I don't care how much money you have, you are behaving like a troll and all we have to go on is your behaviour so ... ipso-facto you're a troll as far as I'm concerned.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Even if I agree with your assertions about the performance of iTunes on Windows (I don't, I think you are wildly exaggerating, and I think there is ample evidence out there that you are),
What would that evidence be. My iTunes music collection is a little over 400 GB, on an external drive. Under Mac OSX, it loads pretty quickly. On my wife's laptop, under Windows 7, it takes several minutes to load. I switched my wife over to SongBird and it loads about as quickly as iTunes under Mac. YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
there is a huge logical flaw in your assertion that iTunes on Windows is essentially the same situation as Flash on the web. I'm not going to point it out to you because it's so f*cking obvious. If you don't see it, then you are really not the computer genius you are making yourself out to be are you?
You need to read the whole thing. The original poster wanted to eliminate software based on three criteria proprietary, closed and a hog. Those were the sole reasons he gave for eliminating software and closing the company. Whether the software was a program or a web plug in is irrelevant. The poster stated that the software should "die" for those three reasons. He is entitled to his opinion, but if those are the sole criteria for eliminating software from existence, then a lot of software should go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Whatever "qualifications" or credibility you think you have, all I've seen from you so far,
I never claimed to have any "qualifications" or credibility. I even said I was not a programmer. I asked a series of questions, largely prompted by statements such as those above, that Flash should be removed from existence, pretty much because it does not run well on Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
is that you come here when there is a contentious issue like this and just dump all over everyone who doesn't agree with you in a very aggressive fashion.
Show me a post of mine where I have "dumped", insulted, or called anyone a name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You don't engage others in debate, and you always think you are 100% right and never back down even when it's obvious you are not. You also make many provocative posts that are basically just insults.
What is provocative about asking someone to justify their statements? the only context in which that is provocative is where there is an official dogma that has to be maintained, not unlike Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or Cambodia under Pol Pot. Again, show me where I have insulted anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
So even if you are some rich fancy-pants in real life with some expensive "lab" that you own ... here, you are still just a disagreeable troll poster revelling in what you perceive as Apple's failures and doing nothing constructive.
All I can say to this is that Freud would have a field day with this. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was a rich fancy-pants? Academics does not pay particularly well, so rich couldn't be further from the truth.
My lab is not terribly expensive in the grand scheme of things. It is rather on the small side.
Show me a post where I said that Apple failed at anything. I simply asked why Flash should be removed from the face of the Earth, and the company closed. Again, the only way your assertion is even remotely correct is if one assumes that there is a dogma that Apple is infallible, and that the computer industry should do whatever Steve Jobs says.
I asked why it was Adobe's responsibility to either (1) Fold the tent and close their business, or (2) Spend the time and effort to fix it.
YMMV, but in my experience, Flash on Firefox on my Mac has never crashed. It takes a lot of CPU cycles and the Mac heats up, but then again, the same thing happens with FSL and Matlab. Flash on Safari on a Mac crashes. Flash on a Windows 7 Dell XPS laptop runs fine, no real increase in heat, and not that much of a hog. So, given my experience, Flash is not that bad, and yet people here want it gone, they want web sites to spend millions of dollars and countless number of man hours to recode in HTML 5, whose standards will not be finalized for another 10 years.
So, given that situation it is reasonable to ask, why should Adobe be closed.
Flash is a piece of... hey, perhaps this is one of those rare situations where we ought to give kudos to Microsoft? If open standards don't spook Adobe into remaking flash, Microsoft eating some of Adobe's pie with Silverlight just might. I've found Silverlight to be fast and reliable. I know, Microsoft, but let's give credit where credit is do.
And if Adobe fixes Flash, well shoot, that should be enough to gain access to the iPad. Look, as much as it often seems otherwise, Flash isn't all about simple animations that add nothing to a website. It's Flash games that have me worried, as for some inexplicable reason, a good half of my family is addicted to Flash games and this addiction is sure to factor into their iPad assessments.
My mom and Farmville, an evil game. It is also one that does a number to her late 2006 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook. I often wonder, is this really the same lady who was so very adamant that I not play as many NES games as I did? I also wonder, who does she blame for a slow MacBook, Apple or Adobe? I haven't had the courage to ask, but I fear it isn't Adobe.
So, given that situation it is reasonable to ask, why should Adobe be closed.
There are five pages here but I don't recall anyone saying that Adobe "should be closed". Closed by whom? The claim was that Adobe should have fixed Flash on the Mac a long time ago and that now the demise of Flash is to be welcomed, for the reasons that you mentioned. Personally I would like to see Adobe thrive by becoming a much, much better company
There are five pages here but I don't recall anyone saying that Adobe "should be closed". Closed by whom? The claim was that Adobe should have fixed Flash on the Mac a long time ago and that now the demise of Flash is to be welcomed, for the reasons that you mentioned. Personally I would like to see Adobe thrive by becoming a much, much better company
There are numerous posts in this thread stating that Flash should "die", be gone, gotten rid of, etc. Adobe was a mistyping on my part, I meant Flash.
What got me called a troll was when I questioned LukeSkyMac's assertion that Flash should "die" because it was proprietary, closed and a hog.
People need to think about the consequences of their statements and the consequences of eliminating flash are apparently pretty significant.
