tsk tsk, fail
A person from adobe can't even photoshop the menu bar into the right orientation. ^^
The Flash mob over at Adobe has escalated its attack on Apple for Cupertino's refusal to allow Flash on the iPad. If one picture is worth a thousand words, one Flasher has just launched a 12,000-word volley of derision. On TheFlashBlog, Adobe platform evangelist Lee Brimelow's web site for all things Flashy, you can now find …
The site on the right uses the pornotube VOD delivery platform which by the way is a good indicator of what GooTube will be in 6 months or so. GooTube tends to deliver the same stuff businesswise as them after 6-9 months delay.
So pornotube itself would have been a more appropriate example.
Anyway... We should get used to it. Welcome to Web 3.0 distopia - The web censored by the puritans - a kiddie (and anti-gov) safe media: no A size cup tits if porn, no subversive talk, no ordinary cittizen commenting when not desired. Comply. Consume. Porn only in missionary position. Dissent only when so permitted and when the tablet has allowed you to use the keyboard to dissent.
Apple is only "delivering the vision" of the North American (and by coincidence antipodean) taleban here, it is not actually authoring the vision. It is doing pretty good job though... When you combine it with what Google is doing we may end up screaming for Microsoft of Billy The Borg to come back.
Well no surprise there then - no doubt un-ashamed monopolist tendencies are OK if you can do no evil. Stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap, control the future; block your competitors. You can only have what we control and be damned happy doing it.
What a pity - it would have been so easy for them to have taken a different tack (even Open source). And I was thinking of buying one ... maybe I will wait and see what the Android Alternative will be ...
Typical Apple dictatorship trying to prevent end users doing what they want to do with the device that THEY have bought from Apple.
It's their device they should be allowed to install what they want on it not have some dictatorship company acting like they still own the device when it's been sold.
So the web on iPad is without Flash, that has certainly put me off ever wanting to buy one then.
Have Apple ever taken a look at the internet if you turn Flash off? The majority of sites are just big blank blocks, mainly because web developers don't see any point in incorporating a non-flash version of their site.
I was recently working on one company's website and was told to not bother putting the non-flash images in, and after developing a problem with Flash on my laptop and having to disable it I quickly found out that this wasn't the only company that doesn't bother to make websites accessible to those without Flash player.
I really frown on companies who don't bother with supporting users with older machines that either can't run Flash, or not thinking about people with disabilities who use screen readers that can't cope with Flash, but I think Apple are being really silly locking out Flash from the iPad.
I seem to remember the PSP when it first came out with a lack of Flash and it wasn't long before Flash was put on the PSP as the web browser on the PSP was useless without Flash, same thing could happen with the iPad if Apple aren't careful.
I have no great love of flash but there is no denying that there is a veritable mountain of useful content for it. For free at the end of a url. Chances are that if there's an app for that for $$$, there is a flash app for that for nothing.
This is the only reason Apple denies flash on their systems. Same goes for Silverlight, Python, .NET, Java or any other alternative runtime that would allow users to make their own choices. Not just runtimes but apps that "compete" with Apple technology or offends their 3G providers - voip, IM, browsers etc.
Apple wants people to spend money in their store, and if that means stomping on customer rights, so be it. From a consumer perspective this behaviour is appalling.
While Apple's motives may well be mostly self-interest now, Adobe only has itself to blame for giving Apple the excuse to do this. The simple fact of the matter is that on OS X, Flash runs like a weeping bag of rancid dog's cocks when compared to the Windows version, even on the same hardware.
Adobe is currently trying to make much of how the speed deficit is not of their making, and that Apple doesn't expose the necessary APIs for hardware acceleration in the same way Windows does. This may be true, but hardware acceleration was only recently introduced in version 10. What, then, is the reason that previous versions of Flash ran so poorly under OS X, when the question of hardware acceleration was irrelevant?
Also, they conveniently ignore that fact that the Flash plug-in is the #1 cause of crashes in Mac browsers. How is that instability related in any way to the availability of hardware acceleration?
>Have Apple ever taken a look at the internet if you turn Flash off? The majority of sites are just big blank blocks, mainly because web developers don't see any point in incorporating a non-flash version of their site.
Apple may not, but a few days ago I found a flash blocker for my MacBook. Bye bye flash.
Now, my MacBook doesn't do a hair dryer impression when I read sites like El Reg for instance, with the huge numbers of flash ads they have. Or for that matter, any other site that has flash ads.
Ironically, I don't mind ads on websites, many have to make a living somehow, but that doesn't mean I want them to use 100% of my processor though. It doesn't mean that I want a gale of hot air from the back of my machine.
And as for porn - you ever tried to surf a porn site quietly when the fan is puffing its heart out? Why bother muting the screams of 'delight' from the ladies when the processor is busy heating the house and making more noise than a jack hammer!
I was asked yesterday by a friend what all the fuss about. So I showed her a music video on Youtube. I also showed her the fan speed on my processor. 2 minutes in, the fan is at 6,200rpm, the battery remaining has crashed through the floor, and she quickly understands why OSX users are frustrated with Flash. And then I mute the video - another exclamation about how loud the machine had become from its fans!
