Flash, for me, starting life as an animation too. For cheap ads. It's proprietary. And it's irritating to go to a website. Be told you need to download flash from Adobe's site. Download it. Install it. Then watch it take a lumbering stab at your system's resources. It's a rickety old program. And the ads are largely annoying 'look at me now - click go way BS.' I don't see this 'liberating' argument Adobe are pressing for. H.264 seems a better codec to me.
Apple's site works just well without flash.
I like going to a website that just works...with out being have to install flash.
Adobe could have made flash about authoring. Creative tools. But, the hypocrisy in their 'bleat' is that it isn't about flash as a creative tool, for me. It's about flash being a 'standard.'
Adobe. Get off your lazy ass. Get back to authoring tools (the ones that are currently riddled with bugs or are sub par to the pc versions. And make flash an authoring tool that supports an open standard like HTML 5 rather than needing a proprietary plug in like flash to play.
Times are a changing. Adobe had 3 years to make flash 'lite' for the iPhone. But what have they done? Where is it? Why are they bleating over vapourware? I don't want their middleware. I want developers to use Apple tools and code directly and optimise for Apple's kit. The days of crap game ports, crap Adobe ports are coming to an end. The old Microsoft/Adobe treat Mac users like 2nd class citizens desktop hegemony is over. It's about at an end.
Take a good, loooong look at the iPad, Adobe. It's going to blow you, Microsoft and Google away.
Microsoft. Don't need office. I use iWorks. Expensive program versus a far better, cheaper and easier to use and more powerful program in my mind. Oh. And it doesn't have an irritating quagmire of an interface.
Adobe. Don't need Photoshop. Will use Manga Studio. Painter. Lightwave. Pixelmator. All of them far cheaper than buying the Design Extended 'up myself' rip off price suite...for the mere few 'big' features that are buggy or don't work as well as expected. With Digital Printing, the need for Photoshop is less pressing. I like Photoshop. But Adobe have sat on it's creative monopoly for far to long. Just as they did with flash.
It's time for change. Adobe and Microsoft thought they could just transfer their desktop monopoly into the 'true' mobile age. They were wrong. They're going to have to earn it. Unfortunately for them. That means innovating. Something neither company has done very well.
Adobe say they want middleware democracy at the same time they give the Mac crap ports.
They insinuate that Apple is a monopoly while they bought Macromedia and pulled Freehand, a program many argued was far better than Illustrator. The lack of competition has led to high prices and slow progress.
Why should Apple support Adobe when Adobe has taken 10 years to get around to supporting Apple's Cocoa? F*ck Adobe. All the while, Mac users treating as the ginger haired step child with feature omission, pulled software of slow to port bug riddled versions.
Apple created 'Funhouse' with Gpu accelerated features/filters. Didn't Adobe incorporate it? No. That was years ago. No. Because there policy isn't even keeping things equal. They don't take advantage of Apple's initiatives because they're a windows shop and have been for some time.
Except crash your mac. The open standards can't do that. SO THERE!
I've never had flash crash my Mac before, it has crash Safari several times, but never my Mac. But then again, I have had the HTML5 version of YouTube crash Safari several times as well.
well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
It's right there in their whiny, self-pity filled letter.
Adobe can go f**k themselves for this latest idiotic stunt.
Maybe you should read their letter, it's pretty obvious you haven't.
you like the letter put out by your fav company.
I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)
Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
I've been sick of dealing with their s**t software since I installed 64 bit Linux in 2004.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert
Android 2.1+ devices will be flash capable. Updates are slowly coming out, but they're coming out for those older android devices to bring them up on the new android releases. It's not a great system, but it's better than no flash ever which is the system apple's playing by.
In the context of this thread regarding Adobe's whiny, self serving claptrap, which they are heavily promoting across the media and the web. it's irrelevant.
I saw their banners before I even came to this site, even though I use click to Flash on my Mac, you see even Adobe understands that to reach more people YOU DON'T USE FLASH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
you like the letter put out by your fav company.
I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)
Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
could you look at the source code if it were flash?
You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.
