Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
Flash is now almost a total non issue. Occasionally I run into a video I can't play but I literally never see a blue box on any site, and it is becoming rarer everyday that I run into a video I can't play.
Apple Ipad HTML5 spec still blows when it comes to access to hardware, sluggish interface (i'm sorry I have both a xoom and a ipad2 to develop on there's a noticeable difference) As I have to develop sites that actually work more often I have to tell clients to pic an android device if they want to get more capability/end-game out of their buck.
Also remember Honeycomb hasn't been released yet and while you can always get the latest nightly build, google's development sprints take massive leaps sometimes in functionality (ie android 1.9 to 2.x, 2.0 -> 2.now) With the ability to run GCC code prepare for a huge amount of speed on android devices.
Apple is going to be left behind I'm afraid if they don't open up the platform for more creativity and be more flexible on publishing/ad content. iAds are a joke. Safari HTML5 tags laf...It has always been their control that let them dominate platforms like mp3 stores etc in the beginning only to be left behind.
Flash is now almost a total non issue. Occasionally I run into a video I can't play but I literally never see a blue box on any site, and it is becoming rarer everyday that I run into a video I can't play.
While I agree it?s a non-issue the reason you aren?t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
ALL of the web is at the very least 100% reliant on HTML. And very heavily reliant on the CSS and JavaScript standards.
Of note, Flash isn't NEEDED for the web. flash is also 100% reliant on JavaScript to display web content, due the object embed patent issue in an HTML page.
While I agree it?s a non-issue the reason you aren?t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
That and most sites have alternatives to the horrible Flash (I.e. HTML5 video).
I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.
Who can fault your choice?
But, let's be more practical here. How many ordinary people really know about the nuances of
Flash only sites
those with Flash plus other options (for devices that cannot view flash, like the iOS or those choices made by the reader themselves).
Given those two options, which sites would have a larger target population that it could reach?
As pointed out in the other thread, how many sites (who are actually using their minds -- if they intend to reach a wider audience or "take advantage" of those iOS consumers who have shown proclivity to not be fazed spending money for the things they like -- would simply ignore those growing population of consumers that are unable to view Flash?
If an ordinary visitor who is not too tech savvy visits a site, and could not open a site because of uploading issues, or has too many blank space -- who are they likely to blame: Apple, Adobe or the website creator?
And for the above reasons, can you provide those most visited sites or those that really matter that still do not provide alternatives to Flash?
I think there is an Aesop's Fable or something where the people in a kingdom have gone all mad. And so the king, supposedly a sane person, decided to go mad too.
In the end, it is all about reaching your target audience. You have to reach them to connect. And, not be bogged down with technicalities or your own personal preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
While I agree it’s a non-issue the reason you aren’t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.
It is anecdotal, based mainly from my own experience, in the case of New York Times, through John Gruber, as I noted in another post, I am able to partially disable Flash and thus able to compare viewing of the NYT in Camino (flash disabled) vs Firefox or Chrome, where I either did not partially disable Flash or cannot do so (Chrome). Since I am quite familiar with the NYT layout, I know where they place their ads are usually placed, as well as their key video-images modules. Most of those showing the "F" icon are actually advertisements or inane short videos. So, Flash free in this sense is a bonus. The site loads faster too, without the Flash.
That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.
Apple Ipad HTML5 spec still blows when it comes to access to hardware, sluggish interface (i'm sorry I have both a xoom and a ipad2 to develop on there's a noticeable difference) As I have to develop sites that actually work more often I have to tell clients to pic an android device if they want to get more capability/end-game out of their buck.
And how many people so far bought the Xoom because they think like you do? There is another person in another forum who is so certain of the the "superiority of the current Xoom", he was explicit that he will remember to mark 11 March 2012 in response to those who extolled the virtues of iPad2.
Have you got your Flash and 4G already? I assume you got a two-year contract with a Xoom. Will you be OK if Motorola does not remain true to its promise, if the rumor is correct that they may discontinue the existing Xoom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
none, never, all, always, is often not a good bet.
Don't say that, the "linguists" here have opined that it is all hyperbole when people use those terms. After all, we are all "educated" and fully versed with the language to understand and recognize nuance.
The lords have spoken. The words of the lords must be obeyed.
There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.
......
That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.
CGC
Actually, the reason why is quite simple. Companies that depend on their websites to deliver and market their products, can't ignore 160 million iOS devices (since Jan. 2011).
Add to that another foreseeable 60-70 million this year alone. And that's a conservative estimate.