Wanting Flash gone means that all those sites that currently run flash have to be recoded, because Flash will no longer be around. This will cost huge amounts of money, and man hours, and potentially be highly disruptive.
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
Flash is a piece of... hey, perhaps this is one of those rare situations where we ought to give kudos to Microsoft? If open standards don't spook Adobe into remaking flash, Microsoft eating some of Adobe's pie with Silverlight just might. I've found Silverlight to fast and reliable. I know, Microsoft, but let's give credit where credit is do.
And if Adobe fixes Flash, well shoot, that should be enough to gain access to the iPad. Look, as much as it often seems otherwise, Flash isn't all about simple animations that add nothing to a website. It's Flash games that have me worried, as for some inexplicable reason, a good half of my family is addicted to Flash games and this addiction is sure to factor into their iPad assessments.
My mom and Farmville, an evil game. It is also one that does a number to her late 2006 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook. I often wonder, is this really the same lady who was so very adamant that I not play as many NES games as I did? I also wonder, who does she blame for a slow MacBook, Apple or Adobe? I haven't had the courage to ask, but I fear it isn't Adobe.
Interesting post. In my view, Adobe is solely to blame for the poor performance of Flash on the Macintosh. After all, it's their software. Some will blame Apple's "small" marketshare as the reason, but that is only the reason why Adobe hasn't invested the resources to fix it, not the reason that it sucks. The reason it sucks is that Adobe hasn't placed enough value in the Macintosh market to fix it.
How's that working for them now?
As to your comment about Silverlight.. Ummm, maybe that's proof that there's no good reason that Flash is so terrible on the Mac? More generally, I have no love for Flash or Silverlight. Why is it that in 2010, we are enslaved by proprietary technologies for delivery of multimedia content over the web?
It's nonsense.
Flash exists because it was the answer to a problem that no longer exists, or conversely, a problem that only exists because unscrupulous companies want to own things that should be publicly accessible. The internet should not be shackled to unnecessary proprietary solutions. What began as a solution has turned into a problem.
Bottom line: Adobe, nor Microsoft, deserve to have any kind of monopoly on internet delivery of multimedia. They both have proven their lack of worth, Microsoft by a judge's decision, and Adobe through their own incompetence.
Farmville. That's a whole 'nother story unto itself. I would suppose that Flash games like Farmville are possibly a reason for Flash to survive. It's not an area that I really care about that much. I'm way more concerned about the importance of multimedia content delivery over the internet, which can be handled very well by emerging open standards. I really don't know if there is a suitable alternative way to develop Flash type games. Don't really care either, but I'm really not a crusader for the death of Adobe. I'm a crusader for the death of Flash as the preferred method for delivering multimedia content over the internet. As for Flash games though, isn't it really in Adobe's interest to make sure that Flash runs well on the Macintosh, considering Apple's regained significance?
The reason it sucks is that Adobe hasn't placed enough value in the Macintosh market to fix it.
Overall an excellent post, and very well put. However, if Adobe made the decision that Mac was not worth the effort, is that a reason to kill it off if it runs reasonably well on other systems, and given my wife's experience, it seems to work just fine on Windows 7. Or is much of this just sour grapes, so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
we are enslaved by proprietary technologies for delivery of multimedia content over the web?
Flash exists because it was the answer to a problem that no longer exists, or conversely, a problem that only exists because unscrupulous companies want to own things that should be publicly accessible. The internet should not be shackled to unnecessary proprietary solutions.
Well said, which is why I use open source when possible - OpenOffice, Miro, Addium, etc. But this applies to all companies, and not just Adobe or MS, nor should it apply only to the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
Farmville. That's a whole 'nother story unto itself. I would suppose that Flash games like Farmville are possibly a reason for Flash to survive. It's not an area that I really care about that much. I'm way more concerned about the importance of multimedia content delivery over the internet, which can be handled very well by emerging open standards. Apple's regained significance?
Again, well said, and you are entitled to your opinion. But the question you raised, has to be answered. What about all those people addicted to Flash games (and my daughter is one of them). If Flash were to "die" as many people here want, all those "millions?" of other people would be denied their entertainment, at least until an alternative were found.
I don't know why you're bothering to argue with these guys. Almost everyone on this thread is just a troll or a hater and you are arguing with three at once.
While I admire the effort, it's not likely that the likes of "Angus Young," "DaHarder," "extremeskater," "grking," "teckstud" or "TEKSTUD" will ever change their spots. These guys only come here when there is some sh*t to spread, or someone to laugh at. They are all exclusively concerned only with their own flapping gums and none of them could argue their way out of a paper bag. Most of them have no experience in the field, no knowledge of what they speak and certainly nothing new to say IMO.
Total waste of time arguing with those guys.
I totally agree with you. Those guys are all in my ignore list. There's no point to waste time arguing with those trolls.
Don't forget sharing all your contacts via Buzz, which you apparently have to opt out of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
I switched to Chrome recently from Firefox. It's the fastest browser around and you really notice the difference. I also like the clutter free, minimalistic design. Plus it has extensions now so you can install adblock etc.
