PDA

View Full Version : Skyfire Rakes in Nearly $1 Million in First Weekend




MacRumors
Nov 10, 2010, 02:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/11/10/skyfire-rakes-in-nearly-1-million-in-first-weekend/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/11/10/152110-skyfire_icon_125.jpg

Last week, we reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/03/skyfire-web-browser-now-available-in-app-store/) on the launch of Skyfire Web Browser (http://appshopper.com/utilities/skyfire-web-browser), a new browser for iOS that enables viewing of Flash video content. The app, priced at $2.99, was quickly yanked from the App Store due to its popularity overwhelming Skyfire's servers used to convert Flash content to HTML5 format, but has since returned in limited "batches" (http://www.skyfire.com/press/blog/69-blog-post-from-skyfire-ceo) as capacity allows.

MobileCrunch notes (http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/11/10/skyfire-pulls-in-nearly-1-million-in-its-first-weekend-on-the-app-store/) that Skyfire pulled in (http://www.skyfire.com/press/blog/71-300k) gross receipts of nearly $1 million from the App Store over the app's launch weekend.The company isn't sharing exact numbers, but they did just tell me that their download numbers for their first weekend on the store were well over 300,000. At $2.99 a pop, that works out to one hell of a bounty. SkyFire isn't walking away with that whole million, of course; Apple's going to get their 30% cut, which brings SkyFire’s share down to somewhere between $600-700,000.The company has already revealed (http://twitter.com/Skyfire/status/2154080570974208) that it is working on an iPad-native version of Skyfire Web Browser, which will apparently not be released as a universal version of the existing app, as the company recommends that those who use the iPad as their primary iOS browser hold off from purchasing until the release of the iPad version.

Article Link: Skyfire Rakes in Nearly $1 Million in First Weekend (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/11/10/skyfire-rakes-in-nearly-1-million-in-first-weekend/)



Corbin052198
Nov 10, 2010, 02:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Awsome! Just wait until the iPad version comes out. I'm sure their servers will shut down for a couple weeks after the launch, though.

vvebsta
Nov 10, 2010, 02:39 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

guzhogi
Nov 10, 2010, 02:46 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.

Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?

parapup
Nov 10, 2010, 03:21 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.

Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?

No smart person will watch porn with a browser which does server side decoding of the videos ;)

WiiDSmoker
Nov 10, 2010, 03:30 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.

Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?

Battery life would show no change what so ever. The iPad is seeing it as HTML5.

paradox00
Nov 10, 2010, 03:41 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

I got it just to test it out, and I suspect many others did the same.

Processing Flash on a server means the bloat isn't on the phone, so this doesn't actually mean people want flash at any cost. That said, click to flash would be nice, but we'll never see it.

alent1234
Nov 10, 2010, 03:44 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.

Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?

i've had my battery percentage drop while plugged in while watching some iphone compatible video

rmwebs
Nov 10, 2010, 04:11 PM
This is all well and good but what happens when the cash dries up? The servers go down, leaving you with an expensive Safari.

Anything that you pay for one-time that is reliant on a 3rd party funding its operation is bad news :/

kdarling
Nov 10, 2010, 04:35 PM
This is all well and good but what happens when the cash dries up? The servers go down, leaving you with an expensive Safari.


True, but Skyfire has been around for a couple of years on other phones.

Like Opera Mobile, it's also an especially good solution for limited devices.

skeep5
Nov 10, 2010, 04:44 PM
son of a

Don Kosak
Nov 10, 2010, 04:56 PM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?

If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)

batchtaster
Nov 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

Nonsense. It means nothing of the sort. Check back in 6 months, 3 months or even 1 month and see a) how many ppl are still using it, and b) how many ppl are buying it once the first blush of excitement is over.

Opera's browser went nuts when it was released (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897606). It was the Bellepheron to the Chimera of Apple's Safari lock-in. Now where is it? It doesn't even appear on the Top 200 Free (http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/free) list.

crisss1205
Nov 10, 2010, 05:14 PM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?

If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)

So I can charge more money for 2 platforms! Thats why (I think) the SlingPlayer app will not be universal. If you want to get the iPhone and iPad app it will be $60 instead of $30

Whorehay
Nov 10, 2010, 05:22 PM
So I can charge more money for 2 platforms! Thats why (I think) the SlingPlayer app will not be universal. If you want to get the iPhone and iPad app it will be $60 instead of $30

And that's exactly why I will buy neither!

Consultant
Nov 10, 2010, 05:41 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.

Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?

Many Porn sites are smart enough to provide HTML5 alternative.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Nov 10, 2010, 06:14 PM
So sincere curiosity here: I've read the reviews and it seems like this browser can't do all the Flash-related stuff a personal would normally want to do, ranging from some popular video sites like Hulu to Flash games. I'm not missing Flash on my iPhone or iPad one bit, but I'm also a little curious at this browser's success. Is it mostly people downloading something because they feel like they're getting a thing they were told they couldn't get? Or does this product actually offer something excellent?

iSingandiDance
Nov 10, 2010, 06:17 PM
Many Porn sites are smart enough to provide HTML5 alternative.Not the free ones. Instead, they offer a mobile solution that can be had at a nominal fee.

coolbreeze
Nov 10, 2010, 07:07 PM
1 million dollars for pr0n.

Hm.

atticus18244fsa
Nov 10, 2010, 09:50 PM
Didn't they state in that one video that was posted on the homepage that they spent something like $25 million on R&D for this app? They're 1/25 of the way there:D

ipodtouch-user
Nov 10, 2010, 10:07 PM
Hey Apple - ya think your user base might be interested in Flash??

Lol.

Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.

tranceme
Nov 10, 2010, 10:44 PM
The reviews have been bad. My buddies at work can't get most sites to work. So, does this mean refunds? Or have people been getting this to work? Just curious.

vvebsta
Nov 11, 2010, 01:49 AM
Nonsense. It means nothing of the sort. Check back in 6 months, 3 months or even 1 month and see a) how many ppl are still using it, and b) how many ppl are buying it once the first blush of excitement is over.

Opera's browser went nuts when it was released (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897606). It was the Bellepheron to the Chimera of Apple's Safari lock-in. Now where is it? It doesn't even appear on the Top 200 Free (http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/free) list.

Ok I'll rephrase. People want their CONTENT regardless if its playing on bloatware or the latest trend. Allot of content just happens to be encoded in flash.

globalist
Nov 11, 2010, 03:39 AM
So sincere curiosity here: I've read the reviews and it seems like this browser can't do all the Flash-related stuff a personal would normally want to do, ranging from some popular video sites like Hulu to Flash games. I'm not missing Flash on my iPhone or iPad one bit, but I'm also a little curious at this browser's success. Is it mostly people downloading something because they feel like they're getting a thing they were told they couldn't get? Or does this product actually offer something excellent?

You're absolutely spot on here. Nothing excellent, just a short-term sense of victory over a perceived hurdle for lots of folks. I persinally have no use whatsoever for Flash on my iphone so I did not buy this app.

Seo
Nov 11, 2010, 03:39 AM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

Not an accurate deduction from this app's popularity.

See, this app is a very slick implementation of Flash on the iOS. No bloat, and everything's fast and battery efficient, because iOS sees it as HTML5. All the bloat and processing is on the Skyfire servers.

All you can tell from Skyfire's success is that people want Flash as long as it is as good or better than HTML5.

bbplayer5
Nov 11, 2010, 06:59 AM
why would anyone care if it does sever side encoding for porn? Do you think they are keeping track of your fetishes lol.

BraveArts
Nov 11, 2010, 07:28 AM
Still doesn't seem to be available outside the US. Any ideas why??
or when it might be available in Europe?? :apple:

phillipduran
Nov 11, 2010, 07:52 AM
Hey Apple - ya think your user base might be interested in Flash??

Lol.

Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.

OR, tell the web designers that iPhone users are interested in their videos and they need to stop using flash.:rolleyes:

Compile 'em all
Nov 11, 2010, 07:52 AM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

I assume this means everyone want to be able to use iFart on their iPhones too?

Just because an app climbed up the charts doesn't mean they absolutely need the app. This is not how charting in the App Store works or means. I am pretty sure millions of iPhone users will be just fine without Angry Birds.

RichTF
Nov 11, 2010, 08:02 AM
Hey Apple - ya think your user base might be interested in Flash??

Lol.

Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.
Well, in perspective it doesn't really mean much -- Apple has sold 33 million iPhones, so that's 1% which were interested in SkyFire / Flash.

PeterQVenkman
Nov 11, 2010, 09:11 AM
Nonsense. It means nothing of the sort. Check back in 6 months, 3 months or even 1 month and see a) how many ppl are still using it, and b) how many ppl are buying it once the first blush of excitement is over.

Sorry, your answer is nonsense. 300,000 paid downloads means plenty. People paid for the darn thing. People think they want it now. If they want it in the future remains to be seen, but you and I can't determine that.

samcraig
Nov 11, 2010, 10:20 AM
Sorry, your answer is nonsense. 300,000 paid downloads means plenty. People paid for the darn thing. People think they want it now. If they want it in the future remains to be seen, but you and I can't determine that.

It does mean plenty - I agree. There are a lot of developers who charge the same or less for their apps which are very popular or provide great functionality that would kill for skyfire's #s. Not to mention - they pulled the app. Who knows what they could have sold if they ignored their server drain.

People are talking how many iPhones could have sold if there wasn't a production shortage and saying the #s could be so much higher. This is no different.

It also speaks volumes about how many people tolerate/accept that there's no flash on the iPhone but who DO want it. Which I have always used in this sort of discussion. Some people like to insinuate since the iPhone and iPad sells so many units that clearly NOT having flash isn't an issue. While I agree to a point - the notion I've raised is that there's a difference between tolerating/accepting vs liking/wanting.

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 11, 2010, 10:54 AM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?

If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)


Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.

This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.

You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.

As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.

imacken
Nov 11, 2010, 12:38 PM
Still doesn't seem to be available outside the US. Any ideas why??
or when it might be available in Europe?? :apple:
I would like to know why as well.

MacTheSpoon
Nov 11, 2010, 12:43 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated

Yeah, if people had an option to download a real Flash player for their iPhones, it would be one of the most highly downloaded apps in the App Store.

rstansby
Nov 11, 2010, 02:08 PM
I was one of the people who paid $3. So far I haven't found a single flash video that will play on it, and I feel really ripped off.

1984world
Nov 12, 2010, 07:54 PM
I would like to know why as well.

It's available in the Canadian Store.

coder12
Nov 13, 2010, 12:14 AM
I think that the article meant to say, "SkyFire's", not "SkyFires" in the middle paragraph :P

Just sayin' :)

imacken
Nov 13, 2010, 03:33 AM
It's available in the Canadian Store.

That's weird. On the web-site it says US only - coming soon to ROW.

FloatingBones
Nov 17, 2010, 03:42 PM
Hey Apple - ya think your user base might be interested in Flash??

The response means that users are interested in viewing videos -- even if those views are encapsulated in a legacy wrapper of Flash. Once content providers have updated their videos, there will be no need for this bridge.

In case you missed the news, there was yet another zero day bug in Adobe Flash (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). Read that transcript: the bug affects Windows, Mac, Solaris, Linux, and Android (!) devices. Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates of their software are good enough, and the next one isn't scheduled until February of 2011. As Steve Gibson notes in the podcast:

"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?"

Apple was not willing to bind the safety and performance of their browser to Adobe Flash. Good choice!

Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.

Apple approved the app. They are allowing individuals in the marketplace to decide what's best for them.

Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.

I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 18, 2010, 04:38 PM
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.

I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.

It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable (although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).

FloatingBones
Nov 19, 2010, 10:50 AM
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.

I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.

It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable

See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.

There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.

Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?

(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).

I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.

The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.

Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.

Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.

What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?

There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 19, 2010, 05:05 PM
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.

I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).



There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.


No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.

FloatingBones
Nov 20, 2010, 01:03 AM
I don't need to do squat guy.

If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.

WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't.

In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.

It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash.

Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!

We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator.

The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.

If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)

The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve.

The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.

which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so

Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?

It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.

If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.

He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you.

This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.

The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.

He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet.

This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.

Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.

if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet.

And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.

Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?

I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.

And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!

If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 2010, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.

Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.

Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.


In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.


No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.

Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.


Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!


Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.


The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.


And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.


If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)


I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.


The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.


You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?


Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?


A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):

Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget

Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:

http://superior-web-solutions.com/

Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.

http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/

Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:


Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.

If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.


No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.


This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.


The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.


The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.


You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.


This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.


Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)


Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.


Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.


And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.


I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.

because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?


First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.

The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.


And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!


How do you keep connecting things like 'able' to 'lie' or even will to do so to 'lie'? You may risk serious defamation of character lawsuits in the future if you cannot learn to tell the difference because no lie is present in my posts period and I'm getting pretty sick of you labeling me a liar when you cannot even tell a fact from an opinion.

In any case, your "huge" concerns do no not concern me much at all. They will be fixed as all security breaches will be fixed. I have already addressed this above. You cannot use a computer in the modern world on the Internet without taking some risk of malware. OSX is not immune to possible attacks. Furthermore, I said since the first post I want an option to use Flash. You would avoid all your concerns by simply leaving it turned OFF. No zero day bug can affect Flash if it's not running.

trunten
Nov 20, 2010, 05:14 PM
You both need to calm down. One of you wants flash, the other could do without. We get it.

And by the way Apple is under no obligation to offer you Flash or anything else for that matter, you knew before your purchase that Safari would never support Flash, consider yourself fortunate that Skyfire exists.

On topic, I wonder if the ipad app will be any different? Perhaps they can embed the video in the website so it takes the place of the original flash content?

FloatingBones
Nov 20, 2010, 08:58 PM
Whom am I trying to convince?

It doesn't matter. You're not convincing anybody. Calling a CEO a communist because their product doesn't do what you think it ought to do is pretty goofy.

Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason.

You're not listening. I gave four very good -- and rational -- reasons why Flash is a bad idea for iOS. You haven't countered that reasoning. You give us things like a "communist" rant that has no business in this kind of discussion. You are the one acting in an irrational fashion here.

No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option.

If Apple did that, then they would be staking the security of iOS Safari to Adobe. And Adobe has proven to be thoroughly incompetent in securing their products. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm): "The expectation is, among the security community, that Adobe this year, in 2010, is going to surpass Microsoft as the number one target for attacks due to the continuing problems."

Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates is good enough for their software. Clueless. As security expert Steve Gibson notes: So how is that quarterly update going for you? (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt)

Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF

Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.

No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion.

See above. My arguments are rational. OTOH, you are the one who labeled Steve Jobs as a "communist dictator" in message #45 of this discussion.

That argument is purely based on emotion, it is purely nonsensical, and it is entirely wrong.

You owe the community an apology for your "communist" rant. It has no business in any rational discussion here.

Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on.

This is not a problem for the owners of the 120M+ iOS devices. Nobody forced them to buy an Apple iOS product. Many of them are quite happy that they never have to deal with Flash at all. If there's something they need to do, they can look in the App Store for an app to do that.

Note: despite asking you multiple times, you have yet to tell us of a SINGLE FLASH APP that doesn't have a reasonable alternative in the app store.

Millions of users on Macs AND Windows AND Linux also don't give a rat's ass about a single Flash app. They have installed click-to-flash blockers on their computers to muzzle flash.

Apple doesn't even ship Flash on their newest computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486&highlight=macbook+air+adobe). It's a safe bet that Apple won't ship Flash at all with 10.7 version of the OS.

Even Adobe has seen the handwriting on the wal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999&highlight=adobe+html5)l. They are now offering code that generates HTML5 instead -- for those hundreds of millions of computers that don't offer Flash. Websites will probably cut over to that completely, because they can never tell who has muzzled their Flash apps with click-to-flash on laptops and desktop computers.

Other than a small number of legacy programmers, nobody cares about flash any more.

Those flash hangers-on have been resorting to bizarre emotional arguments -- they claim that Steve Jobs is a communist dictator (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11453056&postcount=45). That is a truly bankrupt argument -- the last gasp from those defending a dying platform.

The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.

Bingo. And many of the Adobe problems also plague Adobe Reader. These are excellent reasons for laptop and desktop users to avoid both Flash and Adobe Reader.

Fortunately, Mac users have a superior alternative to Adobe Reader: Apple Preview will display PDF files faster, with less memory, and with none of the zero day security risks of Adobe reader.

No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing.

Yes, freedom! I have absolutely no Adobe Flash code that I need to run on my laptop. Gruber has documented how to go Flash-free on Mac OS X (http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/flash_free_and_cheating_with_google_chrome). On some sites, you pick up the adaptations those websites have made to deal with the 120M+ iOS devices.

I have yet to find any other Flash sites I care about. This is the dirty little secret you are ignoring: virtually all commercial sites have already adapted for iOS.

Commercial site owners are not dummies. Never mind the iOS devices: they see that their Flash ads are failing to even launch on an ever-increasing number of Mac, Windows, and Linux machines. They know about Adobe's HTML5 announcement. Those individuals have Flash muzzled with click-to-flash on their browsers. These people will convert their websites to accommodate all of the non-flash users, or they will cease to be viable.