Can't ignore a demographic that has also proven they're willing to pay for things as well.
Every time Flash comes up, I ask all those supporters: show me 10 websites where Flash is NEEDED and where it is superior compared to if it was coded using HTML standards... no matter whether 4 or 5. Bare-bones HTML, CSS, Java for certain client-side stuff like form-validation.
Please show me a site where fancy flying effects are needed.... and why the Flash navigation is better than an HTML-CSS-Java one.
DRM content = make an App (Apple, Android, Silverlight...whatever)
Games = make an App (see above)
Free Video and Audio = HTML5 tag
What's left for Flash to accomplish then? Nada. Kill it.
Adobe should be working on an IDE to replace Flash with standard code. Period. They're beating a seriously dead horse.
PS: and I'm sick and tired along with many other regulars here, of reminding people that there currently is NO working* Flash plugin for mobile devices. That is 4 YEARS after Apple announced the first iPhone. Adobe has proven NOTHING other than proving SJ correct on all claims against using Flash in the future. Because the future is right now... 4 years later... and *Flash is a painful experience on any of the "other" mobile devices.
Apple and SJ didn't kill Flash... ADOBE did by not getting it to work correctly and efficiently for mobile. P.E.R.I.O.D.
BTW: I went to the Android Marketplace link for Flash here.
They show Photobucket as an example of a "FULL web experience".
Interesting, because on the iPad, Photobucket works beautifully, and IMHO... much better than "the FULL web experience" on the desktop using Flash.
PS: take the time to read some of the reviews: some funny fanboi stuff, with some "poor soul" real life experiences, that I'm sure Apple is very glad not to have to deal with.
For a designer, Flash (the tool) offers an environment that is easy to use and that can produce consistent results across platforms. Replicating many of the things they do in HTML5 would require learning a new skill - programming...
You miss the point entirely, so it seems. People also want to have a native look and feel.
Maybe this is still partly the case for Windows users (and for Linux users who are trying so hard to live in a Windows-lookalike environment), but it certainly doesn't apply to Mac users.
But more importantly, many Flash developers try to force yet another set of GUI "conventions" (and an inconsistent one at that) down the surfer's throat. In fact, one never knows what to expect on Flash sites. Unimplemented features that are only natural in a well-thought GUI abound.
Unless Adobe recommends, -or better, almost forces developers to use- a well-defined user experience (which means, some "enhanced" common denominator GUI), using Flash will continue to be hampered by frustrations.
One thing that everyone misses is that we are talking about "Software" here folks! It doesn't matter if in is IPad, Playbook or Xoom, software can be easily improver, updated and corrected. People seem to forget just how far Apple has come with Safari on mobile devices. More so modern software doesn't even run well on older hardware.
In a nut shell it really doesn't matter what a specific browser supports as long as you can deliver the solution to your problem on that device. If you are in a rush to support the latest eye candy on a browser then that is your problem not the browsers. A good web site experience demands that the developer exhibits self control and a proper understanding of programming.
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
i know a flash developer (strictly pc platform) who is having to rethink her limited skillset. she's telling me the market has dried up and she's not getting any work for the past several months. granted, no one does anything from december through february, but she's really good and is usually busy that time of year. nothing. so i'd say your post has a little more truth to it than you intended.
One thing that everyone misses is that we are talking about "Software" here folks!
Yeah, but the facts remain that the browsers aren't created equal. It's the software team and the development environment that makes all the difference. So let the others prove that they can also do a decent job.
Maybe the next thing you will bring up is that Safari (if made available for someone other's architecture) could well be implemented on a Turing Machine. (I know, I know, that's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point).
You could say that Android delivers the Full web -- except for HTML4, HTML5, CSS... and some other minor stuff. But it has Flash... or it will, RSN
But you dont get it ... with flash, on Xoom you can watch movies at 2FPS and your battery life will be halved. Now find me a tablet with a feature like that
How does this fit into the Apple-users-are-sheep-that-only-like-pretty-things/our-stuff-has-better-specs narrative that the Android acolytes are so fond of spinning?
Now all 30 of the Xoom buyers will go ape on this board, citing that they could care less about proper rendering, but would rather carry around part of the cardboard Xoom retail box in their back pocket to show how highly spec'd their $800 POS is.
I was at a Samsung tab launch tonight and played around with the honeycomb 10.1, showed the Samsung guys the prominent ad for the iPad in Angry Birds (launches here in Australia in two days) and flicked to some Android news application with a prominent story on HTC's newest, needless to say they weren't amused.