And hey, Google have been on a roll lately, up to all sorts of good from fighting censorship in draconian regimes like China and Australia, giving millions to Wikipedia, and also bringing out the best smart phone to date. (which I don't have, sadly)
To all the trolls having the most marvellous experiences ever with Firefox and Flash, explain this:-
From the release notes of Firefox for Maemo:-
Quote:
Initially, Firefox for N900 does not support browser plug-ins. Due to performance problems using Adobe Flash within Firefox on many websites, especially those with multiple plug-ins on them, we have disabled plugins for Firefox for Maemo 1.0. We plan to provide a browser add-on that will enable you to selectively enable plugins on certain sites, because some sites, like YouTube, work well.
Steve Jobs is 100% correct on this matter, Adobe Flash™ IS A CPU HOG especially on anything that isn't running Windows.
It's up to Adobe to fix it or they will get rolled off to the side like Real Player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Jobs sounds like a really nasty piece of work. Why should any newspaper spend their money on abandoning flash (a technology already installed and working on millions of computers) just because Steve has taken a disliking to it?
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
Since HTML5 is just adding another tag for video, similar to showing a JPG, it's actually just as easy as the "embedded" tag. Rather hard to screw up I would think. The Canvas tag could add some difficulty though(???)
I also don't understand why in this day and age, that you need a plug-in to show video or multimedia.
Selection lists are FAR easier with static code or Java/AJAX code.
As for games... that will be taken care of with Flash CS5 being able to port the code as a properly coded APP. I expect that Farmville will be one of the first to jump on that train... if they're that popular(?)
The only thing left, is what to do about ads. I say, leave 'em static as in JPGs or animated GIFs. Regardless, I will do my best to block 'em...even though I'm in the industry. Unfortunately, I have a very slow internet connection.
PS. As I understand it, the main concern happens to be with Hulu (for the Americans) being able to play on the iPod (similar to the American only service of Pandora Radio not multi-tasking). Hulu has already announced that they are working on an app for Apple's i-devices. But for other sites out there, where is the problem of breaking up say, a TV show into parts/slices... and then using a Java rotating script to throw in the video ads in between? This is the old school way with JPGs, so I can't imagine that this would not be available using the "video" tag.
I should note, that I can't use Hulu to know how they subsidize their service. If I understand it, they use Flash overlays for ads...?
HTML5 is currently a CPU hog too. I don't think Canvas content is hardware accelerated yet so when adverts come on that can't be blocked by say ClickToFlash, there will be a whole other group of people complaining about HTML5.
Flash is of course buggy and slow and the support for HTML5 isn't complete yet and I believe HTML5 will certainly get better implementations that are more efficient for the CPU but there will always be people who don't know how to use it and will drop high resolution 1MB+ image content into a dynamic animation and it will slow the machine down.
Flash did cause most of my browser crashes and I can't in fact remember the last time Safari crashed since I've had Flash blocked - hopefully HTML5 won't have similar issues. I agree with the decision not to support it, it's just a shame that Apple always has to be the one to drop support for things before the industry wakes up and makes some changes.
Quote:
"We're totally open to hearing feedback like that," Lynch said.
This I find really dubious. Are they trying to convince us that this is the first of them hearing about these problems? Flash on the Mac has always been poor and they've had over a decade to do something about it but chose not to. All improvements like hardware acceleration always go into the Windows version first. This is anti-competitive as it's software that large companies rely on to deliver content but for platforms other than Windows, companies have to wait on Adobe building some unoptimized makeshift plugin.
The one thing Flash did right was offer a solution to the limitations in the HTML spec and that's really why it exists in the first place. If anyone should be called lazy, it's the HTML spec developers. It's 2010 and there's still no support for multiple uploads and we're only now getting vector animation and cross-platform video. Why wasn't this introduced 5 years ago or when Youtube was introduced? Youtube has grown our dependence on Flash considerably.
Since HTML5 is just adding another tag for video, similar to showing a JPG, it's actually just as easy as the "embedded" tag. Rather hard to screw up I would think. The Canvas tag could add some difficulty though(???)
I also don't understand why in this day and age, that you need a plug-in to show video or multimedia.
Selection lists are FAR easier with static code or Java/AJAX code.
As for games... that will be taken care of with Flash CS5 being able to port the code as a properly coded APP. I expect that Farmville will be one of the first to jump on that train... if they're that popular(?)
The only thing left, is what to do about ads. I say, leave 'em static as in JPGs or animated GIFs. Regardless, I will do my best to block 'em...even though I'm in the industry. Unfortunately, I have a very slow internet connection.
1) I made it a little clearer for those not familiar with HTML formatting.
2) The HTML is simple, but the controller is certain a lot of clever code. The good thing is once it's been worked out it won't have to be reinvented again. As i'm sure you know, the Sublime video can do full screen with the latest WebKit builds. I have no idea what changed in WebKit to allow that feature
3) Some Canvas demos aren't processor intensive while other are. It's hard to tell if it's too early in its development o be coded efficiently for complex effects or if it's just poor coding. Either way, it holds a lot of promise for the future.
4) I think Mozilla is going to eventually fold on supporting H.264, but before that I think Firefox will get a plug-in for H.264. H.264 and HTML5 video tag are hear to stay.
5) The games are an interesting argument for Flash on the iPhone since most games won't play without a mouse and/or keyboard. Adobe's SDK to convert them to iPhone apps is pretty cool and I'm surprised Adobe jumped on that so quickly.
