Why does Apple resist Flash Player?

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    ...flash is still going to be used well after your ipad2 and iphone4 have passed into obsolescence.



    Not if Adobe has anything to say about it.



    Quote:

    Given that android can implement flash without affecting battery life or performance at all...



    Okay.



    Quote:

    ...via on demand setting...



    The heck does this mean?



    Quote:

    ...the case for not allowing flash support by Apple is pretty weak.



    Other than the dozens of valid reasons we've already posted.
  • Reply 42 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Other than the dozens of valid reasons we've already posted.



    Not the least of which is the fact that Adobe is abandoning it.
  • Reply 43 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    Not the least of which is the fact that Adobe is abandoning it.



    You wish:



    Quote:

    Adobe, which has spent the last few years trying to dig out of a deep hole of vulnerabilities and buggy code, is making a major change to Flash, adding a sandbox to the version of the player that runs in Firefox. The sandbox is designed to prevent many common exploit techniques against Flash. The move by Adobe comes roughly a year after the company added a sandbox to Flash for Google Chrome. Flash, which is perhaps the most widely deployed piece of software on the Internet, has been a common attack vector for several years now, and the attacks in some cases have been used to get around exploit mitigations added by the browser vendors. The sandbox is designed to prevent many of these attacks by not allowing exploits against Flash to break out into the browser itself.



    That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?
  • Reply 44 of 71
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    What the fuck are you talking about.



    If you are going to come into the discussion please, at the very least, make some sense.



    You made the absurd analogy that everyone should've abandoned the horse and buggy once cars were invented. I just updated that to modern times. But since you can't make that connection, I'll explain it in terms of your original analogy:



    Yes, the car eventually replaced the horse and buggy, but it didn't happen overnight. There was a long transitional period where both were in use. So completely abandoning support for the horse and buggy the moment the first cars rolled off the lines wasn't a good idea.



    Imagine if New York banned horse and buggies, and only allowed cars on its streets in 1890, Or if San Francisco banned gasoline cars and only allowed electric cars on its streets in 2012. This is basically what Apple is doing with Flash. You may claim this as "forward thinking," but it comes as a great inconvenience to a significant portion of the population.
  • Reply 45 of 71
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Okay.







    The heck does this mean?



    On android phones, You can set flash to operate in 1 of 2 modes: Always On, or On Demand.



    In on demand mode, flash content is only loaded when the user explicitly enables it. So browsing a flash-heavy site will impart no effect on performance or battery life unless you explicitly demand to load the flash elements.



    Given that implementation is demonstratively possible, the argument that Apple doesn't include Flash in its devices because it 'degrades the user experience' doesn't hold much water.
  • Reply 46 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    You made the absurd analogy that everyone should've abandoned the horse and buggy once cars were invented. I just updated that to modern times. But since you can't make that connection, I'll explain it in terms of your original analogy:



    Yes, the car eventually replaced the horse and buggy, but it didn't happen overnight. There was a long transitional period where both were in use. So completely abandoning support for the horse and buggy the moment the first cars rolled off the lines wasn't a good idea.



    Imagine if New York banned horse and buggies, and only allowed cars on its streets in 1890, Or if San Francisco banned gasoline cars and only allowed electric cars on its streets in 2012. This is basically what Apple is doing with Flash. You may claim this as "forward thinking," but it comes as a great inconvenience to a significant portion of the population.



    1. We are at the point where the #1 buggy part maker just said that they will no longer be making buggy parts (buggy parts... I like it, describes Adobe precisely).



    2. One of the major manufacturers of the buggy had abandoned making buggies some time ago and their new horseless carriage sells better than any model of buggy. People cry and whine because they want the manufacturer to build buggies. The manufacturer says, "Are you kidding??!! We make more money than anyone who is still making the buggy!".



    3. Eventually the other manufacturers, unable to get buggy parts, abandon the buggy altogether but, still today, you occasionally see them in museums or around Amish communities.
  • Reply 47 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Showtime View Post


    You wish:



    That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?



    We're talking about mobile flash. Keep up or get out of the way.
  • Reply 48 of 71
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,301moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Showtime View Post


    That's not exactly "abandoning it" is it?



