Inside Apple's iPad: Adobe Flash

13468929

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    How would you interact with it? Did they rewrite to work with a finger-based touchscreen as well as a keyboard and mouse? They could always make into an App Store app. Adobe specifically made that an option because Flash apps don't work on touchscreens anyway without a rewrite.



    Well, it had a touch interface... but that is about all I know.
  • Reply 102 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bartfat View Post


    That may be true in certain cases, but there's still the issue that too many sites rely on Flash when you could do it in plain HTML and once rendered, HTML does not suck CPU. Meanwhile, Flash will keep sucking CPU till the end of time or until you exit that Flash page. I'm actually tempted to say that you work for Adobe if you say that Flash is largely energy equivalent to simple HTML and CSS.



    Actually, I don't work for Adobe. And I certainly didn't mean to say that Flash is equivalent to simple HTML and CSS. I absolutely abhor sites completely built in Flash.



    What I'm getting at is that most people complain about resource-intensive Flash ads and video. Using HTML5 (<video>) and SVG+CSS (animated SVG, the Webkit blog has some examples) to do the same things does not provide any performance benefits at the moment.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post


    The problem is that both Flash content AND open web content authored in JavaScript can be optimized by improving the rendering engine. However, if everything is done in Flash, only Adobe can do anything to improve things. If you're using web apps authored in JavaScript and web standards, then new innovations in HTML and JavaScript rendering at Apple and Google and Mozilla and whoever else in the community can compete to deliver improvements.



    If you look back, Adobe/Macromedia has done very little to improve core Flash performance over the last decade, certainly nothing like the vast improvement in JavaScript that has exploded in the last few years due to intense competition in the browser arena.



    This is a benefit of open source and open standards and should not be overlooked.



    I'm absolutely not against open standards, but as long as they perform worse, I'd like a choice. I have no idea what Adobe and Macromedia has done to improve Flash over time; frankly, I don't care. As long as it performs better, I'd like to use it, if it doesn't, I'm more than happy to switch.





    To me, it seems like the real battle is with the advertising agencies and the resellers of ad space that insists on and accepts (*cough*), respectively, the use of animated advertisements. I'm reasonably sure Adobe will develop tools for whatever they decide upon, even if they ditch Flash.
  • Reply 103 of 573
    Flash - No Flash!



    I don't think the average user cares. Most of us just want a good computing experience with smooth operation and long battery life on portable devices.
  • Reply 104 of 573
    It's interesting to note the bias, or lack of current information, in this article of not including any mention that the latest development runtime of Flash supports Core Animation in the latest Safari build. I believe Flash Player 10.1 is supporting it, just do a search as this is recent news.
  • Reply 105 of 573
    Apple: buy Adobe, recycle any useful parts, then kill it.
  • Reply 106 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rnp1 View Post


    Steve Jobs has a grudge:

    1. Why aren't people all using Quicktime rather than Flash?

    2. In the 80's& 90's, only Mac's ran Photoshop and PageMaker.

    3. Microsoft hired W&K to create the Windows 95's release.

    4. It was all done on Macs, using Adobe. The Flag, the stolen Mac icons, not to mention the code itself. Even the Rolling Stones edit. All on Macs!

    5. Bill Gates found out and demanded everyone at W&K throw away their Macs and get PCs!

    6. Adobe became a traitor and rewrote all their standardized, user friendly programs for PC.

    7. Microsoft bought the Mac based Movie editor, Avid, and forced audio giant ProTools onto PCs too.

    8. Microsoft directly lifted the QuickTime code, but got caught before Paul Allan could rewrite it and bury the roots as was done to Mac's System, which became Windows 3.0.

    9. Steve Jobs regained Apple and returned the company to being a Mac maker rather than a PC cloner/copier.

    10. Adobe still writes their programs for PCs first, then makes a pseudo standardized Mac version, which is based on the cluttered, randomized PC version-so it is artistically unsatisfying, but does the job, and gives Intel a reason to build faster chips.

