You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
That's why apple is supporting h.264 right? a standard proprietary encumbered pos.
If they wanted an open web, they would announce support for webM and oggvorbis (and the other open source formats)
and Adobe is trying to take over an otherwise healthy platform (in terms of development). At least Apple is trying to control THEIR OWN product.
It's not like Flash will replace apps already present there. If iOS apps are all so great, because we all know you need 1,000 flashlight apps and 10,000 fart apps to mean quality, then iOS will be more popular than Flash apps.
Except you leave out one detail, both of those platforms totally suck as to good performance, and with Apple it is all about superior performance.
I seriously doubt that at the end of the day h.264 royalty holders will ream everyone, would be like shooting themselves in the foot and stupid.
Besides that WebM shows to be as effective as h.264.
And the quality isn't bad: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...red-67266.aspx h.264 still has the slight edge, but for most uses, the difference isn't noticeable, and that's before it's become a code that a ton of people are releasing and pouring over. If apple was truly for an open web, they'd at least support this codec in tandem with h.264 (as over a dozen companies are), but by refusing to acknowledge it, it's clear they're trying to paint the web the way they imagine it to be. Which can't be defined as open.
Apple's not about superior performance. They're about Controlling as much about a system as they can to get consistent performance. Yes, this generally means there things work rather well (I am a big fan of OSX) but if it comes down to adopting a working standard they can't control, or limiting themselves from all that standard offers to accept an inferior standard they CAN control, they'll take inferior any day of the week, especially if they have a vested interest in that codec being chosen. Steve Jobs said that they wanted to do away with flash because it was proprietary, so he picked up another proprietary code to replace it.
It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web.
And those royalty holders WILL ream everyone. Because incase you missed it, they're some of the biggest voices against Flash, WebM, etc. So that when they bring out the hazing paddle, they'll be the only games in town. It's a bait and switch. Get everyone on board with the promise of a "universal codec" and then jack up the rates when those companies burn all other bridges.
They're not stupid. They know that once consumers get used to their content (and most consumers could care less about if HTML5, Flash, etc. get them their content, as long as they bet what they want) MPEG-LA knows that they can charge almost anything they want and companies will be forced to pay it. See, that's the beauty of licencing codecs like this. You jack rates through the roof, those websites try passing it on, and they are the villains and no one gives to shakes that it was the MPEG-LA that's actually raking in the profits instead of HULU or whatever the website is.
It's the same reason retail prices on cellphones are so insane. Companies know that the average consumer NEVER buys a phone at retail cost. To them phones range in price from Free to 299, period. Yet for even a basic flip phone on verizon, verizon's COST of those devices approaches 200. For smartphones, the cost can be close to $600 at the higher end. Yet to the consumer, they just see the contract price. This allows companies to charge a lot more for their products (especially at the lower end) than they might in a comparative market (for flip phones, just look at comparatively how much cheaper GSM flip phones are since they are sold to so many prepaid carriers.)
You really think MPEG-LA won't do the same thing once they have the chance?
^ I disagree, I just recently encoded videos in the three formats, Ogg sucks big time, WebM is okay but not great. H.264 is as crystal clear as the original with much less of a file size.
Apple is about control, but control of quality,which IS superior performance and because of that they stay on top. H.264 is no way as locked in as Flash, one is a codec (one of many used by the video tag) the other a whole platform. I work with both daily, I do know the difference.
I don't have a crystal ball to know the future, but I do trust Apple to not be a-holes, so far in the almost thirty years I have been using their products they haven't been. If h.264 creates a bru-ha-ha I feel they will do something to mediate that.
First you prove my point by demonstrating how much Mac users outside of this tiny little forum love Adobe and then try to say it somehow means Adobe is bad for Mac?
Correct order: read first, then reply.
Have a better day.
I see, you just read whatever you want into it. Well, now your posts make a lot more sense in that light.
Laziness: You do realize that HTML5 just really became a contender for video THIS YEAR, and it's still years away from replacing flash in other content right? And that the standard is still a work in progress, so a lot can change. On top of that, Apple's chosen codec for video (h.264) is one that Mozilla, the second largest browser by users in the world, doesn't support. (and the largest browser, IE, still sucks at HTML5 unless you're using the beta. So these developers have no choice but to USE flash for the foreseeable future.
