Had time to get through the first three, hated all of them. Terrible web experiences in my opinion, especially the water site: it's message was entirely lost, as was my patience, waiting for it to load and actually deliver it. If that same site were redeveloped in HTML by a decent designer, it might not be as 'cool', but I'll bet I would have known what it was about within the first 10 seconds on it.
This is what I mean about how Flash, as a medium, essentially sucks because it causes "developers" to focus more on the presentation (and, let's face it, most just aren't talented enough to get away with that) than on the message. In the best case, it doesn't add anything, In the worst it detracts. And, as a video container, it's just a complete waste of resources.
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
Well, you may think he's wrong, and this issue is about choice, but you have, as usual, got it all wrong.
You do have a choice. You can buy or not buy an iOS device. It's entirely your choice. Sorry, you don't get to choose your choice, but you do have one, no one has taken away your choice.
Your insistence that you ought to be able to choose to have Flash on your iOS devices (a purely academic choice, since Adobe has not yet demonstrated a version of Flash running on iOS that doesn't totally suck) is like me insisting that I ought to be able to choose, at every web site I go to, whether I want to view a Flash or HTML version. That's the choice I want. Without it, I can't get the complete experience I desire, and I'm currently shit out of luck because all these web site owners have decided for me that I want the experience the way they designed it. Are they all wrong too? Or maybe you are.
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
That is total BS.
Apple hasn't decided that you can't have Flash, Adobe did. THERE IS NO FLASH ON MOBILE DEVICES WITH THE IPHONE'S CPU POWER. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Granted, the iPhone 4 has a CPU that is theoretically powerful enough to run the slow, buggy version of Flash that they have on Froyo, but this discussion has been going on for years and Adobe never released a version that would run on any earlier iPhones. It has never been demonstrated, it has never been released through Cydia, it hasn't even been rumored.
It's not just the iPhone. Where is Flash for ANY 400-600 MHz CPU smart phone out there? Is it Apple's fault that Adobe never released a version for WinMobile or PalmOS or Blackberry or Simian?
Apple has made a decision to support fully developed technologies that add value to the phone. Adobe has had years to do that and has failed. Apple finally got tired of it and said 'too late'. At the same time, developers have been realizing that Flash is a fail on mobile devices, so you see more and more formerly Flash-only sites going to html every day. Car dealers, Disney, Youtube, Hulu, NBC, NY Times, and so on. Flash is no longer needed for most people. I've never missed it on my iPhone (other than the very first year or so before all of the above conversions took place).
Your demand is like someone demanding that Ford put an 8,000 pound tow hitch on a Ford Fiesta. Could they do it? Sure. But it would still be clunky and the car is incapable of safely pulling 8,000 pounds. It's just not a suitable combination.
You have a choice. You can buy an iOS device or you can buy something else. Just keep in mind that, when it comes to Flash, 'something else' limits you to about 0.1% of the phones on the market. But if Flash is critical to you, that's your choice.
It is really amazing how some people manage to make EVERYTHING Apple's fault. If it rains today, is that Apple's fault, too?
I can't believe that after 160+ comments people still think people don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
A lot of people do, but it's just plain irrelevant.
The FTC has no more right to tell Apple that they should support Flash iOS apps than they do to tell them to support Flash plug-ins. If they go down that path, what's next? Telling Apple that Mac OS X has to run Windows apps natively without purchasing other software? Telling Microsoft that Windows has to be written in Objective C? Or maybe telling Sony that they're not allowed to sell a DVD player that doesn't play Blu-Ray as well as DVDs. Or maybe telling Ford and GM that they have to design their cars so engine parts are interchangeable.
It's just not within FTC's purview to tell Apple that they have to support Flash plugins OR Flash apps.
The government's job is to ensure that nothing anti-competitive is going on. They should do that. Monopolies should not be permitted to exist.
+1 Insightful
Quote:
However, the issue at stake here is that there is no monopoly to speak of.
True: the threshold for "monopoly" is 40%, and with Apple saying they only have less than 17% and other sources noting that it's dropping each quarter, there's no case for criminal charges on the Sherman Act.