Maybe, just maybe, Adobe would put a little less effort into berating Apple for the audacity of not including its plugins, and put a similar energy into making a Flash plugin for OSX that actually works properly!
Maybe, Adobe employees could stop posting on their blog, and actually tackle the problem that OSX users face in their crap plugin!
"The majority of sites are just big blank blocks, mainly because web developers don't see any point in incorporating a non-flash version of their site."
I'll remember that next time I'm accessing El Reg, BBC News etc
The MAJORITY of sites don't use FLash AT ALL. (I wonder why, ha ha ha)
In fact, I'm trying to think of a website that is purely flash based. Can't do it. Can't even think of one where Flash is needed (except iPlayer)
"I was recently working on one company's website and was told to not bother putting the non-flash images in,"
We're you also asked to make sure it worked in IE5?
Yeah, but no one making you buy it mate?
Perhaps they are, is there someone next to you right now with a gun to your head forcing you onto the Apple site to buy Apple kit?!
Techno-lust is all it is! Pure and simple. You want it and you want it your way! Well tough luck the world doesn't work that way sonny.
If Apple want to cut off half the potential market by doing something you don't like, that's their own stupid fault, they must a have reason for it. They sell the device, they dictate the conditions the device comes with, don't like? Well f**k off and buy something else that does work the way you want it to!
Still want it though don't you? Then you turn around call people who buy it, "Sheeple"! Pot, this is Kettle, I think you have a lot in common.
"It's their device they should be allowed to install what they want on it..." Theoretically, a user can put what they want on the device, so long as it is a different OS to the one supplied. What you naysaying numb-nuts often forget is the "software licensing model". When one buys pretty much any device, you agree to and are bound by the terms of the developers license to use the software. Yes, the individual may own the hardware, but they sure as hell don't "own" the software on it, simply a license to use he software. This is even true of OSS. I suggest that you stop pontificating and read the various licenses out there.
"Have Apple ever taken a look at the internet if you turn Flash off?" Quite possibly. Stop and think about what you are saying. You are essentially suggesting that the majority of content is Flash based. It's not. The majority of ads are Flash based *IF* the flash plug-in is detected, funnily enough The Register on my desktop renders Flash ads and on my phone renders HTML ads. So, with a little bit of know-how the need for Flash is instantly mitigated. honestly JS, HTML and CSS are really easy to use - and if the individual developing/designing the site says they are a web designer/developer I'd at least expect them to know HTML and CSS. Which leads nicely to the fact that the 42 MILLION iPhone users that don't seem to miss Flash that much at all. Yes, I'm sure that there are some that do, but more damningly I bet a lot more don't even notice! So I guess one could argue that Apple do in fact have a vague idea of what they are doing. Flash is abhorrent. Microsoft have been unfairly accused of intentionally slowing web standards development down when the real culprits are the overcharging, bloatware making Adobe Systems Inc.
Ok, yes I know flash has its uses and that you can get some really good flash clips that are designed really well, but 90% of flash used on websites are always bug infested cpu heavy rubbish.
I won't be getting an iPad, or at least not yet (have an iphone) so I am kind of glad flash was blocked. Flash has been proven to be very unsecure and apple are trying to protect the clueless while also pushing for open internet standards (pinch of salt here)
Yes it turns out that the ones that do have a clue tend to be controlled as well but it's the many tards that ruined it for the few.
Before anyone says it, no I am not a "fanboi". I don't buy every Apple product under the sun just the ones I like and find useful.
- Sir Alien
Actually, the lack of flash on the successful Apple products is a good thing!
Firstly, flash (and other Adobe products like acrobat plug-in) have such a piss-poor security record that it can only help end users.
Secondly, it should encourage web designers and advertisers not to riddle their sites with flash for everything, hogging bandwidth and forcing users in to the piss-poor security of the flash player.
Thirdly, it might just get HTML-5 video and so one pushed forward leading to proper open standards for por..er video delivery and not relying on closed, questionable, 'Trojans' such as flash and silverlight.
Look are recent hacking contests, the common vector for falling Windows and MacOS (and likely LINUX as well) was a flash vulnerability. Of the sort that Adobe took 4 weeks to patch... Remember LINUX and MacOS users, even without any OS privileged escalation routes, a flash vulnerability still allows a single user's *own* account to be compromised!
Prior to removing the Bang Bros image, Mr Lee posts on his comments,
"I’m not playing up any porn angle. But it is HUGE part of the web and is almost entirely Flash-based. Plus I pixelated the screenshot in Photoshop. I thought it was nice work :)"
And there we have half of the problem with Flash. The authoring software requires no skill and only a modicum of intelligence to use, and doesn't care if your SWF has absolutely no skill or intelligent thought in it's construction.
Back when Flash wasn't on 99.9% of browsers, Flash "artists" used to do awesome stuff with it.
These days useless people use it for everything.
It's certainly *not* the web the way it was supposed to be browsed. That was HTML, and it did a fine job even on it's lonesome.