IE is getting heavy html5 support soon (but it's still years behind chrome/safari when it comes to supported API's) and with the new WebM format, Mozilla has an alternative when it comes to html5 video. But will Apple support WebM? Flash gets around these codec issues because it's a wrapper for video, but if flash doesn't work on a device, say an iphone, what happens if webM becomes the codec of choice for iphone users and apple doesn't adopt it?
Don't call developers "lazy" when it comes to flash. It's the single platform that will hit the most potential users, and HTML5 is still in a lot of flux for a lot of developers to commit to developing for two platforms. HTML5 is the future of video, but it's still not there yet, and it's years from being ready for other content.
Here we go again, someone confusing codecs, wrappers and platforms. HTML is the web platform. Why worry about another one, which needs its own plugin to be installed on top of a browser? Or, for a browser like Chrome to take effort to update support for it, whether built-in or otherwise?
Flash "gets around these codec issues" less well than QT, and other now defunct wrappers like Real -- it should support standard video encoding and decoding if it is used for video. Browsers and computers do that too. Either your browser or computer supports H.264 or it doesn't (yet). Video does not (and should not) require wrapping in Flash or QT or anything else. How is that a bad thing? Video should be like images on the web.
And of course IE sucks at HTML, they always have; MS is finally realizing it can't rely on de facto adoption and maintaining its own proprietary webplugins ala Flash (active X, Frontpage extensions, Silverlight, etc. etc.). People don't want them. Sure, they provide some wonderful functionality, and some developers may be really invested in using them. But it sucks to have proprietary systems on the web.
How is video support years away? It's here. YouTube offered a whole new set of video practically overnight. Lots of other sites have already followed. And one hundred million mobile devices with iOS do the vast majority of mobile browsing.
... It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web. ...
First, you need to get your terms straight. You seem to be confusing the meanings of "free" and "open", a common mistake. Confusing "open standard" and "open source" is another common mistake. It isn't free, and the implementations by various parties are not open source (but, there is reference code available), but it's not closed. H.264 is an open standard.
And, if Mozilla can't adopt it because of the GPL, then they need to dump GPL licensing. If they can't adopt it for ideological reasons, they need to dump their ideology. It's just as ridiculous that the web be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Mozilla as it is that it be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Adobe.
Of course, as I've mentioned before, WebM was put out their by Google jut to let Mozilla spin their ideological wheels on. If they want to be around in 5 years, they need to start making some smart, pragmatic choices and take off their ideological blinders.
Adobe aren't going to put any effort into Flash on the iPhone unless Apple give the ok for mobile Safari plug-ins (which obviously isn't going to happen!)
Then how do you explain that there's no flash for PalmOS or Symbian or WinMobile, either?
I don't see the two as being related. There are a bunch of reasons why Flash isn't on these platforms... but none of them are that it is has been banned by the manufacturer.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the one that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! Put that in your Venn diagram.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
The article is about iOS applications.
precisely. and apple should be free to not let their platform become beholden to the update cycle of middle-ware developed by 3rd parties such as Adobe, as they had to suffer with in the past.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
The article is about iOS applications.
And it just plain doesn't matter. FTC doesn't have any more right to regulate the applications Apple sells on its store than it does to regulate which plug-ins it supports.
In fact, the new Library of Congress decision that jailbreaking is fully legal weakens the argument for regulation even further. If you wan to run Flash apps on your phone, just jailbreak it. No need to force Apple to carry them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
I don't see the two as being related. There are a bunch of reasons why Flash isn't on these platforms... but none of them are that it is has been banned by the manufacturer.
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
That's why apple is supporting h.264 right? a standard proprietary encumbered pos.
If they wanted an open web, they would announce support for webM and oggvorbis (and the other open source formats)
So yes, free the web. Now someone inform apple.
h.264 is an open standard. Apple is being completely consistent.
That doesn't mean that every open standard will always be free, as in free beer. Nor does it have to be. In case you missed it, we live in a capitalist society and companies that contributed to h.264 have chosen to be paid for it.
If you have a better codec that's free (as in free beer), go ahead and submit it for approval. Apple doesn't require h.264. If you get something 'free' approved, then html 5 will run it.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things. The article is about iOS applications.
And it just plain doesn't matter.
Of course it matters when they are two separate things. If a person says they think Apple shouldn't allow Flash iOS applications because it makes the web browser run slow they are talking nonsense.
People can argue for or against Flash iOS applications and/or the Flash web plug-in all they like but they need to understand the two are fundamentally different else they are in danger of their entire argument being irrelevant.
