Now we have to wait for Microsoft to start messing around with HTML5, introducing some of its own code and pushing for it to be accepted within the standard, at a cost.
So while the "open" and standards loving Google continues to flout the proprietary, closed Flash as a differentiator for their Android platform, the "closed" and controlling, hates the open Web Apple is actually driving content providers towards standards based solutions-- and dragging the entire industry with them.
Now we have to wait for Microsoft to start messing around with HTML5, introducing some of its own code and pushing for it to be accepted within the standard, at a cost.
Microsoft has past form...
MS has been “messing around with HTML5” for some time. In fact, they are the first browser to include the HTML5 Canvas with HW acceleration, which is very important for the future of the Canvas.
As a Flash/Flex developer I think all of this is great news. Silverlight was always an also-ran. The Flash Authoring is becoming the design tool for the cloud, whether it's HTML5, Flash, mobile or all of the above. Flash Builder will become the IDE for transforming those pretty animations and video into an application that can be deployed to web, mobile, or desktop. pretty cool IMO.
Since its inception Silverlight added features that Flash later added to catch up. In those areas it was not an ?also ran?. If you are referring to marketshare, well yeah, but based on its age I don?t think anyone expected to have more than Flash after such a short timeframe.
Oh yeah? Well then explain Apple’s presence with W3 to ratify HTML5 and their open source WebKit browser engine pushing HTML5 as far back as 2007 if they are only “pushing the standard” “after that article”?
PS: You keep saying Android does Flash and HTML5 but you are failing to note that the very limited scope of Android devices and number of units that can actually utilize Flash.
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
Quote:
the main reason people said there wasn't flash was because it was buggy, drained battery, etc...
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
I read that, as well as everything else you wrote in that post along with the comment you responded to. My comment stands, Apple was pushing the standard to become a standard before the original iPhone was released.
Quote:
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
I?m not sure what April 2010 has to do with anything. The same arguments hold, the only difference is that it finally exists on Android for some handsets. It still makes page loading slower, there are still bugs that make page scrolling less than ideal, there are Flash sites that still don?t work on a small touch-based display, it still drains the battery faster than not running the plug-in, and it?s still far less less ideal to playback H.264 video than the native video tag of HTML5 or even a native app due to the all reasons previous stated about Flash.
Quote:
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
You?re not comparing like things, but that may be your plan to jack the thread into a different direction. Not gonna happen!
Flash was promised since 2007. It was said by Adobe that Flash was ready for the iPhone but that Apple didn?t allow it. Did Apple also not allow Flash to get released to Android devices until mid 2010, and only a small subset of Android devices at that? What about Blackberry OS, or Windows Mobile or Windows Phone 7 or Symbian? Where is Flash for these devices? Where is Flash for all Android devices? Where are the stats that show Flash is better suited for streaming video (likely it?s single most common usage on the internet)?
Hey, it?s great that those very few devices can run Flash on their phones and have an option, but that doesn?t excuse Adobe from dropping the ball and only picking it up long after they were going to lose the race. They got lazy, they got careless, and they lost out.
I wonder how much farther Flash would be behind if MS hadn?t made Silverlight or if Apple hadn?t made the iPhone which drew attention to how inept and lazy the Flash teams had become.
I read that, as well as everything else you wrote in that post along with the comment you responded to. My comment stands, Apple was pushing the standard to become a standard before the original iPhone was released.
I?m not sure what April 2010 has to do with anything. The same arguments hold, the only difference is that it finally exists on Android for some handsets. It still makes page loading slower, there are still bugs that make page scrolling less than ideal, there are Flash sites that still don?t work on a small touch-based display, it still drains the battery faster than not running the plug-in, and it?s still far less less ideal to playback H.264 video than the native video tag of HTML5 or even a native app due to the all reasons previous stated about Flash.
You?re not comparing like things, but that may be your plan to jack the thread into a different direction. Not gonna happen!
