Adobe is doing this using LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine), an open source compiler technology supported by Apple and used in its Xcode Mac and iPhone development tools. The next version of Adobe's Flash development app will simply compile Flash ActionScript into native iPhone code, much as existing tools already allow iPhone developers to write their code using Java, Scheme, or other languages, and then compile the code into C or Objective-C as a native iPhone app.
The iPhone is designed not to support any alternative languages via any sort of virtual machine, which prevents it from running "raw" Java, Flash, .Net, Silverlight, or anything else apart from its native C/Objective-C compiled to the ARM processor. This is enforced in the terms of Apple's SDK agreement. There is however no restriction against compiling any existing code into native C/Objective-C and creating an iPhone app from it.
Wuh?
It's not compilation, it's bridging.
In turn, the code in high-level programming language is compiled into ARM's machine code. This is what precisely GCC does. And LLVM is just a set of front-ends, which chew the code in high-level language, AS3, for one, and expel the program in the form of some internal virtual instructions understandable by GCC modules being the next in the processing chain.
Yesterday an article about how iPhone is one of the few smartphones without Flash support, today an article with a big red title about how much flash sucks and why we don't need it anyway.
Nice to see someone's learning about media manipulation from the Fox network!
Yesterday an article about how iPhone is one of the few smartphones without Flash support, today an article with a big red title about how much flash sucks and why we don't need it anyway.
Nice to see someone's learning about media manipulation from the Fox network!
The key to enjoying Appleinsider is to treat it like a hub of unintentional comedy otherwise one will always be in danger of suffering from severe brain damage due to an excessive amounts of facepalms.
Additionally, the plugin can convert requests for YouTube Flash videos into requests for higher quality H.264 videos, allowing desktop users to bypass Flash the same way the iPhone does, and simply play any YouTube videos using the browser's own built-in HTML5 support for direct H.264 playback.
The examples below compare the same HD clip served by YouTube, first rendered using Flash with the standard grey YouTube playback controls, and then presented in H.264 using ClickToFlash to request the non-Flash version from Google. The native HTML5 version results in Safari using its own native QuickTime X playback controls rather than those created by Google using Flash. During playback, Safari's native black playback bar disappears; using the ClickToFlash plugin, the user can also present H.264 videos using full screen playback.
Hang on a minute how is QuickTime X native HTML5 playback? QuickTime's exactly the same idea as Flash. For something to actually be native HTML5 playback it has to be played by the browser in the same way as a jpg is displayed. Otherwise you could just end up with Flash, Quicktime, Windows Media Player and Silverlight all supporting H.264 and being capable of playing the video meaning it would be no different to how it has been for years.
Also like a few people have already said, why not just uninstall Flash?
What's encouraging (to me) is the growing sentiment against Flash as represented in the comments. YouTube is more a voice (for better or worse) for the technology amateur than tech-specific sites like this. When you lose the general computer-using populace (and have already lost most of the expert audience) it's time to engage in some deep introspection. Which is something that Adobe seems to be in complete denial about.
Holy wishful thinking, Dlux.. clearly most of those comments you linked to come from web developers (read what they actually say, dude). They are not the general computer-using populace, which I should say is composed chiefly of people who don't actually know what Flash is, they just know that, for instance, the video on this or that site won't load on their iPhone, and don't know why.
When I visit a site and find all the navigation requires Flash I go away and never return. That can't be good for business.
Whether the Flash developers like it or not, end users avoiding Flash heavy sites, installing Flash blocking plug-ins or simply browsing from their iPhones are going to change things. When half the mobile browsers and a significant number of desktop browsers stop visiting webmasters are going to sit up and take notice. Word is going to make it to CIOs that people are avoiding them because of the design of their websites and they will demand something be done to attract rather than repel visitors.
In simpler language: "as soon as everyone starts acting like ME, thing will change." Let me know how that works out for ya.