6) In a few years we might start seeing Canvas replace Flash ads, perhaps even on all these mobile devices running WebKit. I fear what that will do to system resources.
HTML5 is currently a CPU hog too. I don't think Canvas content is hardware accelerated yet so when adverts come on that can't be blocked by say ClickToFlash, there will be a whole other group of people complaining about HTML5.
That is a valid point and I think Canvas will be the new Flash eventually, but there a few things that will likely minimize its impact... hopeful. By the time Canvas gains any traction on the internet WebGL will likely be entrenched in browsers, mobile devices will considerably more powerful by then, and it will hopefully be much more efficient than it is now.
The blank boxes click to flash presents on my MacBook are quite good, you see any webmaster worth their salt will be watching for ad blockers such as "Click to Flash" and when advertisers get wind of their ads not being seen, then they will start asking for alternatives so their ads are noticed.
The same goes for Flash based sites, if I was an advertiser, spending money to support such a site I would like to know how many visitors come along, load nothing and then leave.
If you aren't watching such stats you're throwing money away.
Savvy web developers will be prepared for this with alternatives and ever so slowly Adobe's little empire will crumble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD
Yet everyday the AI elite see FLASH up and running on AI itself!
There are numerous posts in this thread stating that Flash should "die", be gone, gotten rid of, etc. Adobe was a mistyping on my part, I meant Flash.
What got me called a troll was when I questioned LukeSkyMac's assertion that Flash should "die" because it was proprietary, closed and a hog.
People need to think about the consequences of their statements and the consequences of eliminating flash are apparently pretty significant.
Wanting Flash gone means that all those sites that currently run flash have to be recoded, because Flash will no longer be around. This will cost huge amounts of money, and man hours, and potentially be highly disruptive.
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you are arguing what you are arguing if you are not just trolling ? and I'm trying hard to be sympathetic here. Look at it this way: everyone could see six years ago at the least that mobile computing was the way of the future. For the last three years, at the very least, it has been clear that Apple would be a major player in this mobile computing future. But all this time Adobe have sat on their hands and done nothing to improve Flash ? nothing to improve Flash on the Mac even on conventional laptops and desktops. Just nothing. Apple have done the only thing they can do in this circumstance ? they have shut Flash out of the iPad and iPhone. Mac users are understandably angry at this treatment from Adobe and look forward to the day when this will no longer be a problem: the demise of Flash on the web. In the midst of this you front up and defend this lazy-ass Adobe with the argument that they aren't obliged to make Flash work well on the mac because there just aren't enough Macs to make it worth their while. So it is ok as far as you are concerned for Adobe to degrade the experience of Mac users, and maybe try to drive the company out of business by making their computers not work on a large number of web sites, but is not ok for Mac users to wish that this plug-in be relegated to the dust-bin and be replaced across the web with something non-proprietary. Don't you see the screwiness of your own logic?
You are like the spectator on a fight who has stood by and watched one guy get pummeled for years by the other guy and then when the underdog throws a decisive punch back suddenly yells out "Hey no fair, that guy is nice to my wife!"
Just stand back from this for a minute and you can see where the calls of "troll" are coming from.
i recommended a friend to buy a macbook a few weeks ago. He did.
Nothing but complaints since. It hangs, spinning ball, he has to restart many times a day.
I narrowed the problem down to "it happens when i'm on the web"; i noticed that he likes to spend time on youtube, and that he opens multiple tabs in safari.
I installed clicktoflash 4 days ago, all problems gone, he's delighted.
From someone who was complaining and ready to return the device he is now someone recommending others to buy an apple computer.
This has nothing to do with underpowered handhelds.
I'm thinking Apple should launch a Flash studio clone for HTML5 then, something that can do animations, maybe compile into html5, css3, javascript/jquery, json encoded animation paths.
Sure it's a CPU hog when it's running on the underpowered devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch and the mere 1 Ghz iPad which Flash wasn't designed to run on.
Flash was designed with the increase of processor performance on computers in mind, not these underpowered hand held devices.
Well, given that mobile devices are the future of computing (whether or not you care to admit it), you've just more or less proved SJ's alleged point.
OTOH Snow Leopard is a perfect example of a piece of software that simultaneously gets more efficient as it gets faster, something that Flash has never done, at least on a Mac.
I think it's hard to compare Flash directly to HTML 5 except in regard to video. They do things differently, and as I understand it, Flash can do a lot of things programatically that a markup language just can't do. That said, I've always enjoyed my browsing experience on my iPhone. I actually think the whole issue may be partially due to Steve's desire for things to "just work" and the way a Flash UI would respond to touch, as I recently blogged about here:
HTML5 is currently a CPU hog too. I don't think Canvas content is hardware accelerated yet so when adverts come on that can't be blocked by say ClickToFlash, there will be a whole other group of people complaining about HTML5.
I am pretty sure you are wrong.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
Comments
Isn't that the truth. A puny large iPod hand held mobile device that runs iTunes Apps only?
Recipe for success.
Tek, why are you here? Every quarter Apple proves you wrong.
