Huh? What part of Facebook's current implementation uses Flash?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quite a few of the games have Flash elements.
And, more generally speaking, the more examples of how web sites can be as good or better without Flash, the more web sites that will be developed without Flash, until the tipping point is reached and web site owners all begin demanding Flash free web sites.
One of the groups that seems most stuck in Flash right now is restaurant owners, who, as a group, tend to have the worst web sites on the web. When the restaurant web sites all convert over from Flash+PDF to HTML5, we'll know that the coffin is not only nailed shut, but in the ground covered with dirt.
As I stated to someone else, the problem is that if Facebook and other developers begin chasing after the web app dream and ditch native apps, these web apps will be available to all mobile users, which gives Apple nothing to differentiate itself, which will indeed hurt hardware sales.
Before we Chicken Little this to death, it would behoove us to understand what is reqired to make this happen - worst case scenario:
Project Spartan would cause intelligent developers to rewrite their apps in html 5 and deliver them alongside their native apps. Why? Because no developer worth the effort is going to cut off a known productive revenue source to jump ship for an uncertain one. Yes there are good examples (and bad ones as well) of games and other code in html 5 - Apple demonstrates it on a daily basis on their website. But a smart developer will want to see additional revenue first, not just a promise of revenue before they will go exclusively with something like Project Spartan. Once the revenue stream is a PROVEN revenue stream then they may change their approach.
This whole idea of developers streaming away from the iOS native app platform and only doing html 5 is rather obtuse and demonstrates a very poor understanding of developing apps and building a strong revenue model for your efforts. The revenue generated from going to html 5 only has to be as good or better - both in quantity and reliability - than doing native apps in order for a developer to abandon an existing revenue stream. This is why developers try to establish a base of operations in one platform first before branching out or moving to another. Your "life" depends on the revenue from that app or apps, once money starts coming in, then you look around and see if you can justify the time and effort to develop for other platforms.
Facebook will suck ever more people into its greasy tentacles, Apple will continue to sell blockbuster numbers of iOS devices, Twitter will flourish and... Flash will be on life support.
Blah, I passionately all things Facebook. I have to use it, my clients want it but have no clue how to use it, so I am forced to learn it, at least enough to show them the basics and link it into their websites. Facebook is so illogical and while I can code HTML no problem, their system seems so wonky and covoluted.
For myself, I do use Twitter, so I was happy to hear that Apple was incorporating that more in iOS5. But certainly there room for everyone and people will use what works best for them.
Same here. Interfacing with Facebook is pretty much a nightmare. I haven't delved into the custom apps for a Facebook page and what not. Just trying to customise the code they give you so you can have a "Like" box and so on is not trivial.
Friendly, a nice iPad app for doing Facebook stuff, was broken for about a week or two because Facebook changed something in the API that obviously caused a lot of headaches.
For development, I actually see a three-path bifurcation of the mobile Internet (ie. how the Internet will be accessed the most in 2012-2022 with smartphones, tablets, and whatever comes next).
1. iOS
It's not going anywhere, it's only getting better. But,
2. HTML + CSS + Javascript (let's not use "Web 2.0/3.0" or any other fancy terms, web apps is just HTML + CSS + loads of Javascript)
This will be the anti-iOS go-to strategy for everyone. Problem is, web apps is no joke. Personally, I think people are trying to cobble a lot of stuff onto a system and language that was never designed to be app-oriented but page-oriented instead. See the Google I/O web app talks on YouTube. Even the brightest Google engineers implement a lot of shoehorning and workarounds.
3. Android
Gathering strength for smartphones but no clear paradigm for delivering tablet apps. No strong tablet devices.
These will all continue to co-exist and I think the "web development" company that will succeed the most is someone that plays along all those lines, though of course specialists in any three areas will also succeed.
Interesting but tricky times ahead.
For those of us that spent a good decade learning web design and development as well as Flash design and development, it's time to re-tool and re-learn. It can be scary sometimes.