Flash Gordons alive
what no Ming the Merciless on the iPad - say it aint so.
for the last 3 or 4 months ive been running Click to Flash on my Mac and delighting in having grey boxes where the flash should be - about the only time i've clicked on the box to load the flash has been for you tube based video. and, guess what,you tube runs on the iDevices as they re-encoded everything into h264 realising that how big the apple market was and thats the way the apple wind was blowing .
admittedly I've no interest in playing browser based flash based games on my mac so its been a great experience being mostly flash free - no flickering distracting adds make aworld of difference
i recommend Click to Flash to all mac users
"guess what,you tube runs on the iDevices as they re-encoded everything into h264"
It only works on the youtube site, embedded videos (like some of the reviews on this site) don't work, you just get lego blocks.
Sure there are a lot of people who don't like/want flash but there are also people who want it. I use a flash block add-on for firefox, but I can click the box if I want to play a video. I don't have any such choice on my iPod touch. I'm sure there are people that will pass on an iPad once the find out they can't play farm vile on it.
Adobe and p0rn eh? Let see...
Photoshop: Lets you "touch up" images to increase certain "proportions"
Flash: Lets you "watch" certain websites which often contain the words "porn" and "tube" or similar
Adobe Reader: Lets you read back copies of "Saucy Wives" or "Big Jugs Monthly" on your netbook (with membrane keyboard naturally)
Blimey! Adobe really is an innovative company after-all! My estimation of their worth has increased somewhat!
Paris, of course!
..where I am starting to hope that both sides will lose.
Apple have put out some good machines in recent years (my unibody MBP is such a workhorse, utterly dependable, and I love my iPod touch), but they seem to be drowining in hubris again.
Adobe have been improving the performance (if not the security) of flash with lots of GPU acceleration, and sorting out the mess that is the linux plugin- but they're being obnoxious too.
Can has both taken down a peg plzkthx?
I just took a look at the blog post. No, I won't miss any of those.sites, and those are the best he can come up with? I use NoScript, so flash just gives a nice blank area which normally indicate where irritating ads would normally appear. Or, if it takes up most of the screen, indicates a worthless site I am unlikely to ever go back to.
I think I must be doing something wrong in my internet life if Flash can be so meh to me. Anyone know any sites worth visiting that use Flash for anything other than video playback? (Yes, I am guilty of lolcatting.)
It's all about the money. Apple makes their pennies from all the crap apps that run on iTunes, but they would have no control over flash websites which could offer the same apps (running over Flash) for free.
Why spend £9.99 on an application from iTunes when you can use your iWhatever to go to a Flash website (over 3G or W-Fi) and have the same content without the charge.
Seriously, open Flash, put down a button control, map that control to an mp3 with a "fart" sound, change the button controls text to "Push" and there you go, you just made 25% of the iTunes content, for free!
Apple don't care if you buy apps from the store or not. They care that you buy the iPad (iPhone, iMac, iWhatever). Their store isn't there to make much money - it's there as a reason for you to buy the iPhone/iPad.
Apple hate Flash because they don't have the ability to innovate it, to improve it, to make it at least as good as other platforms. Flash can make Apple's products look bad - and Apple can't stop it happening. I have Flash on my Nokia N810 - and seriously, most of the time it's too slow to be useful, and if I didn't know better I'd think it was indicative of the system's performance. Apple consider it better to have no Flash support rather than weak Flash support (which isn't very useful, and makes the product look bad).
As someone who has developed in Flash, I know that content written in Flash can be very poorly optimised - and that won't do any favours to a device like the iPad.
"Apple don't care if you buy apps from the store or not. ". Of course they do. They make a lot of money from people buying apps through their store. The only store.
"Apple hate Flash because they don't have the ability to innovate it, to improve it, to make it at least as good as other platforms.".
Flash is well enough documented and much of it is open sourced so that Apple could write their own version. As long as it was compatible with official Flash spec to some level no one would care. Heck they could take Gnash, fix it up and do some good by contributing their changes back just like they did with webkit. Besides, variations of this excuse are always heard when some monopoly is trying to rationalize why they don't support technology X, or they embrace & extend it into some bastardized form which is incompatible with the original. Microsoft's implementation of Java is a classic example of this.
"I know that content written in Flash can be very poorly optimised". Same goes for apps or HTML content. I could easily write some JS that bogs down the CPU and drains the battery. I daresay that many app store titles such as games take as many cycles as they can get. Again this is a poor excuse for not supporting a nearly ubiquitous web technology, especially if they were *that* concerned about such things they could make it an option in the browser which is switched off by default.
At the end of the day for better or worse Flash is an essential part of the web experience and Apple are shutting it out for their own selfish commercial interests and no other reason.
Actually, Adobe holds a number of Flash-related patents, making it difficult if not impossible to create an open-source clone. I was involved in researching this (not for Apple) and had to recommend against trying it.
Of course, Apple could take the approach they did with Eminem and just do it and let Adobe take them to court. It would take years to move through the system, giving plenty of time for HTML5 or whatever to supplant Flash.
Flash, first and foremost ain't a standard numb-nuts. It certainly isn't "an essential part of the web experience"! What a load of bollocks! Why should Apple make their own version of it?! Adobe should ante up and for a change WRITE DECENT SOFTWARE instead of the half-arsed bloated shite they like to publish these days.