I don't care how much money you have, you are behaving like a troll and all we have to go on is your behaviour so ... ipso-facto you're a troll as far as I'm concerned.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Even if I agree with your assertions about the performance of iTunes on Windows (I don't, I think you are wildly exaggerating, and I think there is ample evidence out there that you are),
What would that evidence be. My iTunes music collection is a little over 400 GB, on an external drive. Under Mac OSX, it loads pretty quickly. On my wife's laptop, under Windows 7, it takes several minutes to load. I switched my wife over to SongBird and it loads about as quickly as iTunes under Mac. YMMV.
there is a huge logical flaw in your assertion that iTunes on Windows is essentially the same situation as Flash on the web. I'm not going to point it out to you because it's so f*cking obvious. If you don't see it, then you are really not the computer genius you are making yourself out to be are you?
You need to read the whole thing. The original poster wanted to eliminate software based on three criteria proprietary, closed and a hog. Those were the sole reasons he gave for eliminating software and closing the company. Whether the software was a program or a web plug in is irrelevant. The poster stated that the software should "die" for those three reasons. He is entitled to his opinion, but if those are the sole criteria for eliminating software from existence, then a lot of software should go.
Whatever "qualifications" or credibility you think you have, all I've seen from you so far,
I never claimed to have any "qualifications" or credibility. I even said I was not a programmer. I asked a series of questions, largely prompted by statements such as those above, that Flash should be removed from existence, pretty much because it does not run well on Macs.
is that you come here when there is a contentious issue like this and just dump all over everyone who doesn't agree with you in a very aggressive fashion.
Show me a post of mine where I have "dumped", insulted, or called anyone a name.
You don't engage others in debate, and you always think you are 100% right and never back down even when it's obvious you are not. You also make many provocative posts that are basically just insults.
What is provocative about asking someone to justify their statements? the only context in which that is provocative is where there is an official dogma that has to be maintained, not unlike Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or Cambodia under Pol Pot. Again, show me where I have insulted anyone.
So even if you are some rich fancy-pants in real life with some expensive "lab" that you own ... here, you are still just a disagreeable troll poster revelling in what you perceive as Apple's failures and doing nothing constructive.
All I can say to this is that Freud would have a field day with this. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was a rich fancy-pants? Academics does not pay particularly well, so rich couldn't be further from the truth.
My lab is not terribly expensive in the grand scheme of things. It is rather on the small side.
Show me a post where I said that Apple failed at anything. I simply asked why Flash should be removed from the face of the Earth, and the company closed. Again, the only way your assertion is even remotely correct is if one assumes that there is a dogma that Apple is infallible, and that the computer industry should do whatever Steve Jobs says.
I asked why it was Adobe's responsibility to either (1) Fold the tent and close their business, or (2) Spend the time and effort to fix it.
YMMV, but in my experience, Flash on Firefox on my Mac has never crashed. It takes a lot of CPU cycles and the Mac heats up, but then again, the same thing happens with FSL and Matlab. Flash on Safari on a Mac crashes. Flash on a Windows 7 Dell XPS laptop runs fine, no real increase in heat, and not that much of a hog. So, given my experience, Flash is not that bad, and yet people here want it gone, they want web sites to spend millions of dollars and countless number of man hours to recode in HTML 5, whose standards will not be finalized for another 10 years.
So, given that situation it is reasonable to ask, why should Adobe be closed.
And if Adobe fixes Flash, well shoot, that should be enough to gain access to the iPad. Look, as much as it often seems otherwise, Flash isn't all about simple animations that add nothing to a website. It's Flash games that have me worried, as for some inexplicable reason, a good half of my family is addicted to Flash games and this addiction is sure to factor into their iPad assessments.
My mom and Farmville, an evil game. It is also one that does a number to her late 2006 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook. I often wonder, is this really the same lady who was so very adamant that I not play as many NES games as I did? I also wonder, who does she blame for a slow MacBook, Apple or Adobe? I haven't had the courage to ask, but I fear it isn't Adobe.
So, given that situation it is reasonable to ask, why should Adobe be closed.
There are five pages here but I don't recall anyone saying that Adobe "should be closed". Closed by whom? The claim was that Adobe should have fixed Flash on the Mac a long time ago and that now the demise of Flash is to be welcomed, for the reasons that you mentioned. Personally I would like to see Adobe thrive by becoming a much, much better company
There are five pages here but I don't recall anyone saying that Adobe "should be closed". Closed by whom? The claim was that Adobe should have fixed Flash on the Mac a long time ago and that now the demise of Flash is to be welcomed, for the reasons that you mentioned. Personally I would like to see Adobe thrive by becoming a much, much better company
There are numerous posts in this thread stating that Flash should "die", be gone, gotten rid of, etc. Adobe was a mistyping on my part, I meant Flash.
What got me called a troll was when I questioned LukeSkyMac's assertion that Flash should "die" because it was proprietary, closed and a hog.
People need to think about the consequences of their statements and the consequences of eliminating flash are apparently pretty significant.
Wanting Flash gone means that all those sites that currently run flash have to be recoded, because Flash will no longer be around. This will cost huge amounts of money, and man hours, and potentially be highly disruptive.
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
Flash is a piece of... hey, perhaps this is one of those rare situations where we ought to give kudos to Microsoft? If open standards don't spook Adobe into remaking flash, Microsoft eating some of Adobe's pie with Silverlight just might. I've found Silverlight to fast and reliable. I know, Microsoft, but let's give credit where credit is do.
