Beijing: Chinese government attacks human rights record of Apple
The Chinese government today released a statement strongly condemning the human rights record of Apple because of the following practices:
a) Apple's ongoing attack on the international not-for-profit philanthropic organisation known as Adobe. In particular the report noted Apple's ongoing suppression of Flash (the well known deoptimization and content delivery tax utility published by Adobe). The report noted that "this attack was particularly reprehensible given Adobe's record of support of Apple - an example being the very quick ten year development programme Adobe undertook to produce a fully native cocoa version of Creative Suite for the macintosh platform".
b) Apple's continuing overt control of the App publishing system for its own mobile platform (commonly known as the App Store). The effect of this has been to artificially raise the stability and attractiveness of Apple mobile apps far above the industry standard. A Chinese government spokesman said "its is clear that Apple's strategy of offering five times as many Apps as its nearest competitors seriously reduces the freedom of choice of consumers".
c) Apple's ongoing exercising of a monopoly business model. In particular the report notes Apples two most significant monopolies:
- a nearly total monopoly of computer and smart phone systems designed with good taste.
- a total monopoly of Microsoft-free, hassle-free personal computers.
In response to these findings the Chinese government has urged Apple to act immediately to hand control of App development to third parties by allowing cross platform development packages (thus lowing the quality of Apple's iPhone apps and ending its unfair and unique advantages over its competitors) and to immediately install Flash on all its mobile devices (so that it can destabilise and slow them down so that its competitors can catch up).
The Chinese Government urged Apple to work with YUCK (the International Association for the Promotion of Ugliness in Computing - currently chaired by Microsoft's Steve Balmer) in order to rapidly reduce the aesthetic pleasure enjoyed by users of Apple products. YUCK is in the process of referring the case of Jonathan Ives, the infamous employee of Apple, to the Hague International Tribunal to face charges of crimes against humanity.
Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, was unavailable for comment.
I'm one of this board's biggest Flash fans but Flash has no purpose on a mobile phone. In fact my belief is that regular html web sites have no purpose on a phone either. All developers should provide a dedicated iPhone web site that is optimized for a small screen. Flash is a very powerful application but it is only useful on the desktop.
Even on the desktop Flash ads have given Flash a bad name. Flash is like spray paint at the hardware store. If it weren't for graffiti criminals, they wouldn't have to lock up spray paint. Similarly, Flash ads are the curse of the internet so people need to run blockers. It still doesn't mean that Flash or spray paint are inherently evil themselves. There is a correct use for each.
iPad not being able to run Flash is more of a gray area except that most of the current Flash implementations are not designed for a touch interface, but if they we're, the iPad Flash experience might not be so bad, although the battery usage situation is still not optimal. Apple is willing to acknowledge that iPhone apps like Tom Tom are usually used when plugged into a power source so they get a pass on background multitasking. Maybe Flash should be allowed to run when the iPad is plugged in as well.
Furthermore, web developers need to start detecting lack of Flash and presence of Flash blockers and provide alternate content.
I'm one of this board's biggest Flash fans but Flash has no purpose on a mobile phone. In fact my belief is that regular html web sites have no purpose on a phone either. All developers should provide a dedicated iPhone web site that is optimized for a small screen. Flash is a very powerful application but it is only useful on the desktop.
I am one of the biggest opponents to Flash... I only use Mac computers and Apple mobile devices. However, I agree with the above... with one caveat: Ever since Flash MX, Flash has sucked on the Mac desktop!
Quote:
Even on the desktop Flash ads have given Flash a bad name. Flash is like spray paint at the hardware store. If it weren't for graffiti criminals, they wouldn't have to lock up spray paint. Similarly, Flash ads are the curse of the internet so people need to run blockers. It still doesn't mean that Flash or spray paint are inherently evil themselves. There is a correct use for each.
I also agree with this... same caveat.
I run Click2Flash and it has killed all the annoying ads (and their performance hits). When I want, I can enable Flash for a given [Flash] window and this works well... eliminates most hangs and browser crashes.
