Are you sure ? I tried to use a quite a few flash enabled sites and it works with all of them without any problems. Until I find a flash web site, that won't work, I just don't care what is the name of the Flash plugin in my phone. And even if you are right and this is just limited version of Flash, that is still better experience that I can use at least some Flash web sites, compared to "best web experience" on iPad, where I can see just that blue cube.
If that was the full Flash then we wouldn't be talking about Flash 10.1. Why don't you think any other more capable phones are running the full Flash that you think yours is?
Quote:
Don't get your reasoning. The Flash specification (SWF) is open and published. You (or Apple, or anybody) can take it and create better Flash player than Adobe. Adobe won't sue you, won't try to make money from you, in fact I am pretty sure they will help you with your efforts. If this is not open, then I don't know what it is.
Flash is more than just a media wrapper its a full run time. Media playback is just one thing it does. The other parts of Flash are not open source.
Quote:
On the contrary, HTML5 is still not there, it is yet unclear what components will make it in and it is quite possible that it will contain closed, proprietary component (h.264) that might not be even free to use. HTML5 might be the future, but it is clearly not there yet. Flash might not be the future, but it is the present. Current iPad will be obsolete before HTML5 is really relevant (i.e. replaces Flash as de-facto standard, which is massively used)
It is totally clear what components of HTML5 are in development and being used. The W3C is completely open about HTML5 development. H.264 is not closed, why do you guys continue with this lie. Technology changes so quickly that living in the present you will find yourself in the past.
"While Adobe can argue that elements of Flash (through its Open Screen Project) are indeed open source, Flash itself is not an open standard.
Unlike HTML5 and CSS3 and related technologies, Flash is not an open standard on the web. Adobe might license some of its technology free of charge, and it may have some of its SWF spec available, but the entirety of the Flash ecosystem is not open, nor is it a web standard. It’s hypocritical for Adobe to say that they support freedom of choice when that freedom doesn’t extend to implementations of its own technologies."
"While Adobe can argue that elements of Flash (through its Open Screen Project) are indeed open source, Flash itself is not an open standard.
Unlike HTML5 and CSS3 and related technologies, Flash is not an open standard on the web. Adobe might license some of its technology free of charge, and it may have some of its SWF spec available, but the entirety of the Flash ecosystem is not open, nor is it a web standard. It?s hypocritical for Adobe to say that they support freedom of choice when that freedom doesn?t extend to implementations of its own technologies."
but what does that really have to with the argument about swf being open? It is. And so is the compiler. In fact you don't even need the flash ide to compile a swf. The open screen fund has nothing to do with te swf format being open sourced. The back and forthing is just fodder for people to argue about in forums. Look, my google link says this!
In the end, who cares. The whole we're more open than you is stupid. It's about a couple companies with lots at stake, and to suggest one company is more altruistic than the other is totally naive. That's my opinion.
but what does that really have to with the argument about swf being open? It is.
I never said SWF wasn't open, I said Flash as a whole isn't open source.
Quote:
In the end, who cares. The whole we're more open than you is stupid. It's about a couple companies with lots at stake, and to suggest one company is more altruistic than the other is totally naive. That's my opinion.
It does make a difference. Apple isn't attempting to replace Flash with its own proprietary software. Apple wants to replace Flash with software that is truly open source in the real sense of the term.
I never said SWF wasn't open, I said Flash as a whole isn't open source.
{B}But what's you point here. "As a whole". The player is open, and the compiler is open. You don't Adobe, to build compile, or play your flash file.[ I'm not feeding the "we're more open argument for adobe, but I prefer to see facts as they are./B]
It does make a difference. Apple isn't attempting to replace Flash with its own proprietary software. Apple wants to replace Flash with software that is truly open source in the real sense of the term.
html5, afaik, isn't truly open source at all.
It's an open standard in that many parties are involved in agreeing on the standards, but I guess that's why it'll be 2020 before it's considered a full standard, and adobe releases a new "standard" every 18 months. I'm sure apple knows a thing or two, about controlling a platform so that it could move faster to adopt new features eh?
html5 is open in the sense that you can create hmtl5 without buying someone's tool and isn't controlled by one company rather than a number of "invited guests", but you can't download the source and modify it to your liking and release it as a new version. So no, it's not open source in the real sense of the term at all.
Note that you're once again using gross margins on the REFORECAST, not gross margins on the product line. You've now made the same mistake at least 3 times - even though I keep point out the fallacy in that.
Here's a tip for you - no matter how many times you keep repeating the same fallacy, it will not become true.
As soon as you have an advanced business degree and experience running several multi-million dollar companies, you can feel free to correct me. Until then, keep your mouth shut and you might learn something - instead of making the same mistakes over and over and over.