    11. Adobe's code is bloated and over written and as unstable as any PC program.

    12. Steve Jobs is still not a fool. "Fool me once...!"

    13. Therefore, Flash isn't on the well protected iPhone and won't be easily available on the iPad.

    14. W&K is still bullied by Nike, the purely money based charade, who has a Flashed based web site and still abuses child labor, as they pioneered over 25 years ago. Now we have WallMart and Secret Chinese Apple factories! (No Logo). Way to go Phil! (In China, he is known as, Fear Night! All the workers really do fear night, because that's when the North Korean task masters suddenly wake up and whip them for no reason). If Phil's wife ever finds out about those Illuminati/Jesuit Luciferian connections, it could cost him a very pretty Penny!

    ---The Real Insider---



    Nice historic overview. Thanks!
  • Reply 107 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    The real reason you will not see Flash on the iPad is so Apple can force you to buy content on iTunes. It's a ploy.



    Oh is that so? What content am I forced to buy exactly? And don't give me that "Hulu" crap argument. I've watched a show on Hulu maybe a total 3 times. Youtube has HTML5, Movies I get from Netflix, and tv shows.... well, I watch them on that thing called "TV" ... I know.. crazy huh? Worst case, I'll use bit torrent to find a TV if I need to see it. HD, no commercials, and NOT in flash. But hey... even with bit torrent.. I think I've only downloaded a total of 5 shows ever. The rest were watched on that crazy Tel-a-vishun thing.



    So again.. what am I being forced to buy?
  • Reply 108 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You're right, but that is hardly an issue. There is nothing corporate websites need that require HTML5 on IE right now. The benefits of HTML5 can be seen in the consumer space, but are most relevant on mobiles where resources (including power) are limited and where current Flash apps and games simply doesn't work on a touchscreen.



    Right now, the video tag is the most relevant aspect of HTML5, and it's part of every decent mobile browser. I would not be surprised to see Windows Phone 7 Series support the video tag out of the gate despite the desktop browser's lack of support. It's just too important to the mobile space for streaming video. The benefits are clear on the desktop, too, but the requirment isn't there.



    Consumers do much of their surfing from work. To give you an example, if Facebook were to drop IE support, the site would go probably suffer a huge drop in usage. With much of the "customers" of social networking and other "consumer" websites forced to use IE, the benefits of moving the HTML 5 are totally out of reach.
  • Reply 109 of 573
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    It won't hurt sales (it's an Apple product after all). But for the first time I think the average consumer will actually notice that there are parts of the web that don't work on an Apple mobile device.



    Until now, I'll bet that the vast majority of iPhone and iPod Touch owners largely frequented a few sites on a regular basis as opposed to surfing the web more broadly and so they probably had very limited interaction with Flash. When the iPad comes and they encounter more blue bricks they are going to start wondering what's going on.
  • Reply 110 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    This is a bit misleading. In almost every single case it's actually free right now, not requiring even a "modest fee."



    For distributors. Currently. Not for codec and hardwaremakers.

    Quote:

    Also, MPEGLA has stated very recently their intentions to keep it free for the next few years, so you are painting a picture of an immanent danger here that doesn't really exist.



    I painted no such picture, because I said absolutely nothing about "imminent."

    MPEGLA would be fools to jack the terms and include distributors before H.264 becomes the defacto only encoding used. Which they then can do anytime.

    Quote:

    This "great development" you are talking about here will only ignite a standards war.



    Heaven forbid. There's already standards war. What is AI's article about?

    Quote:

    H.264 is already too embedded in the products and strategies of too many companies for it to be arbitrarily dropped because "Google's working on an open source alternative"



    Google now owns VP8, which is better than H.264. They don't have to "work on" anything except legal documents.

    If you think massive video distributors, looking at colossal growth of IPTV, are so stupid as to not diversify and put their heads in a open and shut patent noose that could be pulled before 2028, go ahead.



