Because HTML5 is a totally new rewritten HTML. They just tack on new code to old Flash code.
How am I parroting Steve when there is clear evidence? Android, Symbian, iPhone, soon Blackberry OS all have HTML5 supported web browsers. None can fully support Flash. This is simply the truth.
I'm not even arguing that Flash is going to go away. I believe it will be used for some time to come. But it won't hold the same role at had in the past.
They will all soon also be sorting 10.1 player. Very soon. If it turns out to be a good player, and run as I had seen it, things will indeed change very quickly.
And yes there can be no doubt that flash's role will evolve, and I see that, as a very good thing.
wrong. HTML5 as a player of the H.264, is the alternative, not H.264. Flash is the container that plays H.264, and has had support for playing H.264 for a long time. It enables the ability to share video files and offer a different player.
And wrong again that flash is to be a one size fits all. You need to have experience in developing flash, AND CSS js etc, to know this.
Well no, HTML5 is the medium for delivering H.264 on the web, but the iPhone doesn't use HTML5 to play YouTube videos via H.264 as an alternative to Flash.
Flash is not just a container, it's a playback medium. Its features in that regard can be replicated in JavaScript on the web, but back in 2005 JS and browsers weren't standardized enough and fast enough to make that easy enough to do, hence Flash being used as a video playback mechanism.
Today, there's no compelling reason to use Flash just to present videos. It is irrelevant that Flash can use the H.264 codec now, because the codec isn't the issue. It's whether or not you need a freaking huge, insecure, slow web plugin to play back standard video files when all modern browsers can do that natively (save for the zealots at Mozilla), and mobile devices can do it with the benefit of hardware compression.
And while there are lots of things Flash "can do," the vast majority of existing Flash video is not H.264, it's Sorensen Spark, a proprietary version of H.263 that is not supported in hardware compression. So more irrelevance on your part.
The problem for Adobe is that video playback is the killer app for Flash. That and Farmville. So while Adobe has a lot of grandiose plans for Flex and AIR, its empire is going to collapse as Flash loses its main reason for being, which is to play videos.
After that happens, and it already has on the iPhone OS, there will be much less compelling reason to do anything new in Flash, because 100 million of the world's best customers won't be able to see it. And that's why Adobe is coming unglued.
Well no, HTML5 is the medium for delivering H.264 on the web, but the iPhone doesn't use HTML5 to play YouTube videos via H.264 as an alternative to Flash.
Flash is not just a container, it's a playback medium. Its features in that regard can be replicated in JavaScript on the web, but back in 2005 JS and browsers weren't standardized enough and fast enough to make that easy enough to do, hence Flash being used as a video playback mechanism.
Today, there's no compelling reason to use Flash just to present videos. It is irrelevant that Flash can use the H.264 codec now, because the codec isn't the issue. It's whether or not you need a freaking huge, insecure, slow web plugin to play back standard video files when all modern browsers can do that natively (save for the zealots at Mozilla), and mobile devices can do it with the benefit of hardware compression.
And while there are lots of things Flash "can do," the vast majority of existing Flash video is not H.264, it's Sorensen Spark, a proprietary version of H.263 that is not supported in hardware compression. So more irrelevance on your part.
The problem for Adobe is that video playback is the killer app for Flash. That and Farmville. So while Adobe has a lot of grandiose plans for Flex and AIR, its empire is going to collapse as Flash loses its main reason for being, which is to play videos.
After that happens, and it already has on the iPhone OS, there will be much less compelling reason to do anything new in Flash, because 100 million of the world's best customers won't be able to see it. And that's why Adobe is coming unglued.
Uh. Ok. First of all, don't change your storey. You said:
Quote:
H.264 is an alternative to Flash, although limited to the video playback functions of Flash.
H.264 is NOT an alternative to flash, html5 -is-. That's the point. Don't go around in circles.
And if there is lots of video that isn't H.264 and can't use hardware acceleration, well, I guess it's time for an upgrade isn't it, Just like a whole lot of content on the web, that needs rebuilding. It's a never ending cycle as better technologies and realities emerge, and keeps guys like me, employed.
And let's keep things in perspective. I find most apple fanbois always revert to this 'flash is nothing but video and they'll die without it BS', but if you stop and think about it rationally, you'll remember that flash had dominance in the high 90s percent long before they had video support. Video, was never added until flash 6, and even then was in it's infancy, and didn't really come into it's own until flash 8. So flash grew and became huge without, the ability to play video.
Absolutely, there will be changes in what we use to deploy requirements. If we can do it easily in HMTML5, or php, or what have you and it makes better sense than flash, well then DUH. of course you would.
Why this is of some great revelation is a grand mystery. It's been that way, for a long time.
They will all soon also be sorting 10.1 player. Very soon. If it turns out to be a good player, and run as I had seen it, things will indeed change very quickly.
Really? IPhone won't have Flash 10.1. Windows Mobile won't have it. There's no formal announcement about any other platform except Android - and that requires an 800 MHz A8 - which leaves out the vast majority of phones on the market.