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
Adobe won't attempt (no would it be possible to) develop a mobile safari Flash plug-in without total consent and support from Apple. If you don't agree with that, fine... but I think you'd be wrong.
And it just plain doesn't matter. FTC doesn't have any more right to regulate the applications Apple sells on its store than it does to regulate which plug-ins it supports.
In fact, the new Library of Congress decision that jailbreaking is fully legal weakens the argument for regulation even further. If you wan to run Flash apps on your phone, just jailbreak it. No need to force Apple to carry them.
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
Quote:
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through. Flash is NOT tied to specific phones, it's tied to OS releases. The Droid, Droid Incredible, Droid x, LG ally, Evo, N1, My touch, my touch slide, all galaxy s phones, etc will ALL be able to run froyo. That's including phones with sub 600mhz processors.
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
Quote:
h.264 is an open standard. Apple is being completely consistent.
That doesn't mean that every open standard will always be free, as in free beer. Nor does it have to be. In case you missed it, we live in a capitalist society and companies that contributed to h.264 have chosen to be paid for it.
If you have a better codec that's free (as in free beer), go ahead and submit it for approval. Apple doesn't require h.264. If you get something 'free' approved, then html 5 will run it.
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
First, you need to get your terms straight. You seem to be confusing the meanings of "free" and "open", a common mistake. Confusing "open standard" and "open source" is another common mistake. It isn't free, and the implementations by various parties are not open source (but, there is reference code available), but it's not closed. H.264 is an open standard.
And, if Mozilla can't adopt it because of the GPL, then they need to dump GPL licensing. If they can't adopt it for ideological reasons, they need to dump their ideology. It's just as ridiculous that the web be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Mozilla as it is that it be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Adobe.
Of course, as I've mentioned before, WebM was put out their by Google jut to let Mozilla spin their ideological wheels on. If they want to be around in 5 years, they need to start making some smart, pragmatic choices and take off their ideological blinders.
Right, mozilla should drop GPL so they can become more "open." Read why they have an issue with h.264.
Have you read the terms of h.264 licensing? How if you view a video that you bought/rented/streamed that was produced by someone without the right license, you've voided YOUR license, and you're subject to being fined/sued by MPEG-LA as well. Do you really think something that insanely constricted has any place in an "open web?" You'd be replacing one format you hate (flash) with a codec that is nearly as bad. It's still one group controlling content on the web. And no, it wouldn't be solved "if everyone adopted it" because everyone adopted flash, that didn't change that it was still one group (and if you want to talk about ideological blinders read Steve Jobs' thoughts on flash)
WebM wasn't put out there just for Mozilla. Watch the announcement again (or maybe for the first time).
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
Sorry, I totally disagree, as it has been said H.264 is open source and Flash is not in any way shape or form. H.264 is a compression codec, Flash is a full blown graphic, animation and interaction system. What makes it unusable for the web is the way it works on the web. Talk about a walled garden! No search engines can interface with a Flash file, no screen readers and a lot of touch gestures are not recognized (depending on the programming) .
Action Script is Adobe's proprietary scripting code. It belongs to them alone.
Perhaps another video codec will be created, but Apple is supporting H.264 because they allow it be decoded in the hardware. They have their reasons for that. They may add support for other hardware decoding in the future we do not know. But it is only one component of the web, Flash takes over whole websites and does it badly.
When Apple said "no" to allowing a Flash plugin on their mobile devices Adobe thought they could do an end run around them by compiling what are essentially Flash files into a web app, so they are more related then one would think. I remember when this was being discussed last year because I had a number of slideshows/video players created in Flash with the Slideshow Pro component. I was thinking that someone could create an app so my Slideshows would run on the mobile devices, would save me a lot of work to not have to recreate all of them. So I was expecting to be able to compile my Flash files into an app format instead of a swf format, so I am not seeing how this is so very different as to not be a similar thing, based on what I was reading from Adobe before the axe fell.
And it is all well and good, I made the slideshows with javascript and put all of my video into html5. The slideshows work much better as the javascript is less intensive on system resources. The Slideshow Pro folks came up with a solution that will run Slideshows on the iDevices without using Flash, people are moving on from Flash and much faster than you think. And you know what, we don't miss it!
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
Not just Adobe tools. And it would only be anti-competitive if Apple were somehow able to prevent people from doing such activity on other operating systems or platform, by either having overwhelming market share or some other advantage.
They aren't and they don't, so all the anti-competative and monopoly talk is just that - talk.
