There's no way you can no whether this will actually be the case unless you are directly involved in the development, which I doubt. In which case, it's simply meaningless propaganda.
Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software? Are there any non-Adobe flash plug-ins? I recall one open source group that had to abandon such a plug-in due to threats from Adobe. Then what is this about openness? I have no problem with closed implementations of open standards, open standards means that other groups can make their own implementations.
Whatever. This whole fight looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If Adobe can have control over the Flash platform, then why can't Apple have their own control of the iOS platform? Those whose goal is to have open platforms, then their choice is something else entirely. That might be an Android device, but to be consistent, also disable and remove flash.
Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software? Are there any non-Adobe flash plug-ins? I recall one open source group that had to abandon such a plug-in due to threats from Adobe. Then what is this about openness? I have no problem with closed implementations of open standards, open standards means that other groups can make their own implementations.
what threats.
It was said it wasn't open, and that's bullcrap. It is open, and anyone can develop their own.
This isn't about so much defending adobe, it's stating the truth. Adobe was a lazy sob in the world of mobile, and they're taking their lumps. They have a lot to prove, and we'll see how that plays out. I don't care if someone hates flash, that's their choice. But stop with the BS already.
The FULL swf spec is NOT open. One of the things that open source players can't access is the verification portion. That has stopped them from accessing the BBC's iPlayer videos.
Another point: just publishing the SWF specs does not make it "open source" or "open".
Imagine developing a player for the "open" SWF specs, but then Adobe keeps changing them in ways you cannot predict or support ??
I think the purpose of publishing the spec is so developers can export as swf from their application and it will run in Adobe Flash player. The spec they published is Flash 6 I think something old though, certainly not Flash 9.
Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
That's because you refuse to even listen to anyone who says anything against Adobe. I'll spell it out for you AGAIN:
1. Adobe says that Flash is needed for the 'Full Internet'
2. Only Adobe can write Flash plugins or other Flash software.
3. There is no Flash for mobile devices, and even if 10.1 comes out and meets expectations, it will only serve a tiny fraction of mobile devices - so the vast majority of mobile devices won't have flash.
4. Because of #2, Adobe is the only one who can address #3.
Therefore, Adobe is keeping people from accessing the full internet - by their own definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
We get it... you love Flash and no doubt make a pretty penny 'developing' in it.
My point is that the only people who passionately 'need' Flash are those who
1) want their porn
2) want to bombard us with annoying jumping ads, and
3) want to play primitive games like Farmville.
.
You left out:
4. Pseudo developers who really don't know how to code, but have learned how to do Flash animations while refusing to learn html 5, Objective C, etc. This seems to be the loudest group in the whole issue, particularly with regard to the App Store. These 'developers' are too lazy to learn to code properly and want to create a Flash program and sell it on all platforms with no work on their part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvidal
The whole web isn't going to change to HTML5 because of Steve Jobs, it'll change because of Flash. Flash has been a bad choice since the start of it,
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares if people stop using Flash because Jobs said so, or because it's an inherently bad technology, or because Jobs said it's an inherently bad technology. Apple simply wants people to migrate to open standards - regardless of their reason for doing so.
"It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash. They're mutually beneficial. The more important question is the freedom of choice on the Web."
a) They aren't mutually beneficial.
b) It's not about freedom of choice on the web. There has almost never been any freedom of choice on the web. Content providers choose what to provide, and content consumers consume what is provided. I'd like it if the New York Times provided a prominent link to Paul Krugman's column at the top left of their home page, but that's not my choice. It's also not my choice whether they start charging for content or not. Nor is it my choice what formats they make media available in. Trying to frame this issue as being about user choice is nothing but blue smoke and mirrors.
Adobe should be ashamed of themselves, they never responded to any of the key points presented in the letter Steve Jobs wrote on the Apple website. They did not offer any solutions, they only used smokes and mirrors to appeal to the ignorant masses that have no real technical clue as to why things are in their current mess. I really do not see any good outcome of this debacle for Adobe, they will be left behind by technology that is moving forward in media presentation/delivery.
