Exactly. It's an investigation. If it leads to something, that will be worth reporting.
As for any action on Apple's part (such as any agreements) don't hold your breath. Nothing Apple is doing is remotely close to violating any laws.
Talk about a non-issue (but great blog fodder!)
From what we know, the complaint does seem kind of lame, but then I suspect that Adobe has information that we don't, or the FTC probably would not be paying attention to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents
Puleeze! The US government is doing everything possible to make the teabaggers actually look sane with their anti-government rants. Feds, stay out of this petty crap! Nobody cares if apple uses flash or not and if they do, there are other options for consumers. Fer chrisakes!
Puleeze! If you don't understand that the U.S. and every other civilized country on the planet has had competition laws on the books for a century or more, then let me suggest that you refrain from commenting in this thread.
The government doesn't care about Flash. All they care about is the complaint they've apparently received. If you call your local police department and complain about your neighbor's dog barking all night, they aren't going to decide over the phone whether the dog is barking or if you just hate your neighbor. If they think the complaint might be valid, they'll look into it and decide which is the case. That's all the FTC is doing now.
Flash cannot run on iPhone - WRONG Flash 1 can using Gordon.js
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
Quote:
Flash is for lazy developers - WRONG Flash is so easy that non-experts can do simple things
I'm not so sure I want to use programs written by non-experts. I'm sure a user focused company like Apple is even less sure that this argument is worthy of consideration. Not all discrimination is bad!
Quote:
Flash ported iPhone apps have never been available - WRONG several were accepted by Apple
Approval by Apple for an App is not a blanket approval forever. Apple's not de-compiling or reading through source code. It's also clear that Apple was overwhelmed, and is still probably pretty overwhelmed by the success of the App Store. There are plenty of examples of Apple going back and pulling programs for a multitude of reasons (not that I always agree with their reasons).
And before anyone whines about how unfair Apple is, Google has done it too and I thought I saw where Palm has with the WebOS but I couldn't find the reference I was looking for so take it for what you want.
Quote:
Flash is responsible for Mac crashes - WRONG only Flash programmers cause crashes
If flash is such a crappy environment that poor practices by flash programmers can lock up my browser on a routine basis then.... it's a flash problem! It's so woven into many web sites that it needs to be a heck of a lot more robust than it is now! If you have "non-experts" creating flash apps, then flash had better be able to keep these "non-expert" flash authors from shooting themselves in the foot, and by proxy shooting my computer as well.
At least with Safari 5, I can kill flash in Activity Monitor, regain control of my browser and resume work.
Quote:
Adobe doesn't care about Mac users - WRONG Adobe sells a lot of pro applications for Mac
They may sell lots of pro applications, but that doesn't equate caring about Mac users. And I don't even really care if they "care" about Mac users - I just want them to take pride in their product. That there is such a performance difference in Flash between Mac OSX and Windows should be extremely embarrassing for them. You can't tell me that if Adobe took this seriously that they couldn't go to Apple and that Apple wouldn't work with them. The fact is, Adobe isn't overly concerned with the Mac. They were content to coast. The whole 64 bit carbon thing should have been a non-issue. The writing was on the wall - if they were really serious about the Mac, they would have already been moving to Cocoa, instead of waiting until the absolute last minute when Apple basically forced their hand. Plenty of other developers made the leap to Cocoa without having to have Apple basically poke them in the butt with an electric cattle prod. Instead Adobe was plainly content and intent on "milking" the Mac. I think Apple saw this, along with all the hassle of propping up Carbon 64 and they said "enough - were killing it". It was the smart thing to do. It was the ballsy thing to do as to this day people are still painting Apple as the debil for it. Much like with Adobe and their half-a$$ed flash iOS app compiler, they only have themselves to blame - Apple was quite clear about the future of Mac OSX and the iOS - none of it was a secret. Snow Leopard wouldn't have happened if 64bit carbon was still lurching around like the zombie that won't die, and for all the jokes about "thousands of fart apps" what the heck do you think the ease of allowing "non-experts" to write thousands of poorly coded and un-optomized iOS apps would do for the iOS? I think Apple was exactly correct in their reasoning for blocking flash and Adobe's flash to app converter. Apple is about the user experience, and the user experience would have sucked with those tools.