Flash was promised since 2007. It was said by Adobe that Flash was ready for the iPhone but that Apple didn?t allow it. Did Apple also not allow Flash to get released to Android devices until mid 2010, and only a small subset of Android devices at that? What about Blackberry OS, or Windows Mobile or Windows Phone 7 or Symbian? Where is Flash for these devices? Where is Flash for all Android devices? Where are the stats that show Flash is better suited for streaming video (likely it?s single most common usage on the internet)?
Hey, it?s great that those very few devices can run Flash on their phones and have an option, but that doesn?t excuse Adobe from dropping the ball and only picking it up long after they were going to lose the race. They got lazy, they got careless, and they lost out.
I wonder how much farther Flash would be behind if MS hadn?t made Silverlight or if Apple hadn?t made the iPhone which drew attention to how inept and lazy the Flash teams had become.
We're just going in circles now so i'll just simply not argue back since we're arguing to completely different things.
I'm not comparing them. I was taking your same reasoning of "only a limited scope" and applied it to something else. Even you agree with me that it's a good thing that some devices can run Flash (I do not agree with "few" since any phone running 2.2 can run Flash).
Just so you can understand me better, I'm not arguing against flash or for html5 or for silverlight or whatever.
PS: My Windows Mobile phone from 3-4 years ago did flash (iirc it wasnt a solution from adobe though)
"With the continuing success of the iPhone and iPod touch, and particularly with launch of the iPad, Apple has done for HTML5 what it did with H.264 video and AAC audio before it: cultivated a huge demand for standards-based content on a popular device that's simply unable to play other, proprietary formats."
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
"Main reason" and "people said" or total weasel phrases. One of the reasons some people had for not liking Flash on a mobile phone was power and performance issues.
Other people also pointed out that moving towards an open, standards based web was a good in its own right. I read quite a few articles, blog posts and board posts discussing Apple's own interest in achieving that end, in that it meant their initiatives would be less likely to have dependencies on proprietary, third party solutions that might be later deprecated. Apple has plenty of reason to want to avoid that path, as it has caused them problems in the past.
The idea that I, personally, am only now trotting out this argument because it got mentioned in an article is just insipid.
Since its inception Silverlight added features that Flash later added to catch up. In those areas it was not an ?also ran?. If you are referring to marketshare, well yeah, but based on its age I don?t think anyone expected to have more than Flash after such a short timeframe.
Yes I'm referring to market share. Every new technology has it's selling points, Silverlight was no exception. I'm happy Silverlight came along because it did put pressure on Adobe to compete... but at the same time happy it died because it was a weak attempt at replacing Flash. They should have just partnered with Adobe from the beginning... That would have been a killer plugin.
At its Professional Developers Conference this week, Microsoft scaled back its plans for Silverlight, instead refocusing upon HTML5 as the platform for dynamic content on the web. It specifically cited Apple's iOS as a core reason for doing so.
Did they really? The only reference I can find to the bolded assertion is in this article.
Quote:
With the continuing success of the iPhone and iPod touch, and particularly with launch of the iPad, Apple has done for HTML5 what it did with H.264 video and AAC audio before it: cultivated a huge demand for standards-based content on a popular device that's simply unable to play other, proprietary formats.
H.264 and AAC are also proprietary. I get the thrust of what you're saying but don't spin the line by mentioning these things as preferable to other, proprietary formats in the sentence. Because they all are. The ones you're advocating simply won mindshare.
In 2010, iPhone 4 was released, and based on rumors, the iPhone 5 (or 4GS, which ever you want) will be released in 2011. People still are like, "WE NEED FLASH! WE NEED FLASH!"
Just a thought: I wonder if, when Ford introduced the Model "T" people complained "But it doesn't come with a horse" or when Edison invented the light bulb: "But it doesn't come with a match"...
100 years ago people wold probably be right in saying "Our roads are made for horses, not motors - most hills are too steep for a motor" - but when new standards replace old ones, the infrastructure will change too. It just takes a bit of time.