And this from a company that over charges for the likes of Photoshop, makes it almost impossible to transfer a license because their "customer non-service" staff is almost impossible to understand and unhelpful. It must be a strategy to prevent legal exchanges and force people to buy full versions. Sound like a bazaar and not a modern business practice. There was so much discord internally with many staff members disgusted that Adobe deemed CS4 a new release with minimal benefits.
Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
Choice is a red herring, but Adobe is the one trumpeting their support for choice when their history is the contrary. The fact is, Flash isn't open, using it or not has nothing to do with choice for users, and it's entirely dishonest of Adobe or anyone to suggest that it does.
Okay, I love the banter back and forth. People see a word and get stuck on it. Then the whole argument derails on both sides because people take it personally for some strange reason.
Anywhooo....
Adobe seems to have the position that they want a product that is easy to write for multiple platforms and not be "stuck" or "limited" based on your "choice" of what you bought.
All the arguments here seem to indicate that Flash does not in fact meet or reach this goal. Does it run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - no. Does HTML5 run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - seems to (I could be wrong).
People claim Flash works on platform X. So what. Many are proving that it doesn't, or has major issues. The point is that Adobe seems to be claiming that their clearly proprietary Flash is the "java" of the web. Write once and it just works on whatever you have.
The truth seems to be that it does not in fact do this and people in droves are trying, or moving to alternatives.
Am I totally off in this?
There are many nuances of this whole debate and I know you trolls like to try and focus on just one or two. I chose to focus on the overall in my statement here. Adobe claims to be multi-platform and device independent, but I am not seeing that.
As for Apple being proprietary, yes they are and no they are not. Apple has created a lot of closed environments for sure. And they maintain those as they see fit. 100% support from me on their choice to do this. I can choose not to buy it if I don't want to.
They have also turned over a multitude of technologies to Open Standards boards. In a few cases they have even released it back to Open Source (a totally different term for those that can not differentiate between the two). More than we know. Some of it has been adopted and some of it has been shunned. Regardless, they still released it from their "proprietary" control. Prove that statement wrong.
To me that clearly makes an attack on them being labelled "closed" a little childish. Be specific and I can agree with you. Otherwise you are just proving how obtuse you are.
That is like Toyota saying "We love the American National Highway Association." What we don't love is someone interfering with your right to experience uncontrolled acceleration while on fire.
I use clicktoflash on my MacBook Pro, the only problem I see with the more and more website adopting HTML5 and abandoning Flash is I won't be able to block banner ads as easily in Safari.
The creators of Click2Flash detect requests for Flash content and immobilize them. They do this by examining the HTML code and requests to the server.
It is a little more difficult, but not impossible, to do the same with non-Flash content...
It's called "harvesting" or "screen scraping"!
If HTML5 sites become inundated with undesirable/intrusive content, someone will, likely, create a "Click2Block" tool for that content.
I know I'd buy it!
One macro approach would be to isolate and immobilize (with a gray box) any server requests to a different server than the one where the current page resides. Most ad content is delivered from 3rd party servers. That's one reason that a page with lots of ads loads slowly:
1 request-respose (client-server) to load the page*
multiple request-response pairs to load all the ads
Depending on bandwidth, connection speed, and web traffic a request-response pair can take as little as 1/2 second or many, many seconds.
* It's a bit more involved, as request-response pairs are also used to load images, JavaScript and CSS. But, sans ads, most well-designed pages can be fully loaded with 2-3 request-response pairs plus a couple more for images.
It's ironic, that these sites with ads are wasting our time, (battery and data minutes on cell), costing us money-- so they can deluge us with unwanted advertising.
...It is like paying to watch commercials!
If i visit a site that takes more than a few seconds to display, or contains a lot of unrelated cruft... I just move on.
I particularly avoid those tech sites with the slide shows of "15 ways that whatever will change the web".
I really enjoy the calm and serenity of a Click2Flash page render... and I can easily determine whether the motivation is only to get me to buy something!
Comments
Android 2.1+ devices will be flash capable.
There's no way you can no whether this will actually be the case unless you are directly involved in the development, which I doubt. In which case, it's simply meaningless propaganda.
Whatever. This whole fight looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If Adobe can have control over the Flash platform, then why can't Apple have their own control of the iOS platform? Those whose goal is to have open platforms, then their choice is something else entirely. That might be an Android device, but to be consistent, also disable and remove flash.