Quote:
iPad not being able to run Flash is more of a gray area except that most of the current Flash implementations are not designed for a touch interface,
Actually, this should be relatively easy to resolve... press-hold a Flash window and up pops a feature like a loupe-- that when moved over a mouse-over becomes a loupe-over.
Quote:
but if they we're, the iPad Flash experience might not be so bad, although the battery usage situation is still not optimal. Apple is willing to acknowledge that iPhone apps like Tom Tom are usually used when plugged into a power source so they get a pass on background multitasking. Maybe Flash should be allowed to run when the iPad is plugged in as well.
Furthermore, web developers need to start detecting lack of Flash and presence of Flash blockers and provide alternate content.
I wholeheartedly support this last statement... and Adobe should lead that effort, IMO.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
Apple doesn't talk about Flash anymore; it's yesterday's news. Jobs just said No when asked. No amplification, no nothing.
Apple is content to let Adobe do all the whining in public and be exposed for the fools they've turned into. But it's just sad that the media, reporters and analysts, can't do their jobs either.
How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
in the end it doesn't matter because even if it was out, it won't be on the ipad. partly because of the bug and batteries and partly because
Quote:
most Flash content is not well suited to play on a small screen, and particularly not in a multitouch environment where desktop browser conventions of a mouse pointer and mouseover events are simply not present.
Adobe is trying to counter the bug stuff by saying that it works great on X, Y and Z platforms so the issues are all on Apple's side. And yet they don't have the product on the market so they have no actual data to back themselves up. At least with this latest version. And the fact that they are having issues getting a full version of Flash 10 out on any mobile OS is not going to help audience perception. The most issues and delays they have the more folks might start to believe that Apple has a point. At least among the non tech heads that want something that is cost effective and won't give them headaches with crashes, battery wipeouts etc
All of this Flash nonsense just proves once again - we should trust Steve. He knows quite a bit more than any of us. All of you whiners - go off and Flash your Droid. Droid - what a crappy name.
I just have to laugh to myself whenever anyone throws "HTML5 is the Flash killer" around.
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
<video> tag replacing an <embed> tag makes more sense.
The video tag requires your browser to have codecs already installed with the browser, and there lies the problem.
Because of a beautiful thing called capitalism, everyone wants their codec to be the standard.
So, the idea was to make the Ogg format the standard, and I support this. However, Apple did not, as with others, and so there is no standard at the present time.
Apple stated that the mpeg4 codec should be standard, but that goes against the "open-source" standard the w3c basically stands for.
This is one major reason why Flash will be around for quite some time.
I personally think it should be either replaced or updated or something, but I do not think Adobe is "dead". Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
I can remember Adobe from the LaserWriter days... had friends who worked for them... they (Adobe) were good guys...
I can remember MacroMedia from the Marc Canter days, before Flash. They were good guys, too. I even enjoyed early Flash.
<opinion>
It appears that time has moved on, and it is likely that Flash has been left behind:
-- the future is mobile... if only based on millions of potential users.
-- By the time (if ever) Adobe delivers a viable mobile Flash solution there will be over 100 million smart mobile devices, all happily surfing the web, playing/streaming content and never missing Flash... (never looking back).
-- I suspect most of the significant content-deliverers will implement solutions using HTML5 (in addition to their current Flash solutions)... they've already started, and it will only snowball as these people clamor to reach this new marketplace of millions of targeted, qualified customers.
Oddly, this puts Adobe in the catbird seat. They could spearhead the delivery of services, tools and procedures to:
-- migrate existing Flash to HTML5
-- maintain compatibility to legacy Flash sites.
Adobe could develop and sell a Boffo IDE/SDK and lead the pack of "providers of interactive-content delivery" using open-source standards.
Are they agile enough... we shall see!
</opinion>
.
You make very good points, and I remember those early days, too.
I love Adobe products and use them every day in my work--with the exception of Flash.
At first, I thought the Flash converter to iPhone OS was rather ingenious. But when Apple recently started prohibiting it, I understood the logic. Apple needs to be in control of the entire iPhone OS ecosystem. It's as simple at that.