Quote:
if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Why? Why shouldn't Apple be able to? They have their stated reasons for doing so - and I happen to firmly agree with them. As a Mac user, it's obvious the vendors that meerly port an application to Mac OSX vs. writing native code.
Maybe your a Windows user so porting doesn't affect you as often, or maybe you don't mind mediocre software with inconsistent interface conventions - fine. I don't want mediocre software and Mac OSX is my primary platform. I want apps written to fully exploit it. I like the minimum standards that Apple is setting. It helps ensure that I won't have to hear more people drone on and on about the millions of fart apps instead of thousands of fart apps
If you don't agree, then knock yourself out with Android or some other system. The choice is yours.
I fail to see how Apple introducing a model that has never existed before in a widespread and widely supported manner is anti-competative or anti-choice. Funny how that no one in these threads who's anti iOS and want's Apple to "open up" addresses this.
Apple isn't the one being restrictive or limiting real choice.
Quote:
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close.
Close sucks. Apple has stated that it's not good enough. For the critical parts of a program like the user interface, I don't want a port where some controls designed for a mouse environment are abstracted, poorly, into a touch world.
Your arguing for mediocrity. If you really want that, there are platforms like Android that own't prevent it - go knock yourself out. Apple has stated that they have minimum standards and that they are not interested in developers that aren't committed enough to their platform to write apps that will take 100% advantage of the platform.
As a user and not a developer, I find this a most welcome and refreshing change. If your a developer and don't like it - Apple isn't lobotomizing you so you can't program on some other platform - their saying that your want's just don't match theirs and your free to not play in their sandbox.
I find the hubris of people that think they have the RIGHT to force Apple to comply with their narrow minded vision simply breathtaking. It's Apple's platform - they could arbitrarily declare they will only accept programs from authors who's first name is Stan - except they haven't done that. They have (for the most part) clearly defined reasons for why they are doing what they do. No one is forcing anyone to write for the iOS, and Apple not accepting everything under the sun is perfectly fine.
Indeed, it's welcomed by me and others who want the choice of a platform that will function more like an appliance than the wild west that is general computing. Why so many are threatened that others may not want what they do is just fascinating to me. Apple doesn't want to play the same old game as everyone else - good for them!
Quote:
Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
Yes, and Apple has stated that not all porting is equal. Things like physics engines for games are not under the same scrutiny as a simple recompiling of a flash application to some abstraction layer. As with anything, it's a definite "it depends". If it doesn't impact the user experience and if the shared code enhances rather than homogenizes the end user experience, I sincerely doubt you are ever going to have to worry about anything from Apple.
People who fail to acknowledge this or try to paint Apple as being hypocritical in these "exceptions" are being disingenuous or missing the point (ignorant). A physics engine is low level code that is not directly exposed to the end user. The rest of the application - the user interface in particular - is still coded in native tools to take full advantage of the UI and other platform specific features. Unlike the simple wholesale ports like Adobe was pushing with their flash compiler.
Look at it from Apples perspective - they have put lots of time in crafting APIs to allow developers to do lots of cool things to really exploit and show off their platform (which they have also spent lots of time crafting). The best way to encourage people to take advantage of those cool things is to not allow porting with abstraction layers like Adobe was peddling. All that does is ensure bland applications that exploit the "lease common denominator" of features between platforms the programmer targets.
How is that a win for Apple or it's customers? It's not. Those are developers Apple doesn't care about loosing - they add nothing to the platform, instead they cheapen and blunt the overall user experience. They are actually detrimental to the long term success of Apple's platform since rather than showing off the assets of the environment, they carry over the bare minimum. If you care about your platform, you won't want tools like Adobe's generic porting tools either!
Comments
You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
That's why apple is supporting h.264 right? a standard proprietary encumbered pos.
If they wanted an open web, they would announce support for webM and oggvorbis (and the other open source formats)
So yes, free the web. Now someone inform apple.
and Adobe is trying to take over an otherwise healthy platform (in terms of development). At least Apple is trying to control THEIR OWN product.
It's not like Flash will replace apps already present there. If iOS apps are all so great, because we all know you need 1,000 flashlight apps and 10,000 fart apps to mean quality, then iOS will be more popular than Flash apps.
Let the market sort it out.
I'm pretty sure you're taking Dr Millmoss out of context, you've apparently missed several other posts in this very thread.
It's cool. He's just indicating his membership in Set A.