So EVEN IF Adobe manages to hit their latest target and even if it actually works well (which doesn't appear to be the case with the betas), AT BEST a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices will have Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
I find it interesting SJ even found it necessary to post his "thoughts", which are well known to be inaccurate.
I hope Adobe is paying you well. After all, it must be worth something the way you've thrown your integrity out the window to shill for them.
Really? IPhone won't have Flash 10.1. Windows Mobile won't have it. There's no formal announcement about any other platform except Android - and that requires an 800 MHz A8 - which leaves out the vast majority of phones on the market.
So EVEN IF Adobe manages to hit their latest target and even if it actually works well (which doesn't appear to be the case with the betas), AT BEST a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices will have Flash.
I hope Adobe is paying you well. After all, it must be worth something the way you've thrown your integrity out the window to shill for them.
ok, let's talk about integrity, since you brought it up.
And flash player will indeed be brought to Symbian. Wrong again. And, it will also, be brought to blackberry.
And, as you mentioned, we all know it'll on android. And you said 'it doesn't appear to working well'. Really. Have you seen it? I have, in person, and you're full of it. It is indeed working very well.
So yes, let's talk about integrity. But first, you should do a little research first and not embarrass yourself.
I have said several times, I'm only interested in truth here. But the bunch of you have turned this into a us and them arguement full of holes, and have tried accusing me of having an agenda, and now 'shilling for adobe'. could hope for an interesting discussion on new emerging technologies like html5, what it means for things like flash, the wars going on, but it seems all you guys are interested in, I guess, is "shilling for apple"... rather than seeing through the sensationalism and the BS.
Is that all you got? Let's try debating the actual subject without having to resort to stooping hmmm k?
Not really ? He's right and this is a very frustrating articles for several reasons. First the headline implies that Apple is developing some kind of Flash alternative. This has nothing to do with Flash and isn't being developed for market. As the article states, this was shown almost a year ago. Gianduia is just the codename of one of the five or so internal JavaScript frameworks that Apple has created to support some of the applications they're building. Apple employs Cocoa developers, so it advantageous for them to have web frameworks that mimic Cocoa frameworks.
This is in the same class as Cappuccino and SproutCore and I've never heard of them being billed as Flash replacements. They're for building better Gmail-like apps, which Flash has never really played a big part in.
WebGL (based on OpenGL ES) is a very deep API and I don't expect most web developers will pick it up any time soon. It's not really suited to just including a few animations on a page but rather providing a full shader-based, graphics programming pipeline. It'll be helpful for doing things like scientific visualizations or certain kinds of games. For the kinds of animations Flash is mostly used for, most benchmarks show that Canvas+JavaScript is more than performant. And it'll only get faster.
Anyway, my point is that AI is trying to position this as some kind of Flash alternative possibly desktop tool people can use to create Flash-like content and that may be released later this year. It's not ? it's a rich application JavaScript framework they've used internally and might possibly be open sourced for others to use like SproutCore. Programming essentially in Objective-C patterns with Cocoa-like API's while writing JavaScript is not going to appeal to the Flash programming crowd.
Everything you wrote grading WebGL is what I'm counting on. As a mechanical engineer with a computer science backup I'm counting on it to be robust and not for designers to get all gaga.
It's funny how I've been hearing how great Flash for mobiles is for years. Adobe even saying they had Flash ready for the iPhone back in 2008, then saying it's more difficult than they thought even imploring Apple for assistance, then declaring the project dead all while pushing Flash for Android farther an farther back so that going into the middle of 2010 it's still not released. But everyone "in the know" says it's great, it doesn't affect battery life, and it's all Apple's fault it's been delayed. :rollseyes:
It's funny how I've been hearing how great Flash for mobiles is for years. Adobe even saying they had Flash ready for the iPhone back in 2008, then saying it's more difficult than they thought even imploring Apple for assistance, then declaring the project dead all while pushing Flash for Android farther an farther back so that going into the middle of 2010 it's still not released. But everyone "in the know" says it's great, it doesn't affect battery life, and it's all Apple's fault it's been delayed. :rollseyes:
do some research, go see for yourself in person before mouthing off about something you obviously know zero about. It's annoying to see the constant barrage of crap posted everywhere by apple fanbois that has little merit, or basis in fact at all.
It's already been said that adobe certainly missed the boat, has been lazy, blah blah. I already said I firmly believe and support apple's decision NOT to put flash in it's current form on the iphone. And, it's now up to adobe, to deliver. And I meant it.
But the BS has to stop at some point. I love apple stuff too, but that doesn't mean I swallow and parrot everything his Steveness spouts.
Flash worked perfectly fine as long as most of the computer industry was using desktops with ample system resources and plugged into unlimited power supplies.
Don't add to Groovetube's lies and anti-Apple/pro-Adobe agenda. What do you define as "modern"? Would you say a 6 month old netbook is still a modern computing device? I would. Since Flash 10.1 is only a Beta, using it to say "well if such and such's grandma wants to play Hulu videos on their netbook without stuttering all they have to do is install the Flash Beta for 10.1. Duh.".