But it may be worth noting that the only reference to "monopoly" is coming from the posters here; the word doesn't appear in the article, and the wording of the civil complaint was not disclosed there.
Gross Profit is simply Revenue minus Cost of Goods Sold (the latter being a rough measure of direct costs). By itself, it's an intermediate metric that is somewhat meaningless, quite different from, say Profit (Net Income) or Cash Flow or, for that matter, even EBIT (Operating Income).
The reality is that HTML 5 is 10 years behind Flash when it comes to building anything immersive or significant.
I've seen the HTML 5 demos and all I can do is laugh. Why do you think all the big web sites use Flash?
+1 Insightful.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
4. Report back here with the productivity difference between the two.
I find an inverse relationship between people willing to parrot Jobs' long disproven talking points in "Thoughts on Flash" and actual development experience.
Apple doesn't want Flash because it would take about a day to make an alternative App Store for Flash games, and that would cut into the tax Apple collects for everything in the iOS ecosystem. Aside from a personal grudge against Adobe, that's pretty much all there is to that story.
I'm slightly aurprised anyone can look at the complaint Adobe is apparently making (That not allowing Apps developed in the Flash compiler to be cross-compiled to iOS and submitted to the App Store is anti-competitive) and not be absolutely dumbfounded by Adobe's apparent stupidity. In order to distribute an App on the App Store, developers sign an agreement which says they have to develop the App using the iOS SDK. It's Apple's store, Apple's platform and Apple's products and the developers are free to say "no" if they're not happy and make an Android App or something instead. There's nothing anti-competitive about it. Adobe has no more legal right to offer a competing SDK for iOS than I do to call myself a Ford-Specialist Mechanic, including using their logo, without Ford's say-so.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
...
Well, there's where, not unexpectedly, you go wrong. I'm not surprised, it's a common mistake, and one that the use of meta-platforms encourages. The correct exercise is:
Find a substantial Flash site.
Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
Build a new site that presents the content more effectively using HTML5.
The idea that HTML5 sites ought to mimic Flash sites misses the point entirely. As long as you think like you do, you are stuck in the past.
True: the threshold for "monopoly" is 40%, and with Apple saying they only have less than 17% and other sources noting that it's dropping each quarter, there's no case for criminal charges on the Sherman Act.
But it may be worth noting that the only reference to "monopoly" is coming from the posters here; the word doesn't appear in the article, and the wording of the civil complaint was not disclosed there.
Actually, there's no such threshold. But go ahead and show us where the Sherman Act defines a monopoly as 40%.
For extra credit, feel free to show where the Sherman Act says that monopolies are illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
Read the thread I linked to.
Laugh.
Enjoy.
I don't know why you're so eager to make yourself look foolish. You claimed that Apple's profits were excessive - and then used gross margin (which some uninformed people call 'gross profit') figures. And then you keep repeating the same mistake over and over - even after you're told.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
+1 Insightful.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
4. Report back here with the productivity difference between the two.
I find an inverse relationship between people willing to parrot Jobs' long disproven talking points in "Thoughts on Flash" and actual development experience.
Sorry, but no one is interested in your hallucinations about how real developers feel about Flash. In fact, the REAL developers can use the appropriate tool for each job. It's only the lousy developers who use Flash for everything.
But the important thing is that the entire premise of your post is wrong. Apple has no obligation to make life easier for developers. EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT that html takes more work, it's irrelevant. In fact, it should make you happy because it could, in the long run, drive people away from Apple. Apple is allowed to do things that might drive developers away, so your entire premise disproves your belief that Apple is doing something wrong by not supporting Flash.
Like I've said in the thread, Flash eats up more than a core of my Mac Book Pro. The graphics aren't Mac Everquest with the Quake 2 engine when it takes up a core, but EQ is also running under Rosetta!
Too much Mac vs. PC and browser war discussion tossed in there by the ignorant, too.
Well the bigger thing in common with them is most people won't bother with them much. They may be Top 10 Flash, but far from Top 10 websites in the world.
Flash portfolio sites being the best Flash site? Well, respects to the skillz of them all, but that's ridiculous in some way... Wow, one of the best Flash sites is all about their Flash sites...