"Apple are shutting it out for their own selfish commercial interests and no other reason." Based on what? The App Store? Apple's CFO, Peter Oppenheimer, said in their last financial report that the App Store and iTunes store are being run "a bit over break-even" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/app_store/). So that theory is shot down easily! They would run the both as loss leaders were it necessary. Apple DO NOT MAKE MONEY out of either the Apps or iTunes Stores. The final nail in you arse-hat theory is that Apple originally intended 3rd party apps to be delivered via the web using JS and HTML, which you have conveniently ignored. There was as much furore over the lack of 3rd party apps on the original iPhone platform as there is currently over the lack of Flash support. Could the actual FACT (a concept that seems foreign to you and your ilk) of the matter be as Apple have already stated? That Flash is insecure, buggy and unstable on the Mac platform and as a result they have decided not to implement it in the iPhone OS.
Flash is a DEFACTO standard numb-nuts, it's pretty much everywhere, despite Jobs having his head up his a***.
The App Store may break even, but it sells hardware for Apple. Now if Apple allowed Flash then possibly less people would buy from the App store, and then it would start losing money (i.e. become a COST) instead of just breaking even, eating into Apples profits.
So YES, Apple makes money from the App store because it helps them make a profit from their hardware. Think things through before you state so called "FACTS".
and it means "in practice, but not necessarily ordained by law", which also means that it is not recognised as such by anybody other than those that claim the contrary. Simply, IT AIN'T A RECOGNISED STANDARD! I, and clearly many others couldn't give a rat's pube whether or not is's a "de facto standard"...
"Now if Apple allowed Flash then possibly less people would buy from the App store, and then it would start losing money (i.e. become a COST) instead of just breaking even, eating into Apples profits." Or possibly not. Whose to say? That's not really how the App or iTunes store works though, as well you know. You are correct in attesting that Apple run both to sell iDevices, but as I'm sure I stated, they would run it as a loss leader if required. Think about silly rabbit! The way that apps were originally intended to be deployed in the iPhone OS was as *WEB APPS!!!* which would mean *NO REVENUE AT ALL!!* (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/google_voice_iphone_palm/ for an example). The App store subsidises itself. Apps sold and $99 paid by every developer covers the costs. No developers, no App store. Except there are quite a number of developers already, aren't there? In fact I can recall developers demanding an SDK so 3rd party apps *could* be developed for the new platform. No-one has vociferously demanded Flash before, and to be perfectly honest, it appears that the noise is coming from the "anyone but Apple" crowd and Flash developers, unusual bedfellows. Whether or not an iDevice runs Flash is totally irrelevant to the App store or Apple's revenue generally. Evidence? The 80 odd million iPhone OS (iPhone + iPod touch) users out there.
Flash has a history of poor performance on Apple's platforms. It's insecure. It's unstable and buggy. This is also true for Linux and Windows. The ONLY crashes I have had in Windows 7 are a BSOD after the initial installation (Waddya know?! WHQL certified driver FAIL!!!) and browser crashes due to Flash before I had managed to install the excellent FlashBlock.
So by logically and rationally applying modus ponendo ponens, we can see that:
1. Flash is buggy, insecure and unstable. It has a history of causing problems on Apple platforms. It also has an impact on the battery life of poratble devices when used.
2. Apple already allow *unmoderated* 3rd party apps on the platform in the guise of WebApps. These WebApps are usually delivered for free or in a way that Apple recieve NO revenue.
3. Previously unmentioned, but one of the main uses of Flash, video delivery, is largly mitigated by the <video> tag in HTML5, pending agreements. Rich user experiences can be delivered with AJAX and other open frameworks, mitigating the need for Flash layer.
It can be logically deduced that Flash has been left off these devices not for fear of a loss of revenue, rather for purely technial reasons based on merit, or in the case of Flash, lack thereof. QED.
Flash is a trojan horse for being able to run arbitrary content.
Apple has said that that *this* is the reason they don't support it. The same was true for an app that had an emulator (Commodore 64 if I recall correctly). They don't want hacks taking over people's iPhones or iPads (and they don't want an anti-virus industry there either). So far they've been successful and I hope this keeps up.
How many "critical" exploits have been uncovered in Flash during the last year or so. Quite a few. Adobe's stuff is like swiss cheese (apologies to the Swiss).
Funny, but many sites already adapt for iPhone/iPod touch.
Google Finance, for example, looks fine with a graph and just adds
"For the ubercool interactive charts, you need to install the Adobe Flash Player"
(Some sites go completely into "iPhone" mode, whilch will look silly on a screen of that size.)
Presumeably Apple are fully aware that Adobe Flash is the de-facto standard for videos and interactive animations etc. Surely therefore Apple would want to include Flash in their browser package for their users.
Likely scenarios are that Apple either:
1) Apple wants control over version roll-out and QA, and would like to write and distribute their own flash player - which would be good because the same package could contain their own audio video stuff in one neat package. In this case, the stopper would be Adobe wanting shed-loads of Dosh for the source code, licenses, royalties etc.
