1) are any of these CoverFlow packages supported or planned on Mobile Flash.
2) Obviously there is no text on the album covers... there are no album covers
Your suggestion 'spit dynamic text onto each ""album"' is precisely what I try to avoid... while it may be cool for the first few minutes, it is distracting and gets old, while adding nothing.
At some point, the client may want to reach other than iPhones... I am just testing the water,
However, if we use Flash for Android, it appears we will need to dumb-down the touch interface to use a slider.
.
1) no idea, you'll have to contact the developers on that.
2) if you scope out the coverflow thing, by album covers, I mean the images that get placed in the little squares. So call them what you wish, images I guess. I didn't suggest text, it was something I had to code for a requirement. I ended up creating something else from scratch, I dislike using pre built code.
For touch, there's a fair amount of stuff out there on the new multi touch support.
As for testing the water, I'd suggest waiting til we see this flash player released. That's my opinion.
Flash is crap. And it is one of the most annoying and vulgar plug-ins ever. On the usability side it interferes with the normal user experience ? you cannot navigate and reference Flash content using the standard browser controls. And on the power efficiency side, it is a terrible piece of software that works against the trend of mobile computing. IMHO, in its present idiotic implementation, Flash does not have any future unless a major breakthrough in the design of the compact batteries is made.
Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.
It makes Adobe look bad. They're the ones doing the whining. And they don't have a product out yet. Which kind of highlights Apple's argument. They've been slow to support he Mac and Apple's OS X initiatives. A decade dragging 10 years.
Yeh, Apple should hand over control of their iPhone platform to Adobe and see how long it takes for Adobe to trash it with slow, tardy feature support and buggy apps. And all those nifty features that people squealed for in each OS iPhone update... See Adobe pick and mix what they can be arsed to support. Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?
The whole iPhone, 200k apps explosion and the pending iPad storm all happened without Adobe folks. Apple did this. Not Adobe. What were Adobe doing? We know what Apple was doing because it's out there in the market! Adobe? Still thinking its the mid-90s and Windows 95 when they leapt into bed with the Micros$ft whore. Because I don't see a flash lite player that can play all that slugware desktop internet flash. But I do know I can get an iPhone that has 200k apps that pass Adobe and their ponderous and 'immovable' product cycles. They had 3 years to get on board the iPhone. Where were they? Why didn't they? Because they're Adobe. Simply? They had 3 years to compete. Where is it?
Any Mac user who supports Adobe's Flash must have serious Stockholm syndrome issues in light of Adobe's track record over the last 10 years.
And it is one of the most annoying and vulgar plug-ins ever. On the usability side it interferes with the normal user experience — you cannot navigate and reference Flash content using the standard browser controls. And on the power efficiency side, it is a terrible piece of software that works against the trend of mobile computing. IMHO, in its present idiotic implementation, Flash does not have any future unless a major breakthrough in the design of the compact batteries is made.
Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.
A succinct version of what Steve Jobs said. Or in other words, a succinct trashing of Flash.
I expect Adobe to defend their products, but I'm disappointed that they've just flat out lied on several occasions since this whole thing started. It's different people doing the lying too so it must be some kind of PR "strategy".
Everytime I read an article and thread like this which seem to dominate this forum lately I start to wonder one thing. What if Apple and Adobe actually put as much energy trying to get a good mobile version of Flash instead of putting all their energy into bashing each other and taking the time to write stupid letters.
With a little effort on the hardware end from Apple and some effort on the optimization end from Adobe this just doesn't seem like a massive issue.
Yes, Flash for OSX is a major CPU hog which impacts Windows users far less, but some of that appears to be resolved in 10.1.
Its really annoying because it seems like both these companies wants to bitch about who is right on this issue rather then working together to fix it. Which in the long run benefits their customers.
Apple are tired of waiting for Adobe to catch in terms of supporting OSX. It is not Apple requirement to develop Flash with Adobe, for Adobe to make money. Apple have been co-operating with Adobe for years in trying to provide a Flash product that was optimized for OSX and Adobe have not supported this initiative. Now iPhone/iPod/iPad platform is a great success, Adobe are saying now, hey we will support Apple and give you a product that will integrate smoothly with above mentioned respective platform. Yeah right Adobe still have not provide a mobile version of Flash that is not CPU and battery hog for other platforms. Why should Apple put its innovation/productivity initiatives dependent on Adobe to develop its software in term with Apple's development needs. This did not happen before and it will not happen now.
They are both wrong. Flash was the key piece in the introduction of web 2.0 (or is it 3.0 already?). There are things you can do with flash that you can't do with HTML5, or not as well.
Android is the MAJORITY? - Apple sold 9M phones last quarter. Android sold a million? there are 80M devices out there running iPhoneOS.
Sure, there are tons of things that Flash can do, that HTML5 can't.. but how do you do a mouse over on a device with no mouse or pointer? mouseovers are pretty fundamental UI elements in Flash.