Here is some evidence that Flash 10.0.x.x on Atom-based machine is not "working fine".
Don't add to Groovetube's lies and anti-Apple/pro-Adobe agenda. What do you define as "modern"? Would you say a 6 month old netbook is still a modern computing device? I would. Since Flash 10.1 is only a Beta, using it to say "well if such and such's grandma wants to play Hulu videos on their netbook without stuttering all they have to do is install the Flash Beta for 10.1. Duh.".
Here is some evidence that Flash 10.0.x.x on Atom-based machine is not "working fine".
So who do we believe- Adobe and Microsoft or some anonymous Adobe shill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
And flash player will indeed be brought to Symbian. Wrong again. And, it will also, be brought to blackberry.
Sorry, Adobe is a master of vaporware. As I said, it is not on any of those phones AT PRESENT. Your own link confirms that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
And, as you mentioned, we all know it'll on android. And you said 'it doesn't appear to working well'. Really. Have you seen it? I have, in person, and you're full of it. It is indeed working very well.
I see that no one has explained the concept of verb tenses to you. It will supposedly be on Android AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. That is not the present.
We DO have a widely publicized Adobe demo where Flash 10.1 crashed. We have countless reports that it's still choppy and slow. AND, even if by some magic they are able to get it working well, it requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it wouldn't run on the iPhone even if Apple allowed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
So yes, let's talk about integrity. But first, you should do a little research first and not embarrass yourself.
I have said several times, I'm only interested in truth here.
So far, you've added nothing but lies and distortions. NONE of the things that you provided give the least reason to believe that Flash works on any existing mobile devices TODAY - as you claimed repeatedly.
Why not go back to Adobe, collect your paycheck, and tell them they need to find a more skilled shill?
So who do we believe- Adobe and Microsoft or some anonymous Adobe shill?
Sorry, Adobe is a master of vaporware. As I said, it is not on any of those phones AT PRESENT. Your own link confirms that.
I see that no one has explained the concept of verb tenses to you. It will supposedly be on Android AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. That is not the present.
We DO have a widely publicized Adobe demo where Flash 10.1 crashed. We have countless reports that it's still choppy and slow. AND, even if by some magic they are able to get it working well, it requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it wouldn't run on the iPhone even if Apple allowed it.
So far, you've added nothing but lies and distortions. NONE of the things that you provided give the least reason to believe that Flash works on any existing mobile devices TODAY - as you claimed repeatedly.
Why not go back to Adobe, collect your paycheck, and tell them they need to find a more skilled shill?
I suppose it's hard to accept the truth. I know, when you got nothing, right?
Quote:
o you quote someone on a web forum who claims that 'they are working together'.
btw the confirmation of the windows7 adobe thing, came straight from mike chambers, if you even bothered to read the supplied link. Don't believe me, contact him yourself, and get it direct. I know that's likely not going to happen since you seem happy to believe the BS spewed eh? While you're at it ask him about the android demos. Recent ones. in case you're wondering, mike chambers, isn't 'someone on a web forum'...
And educate yourself what is happening with new flash player on android. It;'s running beautifully, will be out soon, and thousands and thousands of web developers have seen it running already very recently.
What are you going to do if adobe does releases it on android in a couple months and it runs amazing huh?
I have been frank, truthful about the state of where flash is currently and that it absolutely needed to be fixed, and what I have seen first hand, and what I'm hoping will transpire very soon.
Which is more than I can say for a few of you who seem to have trouble focusing on a subject. The usual is accusing me of being paid by adobe. Speaks volumes there genius...
Flash mobile is vaporware as of yet. Nothing has it. You can make arguments that it is coming and that it is going to be great, but that's all conjecture at this point. jragost has pretty much nailed that point.
I do not think Flash will be gone tomorrow by any means, but it is definitely a declining platform and some pretty major sites and companies are moving away from it.
Flash mobile is vaporware as of yet. Nothing has it. You can make arguments that it is coming and that it is going to be great, but that's all conjecture at this point. jragost has pretty much nailed that point.
I do not think Flash will be gone tomorrow by any means, but it is definitely a declining platform and some pretty major sites and companies are moving away from it.
Apple just made it obvious.
jragost has nailed nothing but spewing BS. He didn't even get the link to mike chambers correct, where else do you go with a totally word salad post like that?
Yes you're correct, technically, flash 10.1 hasn't been officially released for android, or the others yet. However, it has been previewed (saw it 2 weeks ago at a major conference) and seen by a lot of people so it's gone past vapourware, and there needed to be -some- dispelling of the nonsense being spewed that only android would get the new player.
It simply ain't true. So what exactly, did he nail other than more lies?
If you are talking about iWeb here, it is very simple to make it work with multiple sites already.
Please explain, and include links! Thanks! My guess is that you mean this:
Create separate sites in iWeb, and tell GoDaddy (in my case) to point my Domains to the Home/Welcome Page using Domain Masking, which always shows domainname.com and not the actual URL's? If that's so, then it's not too practical, when I'd want to share a particularly page, cause I would be able to provide a direct link!