In the meantime the rest of us will continue to enjoy Youtube and Hulu and Lexulous and the 50 bazillion other very popular sites for whose content Flash is key.
clicktoflash has been around for a while and was one of the things that made me wait to upgrade to snow leopard. anyone on a laptop should put this in their 'must have' list: no more spinning fans, no more annoying flash ads and the whitelist features make it easy to load flash on the sites you want to (have to) see it on. which in my case is a pretty short list.
I was leary about upgrading to snow leopard, but running Safari 32-bit allows all my plugins to still work. With the ability to X flash from my pages at will I'm not all that concerned about the crash protection of the 64-bit Safari cause 99% of the crashes were flash. With the addition of Glims, if Safari does crash it all comes right back up anyway.
Hang on a minute how is QuickTime X native HTML5 playback? QuickTime's exactly the same idea as Flash. For something to actually be native HTML5 playback it has to be played by the browser in the same way as a jpg is displayed. Otherwise you could just end up with Flash, Quicktime, Windows Media Player and Silverlight all supporting H.264 and being capable of playing the video meaning it would be no different to how it has been for years.
Also like a few people have already said, why not just uninstall Flash?
If I uninstall flash, I don't still have the option to use it. I want it for sites like hulu, just not for sites that are loaded with tons of flash ads. This is especially important if I'm trying to read an article at work & some of the ads popping up on the site show girls in bikinis. I'm aloud to read web content at work when it relates to my job but it is likely to make the boss a little suspicious if he is walking by & there are scantily clad women on my screen.
I actually miss the old days of netscape when you could turn on & off all images & media in the browser so you'd have a text only page. This was of course to help with loading pages over dial-up but a bit more advanced feature in that direction would be nice to see re-integrated into todays popular browsers.
So you're saying x264, libavcodec and others are illegal?
They can be infringing patents from others, it being tolerated as long as they fly under the radar. Those are muddy waters. See, for example, ffmpeg.org's comments about these kind of issues: http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html. Specially this:
Quote:
"...Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies..."
When you lose the general computer-using populace (and have already lost most of the expert audience) it's time to engage in some deep introspection. Which is something that Adobe seems to be in complete denial about.
I actually miss the old days of netscape when you could turn on & off all images & media in the browser so you'd have a text only page.
That's kinda implemented in Safari, if you turn on the Develop menu. (Preferences > Advanced) Unfortunately, it's all or nothing until you change it back, but once you turn 'Disable Images' back off you can simply reload a single page to see them, leaving all the others text-only.
What would be great is if there were a shortcut to enable images on a page-by-page basis, without having to pull down the menu all the time. Kinda like how ClickToFlash works now.
Adobe may be a lot of things, but I don't think they've been legitimately accused of 'monopolist'. People should be more careful when dragging that term into a comments section. (And it's been trotted out against many: Microsoft, which is true in the case of their OS and Office suite; Apple, falsely in the case of their hardware, iPod, and iPhone; Adobe, falsely in the case of their Creative Suite, etc.) It has a strict legal definition, not a subjective feeling towards a company when it gets too big or popular.
Just installed Click to Flash. All I can say is refreshing!
On a side note, I removed all Adobe products from my Mac.
Instead of Photoshop I am using Pixelmator, Coda for web design. Lineform 1.6 beta ( stable so far ) for illustrator and iMovie and FC Studio 3 for video.
I am installing all of my clients video in QT h264 or YouTube and if I need intractivity I plan on using Javascript.
Also, I am using Keynote for some basic QT wired interactivity.
I think Macromedia I mean Adobe has some great products, I am just tired of the bloat and cost and terrible customer service.
We'll see how it goes. No Microsoft and now No Adobe.
Comments
Adobe is doing this using LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine), an open source compiler technology supported by Apple and used in its Xcode Mac and iPhone development tools. The next version of Adobe's Flash development app will simply compile Flash ActionScript into native iPhone code, much as existing tools already allow iPhone developers to write their code using Java, Scheme, or other languages, and then compile the code into C or Objective-C as a native iPhone app.