    Quote:

    How is Google or anyone going to develop a mature alternative with the same qualities as H.264 in anything less than a few years at minimum?



    You apparently know absolutely nothing about On2's existing VP8.

    Quote:

    That's a way more likely scenario than the fantasy you are pushing.



    Google must then be completely out of their minds to have bought On2. Alternate codecs are all worthless, because H.264 is a lock.
  • Reply 111 of 573
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros View Post


    To me, it seems like the real battle is with the advertising agencies and the resellers of ad space that insists on and accepts (*cough*), respectively, the use of animated advertisements. I'm reasonably sure Adobe will develop tools for whatever they decide upon, even if they ditch Flash.



    Okay.... now I see most of your points, tho I'm leaning more against Flash on principal... Here's the kicker...



    The Advertisers:



    Don't you think a vast majority have plans on dropping Flash simply due to the fact that a sizable user-base will be unable to view the ads they are paying sites to show?



    How else is an AD Agency going to explain to its client that 100% of the iPhone users, 100% of the iPod Touch users, 100% of the iPad users and 50-80% or more of the rest of the smartphone users are not seeing the AD they paid for?



    Any AD agency TODAY designing a new ad for a client would be nuts to use FLASH knowing for a fact that a measurable audience will not be able to see the AD.



    Make no mistakes... The people PAYING for the ADs to be seen don't give a RATS ASS about the details... If the CEO using his iPhone or iPad gets a big blank box instead of the spiffy new banner AD he will be less than happy.
  • Reply 112 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d_saum View Post


    Oh is that so? What content am I forced to buy exactly? And don't give me that "Hulu" crap argument. I've watched a show on Hulu maybe a total 3 times. Youtube has HTML5, Movies I get from Netflix, and tv shows.... well, I watch them on that thing called "TV" ... I know.. crazy huh? Worst case, I'll use bit torrent to find a TV if I need to see it. HD, no commercials, and NOT in flash. But hey... even with bit torrent.. I think I've only downloaded a total of 5 shows ever. The rest were watched on that crazy Tel-a-vishun thing.



    So again.. what am I being forced to buy?



    I watch TV shows on my TV set also, but I travel by train a lot and there are no television sets on the train. So watching content on a mobile device appeals to me.



    Yes, you can download content on Torrents and transcode it to work on a iPhone. It is a bother to do it, but it can be done because software exists to allow you to do so. Will you have the freedom to do that on your iPad? We shall see. Clearly Apple doesn't want you to do so and intend to fight you. I see Apple doing what they can to block Adobe and Verizon from the iPad party. I am just speculating what will be next for Apple.



    Normally I would assume Apple is trying to appease the movie studios who's profits are under attack from piracy. But now that Apple is a content provider, I see this flash censorship as a means to force non tech savvy people into being iTunes customers. I dislike a corporation telling me what to do. Sorry, that's how I feel.



    Lets look at history. When the first video iPod came out there was no way to put non iTunes content on it unless you had QuickTime Pro. Then Handbrake made the scene. When the Zune came out it wouldn't work with iTunes .aac content and it failed. No one is going to throw out their content collection and start over because of the demands of a new device. There is more to being a revolutionary product that making people re-buy their content. Just ask Sony with Blu Ray.



    The point I made earlier is that the iPod was a success because it allowed you the freedom to enjoy your existing library. If I can't stream content from the web, what content will I be able to watch on an iPad? Certainly not Hulu or porn.



    As far as Hulu being upgraded to an iPad friendly format, consider this. Why is it that YouTube has full episodes of older TV shows and you cant watch them on an iPhone?
  • Reply 113 of 573
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Consumer choice is a wonderful thing, and as Apple doesn't want to give it to us (quite the opposite in the walled garden that is the iPhone OS) we shall have to turn to the competition to fill the gap.