This whole idea of developers streaming away from the iOS native app platform and only doing html 5 is rather obtuse and demonstrates a very poor understanding of developing apps and building a strong revenue model for your efforts. The revenue generated from going to html 5 only has to be as good or better - both in quantity and reliability - than doing native apps in order for a developer to abandon an existing revenue stream. This is why developers try to establish a base of operations in one platform first before branching out or moving to another. Your "life" depends on the revenue from that app or apps, once money starts coming in, then you look around and see if you can justify the time and effort to develop for other platforms.
I think a lot opportunities are starting to emerge all over the world, and it's not going to be clear just yet how things are going to pan out.
It's not like during the time when it was the web vs. "multimedia" cd-roms (remember those?). The web took over relatively quickly.
Over the next 10 years we will see iOS jostle with web apps and Android apps.
For developers, it depends on their revenue stream. I see three paths in this economy: development for direct sale/revenue, development for clients, and just like any other multimedia ecosystem before it, training a new generation of "web savvy folk".
The challenge for web apps is the lack of one-click "instant on" gratification. Yes, we have become so lazy, on a mobile or tablet, navigating to a website, click-click-click can be a bit tiresome. But it also reflects that a desktop website is obviously not designed for mobile and tablet.
I see dedicated iOS and Android apps as the mainstay of something you do frequently, while web apps will start to take over web sites when accessing the web from mobile and tablet.
I think what Facebook is trying to do is to make their website a portal for apps. In other words, Facebook becomes a new app store in and of itself. Their goal is you go to the Facebook website, it's (ever more) optimised for mobile and tablet, and you have all the apps, games and what not to ensnare you further in their network.
Have no doubt, Facebook has the power to become the next Google. This is just another play in their insidious plans.
A new report claims social network Facebook is partnering with roughly 80 developers on a secretive "Project Spartan" HTML5-based application platform that would circumvent Apple's App Store on iOS devices.
TechCrunch's MG Siegler reports Facebook is coordinating the effort in order to maintain control over web apps without having to submit to the App Store terms. According to people familiar with the project, Facebook hopes "to use Apple?s own devices against them to break the stranglehold they have on mobile app distribution."...
This sounds far less like Facebook knocking holes in the wall of Apple's garden, than it does Facebook erecting a smaller wall of it's own inside the garden.
If the HTML5 webapp doesn't have access to the camera, camera roll, GPS location data, push notifications (at all, let alone in a secure way), this initiative would seem to be a non-starter. It might be good for browsing facebook, but not so much for using it in certain ways that are most useful when you're on a mobile device.
"Here we have the world?s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.?:
Oh please. The guy who realesed worked with a now jailed spy, to realease thousands of US and allied intelligence documents is accusing facebook of being a spy network? That's rich. What the hell is Wikileaks then?
And while I can understand some of what Assange does and his mission, some of what he does borders on cyber-terrorism. Releasing documents with source names, could get people killed (this is why they are often classified...not because of the information in them). Indeed, the Taliban has made exactly such statements and proceeded to act on them. The man has blood on his hands.
This could hurt Apple if developers see it as a way to avoid giving Apple their 30% cut. They could either develop their own HTML5 webapps or they could join up with Facebook (a large and influential internet company). If enough developers do it, Apple could be hurting.
I think you found the point to this article. I do wonder though if the public would trust Facebook enough to start purchasing apps through them. Given FB's track record on privacy, I certainly would not. Apple's App store is something I trust and feel comfortable using. FB, not a chance.
I think this will work to a point. But the long term problem they will have is that HTML is a standard, designed by committee, that takes years to standardise and finalise each new version. Whereas Apple can add new Cocoa Touch APIs as quick as they can develop and test them, with no political holdups.
This means if they choose Cocoa Touch as their platform they will be able to quickly leverage new hardware features Apple rolls out. If they use HTML5 their competitors will gradually creep ahead of them. For now they will be fine though, because HTML5 is new and it's API set is up to date, but the pace of change and new ideas only accelerates in the tech industry.
A mere 2-3 years from now they could find the HTML5 APIs have gotten quite out of date, and they need to write or purchase Javascript libraries to get features they could have got for free from Cocoa Touch. And that is the best case. In the worst case there are new hardware features on the phone they can't access at all.