I found Honeycomb to be alright but I expected more going by the constant stream of garbage spewed out by Android trolls on tech sites all over the web, there was really nothing that couldn't be done equally as well on an iOS device.
Comments
none, never, all, always, is often not a good bet.
you're right. no doubt some masochists really enjoyed all those browser freeze ups.
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
Flash is now almost a total non issue. Occasionally I run into a video I can't play but I literally never see a blue box on any site, and it is becoming rarer everyday that I run into a video I can't play.
Also remember Honeycomb hasn't been released yet and while you can always get the latest nightly build, google's development sprints take massive leaps sometimes in functionality (ie android 1.9 to 2.x, 2.0 -> 2.now) With the ability to run GCC code prepare for a huge amount of speed on android devices.
Apple is going to be left behind I'm afraid if they don't open up the platform for more creativity and be more flexible on publishing/ad content. iAds are a joke. Safari HTML5 tags laf...It has always been their control that let them dominate platforms like mp3 stores etc in the beginning only to be left behind.
Pioneers starve, settlers prosper.
Flash is now almost a total non issue. Occasionally I run into a video I can't play but I literally never see a blue box on any site, and it is becoming rarer everyday that I run into a video I can't play.
While I agree it?s a non-issue the reason you aren?t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
Link me to the Flash for Android page please...
Do you mean this?
https://market.android.com/details?i...=search_result
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
ALL of the web is at the very least 100% reliant on HTML. And very heavily reliant on the CSS and JavaScript standards.
Of note, Flash isn't NEEDED for the web. flash is also 100% reliant on JavaScript to display web content, due the object embed patent issue in an HTML page.
Never mind.
While I agree it?s a non-issue the reason you aren?t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
That and most sites have alternatives to the horrible Flash (I.e. HTML5 video).
I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.
Who can fault your choice?
But, let's be more practical here. How many ordinary people really know about the nuances of
- Flash only sites
- those with Flash plus other options (for devices that cannot view flash, like the iOS or those choices made by the reader themselves).
Given those two options, which sites would have a larger target population that it could reach?As pointed out in the other thread, how many sites (who are actually using their minds -- if they intend to reach a wider audience or "take advantage" of those iOS consumers who have shown proclivity to not be fazed spending money for the things they like -- would simply ignore those growing population of consumers that are unable to view Flash?
If an ordinary visitor who is not too tech savvy visits a site, and could not open a site because of uploading issues, or has too many blank space -- who are they likely to blame: Apple, Adobe or the website creator?
And for the above reasons, can you provide those most visited sites or those that really matter that still do not provide alternatives to Flash?
I think there is an Aesop's Fable or something where the people in a kingdom have gone all mad. And so the king, supposedly a sane person, decided to go mad too.
In the end, it is all about reaching your target audience. You have to reach them to connect. And, not be bogged down with technicalities or your own personal preferences.
While I agree it’s a non-issue the reason you aren’t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.
It is anecdotal, based mainly from my own experience, in the case of New York Times, through John Gruber, as I noted in another post, I am able to partially disable Flash and thus able to compare viewing of the NYT in Camino (flash disabled) vs Firefox or Chrome, where I either did not partially disable Flash or cannot do so (Chrome). Since I am quite familiar with the NYT layout, I know where they place their ads are usually placed, as well as their key video-images modules. Most of those showing the "F" icon are actually advertisements or inane short videos. So, Flash free in this sense is a bonus. The site loads faster too, without the Flash.
That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.
CGC
Apple Ipad HTML5 spec still blows when it comes to access to hardware, sluggish interface (i'm sorry I have both a xoom and a ipad2 to develop on there's a noticeable difference) As I have to develop sites that actually work more often I have to tell clients to pic an android device if they want to get more capability/end-game out of their buck.
And how many people so far bought the Xoom because they think like you do? There is another person in another forum who is so certain of the the "superiority of the current Xoom", he was explicit that he will remember to mark 11 March 2012 in response to those who extolled the virtues of iPad2.
Have you got your Flash and 4G already? I assume you got a two-year contract with a Xoom. Will you be OK if Motorola does not remain true to its promise, if the rumor is correct that they may discontinue the existing Xoom?
none, never, all, always, is often not a good bet.
Don't say that, the "linguists" here have opined that it is all hyperbole when people use those terms. After all, we are all "educated" and fully versed with the language to understand and recognize nuance.
The lords have spoken. The words of the lords must be obeyed.
CGC
....
There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.
......
That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.