Would the following work as a workaround?
Use index.html as the Home/Welcome Page? Would that get me around Domain Masking, or would I still see the the entire original URL?
Also, what method would you advise as iWebs "equivalent" of Dreamweaver's Templates, where a change in a Template, in DW, would effect every page based on that Template? The only one that I can think of is: Duplicate/Rename = Save As, but that would effect future pages built as Duplicate/Rename = Save As... In DW Templates I can Apply Various Templates to older pages, overwriting the existing Templates that a page is based on.
That's why I say: Apple should do what DW does, but better, more elegantly, and take it to the next level! Also that Apple App should Import/Convert DW Site Folders, and take over from there, so that DW users can make a seamless smooth transition!
THAT would be a DREAM, for me, and a NIGHTMARE for Adobe!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
They all run smoothly on my kid's Dell Netbook.
I can't argue with you, cause I haven't seen Flash on Windows. Add to that the Hardware Differences! My PB G4 1.67 is obviously slower, cause it was a top dog in 2006, Power PC, not Intel, or AMD!
I understand why Adobe is upset: they want to protect their Flash Platform, which is a Cross Platform Translator=Wrapper, whatever label one prefers. The way I understand and agree with Steve Jobs: he wants the apps to be Native to the OS, with no Translator=Wrapper in between! Yes, it would be more costly to some developers, but then Nothing would get lost in translation, less finger pointing, and the developers won't have to keep buying Adobe's Apps... Less finger pointing!!!
I'd like this Apple Adobe Conflict to goes away ASAP! Let them all cooperate towards bringing HTML5 ASAP! Then, may the best WYSIWYG Authoring Tools win! Users will pick what they are most comfortable using instead of being kept hostage...
Obviously, I am simplifying things, but not by much!
In the end, it should be more about the Content, and less about the Eye Candy as the way for the web designers to show off, and overshadow the content, which should be most user-friendly: searching, navigation etc. That kind of Flash Showmanship is what makes me NOT a Fan of Flash! Add to that my Flash Slow Speed, cause I am on a Mac, which is also 4 years old...
I suppose it's hard to accept the truth. I know, when you got nothing, right?
btw the confirmation of the windows7 adobe thing, came straight from mike chambers, if you even bothered to read the supplied link. Don't believe me, contact him yourself, and get it direct. I know that's likely not going to happen since you seem happy to believe the BS spewed eh? While you're at it ask him about the android demos. Recent ones. in case you're wondering, mike chambers, isn't 'someone on a web forum'...
And educate yourself what is happening with new flash player on android. It;'s running beautifully, will be out soon, and thousands and thousands of web developers have seen it running already very recently.
What are you going to do if adobe does releases it on android in a couple months and it runs amazing huh?
I have been frank, truthful about the state of where flash is currently and that it absolutely needed to be fixed, and what I have seen first hand, and what I'm hoping will transpire very soon.
Which is more than I can say for a few of you who seem to have trouble focusing on a subject. The usual is accusing me of being paid by adobe. Speaks volumes there genius...
LOL
I don't know who Mike Chambers is, but I can't believe you're expecting me to believe someone named Mike Chambers even though it conflicts with official announcements from both Adobe and Microsoft. Sorry, I'll go with the official announcements rather than someone who's obviously an Adobe shill like you.
So we can conclude one of two things:
1. You don't understand the difference between your original statement that 'Flash is CURRENTLY available on mobile devices' and a hypothetical 'Flash might some day work on mobile devices'
I don't know who Mike Chambers is, but I can't believe you're expecting me to believe someone named Mike Chambers even though it conflicts with official announcements from both Adobe and Microsoft. Sorry, I'll go with the official announcements rather than someone who's obviously an Adobe shill like you.
So we can conclude one of two things:
1. You don't understand the difference between your original statement that 'Flash is CURRENTLY available on mobile devices' and a hypothetical 'Flash might some day work on mobile devices'
Or
2. You're lying
Which is it?
my god man. You want official? Look up who mike chambers is. It simply doesn't get, 'more official' than that... Here. Let me help since google is suddenly failing you. http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/about/
This is embarrassing guys, come on. Get it together if you're gonna hate flash, at least have some credible arguments rather than this lame crap you're spouting!
And show me where I said flash is currently available for mobile devices. Flash lite is however. Can you get it straight man!
Comments
Because HTML5 is a totally new rewritten HTML. They just tack on new code to old Flash code.
How am I parroting Steve when there is clear evidence? Android, Symbian, iPhone, soon Blackberry OS all have HTML5 supported web browsers. None can fully support Flash. This is simply the truth.
I'm not even arguing that Flash is going to go away. I believe it will be used for some time to come. But it won't hold the same role at had in the past.
They will all soon also be sorting 10.1 player. Very soon. If it turns out to be a good player, and run as I had seen it, things will indeed change very quickly.