If you want a platform with an uneven and inconsistent user experience, Android has your back! Knock yourself out. Have fun with unexplained battery drain, warm handsets, wildly variable battery life, uneven performance... Just remember the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot means you occasionally will.
I think Adobe got a double one-two punch from the iPhone that they didn't anticipate. First of all, they didn't expect Apple to literally take over the advanced mobile market overnight. And second they probably didn't expect the double digit growth in the Mac caused by first the iPod and now the iPhone "halo" effect.
They gambled they could milk the Mac and coast along on Windows. They gambled wrong. Oh well - man up and take care of business - but enough with the "life is so unfair". Please...
Listen, I want Flash to be an option on iOS devices also (so long as it doesn't crash... it seems as though it's been crashing more on my Mac since Adobe and Apple starting going at it).
But here's the thing... as a "creative" I think that businesses should get to decide the product they put out and then people decide whether to buy or not. That seems right to me. If Steve Jobs decides he doesn't want Flash on his devices, I can choose to go elsewhere. I don't think that anyone should be able to tell the inventor of something what they should invent.
Flash is not a God-given right (if I believed in such things). Not having Flash was one of the negatives I put on my list when deciding whether to buy an iPhone or iPad or not. The pro side of the column won out and I ended up buying one of each.
If I'm a painter, then no one should be able to force me to use the colour blue. It's a perfectly fine colour and there are others using it, but here are my paintings and you won't find blue on them. Makes sense to me.
Adobe just needs to produce a working iOS version of Flash. Someone at Adobe surely has an iPhone they play with. Develop it, prove that it works and show us. If they can prove it works reliably and doesn't drain the battery too easily, what will Apple say now?
I know it will crash at times, but iOS isn't crashproof anyways. There will be battery drain, but that's to be expected. Just try to minimize it.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
From what we know, the complaint does seem kind of lame, but then I suspect that Adobe has information that we don't, or the FTC probably would not be paying attention to them.
That's whats crazy about these stories, we don't know what the FTC is doing.
Taking the complaint could be "investigating". Anti-Apple people probably have a different vision of "investigating" than those who could give a flip about Flash. Since all we have is speculation and imagination.... well, you have this thread
Given that it was part of the changes along with the release of the iOS 4 SDK, which was released pretty much on schedule, based on the history of previous SDK releases, the rational conclusion is that it was purely coincidental that it was posted at that time. Apple, unlike many companies in the tech industry, does not pin their success on undermining other companies, so their history would suggest that they did it without considering the impact on Adobe's bottom line, but solely for the purpose of not allowing others to take control of their platform.
On the other hand, there's nothing like a good, but totally unfounded, conspiracy theory to blacken a company's eye, which is really what you are all about.
You do realize that Apple and Adobe have a history, right?
I would normally agree with your views on Apple's stance, but in this one case, I'll go out and say Jobs probably takes Apple's view of Adobe personally. Hell, I would too if I were Jobs.
I don't care if flash lives or dies. What I care about is websites having to accommodate to Apple, all because Apple doesn't want to work with Adobe like Microsoft did (even then I don't REALLY care because I'm not a web developer )
Apple not only needs to show that html5 can do what flash can do, but they also need to show what it can do that flash CAN'T do. Why spend money converting a website when the html5 version will work the exact same? To reach a small percentage of viewers? Add to the fact that Safari seems to be the only capable browser for html5 right now and it's an uphill battle for Apple.
As far as keeping it off mobile devices for battery and performance, I'll say that froyo looks like it has promise, but the performance needs some improvement!
In the end, Apple control's their OS, and if they don't want it, nobody should force them. That's just wrong.
To reach a small percentage of viewers? Every viewer can benefit from an HTML5 website (as long as they use a decent browser). Nobody's accomodating Apple. Safari (and other Webkit browser) happens to be ahead of the curve. If website coders want to use the latest code and have it nicely deprecate in other browsers, they can. At the moment, rounded corners and things can be targeted at both Webkit and Mozilla browsers. What's the difference between assuming your visitors are using a decent browser, and wondering if your half your audience has Click to Flash installed, or no Flash plugin at all? What's nice, is that if you spend any time developing for the future, as time goes on (maybe by the time you finish developing a new site) more and more browsers will be complying with more of the standards, and more people will start to see the benefits and extra work as time goes on.
