avoid them.
Flash is mostly used now to display video, but there are many other emerging options there as well. The way the iPhone handles YouTube is but one example, and it is Apple's pushing of the h264 standard that is most responsible there. If not for tha,t it's arguable that Adobe would never have started pushing it themselves.
Recent additions to WebKit and CSS standards, HTML5 etc. have already created an environment wherein the majority of what used to be Flash animations, intros and splash screens can be replicated. Most of these used nothing more than a few sliding/moving elements for which Flash was serious overkill. This too will accelerate in the near future and is not a technology "standing still" as Flash (more or less) is.
IMO by the time Flash optimises it's code to the point where it becomes attractively "speedy" again, they will already be almost completely supplanted by other emerging technology.
Yes, IE isn't as dominant as it used to be, but it is still the majority browser market share holder by far. Put it this way: have you seen any web developers other than Google with Gmail who refused to totally support the abomination that is IE 6? My employer still requires us to use only IE 6 at work (I'm unofficially using Firefox), even IE 7 downloads are prohibited.
As long as IE 6 has over a 10% market share, it will have to be supported. What's more, IE 7 isn't exactly standards compliant either, and it still has tons of market share.
With Windows on 80%-85% of desktops, it'll be hard to convince most computer users to switch to other browsers, given that most people don't exactly go out of their way to acquire alternative technologies. Why do you think Google is pushing Chrome to OEMs so hard, having removed the "beta" label, even though it's still Windows-only. It's because Google knows that development of its web tools (with Google Web Toolkit, an AJAX-JavaScript toolkit) will be stalled so long as they have to support any version of IE.
IE is not going away anytime soon. Until it does, non-RIA web development is going to be too painful to advance as quickly as it needs to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
As I said above it isn't only Apple working on javascript, Google, Mozilla, Palm are also heavily invested.
The ability to make rich internet applications, media playback, and animation is being worked on. It will come as their is more development being invested in javascript than in Flash.
Internet Explorer does not hold the position as the gateway browser it once did. IE's dominnance on the desktop is quickly waning. IE has no position on mobile devices. As we go into the future IE will have little to no power to dictate which frameworks are used.
The fact that javascript is divided into different test environments at this point is a strength as the major developers are in competition to leap frog each other in improving javascript speed and performance. That competition effectively pushes javascript to a place where it can supplant and replace Flash.
I agree that new web standards will go a long way towards reducing the need for RIA's like Flash. However, there are two problems with your argument:
1) Internet Explorer won't implement many of these new technologies, including SVG graphics.
2) The latest standard technologies (HTML 5, new CSS animations, etc) can only go so far for functions like charting, animations, grids, and other applications that businesses need for complex RIA's.
That's why I'm in the JavaFX camp. Open technologies are better than closed ones, and JavaFX is the open RIA technology to bet on.
Yes, I am biased, since I'm a Java developer as well as a Sun fan. However, Apple and Sun have far more in common than you think, and certainly have far less in common with Adobe than they don't have in common with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
You are obviously both a smart and experienced guy, so I'm not going to attempt to pick apart your argument, which is solid as far as it goes.
I would disagree with your base assumption though, that so-called RIA's are useful and necessary and that Apple "has to pick one" eventually. I just don't see it.
The only RIA's (true ones) that I can think of seeing in any kind of mainstream context are Flash games. In the new mobile environment, Flash games are simply lame next to anything the platform (especially the iPhone platform) can do natively. When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I would argue that all the other uses of Flash have either fallen by the wayside over the last few years or been supplanted in whole or in part by other emergent technologies. For instance, there was a time when every single website had a Flash intro screen, and many still exist but they are definitely "on the wane" as it were. Even when they were popular (if they could ever be said to be so), most eyes were only scanning for the "skip intro" button in order to avoid them.
