It's interesting to see Google begin to cave on open internet as well (embracing Flash on Android) . Their integrity and "do no evil" mantra seems to erode a bit more day by day.
Heaven forbid a company actually listen to what its customers want. If Android users want flash on their devices, why shouldn't Google facilitate that? Only the most ardent fanboy would see Google meeting a customer demand as an attack on the open internet. It's not like Google has stopped supporting HTML 5. They simply don't think that they should stop supporting Flash right now. There are still some out there who actually want to be able to access any website they want on their mobile device. Good on Google for giving their customers what they want.
Really? Mind sourcing any of the APIs available through Cocoa that would have allowed Adobe to access the GPU for H.264 acceleration? To my knowledge this was only available through the Quicktime (X) API and is only now become a public API for use by third parties like Adobe. If what you say is true, could you provide any evidence to back it up, or are you just stating that since it fits with your view?
QTKit has been out for a while.
Quote:
No other third party apps had access to an Apple API to allow H.264 acceleration, but Adobe did? I didn't realize Adobe and Apple had become so chummy again that Apple would give them exclusive access.
I'm not really sure what this means or is in response to.
Quote:
Actually I guess you stated that the 'standard Cocoa' APIs would provide the same benefit. Someone should alert Apple, because the certainly didn't think so and hence created a private (until now) API just for this purpose. It was only available in Quicktime, but now is available to all third parties. They really should stop wasting time creating brand new APIs that duplicate existing APIs.
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
I'm a little surprised Apple would bother getting into a public tit for tat on this, just because the whole question of "open" versus "proprietary" is not something that most consumers generally care about. I think this is really more of a developer issue. Consumers don't care if Flash or html5 are "open" or "proprietary" -- from their point of view, both are "free" to use. Apple should focus on making the argument that their solution results in a better experience for consumers than Flash.
Bang on. As a consumer, I care about being able to access the internet. The whole internet. Do I care about the geek war in the background over whether a proprietary plug-in or open standard is better? Probably not. I just want a page to load well and for me to be able to access any content I want. Unfortunately, neither Apple (there's also their stance on JavaFX) or Adobe is making it easier for consumers right now.
As I said, it has been available through Quicktime. QTKit would require them to only support the formats that Quicktime supports. Flash renders video differently than Quicktime. So, they would have to rewrite their rendering engine and thereby only support the formats that QuickTime supports. In essence they would simply be a Quicktime wrapper. This is not the same all having access to an API to access the GPU acceleration for H.264. NVIDIA's VP3 is meant to provide H.264 acceleration not just Quicktime acceleration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
probably. And anyone else that wanted to add hardware acceleration for H.264 playback. Quicktime is not the be all and end all of video play back on the Mac. Fortunately there are 3rd party apps that fill some of the gaps. You might even have used some of them. Now they too can add acceleration for their h.264 playback for formats other than Quicktime supported.
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015. [11] However, other fees remain in place.
So from that description it seems there are fees in place now, and no one knows how much those fees will increase in 2016.
I'm not really sure what this means or is in response to.
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
And:
"More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
"More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
Which should mean that Adobe simply could not hardware accelerate Flash on OSX, not that they have chosen not to do so.
If that were true, why does Flash suck even worse on Linux? They have all the access on that platform that they could ever want. Maybe it's because the Flash team can't be bothered?
I'm with the guy who posted that Flash is much more than banner ads. It is a real programming and run time environment to do real work. I understand Apple being grumpy that the Flash runtime has poor performance on Mac OS. But the Flash development tools are worthwhile and professional grade. Blocking the cross-compiler is just petty. I hope Apple shoots themselves in the foot by also blocking very popular engines like Unity, MonoTouch, and others. And gets in some kind of legal trouble if they selectively enforce the "no cross-compiler" rule.
- Jasen.
really ?? you lost an app??
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Firewire was mostly used for external hard drives, cameras and music equipment. With the advent of USB2 the speeds got to the point where they were close enough that for most people it didn't matter. Only a few computer companies (Sony's IEEE1394 ports come to mind) besides Apple ever really got behind Firewire much. As USB has spread so much, the number of products sold with Firewire still included have shrunk even more. Music interfaces can use USB2 and ASIO drivers to achieve 0 latency, so its even becoming less needed in one of its last few holdouts.
