I don’t disagree, but I think it’s Apple’s ultimate goal, nonetheless. There are already plenty of Flash-less ads for webpages for non-Desktop OS devices. I think Apple will be pushing into these areas next and eventually to desktop OS browsers. It could be a few years, but I don’t see how they won’t be working toward accomplishing this goal.
I don't disagree with that either but from a pragmatic perspective what I observe currently on pages such as AI, is there are ads from google, double click, and dozens of other agencies all loading into the page. In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors. As it is now the services are delivering either Flash or straight HTML into a div with no interactivity or conditional behavior.
Mixed emotions here. On one hand I want Flash to go away, but on the other -- it just means my ad blocker will need a lot of clever updates to 'compete.'
The OS X exclusivity of iAd producer could be a good thing for a while, pulling advertising professionals back into predominately Mac territory.
I suspect that HTML5 isn't yet ready for immersive ads on iOS devices. Once Advertising agencies start producing banner interactions that border on games, we'll soon see that there will need to be a lot of optimizations from the device's OS.
For instance go to pirateslovedaisies.com (while a real HTML5 game) It play's fine on the latest Android handset, however it was unusable on my iPod Touch 4g.
It's a pity that my iPod isn't yet optimized for HTML5.
Can anyone make it work on an iPad?
Advertisers wont be happy maintaining two sets of code bases in the same HTML 5 standard simply because the website banner runs poorly in the iAd version. When you add this to the mix of cross browser implementation incompatibilities, we're worse off than the bad old days of Netscape and MS.
Maybe Apple could come up with a plug-in/standard that handles all these compatibility/optimization issues for us?
In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors.
It's been a long time since I have had to muck about with JS but, cant the 'flash killer' just use namespaces to avoid conflicts?
It's been a long time since I have had to muck about with JS but, cant the 'flash killer' just use namespaces to avoid conflicts?
Sure but the on load event issue and css class conflicts remain. There are undoubtably more knowledgeable developers than me who could shed light on this situation.
Give it time. I think this is just the next step leading up to that.
I agree. I think Apple is working with their huge iOS developer base then will move forward. However, I don't think they will give it away for free unless Apple goes into web advertisement business, which I think is unlikely.
I think most of us saw this coming a mile away. No other reason to make Cocoa-based iOS apps HTML/CSS/JS if you don?t plan to eventually unseat Adobe Flash ads across the web as a whole.
And then you wrote:
Quote:
PS: RatonalTroll?s rationale was completely wrong, as pointed out in the thread he linked to.
Maybe I think Steve Jobs is smarter and more long-term focused than you give him credit for, but it appears that you and I agree on this.
Yet still you're compelled to argue needlessly. What's up with that?
Dude, relax and enjoy. On this we have the same opinion. Let's enjoy a beer at each of us having seen this "coming a mile away".
Peace to you and yours, during this holiday season and all of the coming year.
As I have stated in earlier threads, JS ads are very difficult to integrate into an average web page that already has scripts. Unlike Adobe Flash ads that are self contained, encapsulated, and completely independent, JS ads are at the mercy of any other Javascript code already running on the page.
There is a trend toward 'on page load' event functions that need to be aware of all scripts on the page. The only way to prevent conflicts is to control the entire page - something that requires realtime monitoring of the entire web site deployment. That is a huge undertaking which is far beyond the scope of simply creating iAds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s Apple’s ultimate goal, nonetheless. There are already plenty of Flash-less ads for webpages for non-Desktop OS devices. I think Apple will be pushing into these areas next and eventually to desktop OS browsers. It could be a few years, but I don’t see how they won’t be working toward accomplishing this goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't disagree with that either but from a pragmatic perspective what I observe currently on pages such as AI, is there are ads from google, double click, and dozens of other agencies all loading into the page. In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors. As it is now the services are delivering either Flash or straight HTML into a div with no interactivity or conditional behavior.
Back in the late 1990s when I did web sites, I used a lot of JavaScript with things like hidden frames to do things like download data, while the user was doing something else. This gave good performance over slow connections with a responsive UI.
The key, here was: as the developer, i was in total control of what went on on the web site. A random banner ad with an animated gif was about the only source of outside interference.