I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash.

You have that option today: buy an Android phone.

Do you understand: no vendor is a "communist dictator" if they refuse to offer an option of running Flash code? Do you understand how irrational it was for you to use that moniker?

And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does?

What possible justification do you have for calling him a communist dictator?

Nobody is forcing you to buy any iOS device or even touch one.

A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process.

Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.

What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too?

It's unlikely that we will have a zero-day bug with MP3 files. Further, if there is a problem with MP3 files, then Apple can deal with it. They wouldn't have to count on some vendor that still thinks that quarterly updates are good enough (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt).

This is one of the four problems I originally listed with Flash on iOS. If you go back and read them (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11440568&postcount=42), you'll see that MP3 has none of those four problems.

In short, the comparison between MP3 and Adobe Flash is a FAIL.

You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack.

Nope. I never said that. I have said that Adobe is either the #2 or #1 source of remote attacks on software (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm), and that is true.

Why in god's name would you entrust the secure operation of Safari on your flagship device to a company that has such a poor track record with security?

That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again.

It's a straw man. I never said it.

Apple is accountable for securing the software they provide on their products. Further, the iOS is designed with file system firewalls to compartmentalize any compromised software.

In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far.

Based on what? Please provide a reference.

Do you listen to Steve Gibson's "Security Now!" podcast? I do. Gibson is quite impressed with the security measures installed on iOS.

A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):

Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget

Videos launch fine from gametrailers.com. And giantbomb.com. And vimeo.com. I don't see any videos on engadget.com. IDK the links for the other two sites. I did all that from my iPod Touch.

Apparently, you don't realize that servers can serve up different things based on the browser identification.

Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:

http://superior-web-solutions.com/

Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.

They serve up HTML just fine for iOS. I see nothing about the Flash that makes that approach "superior".

No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.

I don't see any of them addressing the very clear four concerns I have with Flash on iOS that I listed here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11440568&postcount=42). I don't see you addressing them either.

The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions.

If that were the case, you would actually talk about the content of what I said in the debate. You do not.

Instead, you launch off into a rant about claiming that Steve Jobs is a communist dictator. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11453056&postcount=45) That's the tell-tale of someone who doesn't quite have his emotions in check.


Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.

The announcement was back in September here (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/09/apple-opens-app-store-to-third-party-development-tools-publishes-review-guidelines/). The Adobe announcement is here (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).

No matter what the reason, there is now no excuse for Flash apps not being available on the iOS platform.

I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote?

Flash is a legacy platform. It certainly is unessential for browsing the Internet. If it were essential, then Apple never would have sold 120M+ iOS devices.

As noted earlier, Apple isn't even shipping Flash with its newest laptops, and I'm confident that Flash will not be packaged with the next version of MacOS.

All web browsers now have click-to-flash blockers. Flash's viability as a platform for delivering advertising has evaporated. I now love flash advertising, because I never see the advertisements there.

Other legacy platforms have been pushed to the wayside and are no more. Flash will be the next to go.

Even Adobe sees the handwriting on the wall (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?

First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter.

Adobe is acknowledging that there are some platforms where their customers will never be able to deploy Flash.

Adobe's smart customers will ask: if HTML5 works on all platforms, then WTF is the benefit of still generating Flash?

That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless.

If Flash developers want their apps on iOS, then they should use Adobe's new packager (see link above).

The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is.

This was already covered in the discussion in message #42.

It means there are still some websites that haven't converted from the legacy platform. Once they do, there will be no need for this bridging service. Skyfire is a bridge from legacy Flash videos to the modern open internet.

In any case, your "huge" concerns do no not concern me much at all.

You don't appear to be competent to discuss those reasons.

They will be fixed as all security breaches will be fixed. I have already addressed this above.

You failed to address them competently.

Why should Apple abdicate the security of their iOS browser to a third-party company that has demonstrated itself to be especially clueless in dealing with security problems? In an age of zero-day threats, Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates are good enough. This episode of Security Now! has security expert Steve Gibson mocking Adobe's silly policies (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.htm).

You cannot use a computer in the modern world on the Internet without taking some risk of malware.

But you can minimize your risks of malware by eliminating software from the #2 (or maybe the #1) malware target on the planet. As Steve Gibson noted earlier this year: "The expectation is, among the security community, that Adobe this year, in 2010, is going to surpass Microsoft as the number one target for attacks due to the continuing problems."

OSX is not immune to possible attacks.

They have a far better record than Adobe. Apple would be stupid to bundle Adobe's buggy software with their iOS browser.

Furthermore, I said since the first post I want an option to use Flash. You would avoid all your concerns by simply leaving it turned OFF. No zero day bug can affect Flash if it's not running.

Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.

Once again, you failed to address my question:

If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?

If you can't address that question, please don't even bothering responding.

Dias
Nov 21, 2010, 06:53 PM
I wonder whether Skyfire is just a temporary hype or it's here to stay.

FloatingBones
Nov 21, 2010, 08:49 PM
You both need to calm down. One of you wants flash, the other could do without. We get it.

And by the way Apple is under no obligation to offer you Flash or anything else for that matter, you knew before your purchase that Safari would never support Flash, consider yourself fortunate that Skyfire exists.

Thanks for the calm message. I just get upset when someone calls the CEO of a company a communist simply because the product lacks some feature they think they want. Those nonsense claims have no business on these forums.

On topic, I wonder if the ipad app will be any different? Perhaps they can embed the video in the website so it takes the place of the original flash content?

Good question. They are a well-financed company with products on a variety of handheld devices. Maybe they're reading these comments to see what people are saying; maybe not. If you have suggestions, I'd go on their website and tell them what you'd like.