Flash support is not going to get better. Period. Adobe has not improved it in 10 years, and they still haven't made it work for mobile devices, which is a moving target. Not only is mobile tech advancing very quickly, more and more people are relying on it for more of their online experience. Adobe are hopelessly behind already. Why work to give old methods life support when you could get ahead? And Apple's small percentage of mobile devices is doing a majority of the web browsing.
Why spend money? To do something the right way -- using web standards. Would you let someone video your daughter's wedding using a VHS camera? A little Flash here and there may be OK for a presentation, for now. Flash worked pretty well for interactive CD-ROMs about 15 years ago, but complete Flash websites and apps? Come on.
Why change your site "when it works the exact same"? Why improve anything "when you don't have to"? Why not wait until the last possible moment to be caught with your trousers down and let the competition pass you by? That's like saying, "Why move a small business from Windows to Mac? You can still do the exact same things on Windows. Who cares about efficiency and productivity and happy workers, it's got a screen and a keyboard doesn't it?" A bit drastic, but what about at least using a standard network in your business and then giving the staff the choice of a Mac or PC? That's better than continuing to use some kind of archaic and proprietary network that only supports PCs.
Why build out a cable infrastructure in my town? After all, phone lines are just fine. So what if cable has the potential to move us forward and to be faster in the future. Phone lines are fine -- most people have an analog phone and we are doing fine with ADSL for internet. 99.99 percent of homes have a phone line already installed. Why invest in optical cable? Yeah, you can do multiple phone numbers and TV and internet and everything over a cable, but what is that really delivering to us right now? Just the same thing you can get via regular ADSL or by adding an extra phone line.
How about websites created totally out of tables using FrontPage? Would you advise them to not upgrade their websites any time soon? How about websites that have no dynamic database or CMS behind them? No reason to use modern methods, right -- Visitors can still interact with these sites; hey, at least they keep IE6 alive, eh? Accommodating Apple? Why do we keep accommodating MS when they can't ever seem to support any web standards at all? Many developers and large companies (like Google) have declared they are not going to jump through the hoops any longer to accommodate IE6; if an IE6 user can't see elements on a page properly, too bad. Fortunately, MS is moving past IE6 by developing new browsers. However, MS hasn't really effectively cut it off in favor of their new browsers -- they don't give users the message that they need to upgrade and MS don't make it easy and obvious to upgrade. Adobe, too, needs to move on. Both companies are trying to hang onto a proprietary and non-standard web that is "not the real or full internet".
Anyway, in the meantime there are free javascript scripts all over the web that have comparable and better effects than Flash. Right now. Download some off of www.css-tricks.com or something. And these affect multiple individual objects on the screen that are tagged for the effect, not just one whole region of one page, for which the whole underlying Flash file has to be recomposed or reworked to add something new.
I think it's obviously buggy. And not just on Mac OSX.
Quote:
it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
...claims Adobe.
I would be more inclined to believe them if they didn't have a history of screwing every other platform except for Windows.
What API's in Linux don't they have that is causing flash on Linux to suck so bad? This is from 2008: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3320 if you google, opinions aren't much different.
I'm sure that's Apple's fault too?
Adobe is learning the lesson of the parable of the boy who cried wolf....
On Friday I gave the Keynote at Flash Camp Seattle and as part of that keynote I tried to show off Flash Player 10.1 running on Nexus One. Unfortunately the demo didn?t go well and it got some attention around the web. I?ve had a great experience with Flash on my Nexus One but in this case I was running an interim Flash Player build, one I probably should not have installed, and one that I definitely should not have used for any public demos
After I saw Jeff?s blog post, I sat down, upgraded my Flash Player, and went through and tested some of the sites I use on a regular basis. The experience was fantastic. Everything from the Eco Zoo to the NHL video site runs almost flawlessly. While it won?t make up for my mistake at Flash Camp, I recorded a video so people could see an experience that will be much closer to the final experience with Flash Player on Android.
I'm not justifying the FTC's investigation, but if you're going to post something, post the rest of it too.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
And what APIs would that be? Access to sound? Video hardware? Input devices, like mouse, keyboard, or webcam? Flash has perfect access to all of that just fine.
The entire point of Flash is lowest-common-denominator. All the Flash executable needs to do on any system is be able to draw to the screen, spit out sound, and take input. It doesn't use any more system libraries beyond those three basics.