    The link about them adding a sandbox is strong evidence against using Flash until Apple can do the same:



    https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/f...firefox-020612



    Apple doesn't allow any code to run in a virtual machine that isn't developed by Apple. Flash Player is a virtual machine that runs bytecode.



    One way it could work is if Adobe Flash is packaged as an application and not a browser plugin. Whenever you come across an embedded Flash video or animation, it could show up as a link to open in Flash Player.



    This application would have to be assigned a very restrictive sandbox with no access to shared resources or contacts. It could even be restricted to video playback only. The sandbox for this app would dictate that it isn't left open in memory when you leave the app so no performance degradation.



    But if they do this, I think it will slow adoption of HTML5 further and this is not in the best interests of the internet for the long term. The functionality that Flash allows should be available to every browser and every platform.
  • Reply 49 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    Imagine if New York banned horse and buggies, and only allowed cars on its streets in 1890, Or if San Francisco banned gasoline cars and only allowed electric cars on its streets in 2012. This is basically what Apple is doing with Flash. You may claim this as "forward thinking," but it comes as a great inconvenience to a significant portion of the population.



    I live in a community surrounded by a ton of Amish (not Pennsylvania; we're way further west). They are a MASSIVE inconvenience to everyone here. Their horse feces litter our streets. Their buggies slow our traffic. If you get behind one in town, you can't possibly pass it. It's easier to turn off onto a side street, speed down two blocks, and turn back onto the main road ahead of the buggy than to stay behind it. Not to mention the looks of condescension from their children, whether you be driving behind their buggy or walking around somewhere.



    This is 2012, not 1890. They are the Flash users. That's all there is to it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    In on demand mode, flash content is only loaded when the user explicitly enables it. So browsing a flash-heavy site will impart no effect on performance or battery life unless you explicitly demand to load the flash elements.



    Oh, so it's like a built-in Click2Flash.



    Quote:

    Given that implementation is demonstratively possible, the argument that Apple doesn't include Flash in its devices because it 'degrades the user experience' doesn't hold much water.



    That's not the only point. The fact that running Flash elements crash all the freaking time is the point. Sure, I can choose not to run them. I'm choosing not to run them right now by using iOS devices. The second I click on a Flash element and have it load, I'm shaking hands with danger (*twangy guitar riff*).
  • Reply 50 of 71
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boblinfoto View Post


    Perhaps now that Jobs has passed on, someone at Apple will get their heads out of their butts and allow their customers some choice. Lose the arrogant attitude....



    Look who's got their heads up their butts now.



    Chrome for Android won't support Flash, Adobe*confirms



    Lose the stupid attitude!
  • Reply 51 of 71
    Apple, Adobe, and Google are the currently fastest growing 800-pound gorillas in the mass IT markets. Where they are not in cahoots they are competitors. They certainly won't be doing each other any favors detrimental to their own interests. So they'll never voluntarily support the other's formats of course, in order to cut them, and to at the same create a walled garden in which to 'capture' – imprison is a more realistic term – their customers.



    So all of them are providing their customers – their ultimate financiers! – a disservice!



    On the bright side: the more those big corporations will be encapsulating their customers, the greater the pressure and demand for converters, translators, interpretators, or other work-arounds. It's the waterbed effect. They are creating their own Nemeses.
  • Reply 52 of 71
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    You probably shouldn't post when you're high.
  • Reply 53 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    You probably shouldn't post when you're high.



    Neither should you when you're an asshole.
  • Reply 54 of 71
    Hmm, there are many thoughts through Google search: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-a...w=1440&bih=811

  • Reply 55 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Showtime View Post


    Neither should you when you're an asshole.



    I think that's what he actually meant.
  • Reply 56 of 71
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Showtime View Post


    Neither should you when you're an asshole.



    Since what you wrote made no sense whatsoever I figured I would ascribe the problem to intoxication rather than something more dire, but:



    Quote:

    Apple, Adobe, and Google are the currently fastest growing 800-pound gorillas in the mass IT markets. Where they are not in cahoots they are competitors.



    Adobe is not a fast growing gorilla in the "mass IT market", whatever that even means.