Little by little, banner ads were supplanted by ever more intrusive ads -- to the point we have today, a big mishmash of content intermingled with ads and popups, with, apparently no one in control -- especially the user.
Flash helps a little with encapsulation, but at the cost of performance -- and now we are inundated with the rich-reach-retch glitz of Flash.
iAd adresses this by displaying a single, targeted ad banner at-a-time -- with a user opt-in-in-place to view the ad without leaving the app.
The iAd format is nesessitated by the small screen and single window of the smaller screens.
So, the user of an iPhone or iPad is left with a better ad experience within an app, than within the mobile browser (with multiple HTML5 ads).
Isn't that interesting! Potentially, the most distracting and irritating (ad) experience on the iPad is the Safari browser.
So, I as a user, can eliminate most of the bad-ads experience by using an aggregator app instead of a gp browser.
I like that! I can focus on what I want to do -- and opt in to ads as desired. I can tolerate a single non-intrusive ad on a page/screen.
Mmmm... Maybe the big boys could learn something from the new kid.
How much more attractive would a web site be if it used an iAd-like construct -- than the [not so] free for all we have today.
All things equal, I would seek out the sites that functioned (and presented ads) the way an iPad app doees -- whether on an iPad or any other computer,
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
I agree -- the way that was presented is over the top.
However, the large population of iDevices, along with the demographis of the owners of those devices has had an effect on many web sites -- to support HTML5 as well as Flash.
Oh don't flatter yourself, the reason why IE is going with compliance is because of the web developer community response after they announced they were still not going to be "compliant" with IE 9. The only thing that could be true is Microsoft silverlight and Adobe. But IE compliance has nothing to do with apple.
Nonsense, of course it does. The market is moving dynamically in unison because of Apple digging in its heals. Why else would it be happening? Apple is creating the critical mass to finally bury proprietary crapware like silverlight and flash.
As I have stated in earlier threads, JS ads are very difficult to integrate into an average web page that already has scripts. Unlike Adobe Flash ads that are self contained, encapsulated, and completely independent, JS ads are at the mercy of any other Javascript code already running on the page.
There is a trend toward 'on page load' event functions that need to be aware of all scripts on the page. The only way to prevent conflicts is to control the entire page - something that requires realtime monitoring of the entire web site deployment. That is a huge undertaking which is far beyond the scope of simply creating iAds.
Apple has a lot of really really smart people working on this. They will sort it out. No one said it was going to be easy, but happen it will.
I think most of us saw this coming a mile away. No other reason to make Cocoa-based iOS apps HTML/CSS/JS if you don?t plan to eventually unseat Adobe Flash ads across the web as a whole.
Beat me to it. This is just a first 'baby step' to begin their takeover. It shouldn't require a full version of Flash to create simple web ads. If this comes out as free, I think we'll see some different numbers from iAd next year.
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
Please get yourself an education on this topic since you don't have anything intelligent to add. Dan is right on the money - one merely needs to look at what is happening with these two companies to understand this.
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
Please get yourself an education on this topic since you don't have anything intelligent to add. Dan is right on the money - one merely needs to look at what is happening with these two companies to understand this.
Remember just a year or two ago when Flash proponents were saying HTML5 was "ten years out" and that no browsers supported enough of the spec to be useful?
The fact that Apple created a mobile iOS web platform with something like 50 million (valuable) users all running the same browser, and one that didn't support Flash or Silverlight but is quite modern in its HTML5 implementation (and can rapidly upgrade itself toward progress in that regard) really changed things.
Without Apple's work on iOS, we'd be unlikely to have a mobile WebKit on every platform apart from WP7. We'd also have little pressure behind MS to get on the HTML5 bandwagon instead of Silverlight (which wasn't the case at the beginning of 2010!) and Google would likely still be pushing Flash and Google Gears instead of being able to focus on HTML5.
In retrospect, it appears Apple invested in Safari because it had the iPad in mind, and needed a browser. Without that, we wouldn't have Chrome either, and instead just an IE tied to Silverlight on one side and Firefox tied to Flash and various toolkits like Gears on the other, with nobody being able to make progress.