Apple's initial stance on Flash makes sense, too. It's too cumbersome in its present form to be viable on ANY modile device, much less Apple products.
Though mileage obviously differs with different users, I for one don't really miss Flash beyond the occasional annoyance of not being able to visit a Flash site from time to time.
Apple is leading the mobile industry, and there is no valid reason for Apple to "give in" on accommodating "old technology". There wasn't any mobile to speak of when Adobe acquired Flash, and there were plenty of Windoze machines for it to run on. "Human Interface Guidelines"? Yeah right. Only Apple cared about that. And Apple had been a second-class citizen from Adobe's vantage point.
So there was no reason for Adobe to suspect or predict that it would be painting itself into a sticky corner by happily rolling along on what appeared to be a nice ride with Flash. How could they have foreseen Apple busting into mobile and therefore caring like no one else cared about the user experience on small battery-powered devices with limited computing power?
The ball is in Adobe's court. There are worse situations under the sun than if the effort to make Flash viable ultimately fails.
If the future lies with HTML5, Adobe better have the humility to eat its flock of crow and move on into making some good mobile development tools of its own.
I just have to laugh to myself whenever anyone throws "HTML5 is the Flash killer" around.
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
<video> tag replacing an <embed> tag makes more sense.
Saying "HTML5" mostly just shorthand. Easier to type/say than "HTML5 <video> tag" all the time. Not a big deal.
Quote:
The video tag requires your browser to have codecs already installed with the browser, and there lies the problem.
Because of a beautiful thing called capitalism, everyone wants their codec to be the standard.
So, the idea was to make the Ogg format the standard, and I support this. However, Apple did not, as with others, and so there is no standard at the present time.
Apple stated that the mpeg4 codec should be standard, but that goes against the "open-source" standard the w3c basically stands for.
I agree. This is currently a problem. But the codec should not be defined in the HTML spec. The same way GIF, JPEG, and PNG are not defined in the HTML spec. Remember how long it took to get full PNG support in IE? Yup, IE7. BTW, the format isn't Ogg, it's Ogg Theora (I can be pedantic, too!). Ogg also failed with Vorbis, their answer to MP3, which like h.264 is encumbered with patents.
Quote:
This is one major reason why Flash will be around for quite some time.
I dunno. If the weight continues to go to h.264 (see YouTube and Vimeo HTML5 betas, and yes, Pink Visual [NSFW] mobile pr0n), both the Ogg Theora and Flash will be left behind.
Quote:
I personally think it should be either replaced or updated or something, but I do not think Adobe is "dead". Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
I dunno. If the weight continues to go to h.264 (see YouTube and Vimeo HTML5 betas, and yes, Pink Visual [NSFW] mobile pr0n), both the Ogg Theora and Flash will be left behind.
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
Seriously, besides Wikipedia (the only reason I installed Theora and Vorbis plug-ins on my Mac), who uses any Ogg codecs? Other than sites promoting Ogg stuff, I've never encountered a site that used Theora or Vorbis. Ever. Ogg is dead if they can't get more of the industry behind Theora for HTML5 video. I'll be hugely shocked if they pull it off.
VP8, now that's interesting. Remember, even on the Mac you need plug-ins for video (which are actually plug-ins for Quicktime, not Safari -- h.264 is handled by Quicktime, not Safari/WebKit itself). So you'd need a plug-in for VP8 too, but that would be much more likely to happen if the codec is open, and of better quality than Theora as claimed. However, iPhone/iPad is still up in the air: Apple would have to build-in support for VP8 in Quicktime for those devices, since you obviously can't install plug-ins.
I really don't see the "codec wars" being very protracted. The mobile market is exploding, and he who has the biggest clout in the mobile space is going to set the defacto codec, the same way Microsoft set defacto (if infuriating) web standards for so long with Internet Explorer.