That's why apple is supporting h.264 right? a standard proprietary encumbered pos.
If they wanted an open web, they would announce support for webM and oggvorbis (and the other open source formats)
So yes, free the web. Now someone inform apple.
Except you leave out one detail, both of those platforms totally suck as to good performance, and with Apple it is all about superior performance.
I seriously doubt that at the end of the day h.264 royalty holders will ream everyone, would be like shooting themselves in the foot and stupid.
Except you leave out one detail, both of those platforms totally suck as to good performance, and with Apple it is all about superior performance.
I seriously doubt that at the end of the day h.264 royalty holders will ream everyone, would be like shooting themselves in the foot and stupid.
Besides that WebM shows to be as effective as h.264.
And the quality isn't bad: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...red-67266.aspx h.264 still has the slight edge, but for most uses, the difference isn't noticeable, and that's before it's become a code that a ton of people are releasing and pouring over. If apple was truly for an open web, they'd at least support this codec in tandem with h.264 (as over a dozen companies are), but by refusing to acknowledge it, it's clear they're trying to paint the web the way they imagine it to be. Which can't be defined as open.
Apple's not about superior performance. They're about Controlling as much about a system as they can to get consistent performance. Yes, this generally means there things work rather well (I am a big fan of OSX) but if it comes down to adopting a working standard they can't control, or limiting themselves from all that standard offers to accept an inferior standard they CAN control, they'll take inferior any day of the week, especially if they have a vested interest in that codec being chosen. Steve Jobs said that they wanted to do away with flash because it was proprietary, so he picked up another proprietary code to replace it.
It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web.
And those royalty holders WILL ream everyone. Because incase you missed it, they're some of the biggest voices against Flash, WebM, etc. So that when they bring out the hazing paddle, they'll be the only games in town. It's a bait and switch. Get everyone on board with the promise of a "universal codec" and then jack up the rates when those companies burn all other bridges.
They're not stupid. They know that once consumers get used to their content (and most consumers could care less about if HTML5, Flash, etc. get them their content, as long as they bet what they want) MPEG-LA knows that they can charge almost anything they want and companies will be forced to pay it. See, that's the beauty of licencing codecs like this. You jack rates through the roof, those websites try passing it on, and they are the villains and no one gives to shakes that it was the MPEG-LA that's actually raking in the profits instead of HULU or whatever the website is.
It's the same reason retail prices on cellphones are so insane. Companies know that the average consumer NEVER buys a phone at retail cost. To them phones range in price from Free to 299, period. Yet for even a basic flip phone on verizon, verizon's COST of those devices approaches 200. For smartphones, the cost can be close to $600 at the higher end. Yet to the consumer, they just see the contract price. This allows companies to charge a lot more for their products (especially at the lower end) than they might in a comparative market (for flip phones, just look at comparatively how much cheaper GSM flip phones are since they are sold to so many prepaid carriers.)
You really think MPEG-LA won't do the same thing once they have the chance?
Apple is about control, but control of quality,which IS superior performance and because of that they stay on top. H.264 is no way as locked in as Flash, one is a codec (one of many used by the video tag) the other a whole platform. I work with both daily, I do know the difference.
I don't have a crystal ball to know the future, but I do trust Apple to not be a-holes, so far in the almost thirty years I have been using their products they haven't been. If h.264 creates a bru-ha-ha I feel they will do something to mediate that.
YMMV.
jragosta, is that you?
First you prove my point by demonstrating how much Mac users outside of this tiny little forum love Adobe and then try to say it somehow means Adobe is bad for Mac?
Correct order: read first, then reply.
Have a better day.
I see, you just read whatever you want into it. Well, now your posts make a lot more sense in that light.
...
Laziness: You do realize that HTML5 just really became a contender for video THIS YEAR, and it's still years away from replacing flash in other content right? And that the standard is still a work in progress, so a lot can change. On top of that, Apple's chosen codec for video (h.264) is one that Mozilla, the second largest browser by users in the world, doesn't support. (and the largest browser, IE, still sucks at HTML5 unless you're using the beta. So these developers have no choice but to USE flash for the foreseeable future.
IE is getting heavy html5 support soon (but it's still years behind chrome/safari when it comes to supported API's) and with the new WebM format, Mozilla has an alternative when it comes to html5 video. But will Apple support WebM? Flash gets around these codec issues because it's a wrapper for video, but if flash doesn't work on a device, say an iphone, what happens if webM becomes the codec of choice for iphone users and apple doesn't adopt it?