Your question made me think of one interesting business possibility: maybe Skyfire will begin to offer consulting services to website owners to ease the conversion from of their media inventory from legacy Flash to HTML5 video.

Tysonfausett
Nov 22, 2010, 07:48 AM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

How good is the flash player is it even worth it? I heard it doesn't covert a lot of flash websites.

xxxamazexxx
Nov 22, 2010, 11:39 AM
WOW I'm amazed that that many people flocked to buy the app. I rarely view flash content on my iDevice and thus thought that it would be a flop.

With the regard to the previous argument, I think Steve Jobs meant well when he rejected Flash on iOS. Handheld devices are not great an environment at all for Flash with all the problems of security and performance outstanding. Since the beginning, developers on this platform have always been aware of the situation and groomed their content towards a Flash-minimal standard (even before iPhone came out, how many sites did you browse on your phones that featured Flash ?).

It is arguable that with its technical prowess the iPhone could have easily embraced Flash and minimized consumers' discontent as did Android; but being the perfectionist that he is, Steve can't let that happen citing numerous advantages of the renunciation, which are totally reasonable. So it is simply a matter of his vision, and eccentricities, you may say.

I don't agree with the likening of Apple to 'communist dictators'. Far from that, they have switched the allegiance to Intel and are slowly phasing out FireWire, which shows that while egoistically ambitious, Apple will just do what they think is best for their products and their customers. And isn't that what every business does ?

If you're personally dissatisfied with the direction Apple is headed, you don't have to blow it up into a corporate bad blood. Apple is not listening, anyway.

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 22, 2010, 03:59 PM
It doesn't matter. You're not convincing anybody.

It's amazing how you like to speak for everyone all the time. I suppose you believe that since you are the center of the Universe that you can speak for everyone all the time. To me, you look like someone that's probably still in high school and fancies himself a master debater.


Calling a CEO a communist because their product doesn't do what you think it ought to do is pretty goofy.


That's not why I called him a Communist. I call him a Communist because he acts like a 1-person dictator. It's no secret the man has control freak type issues. He was removed from Apple once already because of this problem. You don't see it because you choose not to, not because it doesn't exist. Yammering on about a thousand times in one post is no way refute valid arguments, BTW.


You're not listening. I gave four very good -- and rational -- reasons why Flash is a bad idea for iOS. You haven't countered that reasoning.


If you think I haven't countered it, then you clearly never read my post (or are incapable of comprehending it). Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript. Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.

Futhermore, offering the consumer an option to enable Flash and leaving those that do not want it to disable it solves all issues in regards to whether or not it's a good idea to include Flash support or not. You cannot or won't accept that because fanatics must defend Steve Jobs until the end no matter how illogical it is to do so.


If Apple did that, then they would be staking the security of iOS Safari to Adobe.


Oh? Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX? Your arguments are completely illogical.


And Adobe has proven to be thoroughly incompetent in securing their products. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm): "The expectation is, among the security community, that Adobe this year, in 2010, is going to surpass Microsoft as the number one target for attacks due to the continuing problems."


By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there. On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR. It is widely known that OSX has laughable security compared to Windows, but it is not targeted because it represents a tiny minority of market share. There's far more money in attacking 90% of the market than 8%. Apple regularly has security updates to OSX. Most of the time we aren't told what those vulnerabilities are/were. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that Apple has better security. But you'd rather tell me 2+2 = 5 than look at the actual data.


Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates is good enough for their software.
Clueless.


How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.


Please explain how you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-237.txt). You can't.


That is not what I said or what I proposed. You cannot win an argument on the discussions' actual merits so you make crap up like every other fanboy on here. I proposed that NO ONE that keeps Flash disabled on a system that provides the option to turn it on or off could be affected by a zero day bug. You have changed that to ALL users, which is ludicrous. Microsoft has had its share of zero day bugs in Windows itself. Should one not use Windows? If OSX were as popular as Windows it would be attacked constantly. Most Mac users live under a false sense of security to begin with.


See above. My arguments are rational. OTOH, you are the one who labeled Steve Jobs as a "communist dictator" in message #45 of this discussion.


Wow. Let's run that into the ground as if me comparing Steve to a dictator (which is quite laudable) makes all your "logic" correct somehow. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


That argument is purely based on emotion, it is purely nonsensical, and it is entirely wrong.


Considering you apparently cannot tell an opinion from a fact and logic from emotion, it's hard to take anything you say seriously let alone accept your opinion that my argument is "wrong".


Note: despite asking you multiple times, you have yet to tell us of a SINGLE FLASH APP that doesn't have a reasonable alternative in the app store.


You just drew this one out of left field. WTF does ANY apps have to do with visiting web sites that use Flash on the web ??? Since when did I talk about Flash programs versus iOS Apps ever. Are we living in the same Universe?

Honestly, I can say 100% this is a waste of my time at this point. You're not even in the same discussion as far as I can tell. I gave you entire web sites that discuss the shortcomings of Flash and you not only didn't read them, you didn't even look at them. You don't even seem to know WTF is being discussed at this point as evidenced by your rants about "Apps" that have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread or Flash. You won't accept a basic opinion that some of us would prefer a Flash OPTION than none at all, which solves the problem for those that want it and those that don't. Instead, you just look for some unrelated security issue that applies to almost every piece of code out there for potential risks and the entire OSX platform where Flash is "allowed" (and even included by Apple until recently) and even Steve Jobs own reasons for not including Flash which are based on performance, not security. An OPTION to use or not use Flash does not endanger those that opt to NOT use it, but it would let those of us that do want to use it have access without having to use some 3rd party App like Skyfire. The fact that Skyfire quickly rang up over $1 MILLION in sales shows that there is in fact (contrary to your nonsensical claims) a large demand for Flash on iOS devices and thus my argument for a mere OPTION has great merit. But instead you selfishly choose to push some notion that the world needs to have Flash exterminated once and for all, despite the fact that HTML 5 cannot replace most of the interactive and sound services Flash offers across platforms (I provided links to discussions on why HTML5 is no replacement for Flash at this time, but instead of reading them, you would prefer to falsely claim I did not address your points).