And if Adobe fixes Flash, well shoot, that should be enough to gain access to the iPad. Look, as much as it often seems otherwise, Flash isn't all about simple animations that add nothing to a website. It's Flash games that have me worried, as for some inexplicable reason, a good half of my family is addicted to Flash games and this addiction is sure to factor into their iPad assessments.
My mom and Farmville, an evil game. It is also one that does a number to her late 2006 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook. I often wonder, is this really the same lady who was so very adamant that I not play as many NES games as I did? I also wonder, who does she blame for a slow MacBook, Apple or Adobe? I haven't had the courage to ask, but I fear it isn't Adobe.
Interesting post. In my view, Adobe is solely to blame for the poor performance of Flash on the Macintosh. After all, it's their software. Some will blame Apple's "small" marketshare as the reason, but that is only the reason why Adobe hasn't invested the resources to fix it, not the reason that it sucks. The reason it sucks is that Adobe hasn't placed enough value in the Macintosh market to fix it.
How's that working for them now?
As to your comment about Silverlight.. Ummm, maybe that's proof that there's no good reason that Flash is so terrible on the Mac? More generally, I have no love for Flash or Silverlight. Why is it that in 2010, we are enslaved by proprietary technologies for delivery of multimedia content over the web?
It's nonsense.
Flash exists because it was the answer to a problem that no longer exists, or conversely, a problem that only exists because unscrupulous companies want to own things that should be publicly accessible. The internet should not be shackled to unnecessary proprietary solutions. What began as a solution has turned into a problem.
Bottom line: Adobe, nor Microsoft, deserve to have any kind of monopoly on internet delivery of multimedia. They both have proven their lack of worth, Microsoft by a judge's decision, and Adobe through their own incompetence.
Farmville. That's a whole 'nother story unto itself. I would suppose that Flash games like Farmville are possibly a reason for Flash to survive. It's not an area that I really care about that much. I'm way more concerned about the importance of multimedia content delivery over the internet, which can be handled very well by emerging open standards. I really don't know if there is a suitable alternative way to develop Flash type games. Don't really care either, but I'm really not a crusader for the death of Adobe. I'm a crusader for the death of Flash as the preferred method for delivering multimedia content over the internet. As for Flash games though, isn't it really in Adobe's interest to make sure that Flash runs well on the Macintosh, considering Apple's regained significance?
I'm just sayin'..
The reason it sucks is that Adobe hasn't placed enough value in the Macintosh market to fix it.
Overall an excellent post, and very well put. However, if Adobe made the decision that Mac was not worth the effort, is that a reason to kill it off if it runs reasonably well on other systems, and given my wife's experience, it seems to work just fine on Windows 7. Or is much of this just sour grapes, so to speak.
we are enslaved by proprietary technologies for delivery of multimedia content over the web?
Flash exists because it was the answer to a problem that no longer exists, or conversely, a problem that only exists because unscrupulous companies want to own things that should be publicly accessible. The internet should not be shackled to unnecessary proprietary solutions.
Well said, which is why I use open source when possible - OpenOffice, Miro, Addium, etc. But this applies to all companies, and not just Adobe or MS, nor should it apply only to the internet.
Farmville. That's a whole 'nother story unto itself. I would suppose that Flash games like Farmville are possibly a reason for Flash to survive. It's not an area that I really care about that much. I'm way more concerned about the importance of multimedia content delivery over the internet, which can be handled very well by emerging open standards. Apple's regained significance?
Again, well said, and you are entitled to your opinion. But the question you raised, has to be answered. What about all those people addicted to Flash games (and my daughter is one of them). If Flash were to "die" as many people here want, all those "millions?" of other people would be denied their entertainment, at least until an alternative were found.
I don't know why you're bothering to argue with these guys. Almost everyone on this thread is just a troll or a hater and you are arguing with three at once.
While I admire the effort, it's not likely that the likes of "Angus Young," "DaHarder," "extremeskater," "grking," "teckstud" or "TEKSTUD" will ever change their spots. These guys only come here when there is some sh*t to spread, or someone to laugh at. They are all exclusively concerned only with their own flapping gums and none of them could argue their way out of a paper bag. Most of them have no experience in the field, no knowledge of what they speak and certainly nothing new to say IMO.
Total waste of time arguing with those guys.
I totally agree with you. Those guys are all in my ignore list. There's no point to waste time arguing with those trolls.
I switched to Chrome recently from Firefox. It's the fastest browser around and you really notice the difference. I also like the clutter free, minimalistic design. Plus it has extensions now so you can install adblock etc.
And hey, Google have been on a roll lately, up to all sorts of good from fighting censorship in draconian regimes like China and Australia, giving millions to Wikipedia, and also bringing out the best smart phone to date. (which I don't have, sadly)
To all the trolls having the most marvellous experiences ever with Firefox and Flash, explain this:-
From the release notes of Firefox for Maemo:-
Initially, Firefox for N900 does not support browser plug-ins. Due to performance problems using Adobe Flash within Firefox on many websites, especially those with multiple plug-ins on them, we have disabled plugins for Firefox for Maemo 1.0. We plan to provide a browser add-on that will enable you to selectively enable plugins on certain sites, because some sites, like YouTube, work well.