It's not like it at all since Apple isn't falsely claiming it's the supporter of choice in cases where it's clearly not.
pfffft.
Sure. Good for apple, bad for adobe right.
Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software? Are there any non-Adobe flash plug-ins? I recall one open source group that had to abandon such a plug-in due to threats from Adobe. Then what is this about openness? I have no problem with closed implementations of open standards, open standards means that other groups can make their own implementations.
what threats.
It was said it wasn't open, and that's bullcrap. It is open, and anyone can develop their own.
This isn't about so much defending adobe, it's stating the truth. Adobe was a lazy sob in the world of mobile, and they're taking their lumps. They have a lot to prove, and we'll see how that plays out. I don't care if someone hates flash, that's their choice. But stop with the BS already.
The FULL swf spec is NOT open. One of the things that open source players can't access is the verification portion. That has stopped them from accessing the BBC's iPlayer videos.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...01/bbc-iplayer
Another point: just publishing the SWF specs does not make it "open source" or "open".
Imagine developing a player for the "open" SWF specs, but then Adobe keeps changing them in ways you cannot predict or support ??
True open source involves a committee and a modicum of democracy.
That is why there are so few third-party SWF players. What a potentially colossal risk and waste of time.
Are Flash objects being developed using non-Adobe development software?
Yes
Keynote 4 exports as Flash. I haven't upgraded yet but I'm sure the new one doesn't. Wonder why...
Another point: just publishing the SWF specs does not make it "open source" or "open".
Imagine developing a player for the "open" SWF specs, but then Adobe keeps changing them in ways you cannot predict or support ??
I think the purpose of publishing the spec is so developers can export as swf from their application and it will run in Adobe Flash player. The spec they published is Flash 6 I think something old though, certainly not Flash 9.
Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
That's because you refuse to even listen to anyone who says anything against Adobe. I'll spell it out for you AGAIN:
1. Adobe says that Flash is needed for the 'Full Internet'
2. Only Adobe can write Flash plugins or other Flash software.
3. There is no Flash for mobile devices, and even if 10.1 comes out and meets expectations, it will only serve a tiny fraction of mobile devices - so the vast majority of mobile devices won't have flash.
4. Because of #2, Adobe is the only one who can address #3.
Therefore, Adobe is keeping people from accessing the full internet - by their own definitions.
We get it... you love Flash and no doubt make a pretty penny 'developing' in it.
My point is that the only people who passionately 'need' Flash are those who
1) want their porn
2) want to bombard us with annoying jumping ads, and
3) want to play primitive games like Farmville.
.
You left out:
4. Pseudo developers who really don't know how to code, but have learned how to do Flash animations while refusing to learn html 5, Objective C, etc. This seems to be the loudest group in the whole issue, particularly with regard to the App Store. These 'developers' are too lazy to learn to code properly and want to create a Flash program and sell it on all platforms with no work on their part.
The whole web isn't going to change to HTML5 because of Steve Jobs, it'll change because of Flash. Flash has been a bad choice since the start of it,
Frankly, I don't think Apple cares if people stop using Flash because Jobs said so, or because it's an inherently bad technology, or because Jobs said it's an inherently bad technology. Apple simply wants people to migrate to open standards - regardless of their reason for doing so.
check my sig
I did,
"It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash. They're mutually beneficial. The more important question is the freedom of choice on the Web."
a) They aren't mutually beneficial.
b) It's not about freedom of choice on the web. There has almost never been any freedom of choice on the web. Content providers choose what to provide, and content consumers consume what is provided. I'd like it if the New York Times provided a prominent link to Paul Krugman's column at the top left of their home page, but that's not my choice. It's also not my choice whether they start charging for content or not. Nor is it my choice what formats they make media available in. Trying to frame this issue as being about user choice is nothing but blue smoke and mirrors.
yeah see it all comes down to that doesn't it. When you can't discuss the issue head on, just either call them a liar, or adobe shill.
classic.
If the shoe fits, you should wear it, Adobe shill.
I think I'll toss my vote to Apple.
If the shoe fits, you should wear it, Adobe shill.
yeah that's pretty much about the only response I've seen.
If you can't present facts, call 'em an adobe shill eh?
pfffft.