Millions of users on Macs AND Windows AND Linux also don't give a rat's ass about a single Flash app. They have installed click-to-flash blockers on their computers to muzzle flash.


And my suggestion of an OPTION to use or disable Flash accommodates them just fine. Your option of NO option accommodates only you and others that don't want Flash (and we're talking web sites, not "apps" once again), which shows you don't give a crap about anyone else except people that share your point of view. Like I said, fanatics don't care about anyone but themselves and perhaps the person they worship.


Other than a small number of legacy programmers, nobody cares about flash any more.


Yeah, that's why Skyfire sold over $1 MILLION in sales already because what you say is so true. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you provide no evidence that any of your claims are backed up by anyone but yourself. You speak for everyone on here instead of just yourself. You clearly demonstrate zero ability to reason or even contemplate valid comparisons or to exam proof offered and just post pages and pages of rhetorical nonsense. Sorry, but I refuse to even read any more of your posts. They are a total waste of my time. You take one post that suggests that some of us would like an OPTION to use or not use Flash and turn it into the holy crusade to rid the world of the evil that is Flash. Sorry, but I don't like fanatical views on ANYTHING.


If you can't address that question, please don't even bothering responding.

Don't worry. I won't bother to responding to your posts ever again. They're not worth reading.

FloatingBones
Nov 23, 2010, 12:46 AM
That's not why I called him a Communist. I call him a Communist because he acts like a 1-person dictator.

He's the CEO of a company: accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the publicly-traded company. There's no comparison between that and a communist dictator. Goofy.

Anyone who can provide a rational reason why these two things are comparable, please chime in.

Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript.

That's a terrible argument for having bundled Adobe products on iOS.

Adobe products are a large risk on Mac OS X. It's unbelievable to me that Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.

If you only view PDF files, you shouldn't even have Adobe Reader installed on your OS X computer. Apple Preview is better, faster, and far less bug-prone.

Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.

It's about both the performance and the security risks.

It's also about the identity-leaking through Flash cookies. Perhaps you missed that security discussion: more than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt). Flash cookies do not honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser; many users don't even know that Flash maintains its own set of cookies.

It's about the quirky UI interactions with Flash. Scrolling works differently when the mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that is displayed in a flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.

Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX?

Software is much more tightly-controlled on iOS devices. There is a file system firewall between every app. Third-party apps must be submitted to Apple before they can be distributed, and Apple has the capability to remotely disable any third party app that begins to exhibit a malware-like behavior in the field.

Some of those controls are about advances in OS development since Mac OS X. Some have to do with the nature of the device: handhelds are more appliances than laptops.

One other reason to ban Flash on iOS: Flash apps can be packaged as iOS apps. This should be safe because of the way that iOS apps are firewalled from each other and the kill switch that Apple can use if an app is found to be rogue.

There are fundamental differences between iOS devices and laptops/desktops. Also, Apple no longer ships Adobe Flash on their newest computers. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486) I'm guessing that Apple will ship Flash on no computers starting with the release of OS X 10.7 next year.

By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there.

I don't believe you read that headline carefully: Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm).

On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR.

No reason to shout.

Perhaps it indicates they have some fundamental problems in their software engineering. Did you read the podcast transcript about the latest Adobe bug? Adobe Reader has the same zero-day glitch as Flash. How does a PDF viewer get executable bugs like this?

How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.

Apple updates their software when updates are needed.

The point is that quarterly updates are far too infrequent. Did you read the transcript of the Security Now! podcast? Given the continuing number of Adobe zero-day bugs, Gibson asks:

"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)

That is not what I said or what I proposed.

You proposed that Apple include Flash with iOS Safari and that users could turn it on. How you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). You can't.

I proposed that NO ONE that keeps Flash disabled on a system that provides the option to turn it on or off could be affected by a zero day bug. You have changed that to ALL users, which is ludicrous.

Incorrect. You misread my words.

Microsoft has had its share of zero day bugs in Windows itself. Should one not use Windows? If OSX were as popular as Windows it would be attacked constantly. Most Mac users live under a false sense of security to begin with.

Do you listen to the Security Now! podcast? Have you listened to what security expert Steve Gibson says about iOS security? He is quite impressed.

The largest vulnerability is probably through Safari. The addition of Flash to Safari would substantially decrease the security of the software. Given Adobe's track record, I can't imagine how any rational person would disagree with that.

WTF does ANY apps have to do with visiting web sites that use Flash on the web ??? Since when did I talk about Flash programs versus iOS Apps ever. Are we living in the same Universe?

You say that Flash is indispensable for iOS devices. I'm challenging that: I'm asking you to name a single Flash app that doesn't have a reasonable (or even vastly superior) alternative in the App Store. Further, any Flash app can now be packaged as an iOS app.

I gave you entire web sites that discuss the shortcomings of Flash and you not only didn't read them, you didn't even look at them.

You listed several sites which you claimed didn't have HTML5 video. That was wrong. Videos launch fine from gametrailers.com. And giantbomb.com. And vimeo.com. I don't see any videos on engadget.com. IDK the links for the other two sites. I did all that from my iPod Touch.

Do you have an iOS device? Did you test your claim before making it?

And my suggestion of an OPTION to use or disable Flash accommodates them just fine.


If Apple added Flash to iOS Safari, any users turning it on would be vulnerable to Flash's zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). Further, Apple would not be in control of the fixing of those bugs.