The iPhone is designed not to support any alternative languages via any sort of virtual machine, which prevents it from running "raw" Java, Flash, .Net, Silverlight, or anything else apart from its native C/Objective-C compiled to the ARM processor. This is enforced in the terms of Apple's SDK agreement. There is however no restriction against compiling any existing code into native C/Objective-C and creating an iPhone app from it.
Wuh?
It's not compilation, it's bridging.
In turn, the code in high-level programming language is compiled into ARM's machine code. This is what precisely GCC does. And LLVM is just a set of front-ends, which chew the code in high-level language, AS3, for one, and expel the program in the form of some internal virtual instructions understandable by GCC modules being the next in the processing chain.
Yesterday an article about how iPhone is one of the few smartphones without Flash support, today an article with a big red title about how much flash sucks and why we don't need it anyway.
Nice to see someone's learning about media manipulation from the Fox network!
This is pretty typical AI.
Yesterday an article about how iPhone is one of the few smartphones without Flash support, today an article with a big red title about how much flash sucks and why we don't need it anyway.
Nice to see someone's learning about media manipulation from the Fox network!
The key to enjoying Appleinsider is to treat it like a hub of unintentional comedy otherwise one will always be in danger of suffering from severe brain damage due to an excessive amounts of facepalms.
HTML5 is shaping up to be quite powerful to code with and exciting to develop in.
As for Flash, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
As for Flash, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
"And I wouldn't be here without such generosity."
LOL. One minute he's not dying, the next he isn't.
Additionally, the plugin can convert requests for YouTube Flash videos into requests for higher quality H.264 videos, allowing desktop users to bypass Flash the same way the iPhone does, and simply play any YouTube videos using the browser's own built-in HTML5 support for direct H.264 playback.
The examples below compare the same HD clip served by YouTube, first rendered using Flash with the standard grey YouTube playback controls, and then presented in H.264 using ClickToFlash to request the non-Flash version from Google. The native HTML5 version results in Safari using its own native QuickTime X playback controls rather than those created by Google using Flash. During playback, Safari's native black playback bar disappears; using the ClickToFlash plugin, the user can also present H.264 videos using full screen playback.
Hang on a minute how is QuickTime X native HTML5 playback? QuickTime's exactly the same idea as Flash. For something to actually be native HTML5 playback it has to be played by the browser in the same way as a jpg is displayed. Otherwise you could just end up with Flash, Quicktime, Windows Media Player and Silverlight all supporting H.264 and being capable of playing the video meaning it would be no different to how it has been for years.
Also like a few people have already said, why not just uninstall Flash?
If you don't throw your back out from cringing at this horrible pro-Flash video, you haven't been paying attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzqd5mHWTHE
What's encouraging (to me) is the growing sentiment against Flash as represented in the comments. YouTube is more a voice (for better or worse) for the technology amateur than tech-specific sites like this. When you lose the general computer-using populace (and have already lost most of the expert audience) it's time to engage in some deep introspection. Which is something that Adobe seems to be in complete denial about.
Holy wishful thinking, Dlux.. clearly most of those comments you linked to come from web developers (read what they actually say, dude). They are not the general computer-using populace, which I should say is composed chiefly of people who don't actually know what Flash is, they just know that, for instance, the video on this or that site won't load on their iPhone, and don't know why.
Also like a few people have already said, why not just uninstall Flash?
If they uninstalled it they couldn't be all angry and shit.
When I visit a site and find all the navigation requires Flash I go away and never return. That can't be good for business.
Whether the Flash developers like it or not, end users avoiding Flash heavy sites, installing Flash blocking plug-ins or simply browsing from their iPhones are going to change things. When half the mobile browsers and a significant number of desktop browsers stop visiting webmasters are going to sit up and take notice. Word is going to make it to CIOs that people are avoiding them because of the design of their websites and they will demand something be done to attract rather than repel visitors.
In simpler language: "as soon as everyone starts acting like ME, thing will change." Let me know how that works out for ya.
