I use clicktoflash for Safari, and I'm extremely aware of the use of Flash on the internet. I just don't care for most of the content that is distributed using it, and also don't care for the experience of it either.
I consider that owning an iPad that is Flash free will bolster the numbers of non Flash users seen in website statistics and will help to contribute to its eventual demise.
I'm also totally serious about buying an iPad, and will almost certainly get one refurb.
Edit: Believe it or not, I became more aware of how prevalent Flash is after I started using clicktoflash.
Good for you! (Seriously) You will be an informed buyer.
It is not that I am a fan of Flash, because I am not, but because I am unable to access far too many websites without it. If Flash were to go "poof" and disappear tomorrow I would not be in the slightest bit upset. In a few days the websites would be doing something different and we could all get on to the content we are after without dealing with this problem.
Unfortunately, Flash will not go away because of Steve, Apple or the iPad. The only way Steve can rid the 'net of Flash is to buy Adobe and slay the "dragon up close and personal". He would enjoy that!
Good for you! (Seriously) You will be an informed buyer.
It is not that I am a fan of Flash, because I am not, but because I am unable to access far too many websites without it. If Flash were to go "poof" and disappear tomorrow I would not be in the slightest bit upset. In a few days the websites would be doing something different and we could all get on to the content we are after without dealing with this problem.
Unfortunately, Flash will not go away because of Steve, Apple or the iPad. The only way Steve can rid the 'net of Flash is to buy Adobe and slay the "dragon up close and personal". He would enjoy that!
I don't get why anything about making the web better is automatically an Apple-centric comment about eliminating Flash from the planet. Have we forgotten that Microsoft, Mozilla and Google, to name a few are also working on alternatives to supporting Flash because of its many problems?
No it doesn't, it plays perfectly fine on my iPhone, better in fact than what was being shown on the Nexus.
I can't wait for Flash 10.1 to be officially released for mobiles so we can see all the comparative tests of speed of loading video, usability of the majority of unaltered flash sites and the battery usage.
From that video it appears that battery indicator drops from 50% to 25% in about 5 minutes time. The performance looks remarkable over previous Flash 10.1 demos and even compared to Flash 9.x.x and 10.0.x on netbooks.
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
Really? Why Apple and not Adobe? Adobe's Flash is on almost all computing devices that use the web, isn't that a bigger anti-trust concern? It sounds like a double standard here, you want to pick on the the company with the smaller market share and leave the one with a bigger market share alone.
You can buy other brand tablets and phones to look at the web, many of which offer Flash compatibility. There aren't any alternative implementations to Flash, it has to be Adobe's plug-in or nothing. Tell me, which is really a bigger anti-trust problem? I think it's more likely that you're angry at Apple.
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad. The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
If Apple at WWDC 2010 announces the rollout of HTML 5.0 development tools, including converting Flash programming calls to its HTML 5.0 equivalents, then I wouldn't be so concerned, since that means a lot less need to recode pages from scratch (and the expense involved!) in HTML 5.0 compatible form.
Besides that there is also an issue with games and apps and website working on touchscreen when they were designed for a mouse and keyboard.
Isn't that the real reason? A touchscreen device is NOT the best way to access the 'web. Not yet, anyways...
I think that all the other points are red herrings.
Right now, a touchscreen device does not work well on many popular websites, and Apple is marketing the 'Pad as the best way to access the 'web.
It might be that Apple is premature in its release of a tablet 'web device. It has happened a zillion times before that great stuff is just too far ahead of its time.
In fact, I'll be waiting for the Flashtards to return their iPads so that I can get the nice refurb price from the Apple Store.
I don't think that Joe Shmoe could be considered a Flashtard, but I think that his 'Pad might get returned when he finds that it is NOT the best way to surf the 'net.
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad.
But why isn't Adobe treading on thin ice? It's Adobe that has a monopoly position with the Web, 98% of web devices have their player software. You can't use non-Adobe flash interpreters, Adobe shuts them down if they get anywhere. You can choose to buy non-Apple devices that can access the web, but you're still stuck with a Flash monopoly. I don't think your position holds water on this issue, it still ignores the elephant in this supposed anti trust room.
