The economic logic for these websites to switch is overpowering.
Who do you think are in the 6%-8% that are consuming Apple products (incl. the $1000+ notebooks)? The 'Apple-share-is-tiny' crowd can crow all they want, but these are the socio-economic and customer segments that consumer product firms (and eyeballs that advertisers) lust after.
The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?
I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.
The link that comes up when you hover your mouse over the Click to Flash thing says /flash/uploader.swf?756 and is the 'choose' button for uploading your own files to your iDisk space. Or is this something completely different I'm not understanding?
The ClickToFlash you are using is confused. There is no Flash on MobileMe.
You're probably correct. Judging from the quality of the news delivered and NYT's multiple attempts to get an iPhone app working, it is probably very difficult for publishers to switch.
More a condemnation of the news media than technology.
So how do I get to these Flashless sites in desktop Safari? Or Chrome on my Windows 7 machine at work?
Then again, ClicktoFlash means no animated dancing bimbo selling mortgages. I can only assume these sites will have low quality advertising via HTML5. Do people really click these things?
Gordon
In my iPad simulator they are simply still images with links to their advertiser's site.
I was thinking 'which sites do I visit that have flash functionality that is essential aside from video' and I really don't think I can think of any. Then I thought 'if there some, was flash really the proper choice, or was it just the easiest thing to use at the time'?
Can you list some that you visit where flash is essential that isn't used to play video? I'm curious.
You are absolutely right - you may not need the Flash plug-in for your use of the Web.
For many years, the cutting edge designs on the Web used Flash. Many small businesses, artists, designers and photographers have designed their sites, portfolios in Flash because HTML has never offered pixel precise layouts with animation that worked seamlessly across many different operating systems and different browsers. Flash offered that and still does. It may be a CPU hog and it's interface may have become ever more difficult thanks to Adobe, but it still works.
I am not bashing the iPad or iPhone (the latter of which I own and love). I question Apple and others openly bashing Flash. It isn't good business or netiquette IMHO.
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.
The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.
Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.
The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.
I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would defend Flash for the iDevice. Why would anyone want it? Games? The App store has better free games that were designed specifically for the device. Ads? Really? Videos? There are countless methods of displaying video, all better and more efficient, not to mention, more accessible than Flash.
This is all that really needs to be said. And that technology should keep moving forward and improving, not hanging back on lame, outdated tech.
I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.
Let's look at this the other way. When Apple were developing the iPhone, they would have had key design requirements, one of which would have been good battery life, set against smallness and lightness. They would have had prototypes running, and no doubt would have seen insufficient battery performance, and when analysing the data would have seen that Flash was a big, probably the biggest, drain. So they had to make a decision, broken down into roughly three options; 1) make the phone bigger and heavier than they wanted; 2) accept lower battery performance than they wanted or 3) don't allow Flash to work on the device. There would have been a lot of serious thinking right the way up to Jobs on such a key decision, and in the end they made what I would say was the brave decision of option 3.
Regarding open standards, it was that decision made by Apple which is the single biggest factor in the big push to HTML5 that is now underway. The success of the i-devices is forcing the issue, without which it would still be meandering along in its own sweet time. As you point out, this move is also working against the short to middle term interests of a number of constituencies, but there are always casualties during a technology transition, it's progress, evolution, and people are just going to have to adapt to survive. Hopefully, in five years time Flash will be back where it should be, as a useful development tool in certain situations, and one fundamental aspect of the web will not be dependent upon, and thus held hostage to, a complacent proprietary technology. This will benefit everybody, including many of the people who are going to lose out in the short term.
Not necessarily. When Firefox and Safari came to the scene to force the web to support HTML standards they did not allow the proprietary IE code that most websites at the time were using to degrade gracefully. They just did not support it at all. Eventually the majority of the web began using HTML standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
HTML5 is still a work in progress, it cannot yet replicate all of the functionality of Flash, but its getting there. Apple is laying the ground work for HTML5 to replace Flash once its ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
Thanks for the answer.
If that's the case, and they have to create an entirely different HTML5 page for iPad, why would they not just use that as their website? If Safari on the iPad displays it, and HTML 5 can do all the functions of Flash, wouldn't you make that site the one Safari on the Mac displays as well?
Comments
Who do you think are in the 6%-8% that are consuming Apple products (incl. the $1000+ notebooks)? The 'Apple-share-is-tiny' crowd can crow all they want, but these are the socio-economic and customer segments that consumer product firms (and eyeballs that advertisers) lust after.
The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
Does anyone know why they would create a site specific for iPad? If they remove the need for Flash to create an iPad version, why wouldn't they just have that version as their main website? Does this not infer that there are things you can do with Flash that you can't with HTML5?
I don't really understand any of this, so if someone could explain for me, I'd appreciate it.
See above.
C'mon guys, we've been waiting a while now!
I notice that I see the small "flash" boxes (that come with Click To Flash) come up on Apple sites.
Not sure how to post pictures but it's in my public folder. http://files.me.com/ben120/m1ssap
The link that comes up when you hover your mouse over the Click to Flash thing says /flash/uploader.swf?756 and is the 'choose' button for uploading your own files to your iDisk space. Or is this something completely different I'm not understanding?