And yes there can be no doubt that flash's role will evolve, and I see that, as a very good thing.
wrong. HTML5 as a player of the H.264, is the alternative, not H.264. Flash is the container that plays H.264, and has had support for playing H.264 for a long time. It enables the ability to share video files and offer a different player.
And wrong again that flash is to be a one size fits all. You need to have experience in developing flash, AND CSS js etc, to know this.
Well no, HTML5 is the medium for delivering H.264 on the web, but the iPhone doesn't use HTML5 to play YouTube videos via H.264 as an alternative to Flash.
Flash is not just a container, it's a playback medium. Its features in that regard can be replicated in JavaScript on the web, but back in 2005 JS and browsers weren't standardized enough and fast enough to make that easy enough to do, hence Flash being used as a video playback mechanism.
Today, there's no compelling reason to use Flash just to present videos. It is irrelevant that Flash can use the H.264 codec now, because the codec isn't the issue. It's whether or not you need a freaking huge, insecure, slow web plugin to play back standard video files when all modern browsers can do that natively (save for the zealots at Mozilla), and mobile devices can do it with the benefit of hardware compression.
And while there are lots of things Flash "can do," the vast majority of existing Flash video is not H.264, it's Sorensen Spark, a proprietary version of H.263 that is not supported in hardware compression. So more irrelevance on your part.
The problem for Adobe is that video playback is the killer app for Flash. That and Farmville. So while Adobe has a lot of grandiose plans for Flex and AIR, its empire is going to collapse as Flash loses its main reason for being, which is to play videos.
After that happens, and it already has on the iPhone OS, there will be much less compelling reason to do anything new in Flash, because 100 million of the world's best customers won't be able to see it. And that's why Adobe is coming unglued.
Well no, HTML5 is the medium for delivering H.264 on the web, but the iPhone doesn't use HTML5 to play YouTube videos via H.264 as an alternative to Flash.
Flash is not just a container, it's a playback medium. Its features in that regard can be replicated in JavaScript on the web, but back in 2005 JS and browsers weren't standardized enough and fast enough to make that easy enough to do, hence Flash being used as a video playback mechanism.
Today, there's no compelling reason to use Flash just to present videos. It is irrelevant that Flash can use the H.264 codec now, because the codec isn't the issue. It's whether or not you need a freaking huge, insecure, slow web plugin to play back standard video files when all modern browsers can do that natively (save for the zealots at Mozilla), and mobile devices can do it with the benefit of hardware compression.
And while there are lots of things Flash "can do," the vast majority of existing Flash video is not H.264, it's Sorensen Spark, a proprietary version of H.263 that is not supported in hardware compression. So more irrelevance on your part.
The problem for Adobe is that video playback is the killer app for Flash. That and Farmville. So while Adobe has a lot of grandiose plans for Flex and AIR, its empire is going to collapse as Flash loses its main reason for being, which is to play videos.
After that happens, and it already has on the iPhone OS, there will be much less compelling reason to do anything new in Flash, because 100 million of the world's best customers won't be able to see it. And that's why Adobe is coming unglued.
Uh. Ok. First of all, don't change your storey. You said:
H.264 is an alternative to Flash, although limited to the video playback functions of Flash.
H.264 is NOT an alternative to flash, html5 -is-. That's the point. Don't go around in circles.
And if there is lots of video that isn't H.264 and can't use hardware acceleration, well, I guess it's time for an upgrade isn't it, Just like a whole lot of content on the web, that needs rebuilding. It's a never ending cycle as better technologies and realities emerge, and keeps guys like me, employed.
And let's keep things in perspective. I find most apple fanbois always revert to this 'flash is nothing but video and they'll die without it BS', but if you stop and think about it rationally, you'll remember that flash had dominance in the high 90s percent long before they had video support. Video, was never added until flash 6, and even then was in it's infancy, and didn't really come into it's own until flash 8. So flash grew and became huge without, the ability to play video.
Absolutely, there will be changes in what we use to deploy requirements. If we can do it easily in HMTML5, or php, or what have you and it makes better sense than flash, well then DUH. of course you would.
Why this is of some great revelation is a grand mystery. It's been that way, for a long time.
They will all soon also be sorting 10.1 player. Very soon. If it turns out to be a good player, and run as I had seen it, things will indeed change very quickly.
Really? IPhone won't have Flash 10.1. Windows Mobile won't have it. There's no formal announcement about any other platform except Android - and that requires an 800 MHz A8 - which leaves out the vast majority of phones on the market.
So EVEN IF Adobe manages to hit their latest target and even if it actually works well (which doesn't appear to be the case with the betas), AT BEST a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices will have Flash.
I find it interesting SJ even found it necessary to post his "thoughts", which are well known to be inaccurate.
I hope Adobe is paying you well. After all, it must be worth something the way you've thrown your integrity out the window to shill for them.
Really? IPhone won't have Flash 10.1. Windows Mobile won't have it. There's no formal announcement about any other platform except Android - and that requires an 800 MHz A8 - which leaves out the vast majority of phones on the market.