    Quote:

    They certainly won't be doing each other any favors detrimental to their own interests. So they'll never voluntarily support the other's formats of course, in order to cut them, and to at the same create a walled garden in which to 'capture' – imprison is a more realistic term – their customers.



    So Adobe is never going to support, um, their own formats? Or Apple's and Google's "formats"? What? But then Flash is apparently a Google format which is why Apple doesn't support it? Hello?



    Quote:

    So all of them are providing their customers – their ultimate financiers! – a disservice!



    So then again Adobe is providing a disservice by not supporting something something, and Google is providing a disservice by not supporting, um, iOS? And of course Apple is bad for not supporting the now discontinued Flash for mobile, which means no one supports it. And they're all in cahoots? Because..... there's money to be made by support open web standards?



    Quote:

    On the bright side: the more those big corporations will be encapsulating their customers, the greater the pressure and demand for converters, translators, interpretators, or other work-arounds.



    So Adobe, Apple and Google are "encapsulating" customers by abandoning a poorly performing, battery hogging, proprietary tech in favor of open web standards. And I guess we enter an era of open web standard work arounds?



    Quote:

    It's the waterbed effect. They are creating their own Nemeses.



    If I knew what those things were I'd probably disagree, as it is I'm just horrified.



    See, the problem being this a stock "big corporations want to eat our souls" rant yoked to a particular case wherein you don't seem to care much about those particulars. That never works out very well. Abandoning a proprietary tech in favor of open standards is actually the opposite of what you think you're railing against.
  • Reply 57 of 71
    mhdmhd Posts: 63member
    What's Flash?
  • Reply 58 of 71
    TRUTH - in Black and White.





    Here's the real deal on mobile Flash, the truth, the facts. No fanboyism or hyperbole.





    ----



    Adobe is a tools creator. They create tools that allow developers and designers to create rich interactive applications that would otherwise be impossible.



    One of their tool sets is for the Adobe Flash plugin.



    The Flash plugin reaches nearly 99% of all internet connected pc's. Making a "safe" medium for developers and designers to use on the web. Without this massive penetration rate it would not matter if Adobe Flash could make you breakfast in bed, if not everyone can use it, it has little value.



    ----



    Adobe's reasoning behind dropping support for mobile is in no way an admission that Flash can not be a mobile web plugin, or that Adobe was not able to get it to work well, in fact these points are blatantly false.



    Adobe is a tools creator, and just like on the pc, Adobe needs a very massive penetration percentage in order for people to deploy content in the Flash format, again, it would not matter if mobile Flash could make you breakfast in bed, without a massive penetration percentage no one will use it.



    ---



    This brings us to the final, and real reason behind Adobe's dropping of mobile flash.



    Apple, who would be the easiest manufacturer for Adobe to support with the plugin because of their limited hardware configurations has decided to block the plugin. and at the same time Apple has captured nearly 65% of the mobile market.



    This means that even if Adobe could get all other manufacturers on board, they only stand to reach a 35% penetration rate, which is not enough for developers and designers to deploy to the format.



    As a tools creator, Adobe rely's on the purchasing of their tools to stay in business. The cost of enabling every new hardware configuration that comes out to run Adobe Flash player is at a huge cost to Adobe, which is difficult to justify when the end goal is at best a 40% market share... no one is going to use software that few people can access.





    So in conclusion, the real reason Adobe is dropping support for mobile flash has nothing to do with performance, battery life, or Adobe's inability to make it work well. They are dropping support because Apple blocks them, and Apple has reached a huge market share.





    In truth, the easiest manufacturer for Adobe to support would be apple due to it's few variances in hardware, and large market share, but without the support of Apple, it would not matter if Mobile Flash made you breakfast in bed, it needs to reach 95% penetration before developers or designers would even consider using it, and that just ins't going to happen as long as Apple is relavent.
  • Reply 59 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by truimagz View Post


    TRUTH - in Black and White.



    <snip> a whole ton of bullshit...</snip>



    ( to me, it's the worst thing a company has ever done, add in the miss-information, and to me it ranks right up there with watching the jews kill Jesus Christ )



    We got a live one, boys...
  • Reply 60 of 71
    Hey, at least I tried not to be biased until towards the end =)
Sign In or Register to comment.