Don't call developers "lazy" when it comes to flash. It's the single platform that will hit the most potential users, and HTML5 is still in a lot of flux for a lot of developers to commit to developing for two platforms. HTML5 is the future of video, but it's still not there yet, and it's years from being ready for other content.
Here we go again, someone confusing codecs, wrappers and platforms. HTML is the web platform. Why worry about another one, which needs its own plugin to be installed on top of a browser? Or, for a browser like Chrome to take effort to update support for it, whether built-in or otherwise?
Flash "gets around these codec issues" less well than QT, and other now defunct wrappers like Real -- it should support standard video encoding and decoding if it is used for video. Browsers and computers do that too. Either your browser or computer supports H.264 or it doesn't (yet). Video does not (and should not) require wrapping in Flash or QT or anything else. How is that a bad thing? Video should be like images on the web.
And of course IE sucks at HTML, they always have; MS is finally realizing it can't rely on de facto adoption and maintaining its own proprietary webplugins ala Flash (active X, Frontpage extensions, Silverlight, etc. etc.). People don't want them. Sure, they provide some wonderful functionality, and some developers may be really invested in using them. But it sucks to have proprietary systems on the web.
How is video support years away? It's here. YouTube offered a whole new set of video practically overnight. Lots of other sites have already followed. And one hundred million mobile devices with iOS do the vast majority of mobile browsing.
... It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web. ...
First, you need to get your terms straight. You seem to be confusing the meanings of "free" and "open", a common mistake. Confusing "open standard" and "open source" is another common mistake. It isn't free, and the implementations by various parties are not open source (but, there is reference code available), but it's not closed. H.264 is an open standard.
And, if Mozilla can't adopt it because of the GPL, then they need to dump GPL licensing. If they can't adopt it for ideological reasons, they need to dump their ideology. It's just as ridiculous that the web be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Mozilla as it is that it be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Adobe.
Of course, as I've mentioned before, WebM was put out their by Google jut to let Mozilla spin their ideological wheels on. If they want to be around in 5 years, they need to start making some smart, pragmatic choices and take off their ideological blinders.
Adobe aren't going to put any effort into Flash on the iPhone unless Apple give the ok for mobile Safari plug-ins (which obviously isn't going to happen!)
Then how do you explain that there's no flash for PalmOS or Symbian or WinMobile, either?
I don't see the two as being related. There are a bunch of reasons why Flash isn't on these platforms... but none of them are that it is has been banned by the manufacturer.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the one that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! Put that in your Venn diagram.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
The article is about iOS applications.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
The article is about iOS applications.
precisely. and apple should be free to not let their platform become beholden to the update cycle of middle-ware developed by 3rd parties such as Adobe, as they had to suffer with in the past.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things.
The article is about iOS applications.
And it just plain doesn't matter. FTC doesn't have any more right to regulate the applications Apple sells on its store than it does to regulate which plug-ins it supports.
In fact, the new Library of Congress decision that jailbreaking is fully legal weakens the argument for regulation even further. If you wan to run Flash apps on your phone, just jailbreak it. No need to force Apple to carry them.
I don't see the two as being related. There are a bunch of reasons why Flash isn't on these platforms... but none of them are that it is has been banned by the manufacturer.
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
That's why apple is supporting h.264 right? a standard proprietary encumbered pos.
If they wanted an open web, they would announce support for webM and oggvorbis (and the other open source formats)
So yes, free the web. Now someone inform apple.
h.264 is an open standard. Apple is being completely consistent.
That doesn't mean that every open standard will always be free, as in free beer. Nor does it have to be. In case you missed it, we live in a capitalist society and companies that contributed to h.264 have chosen to be paid for it.
If you have a better codec that's free (as in free beer), go ahead and submit it for approval. Apple doesn't require h.264. If you get something 'free' approved, then html 5 will run it.
Flash as a web plug-in and Flash as an IDE generating iOS applications are two different things. The article is about iOS applications.
And it just plain doesn't matter.
Of course it matters when they are two separate things. If a person says they think Apple shouldn't allow Flash iOS applications because it makes the web browser run slow they are talking nonsense.
People can argue for or against Flash iOS applications and/or the Flash web plug-in all they like but they need to understand the two are fundamentally different else they are in danger of their entire argument being irrelevant.
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
Adobe won't attempt (no would it be possible to) develop a mobile safari Flash plug-in without total consent and support from Apple. If you don't agree with that, fine... but I think you'd be wrong.