Source
Steve Jobs is 100% correct on this matter, Adobe Flash™ IS A CPU HOG especially on anything that isn't running Windows.
It's up to Adobe to fix it or they will get rolled off to the side like Real Player.
Jobs sounds like a really nasty piece of work. Why should any newspaper spend their money on abandoning flash (a technology already installed and working on millions of computers) just because Steve has taken a disliking to it?
He lives in a dream world.
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
Since HTML5 is just adding another tag for video, similar to showing a JPG, it's actually just as easy as the "embedded" tag. Rather hard to screw up I would think. The Canvas tag could add some difficulty though(???)
The sample code from the Sublime Video:
<div id='video_wrap'>
<video class='sublime' height='255' poster='http://assets3.jilion.com/02182010172704/images/embed/sublime/video/poster.jpg?1266510394' width='600'>
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.mov' type='video/mp4' />
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.mp4' type='video/mp4' />
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.ogv' type='video/ogg' />
</video>
</div>
I also don't understand why in this day and age, that you need a plug-in to show video or multimedia.
Selection lists are FAR easier with static code or Java/AJAX code.
As for games... that will be taken care of with Flash CS5 being able to port the code as a properly coded APP. I expect that Farmville will be one of the first to jump on that train... if they're that popular(?)
The only thing left, is what to do about ads. I say, leave 'em static as in JPGs or animated GIFs. Regardless, I will do my best to block 'em...even though I'm in the industry. Unfortunately, I have a very slow internet connection.
PS. As I understand it, the main concern happens to be with Hulu (for the Americans) being able to play on the iPod (similar to the American only service of Pandora Radio not multi-tasking). Hulu has already announced that they are working on an app for Apple's i-devices. But for other sites out there, where is the problem of breaking up say, a TV show into parts/slices... and then using a Java rotating script to throw in the video ads in between? This is the old school way with JPGs, so I can't imagine that this would not be available using the "video" tag.
I should note, that I can't use Hulu to know how they subsidize their service. If I understand it, they use Flash overlays for ads...?
Flash is of course buggy and slow and the support for HTML5 isn't complete yet and I believe HTML5 will certainly get better implementations that are more efficient for the CPU but there will always be people who don't know how to use it and will drop high resolution 1MB+ image content into a dynamic animation and it will slow the machine down.
Flash did cause most of my browser crashes and I can't in fact remember the last time Safari crashed since I've had Flash blocked - hopefully HTML5 won't have similar issues. I agree with the decision not to support it, it's just a shame that Apple always has to be the one to drop support for things before the industry wakes up and makes some changes.
"We're totally open to hearing feedback like that," Lynch said.
This I find really dubious. Are they trying to convince us that this is the first of them hearing about these problems? Flash on the Mac has always been poor and they've had over a decade to do something about it but chose not to. All improvements like hardware acceleration always go into the Windows version first. This is anti-competitive as it's software that large companies rely on to deliver content but for platforms other than Windows, companies have to wait on Adobe building some unoptimized makeshift plugin.
The one thing Flash did right was offer a solution to the limitations in the HTML spec and that's really why it exists in the first place. If anyone should be called lazy, it's the HTML spec developers. It's 2010 and there's still no support for multiple uploads and we're only now getting vector animation and cross-platform video. Why wasn't this introduced 5 years ago or when Youtube was introduced? Youtube has grown our dependence on Flash considerably.
Since HTML5 is just adding another tag for video, similar to showing a JPG, it's actually just as easy as the "embedded" tag. Rather hard to screw up I would think. The Canvas tag could add some difficulty though(???)
The sample code from the Sublime Video:
<div id='video_wrap'>
<video class='sublime' height='255' poster='http://assets3.jilion.com/02182010172704/images/embed/sublime/video/poster.jpg?1266510394' width='600'>
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.mov' type='video/mp4' />
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.mp4' type='video/mp4' />
<source title='http://medias.jilion.com/sublimevideo/dartmoor.ogv' type='video/ogg' />
</video>
</div>
I also don't understand why in this day and age, that you need a plug-in to show video or multimedia.
Selection lists are FAR easier with static code or Java/AJAX code.
As for games... that will be taken care of with Flash CS5 being able to port the code as a properly coded APP. I expect that Farmville will be one of the first to jump on that train... if they're that popular(?)
The only thing left, is what to do about ads. I say, leave 'em static as in JPGs or animated GIFs. Regardless, I will do my best to block 'em...even though I'm in the industry. Unfortunately, I have a very slow internet connection.
1) I made it a little clearer for those not familiar with HTML formatting.2) The HTML is simple, but the controller is certain a lot of clever code. The good thing is once it's been worked out it won't have to be reinvented again. As i'm sure you know, the Sublime video can do full screen with the latest WebKit builds. I have no idea what changed in WebKit to allow that feature
3) Some Canvas demos aren't processor intensive while other are. It's hard to tell if it's too early in its development o be coded efficiently for complex effects or if it's just poor coding. Either way, it holds a lot of promise for the future.
4) I think Mozilla is going to eventually fold on supporting H.264, but before that I think Firefox will get a plug-in for H.264. H.264 and HTML5 video tag are hear to stay.
5) The games are an interesting argument for Flash on the iPhone since most games won't play without a mouse and/or keyboard. Adobe's SDK to convert them to iPhone apps is pretty cool and I'm surprised Adobe jumped on that so quickly.