There is a safe way to run Flash apps on iOS: package the Flash as an iOS app. If there are actually Flash apps that users can't live without, this is the safe way to provide those Flash apps on iOS machines. Apple will distribute those apps with a 70/30 split of the sale price to the developer. If the developer wants to make the software free, Apple will freely distribute the software to anyone who wants it.

Flash is not viable as a means of delivering content to all browser users. Even Adobe realizes this; they are shifting their focus away from Flash (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).

Green R
Nov 23, 2010, 05:34 AM
Look... I don't want to be a hater or anything like that but I have a first generation Ipod Touch... I got it as a present for my birth day, a month latter my wife have an Iphone 4 for her birthday so she sold her 3gs that i used to compare with My phone, the nexus One, look guys I need to be honest here, I got FULL Flash in my phone since it came out in the app market , and so far NOT a single problem with it, I remember when Jobs says it is not possible for a mobile device to have flash blah, battery drain, blah, poor performance blah, blah, blah... Dude flash is Awesome on my Android phone! no lag, no battery fast drain fast, no problems!!! do you guys have any tiny little Idea how @$#%^ cool it is going to www.newgrounds.com on my phone!? do you know!? or just playing online games like the ones on www.arcadepod.com? plus most of the apps are free!!! including that pathetic flash converter browser Skyfire that by the way is being in Android app market for like forever already!!! also it is sad that you have to Root (aka jailbroke) to get 20% more "liberty" with your phone! I already "convert" 4 Iphone users to Android at my job (400 plus workers) the rest are just plain envious of what android is capable of!!! without ROOTING!!! ahhh and don't get me starting in what you can do with a Root Android phone... My next Phone will be the Android HTC G2 that once rooted you can "BOST" to the phone to its real power........... 1.4 ghz!!!!!!!!!!!! With no battery issues!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVORX-ZFblA :eek:

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 23, 2010, 03:37 PM
There is a safe way to run Flash apps on iOS: package the Flash as an iOS app. If there are actually Flash apps that users can't live without, this is the safe way to provide those Flash apps on iOS machines. Apple will distribute those apps with a 70/30 split of the sale price to the developer. If the developer wants to make the software free, Apple will freely distribute the software to anyone who wants it.


I'll say this one last time. Flash is not an app! It's a method of delivering content on a web site. You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude. As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins. This Skyfire app is proof of that. I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.

Green R
Nov 23, 2010, 10:48 PM
I'll say this one last time. Flash is not an app! It's a method of delivering content on a web site. You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude. As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins. This Skyfire app is proof of that. I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.

In Ios perhaps... But in Android Market it is.

jafan pit
Nov 23, 2010, 11:04 PM
Yes, Microsoft is (and always has been) moving into other areas and fails in some, but their software machine is very strong in the client desktop software and server market. Their business and monopoly just keeps growing, they aren't desperate. All business tries to expand, especially when you have billions of spare profit to burn every quarter. Wish I was as "desperate" as them.

FloatingBones
Nov 23, 2010, 11:35 PM
I'll say this one last time. Flash is not an app! It's a method of delivering content on a web site.

If there were not Flash applications, then Adobe would not have developed and released its Packager for iPhone (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).

Flash is also a way to deliver video. The Skyfire App (http://skyfire.com/product/iphone) is a way for iOS users to view those legacy Flash videos. When sites update their video to be HTML compliant, bridging services like Skyfire will no longer be needed for that conversion.

Finally, as you note, Flash is also a way to deliver web content.

You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude.

Why not? That sounds like the exact purpose of Adobe's new packager tool.

As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins.

Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.

As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is rapidly developing a Flash to HTML5 converter (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999):

Here's what Adobe blogged about that (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html) after a demo at their Adobe MAX 2010 conference in October:

How could I create rich experiences that run on desktops (where Flash is the obvious, consistent (cross-browser/-platform) choice) and on iOS devices where Flash isn’t allowed? I’d have to create two versions of a everything–one Flash, and one HTML5*. Good luck getting clients to double their budgets, though, and yet they don’t want richness cut in half.

So, the opportunity: Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes & we’ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers. [...]

Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.

Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.

This Skyfire app is proof of that.

Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion. It's also not a complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.

I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.

That would be good.

Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 24, 2010, 08:04 PM
Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.


For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite. You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.


As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is


That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude. That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing. You obviously are deluded at this point since you cannot tell the difference. You apparently are under the impression that iOS came FIRST. Well, it didn't and the only person stopping Flash from working in iOS is Steve Jobs. Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now. You just don't seem to comprehend that.


Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.


Because not every web browser works entirely/properly/uniformly with HTML5 and Flash existed long before it and does many things HTML5 cannot do on its own. I could invent something called HTM7 tomorrow, but that doesn't automatically mean everyone should dump everything in existence and replace their web sites to use it instead. You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash. Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.


Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion.


Gee, no kidding. It's not optimal. That's precisely what I said in the first post. I would even go as far as to say having to use Skyfire to view Flash video SUCKS. Users should have the choice to have the OPTIMAL solution for Flash, that is to have the ability to view Flash in iOS devices directly!!! ;)


complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.


I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5. The WEB worked fine before it and it will work fine without it. Just because old Obi-Wan wants to go on some fool crusade doesn't mean you have to.


Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.

Adobe is simply out to make money dude. Their mission is clear. Steve, however is the one on some darn crusade, although I dare say it's a personal crusade and a mission to shove his weight around because he can not because iOS cannot handle Flash.

FloatingBones
Nov 25, 2010, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.

What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.

No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.

You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.

But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.

That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.

Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.

You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.

You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.

The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.

You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.

If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:

"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)

I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.

That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.

Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.

If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).

One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.

Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.

Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).

Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.

You just don't seem to comprehend that.

You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.

You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash

There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.

The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.

and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.

You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.

I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.

If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.

Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.

Now you know better.

I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.

Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.

Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.

Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)

Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.


Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.


Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).