In the meantime the rest of us will continue to enjoy Youtube and Hulu and Lexulous and the 50 bazillion other very popular sites for whose content Flash is key.
clicktoflash has been around for a while and was one of the things that made me wait to upgrade to snow leopard. anyone on a laptop should put this in their 'must have' list: no more spinning fans, no more annoying flash ads and the whitelist features make it easy to load flash on the sites you want to (have to) see it on. which in my case is a pretty short list.
I was leary about upgrading to snow leopard, but running Safari 32-bit allows all my plugins to still work. With the ability to X flash from my pages at will I'm not all that concerned about the crash protection of the 64-bit Safari cause 99% of the crashes were flash. With the addition of Glims, if Safari does crash it all comes right back up anyway.
Hang on a minute how is QuickTime X native HTML5 playback? QuickTime's exactly the same idea as Flash. For something to actually be native HTML5 playback it has to be played by the browser in the same way as a jpg is displayed. Otherwise you could just end up with Flash, Quicktime, Windows Media Player and Silverlight all supporting H.264 and being capable of playing the video meaning it would be no different to how it has been for years.
Also like a few people have already said, why not just uninstall Flash?
If I uninstall flash, I don't still have the option to use it. I want it for sites like hulu, just not for sites that are loaded with tons of flash ads. This is especially important if I'm trying to read an article at work & some of the ads popping up on the site show girls in bikinis. I'm aloud to read web content at work when it relates to my job but it is likely to make the boss a little suspicious if he is walking by & there are scantily clad women on my screen.
I actually miss the old days of netscape when you could turn on & off all images & media in the browser so you'd have a text only page. This was of course to help with loading pages over dial-up but a bit more advanced feature in that direction would be nice to see re-integrated into todays popular browsers.
So you're saying x264, libavcodec and others are illegal?
They can be infringing patents from others, it being tolerated as long as they fly under the radar. Those are muddy waters. See, for example, ffmpeg.org's comments about these kind of issues: http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html. Specially this:
"...Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies..."
Let H264, HTTP Streaming, HTML5, and SquirrelFish converge!!!!
PS - Webkit Safari rules.
PPS: Anyone have any good links to HTML5 Canvas demos?
Here.
I love ClickToFlash.... best thing to have and having control of weeding out the FLASH crap content.
yep - this rocks- websites load so much faster- knocked out some ads here too...
When you lose the general computer-using populace (and have already lost most of the expert audience) it's time to engage in some deep introspection. Which is something that Adobe seems to be in complete denial about.
Typical monopolist behavior.
Click-to-Flash rocks!
I actually miss the old days of netscape when you could turn on & off all images & media in the browser so you'd have a text only page.
That's kinda implemented in Safari, if you turn on the Develop menu. (Preferences > Advanced) Unfortunately, it's all or nothing until you change it back, but once you turn 'Disable Images' back off you can simply reload a single page to see them, leaving all the others text-only.
What would be great is if there were a shortcut to enable images on a page-by-page basis, without having to pull down the menu all the time. Kinda like how ClickToFlash works now.
Typical monopolist behavior.
Adobe may be a lot of things, but I don't think they've been legitimately accused of 'monopolist'. People should be more careful when dragging that term into a comments section. (And it's been trotted out against many: Microsoft, which is true in the case of their OS and Office suite; Apple, falsely in the case of their hardware, iPod, and iPhone; Adobe, falsely in the case of their Creative Suite, etc.) It has a strict legal definition, not a subjective feeling towards a company when it gets too big or popular.
On a side note, I removed all Adobe products from my Mac.
Instead of Photoshop I am using Pixelmator, Coda for web design. Lineform 1.6 beta ( stable so far ) for illustrator and iMovie and FC Studio 3 for video.
I am installing all of my clients video in QT h264 or YouTube and if I need intractivity I plan on using Javascript.
Also, I am using Keynote for some basic QT wired interactivity.
I think Macromedia I mean Adobe has some great products, I am just tired of the bloat and cost and terrible customer service.
We'll see how it goes. No Microsoft and now No Adobe.