Flash design used to be going somewhere. Now it seems so pretentious and navel-gazing like the movie industry. Flash sites of movies? Sure, I'm sure it's nice, it's a pity most movies are such garbage nowadays I wouldn't even bother pirating the movie, let alone visiting the movie website.
For the record I just worked on a Flash project. It's hideous, I know. But it helped me afford my iPad Oh, the irony.
I seek to repent my evil ways and walk the path of HTML5. Problem is, that path seems to be paved with bricks and dust rather than silver. For now...
PS. Wow that SectionSeven website is so interactively-wrong in so many ways. Again respects to the artisticness of everything, but, boy, like I said, it's like making movies 3D for the sake of IT'S 3D OMFFG WE ARE SO AWESOMESZ!!111!!1
PPS. For SEO and social media etc. we really as a web industry got to move away from "Flash Portfolio" kind of stuff. Sure, it's what the big-advertising-boys and big-design-agencies use and all that. But, for me, the golden era of Flash was 2000-2005. Now, it's, like I say, just like bad action movies with no plot and rubbish acting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
What do all of these Flash sites (even if some are impressive) have in common? Answer: none of them, accept HBO, will ever work on a phone, or a tablet of any make or OS as they are now.
All of the sites below will have to, as HBO has done, make a new interface for mobile devices, and more than likely 2: 1 each for phones and tablets. That’s a total of 3, for the same info and/or experience.
Now on the other hand, if they decide to use HTML5 & javascript, they just might get away with only 1, by just targeting the end users browser with a CSS switch.
NOTE: actually, a number of the current Apps on the AAS, as well as on the Android could and should be web apps anyway.
2 | Monoface = Should also be an App... and fairly easy for a developer to convert to HTML5/CSS3
3 | Waterlife = Really nice site... too bad it doesn’t offer any other way to get information about their documentary other than through their Flash interface.
4 | Marc Ecko = Also nice... but is it necessary? Especially when trying to get usable info (like contact) it needs to open a separate HTML window anyway.
5 | HBO - Home Box Office = Only site to “degrade gracefully” and offer a choice for mobile users, or plain HTML... or, “there’s an App” link to download.
... I seek to repent my evil ways and walk the path of HTML5. Problem is, that path seems to be paved with bricks and dust rather than silver. For now... ...
It sounds like, having seen the bull, you are trying to catch him:
Quote:
I seize him with a terrific struggle.
His great will and power are inexhaustible.
He charges to the high plateau far above the cloud-mists,
Or in an impenetrable ravine he stands.
Comment: He dwelt in the forest a long time, but I caught him today! Infatuation for scenery interferes with his direction. Longing for sweeter grass, he wanders away. His mind still is stubborn and unbridled. If I wish him to submit, I must raise my whip.
PS. Wow that SectionSeven website is so interactively-wrong in so many ways. Again respects to the artisticness of everything, but, boy, like I said, it's like making movies 3D for the sake of IT'S 3D OMFFG WE ARE SO AWESOMESZ!!111!!1.
I agree. 30 seconds just to load the main page? And then the main page goes way offscreen (even on my 1920x1200 monitor)?!?!?
What a worthless site. It doesn't do anything that an html site couldn't do faster and far more efficiently.
The really funny part is that people are using sites like that as justification for Flash on an iPhone. Can you imagine using that site on an iPhone? I'd rather have a root canal.
OK, I'm a bit late to this thread but I'll try an introduce some analysis. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who knows more about this stuff.
Apple wants all developers to use the Cocoa Touch API - but why is this? Most people (Daniel Dilger) will say "because it ensure a consistent, accessible and beautiful user interface", but a quick look at the architecture of the operating system sheds a little more light.
Implicitly, sitting above the top layer is your Objective-C code. Apple don't actually reveal very much about how their App compiler / packager actually works - but running the top command via OpenSSH reveals some things I found interesting. When you scroll through a list of options, say in the settings application, the application's CPU usage shoots up - as does the usage of SpringBoard (the home-screen). This strongly suggests to me that the actual API "Cocoa Touch" is either embedded in the Springboard application or a significant part of user interface work (i.e. compositing / producing the bitmap that's fed to the screen) is done inside SpringBoard.