And it just plain doesn't matter. FTC doesn't have any more right to regulate the applications Apple sells on its store than it does to regulate which plug-ins it supports.
In fact, the new Library of Congress decision that jailbreaking is fully legal weakens the argument for regulation even further. If you wan to run Flash apps on your phone, just jailbreak it. No need to force Apple to carry them.
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
Really? You know the reasons why Flash isn't on Symbian?
All we know is that Flash is not on a single mobile device other than one or two of the latest Froyo devices making up 0.1% of the mobile market. Punishing Apple for not having Flash on iOS is just plain absurd when Flash isn't on anything else (again, with a couple if miniscule exceptions) - and Apple's not the one who writes Flash code.
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through. Flash is NOT tied to specific phones, it's tied to OS releases. The Droid, Droid Incredible, Droid x, LG ally, Evo, N1, My touch, my touch slide, all galaxy s phones, etc will ALL be able to run froyo. That's including phones with sub 600mhz processors.
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
h.264 is an open standard. Apple is being completely consistent.
That doesn't mean that every open standard will always be free, as in free beer. Nor does it have to be. In case you missed it, we live in a capitalist society and companies that contributed to h.264 have chosen to be paid for it.
If you have a better codec that's free (as in free beer), go ahead and submit it for approval. Apple doesn't require h.264. If you get something 'free' approved, then html 5 will run it.
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
First, you need to get your terms straight. You seem to be confusing the meanings of "free" and "open", a common mistake. Confusing "open standard" and "open source" is another common mistake. It isn't free, and the implementations by various parties are not open source (but, there is reference code available), but it's not closed. H.264 is an open standard.
And, if Mozilla can't adopt it because of the GPL, then they need to dump GPL licensing. If they can't adopt it for ideological reasons, they need to dump their ideology. It's just as ridiculous that the web be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Mozilla as it is that it be held hostage by a bunch of guys working for Adobe.
Of course, as I've mentioned before, WebM was put out their by Google jut to let Mozilla spin their ideological wheels on. If they want to be around in 5 years, they need to start making some smart, pragmatic choices and take off their ideological blinders.
Right, mozilla should drop GPL so they can become more "open." Read why they have an issue with h.264.
Have you read the terms of h.264 licensing? How if you view a video that you bought/rented/streamed that was produced by someone without the right license, you've voided YOUR license, and you're subject to being fined/sued by MPEG-LA as well. Do you really think something that insanely constricted has any place in an "open web?" You'd be replacing one format you hate (flash) with a codec that is nearly as bad. It's still one group controlling content on the web. And no, it wouldn't be solved "if everyone adopted it" because everyone adopted flash, that didn't change that it was still one group (and if you want to talk about ideological blinders read Steve Jobs' thoughts on flash)
WebM wasn't put out there just for Mozilla. Watch the announcement again (or maybe for the first time).
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
Sorry, I totally disagree, as it has been said H.264 is open source and Flash is not in any way shape or form. H.264 is a compression codec, Flash is a full blown graphic, animation and interaction system. What makes it unusable for the web is the way it works on the web. Talk about a walled garden! No search engines can interface with a Flash file, no screen readers and a lot of touch gestures are not recognized (depending on the programming) .
Action Script is Adobe's proprietary scripting code. It belongs to them alone.
Perhaps another video codec will be created, but Apple is supporting H.264 because they allow it be decoded in the hardware. They have their reasons for that. They may add support for other hardware decoding in the future we do not know. But it is only one component of the web, Flash takes over whole websites and does it badly.
When Apple said "no" to allowing a Flash plugin on their mobile devices Adobe thought they could do an end run around them by compiling what are essentially Flash files into a web app, so they are more related then one would think. I remember when this was being discussed last year because I had a number of slideshows/video players created in Flash with the Slideshow Pro component. I was thinking that someone could create an app so my Slideshows would run on the mobile devices, would save me a lot of work to not have to recreate all of them. So I was expecting to be able to compile my Flash files into an app format instead of a swf format, so I am not seeing how this is so very different as to not be a similar thing, based on what I was reading from Adobe before the axe fell.
And it is all well and good, I made the slideshows with javascript and put all of my video into html5. The slideshows work much better as the javascript is less intensive on system resources. The Slideshow Pro folks came up with a solution that will run Slideshows on the iDevices without using Flash, people are moving on from Flash and much faster than you think. And you know what, we don't miss it!