6) In a few years we might start seeing Canvas replace Flash ads, perhaps even on all these mobile devices running WebKit. I fear what that will do to system resources.
HTML5 is currently a CPU hog too. I don't think Canvas content is hardware accelerated yet so when adverts come on that can't be blocked by say ClickToFlash, there will be a whole other group of people complaining about HTML5.
That is a valid point and I think Canvas will be the new Flash eventually, but there a few things that will likely minimize its impact... hopeful. By the time Canvas gains any traction on the internet WebGL will likely be entrenched in browsers, mobile devices will considerably more powerful by then, and it will hopefully be much more efficient than it is now.
The blank boxes click to flash presents on my MacBook are quite good, you see any webmaster worth their salt will be watching for ad blockers such as "Click to Flash" and when advertisers get wind of their ads not being seen, then they will start asking for alternatives so their ads are noticed.
The same goes for Flash based sites, if I was an advertiser, spending money to support such a site I would like to know how many visitors come along, load nothing and then leave.
If you aren't watching such stats you're throwing money away.
Savvy web developers will be prepared for this with alternatives and ever so slowly Adobe's little empire will crumble.
Yet everyday the AI elite see FLASH up and running on AI itself!
There are numerous posts in this thread stating that Flash should "die", be gone, gotten rid of, etc. Adobe was a mistyping on my part, I meant Flash.
What got me called a troll was when I questioned LukeSkyMac's assertion that Flash should "die" because it was proprietary, closed and a hog.
People need to think about the consequences of their statements and the consequences of eliminating flash are apparently pretty significant.
Wanting Flash gone means that all those sites that currently run flash have to be recoded, because Flash will no longer be around. This will cost huge amounts of money, and man hours, and potentially be highly disruptive.
The HTML 5 demo is nice, but since the standards have not been set, I am not confident that different browsers, companies, etc. will implement it in a consistent manner, which will be disruptive to the surfing experience.
Is Flash perfect, no. Could it be better, yes. But calls for the elimination of entire set of software tools that are used to deliver approximate 75% of the video, and a huge portion of the free games on the internet, because it is not perfect on a Mac, is a bit extreme, especially when there is no clean replacement.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you are arguing what you are arguing if you are not just trolling ? and I'm trying hard to be sympathetic here. Look at it this way: everyone could see six years ago at the least that mobile computing was the way of the future. For the last three years, at the very least, it has been clear that Apple would be a major player in this mobile computing future. But all this time Adobe have sat on their hands and done nothing to improve Flash ? nothing to improve Flash on the Mac even on conventional laptops and desktops. Just nothing. Apple have done the only thing they can do in this circumstance ? they have shut Flash out of the iPad and iPhone. Mac users are understandably angry at this treatment from Adobe and look forward to the day when this will no longer be a problem: the demise of Flash on the web. In the midst of this you front up and defend this lazy-ass Adobe with the argument that they aren't obliged to make Flash work well on the mac because there just aren't enough Macs to make it worth their while. So it is ok as far as you are concerned for Adobe to degrade the experience of Mac users, and maybe try to drive the company out of business by making their computers not work on a large number of web sites, but is not ok for Mac users to wish that this plug-in be relegated to the dust-bin and be replaced across the web with something non-proprietary. Don't you see the screwiness of your own logic?
You are like the spectator on a fight who has stood by and watched one guy get pummeled for years by the other guy and then when the underdog throws a decisive punch back suddenly yells out "Hey no fair, that guy is nice to my wife!"
Just stand back from this for a minute and you can see where the calls of "troll" are coming from.
i recommended a friend to buy a macbook a few weeks ago. He did.
Nothing but complaints since. It hangs, spinning ball, he has to restart many times a day.
I narrowed the problem down to "it happens when i'm on the web"; i noticed that he likes to spend time on youtube, and that he opens multiple tabs in safari.
I installed clicktoflash 4 days ago, all problems gone, he's delighted.
From someone who was complaining and ready to return the device he is now someone recommending others to buy an apple computer.
This has nothing to do with underpowered handhelds.
bingo
f..flash
Sure it's a CPU hog when it's running on the underpowered devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch and the mere 1 Ghz iPad which Flash wasn't designed to run on.
Flash was designed with the increase of processor performance on computers in mind, not these underpowered hand held devices.
Well, given that mobile devices are the future of computing (whether or not you care to admit it), you've just more or less proved SJ's alleged point.
OTOH Snow Leopard is a perfect example of a piece of software that simultaneously gets more efficient as it gets faster, something that Flash has never done, at least on a Mac.
http://www.whatthehellisappledoing.c...so-flashy.html
HTML5 is currently a CPU hog too. I don't think Canvas content is hardware accelerated yet so when adverts come on that can't be blocked by say ClickToFlash, there will be a whole other group of people complaining about HTML5.
I am pretty sure you are wrong.
It is possible to write an HTML 5 app which taxes the CPU - but it's clear that simple HTML5 canvas animation is GPU accelerated. In Flash, the rasterization is happening on the CPU.
For example: Checkout this little link on the iPhone. This is running super smooth on my 3G. Those sprite like elements moving behind the text are clearly being composited by the GPU.
http://webkit.org/blog-files/leaves/index.html
C.