I'd like to see an open codec over h.264 (MPEG LA's extension of free h.264 licensing notwithstanding) and I hope VP8 has a shot. I'd actually bet on it over Theora, because of Google's pull. Actually, I can envision the fight being between h.264 and VP8, with Theora dying in the crossfire. We shall see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simantic
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
Bummer! Honestly, I'd wager that it's the HTML5 <canvas> element that's making Adobe's butt pucker, even more than HTML5 video. Have you seen what it can do? Adobe was alleged to have been actively blocking the <canvas> tag in the HTML spec. Because which would a n00b rather play with: free <canvas> and JavaScript, or shell out big dollars for Flash? (Even if Flash's dev environment is putatively better.)
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
Why shouldn't there be an authoring environment for HTML5? Are you forgetting that all those CMSs and authoring environments out there ultimately have to generate HTML, otherwise the browsers couldn't do anything with their output. They could spit out HTML5 just as easily. So, ultimately, it really isn't just the domain of the hand coder, because if I want to embed video using the established standard (HTML5 video tag or whatever), then my authoring environment needs to be able to let me do that. What you're saying is nonsensical.
That said, if you're a web designer and can't code raw HTML, you suck at your job.
Why shouldn't there be an authoring environment for HTML5? Are you forgetting that all those CMSs and authoring environments out there ultimately have to generate HTML, otherwise the browsers couldn't do anything with their output. They could spit out HTML5 just as easily. So, ultimately, it really isn't just the domain of the hand coder, because if I want to embed video using the established standard (HTML5 video tag or whatever), then my authoring environment needs to be able to let me do that. What you're saying is nonsensical.
That said, if you're a web designer and can't code raw HTML, you suck at your job.
I am referring to the canvas tag and how intense the draw function code is. Nothing like your typical js, cut and paste ajax or html. Like I said GO DO SOME HTML5 and get back to us afterward.
Also another note on the canvas tag, which is the only interesting thing about HTML5 for me since I don't care about the video tag, is that it is not supported in any version of IE, which is too big of a market to ignore. There are some things in the works to enable Flash to interpret the canvas tag in IE but very preliminary at this point in time.
Comments
Beijing: Chinese government attacks human rights record of Apple
The Chinese government today released a statement strongly condemning the human rights record of Apple because of the following practices:
a) Apple's ongoing attack on the international not-for-profit philanthropic organisation known as Adobe. In particular the report noted Apple's ongoing suppression of Flash (the well known deoptimization and content delivery tax utility published by Adobe). The report noted that "this attack was particularly reprehensible given Adobe's record of support of Apple - an example being the very quick ten year development programme Adobe undertook to produce a fully native cocoa version of Creative Suite for the macintosh platform".
b) Apple's continuing overt control of the App publishing system for its own mobile platform (commonly known as the App Store). The effect of this has been to artificially raise the stability and attractiveness of Apple mobile apps far above the industry standard. A Chinese government spokesman said "its is clear that Apple's strategy of offering five times as many Apps as its nearest competitors seriously reduces the freedom of choice of consumers".
c) Apple's ongoing exercising of a monopoly business model. In particular the report notes Apples two most significant monopolies:
- a nearly total monopoly of computer and smart phone systems designed with good taste.
- a total monopoly of Microsoft-free, hassle-free personal computers.
In response to these findings the Chinese government has urged Apple to act immediately to hand control of App development to third parties by allowing cross platform development packages (thus lowing the quality of Apple's iPhone apps and ending its unfair and unique advantages over its competitors) and to immediately install Flash on all its mobile devices (so that it can destabilise and slow them down so that its competitors can catch up).
The Chinese Government urged Apple to work with YUCK (the International Association for the Promotion of Ugliness in Computing - currently chaired by Microsoft's Steve Balmer) in order to rapidly reduce the aesthetic pleasure enjoyed by users of Apple products. YUCK is in the process of referring the case of Jonathan Ives, the infamous employee of Apple, to the Hague International Tribunal to face charges of crimes against humanity.
Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, was unavailable for comment.
Reuters reports:
Beijing: Chinese government attacks human rights record of Apple...
ROFLMAO!
Actually, YUCK should go even further and insist that Apple release the Finder for all its mobile devices...
Cries of FTFMF would resound throughout the world!'
.
