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.
Due to the nature of Flash and the size of the device they had no choice - I agree. Apple no doubt would like it to work since they want their devices to have the complete experience on the Web. What seems ridiculous is the Flash hate firestorm and the opposite side that is out to rip holes in Apple's marketing which purports this is the Whole Web. Let's be honest, Flash exists and is useful. Mobile devices can't run it due to design and coding issues. Enough said.
I would wager that you are absolutely right. Flash will work in some way in the future, perhaps in a limited way or via a built in plug in like Chrome and users can choose to run down their batteries if they wish. I've seen standards come and go and Apple is behind new open standards only as far as it suits them. That's why more than fifteen years after I started designing for the Web, we still don't have an open standard that works across all platforms and browsers.
The real benefit is that these 'ipad' versions also mean iphone versions. Just tested the ted.com site on my iphone, and it worked (with video). But when accessing it from my computer, is still loaded the flash-enabled version.
It would bum-out my daughter for all of the Flash enabled kids sites she goes to (Disney.com ironically) to see Flash off of the web. Will HTML5 be able to create those nifty games and interactive sites like Flash can?
More than Flash, I hate Acrobat Reader. If there's a Acrobat Reader killer technology out their then I'm all for that.
First, whether it's costly to switch doesn't depend on whether you've got the cash or not. It's either costly or it isn't.
Actually... it DOES (depend on how much cash you have)!
It also depends on what 'value' you associate with having a web site that can be seen by all of the Apple 'CE' / 'mobile' devices.
Costly is clearly a subjective term. It has no 'bottom line' dollar value associated with it.
A 14 room mansion might be costly to ME but a drop in the bucket to others. Many will buy 'KOOL-AID' or 'COLA' instead of 'COKE' or 'PEPSI' but I for one don't mind playing the extra for a brand name drink that I enjoy... etc etc etc. I wouldn't dare take a vacation and then choose an 'econoline' hotel chain (or WORSE) yet millions of people DO and for millions more a travel vacation is no even a question since it's so costly.
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.
The real benefit is that these 'ipad' versions also mean iphone versions. Just tested the ted.com site on my iphone, and it worked (with video). But when accessing it from my computer, is still loaded the flash-enabled version.
Actually, after testing the others, the conclusion is that they didn't "switch to html5", they just made ipad versions, different than the main one. Most notably, nytimes still shows the famous missing plugin logo instead of videos in html5. Sucks. Also, for the ones that did work on iphone, the look and feel is much more basic than the desktop version.
No Apple actually does not at all want Flash on its mobile devices.
Apple purports that it runs the whole web as designated by W3C standards. Flash is not apart of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkstreet
Due to the nature of Flash and the size of the device they had no choice - I agree. Apple no doubt would like it to work since they want their devices to have the complete experience on the Web. What seems ridiculous is the Flash hate firestorm and the opposite side that is out to rip holes in Apple's marketing which purports this is the Whole Web. Let's be honest, Flash exists and is useful. Mobile devices can't run it due to design and coding issues. Enough said.
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter.
This is a red herring. When did the user ever have a choice in the matter? Sites just started using Flash and you were forced to download the plugin or not be able to access the content.
You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?
Technology takes time to change, Just because there is HTML5 doesn't mean Flash is going anywhere anytime soon.
The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
I keep looking for this wall you and Quadra talk about. Must be something only you two can see.
Flash isn't going anywhere and moving from one technology to another often takes a very long time.
It would be in Apple best interest to work with Adobe to improve Flash on OSX and also bring it to the iPhone. Its not like it can't be done.
Just simply trying to kill something never work. Steve Jobs does have that much power and he certainly doesn't have the market share. As long as Windows systems can run Flash with no issues Flash will be alive for a very long time.
I could care less what technology is used HTML5 or Flash but as long as both exist then end users shoule at the very least have the option to install the Flash plugin.
Those Flash games can easily be changed into native iPad games. Not that big of a deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
It would bum-out my daughter for all of the Flash enabled kids sites she goes to (Disney.com ironically) to see Flash off of the web. Will HTML5 be able to create those nifty games and interactive sites like Flash can?
More than Flash, I hate Acrobat Reader. If there's a Acrobat Reader killer technology out their then I'm all for that.
I'm not one of the people who thinks Flash needs to die for HTML5 to succeed.
HTML5 is already doing well. You are correct one technology doesn't need to fail for the other to do well. Its kind of like members here that think every smartphone need to fail for the iPhone to do well.
Or that Microsoft and Google needs to go under for Apple to rule the world.
Some forget one well known fact, competition breeds innovation. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. We have a few of those here.
This is a red herring. When did the user ever have a choice in the matter? Sites just started using Flash and you were forced to download the plugin or not be able to access the content.
I agree. Its the other way around. Its a plugin, you NEED to download it in order for Flash websites to work. HTML is a standard, native, and requires no extra software. Big difference.
HTML5 is already doing well. You are correct one technology doesn't need to fail for the other to do well. Its kind of like members here that think every smartphone need to fail for the iPhone to do well.