In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
but you'd need to support all of them. It seems like things have gotten worse here as a developer.
No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.
Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
oh so you finally admit, that things aren't worked out, it's a draft.
Do you have a timeline as to when developers can use this to target all browsers at once? When will this actually "kill flash" on the desktop?
Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.
Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).
I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Code:
-webkit-animation-name: x-spin;
-webkit-animation-duration: 7s;
-webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;
-webkit-animation-timing-function: linear;
What part of this code is not webkit proprietary code. Like I said LOOK at the source code it is webkit only all over the place
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
Q, is html5 a standard yet? no
is CSS3 a standard yet? no
....
nd then, in the next breath, you complain that flash player isn't out of beta. It's a stupid flawed arguement.
Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.
Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no
As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.
Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.
you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).
i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.
you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.
by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.
if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.
You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.
In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.
No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.
Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.
Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.
Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).
I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.
Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.
Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no
As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.
Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.
what's your point really? You are reiterating things we already know.
What I'm driving at, is the ones saying html5 is killing flash. present tense. Generally they back right quickly, because all that's currently happening is some high profile sites are turning to html5 video instead of flash video. Not surprising really.
Im well aware of the timeline, which why I brought it up. I've been reminded 500 times that flash is beta atm, yet html5 is ready for primetime? Oh then we get to s-some- of html5 is ready. But when is te flash killer stuff, you know, beyond the video tag ready fro prime time across all major borwsers (who the hell uses lynx anyway???)
It's like playing telephone in here for god's sake.
When it does finally drop — 3+ years after Adobe said they have Flash for iPhone ready — won't it only work on just two phones, the Nexus One and Droid Incredible?
Sprint EVO 4G will be eligible as well, which comes out June 4th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
yep. but what I really love is Adobe's stance that Apple is taking a step back, restricting the web etc.
And yet they love Apple. they are willing to 'dance with the devil', going for the money instead of saying that they feel so strongly about what they perceive as a cult of censorship that they are halting all Mac development and updates until Apple reverses their opinion.
Considering that CS5 has a lot of problems with the Mac build (as stated in several threads I've read about this topic recently), Adobe would be opening themselves to a massive classaction lawsuit if they said they were going to stop supporting the Mac side of their software effective immediately.
i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.
you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).
i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.
you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.
by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.
if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
oh goody...
now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
Elitist? That if you work in technology you might want to learn, like, programming? And just maybe a variety of languages? So learning things and being educated and having the ability to work at a lower level on a system is elitist?
Weird. I'd say it;'s the opposite. It supports those who are most able to compete. It's only elitist if you consider competition elitist.
No, my point was that it's elitist (and arrogant) to assume that everyone should switch to programming in Objective C just because Apple doesn't think your final product is good enough. Or because their time commitment should equal your time commitment. Developers may already be proficient in HTML and Javascript and want to continue using those technologies because they are web developers.
In other words, there's more than one way to make an iPhone/iPad app and it's silly to presume that people don't do so in Objective C because they are ignorant or uneducated. Time and comfort level with the tools at hand are huge factors. When I went to school in the 80's I was taught Pascal, yet I would be ridiculed if I went around saying people should program in Pascal only. I mean hell, why not go teach yourself assembly language if you really want to work on a lower level of the system?
I'm so glad I bought a new 13" MacBook Pro that plays flash rather than an iPad that doesn't.
For $300 more I got the whole kit and kaboodle.
Wow you said "for $300 more", sounds like you got a great deal on your new MBP 13". As of May 13th, 2010 the MBP 13" starts at $1199 and the iPad starts at $499.
$1199-499 = $700 difference.
How do you figure it was only $300 more for a 13" MBP then a iPad?
Also, how are you comparing a 1.5 lb 9.5"x7.5" touch screen device to a 5.6 lb 14"x10" fully loaded laptop?
Comments
Really.
Flash, for me, starting life as an animation too. For cheap ads. It's proprietary. And it's irritating to go to a website. Be told you need to download flash from Adobe's site. Download it. Install it. Then watch it take a lumbering stab at your system's resources. It's a rickety old program. And the ads are largely annoying 'look at me now - click go way BS.' I don't see this 'liberating' argument Adobe are pressing for. H.264 seems a better codec to me.