This top output - for example - was while scrubbing through the list of top stories in the Guardian.
So we've got one application that takes care of the media. With the on-screen controls, SpringBoard's CPU usage shoots up to around 18%, suggesting that it is heavily involved in compositing.
As for core-services: other than search they seem to be buried inside the Core OS and therefore can't be displayed by top (I don't think...).
So what this means is that Apple's software platform is centralized - only one instance of the services which power the audio, video and visual interfaces are active at one time and all applications must use them. This makes sense - it saves memory because each application doesn't have to load up mediaserve - and means that the operating system kernel doesn't have to decide which applications get access to the screen or video hardware - because all requests (even OpenGL seems to be rendered, passed into SpringBoard and then passed back out) go through these special applications. As a result Apple has, by accident or design, precluded the development of software libraries that access the hardware directly - despite the fact that on a mobile device these facilities need to exist - and that is probably what the FTC must decide is anti-competitive. This means that Apple can, quite legitimately, claim that Flash would eat up the CPU, simply because it can't draw directly to the screen and must go through these servers. This is not a problem on desktop computers, simply because there's so much more power.
No matter what the FTC's decision might be there's no getting round it for Adobe - an alternative intermediary software layer that runs on the iPhone will be forced to duplicate what's already running - at least in the mid-term future. However, Apple could probably make dispensations to permit 'more' direct access to the hardware (this might well end up being important to Adobe - its' very likely that it uses a common rendering engine across all platforms to ensure consistent results), or returning screen co-ordinates to an optional flash 'server' that runs outside normal applications.
Comments
Couple of decent ones here: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/best-flash-sites
Had time to get through the first three, hated all of them. Terrible web experiences in my opinion, especially the water site: it's message was entirely lost, as was my patience, waiting for it to load and actually deliver it. If that same site were redeveloped in HTML by a decent designer, it might not be as 'cool', but I'll bet I would have known what it was about within the first 10 seconds on it.
This is what I mean about how Flash, as a medium, essentially sucks because it causes "developers" to focus more on the presentation (and, let's face it, most just aren't talented enough to get away with that) than on the message. In the best case, it doesn't add anything, In the worst it detracts. And, as a video container, it's just a complete waste of resources.
I can't believe after 160+ comments people still don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
I can't believe that after 160+ comments people still think people don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
Well, you may think he's wrong, and this issue is about choice, but you have, as usual, got it all wrong.
You do have a choice. You can buy or not buy an iOS device. It's entirely your choice. Sorry, you don't get to choose your choice, but you do have one, no one has taken away your choice.
Your insistence that you ought to be able to choose to have Flash on your iOS devices (a purely academic choice, since Adobe has not yet demonstrated a version of Flash running on iOS that doesn't totally suck) is like me insisting that I ought to be able to choose, at every web site I go to, whether I want to view a Flash or HTML version. That's the choice I want. Without it, I can't get the complete experience I desire, and I'm currently shit out of luck because all these web site owners have decided for me that I want the experience the way they designed it. Are they all wrong too? Or maybe you are.
This issue would appear to be about choice. If an iPhone owner (me for example) would like Flash enabled to get the complete experience from some websites that I get on my Macs, then I'm currently sh!t out of luck because SJ has decided for me that I don't want that experience as an iPhone owner. Well he's wrong.
That is total BS.
Apple hasn't decided that you can't have Flash, Adobe did. THERE IS NO FLASH ON MOBILE DEVICES WITH THE IPHONE'S CPU POWER. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Granted, the iPhone 4 has a CPU that is theoretically powerful enough to run the slow, buggy version of Flash that they have on Froyo, but this discussion has been going on for years and Adobe never released a version that would run on any earlier iPhones. It has never been demonstrated, it has never been released through Cydia, it hasn't even been rumored.
It's not just the iPhone. Where is Flash for ANY 400-600 MHz CPU smart phone out there? Is it Apple's fault that Adobe never released a version for WinMobile or PalmOS or Blackberry or Simian?