The ClickToFlash you are using is confused. There is no Flash on MobileMe.
Holy cow! You mean the web can survive without Flash? Who'da thunk...
Flash isn't leaving lol
Thats because it wouldn't be so simple.
You're probably correct. Judging from the quality of the news delivered and NYT's multiple attempts to get an iPhone app working, it is probably very difficult for publishers to switch.
More a condemnation of the news media than technology.
The ClickToFlash you are using is confused. There is no Flash on MobileMe.
I assumed as such it seems very unlikely, but why did it give a link to a .swf file?
So how do I get to these Flashless sites in desktop Safari? Or Chrome on my Windows 7 machine at work?
Then again, ClicktoFlash means no animated dancing bimbo selling mortgages. I can only assume these sites will have low quality advertising via HTML5. Do people really click these things?
Gordon
In my iPad simulator they are simply still images with links to their advertiser's site.
I was thinking 'which sites do I visit that have flash functionality that is essential aside from video' and I really don't think I can think of any. Then I thought 'if there some, was flash really the proper choice, or was it just the easiest thing to use at the time'?
Can you list some that you visit where flash is essential that isn't used to play video? I'm curious.
You are absolutely right - you may not need the Flash plug-in for your use of the Web.
For many years, the cutting edge designs on the Web used Flash. Many small businesses, artists, designers and photographers have designed their sites, portfolios in Flash because HTML has never offered pixel precise layouts with animation that worked seamlessly across many different operating systems and different browsers. Flash offered that and still does. It may be a CPU hog and it's interface may have become ever more difficult thanks to Adobe, but it still works.
I am not bashing the iPad or iPhone (the latter of which I own and love). I question Apple and others openly bashing Flash. It isn't good business or netiquette IMHO.
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.
The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.
Of course there is choice. If someone wants to access Flash sites they have to choose buy a device that will do it rather than one which will not. Of course that does greatly limit them in the ultra-mobile space, but its near exclusion from that class does put the onus back on Adobe to produce something that can work efficiently on small battery-powered devices. I would suggest that as we are here in 2010 and Adobe have not provided a solution, the blame for this situation lies firmly at their door, not at the device manufacturers who want to provide decent battery life for their customers.
The heading to your above post says there is an agenda. If that agenda is to have a web based on open standards, thus preventing a near monopoly from pulling in profit while failing to provide a software technology that keeps pace with the development of the market (in this case towards ultra-mobile) then surely it is an agenda we should all support.
I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.
When is AI going it make itself truly iPad/iPhone-ready?
C'mon guys, we've been waiting a while now!
Personally, I've been hoping for an AI reader/posting app. It would be really cool having an iPad formatted app also... oh, Kasper!
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would defend Flash for the iDevice. Why would anyone want it? Games? The App store has better free games that were designed specifically for the device. Ads? Really? Videos? There are countless methods of displaying video, all better and more efficient, not to mention, more accessible than Flash.
This is all that really needs to be said. And that technology should keep moving forward and improving, not hanging back on lame, outdated tech.
I would wholeheartedly agree that we all want open standards to rule. I hope Apple or some other company exploits the need by designing a tool that will render code which works across all platforms and pushes for the acceptance of that code. If you have done any designing for the Web, you know what a mess it is.
Let's look at this the other way. When Apple were developing the iPhone, they would have had key design requirements, one of which would have been good battery life, set against smallness and lightness. They would have had prototypes running, and no doubt would have seen insufficient battery performance, and when analysing the data would have seen that Flash was a big, probably the biggest, drain. So they had to make a decision, broken down into roughly three options; 1) make the phone bigger and heavier than they wanted; 2) accept lower battery performance than they wanted or 3) don't allow Flash to work on the device. There would have been a lot of serious thinking right the way up to Jobs on such a key decision, and in the end they made what I would say was the brave decision of option 3.
Regarding open standards, it was that decision made by Apple which is the single biggest factor in the big push to HTML5 that is now underway. The success of the i-devices is forcing the issue, without which it would still be meandering along in its own sweet time. As you point out, this move is also working against the short to middle term interests of a number of constituencies, but there are always casualties during a technology transition, it's progress, evolution, and people are just going to have to adapt to survive. Hopefully, in five years time Flash will be back where it should be, as a useful development tool in certain situations, and one fundamental aspect of the web will not be dependent upon, and thus held hostage to, a complacent proprietary technology. This will benefit everybody, including many of the people who are going to lose out in the short term.
Flash isn't leaving lol
No, but people sure are leaving Flash!
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter. The fact is that Flash exists on the Web at a large number of sites which users will want to access. Outdated technologies and code have always been allowed to degrade gracefully without the need for agendas or rallying cries. I'm sure the "Death to Flash" kids won't understand this.
Thanks for the answer.
If that's the case, and they have to create an entirely different HTML5 page for iPad, why would they not just use that as their website? If Safari on the iPad displays it, and HTML 5 can do all the functions of Flash, wouldn't you make that site the one Safari on the Mac displays as well?