I think it's obviously buggy. And not just on Mac OSX.
...claims Adobe.
I would be more inclined to believe them if they didn't have a history of screwing every other platform except for Windows.
What API's in Linux don't they have that is causing flash on Linux to suck so bad? This is from 2008: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3320 if you google, opinions aren't much different.
I'm sure that's Apple's fault too?
Adobe is learning the lesson of the parable of the boy who cried wolf....
The only time I really have issues with Flash in my browser (chrome) is in facebook chat, which is a pile of fail anyway. Both Chrome and Firefox are configured to shut down a crashed plugin (and tell you when it failed) rather than crash the browser, so if flash crashes, It's very
The API thing is documented. Engadget ran quite a few posts on it, and they showed how improved the flash experience became once apple opened up some of those API's. (I think the release was for macbook pro's)
I don't use linux so I can't speak for it. But part of the issue there could be how many distro's of linux there are, the fact that it isn't a popular end user OS (so it's not primary concern for a company ahead of windows, or even OSx). Having Linux programs run well on linux across distro's is a chore enough for my friends who use the platform. I can't see a plugin being any easier.
Your taxes at work, defending private interests. Please.
Exactly right. This, to the well studied eye, is exactly what the anti-trust laws were and are for. Not for consumer protection, but rather for competitor protection and punitive attacks against the more successful competitors in the market.
And what APIs would that be? Access to sound? Video hardware? Input devices, like mouse, keyboard, or webcam? Flash has perfect access to all of that just fine.
The entire point of Flash is lowest-common-denominator. All the Flash executable needs to do on any system is be able to draw to the screen, spit out sound, and take input. It doesn't use any more system libraries beyond those three basics.
Hardware accelerated Video is the main specific API
Apple finally allowed 3rd party programs access to it ONLY to decode h.264 files, and only on the newest of devices with specific GPU's. They updated the permissions in late march.
This means if the video is coded in anything other than h.264, or if it's an older device, flash still can't hardware accelerate video.
So Adobe is mad because Apple is keeping developers from using their product to make a product that would end up on Apple's products. I would be mad if I were Adobe too, but a business, like a person, has the right to decide who to do business with - directly or indirectly. Apple isn't stopping developers from using Adobe products - they just can't use it to create something that will be used on an Apple product. Sounds like a pointless, baseless, complaint and a complete waste of time by the FTC.
You would be right except for the fact that they have an app store that has only one purpose, to put third party software on their platform. Disallowing all apps based on the tool they were written with seems a bit... um... anti-compedative. If Apple thought these apps would be so poor, why don't they just review them individually like every other app?
Disallowing all apps based on the tool they were written with seems a bit... um... anti-compedative.
No, it's a bit prudent. Code produced by such tools is never going to be optimized. It's always "least common denominator". Real optimization is a deliberate act. It's not something you can just get out of a compiler. Yes, some compilers can make slight improvements here and there, but you are always going to get the maximum benefit from human involvement.
And if that's the case, then what's the point of an abstraction tool like what Adobe was trying to peddle?
Quote:
If Apple thought these apps would be so poor, why don't they just review them individually like every other app?
Why should they waste their time? People are already hopping up and down about approval times on the App Store - great, let's allow a flood of poorly written apps from people who can't even commit enough to the platform to learn the native tools.
Yeah, those are the kinds of developers I would be excited to waste my time for!
Comments
Exactly. It's an investigation. If it leads to something, that will be worth reporting.
As for any action on Apple's part (such as any agreements) don't hold your breath. Nothing Apple is doing is remotely close to violating any laws.
Talk about a non-issue (but great blog fodder!)
From what we know, the complaint does seem kind of lame, but then I suspect that Adobe has information that we don't, or the FTC probably would not be paying attention to them.
Puleeze! The US government is doing everything possible to make the teabaggers actually look sane with their anti-government rants. Feds, stay out of this petty crap! Nobody cares if apple uses flash or not and if they do, there are other options for consumers. Fer chrisakes!
Puleeze! If you don't understand that the U.S. and every other civilized country on the planet has had competition laws on the books for a century or more, then let me suggest that you refrain from commenting in this thread.