Flash is mostly used now to display video, but there are many other emerging options there as well. The way the iPhone handles YouTube is but one example, and it is Apple's pushing of the h264 standard that is most responsible there. If not for tha,t it's arguable that Adobe would never have started pushing it themselves.
Recent additions to WebKit and CSS standards, HTML5 etc. have already created an environment wherein the majority of what used to be Flash animations, intros and splash screens can be replicated. Most of these used nothing more than a few sliding/moving elements for which Flash was serious overkill. This too will accelerate in the near future and is not a technology "standing still" as Flash (more or less) is.
IMO by the time Flash optimises it's code to the point where it becomes attractively "speedy" again, they will already be almost completely supplanted by other emerging technology.
Yes, IE isn't as dominant as it used to be, but it is still the majority browser market share holder by far. Put it this way: have you seen any web developers other than Google with Gmail who refused to totally support the abomination that is IE 6? My employer still requires us to use only IE 6 at work (I'm unofficially using Firefox), even IE 7 downloads are prohibited.
Supporting IE 6 because of legacy is different from IE 6 guiding what frameworks will be used in the future.
Quote:
With Windows on 80%-85% of desktops, it'll be hard to convince most computer users to switch to other browsers, given that most people don't exactly go out of their way to acquire alternative technologies. Why do you think Google is pushing Chrome to OEMs so hard, having removed the "beta" label, even though it's still Windows-only. It's because Google knows that development of its web tools (with Google Web Toolkit, an AJAX-JavaScript toolkit) will be stalled so long as they have to support any version of IE.
Actually IE's marketshare has dropped to 67%. The erosion of IE's marketshare by Firefox and Safari is accelerating every quarter. Its very likely by the end of '09 IE will be at 50%. Chrome has grabbed itself 1.12% in only a few months of use.
The majority of the near future internet growth isn't about the PC at all. Internet growth will come from mobile devices, of which IE has no control at all. That is why Adobe is trying hard with the Open Screen Project to gain a firm footing on handsets.
When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I rarely if ever disagree with any of your comments but I would like to point out that a web page offers the advantage of context. Instead of jumping out of the page into another environment to see the video, game or interactive application, the user stays on the site which is good for revenue if stickiness is your objective. In that perspective RIA rules as far as desktop browsing is concerned.
Sun is committed to open source as part of its business model. Key elements of JavaFX are in open source today, and provide customers and partners the proven benefits and security of vendor independence and lower total cost of ownership.
The JavaFX compiler, parts of the graphics libraries and tools are available now from the OpenJFX (http://openjfx.org) web site, under the GPL 2.0 open source license.
The JavaFX compiler and JavaFX tools will continue to be developed in the open and the current JavaFX Preview SDK libraries will remain on openjfx.java.sun.com. Sun is committed to delivering enhancements to the JavaFX platform and to this end will continue internal development and reconcile key elements with the open source builds, with future releases of the JavaFX platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
HTML/CSS/javascript are all open technologies. JavaFX still belongs to Sun, they have expressed the intention to release it an open software.
I rarely if ever disagree with any of your comments but I would like to point out that a web page offers the advantage of context. Instead of jumping out of the page into another environment to see the video, game or interactive application, the user stays on the site which is good for revenue if stickiness is your objective. In that perspective RIA rules as far as desktop browsing is concerned.
True enough. And of course I perhaps exaggerated a bit on the speed but they are "fast becoming" comparable at least.
I was also talking from the point of view of the end consumer, but you are right, for the entity promoting the games, such stickiness is ideal. I was addicted to "BoxerJam" myself for a short nasty period a few years ago and wasted much time there.
I agree that new web standards will go a long way towards reducing the need for RIA's like Flash. However, there are two problems with your argument:
1) Internet Explorer won't implement many of these new technologies, including SVG graphics.
2) The latest standard technologies (HTML 5, new CSS animations, etc) can only go so far for functions like charting, animations, grids, and other applications that businesses need for complex RIA's.