Even on the desktop Flash ads have given Flash a bad name. Flash is like spray paint at the hardware store. If it weren't for graffiti criminals, they wouldn't have to lock up spray paint. Similarly, Flash ads are the curse of the internet so people need to run blockers. It still doesn't mean that Flash or spray paint are inherently evil themselves. There is a correct use for each.
iPad not being able to run Flash is more of a gray area except that most of the current Flash implementations are not designed for a touch interface, but if they we're, the iPad Flash experience might not be so bad, although the battery usage situation is still not optimal. Apple is willing to acknowledge that iPhone apps like Tom Tom are usually used when plugged into a power source so they get a pass on background multitasking. Maybe Flash should be allowed to run when the iPad is plugged in as well.
Furthermore, web developers need to start detecting lack of Flash and presence of Flash blockers and provide alternate content.
I'm one of this board's biggest Flash fans but Flash has no purpose on a mobile phone. In fact my belief is that regular html web sites have no purpose on a phone either. All developers should provide a dedicated iPhone web site that is optimized for a small screen. Flash is a very powerful application but it is only useful on the desktop.
I am one of the biggest opponents to Flash... I only use Mac computers and Apple mobile devices. However, I agree with the above... with one caveat: Ever since Flash MX, Flash has sucked on the Mac desktop!
Even on the desktop Flash ads have given Flash a bad name. Flash is like spray paint at the hardware store. If it weren't for graffiti criminals, they wouldn't have to lock up spray paint. Similarly, Flash ads are the curse of the internet so people need to run blockers. It still doesn't mean that Flash or spray paint are inherently evil themselves. There is a correct use for each.
I also agree with this... same caveat.
I run Click2Flash and it has killed all the annoying ads (and their performance hits). When I want, I can enable Flash for a given [Flash] window and this works well... eliminates most hangs and browser crashes.
iPad not being able to run Flash is more of a gray area except that most of the current Flash implementations are not designed for a touch interface,
Actually, this should be relatively easy to resolve... press-hold a Flash window and up pops a feature like a loupe-- that when moved over a mouse-over becomes a loupe-over.
but if they we're, the iPad Flash experience might not be so bad, although the battery usage situation is still not optimal. Apple is willing to acknowledge that iPhone apps like Tom Tom are usually used when plugged into a power source so they get a pass on background multitasking. Maybe Flash should be allowed to run when the iPad is plugged in as well.
Furthermore, web developers need to start detecting lack of Flash and presence of Flash blockers and provide alternate content.
I wholeheartedly support this last statement... and Adobe should lead that effort, IMO.
.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
Apple doesn't talk about Flash anymore; it's yesterday's news. Jobs just said No when asked. No amplification, no nothing.
Apple is content to let Adobe do all the whining in public and be exposed for the fools they've turned into. But it's just sad that the media, reporters and analysts, can't do their jobs either.
How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
in the end it doesn't matter because even if it was out, it won't be on the ipad. partly because of the bug and batteries and partly because
most Flash content is not well suited to play on a small screen, and particularly not in a multitouch environment where desktop browser conventions of a mouse pointer and mouseover events are simply not present.
Adobe is trying to counter the bug stuff by saying that it works great on X, Y and Z platforms so the issues are all on Apple's side. And yet they don't have the product on the market so they have no actual data to back themselves up. At least with this latest version. And the fact that they are having issues getting a full version of Flash 10 out on any mobile OS is not going to help audience perception. The most issues and delays they have the more folks might start to believe that Apple has a point. At least among the non tech heads that want something that is cost effective and won't give them headaches with crashes, battery wipeouts etc
Ray
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
<video> tag replacing an <embed> tag makes more sense.
The video tag requires your browser to have codecs already installed with the browser, and there lies the problem.
Because of a beautiful thing called capitalism, everyone wants their codec to be the standard.
So, the idea was to make the Ogg format the standard, and I support this. However, Apple did not, as with others, and so there is no standard at the present time.
Apple stated that the mpeg4 codec should be standard, but that goes against the "open-source" standard the w3c basically stands for.
This is one major reason why Flash will be around for quite some time.