Please get over yourself, if you had that experience, you would know how to communicate without being so insulting, it called influencing people. Majority of successful people can discuss their point without getting 'high and might' and dropping insults. You started from beginning and you have not stopped. This is a discussion group, as I said again, I am here to discuss with people, not show how superior I think I am to the next person. I leave you to your arrogant ways, but I hope you do have advanced degree and success at running several multi-million dollar companies because it would be sad, actually it is sad saying that just to prove a point with someone, you do not know and will never meet.
It's not a question of "supporting"; Apple is actively preventing Adobe from delivering Flash to iPhone. And it's not like there aren't plenty of inefficient and buggy applications on iPhone already. Apple isn't worried about Flash being bad, Apple is worried about Flash being good enough so that many people will start using it.
But Apple isn't just keeping Flash off the iPhone, they are also keeping native applications that happen to have been developed with Adobe's Flash development environment off the iPhone. Those native applications are not using Flash, they are full Objective-C apps; they simply allow Flash developers to use the expertise that they already have instead of learning Apple's iPhone APIs.
I rarely use Flash and I don't really like it. But it's unacceptable for a hardware and OS manufacturer to tell users or developers what applications they can and cannot run. This needs to stop.
Rarely seen a post here whith which I so fully and totally agree. I'd like to add that (a good version of) Flash could form a threat to both the Appstore and iPhone OS. Jobs wants iPhone apps to be exclusive to the iPhone. If the same app would be available in Flash, the revenue (if any) would not go to Apple and still be playable on the iPhone and iPad. Many Flash games are available for free so why would an iPhone/iPad user buy that same game in the appstore? The same goes for movies. If movies were available in Flash, what would be the incentive to buy the same movie in the iTunes store? The second threat is that Flash might be used to build a whole operating system. That might create a competitor for Apple which is something no commercial company wishes for. Better to create a consensus against Adobe and Flash now, before they become too popular. The sad thing is that Jobs has to resort to half truths and outright lies to obtain his goals. If I were Adobe I would concentrate on making a real good version of Flash and teaming up with content providers and hardware makers (Nvidea for instance). Forget Apple and let Jobs say whatever he wants.
Comments
Are you sure ? I tried to use a quite a few flash enabled sites and it works with all of them without any problems. Until I find a flash web site, that won't work, I just don't care what is the name of the Flash plugin in my phone. And even if you are right and this is just limited version of Flash, that is still better experience that I can use at least some Flash web sites, compared to "best web experience" on iPad, where I can see just that blue cube.
If that was the full Flash then we wouldn't be talking about Flash 10.1. Why don't you think any other more capable phones are running the full Flash that you think yours is?
Don't get your reasoning. The Flash specification (SWF) is open and published. You (or Apple, or anybody) can take it and create better Flash player than Adobe. Adobe won't sue you, won't try to make money from you, in fact I am pretty sure they will help you with your efforts. If this is not open, then I don't know what it is.
Flash is more than just a media wrapper its a full run time. Media playback is just one thing it does. The other parts of Flash are not open source.
On the contrary, HTML5 is still not there, it is yet unclear what components will make it in and it is quite possible that it will contain closed, proprietary component (h.264) that might not be even free to use. HTML5 might be the future, but it is clearly not there yet. Flash might not be the future, but it is the present. Current iPad will be obsolete before HTML5 is really relevant (i.e. replaces Flash as de-facto standard, which is massively used)
It is totally clear what components of HTML5 are in development and being used. The W3C is completely open about HTML5 development. H.264 is not closed, why do you guys continue with this lie. Technology changes so quickly that living in the present you will find yourself in the past.
Flash is more than just a media wrapper its a full run time. Media playback is just one thing it does. The other parts of Flash are not open source.
.
The flash player is the runtime. It's open source. If you google it, you'll find all sorts of flash runtime projects.
What other parts of flash are there?
Unlike HTML5 and CSS3 and related technologies, Flash is not an open standard on the web. Adobe might license some of its technology free of charge, and it may have some of its SWF spec available, but the entirety of the Flash ecosystem is not open, nor is it a web standard. It’s hypocritical for Adobe to say that they support freedom of choice when that freedom doesn’t extend to implementations of its own technologies."
Adobe and Apple: Please Spare Us the Platitudes About “Open”
The flash player is the runtime. It's open source. If you google it, you'll find all sorts of flash runtime projects.
What other parts of flash are there?
"While Adobe can argue that elements of Flash (through its Open Screen Project) are indeed open source, Flash itself is not an open standard.