2) Apple recognises that if their platform is huge, then Adobe should pay money to Apple to make sure that their format still runs everywhere. In this scenario, Apple is probably wanting shed-loads of Dosh to allow distribution.
Simple, Two big players want to make some money off of one another! or am I missing something?
When a program crashes on a Mac, there's a little 'send a report' thing that pops up.
Enough people have send that report to Apple, and Apple has done enough datamining, to say, "Well, now, looks like Flash is causing most of the crashes of web browsers, including Safari!".
Add to that the fact that Apple had to create a new software architecture to run 32-bit Flash in 64-bit Safari in OS X 10.6, which I'm sure gave them massive headaches.
Flash is not adapting to the future; Apple is saying toodle-oo, here comes HTML5 and all its work, and the Devil take the hindmost, which is looking to be Adobe.
Too bad for them. Sort of.
Here, this says it better than I did: http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash
Can you taste the sheer desperation emanating from Adobe... it's delicious. One of the primary markets for using Flash is about to evaporate from before their very eyes.
P.S. El Reg needs an Adobe Flash FAIL icon... I suggest a blue lego.
So people are bemoaning the fact that the iPad is closed and proprietary because it doesn't support a closed and proprietary standard like Flash?
Oh the hypocrisy.
Flash sucks big time. If HTML5 and Apple's iPhone and iPad's lack of support for Flash help eliminate it from the web it will be a good thing. The iPad has many shortcomings but lack of Flash support isn't one of them. Even YouTube supports HTML5 H.264 now.
Say goodbye to Flash and let's group the Flash cheerleaders together with the Visual Basic apologizers and just ignore them.
If Apple markets this product in any semblance of the success they've seen with the iPod and iPhone, my guess is Adobe has good reason to run scared and blog about "the end of pr0n" on their site. With Google and Vimeo going to HTML5 for video and dissing Flash, 75M iPhone/iPod users dissing Flash, competition coming from Silverlight, web browsers supporting HTML5's canvas element or SVG, this could be yet another nail in Adobe's coffin. This could be a big, hard, meaty nail in Adobe's a... uh, coffin.
No wonder they're squealing.
Bringing flash to the ipad would only prolong flash's life which isn't a good thing imho. The sooner flash dies the better - it's a steaming pile of brown stuff for video delivery.
Bring on HTML5 - the same vid quality but without the wasted cpu cycles and reduced battery life which goes hand in hand with flash.
On the other hand if flash were to be properly open sourced and totally rewritten - then I'd be interested in having it on an ipad.
Although there is some political wrangling and corporate pissing-matches going on here, I think the lack of Flash on the iPhone and iPad is mostly due to the fact that Flash is so CPU-intensive, it kills battery life:
"The [Flash] prototype allowed the iPhone to have less than half an hour of battery life using flash."
A version of Flash that uses the GPU might be easier on the battery, but that would require actual effort on Adobe's part.
Not that I have any need for an iPad at the moment (I had hoped for a full-fledged Tablet PC that could run OS X and Photoshop, but I'll just have to limp along with my XP tablet for a bit longer).
Adobe have an opportunity to become "the" development platform for iPad/iPhone though with their up-coming Flash CS5. Building apps right inside Flash in native iPad/iPhone format sounds rather cool - AS3 is heck of a lot more forgiving than objective-c.... plus you wouldn't necessarily have to write any code at all yourself (looking at Flash Catalyst). Flash lends itself to the slick UIs we see on these devices.
IMO Flash is doomed as a browser plug-in, with the infinitely more flexible open tech like HTML5 and powerful frameworks like jQuery: Adobe need to find a new market, and perhaps this is the one. If they can get Flash to compile apps specifically for other platforms, like Android, or even (gasp) Windows Mobile, they could 'own' the cross-platform development field.
Killing flash is a badwidth reducer. Who benefits from less data traffic? The already sluggish ATT 3G network.
Flash avoidance benefits ATT by allowing them to continue to operate bandwidth starved a little longer. Maybe a backroom deal to keep from totally dragging down the ATT 3g performance? ATT hadperformance issues with their DSL in the'90's until a class action suit by their business customers got them to increase their capacity. The timing was just a coincidence though.
Flash is a more bandwidth efficient medium - better compression, binary, optimised file format etc compared to same content created with straight html/css/script and images. Audio/Video doesn't make much difference either way - advantage of flash is persvasion and predictability.
Apple will have to backtrack sooner or later, Flash is certainly the quickest/easiest IDE to develop app store rivals in, but there's a ton of other options they can't ban, so the protectionism is pointless
But Apple isn't even giving their paying customers a choice!
If you want to run Flash and are prepared for the battery hit then that's your choice. If you don't want to use flash then block it. It is the choice other netbook and smartphone owners are free to make.
The battery life and other excuses are an example of our culture of spin. Apple doesn't want you to be able to run apps that have not been bought from their store. Simple as.
It *is* to do with who the consumer will blame. Who is the consumer going to blame when the battery drains after just 15 minutes on a Flash based site? Adobe? Nope. Apple? Yes. Why bother adding something as insecure and buggy as Flash? If the code monkeys at Adobe can't even write a decent plugin for the OSX desktop platform, what hope is there for the idiots to write one that works safely and efficiently for the iPhone OS?