...so if you have to recode to support the latest flash player that somehow knows where your finger is when it's not on the screen.. great, but
What I meant was undesired things like missing fonts, object not found, media incompatible, wrong format, wrong encoding, wrong color, etc. Things that are in the stage. There was no reference to controlling anything outside of the stage. Flash is a resource hog no argument there, even on underpowered Windows machines you do see dropped frames, slowness and delayed reactions.
I think of Flash as being capable of doing just about anything, not saying there aren't trade offs. It is just a matter of whether you accept the trade offs or not. It has its place and in instances where something else can do the job cheaper or better then in that case you should use the best tool for the job.
you're right of course. as a graphic artist i used to get excited about all the things flash promised. Finally some fonts! Animation!
Unfortunately the reality of its implementation, particularly on the mac, has dampened my enthusiasm as a user quite considerably since then.
I'm particularly annoyed by the use of Flash for video delivery, where (at least on the mac) it was never as good as Quicktime. It did (unfortunately) offer web developers the perfect alternative to Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real Video (which it thankfully put out of its misery).
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Have you seen what Adobe has been doing Flash on Macs for the past decade? They had pretty much done that and yet Macs are selling better than ever. The iPhone and iPads are selling well, too.
Adobe is more likely to hurt Mac sales by not producing their professional apps than by continuing to ignore Flash.
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.
Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.
It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.
Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.
Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.
It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.
...Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?
As a content supplier, I frankly don't *care* how special the iPhone is. A "write once, run everywhere" solution is *exactly* what I'm interested in.
It allows us to cater to all our potential customers equally, offering the same experience to everybody without the headache of having to deal with multiple different development teams implementing different features using different techniques, potentially creating different sets of bugs to track and squash on different platforms.
It is counterproductive for me to single out any one group of customers to receive preferential treatment at the expense of other customers feeling like second class citizens or, worse, being left totally unsupported.
Comments
1) are any of these CoverFlow packages supported or planned on Mobile Flash.
2) Obviously there is no text on the album covers... there are no album covers
Your suggestion 'spit dynamic text onto each ""album"' is precisely what I try to avoid... while it may be cool for the first few minutes, it is distracting and gets old, while adding nothing.
At some point, the client may want to reach other than iPhones... I am just testing the water,
However, if we use Flash for Android, it appears we will need to dumb-down the touch interface to use a slider.
.
1) no idea, you'll have to contact the developers on that.
2) if you scope out the coverflow thing, by album covers, I mean the images that get placed in the little squares. So call them what you wish, images I guess. I didn't suggest text, it was something I had to code for a requirement. I ended up creating something else from scratch, I dislike using pre built code.
For touch, there's a fair amount of stuff out there on the new multi touch support.
As for testing the water, I'd suggest waiting til we see this flash player released. That's my opinion.
Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.
Flash is crap.
Yep.
Lemon Bon Bon.
This whole thing makes both companies look bad.
It makes Adobe look bad. They're the ones doing the whining. And they don't have a product out yet. Which kind of highlights Apple's argument. They've been slow to support he Mac and Apple's OS X initiatives. A decade dragging 10 years.
Yeh, Apple should hand over control of their iPhone platform to Adobe and see how long it takes for Adobe to trash it with slow, tardy feature support and buggy apps. And all those nifty features that people squealed for in each OS iPhone update... See Adobe pick and mix what they can be arsed to support. Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?
The whole iPhone, 200k apps explosion and the pending iPad storm all happened without Adobe folks. Apple did this. Not Adobe. What were Adobe doing? We know what Apple was doing because it's out there in the market! Adobe? Still thinking its the mid-90s and Windows 95 when they leapt into bed with the Micros$ft whore. Because I don't see a flash lite player that can play all that slugware desktop internet flash. But I do know I can get an iPhone that has 200k apps that pass Adobe and their ponderous and 'immovable' product cycles. They had 3 years to get on board the iPhone. Where were they? Why didn't they? Because they're Adobe. Simply? They had 3 years to compete. Where is it?
Any Mac user who supports Adobe's Flash must have serious Stockholm syndrome issues in light of Adobe's track record over the last 10 years.
Lemon Bon Bon.
They'll have to 'get over it.'
Just as Apple had to 'get over' giving M$ the Mac OS for free.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And it is one of the most annoying and vulgar plug-ins ever. On the usability side it interferes with the normal user experience — you cannot navigate and reference Flash content using the standard browser controls. And on the power efficiency side, it is a terrible piece of software that works against the trend of mobile computing. IMHO, in its present idiotic implementation, Flash does not have any future unless a major breakthrough in the design of the compact batteries is made.
Personally, I use Flash but I have limited this software annoyance with a special browser plugin. To me, Flash is a sort of a power-eating "virus" or something of the awful sort.
A succinct version of what Steve Jobs said. Or in other words, a succinct trashing of Flash.
Works for me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Flash sucks. Slow, crash prone and would be dead a long time ago if it wasn't for YouTube.
Yeah. Flash sucks TM. That might catch on. Maybe Apple should use it in their 'We hate Adobe and 'flash sucks' adverts...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Everytime I read an article and thread like this which seem to dominate this forum lately I start to wonder one thing. What if Apple and Adobe actually put as much energy trying to get a good mobile version of Flash instead of putting all their energy into bashing each other and taking the time to write stupid letters.