Or that Microsoft and Google needs to go under for Apple to rule the world.
Some forget one well known fact, competition breeds innovation. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. We have a few of those here.
The problem with Flash, unlike other examples of tech, is that it is completely controlled by one company. Adobe/Macromedia let Flash stagnate for quite some time, especially on the Mac. That's until the iPhone and mobile devices in general really started to gain traction. That ultimately lit some kind of fire under Adobe's proverbial ass. Granted it was mostly out of fear of being left out.
Regardless of the iPhone OS devices, Adobe being the sole controller of Flash is not a good thing for the internet as a whole. That is the type of behavior that truly stifles innovation. The history of sites designed solely for Internet Explorer comes to mind when I think of Flash. We now see that even Microsoft is willing to sort of step up its game when it comes to standards. BTW, you can thank Safari,Mobile Safari & Firefox for that.
If Adobe had the guts, it would propose Flash as a open standard but from what I've been reading and hearing from friends that work at Adobe, the actual code is a mess. There are core parts of Flash have been around since even before it was released as Flash. Adobe trying to offload processing to the GPU is a hack. If other formats can utilize the CPU well enough, then Flash should be able to. My fans should not blow up and my battery should not be gasping for juice because of their crappy code. The code itself isn't optimized enough and it is solely Adobe's responsibility to fix it. On that note, since it isn't an open format, there is no way for others to improve it and they don't even have incentive to improve it. Adobe has shown that it is willing to release certain things as open standards. PDF is a perfect example of this. Now with Apple having hundreds of millions of devices that don't support Flash as part of the fastest growing tech sector, they are feeling the heat.
Finally, there isn't a single mobile phone that supports Flash and netbooks/other form factors that do, feel the pain with regards to battery life. 10+ hours of non-stop video is not in the near future when it comes to Flash and until that sort of optimization happens, Apple isn't even going to think about it and even then, it will probably be too late.
Looks like Stevo won this one! I'm no expert but when stevo says it a resource issue (ie., battery hog) I have a tendency to believe him.
I remember, way back when, having Elements 4.0 or something and it was the slowest loading application I ever saw....and it got to the point I dreaded having to opening it and would avoid it at all costs. I also remember Stevo in one of his Keynotes sitting at an iMac and making the same comment about some Adobe SW.
I avoid Adobe, use PDFPen and PDFShrink for a fraction of the cost, faster loading and simple, Mac-like interfaces!
I think Adobe may not be 'lazy,' but certainly complacent. Especially, compared to Apples rate of improvements/innovations.
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.
Comments
The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
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.
Due to the nature of Flash and the size of the device they had no choice - I agree. Apple no doubt would like it to work since they want their devices to have the complete experience on the Web. What seems ridiculous is the Flash hate firestorm and the opposite side that is out to rip holes in Apple's marketing which purports this is the Whole Web. Let's be honest, Flash exists and is useful. Mobile devices can't run it due to design and coding issues. Enough said.
I would wager that you are absolutely right. Flash will work in some way in the future, perhaps in a limited way or via a built in plug in like Chrome and users can choose to run down their batteries if they wish. I've seen standards come and go and Apple is behind new open standards only as far as it suits them. That's why more than fifteen years after I started designing for the Web, we still don't have an open standard that works across all platforms and browsers.
More than Flash, I hate Acrobat Reader. If there's a Acrobat Reader killer technology out their then I'm all for that.
First, whether it's costly to switch doesn't depend on whether you've got the cash or not. It's either costly or it isn't.
Actually... it DOES (depend on how much cash you have)!
It also depends on what 'value' you associate with having a web site that can be seen by all of the Apple 'CE' / 'mobile' devices.
Costly is clearly a subjective term. It has no 'bottom line' dollar value associated with it.
A 14 room mansion might be costly to ME but a drop in the bucket to others. Many will buy 'KOOL-AID' or 'COLA' instead of 'COKE' or 'PEPSI' but I for one don't mind playing the extra for a brand name drink that I enjoy... etc etc etc. I wouldn't dare take a vacation and then choose an 'econoline' hotel chain (or WORSE) yet millions of people DO and for millions more a travel vacation is no even a question since it's so costly.
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.
Got it - thanks.
The real benefit is that these 'ipad' versions also mean iphone versions. Just tested the ted.com site on my iphone, and it worked (with video). But when accessing it from my computer, is still loaded the flash-enabled version.
Actually, after testing the others, the conclusion is that they didn't "switch to html5", they just made ipad versions, different than the main one. Most notably, nytimes still shows the famous missing plugin logo instead of videos in html5. Sucks. Also, for the ones that did work on iphone, the look and feel is much more basic than the desktop version.
Apple purports that it runs the whole web as designated by W3C standards. Flash is not apart of that.
Due to the nature of Flash and the size of the device they had no choice - I agree. Apple no doubt would like it to work since they want their devices to have the complete experience on the Web. What seems ridiculous is the Flash hate firestorm and the opposite side that is out to rip holes in Apple's marketing which purports this is the Whole Web. Let's be honest, Flash exists and is useful. Mobile devices can't run it due to design and coding issues. Enough said.