That's why I'm in the JavaFX camp. Open technologies are better than closed ones, and JavaFX is the open RIA technology to bet on.
Yes, I am biased, since I'm a Java developer as well as a Sun fan. However, Apple and Sun have far more in common than you think, and certainly have far less in common with Adobe than they don't have in common with each other.
Fair enough.
I will disagree on the relevance of MSIE (or at least that it will continue to echew standards in the future), but I will agree that if there has to be an RIA to pick that JavaFX is indeed the best or most likely choice for Apple to make.
Comments
1) Video is Flash is horrible, and is best supported through standard routines that can be hardware accelerated (MPEG-2, H.264, etc)
2) Fullscreen websites are pointless on most mobile platforms as you don't have a mouse and the keyboard is way too small.
3) Interactive content is best left to a desktop.
4) Flash ads are annoying.
Apple should really just let Adobe release Flash through the AppStore. Then when enough people download it and see how much it sucks, they'll get rid of it
That's exactly what Adobe wants - a foot in the door. People will complain, and Adobe will string them along with promises of a better version.
I think everyone at Adobe must have custom 32-core 8Ghz machines with 10TB of RAM. How else would you account for their software's utter lack of performance? Does any Mac user actually use Acrobat any more?
That's exactly what Adobe wants - a foot in the door. People will complain, and Adobe will string them along with promises of a better version.
I think everyone at Adobe must have custom 32-core 8Ghz machines with 10TB of RAM. How else would you account for their software's utter lack of performance? Does any Mac user actually use Acrobat any more?
I for one removed Reader from every Mac I have ages ago. I prefer Preview by far.
I for one removed Reader from every Mac I have ages ago. I prefer Preview by far.
here here!
Then again, I really don't miss those dancing chick banner ads telling me I can get 0% financing on my next mortgage.
that's why we use firefox with noscript. all the other browsers are useless.
I think that's called "writing an iPhone application".
There's nothing stopping you calling web services directly from your native application, that's how applications like blogging tools and the like work. I'd hope that the iPhone has HTTP Client classes, or at least SOAP classes. This is also how Android works (although they just needed to port the simple Java HTTPClient API).
How does this solve the problem of RIAs on the desktop?
Apple's efforts to support web standards such as HTML, JavaScript, and CSS are admirable, but these technologies will only go so far for delivering rich internet applications (RIAs). ...
You are obviously both a smart and experienced guy, so I'm not going to attempt to pick apart your argument, which is solid as far as it goes.
I would disagree with your base assumption though, that so-called RIA's are useful and necessary and that Apple "has to pick one" eventually. I just don't see it.
The only RIA's (true ones) that I can think of seeing in any kind of mainstream context are Flash games. In the new mobile environment, Flash games are simply lame next to anything the platform (especially the iPhone platform) can do natively. When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I would argue that all the other uses of Flash have either fallen by the wayside over the last few years or been supplanted in whole or in part by other emergent technologies. For instance, there was a time when every single website had a Flash intro screen, and many still exist but they are definitely "on the wane" as it were. Even when they were popular (if they could ever be said to be so), most eyes were only scanning for the "skip intro" button in order to avoid them.
Flash is mostly used now to display video, but there are many other emerging options there as well. The way the iPhone handles YouTube is but one example, and it is Apple's pushing of the h264 standard that is most responsible there. If not for tha,t it's arguable that Adobe would never have started pushing it themselves.
Recent additions to WebKit and CSS standards, HTML5 etc. have already created an environment wherein the majority of what used to be Flash animations, intros and splash screens can be replicated. Most of these used nothing more than a few sliding/moving elements for which Flash was serious overkill. This too will accelerate in the near future and is not a technology "standing still" as Flash (more or less) is.
IMO by the time Flash optimises it's code to the point where it becomes attractively "speedy" again, they will already be almost completely supplanted by other emerging technology.
As long as IE 6 has over a 10% market share, it will have to be supported. What's more, IE 7 isn't exactly standards compliant either, and it still has tons of market share.