With a little effort on the hardware end from Apple and some effort on the optimization end from Adobe this just doesn't seem like a massive issue.
Yes, Flash for OSX is a major CPU hog which impacts Windows users far less, but some of that appears to be resolved in 10.1.
Its really annoying because it seems like both these companies wants to bitch about who is right on this issue rather then working together to fix it. Which in the long run benefits their customers.
Apple are tired of waiting for Adobe to catch in terms of supporting OSX. It is not Apple requirement to develop Flash with Adobe, for Adobe to make money. Apple have been co-operating with Adobe for years in trying to provide a Flash product that was optimized for OSX and Adobe have not supported this initiative. Now iPhone/iPod/iPad platform is a great success, Adobe are saying now, hey we will support Apple and give you a product that will integrate smoothly with above mentioned respective platform. Yeah right Adobe still have not provide a mobile version of Flash that is not CPU and battery hog for other platforms. Why should Apple put its innovation/productivity initiatives dependent on Adobe to develop its software in term with Apple's development needs. This did not happen before and it will not happen now.
Peace.
Android is the majority and it is getting flash.
....
They are both wrong. Flash was the key piece in the introduction of web 2.0 (or is it 3.0 already?). There are things you can do with flash that you can't do with HTML5, or not as well.
Android is the MAJORITY? - Apple sold 9M phones last quarter. Android sold a million? there are 80M devices out there running iPhoneOS.
Sure, there are tons of things that Flash can do, that HTML5 can't.. but how do you do a mouse over on a device with no mouse or pointer? mouseovers are pretty fundamental UI elements in Flash.
...so if you have to recode to support the latest flash player that somehow knows where your finger is when it's not on the screen.. great, but
SHOW ME.
Android is the MAJORITY?
Haven't you heard, self-reported surveys are now somehow hard sales fact. Not sure how this got instantly touted as the news it has.
What I meant was undesired things like missing fonts, object not found, media incompatible, wrong format, wrong encoding, wrong color, etc. Things that are in the stage. There was no reference to controlling anything outside of the stage. Flash is a resource hog no argument there, even on underpowered Windows machines you do see dropped frames, slowness and delayed reactions.
I think of Flash as being capable of doing just about anything, not saying there aren't trade offs. It is just a matter of whether you accept the trade offs or not. It has its place and in instances where something else can do the job cheaper or better then in that case you should use the best tool for the job.
you're right of course. as a graphic artist i used to get excited about all the things flash promised. Finally some fonts! Animation!
Unfortunately the reality of its implementation, particularly on the mac, has dampened my enthusiasm as a user quite considerably since then.
I'm particularly annoyed by the use of Flash for video delivery, where (at least on the mac) it was never as good as Quicktime. It did (unfortunately) offer web developers the perfect alternative to Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real Video (which it thankfully put out of its misery).
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Have you seen what Adobe has been doing Flash on Macs for the past decade? They had pretty much done that and yet Macs are selling better than ever. The iPhone and iPads are selling well, too.
Adobe is more likely to hurt Mac sales by not producing their professional apps than by continuing to ignore Flash.
Adobe could kill-off MacOS X on the desktop if it wanted to.
If they stopped distributing Flash Player for MacOS X the platform would likely suffer a serious decline in usage as mainstream users became unable to use large parts of the web...
Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.
Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.
It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.
Plus, Adobe would have to stop their whining.
Adobe payed billions of dollars for a proprietary 'standard' that is on it's way out.
They'll have to 'get over it.'
Just as Apple had to 'get over' giving M$ the Mac OS for free.
Lemon Bon Bon.
i think they paid to kill it
adobe a long time ago went insane and has floated on down those rapid's with no paddles at all .
in the end who cares ??
apple os is simply great
peace
9
Not even close. That would guarantee the end of Flash.
Microsoft would throw a huge party because it would guarantee that Silverlight would do well and the remaining developers who are still using Flash would abandon ship.
It's one thing to ignore 100 million mobile iDevices that don't have Flash - because none of the others do, either. But it's pretty hard to ignore 10% of the PC market - especially considering that its the portion with the highest disposable income.
Plus, Adobe would have to stop their whining.
silver light ??
apple is doomed
9
http://www.loopinsight.com/2010/05/1...ck-the-battle/
Although it is rather odd that Apple sentiment has dropped since the iPad was released.
...Oh yeah, and let's create a 'write once' plays on all smart phones app. Great. And what will be so special about the iPhone when that happens?
As a content supplier, I frankly don't *care* how special the iPhone is. A "write once, run everywhere" solution is *exactly* what I'm interested in.
It allows us to cater to all our potential customers equally, offering the same experience to everybody without the headache of having to deal with multiple different development teams implementing different features using different techniques, potentially creating different sets of bugs to track and squash on different platforms.
It is counterproductive for me to single out any one group of customers to receive preferential treatment at the expense of other customers feeling like second class citizens or, worse, being left totally unsupported.