Apple has made a decision to support fully developed technologies that add value to the phone. Adobe has had years to do that and has failed. Apple finally got tired of it and said 'too late'. At the same time, developers have been realizing that Flash is a fail on mobile devices, so you see more and more formerly Flash-only sites going to html every day. Car dealers, Disney, Youtube, Hulu, NBC, NY Times, and so on. Flash is no longer needed for most people. I've never missed it on my iPhone (other than the very first year or so before all of the above conversions took place).
Your demand is like someone demanding that Ford put an 8,000 pound tow hitch on a Ford Fiesta. Could they do it? Sure. But it would still be clunky and the car is incapable of safely pulling 8,000 pounds. It's just not a suitable combination.
You have a choice. You can buy an iOS device or you can buy something else. Just keep in mind that, when it comes to Flash, 'something else' limits you to about 0.1% of the phones on the market. But if Flash is critical to you, that's your choice.
It is really amazing how some people manage to make EVERYTHING Apple's fault. If it rains today, is that Apple's fault, too?
I can't believe that after 160+ comments people still think people don't know the difference between Flash as a web plugin and Flash as an iOS app.
A lot of people do, but it's just plain irrelevant.
The FTC has no more right to tell Apple that they should support Flash iOS apps than they do to tell them to support Flash plug-ins. If they go down that path, what's next? Telling Apple that Mac OS X has to run Windows apps natively without purchasing other software? Telling Microsoft that Windows has to be written in Objective C? Or maybe telling Sony that they're not allowed to sell a DVD player that doesn't play Blu-Ray as well as DVDs. Or maybe telling Ford and GM that they have to design their cars so engine parts are interchangeable.
It's just not within FTC's purview to tell Apple that they have to support Flash plugins OR Flash apps.
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to use Flash?
Is anybody putting a gun against your head and forcing you to buy an iPhone? Did the Apple helicopters swoop down on your house? Did they probe you?
The government's job is to ensure that nothing anti-competitive is going on. They should do that. Monopolies should not be permitted to exist.
+1 Insightful
However, the issue at stake here is that there is no monopoly to speak of.
True: the threshold for "monopoly" is 40%, and with Apple saying they only have less than 17% and other sources noting that it's dropping each quarter, there's no case for criminal charges on the Sherman Act.
But it may be worth noting that the only reference to "monopoly" is coming from the posters here; the word doesn't appear in the article, and the wording of the civil complaint was not disclosed there.
Gross Profit is simply Revenue minus Cost of Goods Sold (the latter being a rough measure of direct costs). By itself, it's an intermediate metric that is somewhat meaningless, quite different from, say Profit (Net Income) or Cash Flow or, for that matter, even EBIT (Operating Income).
What is the point you're trying to make?
Read the thread I linked to.
Laugh.
Enjoy.
As a developer I use ANY tool that does the job.
The reality is that HTML 5 is 10 years behind Flash when it comes to building anything immersive or significant.
I've seen the HTML 5 demos and all I can do is laugh. Why do you think all the big web sites use Flash?
+1 Insightful.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
4. Report back here with the productivity difference between the two.
I find an inverse relationship between people willing to parrot Jobs' long disproven talking points in "Thoughts on Flash" and actual development experience.
Apple doesn't want Flash because it would take about a day to make an alternative App Store for Flash games, and that would cut into the tax Apple collects for everything in the iOS ecosystem. Aside from a personal grudge against Adobe, that's pretty much all there is to that story.
+1 Insightful.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
...
Well, there's where, not unexpectedly, you go wrong. I'm not surprised, it's a common mistake, and one that the use of meta-platforms encourages. The correct exercise is:
- Find a substantial Flash site.
- Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
- Build a new site that presents the content more effectively using HTML5.
The idea that HTML5 sites ought to mimic Flash sites misses the point entirely. As long as you think like you do, you are stuck in the past.3/4 of all web video is Flash based
The best advertising is Flash based
The best interactive content is Flash based
All The best movie sites are done in Flash
Flash is extensively used by ALL the big boys. For a reason.
