Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CBS.com Prepping HTML5 Video Playback for iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Poor boy. Jealous yet?
- Tablets as they currently exist are an even smaller niche product than the Mac itself. Not one full-featured tablet model has even come close to making an impact on the market. Why? Because they all, including the Modbook tablets, use a desktop OS with some sort of touch overlay. The iPhone, iPad and most of the newer concept tablets are using a touch-centric OS that will make them far more usable than their predecessors.
- Flash was good, while Macromedia was writing it. Adobe has done nothing but bloat and weaken Flash to the point that no matter what OS you're operating in, it sucks processor cycles. Any video (particularly ads) designed to loop endlessly just grabs more processor with each loop, often without letting go of the resources it's already grabbed. On a desktop this may not be such a big deal, but if there's an error in that video, it can saturate the CPU and eventually crash the browser. On a smaller device, this resource hog can critically inhibit its operation. H.264 is far more efficient than Flash for video and can be viewed by the iPhone with no difficulty. HTML5 uses h.264.
- Apple hasn't abused its powers, unlike certain other companies. However, pretty much from Day 1, Apple has influenced the direction computer technology has gone; it did so with popularizing the GUI, it did so with the Newton (which inspired Palm and other PDAs), it did so with the iPod, it did so with the iPhone and it's doing so now with the iPad. They weren't necessarily first with any of these steps, but they were the most influential because they made these technologies work the way they should have worked from the outset. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
H.264 is great. Guess what. A lot of custom players play H.264 and are built in flash. And these custom flash players don't have any of the issues you describe. Perhaps you're (only) referring to .flv? or bloated (and incorrectly used) .swf files that have video embedded as apposed to being referenced? Or maybe you're just throwing around some info you read somewhere. I honestly don't know which is the right answer there..
lastly - what's with the "poor boy. jealous yet?" Is that really mature? You want to argue/debate points but begin your post with a 12 year old taunt?
Sure, but Flash is built from the ground up with a mouse in mind. The workaround would be so extensive, you might as well just do HTML 5 instead. At least then you are building with an open standard instead.
And you know this how?
I've seen how flash could interact with a tablet and without a mouse. Have you?
How is it that those who are buying the iPad claim to have such VISION about the future and that anyone that doesn't get the iPad can't fathom it - yet the same people lack any vision when it comes to how something like flash could work on a tablet.
I think the answer is - they can - they just hate flash so much they are "willing" it dead. Good luck with that.
Since I didn't claim any such thing about you, you are obviously upset about something. I'm not. Flash is irrelevant to me. The tide of computing is leaving it behind. It will be marginalized from all that I can tell. In the meantime it exists and does well. Enjoy it.
OOP Programmer
YES! YES! YES!
I'm an enterprise software developer ( C# .NET, please don't shoot me ), and nothing about Flash says "good OOP architecture". There is a reason it's called ActionSCRIPT. It's just a scripting language. Code re-use, development environment, team programming is a nightmare with Flash. Not to mention, it crashes all the time.
Nothing is worse than developing high-end business solutions to run a company; credit card processing, inventory, shipping, online sales, user management and then have someone want to put FLASH on top of it.
YES! YES! YES!
I'm an enterprise software developer ( C# .NET, please don't shoot me ), and nothing about Flash says "good OOP architecture". There is a reason it's called ActionSCRIPT. It's just a scripting language. Code re-use, development environment, team programming is a nightmare with Flash. Not to mention, it crashes all the time.
Nothing is worse than developing high-end business solutions to run a company; credit card processing, inventory, shipping, online sales, user management and then have someone want to put FLASH on top of it.
No - not upset. That would be the wrong word. And I wasn't directing that at you. Other people are reading the thread and know exactly what I'm referring to. I'm sure you've seen what I'm referring to as well in other threads. No matter.
The tide of computing is leaving it behind? Says who? The only evidence we've seen of change is that people are now using another technology in TANDEM to further their reach. That's not replacing (at this stage) - that's co-existance.
It will be marginalized from all that I can tell. Interesting. From all I can tell, a lot of people have opinions that are nothing more than that - opinions. Not facts. LOL
The zealotry is on the part of the anti-Apple crowd. They don't even make good shepherds because Apple keeps stealing people away from their flock.
Don't you mean city-state? This 'garden' is far bigger than even fabled Babylon
Locked down? Believe me, compared to what I put up with in Windows, the iPad will be a breath of fresh air.
Nope. Because Flash doesn't give you a choice, except to ignore it. At least Apple offers a viable alternative that works. When Macromedia created it, Flash was great! Unfortunately, almost as soon as Adobe bought it and put out their first update, Flash started going downhill--becoming ever more buggy and susceptible to malware exploits. Flash is now one of the PC's biggest highways for trojans and other malware to invade.
There are other devices that don't use Flash either--yet. If the trend started by YouTube, NBC and CBS continues, they won't need to.
He didn't say 'evidence' in that sense, and 5 years will be absolute proof unless Adobe gets their tails in gear and starts fixing it. Heh, maybe if they sold Flash to Apple, we could see what Flash is really capable of. But I don't expect that. If you ask me, the fall of Flash will become evident by the end of this year, though it may take a couple years for it to fade away entirely.