With Windows on 80%-85% of desktops, it'll be hard to convince most computer users to switch to other browsers, given that most people don't exactly go out of their way to acquire alternative technologies. Why do you think Google is pushing Chrome to OEMs so hard, having removed the "beta" label, even though it's still Windows-only. It's because Google knows that development of its web tools (with Google Web Toolkit, an AJAX-JavaScript toolkit) will be stalled so long as they have to support any version of IE.
IE is not going away anytime soon. Until it does, non-RIA web development is going to be too painful to advance as quickly as it needs to.
As I said above it isn't only Apple working on javascript, Google, Mozilla, Palm are also heavily invested.
The ability to make rich internet applications, media playback, and animation is being worked on. It will come as their is more development being invested in javascript than in Flash.
Internet Explorer does not hold the position as the gateway browser it once did. IE's dominnance on the desktop is quickly waning. IE has no position on mobile devices. As we go into the future IE will have little to no power to dictate which frameworks are used.
The fact that javascript is divided into different test environments at this point is a strength as the major developers are in competition to leap frog each other in improving javascript speed and performance. That competition effectively pushes javascript to a place where it can supplant and replace Flash.
I agree that new web standards will go a long way towards reducing the need for RIA's like Flash. However, there are two problems with your argument:
1) Internet Explorer won't implement many of these new technologies, including SVG graphics.
2) The latest standard technologies (HTML 5, new CSS animations, etc) can only go so far for functions like charting, animations, grids, and other applications that businesses need for complex RIA's.
That's why I'm in the JavaFX camp. Open technologies are better than closed ones, and JavaFX is the open RIA technology to bet on.
Yes, I am biased, since I'm a Java developer as well as a Sun fan. However, Apple and Sun have far more in common than you think, and certainly have far less in common with Adobe than they don't have in common with each other.
You are obviously both a smart and experienced guy, so I'm not going to attempt to pick apart your argument, which is solid as far as it goes.
I would disagree with your base assumption though, that so-called RIA's are useful and necessary and that Apple "has to pick one" eventually. I just don't see it.
The only RIA's (true ones) that I can think of seeing in any kind of mainstream context are Flash games. In the new mobile environment, Flash games are simply lame next to anything the platform (especially the iPhone platform) can do natively. When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I would argue that all the other uses of Flash have either fallen by the wayside over the last few years or been supplanted in whole or in part by other emergent technologies. For instance, there was a time when every single website had a Flash intro screen, and many still exist but they are definitely "on the wane" as it were. Even when they were popular (if they could ever be said to be so), most eyes were only scanning for the "skip intro" button in order to avoid them.
Flash is mostly used now to display video, but there are many other emerging options there as well. The way the iPhone handles YouTube is but one example, and it is Apple's pushing of the h264 standard that is most responsible there. If not for tha,t it's arguable that Adobe would never have started pushing it themselves.
Recent additions to WebKit and CSS standards, HTML5 etc. have already created an environment wherein the majority of what used to be Flash animations, intros and splash screens can be replicated. Most of these used nothing more than a few sliding/moving elements for which Flash was serious overkill. This too will accelerate in the near future and is not a technology "standing still" as Flash (more or less) is.
IMO by the time Flash optimises it's code to the point where it becomes attractively "speedy" again, they will already be almost completely supplanted by other emerging technology.
Yes, IE isn't as dominant as it used to be, but it is still the majority browser market share holder by far. Put it this way: have you seen any web developers other than Google with Gmail who refused to totally support the abomination that is IE 6? My employer still requires us to use only IE 6 at work (I'm unofficially using Firefox), even IE 7 downloads are prohibited.
Supporting IE 6 because of legacy is different from IE 6 guiding what frameworks will be used in the future.