People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.
ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.
True: the threshold for "monopoly" is 40%, and with Apple saying they only have less than 17% and other sources noting that it's dropping each quarter, there's no case for criminal charges on the Sherman Act.
But it may be worth noting that the only reference to "monopoly" is coming from the posters here; the word doesn't appear in the article, and the wording of the civil complaint was not disclosed there.
Actually, there's no such threshold. But go ahead and show us where the Sherman Act defines a monopoly as 40%.
For extra credit, feel free to show where the Sherman Act says that monopolies are illegal.
Read the thread I linked to.
Laugh.
Enjoy.
I don't know why you're so eager to make yourself look foolish. You claimed that Apple's profits were excessive - and then used gross margin (which some uninformed people call 'gross profit') figures. And then you keep repeating the same mistake over and over - even after you're told.
+1 Insightful.
Exercise for anyone here who actually does any development:
1. Find a substantial Flash site.
2. Build a copy of it with Flash CS5.
3. Build another copy of it in HTML5.
4. Report back here with the productivity difference between the two.
I find an inverse relationship between people willing to parrot Jobs' long disproven talking points in "Thoughts on Flash" and actual development experience.
Sorry, but no one is interested in your hallucinations about how real developers feel about Flash. In fact, the REAL developers can use the appropriate tool for each job. It's only the lousy developers who use Flash for everything.
But the important thing is that the entire premise of your post is wrong. Apple has no obligation to make life easier for developers. EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT that html takes more work, it's irrelevant. In fact, it should make you happy because it could, in the long run, drive people away from Apple. Apple is allowed to do things that might drive developers away, so your entire premise disproves your belief that Apple is doing something wrong by not supporting Flash.
Couple of decent ones here: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/best-flash-sites
And here's a thread on a forum on a Flash-based game which I enjoy, but would like converted to HTML 5:
Dark Orbit HTML 5 Conversion
Like I've said in the thread, Flash eats up more than a core of my Mac Book Pro. The graphics aren't Mac Everquest with the Quake 2 engine when it takes up a core, but EQ is also running under Rosetta!
Too much Mac vs. PC and browser war discussion tossed in there by the ignorant, too.
The whole world's gone koo-koo bananas!
no.. that would just be America!
No, it's the whole world.
Flash portfolio sites being the best Flash site? Well, respects to the skillz of them all, but that's ridiculous in some way... Wow, one of the best Flash sites is all about their Flash sites...
Flash design used to be going somewhere. Now it seems so pretentious and navel-gazing like the movie industry. Flash sites of movies? Sure, I'm sure it's nice, it's a pity most movies are such garbage nowadays I wouldn't even bother pirating the movie, let alone visiting the movie website.
For the record I just worked on a Flash project. It's hideous, I know.
I seek to repent my evil ways and walk the path of HTML5. Problem is, that path seems to be paved with bricks and dust rather than silver. For now...
PS. Wow that SectionSeven website is so interactively-wrong in so many ways. Again respects to the artisticness of everything, but, boy, like I said, it's like making movies 3D for the sake of IT'S 3D OMFFG WE ARE SO AWESOMESZ!!111!!1
PPS. For SEO and social media etc. we really as a web industry got to move away from "Flash Portfolio" kind of stuff. Sure, it's what the big-advertising-boys and big-design-agencies use and all that. But, for me, the golden era of Flash was 2000-2005. Now, it's, like I say, just like bad action movies with no plot and rubbish acting.
What do all of these Flash sites (even if some are impressive) have in common? Answer: none of them, accept HBO, will ever work on a phone, or a tablet of any make or OS as they are now.
All of the sites below will have to, as HBO has done, make a new interface for mobile devices, and more than likely 2: 1 each for phones and tablets. That’s a total of 3, for the same info and/or experience.
Now on the other hand, if they decide to use HTML5 & javascript, they just might get away with only 1, by just targeting the end users browser with a CSS switch.
NOTE: actually, a number of the current Apps on the AAS, as well as on the Android could and should be web apps anyway.
Top 10 Best Flash Websites of 2010
1 | Moodstream | Getty Images = Should be an App.