No .
FireWire is still the fastest game in town <<i think >>,<<E-SATA ??>>>anyway
I port over 300 g files all the time.
and by FIVE WIRE its takes hrs
by USB2 if it does not crash its takes 2x AS LONG.
Since 85 percent of all itunes users and ipad /iphone. ipod itouch owners are birthed and will die in the wintel msft bloat world .AND since they will never know the pure joy of snowy love . .err err hmm . well i forget what i was saying
anyway
APPLE to save money is using THEIR standard of USB . and not its own standard .
APPLE THINKS about non mac users in the fire wire debate .
APPLE woke up and put FW back ..thank god
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.
Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will jog your memory:
Apple has just released a new API that will allow for Adobe to finally offer hardware accelerated Flash on Mac computers.
Which should mean that Adobe simply could not hardware accelerate Flash on OSX, not that they have chosen not to do so.
Interesting timing by Apple, by the way. Trying to kill Flash last traces of on iDevices, while opening more to Flash on desktops. What gives?
Damn you to zune accessory world dude
you forced me to read 6 pagers of junk before you supply a great topic ending point .
good one ..
And apple has a simple game plan that states if you fuck with UI in anyway bad way like battery draining banner ads or 30 second web page opening time lags then APPLE will create equal or better work arounds.
IE; APERTURE was a direct response to repeated 18 month or longer delays in ADOBE upgrading APPLE SW programs like photo shop or other creative suites. ADOBE even started to port some SW over rather fresh re writes. SCum bubbles
AD0BE felt THAT had apple by the balls ,,AND THEY DID !! for a time.
10 yrs down the road and adobe still acts like they are the kings of the hill .
Apple has moved to light speed futuristic devices that warrant 2015 type innovations. HTML5 is only the ground floor to what will be needed >>
Low power Fast loading Tiny devices demand this >>If they are to do things like stream hulu live on a wrist watch and still get a 7 hrs battery charge. Adobe IS being licked and dragged into the new brave wortld of PERFECT UI type computing.
ADOBE IS A FINE FINE COMPANY
NO ONE CAN TOUCH WHAT THEY DO
and if you do something they can't then they will buy your company and kill the the product or stamp the ADOBEE moniker on it.
LIKE THAT GREAT SW GO LIVE . That was so great until adobe bought them up ....any way my rant over flows >>> My point is ADOBE could create 5 or 6 app's for the IPAD that could be game changing for the whole market ... whole creative world down to 3rd graders,,
instead adobe pouts like a bit//////
move on ..ok ..
Adobe has to bow and serve apple ... its master //and lose its ego ....
tell me if html5 can make a simple flash site like this http://www.avatarmovie.com/ , i'm betting no, so flash will never die.....
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
tell me if html5 can make a simple flash site like this http://www.avatarmovie.com/ , i'm betting no, so flash will never die.....
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
there is a place for flash....at a great distance flash won't die but will be balanced
we are watching another technology being replaced or get a strong competitive push aside
htlm5 will grow because flash will always hog resources, besides desktop, plugged in laptop OK
mobile phones devices cya, don't let the door hit you in your crash battery sapping, virus portal arse
It looks pretty good on an iPhone and has all the information I need.
I can even buy the DVD they are selling, which is really the whole point of the site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwklam
tell me if html5 can make a simple flash site like this http://www.avatarmovie.com/ , i'm betting no, so flash will never die.....
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
FireWire is still the fastest game in town <<i think >>,<<E-SATA ??>>>anyway
I port over 300 g files all the time.
and by FIVE WIRE its takes hrs
by USB2 if it does not crash its takes 2x AS LONG.
I never said USB2 had gotten to be faster than Firewire, but it was way faster than original USB and was fast enough for most people. I'm guessing it was also cheaper/easier to add USB than Firewire b/c more and more devices supported while Firewire was on less and less. USB is VHS, Firewire is Betamax. Happens all the time
... In essence they would simply be a Quicktime wrapper. ...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
And:
"More of this tired nonsense? ..." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
Just because Apple gave them the API they were demanding, doesn't mean that Flash could not have sucked without it. But, this does shut up their whining.
Flash is dead. Adapt or find a new career.