Hello @alphaman ...
> If they can get Flash to compile apps specifically for other platforms,
> like Android, or even (gasp) Windows Mobile,
> they could 'own' the cross-platform development field
it just happens that my company is precisely doing that ... you may want to have a look at :
Our ELIPS Studio 3 plugin allows to build native mobile applications for iPhone, Android, Symbian and WinMob right from your Flex / Actionscript3 code
It's impressive how so many people seem to assume that because they can downloads lots of MKVs in H.264 format that it is "open". It is not. It is a patent-encumbered MPEG-4 codec and the vendors of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology. If you are in a country that is benighted enough to assert software patents, you will owe money to the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).
First, it's h.264
It's plenty open enough- there are specs documents for what constitutes valid encoded material, a reference decoder and everything else, it's a standard. I can sit down and build tools to encode or decode it from scratch, from openly available docs, if I want (or I could just watch grass grow, obviously). What it isn't, is free- either as in beer or as in Nelson Mandela. There are MPEG LA stylee licensing feels to pay, and so forth.
Don't conflate the two.
Open in this regard generally means "open source" or "open to extension or use without royalty".
Just because the specification is documented does not make it "OPEN"! A patent is documented and the specification is freely available, but you wouldn't call THAT open!
So h.264 is NOT "open" by any definition of the word in the software community.
What you fail to realise is that none of those technologies are accessible or friendly to designers who are the majority of flash content creators. The tooling isn't going to catch up anytime soon either, and until 99% of people are using a capable browser (come on, 20% are still using IE6 for petes sake) the technology is as good as dead in the water as far as big content creators on the web are concerned.
Ever heard of flash killer plugins? On FF, flash killers are one of the most dowloaded plugins.
Speaking for myself, I have flash killers on every browser I use.
Content creators will use the tools that make them effective at reaching their market, and tool makers will create tools to fill content creator needs. That's generally how markets work, isn't it?
What you fail to realise is that to the majority of web users, Flash is something you click past so that you can actually access the web site you want to read. That's all it's for.
(Oh, and the dancing animals that could easily have been gif anims, how could I forget those)
There was a time when some bright spark decided that computers didn't really need floppy disks any more. That manufacturer had the balls to decide that their next gen of computers would have no floppy disks. Now it's pretty hard to find a machine that has a floppy disk drive.
The difference? Floppy disk drives were more-or-less reliable, weren't buggy and you weren't tied in to just one company when you started using them...
The difference to me? Sites are still using Flash for content - pretty much all the TV catchup services use it, which is my main use of it. Until this changes, I would like the choice of whether or not I can use Flash on my device.
Floppy drives? You can get an external drive or swap an old drive to my new machine but in the main, you won't need to because they are mostly defunct and no-one will hand you a floppy with data you want. But how can I watch ITV Player or 4oD on my iPad? Oh I can't... and that's just one of the reasons I won't be buying one.
I can't seem to work out whether you're for or against removing features.
On the one hand you're saying that Flash is crap and we don't need it, but on the other you're saying that old floppy drives, which generally have no use now, should still be in PC's. Either you're for customer choice or you're not. Make up your mind.
It's commonly known that Flash uses a lot of memory and GPU/CPU, two things you definitely don't want on a portable or any device for that matter add there the instability of the Flash plugin which cause 99% of the crashes of the web browsers on the Mac and you have the perfect answer of not using this technology. Adobe has to fix this first before it's usable on any iDevice.
Adobe says 98% of desktops *have* Flash, but a good fraction of those *don't run* it due to Flash blockers or the more selective Click2Flash. And now, tens of millions of portable devices MORE every year — Apple's iProducts adding to older BBerries etc — are driving an increasing share of web traffic, and also don't do Flash.
If I were a website owner running Flash ads, I'd be hurting my bottom line: reducing impressions and clickthroughs. If I were a website owner with Flash-only content, I'd be telling a growing fraction of my would-be customers, “You're too stupid/lazy to be my customer. Take your business elsewhere.” I'd be cutting repeat visitors and unique impressions.
Needless to say, these are not the attitudes of most commercial websites, no matter how much Adobe's PR lackeys say “Flash forever!” and no matter how much Steve Jobs has a messianic complex. The sites webmonkeys find the time to code around the unique ”quirks” of IE's various versions despite older versions' dwindling value, but can't be bothered to supply an alternate for Mobile Safari? Bad economics. Bad business. Won't happen.
For Adobe's sake, I hope they have a business plan that provides an option of using Flash for authoring — lots of developers seem to like it, and so what if some say they're “lazy” — while providing an output file that's readable across the whole spectrum of devices that will be browsing. Otherwise, if they believe their own marketing line, they're headed at high speed straight for a brick wall.
"Whether you, Reg reader, think Flash is a buggy resource-hogging doggie or a vital element that needs to be accepted by all browsers"
In the ideal world, the consumer could pick and choose what to run on their device. Some people will want flash, others will not. Either way apple's approach is rather draconian.