CGC
Actually, the reason why is quite simple. Companies that depend on their websites to deliver and market their products, can't ignore 160 million iOS devices (since Jan. 2011).
Add to that another foreseeable 60-70 million this year alone. And that's a conservative estimate.
Can't ignore a demographic that has also proven they're willing to pay for things as well.
Every time Flash comes up, I ask all those supporters: show me 10 websites where Flash is NEEDED and where it is superior compared to if it was coded using HTML standards... no matter whether 4 or 5. Bare-bones HTML, CSS, Java for certain client-side stuff like form-validation.
Please show me a site where fancy flying effects are needed.... and why the Flash navigation is better than an HTML-CSS-Java one.
DRM content = make an App (Apple, Android, Silverlight...whatever)
Games = make an App (see above)
Free Video and Audio = HTML5 tag
What's left for Flash to accomplish then? Nada. Kill it.
Adobe should be working on an IDE to replace Flash with standard code. Period. They're beating a seriously dead horse.
PS: and I'm sick and tired along with many other regulars here, of reminding people that there currently is NO working* Flash plugin for mobile devices. That is 4 YEARS after Apple announced the first iPhone. Adobe has proven NOTHING other than proving SJ correct on all claims against using Flash in the future. Because the future is right now... 4 years later... and *Flash is a painful experience on any of the "other" mobile devices.
Apple and SJ didn't kill Flash... ADOBE did by not getting it to work correctly and efficiently for mobile. P.E.R.I.O.D.
They show Photobucket as an example of a "FULL web experience".
Interesting, because on the iPad, Photobucket works beautifully, and IMHO... much better than "the FULL web experience" on the desktop using Flash.
PS: take the time to read some of the reviews: some funny fanboi stuff, with some "poor soul" real life experiences, that I'm sure Apple is very glad not to have to deal with.
Uhm... a good portion of the games listed will NOT work on a touch-screen device, because you need to have a keyboard to navigate the game.
NOTE: any Flash game or site that uses "hover", will also not work... Flash or no Flash.
So. Show me again, or better example(s) why Flash is needed on mobile devices.
...
For a designer, Flash (the tool) offers an environment that is easy to use and that can produce consistent results across platforms. Replicating many of the things they do in HTML5 would require learning a new skill - programming...
You miss the point entirely, so it seems. People also want to have a native look and feel.
Maybe this is still partly the case for Windows users (and for Linux users who are trying so hard to live in a Windows-lookalike environment), but it certainly doesn't apply to Mac users.
But more importantly, many Flash developers try to force yet another set of GUI "conventions" (and an inconsistent one at that) down the surfer's throat. In fact, one never knows what to expect on Flash sites. Unimplemented features that are only natural in a well-thought GUI abound.
Unless Adobe recommends, -or better, almost forces developers to use- a well-defined user experience (which means, some "enhanced" common denominator GUI), using Flash will continue to be hampered by frustrations.
In a nut shell it really doesn't matter what a specific browser supports as long as you can deliver the solution to your problem on that device. If you are in a rush to support the latest eye candy on a browser then that is your problem not the browsers. A good web site experience demands that the developer exhibits self control and a proper understanding of programming.
Because the web is all HTML5... Seems Safari on the iPad is a little "short" on standards itself. Like the flash used by millions of websites. Oh wait, Steve said there is no flash. Those little blue boxes are just the result of non-standard programming and should be ignored! Ah, that's why Safari is perfect. I get it now. Nice one Steve (and the sheep bought it!!!)
i know a flash developer (strictly pc platform) who is having to rethink her limited skillset. she's telling me the market has dried up and she's not getting any work for the past several months. granted, no one does anything from december through february, but she's really good and is usually busy that time of year. nothing. so i'd say your post has a little more truth to it than you intended.
One thing that everyone misses is that we are talking about "Software" here folks!
Yeah, but the facts remain that the browsers aren't created equal. It's the software team and the development environment that makes all the difference. So let the others prove that they can also do a decent job.
Maybe the next thing you will bring up is that Safari (if made available for someone other's architecture) could well be implemented on a Turing Machine. (I know, I know, that's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point).
You could say that Android delivers the Full web -- except for HTML4, HTML5, CSS... and some other minor stuff. But it has Flash... or it will, RSN
But you dont get it ... with flash, on Xoom you can watch movies at 2FPS and your battery life will be halved. Now find me a tablet with a feature like that
I found Honeycomb to be alright but I expected more going by the constant stream of garbage spewed out by Android trolls on tech sites all over the web, there was really nothing that couldn't be done equally as well on an iOS device.