So EVEN IF Adobe manages to hit their latest target and even if it actually works well (which doesn't appear to be the case with the betas), AT BEST a tiny, tiny fraction of mobile devices will have Flash.
I hope Adobe is paying you well. After all, it must be worth something the way you've thrown your integrity out the window to shill for them.
ok, let's talk about integrity, since you brought it up.
If you want to chat about this subject, at least pretend to do some research. It is well known microsoft and adobe are working together, to bring the new flash player to windows mobile. So you're wrong. So much for integrity.
And flash player will indeed be brought to Symbian. Wrong again. And, it will also, be brought to blackberry.
And, as you mentioned, we all know it'll on android. And you said 'it doesn't appear to working well'. Really. Have you seen it? I have, in person, and you're full of it. It is indeed working very well.
So yes, let's talk about integrity. But first, you should do a little research first and not embarrass yourself.
I have said several times, I'm only interested in truth here. But the bunch of you have turned this into a us and them arguement full of holes, and have tried accusing me of having an agenda, and now 'shilling for adobe'. could hope for an interesting discussion on new emerging technologies like html5, what it means for things like flash, the wars going on, but it seems all you guys are interested in, I guess, is "shilling for apple"... rather than seeing through the sensationalism and the BS.
Is that all you got? Let's try debating the actual subject without having to resort to stooping hmmm k?
Not really ? He's right and this is a very frustrating articles for several reasons. First the headline implies that Apple is developing some kind of Flash alternative. This has nothing to do with Flash and isn't being developed for market. As the article states, this was shown almost a year ago. Gianduia is just the codename of one of the five or so internal JavaScript frameworks that Apple has created to support some of the applications they're building. Apple employs Cocoa developers, so it advantageous for them to have web frameworks that mimic Cocoa frameworks.
This is in the same class as Cappuccino and SproutCore and I've never heard of them being billed as Flash replacements. They're for building better Gmail-like apps, which Flash has never really played a big part in.
WebGL (based on OpenGL ES) is a very deep API and I don't expect most web developers will pick it up any time soon. It's not really suited to just including a few animations on a page but rather providing a full shader-based, graphics programming pipeline. It'll be helpful for doing things like scientific visualizations or certain kinds of games. For the kinds of animations Flash is mostly used for, most benchmarks show that Canvas+JavaScript is more than performant. And it'll only get faster.
Anyway, my point is that AI is trying to position this as some kind of Flash alternative possibly desktop tool people can use to create Flash-like content and that may be released later this year. It's not ? it's a rich application JavaScript framework they've used internally and might possibly be open sourced for others to use like SproutCore. Programming essentially in Objective-C patterns with Cocoa-like API's while writing JavaScript is not going to appeal to the Flash programming crowd.
Everything you wrote grading WebGL is what I'm counting on. As a mechanical engineer with a computer science backup I'm counting on it to be robust and not for designers to get all gaga.
It's funny how I've been hearing how great Flash for mobiles is for years. Adobe even saying they had Flash ready for the iPhone back in 2008, then saying it's more difficult than they thought even imploring Apple for assistance, then declaring the project dead all while pushing Flash for Android farther an farther back so that going into the middle of 2010 it's still not released. But everyone "in the know" says it's great, it doesn't affect battery life, and it's all Apple's fault it's been delayed. :rollseyes:
do some research, go see for yourself in person before mouthing off about something you obviously know zero about. It's annoying to see the constant barrage of crap posted everywhere by apple fanbois that has little merit, or basis in fact at all.
It's already been said that adobe certainly missed the boat, has been lazy, blah blah. I already said I firmly believe and support apple's decision NOT to put flash in it's current form on the iphone. And, it's now up to adobe, to deliver. And I meant it.
But the BS has to stop at some point. I love apple stuff too, but that doesn't mean I swallow and parrot everything his Steveness spouts.
Flash worked perfectly fine as long as most of the computer industry was using desktops with ample system resources and plugged into unlimited power supplies.
Flash works fine on modern netbooks too.
if steves says no flash on mobile devices
then guess what ...
flash is crashing macs world world
That makes a lot of sense. You should post here more often.
Flash works fine on modern netbooks too.
Don't add to Groovetube's lies and anti-Apple/pro-Adobe agenda. What do you define as "modern"? Would you say a 6 month old netbook is still a modern computing device? I would. Since Flash 10.1 is only a Beta, using it to say "well if such and such's grandma wants to play Hulu videos on their netbook without stuttering all they have to do is install the Flash Beta for 10.1. Duh.".
Here is some evidence that Flash 10.0.x.x on Atom-based machine is not "working fine".
Don't add to Groovetube's lies and anti-Apple/pro-Adobe agenda. What do you define as "modern"? Would you say a 6 month old netbook is still a modern computing device? I would. Since Flash 10.1 is only a Beta, using it to say "well if such and such's grandma wants to play Hulu videos on their netbook without stuttering all they have to do is install the Flash Beta for 10.1. Duh.".