Now we have a socialist paradise where WebKit is rapidly taking over the desktop and owns mobile devices outright, and everyone else is motivated to match at least the same level of HTML5 compliance. Without Apple, we wouldn't have Canvas or much of the CSS3 animation stuff that adds a lot of the sizzle of HTML5.
If HTML5 were just a few nerdy RIA features on the order of Google Gears, nobody would think they needed it and it would suffer the platform catch-22 where you have no development and no users and no reason to think either will change.
There was a time when I went to Apple insider to see what was new in Apple hardware and software, but now it just seems to be nothing more than the PR arm of Apple. Every new product release is presented and accepted as both entirely true, entirely objective and as a gift from god. Apple is losing market share to Android at a rate that is unprecedented in even the insanely fast world of high tech, yet this site is acting as though Apple is in control of the future of smartphones. Not only is Apple not going to dictate a switch from Flash to... whatever it is they are trying to do, but everyday I speak to people who say one of the fatal flaws of IOS is the inability to play Flash. I realize that things change and something is surely going to replace the present version of Flash, but the likely hood that it will be something that Apple is doing is becoming smaller and smaller with each passing day and each additional competing device sold. Only a year ago Apple was the undisputed leader in the mobile OS market, today they Android sell more devices every day than Apple does (and that is even if you include ipads, which aren't really comparable), and Android isn't even yet available in a Google recommended tablet version. When Android tablets finally become available early next year there is every reason to believe that there will sell more Android tablets sold than Apple tablets. Surely it makes sense for Apple to continue developing new things but if they do not change their model (closed system) they will be in no position to drive the market away from Flash and into something else.
I wouldn't be so sure. Microsoft essentially copied Apple's playbook with Windows 7. More and more users are on mobile devices using Apple's webkit. Safari and Chrome are just two. When IE was the only game in town, Developers had to bend over for Microsoft. Developers are now in a position to insist on compliance.
You already hear some developers grumbling that they have to support HTML 5 as there are so many iOS devices rejecting Flash. Microsoft would do itself a huge favor if it switched over to Webkit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving
Oh don't flatter yourself, the reason why IE is going with compliance is because of the web developer community response after they announced they were still not going to be "compliant" with IE 9. The only thing that could be true is Microsoft silverlight and Adobe. But IE compliance has nothing to do with apple.
Comments
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s Apple’s ultimate goal, nonetheless. There are already plenty of Flash-less ads for webpages for non-Desktop OS devices. I think Apple will be pushing into these areas next and eventually to desktop OS browsers. It could be a few years, but I don’t see how they won’t be working toward accomplishing this goal.
I don't disagree with that either but from a pragmatic perspective what I observe currently on pages such as AI, is there are ads from google, double click, and dozens of other agencies all loading into the page. In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors. As it is now the services are delivering either Flash or straight HTML into a div with no interactivity or conditional behavior.
Unfortunately it is like the browser wars déjÃ* vu. Unless that integrator code is adopted, the universal JS ad will never happen.
The OS X exclusivity of iAd producer could be a good thing for a while, pulling advertising professionals back into predominately Mac territory.
For instance go to pirateslovedaisies.com (while a real HTML5 game) It play's fine on the latest Android handset, however it was unusable on my iPod Touch 4g.
It's a pity that my iPod isn't yet optimized for HTML5.
Can anyone make it work on an iPad?
Advertisers wont be happy maintaining two sets of code bases in the same HTML 5 standard simply because the website banner runs poorly in the iAd version. When you add this to the mix of cross browser implementation incompatibilities, we're worse off than the bad old days of Netscape and MS.
Maybe Apple could come up with a plug-in/standard that handles all these compatibility/optimization issues for us?
In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors.
It's been a long time since I have had to muck about with JS but, cant the 'flash killer' just use namespaces to avoid conflicts?
It's been a long time since I have had to muck about with JS but, cant the 'flash killer' just use namespaces to avoid conflicts?
Sure but the on load event issue and css class conflicts remain. There are undoubtably more knowledgeable developers than me who could shed light on this situation.
Give it time. I think this is just the next step leading up to that.