This article and most of it's comments seem to take an opinion on what Silverlight used to be. Talk on video's and replacing flash is only really applicable to Silverlight 1. The fact that MS supports HTML5 and any of those standards in no way changes the future plans of silverlight or the direction it's heading. It would be like saying Apple say developers should support HTML5 and follow it with an article saying Apple to dial down iOS.
HTML5 is a web browser technology, Silverlight is a Windows, Mac, Linux desktop out of browser language, Windows Phone 7 language and also works inside a browser. You can see the future where the lightweight nature of Silverlight makes it a good fit for TV's, Cars etc. The same way as Adobe is trying to push Air on TV's, Phone's etc as well as computers.
Just a thought: I wonder if, when Ford introduced the Model "T" people complained "But it doesn't come with a horse" or when Edison invented the light bulb: "But it doesn't come with a match"...
100 years ago people wold probably be right in saying "Our roads are made for horses, not motors - most hills are too steep for a motor" - but when new standards replace old ones, the infrastructure will change too. It just takes a bit of time.
Thankfully they didn't just go out and shoot all the horses when the automobile became available. That is certainly the chant around here though. 'Kill Flash'. 'Death to Adobe'. That's all you hear. Maybe people should be calling for the end of the automobile era as you can't hardly walk around town without being nearly run over.
So while the "open" and standards loving Google continues to flout the proprietary, closed Flash as a differentiator for their Android platform, the "closed" and controlling, hates the open Web Apple is actually driving content providers towards standards based solutions-- and dragging the entire industry with them.
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
Face it: HTML5 doesn't fill the gap in what Flash can do, and it won't for awhile. There's more to flash than petty video playback.
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Google allows "choice" in areas that don't interfere with how they make their money. Allowing Flash has nothing to do with "openness", it's simply a feature bullet point that they can use for marketing. Google doesn't care if you're phone gets shitty battery life, that's not how they make their money.
Quote:
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
Hmm, I guess I'll play: who?
Quote:
Face it: HTML5 doesn't fill the gap in what Flash can do, and it won't for awhile. There's more to flash than petty video playback.
Which is why every Android handset does full Flash?
Comments
To: Steve Balmer
Re: Silverlight.
Steve:
You can put your ass on the line for the Windows Phone, but you won't put mine. Or the whole company's.
Microsoft has past form...
So while the "open" and standards loving Google continues to flout the proprietary, closed Flash as a differentiator for their Android platform, the "closed" and controlling, hates the open Web Apple is actually driving content providers towards standards based solutions-- and dragging the entire industry with them.
+1
(edited for length)
Now we have to wait for Microsoft to start messing around with HTML5, introducing some of its own code and pushing for it to be accepted within the standard, at a cost.
Microsoft has past form...
MS has been “messing around with HTML5” for some time. In fact, they are the first browser to include the HTML5 Canvas with HW acceleration, which is very important for the future of the Canvas.
Silverlight was always an also-ran.
Since its inception Silverlight added features that Flash later added to catch up. In those areas it was not an ?also ran?. If you are referring to marketshare, well yeah, but based on its age I don?t think anyone expected to have more than Flash after such a short timeframe.
Oh yeah? Well then explain Apple’s presence with W3 to ratify HTML5 and their open source WebKit browser engine pushing HTML5 as far back as 2007 if they are only “pushing the standard” “after that article”?
PS: You keep saying Android does Flash and HTML5 but you are failing to note that the very limited scope of Android devices and number of units that can actually utilize Flash.
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
the main reason people said there wasn't flash was because it was buggy, drained battery, etc...
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
... my wife does have a Droid X.
That sounds nasty! Hope she gets better soon.
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
I read that, as well as everything else you wrote in that post along with the comment you responded to. My comment stands, Apple was pushing the standard to become a standard before the original iPhone was released.