In practice in the real world I've found that sites that use Flash extensively often don't provide a non-flash alternative (or not a working one at least), so there's not that much choice apart from not visiting those sites.
Generally the same problem you used to encounter a couple of years ago quite often - visit certain sites with anything other than IE5 or 6 and be greeted with a helpful page from the site saying you need to use IE5 "or better" to use the site ("I'm using IE7" or "I'm using FF2", is this some weird definition of better that I wasn't previously aware of?).
And don't forget those who have some kind of disability that hinders their use of web generally, flash sites are often pretty hostile to their experience.
If I were running a commercial website I'd make damn sure that it worked with as many browsers as possible, which means either no flash or a working alternate. People running high street stores don't generally have rules like "no one with a blue shirt can shop here", so why the hell would you do something similar on a website?
Really, the problems with flash are well documented and Adobe et al have had more than enough time to address them. Now that a major manufacturer has stood up and said "enough" you have a choice too - you can decide to not buy their product and if flash is such a major part of your life that it's a deal-breaker then you might want to write to them and let them know why you're not buying their product.
Most of the comments I've seen are of the same ilk; "It doesn't run flash, *another* reason why I won't buy one, not that I was going to anyway, and *you* shouldn't either because without it you'll just be getting a fashion trinket that's only for fanbois." I'm not planning on buying a motorbike, but that doesn't mean no-one else should and it having two wheels instead of the four I'm more used to is my problem rather than that of the bike or the manufacturer.
What I don't get is why people think that what Apple are doing is so wrong, but have no aparent beef with any games console manufactures, who have been using a similar approach for years. Where are all the complaints that PS3 games can't be used on an Xbox 360 or a Wii?
I think there is a perception that the iPhone and iPad are something that they're not which leads to inappropriate comparisons - the iPad is not a NetBook, so comparing it to one is largely irrelevant, for example.
Apple's approach seems to be the same one taken by WinMobile.
It's this - we don't want your crappy, bloated, buggy shit and we won't be supporting it.
That's hardly draconian.
Seems sensible enough to me. There are only a handful of sites I have *ever* encountered where I have had no option but to use flash. Surprisingly, I can't remember any of them because I didn't stick around long enough. The only site I can think of that uses flash and which is actually useful is BBC iPlayer. (Not a problem for our US chums)
If it were just Flash, that would be one thing. However, the lockin to iTunes, the proprietary connectors, the lack of multitasking (inspite of consumer complaints), the suing of bloggers, the alleged patent infringement --- all add up to Draconian.
Besides, as I said, it is not just Flash, Apple want to control everything regarding their platform. Can you imagine what would happen if they got as big as Microsoft? How many other software companies would go to the wall because they were prevented from competing on equal terms because they were locked out of the Apple platform.
Already iTunes is a near monopoly!
iTunes has approx 70% of the *digital* market share. That's not even close to being a monopoly! It has approx 25% of the US music sales, and I imagine less than that globally. It has been DRM free musically since last April, so lock-in is now a strawman. The Video DRM is at the behest of the movie industry. In fact DRM was ALWAYS at the behest of the content makers, never the providers.
The "proprietary connectors". Okay, I can see the arguement there.
The lack of multitasking? Not really been that much of a problem on the iPhone, but whatever. It's a meme that raised it head after MMS and copy/paste. Just a new stick with which to try and beat the platform. Push notifications, while a little intrusive, work fine. What you and everyone else mean is background tasks. It's a trade off between battery life and function. The ability to use spotify in the background. Then again, the music I like is on my iPhone, so where is the problem? It would be beneficial, but I, and other RATIONAL individuals can see both the pro's and cons. The current status quo works, however improvement can be made. Let's see what they do with OS 4.0 shall we?
Apple aren't the first or only business to litigate against bloggers. They won't be the last.
The "alleged patent infringement"?! Oh do fuck off! Not trying to justify it, but it's not as if Apple are the only ones ever to be accused of patent infringement! The system is broken for everyone!
"Besides, as I said, it is not just Flash, Apple want to control everything regarding their platform." So don't buy their products then!
"Can you imagine what would happen if they got as big as Microsoft?" They're not far off; AAPL are 70%t he size of MSFT in terms of market capitalisation AND revenue. AAPL growth is twice that of MSFT.
"How many other software companies would go to the wall because they were prevented from competing on equal terms because they were locked out of the Apple platform." What a ridiculous statement! Do you mean like Netscape did because of IE? You do realise that there are other platforms, from other companies that are just as "draconian". What have Apple done to you? Did they steal your sweeties? Draconian? Only as much as Oracle, IBM, Microsoft Google and every other business! Apple are no better or worse than ANY of their competitors. It is fair to say that they are secrative to the point of paranoia, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
It's difficult, but my desktop PC has been running Flash-free for about 6 months now. I simply refuse to install it. Sure, some stuff doesn't work, but guess what? My PC has NEVER been this stable. It just doesn't crash, ever. Maybe coincidence, I think not.
I can understand why Apple says NO to Flash - it's a bug-ridden resource hog that rips your whole system open to exploitation. The sooner it disappears the better.