Edit: And, let's assume that Flash can't not suck without this API. A 3rd-party technology that must dictate hardware design and what APIs must be made public, has no place on iPhone, iPad, Macs, or anywhere else. Flash needs to die so technology and the web can progress in a way that's best, not a way that is best for Adobe.
Do you use Apple products? iPod is simply better than ANY competing player. Use it for a day and you will never buy a different brand. Same with iPhone...
Yes, I do have iPhone 3Gs. However I also had Creative Zen. I gave it to a relative when I got iPhone - I don't need 2 MP3 players - but I did like it. Some things - simple drag&drop, freedom to organize music as you want - were, for me, preferable to how iPhone/iTunes are organizing things. Audio quality was good, as was battery life for such a small device. I really didn't see it inferior to price comparable iPod at the time (was it iPod Mini?).
Quote:
P.S. is there a study that shows how many iPhone users switch to a different brand?
Not that I am aware of, but that is actually interesting question. If I came across any, I'll link it here.
If that were true, why does Flash suck even worse on Linux? They have all the access on that platform that they could ever want. Maybe it's because the Flash team can't be bothered?
Comments
Pot. Kettle. Black.
It's interesting to see Google begin to cave on open internet as well (embracing Flash on Android) . Their integrity and "do no evil" mantra seems to erode a bit more day by day.
Heaven forbid a company actually listen to what its customers want. If Android users want flash on their devices, why shouldn't Google facilitate that? Only the most ardent fanboy would see Google meeting a customer demand as an attack on the open internet. It's not like Google has stopped supporting HTML 5. They simply don't think that they should stop supporting Flash right now. There are still some out there who actually want to be able to access any website they want on their mobile device. Good on Google for giving their customers what they want.
Really? Mind sourcing any of the APIs available through Cocoa that would have allowed Adobe to access the GPU for H.264 acceleration? To my knowledge this was only available through the Quicktime (X) API and is only now become a public API for use by third parties like Adobe. If what you say is true, could you provide any evidence to back it up, or are you just stating that since it fits with your view?
QTKit has been out for a while.
No other third party apps had access to an Apple API to allow H.264 acceleration, but Adobe did? I didn't realize Adobe and Apple had become so chummy again that Apple would give them exclusive access.
I'm not really sure what this means or is in response to.
Actually I guess you stated that the 'standard Cocoa' APIs would provide the same benefit. Someone should alert Apple, because the certainly didn't think so and hence created a private (until now) API just for this purpose. It was only available in Quicktime, but now is available to all third parties. They really should stop wasting time creating brand new APIs that duplicate existing APIs.
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
I'm a little surprised Apple would bother getting into a public tit for tat on this, just because the whole question of "open" versus "proprietary" is not something that most consumers generally care about. I think this is really more of a developer issue. Consumers don't care if Flash or html5 are "open" or "proprietary" -- from their point of view, both are "free" to use. Apple should focus on making the argument that their solution results in a better experience for consumers than Flash.
Bang on. As a consumer, I care about being able to access the internet. The whole internet. Do I care about the geek war in the background over whether a proprietary plug-in or open standard is better? Probably not. I just want a page to load well and for me to be able to access any content I want. Unfortunately, neither Apple (there's also their stance on JavaFX) or Adobe is making it easier for consumers right now.
I don't hate Apple per se,
I hate their demagogique big balls.
Hey addabox, he's taking your advice!
QTKit has been out for a while.
As I said, it has been available through Quicktime. QTKit would require them to only support the formats that Quicktime supports. Flash renders video differently than Quicktime. So, they would have to rewrite their rendering engine and thereby only support the formats that QuickTime supports. In essence they would simply be a Quicktime wrapper. This is not the same all having access to an API to access the GPU acceleration for H.264. NVIDIA's VP3 is meant to provide H.264 acceleration not just Quicktime acceleration.
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
probably. And anyone else that wanted to add hardware acceleration for H.264 playback. Quicktime is not the be all and end all of video play back on the Mac. Fortunately there are 3rd party apps that fill some of the gaps. You might even have used some of them. Now they too can add acceleration for their h.264 playback for formats other than Quicktime supported.
Sigh.
From the article:
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015. [11] However, other fees remain in place.