LOL - that's a design/company issue not a flash issue though. Flash has its place and uses. It's a tool. And there will be people that use it appropriately and those that have no clue. While flash may have its shortcomings (like any technology including the iPad) - some of the arguments against flash aren't against the technology at all - but either stupid designers, or other people implementing it in places or ways it shouldn't.
That's all any of us have in this thread: opinions. Time will tell. Sorry if I misread your emotions. It can be hard to tell in print.
Jobs isn't the only one to "ban" Flash.
Remember that many other mobile devices do not support Flash; since these other companies are running content stores like the iTunes Store/App Store, they have no financial basis to deny Flash.
As a matter of fact, they all claim that they ban Flash for performance reasons. Even Mozilla removed Flash support at the 11th hour before the release of Firefox Mobile for Maemo, again specifically claiming that Flash performance was unsatisfactory.
This is not Steve Jobs' personal vendetta against Flash. Much of the mobile world finds Flash to be an unsatisfactory performer.
Now I know this will elicit responses by people who will yelp "Flash runs on Device X!" "It runs great on Device Y!" but the fact of the matter is that some people who design, manufacture, and market these devices have enough qualms about Flash to leave them off their devices.
What would Adobe say?
So what is Flash good for? From what Adobe ( former Macromedia ) evangelizes, complete websites can run on Flash. This includes everything I previously mentioned. There are customers who try to have e-commerce sites in Flash and Adobe welcomes it. Would Adobe say "Don't build your website in Flash"?
So what is Flash good for? From what Adobe ( former Macromedia ) evangelizes, complete websites can run on Flash. This includes everything I previously mentioned. There are customers who try to have e-commerce sites in Flash and Adobe welcomes it. Would Adobe say "Don't build your website in Flash"?
Mobile computing is getting larger. But that's ONE segment of the pie. Even if flash wasn't used on any mobile platform, there's still plenty of reason for advertisers and other ilk to use it based on, if nothing else, the amount of PC desktops that do use it.
Again - argue the merits of flash or how terrible it is. That's fine. But those thinking that flash is dead or will be gone anytime soon are just wishful thinkers. Technologies will co-exist for a VERY long time.
Again - argue the merits of flash or how terrible it is. That's fine. But those thinking that flash is dead or will be gone anytime soon are just wishful thinkers. Technologies will co-exist for a VERY long time.
Your logic skills need an upgrade.
I'm a photographer, and I don't like Flash. It serves no purpose in photography at all, though I won't deny web designers that use those photographs love it. Still, there are other options.
Oh, yes, advertisers most definitely love Flash! They put annoying animated commercials on nearly every web page that simply makes that page take even longer to download than necessary. A simple still image is just as effective and costs far less to produce.
You seem to believe that Flash is the be-all, end-all of web graphics; do you realize just how much data those Flash ads contain? Maybe you can't understand that over 35% of Americans are still stuck on dial-up internet connections that frequently are lucky to get better than 28.8kbps. A simple web page, like CNN.com, takes 10 minutes or longer to download because of all the flash on such a connection. How is Flash helping them? Imagine what the viewer thinks when he realizes that that huge download that just ate a big piece of his time what nothing but an advertisement for a Caribbean Cruise! What use does a farmer have for a Caribbean Cruise?
Reliance on such resource-intensive gimmicks is exactly why America has fallen so far behind the world in internet capability. Advertisers are seeing the Internet as just another television channel. How about getting back to our roots. Computers were built to increase human efficiency, instead, they're eating away at both our intelligence and our time.
I just bought iMac 27" with i7 and 16GB RAM .....and guess what?
Flash still crashing. Adobe is a joke. Bye Bye flash. Not missed
You sure it's not just your screen?
It's not exactly unanimous, but anyway I wouldn't really be surprised if H.264 ends up being free for good in the end.
Of course ADOBE is going to say that. That doesn't mean designers SHOULD. You're not really using that as an argument are you? That because the manufacturer encourages such use that people should blindly follow? That's the problem isn't it. People have. OR have used Flash in places/situations they really shouldn't because other methods are better. Remember animated gifs? In some uses - GREAT - but in the late 80s people threw them all over like stickers on websites. Like I said - flash is a tool. And when used correctly can yield GREAT results.
I don't have time to reply to everything here. But first of all - I don't know WHAT you specifically do for a living and I have no intentions of insulting your intelligence - but I have NO idea where you get the idea that a static ad on a website is just as effective as ones that use flash. Working for an entertainment website I can assure you that claim is so far from the truth. And cost-wise it really all depends. You can't make a blanket statement that a still image ad costs less. There are far too many variables to consider like photography involves, retouching, etc.
Ah Anthony. But surely you would agree that there's a difference between stating flash is dead. Or that CBS switching over to HTML5 is a death knell for Flash, etc VERSUS stating that technologies can co-exist. One is finite and the other is open.
And surely there's a difference between saying something like flash won't work with a tablet environment and me saying I've seen it and its possible.
Just two examples of my "opinion" as you would want to call it.
Your logic fails on the most critical point: OS X is an operating system. Flash is an application supposedly designed to run in an operating system. Why should the operating system be modified to let an application run, when if the application were properly written, it would run on the operating system?
I'm not spending iPad money for my kids to play games on the device. If they want to play games, they can use our Wii.