    The Nexus One with Android 2.1 is already a better phone and OS than the iPhone offers, and from what I've seen and read of Windows Mobile 7, the next big leap in mobile operating systems will, surprisingly, come from Microsoft.



    This year should be the most interesting to date in the mobile world, and I can't wait to see how Flash performs on a Nexus One, and ultimately on Windows Mobile 7 too. (which will be flash-less at launch, but will get flash later apparently)



    Even without Flash the difference betweenthe iPhone and the Nexus One is already huge. As a quick comparison, on my friend's Nexus One he can keep an IM and/or Twitter client running at all times, and so flick back to it instantly at any time, he can watch BBC iPlayer over 3G, and can download any podcast of any size over 3G without difficulty. Apple really have to loosen the reigns if they want to stay in the game and start listening to what consumers actually use and want.
  • Reply 114 of 573
    As this article mentions flash apps being made for mice and keyboards. Isn't it also worth noting that unlike HTML5 Silverlight actually supports multi touch. So for multi touch devices thats kinda of a big thing to be lacking in a web experiance. Not only that but HTML5 doesn't actually have any support for touch. All Safari on an iPhone seems to do is convert a touch to a click, there's no actual real distinction. Whereas if you were running a Silverlight app on a PC with a touchscreen you would have click events and touch events.



    Unless HTML can catch up with this, then it completely goes against the arguments of open standards. Yes the open standards are getting better and catching up with things live video, which is a good thing. But at the same time the plug ins are just getting better in other ways that it then needs to catch up with.
  • Reply 115 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alkrantz View Post


    I am positive the guy who writes these articles is constantly thinking about how he can include the word "Flash" in the headline. No doubt it drives his click-throughs and increases his conversion rates resulting in more money.



    I'll admit the first few times I threw my two cents in, being a web developer for the last 10 years and all. But then I realized most of the people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and based on their comments they clearly don't actually work in the field at all.



    Eventually I realized the point of these articles isn't really to say anything meaningful, and the point of the ensuing forum discussions isn't really to discuss the nature of whats really going on.



    This article was posted just to drive traffic. That simple. And once again, it worked. I prognosticate that within the next week we will see another Flash related "news break".



    MacRumors is really so much better.



    I learned a lot from the article, whatever the motivation (isn't even the new york times conscious of a need to generate subscribers?) Then I learned more, from people who agreed/disagreed with the article: it's always useful to see ideas tested by very knowledgeable people.



    If YOU had anything to contribute to that process, you should have, instead of standing off to the site, thumb in mouth, whining, while the big kids play. As an "experienced web developer for ten years and all" I'd rather you contributed from your knowledge base.
  • Reply 116 of 573
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave View Post


    For distributors. Currently. Not for codec and hardwaremakers.

    I painted no such picture, because I said absolutely nothing about "imminent."

    MPEGLA would be fools to jack the terms and include distributors before H.264 becomes the defacto only encoding used. Which they then can do anytime.

    Heaven forbid. There's already standards war. What is AI's article about?

    Google now owns VP8, which is better than H.264. They don't have to "work on" anything except legal documents.

    If you think massive video distributors, looking at colossal growth of IPTV, are so stupid as to not diversify and put their heads in a open and shut patent noose that could be pulled before 2028, go ahead.



    You apparently know absolutely nothing about On2's existing VP8.

    Google must then be completely out of their minds to have bought On2. Alternate codecs are all worthless, because H.264 is a lock.



    Your posts remind me of that Monty Python skit about "an argument not being merely the gainsaying" of every individual point the other person makes.



    I don't think we can have a useful discussion about this as it seems to me that your mind is already made up and your discussion "style," for lack of a better word, is less than helpful.



    It's clear that you have a deeper technical understanding of the codecs involved but rather than that informing your argument, I think it's instead leading you to make fantastical conclusions based on ideological constructions of what is "best" for video and for video distribution. IMO what is eventually implemented in situations like this is hardly ever what is technically the best solution.