The government doesn't care about Flash. All they care about is the complaint they've apparently received. If you call your local police department and complain about your neighbor's dog barking all night, they aren't going to decide over the phone whether the dog is barking or if you just hate your neighbor. If they think the complaint might be valid, they'll look into it and decide which is the case. That's all the FTC is doing now.
Flash cannot run on iPhone - WRONG Flash 1 can using Gordon.js
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
Flash is for lazy developers - WRONG Flash is so easy that non-experts can do simple things
I'm not so sure I want to use programs written by non-experts. I'm sure a user focused company like Apple is even less sure that this argument is worthy of consideration. Not all discrimination is bad!
Flash ported iPhone apps have never been available - WRONG several were accepted by Apple
Approval by Apple for an App is not a blanket approval forever. Apple's not de-compiling or reading through source code. It's also clear that Apple was overwhelmed, and is still probably pretty overwhelmed by the success of the App Store. There are plenty of examples of Apple going back and pulling programs for a multitude of reasons (not that I always agree with their reasons).
And before anyone whines about how unfair Apple is, Google has done it too and I thought I saw where Palm has with the WebOS but I couldn't find the reference I was looking for so take it for what you want.
Flash is responsible for Mac crashes - WRONG only Flash programmers cause crashes
If flash is such a crappy environment that poor practices by flash programmers can lock up my browser on a routine basis then.... it's a flash problem! It's so woven into many web sites that it needs to be a heck of a lot more robust than it is now! If you have "non-experts" creating flash apps, then flash had better be able to keep these "non-expert" flash authors from shooting themselves in the foot, and by proxy shooting my computer as well.
At least with Safari 5, I can kill flash in Activity Monitor, regain control of my browser and resume work.
Adobe doesn't care about Mac users - WRONG Adobe sells a lot of pro applications for Mac
They may sell lots of pro applications, but that doesn't equate caring about Mac users. And I don't even really care if they "care" about Mac users - I just want them to take pride in their product. That there is such a performance difference in Flash between Mac OSX and Windows should be extremely embarrassing for them. You can't tell me that if Adobe took this seriously that they couldn't go to Apple and that Apple wouldn't work with them. The fact is, Adobe isn't overly concerned with the Mac. They were content to coast. The whole 64 bit carbon thing should have been a non-issue. The writing was on the wall - if they were really serious about the Mac, they would have already been moving to Cocoa, instead of waiting until the absolute last minute when Apple basically forced their hand. Plenty of other developers made the leap to Cocoa without having to have Apple basically poke them in the butt with an electric cattle prod. Instead Adobe was plainly content and intent on "milking" the Mac. I think Apple saw this, along with all the hassle of propping up Carbon 64 and they said "enough - were killing it". It was the smart thing to do. It was the ballsy thing to do as to this day people are still painting Apple as the debil for it. Much like with Adobe and their half-a$$ed flash iOS app compiler, they only have themselves to blame - Apple was quite clear about the future of Mac OSX and the iOS - none of it was a secret. Snow Leopard wouldn't have happened if 64bit carbon was still lurching around like the zombie that won't die, and for all the jokes about "thousands of fart apps" what the heck do you think the ease of allowing "non-experts" to write thousands of poorly coded and un-optomized iOS apps would do for the iOS? I think Apple was exactly correct in their reasoning for blocking flash and Adobe's flash to app converter. Apple is about the user experience, and the user experience would have sucked with those tools.
If you want a platform with an uneven and inconsistent user experience, Android has your back! Knock yourself out. Have fun with unexplained battery drain, warm handsets, wildly variable battery life, uneven performance... Just remember the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot means you occasionally will.
I think Adobe got a double one-two punch from the iPhone that they didn't anticipate. First of all, they didn't expect Apple to literally take over the advanced mobile market overnight. And second they probably didn't expect the double digit growth in the Mac caused by first the iPod and now the iPhone "halo" effect.
They gambled they could milk the Mac and coast along on Windows. They gambled wrong. Oh well - man up and take care of business - but enough with the "life is so unfair". Please...
But here's the thing... as a "creative" I think that businesses should get to decide the product they put out and then people decide whether to buy or not. That seems right to me. If Steve Jobs decides he doesn't want Flash on his devices, I can choose to go elsewhere. I don't think that anyone should be able to tell the inventor of something what they should invent.