I agree. I think Apple is working with their huge iOS developer base then will move forward. However, I don't think they will give it away for free unless Apple goes into web advertisement business, which I think is unlikely.
Sure but the on load event issue and css class conflicts remain..
sandboxed iframe poss?
I think most of us saw this coming a mile away. No other reason to make Cocoa-based iOS apps HTML/CSS/JS if you don?t plan to eventually unseat Adobe Flash ads across the web as a whole.
And then you wrote:
PS: RatonalTroll?s rationale was completely wrong, as pointed out in the thread he linked to.
Maybe I think Steve Jobs is smarter and more long-term focused than you give him credit for, but it appears that you and I agree on this.
Yet still you're compelled to argue needlessly. What's up with that?
Dude, relax and enjoy. On this we have the same opinion. Let's enjoy a beer at each of us having seen this "coming a mile away".
Peace to you and yours, during this holiday season and all of the coming year.
sandboxed iframe poss?
Ok but it has to be ajax so it can be targeted, and the ajax itself is JS so again we are back to the JS management issue.
As I have stated in earlier threads, JS ads are very difficult to integrate into an average web page that already has scripts. Unlike Adobe Flash ads that are self contained, encapsulated, and completely independent, JS ads are at the mercy of any other Javascript code already running on the page.
There is a trend toward 'on page load' event functions that need to be aware of all scripts on the page. The only way to prevent conflicts is to control the entire page - something that requires realtime monitoring of the entire web site deployment. That is a huge undertaking which is far beyond the scope of simply creating iAds.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s Apple’s ultimate goal, nonetheless. There are already plenty of Flash-less ads for webpages for non-Desktop OS devices. I think Apple will be pushing into these areas next and eventually to desktop OS browsers. It could be a few years, but I don’t see how they won’t be working toward accomplishing this goal.
I don't disagree with that either but from a pragmatic perspective what I observe currently on pages such as AI, is there are ads from google, double click, and dozens of other agencies all loading into the page. In order for JS ads to play nice there needs to be an integrator service that dynamically checks for JS conflicts and then renames functions and global variables in order to avoid fatal errors. As it is now the services are delivering either Flash or straight HTML into a div with no interactivity or conditional behavior.
Unfortunately it is like the browser wars déjÃ* vu. Unless that integrator code is adopted, the universal JS ad will never happen.
Can't you guys not necessarily disagree to agree?
Seriously, you both make good points.
Back in the late 1990s when I did web sites, I used a lot of JavaScript with things like hidden frames to do things like download data, while the user was doing something else. This gave good performance over slow connections with a responsive UI.
The key, here was: as the developer, i was in total control of what went on on the web site. A random banner ad with an animated gif was about the only source of outside interference.
Little by little, banner ads were supplanted by ever more intrusive ads -- to the point we have today, a big mishmash of content intermingled with ads and popups, with, apparently no one in control -- especially the user.
Flash helps a little with encapsulation, but at the cost of performance -- and now we are inundated with the rich-reach-retch glitz of Flash.
iAd adresses this by displaying a single, targeted ad banner at-a-time -- with a user opt-in-in-place to view the ad without leaving the app.
The iAd format is nesessitated by the small screen and single window of the smaller screens.
So, the user of an iPhone or iPad is left with a better ad experience within an app, than within the mobile browser (with multiple HTML5 ads).
Isn't that interesting! Potentially, the most distracting and irritating (ad) experience on the iPad is the Safari browser.
So, I as a user, can eliminate most of the bad-ads experience by using an aggregator app instead of a gp browser.
I like that! I can focus on what I want to do -- and opt in to ads as desired. I can tolerate a single non-intrusive ad on a page/screen.
Mmmm... Maybe the big boys could learn something from the new kid.
How much more attractive would a web site be if it used an iAd-like construct -- than the [not so] free for all we have today.
All things equal, I would seek out the sites that functioned (and presented ads) the way an iPad app doees -- whether on an iPad or any other computer,
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
I agree -- the way that was presented is over the top.
However, the large population of iDevices, along with the demographis of the owners of those devices has had an effect on many web sites -- to support HTML5 as well as Flash.