Quote:
The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
How many Adobe employees are involved with making that document? Adobe is in the W3C too. For a system that might be competing with their own products. You don't see any possible anti-trust issues with that?
I don't get why anything about making the web better is automatically an Apple-centric comment about eliminating Flash from the planet. Have we forgotten that Microsoft, Mozilla and Google, to name a few are also working on alternatives to supporting Flash because of its many problems?
Then allow me to explain it. The iPad is an Apple product. ;-)
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
What is keeping Apple from offloading Flash to the second CPU or even GPU with some variation of Grand Central Dispatch which specifically identifies Flash and the CPU says "over there big boy while I take care of business".
Oh, they didn't try. Did they even try something akin to Flashblock which would allow the user to allow Flash as needed, having been warned that it would reduce performance. I doubt it. Steve just doesn't want it.
I'm not sure why you posted that link. It looks like Flash 10.1 works just fine.
I certainly would rather have that stuff available to me than not.
Did you feel that the demo showed poor performance?
Why wouldn't I post it, I only care about the truth. I never said Adobe couldn't fix their problems, I said Flash was designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped the ball a long time ago. The pressure from 3 years of Flash being replaced by open standards has made them get off their asses, which is typical.
It's a relevant demonstration of Adobe finally making Flash better for the mobile space, over 3 years after people started blaming Apple for the lack of Flash. Note that the battery shows a 25% drop in 5 minutes, there are usability issues, and the Nexus One is a much newer phone running a new ARM at 1GHz, not the 400MHz people said would work great in the iPhone.
Then allow me to explain it. The iPad is an Apple product. ;-)
So you don't care who else is trying to make a better internet by avoiding Flash in places, just so long as pooh pooh Apple at every turn. Do you know what those posters are called?
You know, for also "NOT ALLOWING" Adobe Flash on their platform either.
When Adobe makes it, as Jobs asked for in 2007, then Apple can accept or reject it until then they are in the same position as RIM, snubbed by Adobe who are buck-passing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
The somewhat overlooked fact that there is no version of Adobe Flash™ available for iPhone OS, to be run on the CPU, GPU or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
What is keeping Apple from offloading Flash to the second CPU or even GPU with some variation of Grand Central Dispatch which specifically identifies Flash and the CPU says "over there big boy while I take care of business".
Oh, they didn't try. Did they even try something akin to Flashblock which would allow the user to allow Flash as needed, having been warned that it would reduce performance. I doubt it. Steve just doesn't want it.
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad. The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
You're off base here. Apple is under no obligation to support Adobe's technology on any or all of their products. Period. Just like they were under no obligation to support wma on the iPod. Remember the famous lawsuit when Microsoft sued Apple for that? Oh wait, it never happened.
The point about the Apple employee who authored an HTML5 document for W3C. Are you the one that keeps harping on that? Apple is a member of that industry group along with Adobe and dozens of other companies. That's how industry standards groups work, and always have. Apple is a member, state their support for the HTML5 project publicly, and contribute expertise and manpower to the effort. If there's anything suspicious going on here, it's Adobe's alleged sabotage of the HTML5 review and approval process.
Comments
I use clicktoflash for Safari, and I'm extremely aware of the use of Flash on the internet. I just don't care for most of the content that is distributed using it, and also don't care for the experience of it either.
I consider that owning an iPad that is Flash free will bolster the numbers of non Flash users seen in website statistics and will help to contribute to its eventual demise.
I'm also totally serious about buying an iPad, and will almost certainly get one refurb.
Edit: Believe it or not, I became more aware of how prevalent Flash is after I started using clicktoflash.
Good for you! (Seriously) You will be an informed buyer.
It is not that I am a fan of Flash, because I am not, but because I am unable to access far too many websites without it. If Flash were to go "poof" and disappear tomorrow I would not be in the slightest bit upset. In a few days the websites would be doing something different and we could all get on to the content we are after without dealing with this problem.