Here is some evidence that Flash 10.0.x.x on Atom-based machine is not "working fine".
point out where I have lied. I bet you fail.
Quick like a bunny, or we'll just assume you're mouthing off again.
ok, let's talk about integrity, since you brought it up.
If you want to chat about this subject, at least pretend to do some research. It is well known microsoft and adobe are working together, to bring the new flash player to windows mobile. So you're wrong. So much for integrity.
That's a pretty good one. So you quote someone on a web forum who claims that 'they are working together'.
Meanwhile, Microsoft and Adobe have both stated that Windows Mobile 7 will not have Flash, at least at launch:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/14/a...dows-mobile-7/
So who do we believe- Adobe and Microsoft or some anonymous Adobe shill?
And flash player will indeed be brought to Symbian. Wrong again. And, it will also, be brought to blackberry.
Sorry, Adobe is a master of vaporware. As I said, it is not on any of those phones AT PRESENT. Your own link confirms that.
And, as you mentioned, we all know it'll on android. And you said 'it doesn't appear to working well'. Really. Have you seen it? I have, in person, and you're full of it. It is indeed working very well.
I see that no one has explained the concept of verb tenses to you. It will supposedly be on Android AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. That is not the present.
We DO have a widely publicized Adobe demo where Flash 10.1 crashed. We have countless reports that it's still choppy and slow. AND, even if by some magic they are able to get it working well, it requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it wouldn't run on the iPhone even if Apple allowed it.
So yes, let's talk about integrity. But first, you should do a little research first and not embarrass yourself.
I have said several times, I'm only interested in truth here.
So far, you've added nothing but lies and distortions. NONE of the things that you provided give the least reason to believe that Flash works on any existing mobile devices TODAY - as you claimed repeatedly.
Why not go back to Adobe, collect your paycheck, and tell them they need to find a more skilled shill?
That's a pretty good one. So you quote someone on a web forum who claims that 'they are working together'.
Meanwhile, Microsoft and Adobe have both stated that Windows Mobile 7 will not have Flash, at least at launch:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/14/a...dows-mobile-7/
So who do we believe- Adobe and Microsoft or some anonymous Adobe shill?
Sorry, Adobe is a master of vaporware. As I said, it is not on any of those phones AT PRESENT. Your own link confirms that.
I see that no one has explained the concept of verb tenses to you. It will supposedly be on Android AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. That is not the present.
We DO have a widely publicized Adobe demo where Flash 10.1 crashed. We have countless reports that it's still choppy and slow. AND, even if by some magic they are able to get it working well, it requires an 800 MHz A8 - so it wouldn't run on the iPhone even if Apple allowed it.
So far, you've added nothing but lies and distortions. NONE of the things that you provided give the least reason to believe that Flash works on any existing mobile devices TODAY - as you claimed repeatedly.
Why not go back to Adobe, collect your paycheck, and tell them they need to find a more skilled shill?
I suppose it's hard to accept the truth. I know, when you got nothing, right?
o you quote someone on a web forum who claims that 'they are working together'.
btw the confirmation of the windows7 adobe thing, came straight from mike chambers, if you even bothered to read the supplied link. Don't believe me, contact him yourself, and get it direct. I know that's likely not going to happen since you seem happy to believe the BS spewed eh? While you're at it ask him about the android demos. Recent ones. in case you're wondering, mike chambers, isn't 'someone on a web forum'...
And educate yourself what is happening with new flash player on android. It;'s running beautifully, will be out soon, and thousands and thousands of web developers have seen it running already very recently.
What are you going to do if adobe does releases it on android in a couple months and it runs amazing huh?
I have been frank, truthful about the state of where flash is currently and that it absolutely needed to be fixed, and what I have seen first hand, and what I'm hoping will transpire very soon.
Which is more than I can say for a few of you who seem to have trouble focusing on a subject. The usual is accusing me of being paid by adobe. Speaks volumes there genius...
LOL
See which ones fills up first.
Flash mobile is vaporware as of yet. Nothing has it. You can make arguments that it is coming and that it is going to be great, but that's all conjecture at this point. jragost has pretty much nailed that point.
I do not think Flash will be gone tomorrow by any means, but it is definitely a declining platform and some pretty major sites and companies are moving away from it.
Apple just made it obvious.
Shit in one hand and wish in the other.
See which ones fills up first.
Flash mobile is vaporware as of yet. Nothing has it. You can make arguments that it is coming and that it is going to be great, but that's all conjecture at this point. jragost has pretty much nailed that point.
I do not think Flash will be gone tomorrow by any means, but it is definitely a declining platform and some pretty major sites and companies are moving away from it.
Apple just made it obvious.
jragost has nailed nothing but spewing BS. He didn't even get the link to mike chambers correct, where else do you go with a totally word salad post like that?
Yes you're correct, technically, flash 10.1 hasn't been officially released for android, or the others yet. However, it has been previewed (saw it 2 weeks ago at a major conference) and seen by a lot of people so it's gone past vapourware, and there needed to be -some- dispelling of the nonsense being spewed that only android would get the new player.