As for pr0n, judging by the iApp iStore there's about 10,000 iApps for that. So much it would be simply if Apple made a pr0n category so we could easy find it, er, not have to wade through it when looking for more reproductions of Flash-based games.
So Adobe lets (causes) then-promising technology SVG (to) die The Slow Death after 2000 finally kills it on the desktop and laptop contexts when they buy out Macromedia for their Flash market share and slick streaming media capabilities that the Adobe SVG plugin never really managed to offer (mostly due to strategic decisions seems)
Meanwhile the withering SVG community continues to plod on and develops native vector graphics and streaming video capabilities. The same native capabilities that are now supported by Apple browsers natively. The same capabilities that make it possible to do everything Flash does, except that it is less ugly.
Now, roll forward a few years and presto, Adobe are suddenly whining about access to iPad for their their Flash plugin-based solution is being hard done by and promising that the world will end if their plugin is not allowed on the iPad.
Hah, now that's funny in a bitter sort of way. There *was* an internet before flash and there was streamign media before Flash. And if critical websites need to find an alternative to interpreted flash content, then they can look to industry standards like the very SVG that Adobe effectively let die in the wind.
Who knows, maybe SVG will get a second wind outside of the smart phones context...? Yeah, I know, in my dreams. Then again, the iPad is an apparently portable device...
So why should Flash be supported when there's at least one open standard available that works on the device that replaces it?
I'm going to enjoy this show.
Two issues have come up here, Apple's iron control over their platform and the quality of Flash.
If Apple let Flash in, then they have little excuse for not letting lots of other things in. e.g. Silverlight. Apple achieve much of their user friendliness (from the consumer perspective) and stability by not having to deal with the problems of misbehaving software. Letting flash on would also loosen their grip on the ability to make money on apps. I’m happy for Apple to have their walled garden, what I’m not happy about is the 100’s of millions of free publicity they get, from the media types (including the likes of the BBC, who should know better) for the launch of every product. The media should at least be telling the public more about the limitations of these devices and less about how pretty they look.
The quality of Flash is relatively poor but it has the advantage of ubiquity. You can be pretty certain that most of your target audience will have access to Flash. Creating the same app in a more open technology would take longer and cost more, so the business decision is no to do it.
Personally I think Microsoft’s Silverlight is conceptually a better solution than Flash, but I doubt it will ever get sufficient ubiquity to replace Flash in the consumer space. I'd also prefer an open solution over Silverlight but I don't think the current candidates measure up. Even if they did, HTML 5 etc. need both support in IE, and tooling that allows companies to achieve the same results as Flash in the same time and at the same cost.
There seem to be three sides to this argument, so I'll summarise for any newcomers:
1, I won't be drinking in Apple's bar again because they don't sell shit-soup (that no-one likes anyway)
2, I don't care about the shit-soup because I won't be using an IPad to trawl for porn.
3. Mwah, mwah - Flash is my daddy and I need it sooo much.
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment here... anyone remember a time before Flash when for video / streaming media we were having to rely on Windows Media Player, Quicktime and (HORROR) RealPlayer? Software that did nothing except largely fail to work correctly through corporate firewalls, rape your system and continuously battle over file extensions?
Slag Flash off all you like. It's far from perfect but what it did do was more or less standardise embedded video playback for the web and I for one am thankful for at least that.
It will be the websites that have to adapt to a world without Flash, rather than the users. Like it or not, there will be a market on the iPad, and if you want those users on your website, making you money, you'll have to cater to them not having Flash. Otherwise your competitor will.
This may piss off FF users, since they might be the only ones without h.264 codec, but those use adblock anyway and are thus unimportant for the papers revenue stream :-)
NY Times seems to be on it's way already.
Flash will still have it's merits for building web and standalone apps, but it won't be needed for video any more.
Mines the one with the myspace page in the pocket.
Firstly, back to the original article - someone who is acting as a shill for the company he works for, and then gets his knuckles rapped deserves everything he gets.
Secondly, as far as I can see, I have never visited any of the sites that he claims are so important.
Finally, if Adobe want ubiquitous Flash support, they need to talk to the W3C and go through all the hoops to get it accepted as an open format. (Good luck with that, but they have never tried.) Until then they have no right to make so much fuss.
Like many schools, my kids' school uses the 'mymaths' website to set homework. Guess what, it uses Flash. What is the problem, anyway? Even my eee pc can make a half decent job of it. Ok, maybe it's not so good for fsfmv, but really ...
I agree flash is poor, and very often unnecessary - I personally browse the web with FlashBlock stopping nearly everything. But I LIKE the fact that it is MY decision whether or not to display Flash. On a phone, there is a good reason to avoid Flash by default. But on something like the iPad, it seems an ommision almost worthy of a mis-selling complaint ... you simply will not be able to use this product as a replacement web-machine, despite the marketting.
I'd like to know Apple's reaction were somebody to submit an alternative browser, which included Flash, to the App Store.
Would they reject it, because they can't abide Safari having competition? If so, I'd say their control-freakery is getting the better of them.
Until that point, they're free to say to people "it's our browser, write your own if you don't like it".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019