I personally think it should be either replaced or updated or something, but I do not think Adobe is "dead". Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
One word... WOW
(And check out his personal 'bio', if that's what it's supposed to be.)
Ya know...
I can remember Adobe from the LaserWriter days... had friends who worked for them... they (Adobe) were good guys...
I can remember MacroMedia from the Marc Canter days, before Flash. They were good guys, too. I even enjoyed early Flash.
<opinion>
It appears that time has moved on, and it is likely that Flash has been left behind:
-- the future is mobile... if only based on millions of potential users.
-- By the time (if ever) Adobe delivers a viable mobile Flash solution there will be over 100 million smart mobile devices, all happily surfing the web, playing/streaming content and never missing Flash... (never looking back).
-- I suspect most of the significant content-deliverers will implement solutions using HTML5 (in addition to their current Flash solutions)... they've already started, and it will only snowball as these people clamor to reach this new marketplace of millions of targeted, qualified customers.
Oddly, this puts Adobe in the catbird seat. They could spearhead the delivery of services, tools and procedures to:
-- migrate existing Flash to HTML5
-- maintain compatibility to legacy Flash sites.
Adobe could develop and sell a Boffo IDE/SDK and lead the pack of "providers of interactive-content delivery" using open-source standards.
Are they agile enough... we shall see!
</opinion>
.
You make very good points, and I remember those early days, too.
I love Adobe products and use them every day in my work--with the exception of Flash.
At first, I thought the Flash converter to iPhone OS was rather ingenious. But when Apple recently started prohibiting it, I understood the logic. Apple needs to be in control of the entire iPhone OS ecosystem. It's as simple at that.
Apple's initial stance on Flash makes sense, too. It's too cumbersome in its present form to be viable on ANY modile device, much less Apple products.
Though mileage obviously differs with different users, I for one don't really miss Flash beyond the occasional annoyance of not being able to visit a Flash site from time to time.
Apple is leading the mobile industry, and there is no valid reason for Apple to "give in" on accommodating "old technology". There wasn't any mobile to speak of when Adobe acquired Flash, and there were plenty of Windoze machines for it to run on. "Human Interface Guidelines"? Yeah right. Only Apple cared about that. And Apple had been a second-class citizen from Adobe's vantage point.
So there was no reason for Adobe to suspect or predict that it would be painting itself into a sticky corner by happily rolling along on what appeared to be a nice ride with Flash. How could they have foreseen Apple busting into mobile and therefore caring like no one else cared about the user experience on small battery-powered devices with limited computing power?
The ball is in Adobe's court. There are worse situations under the sun than if the effort to make Flash viable ultimately fails.
If the future lies with HTML5, Adobe better have the humility to eat its flock of crow and move on into making some good mobile development tools of its own.
I just have to laugh to myself whenever anyone throws "HTML5 is the Flash killer" around.
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
<video> tag replacing an <embed> tag makes more sense.
Saying "HTML5" mostly just shorthand. Easier to type/say than "HTML5 <video> tag" all the time. Not a big deal.
The video tag requires your browser to have codecs already installed with the browser, and there lies the problem.
Because of a beautiful thing called capitalism, everyone wants their codec to be the standard.
So, the idea was to make the Ogg format the standard, and I support this. However, Apple did not, as with others, and so there is no standard at the present time.
Apple stated that the mpeg4 codec should be standard, but that goes against the "open-source" standard the w3c basically stands for.
I agree. This is currently a problem. But the codec should not be defined in the HTML spec. The same way GIF, JPEG, and PNG are not defined in the HTML spec. Remember how long it took to get full PNG support in IE? Yup, IE7. BTW, the format isn't Ogg, it's Ogg Theora (I can be pedantic, too!). Ogg also failed with Vorbis, their answer to MP3, which like h.264 is encumbered with patents.
This is one major reason why Flash will be around for quite some time.
I dunno. If the weight continues to go to h.264 (see YouTube and Vimeo HTML5 betas, and yes, Pink Visual [NSFW] mobile pr0n), both the Ogg Theora and Flash will be left behind.