Flash is not a God-given right (if I believed in such things). Not having Flash was one of the negatives I put on my list when deciding whether to buy an iPhone or iPad or not. The pro side of the column won out and I ended up buying one of each.
If I'm a painter, then no one should be able to force me to use the colour blue. It's a perfectly fine colour and there are others using it, but here are my paintings and you won't find blue on them. Makes sense to me.
Adobe just needs to produce a working iOS version of Flash. Someone at Adobe surely has an iPhone they play with. Develop it, prove that it works and show us. If they can prove it works reliably and doesn't drain the battery too easily, what will Apple say now?
I know it will crash at times, but iOS isn't crashproof anyways. There will be battery drain, but that's to be expected. Just try to minimize it.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
The best advertising is Flash based
The best advertising is that which actually is seen.
With that simple metric, be it on the computer or on mobile devices (where's flash for other mobile devices??) flash is a bag of fail.
From what we know, the complaint does seem kind of lame, but then I suspect that Adobe has information that we don't, or the FTC probably would not be paying attention to them.
That's whats crazy about these stories, we don't know what the FTC is doing.
Taking the complaint could be "investigating". Anti-Apple people probably have a different vision of "investigating" than those who could give a flip about Flash. Since all we have is speculation and imagination.... well, you have this thread
No; I didn't make an assertion like Monstrosity did.
I'm simply asking a question people; settle down.
I also asked a question, but when I do I need to settle down? LOL!
I don't think it is a fair question to ask someone for metrics to support their opinion when you do not provide any for your side that is all.
Given that it was part of the changes along with the release of the iOS 4 SDK, which was released pretty much on schedule, based on the history of previous SDK releases, the rational conclusion is that it was purely coincidental that it was posted at that time. Apple, unlike many companies in the tech industry, does not pin their success on undermining other companies, so their history would suggest that they did it without considering the impact on Adobe's bottom line, but solely for the purpose of not allowing others to take control of their platform.
On the other hand, there's nothing like a good, but totally unfounded, conspiracy theory to blacken a company's eye, which is really what you are all about.
You do realize that Apple and Adobe have a history, right?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._struggle.html
I would normally agree with your views on Apple's stance, but in this one case, I'll go out and say Jobs probably takes Apple's view of Adobe personally. Hell, I would too if I were Jobs.
I don't care if flash lives or dies. What I care about is websites having to accommodate to Apple, all because Apple doesn't want to work with Adobe like Microsoft did (even then I don't REALLY care because I'm not a web developer
Apple not only needs to show that html5 can do what flash can do, but they also need to show what it can do that flash CAN'T do. Why spend money converting a website when the html5 version will work the exact same? To reach a small percentage of viewers? Add to the fact that Safari seems to be the only capable browser for html5 right now and it's an uphill battle for Apple.
As far as keeping it off mobile devices for battery and performance, I'll say that froyo looks like it has promise, but the performance needs some improvement!
In the end, Apple control's their OS, and if they don't want it, nobody should force them. That's just wrong.
To reach a small percentage of viewers? Every viewer can benefit from an HTML5 website (as long as they use a decent browser). Nobody's accomodating Apple. Safari (and other Webkit browser) happens to be ahead of the curve. If website coders want to use the latest code and have it nicely deprecate in other browsers, they can. At the moment, rounded corners and things can be targeted at both Webkit and Mozilla browsers. What's the difference between assuming your visitors are using a decent browser, and wondering if your half your audience has Click to Flash installed, or no Flash plugin at all? What's nice, is that if you spend any time developing for the future, as time goes on (maybe by the time you finish developing a new site) more and more browsers will be complying with more of the standards, and more people will start to see the benefits and extra work as time goes on.
Flash support is not going to get better. Period. Adobe has not improved it in 10 years, and they still haven't made it work for mobile devices, which is a moving target. Not only is mobile tech advancing very quickly, more and more people are relying on it for more of their online experience. Adobe are hopelessly behind already. Why work to give old methods life support when you could get ahead? And Apple's small percentage of mobile devices is doing a majority of the web browsing.
Why spend money? To do something the right way -- using web standards. Would you let someone video your daughter's wedding using a VHS camera? A little Flash here and there may be OK for a presentation, for now. Flash worked pretty well for interactive CD-ROMs about 15 years ago, but complete Flash websites and apps? Come on.