Apple's site works just well without flash.
I like going to a website that just works...with out being have to install flash.
Adobe could have made flash about authoring. Creative tools. But, the hypocrisy in their 'bleat' is that it isn't about flash as a creative tool, for me. It's about flash being a 'standard.'
Adobe. Get off your lazy ass. Get back to authoring tools (the ones that are currently riddled with bugs or are sub par to the pc versions. And make flash an authoring tool that supports an open standard like HTML 5 rather than needing a proprietary plug in like flash to play.
Times are a changing. Adobe had 3 years to make flash 'lite' for the iPhone. But what have they done? Where is it? Why are they bleating over vapourware? I don't want their middleware. I want developers to use Apple tools and code directly and optimise for Apple's kit. The days of crap game ports, crap Adobe ports are coming to an end. The old Microsoft/Adobe treat Mac users like 2nd class citizens desktop hegemony is over. It's about at an end.
Take a good, loooong look at the iPad, Adobe. It's going to blow you, Microsoft and Google away.
Microsoft. Don't need office. I use iWorks. Expensive program versus a far better, cheaper and easier to use and more powerful program in my mind. Oh. And it doesn't have an irritating quagmire of an interface.
Adobe. Don't need Photoshop. Will use Manga Studio. Painter. Lightwave. Pixelmator. All of them far cheaper than buying the Design Extended 'up myself' rip off price suite...for the mere few 'big' features that are buggy or don't work as well as expected. With Digital Printing, the need for Photoshop is less pressing. I like Photoshop. But Adobe have sat on it's creative monopoly for far to long. Just as they did with flash.
It's time for change. Adobe and Microsoft thought they could just transfer their desktop monopoly into the 'true' mobile age. They were wrong. They're going to have to earn it. Unfortunately for them. That means innovating. Something neither company has done very well.
Adobe say they want middleware democracy at the same time they give the Mac crap ports.
They insinuate that Apple is a monopoly while they bought Macromedia and pulled Freehand, a program many argued was far better than Illustrator. The lack of competition has led to high prices and slow progress.
Why should Apple support Adobe when Adobe has taken 10 years to get around to supporting Apple's Cocoa? F*ck Adobe. All the while, Mac users treating as the ginger haired step child with feature omission, pulled software of slow to port bug riddled versions.
Apple created 'Funhouse' with Gpu accelerated features/filters. Didn't Adobe incorporate it? No. That was years ago. No. Because there policy isn't even keeping things equal. They don't take advantage of Apple's initiatives because they're a windows shop and have been for some time.
Lemon Bon Bon
Except crash your mac. The open standards can't do that. SO THERE!
I've never had flash crash my Mac before, it has crash Safari several times, but never my Mac. But then again, I have had the HTML5 version of YouTube crash Safari several times as well.
oh I think with this person reasonable discussion clearly isn't possible. This one called me a liar and adobe shill some time ago.
If someone wants to have some reasonable discussion I'm all good for it.
well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.
It's right there in their whiny, self-pity filled letter.
Adobe can go f**k themselves for this latest idiotic stunt.
Maybe you should read their letter, it's pretty obvious you haven't.
this is your definition of choice? Really? That adobe has been working on a player it's in beta right now and that is against choice?
Oh come on that's just ridiculous. I guess the iphone 2Ger's might be mighty pissed at no iphoneOS4 though eh. What a ridiculous premise.
well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
Hey it's Adobe's definition, not mine.
It's right there in their whiny, self-pity filled letter.
Adobe can go f**k themselves for this latest idiotic stunt.
Maybe you should read their letter, it's pretty obvious you haven't.
you like the letter put out by your fav company.
I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)
Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
Adobe can go f**k themselves.
I've been sick of dealing with their s**t software since I installed 64 bit Linux in 2004.
Android 2.1+ devices will be flash capable. Updates are slowly coming out, but they're coming out for those older android devices to bring them up on the new android releases. It's not a great system, but it's better than no flash ever which is the system apple's playing by.