I think the only real issue is that the end-user has no choice in the matter.
This is a red herring. When did the user ever have a choice in the matter? Sites just started using Flash and you were forced to download the plugin or not be able to access the content.
You both arguing that technology should stop evolving and changing? Thing should remain the same just because this is how it is? When has that ever happened?
Technology takes time to change, Just because there is HTML5 doesn't mean Flash is going anywhere anytime soon.
Technology takes time to change, Just because there is HTML5 doesn't mean Flash is going anywhere anytime soon.
The writing is on the wall for those who don't get it, like Adobe.
I keep looking for this wall you and Quadra talk about. Must be something only you two can see.
Flash isn't going anywhere and moving from one technology to another often takes a very long time.
It would be in Apple best interest to work with Adobe to improve Flash on OSX and also bring it to the iPhone. Its not like it can't be done.
Just simply trying to kill something never work. Steve Jobs does have that much power and he certainly doesn't have the market share. As long as Windows systems can run Flash with no issues Flash will be alive for a very long time.
I could care less what technology is used HTML5 or Flash but as long as both exist then end users shoule at the very least have the option to install the Flash plugin.
It would bum-out my daughter for all of the Flash enabled kids sites she goes to (Disney.com ironically) to see Flash off of the web. Will HTML5 be able to create those nifty games and interactive sites like Flash can?
More than Flash, I hate Acrobat Reader. If there's a Acrobat Reader killer technology out their then I'm all for that.
I'm not one of the people who thinks Flash needs to die for HTML5 to succeed.
HTML5 is already doing well. You are correct one technology doesn't need to fail for the other to do well. Its kind of like members here that think every smartphone need to fail for the iPhone to do well.
Or that Microsoft and Google needs to go under for Apple to rule the world.
Some forget one well known fact, competition breeds innovation. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. We have a few of those here.
This is a red herring. When did the user ever have a choice in the matter? Sites just started using Flash and you were forced to download the plugin or not be able to access the content.
I agree. Its the other way around. Its a plugin, you NEED to download it in order for Flash websites to work. HTML is a standard, native, and requires no extra software. Big difference.
HTML5 is already doing well. You are correct one technology doesn't need to fail for the other to do well. Its kind of like members here that think every smartphone need to fail for the iPhone to do well.
Or that Microsoft and Google needs to go under for Apple to rule the world.
Some forget one well known fact, competition breeds innovation. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. We have a few of those here.
The problem with Flash, unlike other examples of tech, is that it is completely controlled by one company. Adobe/Macromedia let Flash stagnate for quite some time, especially on the Mac. That's until the iPhone and mobile devices in general really started to gain traction. That ultimately lit some kind of fire under Adobe's proverbial ass. Granted it was mostly out of fear of being left out.
Regardless of the iPhone OS devices, Adobe being the sole controller of Flash is not a good thing for the internet as a whole. That is the type of behavior that truly stifles innovation. The history of sites designed solely for Internet Explorer comes to mind when I think of Flash. We now see that even Microsoft is willing to sort of step up its game when it comes to standards. BTW, you can thank Safari,Mobile Safari & Firefox for that.
If Adobe had the guts, it would propose Flash as a open standard but from what I've been reading and hearing from friends that work at Adobe, the actual code is a mess. There are core parts of Flash have been around since even before it was released as Flash. Adobe trying to offload processing to the GPU is a hack. If other formats can utilize the CPU well enough, then Flash should be able to. My fans should not blow up and my battery should not be gasping for juice because of their crappy code. The code itself isn't optimized enough and it is solely Adobe's responsibility to fix it. On that note, since it isn't an open format, there is no way for others to improve it and they don't even have incentive to improve it. Adobe has shown that it is willing to release certain things as open standards. PDF is a perfect example of this. Now with Apple having hundreds of millions of devices that don't support Flash as part of the fastest growing tech sector, they are feeling the heat.
Finally, there isn't a single mobile phone that supports Flash and netbooks/other form factors that do, feel the pain with regards to battery life. 10+ hours of non-stop video is not in the near future when it comes to Flash and until that sort of optimization happens, Apple isn't even going to think about it and even then, it will probably be too late.
I remember, way back when, having Elements 4.0 or something and it was the slowest loading application I ever saw....and it got to the point I dreaded having to opening it and would avoid it at all costs. I also remember Stevo in one of his Keynotes sitting at an iMac and making the same comment about some Adobe SW.
I avoid Adobe, use PDFPen and PDFShrink for a fraction of the cost, faster loading and simple, Mac-like interfaces!
I think Adobe may not be 'lazy,' but certainly complacent. Especially, compared to Apples rate of improvements/innovations.
PS. Just bought the new mouse and loving it!
Best!
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.
firefox doesn't support h.264
firefox doesn't support h.264
Those Flash games can easily be changed into native iPad games. Not that big of a deal.
but then you'll have to pay for them