"Facebook hopes "to use Apple?s own devices against them to break the stranglehold they have on mobile app distribution."
Apple failed (relatively speaking, anyway) with Ping because they stepped well beyond their realm of expertise. Now Facebook's trying to play on Apple's turf. Here come da fail.
Facebook is unhappy with Apple's refusal to give them more freedom to share people's info without their knowledge so now they are working on a new ways to invade my privacy. Thanks Zuckersucks.
I hate facebook, only reason I even use it is because it is the only way I can stay in touch with family. Several people I know have had their accounts hacked or gotten viruses off facebook thanks to their stellar security.
I much prefer my information stay safe than have the freedom to use services that give no thought or care to my personal information & it's safety. I could argue that guardrails encroach on my freedom to drive off a cliff but then I rather like that they are there.
Point well made. Except html5 apps cannot be as good as native apps because it wont have access to the built in api features. No notifications, persistent internet connection, etc.
But you are right I didnt think about hardware sales slip if other companies have the same apps. But they cant because free apps will always be there for api and app store use. Plus there are 400k apps already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20
One quick thing: What sets Apple's mobile products apart for many people is the vibrant and varied App Store. If those apps are all available as web apps instead of native apps and are available to Android/Windows/HP/Blackberry users, what's going to keep anyone besides diehards buying Apple products? Sure they make great stuff and have a great ecosystem, but if the apps are available everywhere, there's nothing really setting them apart, so hardware sales will suffer.
Obviously it's a take-off on FB's logo, but he could have used a better choice of words. Point well-made, however.
Disagree.
If you use the most common, overused, crass, swearword on the planet to make your point, it can't really be considered to be "well-made." Just yelling 'fuck' is not exactly commentary.
Also, the guy has the temerity to advertise in his signature which just makes it worse.
Comments
Another nail in Flash's coffin.
Huh? What part of Facebook's current implementation uses Flash?
Huh? What part of Facebook's current implementation uses Flash?
Quite a few of the games have Flash elements.
Huh? What part of Facebook's current implementation uses Flash?
Quite a few of the games have Flash elements.
And, more generally speaking, the more examples of how web sites can be as good or better without Flash, the more web sites that will be developed without Flash, until the tipping point is reached and web site owners all begin demanding Flash free web sites.
One of the groups that seems most stuck in Flash right now is restaurant owners, who, as a group, tend to have the worst web sites on the web. When the restaurant web sites all convert over from Flash+PDF to HTML5, we'll know that the coffin is not only nailed shut, but in the ground covered with dirt.
As I stated to someone else, the problem is that if Facebook and other developers begin chasing after the web app dream and ditch native apps, these web apps will be available to all mobile users, which gives Apple nothing to differentiate itself, which will indeed hurt hardware sales.
Before we Chicken Little this to death, it would behoove us to understand what is reqired to make this happen - worst case scenario:
Project Spartan would cause intelligent developers to rewrite their apps in html 5 and deliver them alongside their native apps. Why? Because no developer worth the effort is going to cut off a known productive revenue source to jump ship for an uncertain one. Yes there are good examples (and bad ones as well) of games and other code in html 5 - Apple demonstrates it on a daily basis on their website. But a smart developer will want to see additional revenue first, not just a promise of revenue before they will go exclusively with something like Project Spartan. Once the revenue stream is a PROVEN revenue stream then they may change their approach.
This whole idea of developers streaming away from the iOS native app platform and only doing html 5 is rather obtuse and demonstrates a very poor understanding of developing apps and building a strong revenue model for your efforts. The revenue generated from going to html 5 only has to be as good or better - both in quantity and reliability - than doing native apps in order for a developer to abandon an existing revenue stream. This is why developers try to establish a base of operations in one platform first before branching out or moving to another. Your "life" depends on the revenue from that app or apps, once money starts coming in, then you look around and see if you can justify the time and effort to develop for other platforms.
Blah, I passionately all things Facebook. I have to use it, my clients want it but have no clue how to use it, so I am forced to learn it, at least enough to show them the basics and link it into their websites. Facebook is so illogical and while I can code HTML no problem, their system seems so wonky and covoluted.