MythicFrost
Nov 26, 2010, 05:09 AM
I'd say one of the biggest reasons why Apple won't let flash on iOS is simply because flash doesn't mix well with multi-touch.

People are going to encounter lots of flash that doesn't work or doesn't work well, and it will cause potential security issues, crashing, etc., Apple doesn't want their named tarnished -- your typical user isn't really going to understand that flash is crashing, not the actual browser, so Apple gets the blame instead of Adobe.

The fact is, flash is useful for somethings but is also being used for many things it shouldn't (or would be better suited for something else), flash is everywhere, and personally, I think it needs to die so we can start anew with HTML5 or another codec which fixes Flashes shortcomings.

FloatingBones
Nov 26, 2010, 11:44 AM
I'd say one of the biggest reasons why Apple won't let flash on iOS is simply because flash doesn't mix well with multi-touch. [...]
The fact is, flash is useful for somethings but is also being used for many things it shouldn't (or would be better suited for something else), flash is everywhere, and personally, I think it needs to die so we can start anew with HTML5 or another codec which fixes Flashes shortcomings.

Well-said on both points. There's a tremendous amount of overlap between the functionality of HTML and Flash. I have a friend who hired someone to make his multi-page website. The site is completely passive: it could have been implemented solely in HTML. There was no upside for the website owner in implementing his site in Flash. The downside is clear: at the very least, there are browser users on 120M+ devices that can't view the website. If you read Adobe's blog entry about their new Flash->HTML5 converter (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html), you'll see they get it: the Adobe staffer notes the advantage of having to generate only HTML5: "Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes."

Apple is serving to simplify the browser experience for everyone. It's hardly a surprise that some extremists are upset that their sacred cows are being dealt out of the game. They resort to some absurd name-calling (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11453056&postcount=43&highlight=communist+dictator). Those nonsensical complaints will wind down in the next few months. As the Adobe blogger noted (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html), Flash Professional used to export Java. Now, the tools will generate HTML5. Life goes on.

If there are outstanding Flash apps for iOS, they can be packaged as iOS apps (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/) and distributed through the App Store. I'm personally skeptical those packaged apps will ever be popular on iOS devices. The point is that the marketplace will get to decide: the developers and the users will have a choice.

MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 26, 2010, 03:09 PM
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.

No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.

The only thing nonsensical around here is your insistence that everything you say is correct and that no one else is allowed to have an opinion but you on a given subject.

You like to speak for other people and act like they agree with you with no basis what-so-ever to come to that conclusion. Like I said three times now (and which you ignore, along with pretty much everything in my posts), this very thread and the sales thereof indicate a HUGE interest in being able to view Flash on iOS devices and no amount of BS nonsense on your part will change that fact. People get along without Flash until now because they had no choice (thanks to Steve). Your implication that people would return an iOS device based on just a single feature alone is ludicrous just like the logic in your posts in general. I've pointed out there is no equivalent of the iPod Touch from Android and therefore no reasonable alternative regardless of one's feelings about the inability to view Flash web sites. Instead of just acknowledging that not everyone likes Steve Jobs decision to not allow Flash (hardly an unreasonable opinion to have and clearly shared by everyone who bought this app to be able to view those sites), you just continue RANTING like a high school debate team student does just for ranting's sake. Sorry dude, but in the real world not everyone is going to agree with you or share your point-of-view about opinions. Opinion is a word you should look up, BTW since you clearly either cannot tell them from facts or simply won't allow anyone else to express their opinion without jumping down their throat. Take your pick.

FloatingBones
Nov 26, 2010, 11:43 PM
this very thread and the sales thereof indicate a HUGE interest in being able to view Flash on iOS devices and no amount of BS nonsense on your part will change that fact.

The popularity of SkyFire is a wake-up call to website owners to update their media inventory from legacy Flash wrappers to HTML5.


Your implication that people would return an iOS device based on just a single feature alone is ludicrous.

Flash is either a mission-critical for people or it is not. Evidently it is not mission-critical to the owners of 120M+ iOS devices.

I've pointed out there is no equivalent of the iPod Touch from Android and therefore no reasonable alternative regardless of one's feelings about the inability to view Flash web sites.

Makes no difference. If Flash were mission-critical, they wouldn't be using an iPad.

Instead of just acknowledging that not everyone likes Steve Jobs decision to not allow Flash

We're all very clear you don't like the decision. There are plenty of Flash fanboys. If they want Flash in browsers, they shouldn't use iPhones, iPads, or iPod Touches.

The owners of 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. There are serious problems with Flash on laptop and desktop computers:

Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.

Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.

Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users.

Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.

You can't competently address those serious concerns with Flash in a browser.

(hardly an unreasonable opinion to have and clearly shared by everyone who bought this app to be able to view those sites)

See above. There are serious fundamental problems with Flash on websites. There's also a fundamental problem with Flash for advertisers: more users are blocking their ads with click-to-flash blockers every day. Putting your content in Flash now decreases the odds that it will be seen by users.

Adobe understands all of this. They are providing tools to update sites from Flash to HTML5 (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html). Sites should do the same and get their videos updated to HTML5. Lose the Flash, and you'll be able to serve up your content to all browser users on all platforms.

I'm sure there's some reason you're unhappy with that solution. That's fine. You're welcome to be a Flash Luddite if you wish.

Da Dealer
Dec 8, 2010, 03:18 PM
it still wont run on hulu

FloatingBones
Dec 12, 2010, 11:03 PM
it still wont run on hulu

But the hulu plus service runs just fine (http://www.hulu.com/plus#devices) on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. There is no technical reason why regular hulu can't run on your iOS device. It's a financial decision by hulu.

NickkyJ
Dec 15, 2010, 01:14 AM
installous sounds like a good idea for all you hacks that dont have the 2.99 lol jk jk
i love this app bye bye safari!!!!!!