Unfortunately, Flash will not go away because of Steve, Apple or the iPad. The only way Steve can rid the 'net of Flash is to buy Adobe and slay the "dragon up close and personal". He would enjoy that!
Good for you! (Seriously) You will be an informed buyer.
It is not that I am a fan of Flash, because I am not, but because I am unable to access far too many websites without it. If Flash were to go "poof" and disappear tomorrow I would not be in the slightest bit upset. In a few days the websites would be doing something different and we could all get on to the content we are after without dealing with this problem.
Unfortunately, Flash will not go away because of Steve, Apple or the iPad. The only way Steve can rid the 'net of Flash is to buy Adobe and slay the "dragon up close and personal". He would enjoy that!
I don't get why anything about making the web better is automatically an Apple-centric comment about eliminating Flash from the planet. Have we forgotten that Microsoft, Mozilla and Google, to name a few are also working on alternatives to supporting Flash because of its many problems?
Demo of Flash 10.1 Running on Nexus One: http://vimeo.com/9596010
Does the demo require Flash?
Does the demo require Flash?
No it doesn't, it plays perfectly fine on my iPhone, better in fact than what was being shown on the Nexus.
I can't wait for Flash 10.1 to be officially released for mobiles so we can see all the comparative tests of speed of loading video, usability of the majority of unaltered flash sites and the battery usage.
From that video it appears that battery indicator drops from 50% to 25% in about 5 minutes time. The performance looks remarkable over previous Flash 10.1 demos and even compared to Flash 9.x.x and 10.0.x on netbooks.
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
Really? Why Apple and not Adobe? Adobe's Flash is on almost all computing devices that use the web, isn't that a bigger anti-trust concern? It sounds like a double standard here, you want to pick on the the company with the smaller market share and leave the one with a bigger market share alone.
You can buy other brand tablets and phones to look at the web, many of which offer Flash compatibility. There aren't any alternative implementations to Flash, it has to be Adobe's plug-in or nothing. Tell me, which is really a bigger anti-trust problem? I think it's more likely that you're angry at Apple.
What's fugly to some, is "the best web browsing experience" to others.
I look forward to buying an iPad and enjoying the best web browsing experience, unencumbered by stinking, useless Adobe Flash™.
I'd like to run Lynx on an iPad. Now THAT would be the "best"! No pictures, no animation, no nothing except words...
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad. The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
If Apple at WWDC 2010 announces the rollout of HTML 5.0 development tools, including converting Flash programming calls to its HTML 5.0 equivalents, then I wouldn't be so concerned, since that means a lot less need to recode pages from scratch (and the expense involved!) in HTML 5.0 compatible form.
Even better, make Flash disabled by default for clueless people,
That's not Apple's style. If something might get clueless people into trouble, Apple just eliminates it completely.
Besides that there is also an issue with games and apps and website working on touchscreen when they were designed for a mouse and keyboard.
Isn't that the real reason? A touchscreen device is NOT the best way to access the 'web. Not yet, anyways...
I think that all the other points are red herrings.
Right now, a touchscreen device does not work well on many popular websites, and Apple is marketing the 'Pad as the best way to access the 'web.
It might be that Apple is premature in its release of a tablet 'web device. It has happened a zillion times before that great stuff is just too far ahead of its time.
In fact, I'll be waiting for the Flashtards to return their iPads so that I can get the nice refurb price from the Apple Store.
I don't think that Joe Shmoe could be considered a Flashtard, but I think that his 'Pad might get returned when he finds that it is NOT the best way to surf the 'net.
Demo of Flash 10.1 Running on Nexus One: http://vimeo.com/9596010
I'm not sure why you posted that link. It looks like Flash 10.1 works just fine.
I certainly would rather have that stuff available to me than not.
Did you feel that the demo showed poor performance?
JeffDM,
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad.
But why isn't Adobe treading on thin ice? It's Adobe that has a monopoly position with the Web, 98% of web devices have their player software. You can't use non-Adobe flash interpreters, Adobe shuts them down if they get anywhere. You can choose to buy non-Apple devices that can access the web, but you're still stuck with a Flash monopoly. I don't think your position holds water on this issue, it still ignores the elephant in this supposed anti trust room.