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
I?m not sure what April 2010 has to do with anything. The same arguments hold, the only difference is that it finally exists on Android for some handsets. It still makes page loading slower, there are still bugs that make page scrolling less than ideal, there are Flash sites that still don?t work on a small touch-based display, it still drains the battery faster than not running the plug-in, and it?s still far less less ideal to playback H.264 video than the native video tag of HTML5 or even a native app due to the all reasons previous stated about Flash.
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
You?re not comparing like things, but that may be your plan to jack the thread into a different direction. Not gonna happen!
Flash was promised since 2007. It was said by Adobe that Flash was ready for the iPhone but that Apple didn?t allow it. Did Apple also not allow Flash to get released to Android devices until mid 2010, and only a small subset of Android devices at that? What about Blackberry OS, or Windows Mobile or Windows Phone 7 or Symbian? Where is Flash for these devices? Where is Flash for all Android devices? Where are the stats that show Flash is better suited for streaming video (likely it?s single most common usage on the internet)?
Hey, it?s great that those very few devices can run Flash on their phones and have an option, but that doesn?t excuse Adobe from dropping the ball and only picking it up long after they were going to lose the race. They got lazy, they got careless, and they lost out.
I wonder how much farther Flash would be behind if MS hadn?t made Silverlight or if Apple hadn?t made the iPhone which drew attention to how inept and lazy the Flash teams had become.
I read that, as well as everything else you wrote in that post along with the comment you responded to. My comment stands, Apple was pushing the standard to become a standard before the original iPhone was released.
I?m not sure what April 2010 has to do with anything. The same arguments hold, the only difference is that it finally exists on Android for some handsets. It still makes page loading slower, there are still bugs that make page scrolling less than ideal, there are Flash sites that still don?t work on a small touch-based display, it still drains the battery faster than not running the plug-in, and it?s still far less less ideal to playback H.264 video than the native video tag of HTML5 or even a native app due to the all reasons previous stated about Flash.
You?re not comparing like things, but that may be your plan to jack the thread into a different direction. Not gonna happen!
Flash was promised since 2007. It was said by Adobe that Flash was ready for the iPhone but that Apple didn?t allow it. Did Apple also not allow Flash to get released to Android devices until mid 2010, and only a small subset of Android devices at that? What about Blackberry OS, or Windows Mobile or Windows Phone 7 or Symbian? Where is Flash for these devices? Where is Flash for all Android devices? Where are the stats that show Flash is better suited for streaming video (likely it?s single most common usage on the internet)?
Hey, it?s great that those very few devices can run Flash on their phones and have an option, but that doesn?t excuse Adobe from dropping the ball and only picking it up long after they were going to lose the race. They got lazy, they got careless, and they lost out.
I wonder how much farther Flash would be behind if MS hadn?t made Silverlight or if Apple hadn?t made the iPhone which drew attention to how inept and lazy the Flash teams had become.
We're just going in circles now so i'll just simply not argue back since we're arguing to completely different things.
I'm not comparing them. I was taking your same reasoning of "only a limited scope" and applied it to something else. Even you agree with me that it's a good thing that some devices can run Flash (I do not agree with "few" since any phone running 2.2 can run Flash).
Just so you can understand me better, I'm not arguing against flash or for html5 or for silverlight or whatever.
PS: My Windows Mobile phone from 3-4 years ago did flash (iirc it wasnt a solution from adobe though)
Says it all...
Take a stab at me without fully understanding huh?
Let me quote what I said so you don't think I'm BSing you.
I do apologize for getting the date wrong, but my original thought still stands. People (aka common people, not SJ) kept saying flash was bad and all that stuff until the April release.
And what's so wrong about having a limited scope be able to? BTW, the same thing can be said about iPhones: "Only a limited scope of iPhones can actually do FaceTime." Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but simply pointing out why it's a stupid argument.
Oh and also, it's the manufacturers and carriers who are pushing the "full experience" line, not Google.
"Main reason" and "people said" or total weasel phrases. One of the reasons some people had for not liking Flash on a mobile phone was power and performance issues.