Nuff said.
In the context of this thread regarding Adobe's whiny, self serving claptrap, which they are heavily promoting across the media and the web. it's irrelevant.
I saw their banners before I even came to this site, even though I use click to Flash on my Mac, you see even Adobe understands that to reach more people YOU DON'T USE FLASH.
you like the letter put out by your fav company.
I think the whole thing on both the part of adobe -and- apple is ridiculous, apple's top guy giving us his thoughts, then now adobe (though somehow since adobe did it they're nervous...)
Just shut up and work on the technologies. Enough of the drama.
could you look at the source code if it were flash?
You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.
In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.
but you'd need to support all of them. It seems like things have gotten worse here as a developer.
No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.
Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.
oh so you finally admit, that things aren't worked out, it's a draft.
Do you have a timeline as to when developers can use this to target all browsers at once? When will this actually "kill flash" on the desktop?
Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.
Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).
I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.
-webkit-animation-name: x-spin;
-webkit-animation-duration: 7s;
-webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;
-webkit-animation-timing-function: linear;
What part of this code is not webkit proprietary code. Like I said LOOK at the source code it is webkit only all over the place
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.
Q, is html5 a standard yet? no
is CSS3 a standard yet? no
....
nd then, in the next breath, you complain that flash player isn't out of beta. It's a stupid flawed arguement.
http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-technology-drafts
Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.
Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no
As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.
Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.
iGrumble, your post just lit up the night!
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.
you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).
i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.
you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.
by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.
if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.
You know, that is actually one of the things I like most about Javascript: it is by definition open-source (although some people do try to work around that). If you don't want people copy/pasting your whole app, strip all the comments, but apart from that, having the source available just gives people the opportunity to be better programmers.
In the case of Flash (which you definitely cannot view the source code of), my only interest in the source would be to track down bugs which the maintainer themselves cannot/is not motivated to.
No. Just like you do now with HTML4 and CSS2, you cater to the lowest common denominator and only use implementation-specific code where you must. HTML5, the spec, is extremely firm about specific behaviours, so you wouldn't be using different code for the same feature, you'd just be using whichever features you can be reasonably sure will be available.
Exactly the same is true of any non-throwaway Flash project, or any other programming project really: you create a program which will run for the vast majority of your target users, instead of the tiny fraction of elite users who have all the features and the latest versions.
Yes, it's a draft. Do you know what the requirements are for the W3C to move a document from "draft" to "standard"? Go take a look.
Your timeline for when pretty much anything (including Flash) can target all browsers at once: never, ever, ever. See how your Flash content looks in Lynx, or see if you can hunt down a browser which is specifically for people who are visually impaired and try it there. Targetting all of anything is completely ridiculous and would require a very stupid decision to put disproportionate effort into supporting the tiny number of exceptions who contribute an equally tiny part of your revenue. If you're bold, you target a significant minority of the market; if you're sensible, you target a reasonable majority; if you're really driven you target a very comfortable majority (80-90%) of the market. On the desktop, reasonable parts of HTML5 would mean a significant minority of the market (FF+Chrome+Safari+some others), which will jump to a comfortable majority as soon as Microsoft get their HTML5 implementation reasonably complete (MSIE 10?).
I have to ask, how many of desktop users actually have Flash installed, and how many have the latest version? All that's needed to "kill flash" is that its latest version is less popular than the alternatives.
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
The animation properties you mentioned above are already in the CSS 3 animation spec and have been for over a year. A good example of something that's supported in both major open browser engines through the vendor extension syntax is rounded borders.
http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-technology-drafts
Is CSS2.1 a standard yet? no. Is it obsolete? Yes.
Is xmlhttprequest a standard yet? no
As I've alluded to above, the W3C standards process is not an indication of when a feature is, in fact, standard.
Note that "beta" is a completely different concept: MSIE's ActiveX implementation is certainly "released" even though the technology is in no way standard; compare to a beta version of a browser, which might be totally standards-based but is firmly not "released". "Beta" means software that is known not to be acceptably stable and may change significantly (including the removal of features) in short-term-future releases. A "beta" version of Flash would crash your phone. A "non-standard" version of Flash would merely not be well used.
what's your point really? You are reiterating things we already know.