The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
How many Adobe employees are involved with making that document? Adobe is in the W3C too. For a system that might be competing with their own products. You don't see any possible anti-trust issues with that?
I don't get why anything about making the web better is automatically an Apple-centric comment about eliminating Flash from the planet. Have we forgotten that Microsoft, Mozilla and Google, to name a few are also working on alternatives to supporting Flash because of its many problems?
Then allow me to explain it. The iPad is an Apple product. ;-)
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
What is keeping Apple from offloading Flash to the second CPU or even GPU with some variation of Grand Central Dispatch which specifically identifies Flash and the CPU says "over there big boy while I take care of business".
Oh, they didn't try. Did they even try something akin to Flashblock which would allow the user to allow Flash as needed, having been warned that it would reduce performance. I doubt it. Steve just doesn't want it.
I'm not sure why you posted that link. It looks like Flash 10.1 works just fine.
I certainly would rather have that stuff available to me than not.
Did you feel that the demo showed poor performance?
Why wouldn't I post it, I only care about the truth. I never said Adobe couldn't fix their problems, I said Flash was designed for mobiles and Adobe dropped the ball a long time ago. The pressure from 3 years of Flash being replaced by open standards has made them get off their asses, which is typical.
It's a relevant demonstration of Adobe finally making Flash better for the mobile space, over 3 years after people started blaming Apple for the lack of Flash. Note that the battery shows a 25% drop in 5 minutes, there are usability issues, and the Nexus One is a much newer phone running a new ARM at 1GHz, not the 400MHz people said would work great in the iPhone.
Try actually reading this. Maybe you'll stop get an idea of Adobe's issues with Flash: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292
Then allow me to explain it. The iPad is an Apple product. ;-)
So you don't care who else is trying to make a better internet by avoiding Flash in places, just so long as pooh pooh Apple at every turn. Do you know what those posters are called?
You know, for also "NOT ALLOWING" Adobe Flash on their platform either.
When Adobe makes it, as Jobs asked for in 2007, then Apple can accept or reject it until then they are in the same position as RIM, snubbed by Adobe who are buck-passing.
I still think if Adobe proves that Flash 10.1--which offloads Flash code processing to the GPU to reduce CPU usage--has little effect on overall battery performance, we may be heading for a potential legal showdown over Flash on the iPad as a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act by Apple. Now that will be a case that could last for years. And I'm sure the aggressive antitrust authorities of the European Union are watching, too.
The somewhat overlooked fact that there is no version of Adobe Flash™ available for iPhone OS, to be run on the CPU, GPU or whatever.
What is keeping Apple from offloading Flash to the second CPU or even GPU with some variation of Grand Central Dispatch which specifically identifies Flash and the CPU says "over there big boy while I take care of business".
Oh, they didn't try. Did they even try something akin to Flashblock which would allow the user to allow Flash as needed, having been warned that it would reduce performance. I doubt it. Steve just doesn't want it.
Remember, Apple will soon come close to treading on legal thin ice by deliberately banning Flash from the iPad--especially if Adobe proves the upcoming Flash 10.1 will have little effect on the battery life of the iPad. The fact one of the editors of the current W3C draft document on HTML 5.0 is an Apple employee sounds really fishy, because Apple could afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act over this--not to mention EU antitrust authorities!
You're off base here. Apple is under no obligation to support Adobe's technology on any or all of their products. Period. Just like they were under no obligation to support wma on the iPod. Remember the famous lawsuit when Microsoft sued Apple for that? Oh wait, it never happened.
The point about the Apple employee who authored an HTML5 document for W3C. Are you the one that keeps harping on that? Apple is a member of that industry group along with Adobe and dozens of other companies. That's how industry standards groups work, and always have. Apple is a member, state their support for the HTML5 project publicly, and contribute expertise and manpower to the effort. If there's anything suspicious going on here, it's Adobe's alleged sabotage of the HTML5 review and approval process.