So from that description it seems there are fees in place now, and no one knows how much those fees will increase in 2016.
QTKit has been out for a while.
I'm not really sure what this means or is in response to.
Well, maybe they released this now because they were tired of Adobe's whining.
And:
"More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-apple-api.ars
And:
"More of this tired nonsense? This is just the most ridiculous, baseless claim out of Adobe ever. Adobe has had access to all the APIs they need to make Flash not suck on Macs. That they aren't using them is no one's fault but their own. I can't believe Adobe can actually get anyone to believe this stuff they put out." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-apple-api.ars
According to this article:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18207
Apple has just released a new API that will allow for Adobe to finally offer hardware accelerated Flash on Mac computers.
Which should mean that Adobe simply could not hardware accelerate Flash on OSX, not that they have chosen not to do so.
Interesting timing by Apple, by the way. Trying to kill Flash last traces of on iDevices, while opening more to Flash on desktops. What gives?
Which should mean that Adobe simply could not hardware accelerate Flash on OSX, not that they have chosen not to do so.
If that were true, why does Flash suck even worse on Linux? They have all the access on that platform that they could ever want. Maybe it's because the Flash team can't be bothered?
I'm with the guy who posted that Flash is much more than banner ads. It is a real programming and run time environment to do real work. I understand Apple being grumpy that the Flash runtime has poor performance on Mac OS. But the Flash development tools are worthwhile and professional grade. Blocking the cross-compiler is just petty. I hope Apple shoots themselves in the foot by also blocking very popular engines like Unity, MonoTouch, and others. And gets in some kind of legal trouble if they selectively enforce the "no cross-compiler" rule.
- Jasen.
really ?? you lost an app??
Firewire was mostly used for external hard drives, cameras and music equipment. With the advent of USB2 the speeds got to the point where they were close enough that for most people it didn't matter. Only a few computer companies (Sony's IEEE1394 ports come to mind) besides Apple ever really got behind Firewire much. As USB has spread so much, the number of products sold with Firewire still included have shrunk even more. Music interfaces can use USB2 and ASIO drivers to achieve 0 latency, so its even becoming less needed in one of its last few holdouts.
No .
FireWire is still the fastest game in town <<i think >>,<<E-SATA ??>>>anyway
I port over 300 g files all the time.
and by FIVE WIRE its takes hrs
by USB2 if it does not crash its takes 2x AS LONG.
Since 85 percent of all itunes users and ipad /iphone. ipod itouch owners are birthed and will die in the wintel msft bloat world .AND since they will never know the pure joy of snowy love . .err err hmm . well i forget what i was saying
anyway
APPLE to save money is using THEIR standard of USB . and not its own standard .
APPLE THINKS about non mac users in the fire wire debate .
APPLE woke up and put FW back ..thank god
Actually, I said, "Blah blah blah, Flash 10.1, blah blah blah," which is very much to the point, unless you are determined to ignore the point. All this blather, yes blather, about Flash 10.1 and how great it is and how it will be so wonderful on mobile devices is just that... blather. Flash 10.1 is at this moment vaporware, so what truthfully can be said about it? Nothing.
Oh, yes, and it's dishonest of you to suggest that all I said was, "blah blah blah .... blah blah blah." Perhaps this will jog your memory:
get a room guys
Q. How many Android phones ship with Flash support?
A. Zero.
Really!!!
That's an amazing factoid .
According to this article:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18207
Apple has just released a new API that will allow for Adobe to finally offer hardware accelerated Flash on Mac computers.
Which should mean that Adobe simply could not hardware accelerate Flash on OSX, not that they have chosen not to do so.
Interesting timing by Apple, by the way. Trying to kill Flash last traces of on iDevices, while opening more to Flash on desktops. What gives?
Damn you to zune accessory world dude
you forced me to read 6 pagers of junk before you supply a great topic ending point .
good one ..
And apple has a simple game plan that states if you fuck with UI in anyway bad way like battery draining banner ads or 30 second web page opening time lags then APPLE will create equal or better work arounds.
IE; APERTURE was a direct response to repeated 18 month or longer delays in ADOBE upgrading APPLE SW programs like photo shop or other creative suites. ADOBE even started to port some SW over rather fresh re writes. SCum bubbles
AD0BE felt THAT had apple by the balls ,,AND THEY DID !! for a time.