Why change your site "when it works the exact same"? Why improve anything "when you don't have to"? Why not wait until the last possible moment to be caught with your trousers down and let the competition pass you by? That's like saying, "Why move a small business from Windows to Mac? You can still do the exact same things on Windows. Who cares about efficiency and productivity and happy workers, it's got a screen and a keyboard doesn't it?" A bit drastic, but what about at least using a standard network in your business and then giving the staff the choice of a Mac or PC? That's better than continuing to use some kind of archaic and proprietary network that only supports PCs.
Why build out a cable infrastructure in my town? After all, phone lines are just fine. So what if cable has the potential to move us forward and to be faster in the future. Phone lines are fine -- most people have an analog phone and we are doing fine with ADSL for internet. 99.99 percent of homes have a phone line already installed. Why invest in optical cable? Yeah, you can do multiple phone numbers and TV and internet and everything over a cable, but what is that really delivering to us right now? Just the same thing you can get via regular ADSL or by adding an extra phone line.
How about websites created totally out of tables using FrontPage? Would you advise them to not upgrade their websites any time soon? How about websites that have no dynamic database or CMS behind them? No reason to use modern methods, right -- Visitors can still interact with these sites; hey, at least they keep IE6 alive, eh? Accommodating Apple? Why do we keep accommodating MS when they can't ever seem to support any web standards at all? Many developers and large companies (like Google) have declared they are not going to jump through the hoops any longer to accommodate IE6; if an IE6 user can't see elements on a page properly, too bad. Fortunately, MS is moving past IE6 by developing new browsers. However, MS hasn't really effectively cut it off in favor of their new browsers -- they don't give users the message that they need to upgrade and MS don't make it easy and obvious to upgrade. Adobe, too, needs to move on. Both companies are trying to hang onto a proprietary and non-standard web that is "not the real or full internet".
Anyway, in the meantime there are free javascript scripts all over the web that have comparable and better effects than Flash. Right now. Download some off of www.css-tricks.com or something. And these affect multiple individual objects on the screen that are tagged for the effect, not just one whole region of one page, for which the whole underlying Flash file has to be recomposed or reworked to add something new.
The issue isn't that it's buggy
I think it's obviously buggy. And not just on Mac OSX.
it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
...claims Adobe.
I would be more inclined to believe them if they didn't have a history of screwing every other platform except for Windows.
What API's in Linux don't they have that is causing flash on Linux to suck so bad? This is from 2008: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3320 if you google, opinions aren't much different.
I'm sure that's Apple's fault too?
Adobe is learning the lesson of the parable of the boy who cried wolf....
here's the video and article. Enjoy.
Adobe Flash crashes twice during mobile demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqFTx8rLsg
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/was-ap...ile-demo/34268
Then click on the link, where the Flash spokesperson explained what went wrong:
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2...ng-on-android/
I'll quote some of it for you:
On Friday I gave the Keynote at Flash Camp Seattle and as part of that keynote I tried to show off Flash Player 10.1 running on Nexus One. Unfortunately the demo didn?t go well and it got some attention around the web. I?ve had a great experience with Flash on my Nexus One but in this case I was running an interim Flash Player build, one I probably should not have installed, and one that I definitely should not have used for any public demos
After I saw Jeff?s blog post, I sat down, upgraded my Flash Player, and went through and tested some of the sites I use on a regular basis. The experience was fantastic. Everything from the Eco Zoo to the NHL video site runs almost flawlessly. While it won?t make up for my mistake at Flash Camp, I recorded a video so people could see an experience that will be much closer to the final experience with Flash Player on Android.
I'm not justifying the FTC's investigation, but if you're going to post something, post the rest of it too.
Why should Adobe spend thousands of dollars (or more) and countless R&D hours to come up with Flash for iOS that, even if it worked perfectly, would be denied from the app store (and it would, we know it)
Flash works great on my Chrome browser (or firefox) on my computer, great on my Droid, and decently on my macbook (though it is def the slowest of the three) The issue isn't that it's buggy, it's that in order to run efficiently, it needs access to some API's that apple doesn't like releasing.
And what APIs would that be? Access to sound? Video hardware? Input devices, like mouse, keyboard, or webcam? Flash has perfect access to all of that just fine.