I personally think it should be either replaced or updated or something, but I do not think Adobe is "dead". Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
Agreed. Photoshop, Illustrator and other parts of their product range aren't going anywhere any time soon. But guess what! Dreamweaver can do HTML5 including dynamic graphics.
That being said, you'll pry my aging copy of Freehand out of my cold, dead hands. Well, at least until it no longer runs on OS X.
I dunno. If the weight continues to go to h.264 (see YouTube and Vimeo HTML5 betas, and yes, Pink Visual [NSFW] mobile pr0n), both the Ogg Theora and Flash will be left behind.
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
But guess what! Dreamweaver can do HTML5 including dynamic graphics.
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
Seriously, besides Wikipedia (the only reason I installed Theora and Vorbis plug-ins on my Mac), who uses any Ogg codecs? Other than sites promoting Ogg stuff, I've never encountered a site that used Theora or Vorbis. Ever. Ogg is dead if they can't get more of the industry behind Theora for HTML5 video. I'll be hugely shocked if they pull it off.
VP8, now that's interesting. Remember, even on the Mac you need plug-ins for video (which are actually plug-ins for Quicktime, not Safari -- h.264 is handled by Quicktime, not Safari/WebKit itself). So you'd need a plug-in for VP8 too, but that would be much more likely to happen if the codec is open, and of better quality than Theora as claimed. However, iPhone/iPad is still up in the air: Apple would have to build-in support for VP8 in Quicktime for those devices, since you obviously can't install plug-ins.
I really don't see the "codec wars" being very protracted. The mobile market is exploding, and he who has the biggest clout in the mobile space is going to set the defacto codec, the same way Microsoft set defacto (if infuriating) web standards for so long with Internet Explorer.
I'd like to see an open codec over h.264 (MPEG LA's extension of free h.264 licensing notwithstanding) and I hope VP8 has a shot. I'd actually bet on it over Theora, because of Google's pull. Actually, I can envision the fight being between h.264 and VP8, with Theora dying in the crossfire. We shall see.
Apparently this didn't make it into CS5. Not a good move by Adobe to not finish this feature. I guess they thought that HTML5 wouldn't be implemented by designers/developers as soon as it has. Mind you the spec is still in its infancy.
Bummer! Honestly, I'd wager that it's the HTML5 <canvas> element that's making Adobe's butt pucker, even more than HTML5 video. Have you seen what it can do? Adobe was alleged to have been actively blocking the <canvas> tag in the HTML spec. Because which would a n00b rather play with: free <canvas> and JavaScript, or shell out big dollars for Flash? (Even if Flash's dev environment is putatively better.)
[edited to quote re: <canvas> not in CS5]
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
Why shouldn't there be an authoring environment for HTML5? Are you forgetting that all those CMSs and authoring environments out there ultimately have to generate HTML, otherwise the browsers couldn't do anything with their output. They could spit out HTML5 just as easily. So, ultimately, it really isn't just the domain of the hand coder, because if I want to embed video using the established standard (HTML5 video tag or whatever), then my authoring environment needs to be able to let me do that. What you're saying is nonsensical.
That said, if you're a web designer and can't code raw HTML, you suck at your job.
Why shouldn't there be an authoring environment for HTML5? Are you forgetting that all those CMSs and authoring environments out there ultimately have to generate HTML, otherwise the browsers couldn't do anything with their output. They could spit out HTML5 just as easily. So, ultimately, it really isn't just the domain of the hand coder, because if I want to embed video using the established standard (HTML5 video tag or whatever), then my authoring environment needs to be able to let me do that. What you're saying is nonsensical.
That said, if you're a web designer and can't code raw HTML, you suck at your job.
I am referring to the canvas tag and how intense the draw function code is. Nothing like your typical js, cut and paste ajax or html. Like I said GO DO SOME HTML5 and get back to us afterward.
Also another note on the canvas tag, which is the only interesting thing about HTML5 for me since I don't care about the video tag, is that it is not supported in any version of IE, which is too big of a market to ignore. There are some things in the works to enable Flash to interpret the canvas tag in IE but very preliminary at this point in time.