Apple is preventing people to port apps developed with Adobe tools. To me, it does sound very anti-competitive.
Not just Adobe tools. And it would only be anti-competitive if Apple were somehow able to prevent people from doing such activity on other operating systems or platform, by either having overwhelming market share or some other advantage.
They aren't and they don't, so all the anti-competative and monopoly talk is just that - talk.
if there are porting tools available, and resulting code is compatible with iOS platform without any modifications required on OS side, Apple should not enforce such an administrative restriction.
Why? Why shouldn't Apple be able to? They have their stated reasons for doing so - and I happen to firmly agree with them. As a Mac user, it's obvious the vendors that meerly port an application to Mac OSX vs. writing native code.
Maybe your a Windows user so porting doesn't affect you as often, or maybe you don't mind mediocre software with inconsistent interface conventions - fine. I don't want mediocre software and Mac OSX is my primary platform. I want apps written to fully exploit it. I like the minimum standards that Apple is setting. It helps ensure that I won't have to hear more people drone on and on about the millions of fart apps instead of thousands of fart apps
If you don't agree, then knock yourself out with Android or some other system. The choice is yours.
I fail to see how Apple introducing a model that has never existed before in a widespread and widely supported manner is anti-competative or anti-choice. Funny how that no one in these threads who's anti iOS and want's Apple to "open up" addresses this.
Apple isn't the one being restrictive or limiting real choice.
Porting is very common on much more complex levels than iOS apps. Games are being ported between different game console platforms all the time, for example. It is true that ports are by default not as superior as originals, but they can come close.
Close sucks. Apple has stated that it's not good enough. For the critical parts of a program like the user interface, I don't want a port where some controls designed for a mouse environment are abstracted, poorly, into a touch world.
Your arguing for mediocrity. If you really want that, there are platforms like Android that own't prevent it - go knock yourself out. Apple has stated that they have minimum standards and that they are not interested in developers that aren't committed enough to their platform to write apps that will take 100% advantage of the platform.
As a user and not a developer, I find this a most welcome and refreshing change. If your a developer and don't like it - Apple isn't lobotomizing you so you can't program on some other platform - their saying that your want's just don't match theirs and your free to not play in their sandbox.
I find the hubris of people that think they have the RIGHT to force Apple to comply with their narrow minded vision simply breathtaking. It's Apple's platform - they could arbitrarily declare they will only accept programs from authors who's first name is Stan - except they haven't done that. They have (for the most part) clearly defined reasons for why they are doing what they do. No one is forcing anyone to write for the iOS, and Apple not accepting everything under the sun is perfectly fine.
Indeed, it's welcomed by me and others who want the choice of a platform that will function more like an appliance than the wild west that is general computing. Why so many are threatened that others may not want what they do is just fascinating to me. Apple doesn't want to play the same old game as everyone else - good for them!
Additionally, we are talking about code infinitely more complex than your average mobile phone application.
Yes, and Apple has stated that not all porting is equal. Things like physics engines for games are not under the same scrutiny as a simple recompiling of a flash application to some abstraction layer. As with anything, it's a definite "it depends". If it doesn't impact the user experience and if the shared code enhances rather than homogenizes the end user experience, I sincerely doubt you are ever going to have to worry about anything from Apple.
People who fail to acknowledge this or try to paint Apple as being hypocritical in these "exceptions" are being disingenuous or missing the point (ignorant). A physics engine is low level code that is not directly exposed to the end user. The rest of the application - the user interface in particular - is still coded in native tools to take full advantage of the UI and other platform specific features. Unlike the simple wholesale ports like Adobe was pushing with their flash compiler.
Look at it from Apples perspective - they have put lots of time in crafting APIs to allow developers to do lots of cool things to really exploit and show off their platform (which they have also spent lots of time crafting). The best way to encourage people to take advantage of those cool things is to not allow porting with abstraction layers like Adobe was peddling. All that does is ensure bland applications that exploit the "lease common denominator" of features between platforms the programmer targets.
How is that a win for Apple or it's customers? It's not. Those are developers Apple doesn't care about loosing - they add nothing to the platform, instead they cheapen and blunt the overall user experience. They are actually detrimental to the long term success of Apple's platform since rather than showing off the assets of the environment, they carry over the bare minimum. If you care about your platform, you won't want tools like Adobe's generic porting tools either!
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.
Either way, as a non-windows user Flash is a crap experience.
That's all that's relevant to me