    My understanding is that most of the major commercial players don't have a problem with the H.264 patents, it's the ideologically driven open source people that primarily fill that role.



    I don't believe the scenario you painted with your first post will ever happen. It's enough for me to know that, and I can't see how I could convince you otherwise anyway.
  • Reply 117 of 573
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Here's one Flash experience. I like to shop local weekly grocery circulars online for bargains. One of the largest supermarket chains in our area uses Flash to put its 16-24 page weekly print section online. I'm using a late-2008 13.3" unibody MacBook running a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, OS X 10.6.2 and browsing with Safari. On the Activity Monitor, Flash Player jumps from 0% to 65% whenever I go to this store's ads. Upon clicking to the next ad page, about half the time Flash Player jumps to 100% activity and Safari crashes an instant later. Why does Flash have to be such a resource hog?
  • Reply 118 of 573
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rnp1 View Post


    Steve Jobs has a grudge:

    1. Why aren't people all using Quicktime rather than Flash?

    2. In the 80's& 90's, only Mac's ran Photoshop and PageMaker.

    3. Microsoft hired W&K to create the Windows 95's release.

    4. It was all done on Macs, using Adobe. The Flag, the stolen Mac icons, not to mention the code itself. Even the Rolling Stones edit. All on Macs!

    5. Bill Gates found out and demanded everyone at W&K throw away their Macs and get PCs!

    6. Adobe became a traitor and rewrote all their standardized, user friendly programs for PC.

    7. Microsoft bought the Mac based Movie editor, Avid, and forced audio giant ProTools onto PCs too.

    8. Microsoft directly lifted the QuickTime code, but got caught before Paul Allan could rewrite it and bury the roots as was done to Mac's System, which became Windows 3.0.

    9. Steve Jobs regained Apple and returned the company to being a Mac maker rather than a PC cloner/copier.

    10. Adobe still writes their programs for PCs first, then makes a pseudo standardized Mac version, which is based on the cluttered, randomized PC version-so it is artistically unsatisfying, but does the job, and gives Intel a reason to build faster chips.

    11. Adobe's code is bloated and over written and as unstable as any PC program.

    12. Steve Jobs is still not a fool. "Fool me once...!"

    13. Therefore, Flash isn't on the well protected iPhone and won't be easily available on the iPad.

    14. W&K is still bullied by Nike, the purely money based charade, who has a Flashed based web site and still abuses child labor, as they pioneered over 25 years ago. Now we have WallMart and Secret Chinese Apple factories! (No Logo). Way to go Phil! (In China, he is known as, Fear Night! All the workers really do fear night, because that's when the North Korean task masters suddenly wake up and whip them for no reason). If Phil's wife ever finds out about those Illuminati/Jesuit Luciferian connections, it could cost him a very pretty Penny!

    ---The Real Insider---



    Nice overview, and then on point 14 you had a complete meltdown "SNAP".
  • Reply 119 of 573
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post


    Consumers do much of their surfing from work. To give you an example, if Facebook were to drop IE support, the site would go probably suffer a huge drop in usage. With much of the "customers" of social networking and other "consumer" websites forced to use IE, the benefits of moving the HTML 5 are totally out of reach.



    I have absolutely no idea what your point is.



    Support for HTML5 support and IE support are not mutually exclusive. The HTML5 video tag is a foregone conclusion for the future or video delivery on the web but that does not mean Flash for video streaming is going to pop out of existence. Sites are easily written to check the browser type for HTML5 video tag support or a fallback to Flash if needed.



    Here is a site that explains it and offers the simple code to web devs: http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody The only drawback is that JS is needed for the proper controls which is the only thing holding it back from YouTube, Vimeo and Hulu from going live on compatible browsers.
  • Reply 120 of 573
    TEKSTUD, your analogy is so bad it actually is quite funny
Sign In or Register to comment.