Other people also pointed out that moving towards an open, standards based web was a good in its own right. I read quite a few articles, blog posts and board posts discussing Apple's own interest in achieving that end, in that it meant their initiatives would be less likely to have dependencies on proprietary, third party solutions that might be later deprecated. Apple has plenty of reason to want to avoid that path, as it has caused them problems in the past.
The idea that I, personally, am only now trotting out this argument because it got mentioned in an article is just insipid.
Since its inception Silverlight added features that Flash later added to catch up. In those areas it was not an ?also ran?. If you are referring to marketshare, well yeah, but based on its age I don?t think anyone expected to have more than Flash after such a short timeframe.
Yes I'm referring to market share. Every new technology has it's selling points, Silverlight was no exception. I'm happy Silverlight came along because it did put pressure on Adobe to compete... but at the same time happy it died because it was a weak attempt at replacing Flash. They should have just partnered with Adobe from the beginning... That would have been a killer plugin.
At its Professional Developers Conference this week, Microsoft scaled back its plans for Silverlight, instead refocusing upon HTML5 as the platform for dynamic content on the web. It specifically cited Apple's iOS as a core reason for doing so.
Did they really? The only reference I can find to the bolded assertion is in this article.
With the continuing success of the iPhone and iPod touch, and particularly with launch of the iPad, Apple has done for HTML5 what it did with H.264 video and AAC audio before it: cultivated a huge demand for standards-based content on a popular device that's simply unable to play other, proprietary formats.
H.264 and AAC are also proprietary. I get the thrust of what you're saying but don't spin the line by mentioning these things as preferable to other, proprietary formats in the sentence. Because they all are. The ones you're advocating simply won mindshare.
In 2010, iPhone 4 was released, and based on rumors, the iPhone 5 (or 4GS, which ever you want) will be released in 2011. People still are like, "WE NEED FLASH! WE NEED FLASH!"
Just a thought: I wonder if, when Ford introduced the Model "T" people complained "But it doesn't come with a horse" or when Edison invented the light bulb: "But it doesn't come with a match"...
100 years ago people wold probably be right in saying "Our roads are made for horses, not motors - most hills are too steep for a motor" - but when new standards replace old ones, the infrastructure will change too. It just takes a bit of time.
HTML5 is a web browser technology, Silverlight is a Windows, Mac, Linux desktop out of browser language, Windows Phone 7 language and also works inside a browser. You can see the future where the lightweight nature of Silverlight makes it a good fit for TV's, Cars etc. The same way as Adobe is trying to push Air on TV's, Phone's etc as well as computers.
Just a thought: I wonder if, when Ford introduced the Model "T" people complained "But it doesn't come with a horse" or when Edison invented the light bulb: "But it doesn't come with a match"...
100 years ago people wold probably be right in saying "Our roads are made for horses, not motors - most hills are too steep for a motor" - but when new standards replace old ones, the infrastructure will change too. It just takes a bit of time.
Thankfully they didn't just go out and shoot all the horses when the automobile became available. That is certainly the chant around here though. 'Kill Flash'. 'Death to Adobe'. That's all you hear. Maybe people should be calling for the end of the automobile era as you can't hardly walk around town without being nearly run over.
So while the "open" and standards loving Google continues to flout the proprietary, closed Flash as a differentiator for their Android platform, the "closed" and controlling, hates the open Web Apple is actually driving content providers towards standards based solutions-- and dragging the entire industry with them.
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
Face it: HTML5 doesn't fill the gap in what Flash can do, and it won't for awhile. There's more to flash than petty video playback.
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Google allows "choice" in areas that don't interfere with how they make their money. Allowing Flash has nothing to do with "openness", it's simply a feature bullet point that they can use for marketing. Google doesn't care if you're phone gets shitty battery life, that's not how they make their money.
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
Hmm, I guess I'll play: who?
Face it: HTML5 doesn't fill the gap in what Flash can do, and it won't for awhile. There's more to flash than petty video playback.
Which is why every Android handset does full Flash?