What I'm driving at, is the ones saying html5 is killing flash. present tense. Generally they back right quickly, because all that's currently happening is some high profile sites are turning to html5 video instead of flash video. Not surprising really.
Im well aware of the timeline, which why I brought it up. I've been reminded 500 times that flash is beta atm, yet html5 is ready for primetime? Oh then we get to s-some- of html5 is ready. But when is te flash killer stuff, you know, beyond the video tag ready fro prime time across all major borwsers (who the hell uses lynx anyway???)
It's like playing telephone in here for god's sake.
When it does finally drop — 3+ years after Adobe said they have Flash for iPhone ready — won't it only work on just two phones, the Nexus One and Droid Incredible?
Sprint EVO 4G will be eligible as well, which comes out June 4th.
yep. but what I really love is Adobe's stance that Apple is taking a step back, restricting the web etc.
And yet they love Apple. they are willing to 'dance with the devil', going for the money instead of saying that they feel so strongly about what they perceive as a cult of censorship that they are halting all Mac development and updates until Apple reverses their opinion.
Considering that CS5 has a lot of problems with the Mac build (as stated in several threads I've read about this topic recently), Adobe would be opening themselves to a massive classaction lawsuit if they said they were going to stop supporting the Mac side of their software effective immediately.
i think you were the one that brought the word 'shill' into this discussion. when you accuse people of having their heads up their butt, being liars, calling them bs'ers, talk about 'shrieking' and whining, you loose the argument on form alone.
you argue that flash is open, which by the most generous definitions is stretching it... (see mstone's answer to my question about looking at source code in flash - he knows more about flash than i do and i gather is a proponent).
i understand that you as a flash developer are invested in the technology. that doesn't mean that reasonable people shouldn't be looking for alternatives that bypass adobe's mess.
you took a second to diss me for 'not running a web shop', but failed to address my points about the web being usable for everyone and totally ignored my point that it's people like you (who obviously do run web shops) that need to educate clients.
by all means - keep making art exhibit websites that don't work on most mobiles, but don't be so dismissive towards people that cut out the eye-candy in order to have sites that truly work everywhere... flash isn't ever going to give you that. those days are over.
if you lock out some users by design, you're not doing your clients any favours.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
oh goody...
now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
Elitist? That if you work in technology you might want to learn, like, programming? And just maybe a variety of languages? So learning things and being educated and having the ability to work at a lower level on a system is elitist?
Weird. I'd say it;'s the opposite. It supports those who are most able to compete. It's only elitist if you consider competition elitist.
No, my point was that it's elitist (and arrogant) to assume that everyone should switch to programming in Objective C just because Apple doesn't think your final product is good enough. Or because their time commitment should equal your time commitment. Developers may already be proficient in HTML and Javascript and want to continue using those technologies because they are web developers.
In other words, there's more than one way to make an iPhone/iPad app and it's silly to presume that people don't do so in Objective C because they are ignorant or uneducated. Time and comfort level with the tools at hand are huge factors. When I went to school in the 80's I was taught Pascal, yet I would be ridiculed if I went around saying people should program in Pascal only. I mean hell, why not go teach yourself assembly language if you really want to work on a lower level of the system?
I'm so glad I bought a new 13" MacBook Pro that plays flash rather than an iPad that doesn't.
For $300 more I got the whole kit and kaboodle.
Wow you said "for $300 more", sounds like you got a great deal on your new MBP 13". As of May 13th, 2010 the MBP 13" starts at $1199 and the iPad starts at $499.
$1199-499 = $700 difference.
How do you figure it was only $300 more for a 13" MBP then a iPad?
Also, how are you comparing a 1.5 lb 9.5"x7.5" touch screen device to a 5.6 lb 14"x10" fully loaded laptop?
Adobe Plays the Porn Card..
LOL! Thanks for the link. I think it's funny but now I see where all the comments about porn are coming from