With Windows on 80%-85% of desktops, it'll be hard to convince most computer users to switch to other browsers, given that most people don't exactly go out of their way to acquire alternative technologies. Why do you think Google is pushing Chrome to OEMs so hard, having removed the "beta" label, even though it's still Windows-only. It's because Google knows that development of its web tools (with Google Web Toolkit, an AJAX-JavaScript toolkit) will be stalled so long as they have to support any version of IE.
Actually IE's marketshare has dropped to 67%. The erosion of IE's marketshare by Firefox and Safari is accelerating every quarter. Its very likely by the end of '09 IE will be at 50%. Chrome has grabbed itself 1.12% in only a few months of use.
The majority of the near future internet growth isn't about the PC at all. Internet growth will come from mobile devices, of which IE has no control at all. That is why Adobe is trying hard with the Open Screen Project to gain a firm footing on handsets.
When you add in the app store distribution and the instant "download and run from anywhere" aspect, I don't see that Flash based games are anything but destined for the scrap heap. In a world where you can download and install an app on your mobile quicker than an RIA can load in the webpage, the RIA is just not going to win.
I rarely if ever disagree with any of your comments but I would like to point out that a web page offers the advantage of context. Instead of jumping out of the page into another environment to see the video, game or interactive application, the user stays on the site which is good for revenue if stickiness is your objective. In that perspective RIA rules as far as desktop browsing is concerned.
That's why I'm in the JavaFX camp. Open technologies are better than closed ones, and JavaFX is the open RIA technology to bet on.
and landscaped keyboard for SMS, that's all I ask.
The compiler and parts of the graphics libraries and tools are already open source (GPL 2).
https://openjfx.dev.java.net/
Open Source
Sun is committed to open source as part of its business model. Key elements of JavaFX are in open source today, and provide customers and partners the proven benefits and security of vendor independence and lower total cost of ownership.
The JavaFX compiler, parts of the graphics libraries and tools are available now from the OpenJFX (http://openjfx.org) web site, under the GPL 2.0 open source license.
The JavaFX compiler and JavaFX tools will continue to be developed in the open and the current JavaFX Preview SDK libraries will remain on openjfx.java.sun.com. Sun is committed to delivering enhancements to the JavaFX platform and to this end will continue internal development and reconcile key elements with the open source builds, with future releases of the JavaFX platform.
HTML/CSS/javascript are all open technologies. JavaFX still belongs to Sun, they have expressed the intention to release it an open software.
Apple's going to have to invest in an RIA technology sooner or later.
They're investing in HTML 5.0 and related tech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5
I rarely if ever disagree with any of your comments but I would like to point out that a web page offers the advantage of context. Instead of jumping out of the page into another environment to see the video, game or interactive application, the user stays on the site which is good for revenue if stickiness is your objective. In that perspective RIA rules as far as desktop browsing is concerned.
True enough. And of course I perhaps exaggerated a bit on the speed but they are "fast becoming" comparable at least.
I was also talking from the point of view of the end consumer, but you are right, for the entity promoting the games, such stickiness is ideal. I was addicted to "BoxerJam" myself for a short nasty period a few years ago and wasted much time there.
Thank you.
I agree that new web standards will go a long way towards reducing the need for RIA's like Flash. However, there are two problems with your argument:
1) Internet Explorer won't implement many of these new technologies, including SVG graphics.
2) The latest standard technologies (HTML 5, new CSS animations, etc) can only go so far for functions like charting, animations, grids, and other applications that businesses need for complex RIA's.
That's why I'm in the JavaFX camp. Open technologies are better than closed ones, and JavaFX is the open RIA technology to bet on.
Yes, I am biased, since I'm a Java developer as well as a Sun fan. However, Apple and Sun have far more in common than you think, and certainly have far less in common with Adobe than they don't have in common with each other.
Fair enough.
I will disagree on the relevance of MSIE (or at least that it will continue to echew standards in the future), but I will agree that if there has to be an RIA to pick that JavaFX is indeed the best or most likely choice for Apple to make.