Unlike HTML5 and CSS3 and related technologies, Flash is not an open standard on the web. Adobe might license some of its technology free of charge, and it may have some of its SWF spec available, but the entirety of the Flash ecosystem is not open, nor is it a web standard. It?s hypocritical for Adobe to say that they support freedom of choice when that freedom doesn?t extend to implementations of its own technologies."
Adobe and Apple: Please Spare Us the Platitudes About ?Open?
but what does that really have to with the argument about swf being open? It is. And so is the compiler. In fact you don't even need the flash ide to compile a swf. The open screen fund has nothing to do with te swf format being open sourced. The back and forthing is just fodder for people to argue about in forums. Look, my google link says this!
In the end, who cares. The whole we're more open than you is stupid. It's about a couple companies with lots at stake, and to suggest one company is more altruistic than the other is totally naive. That's my opinion.
but what does that really have to with the argument about swf being open? It is.
I never said SWF wasn't open, I said Flash as a whole isn't open source.
In the end, who cares. The whole we're more open than you is stupid. It's about a couple companies with lots at stake, and to suggest one company is more altruistic than the other is totally naive. That's my opinion.
It does make a difference. Apple isn't attempting to replace Flash with its own proprietary software. Apple wants to replace Flash with software that is truly open source in the real sense of the term.
I never said SWF wasn't open, I said Flash as a whole isn't open source.
{B}But what's you point here. "As a whole". The player is open, and the compiler is open. You don't Adobe, to build compile, or play your flash file.[ I'm not feeding the "we're more open argument for adobe, but I prefer to see facts as they are./B]
It does make a difference. Apple isn't attempting to replace Flash with its own proprietary software. Apple wants to replace Flash with software that is truly open source in the real sense of the term.
html5, afaik, isn't truly open source at all.
It's an open standard in that many parties are involved in agreeing on the standards, but I guess that's why it'll be 2020 before it's considered a full standard, and adobe releases a new "standard" every 18 months. I'm sure apple knows a thing or two, about controlling a platform so that it could move faster to adopt new features eh?
html5 is open in the sense that you can create hmtl5 without buying someone's tool and isn't controlled by one company rather than a number of "invited guests", but you can't download the source and modify it to your liking and release it as a new version. So no, it's not open source in the real sense of the term at all.
Note that you're once again using gross margins on the REFORECAST, not gross margins on the product line. You've now made the same mistake at least 3 times - even though I keep point out the fallacy in that.
Here's a tip for you - no matter how many times you keep repeating the same fallacy, it will not become true.
As soon as you have an advanced business degree and experience running several multi-million dollar companies, you can feel free to correct me. Until then, keep your mouth shut and you might learn something - instead of making the same mistakes over and over and over.
Please get over yourself, if you had that experience, you would know how to communicate without being so insulting, it called influencing people. Majority of successful people can discuss their point without getting 'high and might' and dropping insults. You started from beginning and you have not stopped. This is a discussion group, as I said again, I am here to discuss with people, not show how superior I think I am to the next person. I leave you to your arrogant ways, but I hope you do have advanced degree and success at running several multi-million dollar companies because it would be sad, actually it is sad saying that just to prove a point with someone, you do not know and will never meet.
It's not a question of "supporting"; Apple is actively preventing Adobe from delivering Flash to iPhone. And it's not like there aren't plenty of inefficient and buggy applications on iPhone already. Apple isn't worried about Flash being bad, Apple is worried about Flash being good enough so that many people will start using it.
But Apple isn't just keeping Flash off the iPhone, they are also keeping native applications that happen to have been developed with Adobe's Flash development environment off the iPhone. Those native applications are not using Flash, they are full Objective-C apps; they simply allow Flash developers to use the expertise that they already have instead of learning Apple's iPhone APIs.
I rarely use Flash and I don't really like it. But it's unacceptable for a hardware and OS manufacturer to tell users or developers what applications they can and cannot run. This needs to stop.
Rarely seen a post here whith which I so fully and totally agree. I'd like to add that (a good version of) Flash could form a threat to both the Appstore and iPhone OS. Jobs wants iPhone apps to be exclusive to the iPhone. If the same app would be available in Flash, the revenue (if any) would not go to Apple and still be playable on the iPhone and iPad. Many Flash games are available for free so why would an iPhone/iPad user buy that same game in the appstore? The same goes for movies. If movies were available in Flash, what would be the incentive to buy the same movie in the iTunes store? The second threat is that Flash might be used to build a whole operating system. That might create a competitor for Apple which is something no commercial company wishes for. Better to create a consensus against Adobe and Flash now, before they become too popular. The sad thing is that Jobs has to resort to half truths and outright lies to obtain his goals. If I were Adobe I would concentrate on making a real good version of Flash and teaming up with content providers and hardware makers (Nvidea for instance). Forget Apple and let Jobs say whatever he wants.