For myself, I do use Twitter, so I was happy to hear that Apple was incorporating that more in iOS5. But certainly there room for everyone and people will use what works best for them.
Same here. Interfacing with Facebook is pretty much a nightmare. I haven't delved into the custom apps for a Facebook page and what not. Just trying to customise the code they give you so you can have a "Like" box and so on is not trivial.
Friendly, a nice iPad app for doing Facebook stuff, was broken for about a week or two because Facebook changed something in the API that obviously caused a lot of headaches.
For development, I actually see a three-path bifurcation of the mobile Internet (ie. how the Internet will be accessed the most in 2012-2022 with smartphones, tablets, and whatever comes next).
1. iOS
It's not going anywhere, it's only getting better. But,
2. HTML + CSS + Javascript (let's not use "Web 2.0/3.0" or any other fancy terms, web apps is just HTML + CSS + loads of Javascript)
This will be the anti-iOS go-to strategy for everyone. Problem is, web apps is no joke. Personally, I think people are trying to cobble a lot of stuff onto a system and language that was never designed to be app-oriented but page-oriented instead. See the Google I/O web app talks on YouTube. Even the brightest Google engineers implement a lot of shoehorning and workarounds.
3. Android
Gathering strength for smartphones but no clear paradigm for delivering tablet apps. No strong tablet devices.
These will all continue to co-exist and I think the "web development" company that will succeed the most is someone that plays along all those lines, though of course specialists in any three areas will also succeed.
Interesting but tricky times ahead.
For those of us that spent a good decade learning web design and development as well as Flash design and development, it's time to re-tool and re-learn. It can be scary sometimes.
FT.com got there first. released yesterday!
Guess who doesn't read the Financial Times and never will thanks to your foolish shilling?
Thousands of us. Great going.
This whole idea of developers streaming away from the iOS native app platform and only doing html 5 is rather obtuse and demonstrates a very poor understanding of developing apps and building a strong revenue model for your efforts. The revenue generated from going to html 5 only has to be as good or better - both in quantity and reliability - than doing native apps in order for a developer to abandon an existing revenue stream. This is why developers try to establish a base of operations in one platform first before branching out or moving to another. Your "life" depends on the revenue from that app or apps, once money starts coming in, then you look around and see if you can justify the time and effort to develop for other platforms.
I think a lot opportunities are starting to emerge all over the world, and it's not going to be clear just yet how things are going to pan out.
It's not like during the time when it was the web vs. "multimedia" cd-roms (remember those?). The web took over relatively quickly.
Over the next 10 years we will see iOS jostle with web apps and Android apps.
For developers, it depends on their revenue stream. I see three paths in this economy: development for direct sale/revenue, development for clients, and just like any other multimedia ecosystem before it, training a new generation of "web savvy folk".
The challenge for web apps is the lack of one-click "instant on" gratification. Yes, we have become so lazy, on a mobile or tablet, navigating to a website, click-click-click can be a bit tiresome. But it also reflects that a desktop website is obviously not designed for mobile and tablet.
I see dedicated iOS and Android apps as the mainstay of something you do frequently, while web apps will start to take over web sites when accessing the web from mobile and tablet.
I think what Facebook is trying to do is to make their website a portal for apps. In other words, Facebook becomes a new app store in and of itself. Their goal is you go to the Facebook website, it's (ever more) optimised for mobile and tablet, and you have all the apps, games and what not to ensnare you further in their network.
Have no doubt, Facebook has the power to become the next Google. This is just another play in their insidious plans.
You do realize that it could get you banned.
Obviously it's a take-off on FB's logo, but he could have used a better choice of words. Point well-made, however.
A new report claims social network Facebook is partnering with roughly 80 developers on a secretive "Project Spartan" HTML5-based application platform that would circumvent Apple's App Store on iOS devices.
TechCrunch's MG Siegler reports Facebook is coordinating the effort in order to maintain control over web apps without having to submit to the App Store terms. According to people familiar with the project, Facebook hopes "to use Apple?s own devices against them to break the stranglehold they have on mobile app distribution."...
This sounds far less like Facebook knocking holes in the wall of Apple's garden, than it does Facebook erecting a smaller wall of it's own inside the garden.