The entire point of Flash is lowest-common-denominator. All the Flash executable needs to do on any system is be able to draw to the screen, spit out sound, and take input. It doesn't use any more system libraries beyond those three basics.
I think it's obviously buggy. And not just on Mac OSX.
...claims Adobe.
I would be more inclined to believe them if they didn't have a history of screwing every other platform except for Windows.
What API's in Linux don't they have that is causing flash on Linux to suck so bad? This is from 2008: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3320 if you google, opinions aren't much different.
I'm sure that's Apple's fault too?
Adobe is learning the lesson of the parable of the boy who cried wolf....
The only time I really have issues with Flash in my browser (chrome) is in facebook chat, which is a pile of fail anyway. Both Chrome and Firefox are configured to shut down a crashed plugin (and tell you when it failed) rather than crash the browser, so if flash crashes, It's very
The API thing is documented. Engadget ran quite a few posts on it, and they showed how improved the flash experience became once apple opened up some of those API's. (I think the release was for macbook pro's)
I don't use linux so I can't speak for it. But part of the issue there could be how many distro's of linux there are, the fact that it isn't a popular end user OS (so it's not primary concern for a company ahead of windows, or even OSx). Having Linux programs run well on linux across distro's is a chore enough for my friends who use the platform. I can't see a plugin being any easier.
I don't think it is a fair question to ask someone for metrics to support their opinion when you do not provide any for your side that is all.
but I didn't express a side!!
I didn't say I had experience in both AS3 and Objective c, and one "was shite" compared to the other.
I didn't say he was wrong; I invited him to share his rationale (which he still hasn't)
Your taxes at work, defending private interests. Please.
Exactly right. This, to the well studied eye, is exactly what the anti-trust laws were and are for. Not for consumer protection, but rather for competitor protection and punitive attacks against the more successful competitors in the market.
No laws at all. Obviously the FTC is just making it up as they go along.
You're been snarky, but are likely more right than you know.
You may have noticed that Intel just settled an antitrust claim with the FTC.
And? So?
And what APIs would that be? Access to sound? Video hardware? Input devices, like mouse, keyboard, or webcam? Flash has perfect access to all of that just fine.
The entire point of Flash is lowest-common-denominator. All the Flash executable needs to do on any system is be able to draw to the screen, spit out sound, and take input. It doesn't use any more system libraries beyond those three basics.
Hardware accelerated Video is the main specific API
Apple finally allowed 3rd party programs access to it ONLY to decode h.264 files, and only on the newest of devices with specific GPU's. They updated the permissions in late march.
This means if the video is coded in anything other than h.264, or if it's an older device, flash still can't hardware accelerate video.
So Adobe is mad because Apple is keeping developers from using their product to make a product that would end up on Apple's products. I would be mad if I were Adobe too, but a business, like a person, has the right to decide who to do business with - directly or indirectly. Apple isn't stopping developers from using Adobe products - they just can't use it to create something that will be used on an Apple product. Sounds like a pointless, baseless, complaint and a complete waste of time by the FTC.
You would be right except for the fact that they have an app store that has only one purpose, to put third party software on their platform. Disallowing all apps based on the tool they were written with seems a bit... um... anti-compedative. If Apple thought these apps would be so poor, why don't they just review them individually like every other app?
Disallowing all apps based on the tool they were written with seems a bit... um... anti-compedative.
No, it's a bit prudent. Code produced by such tools is never going to be optimized. It's always "least common denominator". Real optimization is a deliberate act. It's not something you can just get out of a compiler. Yes, some compilers can make slight improvements here and there, but you are always going to get the maximum benefit from human involvement.
And if that's the case, then what's the point of an abstraction tool like what Adobe was trying to peddle?
If Apple thought these apps would be so poor, why don't they just review them individually like every other app?
Why should they waste their time? People are already hopping up and down about approval times on the App Store - great, let's allow a flood of poorly written apps from people who can't even commit enough to the platform to learn the native tools.
Yeah, those are the kinds of developers I would be excited to waste my time for!
Seriously - is it really this hard to comprehend?
This means if the video is coded in anything other than h.264, or if it's an older device, flash still can't hardware accelerate video.
What about all the other times when flash isn't playing video that it locks my machine up?
One straw man doesn't equate a universal truth...