Sure. Good for apple, bad for adobe right.
Still have seen where adobe is against choice, making people do stuff.
Choice is a red herring, but Adobe is the one trumpeting their support for choice when their history is the contrary. The fact is, Flash isn't open, using it or not has nothing to do with choice for users, and it's entirely dishonest of Adobe or anyone to suggest that it does.
The 10.1 Beta is out, or will be very soon. They are working.
w00t! any day now it will be in beta!
Anywhooo....
Adobe seems to have the position that they want a product that is easy to write for multiple platforms and not be "stuck" or "limited" based on your "choice" of what you bought.
All the arguments here seem to indicate that Flash does not in fact meet or reach this goal. Does it run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - no. Does HTML5 run on multiple platforms - yes. Does it run on all platforms - seems to (I could be wrong).
People claim Flash works on platform X. So what. Many are proving that it doesn't, or has major issues. The point is that Adobe seems to be claiming that their clearly proprietary Flash is the "java" of the web. Write once and it just works on whatever you have.
The truth seems to be that it does not in fact do this and people in droves are trying, or moving to alternatives.
Am I totally off in this?
There are many nuances of this whole debate and I know you trolls like to try and focus on just one or two. I chose to focus on the overall in my statement here. Adobe claims to be multi-platform and device independent, but I am not seeing that.
As for Apple being proprietary, yes they are and no they are not. Apple has created a lot of closed environments for sure. And they maintain those as they see fit. 100% support from me on their choice to do this. I can choose not to buy it if I don't want to.
They have also turned over a multitude of technologies to Open Standards boards. In a few cases they have even released it back to Open Source (a totally different term for those that can not differentiate between the two). More than we know. Some of it has been adopted and some of it has been shunned. Regardless, they still released it from their "proprietary" control. Prove that statement wrong.
To me that clearly makes an attack on them being labelled "closed" a little childish. Be specific and I can agree with you. Otherwise you are just proving how obtuse you are.
That is like Toyota saying "We love the American National Highway Association." What we don't love is someone interfering with your right to experience uncontrolled acceleration while on fire.
Best
Analogy
Ever!
A major British newspaper's (the Independent) website not only uses flash
throughout but also embeds advertising links in the text every so
often so you can't copy and paste the text into Mail (you have to pay
to be able to e-mail an article from their website)
And that's why I just don't read the independent! I wish the BBC would get rid of Flash though
I use clicktoflash on my MacBook Pro, the only problem I see with the more and more website adopting HTML5 and abandoning Flash is I won't be able to block banner ads as easily in Safari.
The creators of Click2Flash detect requests for Flash content and immobilize them. They do this by examining the HTML code and requests to the server.
It is a little more difficult, but not impossible, to do the same with non-Flash content...
It's called "harvesting" or "screen scraping"!
If HTML5 sites become inundated with undesirable/intrusive content, someone will, likely, create a "Click2Block" tool for that content.
I know I'd buy it!
One macro approach would be to isolate and immobilize (with a gray box) any server requests to a different server than the one where the current page resides. Most ad content is delivered from 3rd party servers. That's one reason that a page with lots of ads loads slowly:
1 request-respose (client-server) to load the page*
multiple request-response pairs to load all the ads
Depending on bandwidth, connection speed, and web traffic a request-response pair can take as little as 1/2 second or many, many seconds.
* It's a bit more involved, as request-response pairs are also used to load images, JavaScript and CSS. But, sans ads, most well-designed pages can be fully loaded with 2-3 request-response pairs plus a couple more for images.
It's ironic, that these sites with ads are wasting our time, (battery and data minutes on cell), costing us money-- so they can deluge us with unwanted advertising.
...It is like paying to watch commercials!
If i visit a site that takes more than a few seconds to display, or contains a lot of unrelated cruft... I just move on.
I particularly avoid those tech sites with the slide shows of "15 ways that whatever will change the web".
I really enjoy the calm and serenity of a Click2Flash page render... and I can easily determine whether the motivation is only to get me to buy something!
.
Postulant- dude I have no idea what you're talking about.
So are you saying that Apple supports Flash for the web now and just not for mobile devices?
Yep, in a nutshell. That's pretty much it. You got it right