2 | Monoface = Should also be an App... and fairly easy for a developer to convert to HTML5/CSS3
3 | Waterlife = Really nice site... too bad it doesn’t offer any other way to get information about their documentary other than through their Flash interface.
4 | Marc Ecko = Also nice... but is it necessary? Especially when trying to get usable info (like contact) it needs to open a separate HTML window anyway.
5 | HBO - Home Box Office = Only site to “degrade gracefully” and offer a choice for mobile users, or plain HTML... or, “there’s an App” link to download.
6 | Get The Glass = Worthless... but pretty.
7 | AgencyNet Interactive = Uh oh... nice stuff. But is it useful? And wow are they tied to Flash in a big way!
8 | 2Advanced Studios = Nice futuristic design. Far too busy though, and absolutely unusable on anything other than a desktop.
9 | Section Seven Inc. = Shows off Flash "capabilities" and nothing else worthwhile ... or READABLE!
10 | Dave Werner's Portfolio = Could see this as an app or eBook/Magazine Album. talented designer though(!)
Just my take.
I don't clean my car with acetone because it wrecks the paint. I make it known I won't do this.
So the acetone manufacturers want to sue me because they might find it harder to market acetone as a wax to other less-informed suckers.
Acetone is not a wax. Flash is not a graphics tool.
Can't wait to see the outcome. Just please don't let it be contested in California's 9th District Courts.
... I seek to repent my evil ways and walk the path of HTML5. Problem is, that path seems to be paved with bricks and dust rather than silver. For now...
It sounds like, having seen the bull, you are trying to catch him:
I seize him with a terrific struggle.
His great will and power are inexhaustible.
He charges to the high plateau far above the cloud-mists,
Or in an impenetrable ravine he stands.
Comment: He dwelt in the forest a long time, but I caught him today! Infatuation for scenery interferes with his direction. Longing for sweeter grass, he wanders away. His mind still is stubborn and unbridled. If I wish him to submit, I must raise my whip.
PS. Wow that SectionSeven website is so interactively-wrong in so many ways. Again respects to the artisticness of everything, but, boy, like I said, it's like making movies 3D for the sake of IT'S 3D OMFFG WE ARE SO AWESOMESZ!!111!!1.
I agree. 30 seconds just to load the main page? And then the main page goes way offscreen (even on my 1920x1200 monitor)?!?!?
What a worthless site. It doesn't do anything that an html site couldn't do faster and far more efficiently.
The really funny part is that people are using sites like that as justification for Flash on an iPhone. Can you imagine using that site on an iPhone? I'd rather have a root canal.
Apple wants all developers to use the Cocoa Touch API - but why is this? Most people (Daniel Dilger) will say "because it ensure a consistent, accessible and beautiful user interface", but a quick look at the architecture of the operating system sheds a little more light.
Implicitly, sitting above the top layer is your Objective-C code. Apple don't actually reveal very much about how their App compiler / packager actually works - but running the top command via OpenSSH reveals some things I found interesting. When you scroll through a list of options, say in the settings application, the application's CPU usage shoots up - as does the usage of SpringBoard (the home-screen). This strongly suggests to me that the actual API "Cocoa Touch" is either embedded in the Springboard application or a significant part of user interface work (i.e. compositing / producing the bitmap that's fed to the screen) is done inside SpringBoard.
This top output - for example - was while scrubbing through the list of top stories in the Guardian.
Processes: 36 total, 1 running, 35 sleeping... 200 threads 15:23:27
Load Avg: 0.21, 0.64, 0.75 CPU usage: 62.50% user, 24.26% sys, 13.24% idle
SharedLibs: num = 0, resident = 0 code, 0 data, 0 linkedit.
MemRegions: num = 5059, resident = 110M + 0 private, 39M shared.
PhysMem: 42M wired, 41M active, 28M inactive, 240M used, 13M free.