Oh don't flatter yourself, the reason why IE is going with compliance is because of the web developer community response after they announced they were still not going to be "compliant" with IE 9. The only thing that could be true is Microsoft silverlight and Adobe. But IE compliance has nothing to do with apple.
Nonsense, of course it does. The market is moving dynamically in unison because of Apple digging in its heals. Why else would it be happening? Apple is creating the critical mass to finally bury proprietary crapware like silverlight and flash.
As I have stated in earlier threads, JS ads are very difficult to integrate into an average web page that already has scripts. Unlike Adobe Flash ads that are self contained, encapsulated, and completely independent, JS ads are at the mercy of any other Javascript code already running on the page.
There is a trend toward 'on page load' event functions that need to be aware of all scripts on the page. The only way to prevent conflicts is to control the entire page - something that requires realtime monitoring of the entire web site deployment. That is a huge undertaking which is far beyond the scope of simply creating iAds.
Apple has a lot of really really smart people working on this. They will sort it out. No one said it was going to be easy, but happen it will.
Apple has a lot of really really smart people working on this. They will sort it out. No one said it was going to be easy, but happen it will.
Just how effective are 35 ads on a web page...
Maybe the answer is not finding a way to do something better -- rather, a way to do something else.
I think most of us saw this coming a mile away. No other reason to make Cocoa-based iOS apps HTML/CSS/JS if you don?t plan to eventually unseat Adobe Flash ads across the web as a whole.
Beat me to it. This is just a first 'baby step' to begin their takeover. It shouldn't require a full version of Flash to create simple web ads. If this comes out as free, I think we'll see some different numbers from iAd next year.
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
I just love reading such -recurring- gratuitous and far fetched propaganda/wishful thinking. That's what one call "intellectual honesty"? Indeed.
Please get yourself an education on this topic since you don't have anything intelligent to add. Dan is right on the money - one merely needs to look at what is happening with these two companies to understand this.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple's efforts to push mobile content back to using web standards--leveraged by its powerful position in smartphones, tablets and media players, has prompted Adobe to refocus efforts on delivering HTML5 tools and has forced Microsoft to dramatically scale back its plans for Silverlight and instead focus on delivering HTML5 compliance in future versions of its Internet Explorer browser.
Please get yourself an education on this topic since you don't have anything intelligent to add. Dan is right on the money - one merely needs to look at what is happening with these two companies to understand this.
Remember just a year or two ago when Flash proponents were saying HTML5 was "ten years out" and that no browsers supported enough of the spec to be useful?
The fact that Apple created a mobile iOS web platform with something like 50 million (valuable) users all running the same browser, and one that didn't support Flash or Silverlight but is quite modern in its HTML5 implementation (and can rapidly upgrade itself toward progress in that regard) really changed things.
Without Apple's work on iOS, we'd be unlikely to have a mobile WebKit on every platform apart from WP7. We'd also have little pressure behind MS to get on the HTML5 bandwagon instead of Silverlight (which wasn't the case at the beginning of 2010!) and Google would likely still be pushing Flash and Google Gears instead of being able to focus on HTML5.
In retrospect, it appears Apple invested in Safari because it had the iPad in mind, and needed a browser. Without that, we wouldn't have Chrome either, and instead just an IE tied to Silverlight on one side and Firefox tied to Flash and various toolkits like Gears on the other, with nobody being able to make progress.
Now we have a socialist paradise where WebKit is rapidly taking over the desktop and owns mobile devices outright, and everyone else is motivated to match at least the same level of HTML5 compliance. Without Apple, we wouldn't have Canvas or much of the CSS3 animation stuff that adds a lot of the sizzle of HTML5.
If HTML5 were just a few nerdy RIA features on the order of Google Gears, nobody would think they needed it and it would suffer the platform catch-22 where you have no development and no users and no reason to think either will change.
You already hear some developers grumbling that they have to support HTML 5 as there are so many iOS devices rejecting Flash. Microsoft would do itself a huge favor if it switched over to Webkit.
Oh don't flatter yourself, the reason why IE is going with compliance is because of the web developer community response after they announced they were still not going to be "compliant" with IE 9. The only thing that could be true is Microsoft silverlight and Adobe. But IE compliance has nothing to do with apple.