Who uses the FaceBook spy network anyhow?!
Statistics
People on Facebook
More than 500 million active users
50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day
Average user has 130 friends
People spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook
Activity on Facebook
There are over 900 million objects that people interact with (pages, groups, events and community pages)
Average user is connected to 80 community pages, groups and events
Average user creates 90 pieces of content each month
More than 30 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each month.
Global Reach
More than 70 translations available on the site
About 70% of Facebook users are outside the United States
Over 300,000 users helped translate the site through the translations application
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Obviously it's a take-off on FB's logo, but he could have used a better choice of words. Point well-made, however.
I thought about it after posting, my sincere apologies to all.
If I must be banned, so be it.
I think it's funny, though. If I can find the right tone of blue fabric, I'm making a T shirt.
Who uses the FaceBook spy network anyhow?!
"Here we have the world?s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.?:
http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2011/...been-invented/
Oh please. The guy who realesed worked with a now jailed spy, to realease thousands of US and allied intelligence documents is accusing facebook of being a spy network? That's rich. What the hell is Wikileaks then?
And while I can understand some of what Assange does and his mission, some of what he does borders on cyber-terrorism. Releasing documents with source names, could get people killed (this is why they are often classified...not because of the information in them). Indeed, the Taliban has made exactly such statements and proceeded to act on them. The man has blood on his hands.
This could hurt Apple if developers see it as a way to avoid giving Apple their 30% cut. They could either develop their own HTML5 webapps or they could join up with Facebook (a large and influential internet company). If enough developers do it, Apple could be hurting.
I think you found the point to this article. I do wonder though if the public would trust Facebook enough to start purchasing apps through them. Given FB's track record on privacy, I certainly would not. Apple's App store is something I trust and feel comfortable using. FB, not a chance.
You do realize that it could get you banned.
I think he feels remorse. It was funny but he should have stopped himself from posting it.
This means if they choose Cocoa Touch as their platform they will be able to quickly leverage new hardware features Apple rolls out. If they use HTML5 their competitors will gradually creep ahead of them. For now they will be fine though, because HTML5 is new and it's API set is up to date, but the pace of change and new ideas only accelerates in the tech industry.
A mere 2-3 years from now they could find the HTML5 APIs have gotten quite out of date, and they need to write or purchase Javascript libraries to get features they could have got for free from Cocoa Touch. And that is the best case. In the worst case there are new hardware features on the phone they can't access at all.
"Facebook hopes "to use Apple?s own devices against them to break the stranglehold they have on mobile app distribution."
Apple failed (relatively speaking, anyway) with Ping because they stepped well beyond their realm of expertise. Now Facebook's trying to play on Apple's turf. Here come da fail.
Facebook is unhappy with Apple's refusal to give them more freedom to share people's info without their knowledge so now they are working on a new ways to invade my privacy. Thanks Zuckersucks.
I hate facebook, only reason I even use it is because it is the only way I can stay in touch with family. Several people I know have had their accounts hacked or gotten viruses off facebook thanks to their stellar security.
I much prefer my information stay safe than have the freedom to use services that give no thought or care to my personal information & it's safety. I could argue that guardrails encroach on my freedom to drive off a cliff but then I rather like that they are there.
But you are right I didnt think about hardware sales slip if other companies have the same apps. But they cant because free apps will always be there for api and app store use. Plus there are 400k apps already.
One quick thing: What sets Apple's mobile products apart for many people is the vibrant and varied App Store. If those apps are all available as web apps instead of native apps and are available to Android/Windows/HP/Blackberry users, what's going to keep anyone besides diehards buying Apple products? Sure they make great stuff and have a great ecosystem, but if the apps are available everywhere, there's nothing really setting them apart, so hardware sales will suffer.
Obviously it's a take-off on FB's logo, but he could have used a better choice of words. Point well-made, however.
Disagree.
If you use the most common, overused, crass, swearword on the planet to make your point, it can't really be considered to be "well-made." Just yelling 'fuck' is not exactly commentary.
Also, the guy has the temerity to advertise in his signature which just makes it worse.