VM: 1977M + 0 28329(0) pageins, 50(0) pageouts
PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
29 SpringBoar 44.2% 7:35.41 15 459 901 12068K- 7196K+ 22M- 160M-
755 Guardian 19.4% 0:15.73 6 119 343 4776K 6188K 11M- 106M-
805 top 5.9% 0:00.86 1 22 50 628K 1440K 1152K 15M
699 sshd 0.5% 0:03.78 1 15 36 316K 1212K 1296K 14M
117 MobilePhon 0.5% 0:06.58 6 153 286 4532K 4628K 8100K 117M
33 CommCenter 0.5% 0:20.35 10 225 97 1084K 2428K 2100K 51M
..
Playing a file in the iPod application:
Processes: 30 total, 1 running, 29 sleeping... 151 threads 15:38:51
Load Avg: 0.68, 0.28, 0.18 CPU usage: 12.15% user, 6.54% sys, 81.31% idle
SharedLibs: num = 0, resident = 0 code, 0 data, 0 linkedit.
MemRegions: num = 2902, resident = 50M + 0 private, 36M shared.
PhysMem: 46M wired, 39M active, 18M inactive, 152M used, 101M free.
VM: 1157M + 0 12829(0) pageins, 0(0) pageouts
PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
37 mediaserve 8.3% 0:02.31 26 288+ 222 9336K+ 1212K 5300K+ 46M+
146 top 5.5% 0:33.16 1 24 50 596K 1468K 1120K 15M
137 MobileMusi 0.9% 0:13.41 8 151 245 6996K 6772K 11M 109M
18 SpringBoar 0.9% 0:15.45 16 420 624 11424K 7096K 19M 152M
...
Playing a video in the iPod:
Processes: 28 total, 1 running, 27 sleeping... 150 threads 15:39:49
Load Avg: 0.91, 0.39, 0.23 CPU usage: 25.00% user, 13.89% sys, 61.11% idle
SharedLibs: num = 0, resident = 0 code, 0 data, 0 linkedit.
MemRegions: num = 2863, resident = 51M + 0 private, 45M shared.
PhysMem: 55M wired, 40M active, 18M inactive, 165M used, 88M free.
VM: 1099M + 0 13267(0) pageins, 0(0) pageouts
PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
37 mediaserve 24.8% 0:10.66 28 317 239 11228K 5064K 10M+ 54M
146 top 5.5% 0:36.55 1 22 50 604K 1468K 1128K 15M
18 SpringBoar 4.6% 0:18.44 15 422 664 11828K 12M 20M 157M
38 locationd 0.9% 0:00.66 8 106 88 2116K 2352K 4068K 50M
21 SCHelper 0.9% 0:00.59 4 52+ 61 368K+ 1204K 612K+ 21M+
15 configd 0.9% 0:05.59 16 317 131 1108K 2344K 2820K 43M
...
So we've got one application that takes care of the media. With the on-screen controls, SpringBoard's CPU usage shoots up to around 18%, suggesting that it is heavily involved in compositing.
As for core-services: other than search they seem to be buried inside the Core OS and therefore can't be displayed by top (I don't think...).
So what this means is that Apple's software platform is centralized - only one instance of the services which power the audio, video and visual interfaces are active at one time and all applications must use them. This makes sense - it saves memory because each application doesn't have to load up mediaserve - and means that the operating system kernel doesn't have to decide which applications get access to the screen or video hardware - because all requests (even OpenGL seems to be rendered, passed into SpringBoard and then passed back out) go through these special applications. As a result Apple has, by accident or design, precluded the development of software libraries that access the hardware directly - despite the fact that on a mobile device these facilities need to exist - and that is probably what the FTC must decide is anti-competitive. This means that Apple can, quite legitimately, claim that Flash would eat up the CPU, simply because it can't draw directly to the screen and must go through these servers. This is not a problem on desktop computers, simply because there's so much more power.
No matter what the FTC's decision might be there's no getting round it for Adobe - an alternative intermediary software layer that runs on the iPhone will be forced to duplicate what's already running - at least in the mid-term future. However, Apple could probably make dispensations to permit 'more' direct access to the hardware (this might well end up being important to Adobe - its' very likely that it uses a common rendering engine across all platforms to ensure consistent results), or returning screen co-ordinates to an optional flash 'server' that runs outside normal applications.