It simply ain't true. So what exactly, did he nail other than more lies?
.... totally word salad post......
I like that phrase, 'word salad.'
As Exhibit A, I recommend re-reading your own posts. The grammar, the punctuation, the vocabulary and the ideas are mostly an incomprehensible mess.
If you are talking about iWeb here, it is very simple to make it work with multiple sites already.
Please explain, and include links! Thanks! My guess is that you mean this:
Create separate sites in iWeb, and tell GoDaddy (in my case) to point my Domains to the Home/Welcome Page using Domain Masking, which always shows domainname.com and not the actual URL's? If that's so, then it's not too practical, when I'd want to share a particularly page, cause I would be able to provide a direct link!
Would the following work as a workaround?
Use index.html as the Home/Welcome Page? Would that get me around Domain Masking, or would I still see the the entire original URL?
Also, what method would you advise as iWebs "equivalent" of Dreamweaver's Templates, where a change in a Template, in DW, would effect every page based on that Template? The only one that I can think of is: Duplicate/Rename = Save As, but that would effect future pages built as Duplicate/Rename = Save As... In DW Templates I can Apply Various Templates to older pages, overwriting the existing Templates that a page is based on.
That's why I say: Apple should do what DW does, but better, more elegantly, and take it to the next level! Also that Apple App should Import/Convert DW Site Folders, and take over from there, so that DW users can make a seamless smooth transition!
THAT would be a DREAM
They all run smoothly on my kid's Dell Netbook.
I can't argue with you, cause I haven't seen Flash on Windows. Add to that the Hardware Differences! My PB G4 1.67 is obviously slower, cause it was a top dog in 2006, Power PC, not Intel, or AMD!
I understand why Adobe is upset: they want to protect their Flash Platform, which is a Cross Platform Translator=Wrapper, whatever label one prefers. The way I understand and agree with Steve Jobs: he wants the apps to be Native to the OS, with no Translator=Wrapper in between! Yes, it would be more costly to some developers, but then Nothing would get lost in translation, less finger pointing, and the developers won't have to keep buying Adobe's Apps... Less finger pointing!!!
I'd like this Apple Adobe Conflict to goes away ASAP! Let them all cooperate towards bringing HTML5 ASAP! Then, may the best WYSIWYG Authoring Tools win! Users will pick what they are most comfortable using instead of being kept hostage...
Obviously, I am simplifying things, but not by much!
In the end, it should be more about the Content, and less about the Eye Candy as the way for the web designers to show off, and overshadow the content, which should be most user-friendly: searching, navigation etc. That kind of Flash Showmanship is what makes me NOT a Fan of Flash! Add to that my Flash Slow Speed, cause I am on a Mac, which is also 4 years old...
I suppose it's hard to accept the truth. I know, when you got nothing, right?
btw the confirmation of the windows7 adobe thing, came straight from mike chambers, if you even bothered to read the supplied link. Don't believe me, contact him yourself, and get it direct. I know that's likely not going to happen since you seem happy to believe the BS spewed eh? While you're at it ask him about the android demos. Recent ones. in case you're wondering, mike chambers, isn't 'someone on a web forum'...
And educate yourself what is happening with new flash player on android. It;'s running beautifully, will be out soon, and thousands and thousands of web developers have seen it running already very recently.
What are you going to do if adobe does releases it on android in a couple months and it runs amazing huh?
I have been frank, truthful about the state of where flash is currently and that it absolutely needed to be fixed, and what I have seen first hand, and what I'm hoping will transpire very soon.
Which is more than I can say for a few of you who seem to have trouble focusing on a subject. The usual is accusing me of being paid by adobe. Speaks volumes there genius...
LOL
I don't know who Mike Chambers is, but I can't believe you're expecting me to believe someone named Mike Chambers even though it conflicts with official announcements from both Adobe and Microsoft. Sorry, I'll go with the official announcements rather than someone who's obviously an Adobe shill like you.
So we can conclude one of two things:
1. You don't understand the difference between your original statement that 'Flash is CURRENTLY available on mobile devices' and a hypothetical 'Flash might some day work on mobile devices'
Or
2. You're lying
Which is it?
I don't know who Mike Chambers is, but I can't believe you're expecting me to believe someone named Mike Chambers even though it conflicts with official announcements from both Adobe and Microsoft. Sorry, I'll go with the official announcements rather than someone who's obviously an Adobe shill like you.
So we can conclude one of two things:
1. You don't understand the difference between your original statement that 'Flash is CURRENTLY available on mobile devices' and a hypothetical 'Flash might some day work on mobile devices'
Or
2. You're lying
Which is it?
my god man. You want official? Look up who mike chambers is. It simply doesn't get, 'more official' than that... Here. Let me help since google is suddenly failing you. http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/about/
This is embarrassing guys, come on. Get it together if you're gonna hate flash, at least have some credible arguments rather than this lame crap you're spouting!
And show me where I said flash is currently available for mobile devices. Flash lite is however. Can you get it straight man!