10 yrs down the road and adobe still acts like they are the kings of the hill .
Apple has moved to light speed futuristic devices that warrant 2015 type innovations. HTML5 is only the ground floor to what will be needed >>
Low power Fast loading Tiny devices demand this >>If they are to do things like stream hulu live on a wrist watch and still get a 7 hrs battery charge. Adobe IS being licked and dragged into the new brave wortld of PERFECT UI type computing.
ADOBE IS A FINE FINE COMPANY
NO ONE CAN TOUCH WHAT THEY DO
and if you do something they can't then they will buy your company and kill the the product or stamp the ADOBEE moniker on it.
LIKE THAT GREAT SW GO LIVE . That was so great until adobe bought them up ....any way my rant over flows >>> My point is ADOBE could create 5 or 6 app's for the IPAD that could be game changing for the whole market ... whole creative world down to 3rd graders,,
instead adobe pouts like a bit//////
move on ..ok ..
Adobe has to bow and serve apple ... its master //and lose its ego ....
peace
9
sorry for long rant
GO APPLE
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" - Steve Jobs
Price of an iPad - $499
I guess they learned how
but it required thinking outside the box
it's not a tradtional any computer it's a computer extension
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
tell me if html5 can make a simple flash site like this http://www.avatarmovie.com/ , i'm betting no, so flash will never die.....
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
there is a place for flash....at a great distance flash won't die but will be balanced
we are watching another technology being replaced or get a strong competitive push aside
htlm5 will grow because flash will always hog resources, besides desktop, plugged in laptop OK
mobile phones devices cya, don't let the door hit you in your crash battery sapping, virus portal arse
I can even buy the DVD they are selling, which is really the whole point of the site.
tell me if html5 can make a simple flash site like this http://www.avatarmovie.com/ , i'm betting no, so flash will never die.....
you should use html5 and flash together to make a website, and as for iphone os, make a dedicated html5 page for it then(you know, do a browser detection, its not hard for php.)
From the article:
So from that description it seems there are fees in place now, and no one knows how much those fees will increase in 2016.
Which has nothing to do with Apple "owning" the format.
No .
FireWire is still the fastest game in town <<i think >>,<<E-SATA ??>>>anyway
I port over 300 g files all the time.
and by FIVE WIRE its takes hrs
by USB2 if it does not crash its takes 2x AS LONG.
I never said USB2 had gotten to be faster than Firewire, but it was way faster than original USB and was fast enough for most people. I'm guessing it was also cheaper/easier to add USB than Firewire b/c more and more devices supported while Firewire was on less and less. USB is VHS, Firewire is Betamax. Happens all the time
... In essence they would simply be a Quicktime wrapper. ...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
And:
"More of this tired nonsense? ..." (anoymouse)
---
It means that just because you say that Adobe has access to all the API's they need to make flash run efficiently does not make it so. Now that they do, let's see what difference it makes.
Just because Apple gave them the API they were demanding, doesn't mean that Flash could not have sucked without it. But, this does shut up their whining.
Flash is dead. Adapt or find a new career.
Edit: And, let's assume that Flash can't not suck without this API. A 3rd-party technology that must dictate hardware design and what APIs must be made public, has no place on iPhone, iPad, Macs, or anywhere else. Flash needs to die so technology and the web can progress in a way that's best, not a way that is best for Adobe.
Do you use Apple products? iPod is simply better than ANY competing player. Use it for a day and you will never buy a different brand. Same with iPhone...
Yes, I do have iPhone 3Gs. However I also had Creative Zen. I gave it to a relative when I got iPhone - I don't need 2 MP3 players - but I did like it. Some things - simple drag&drop, freedom to organize music as you want - were, for me, preferable to how iPhone/iTunes are organizing things. Audio quality was good, as was battery life for such a small device. I really didn't see it inferior to price comparable iPod at the time (was it iPod Mini?).
P.S. is there a study that shows how many iPhone users switch to a different brand?
Not that I am aware of, but that is actually interesting question. If I came across any, I'll link it here.
If that were true, why does Flash suck even worse on Linux? They have all the access on that platform that they could ever want. Maybe it's because the Flash team can't be bothered?
No idea. No speak Linux