Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I was under the impression that there are apps for Myspace, Youtube and NYT. :confused:

There are, and in my opinion, this is part of the problem. Apple seems to be working under the assumption that the iPhone is SOOOOOO important that web site owners will stop using Flash to accommodate iPhone users. "Oh no! iPhone users can't view our Flash content! Let's get rid of Flash immediately!" Instead, what's happening is that these sites are creating iPhone applications or "mobile" sites that aren't nearly as full featured, and contain a fraction of the content as the real sites contain.
 
Iphone == 2nd class

Instead, what's happening is that these sites are creating iPhone applications or "mobile" sites that aren't nearly as full featured, and contain a fraction of the content as the real sites contain.

If Apple doesn't support standards (including de facto ones) this is the result.

Maybe now that Steve is back he'll knock some heads together and get Apple on the same page as the rest of the Internet.
 
... Instead, what's happening is that these sites are creating iPhone applications or "mobile" sites that aren't nearly as full featured, and contain a fraction of the content as the real sites contain.

Yep, thet's the truth. Even on YouTube, which is what Apple touts a its great format ally, the iPhone can view only a portion of the content.

Perusing some of the comments here, it appears that at least some have missed the main point of the story, which is not the 3D CSS effects, but the news that the push for HTML 5 video element standard is DEAD for now.

Which means, that Flash is unlikely to die anytime soon, and if anything, Microsoft's Silverlight will be its biggest competitor for video. When is THAT coming to the iPhone?

Something else I noticed. When I access macrumors.com on the iPhone, those Flash ads, that pay for all of us to be able to waste hours here, default to their static defaults.

Finally, has anyone tried iMobileCinema, which is a Flash project for jailbroken iPhones?

This may well be the best reason to jailbreak yet, for many (and swell the ranks of the 98% of all computers, and the 800 million mobile devices, which have Flash Player installed, according to Bloomberg. :)
 
Oh you are so talented and important (wow you designed Universal, Paramount, Disney and Warner Bros sites!!! Respect, you must have an amazing reputation in the field!)... sorry I doubted you.

Well actually I do consider myself to be quite talented...but I'm not so egotistical to believe that I'm overly important. The bottom line is that you made a brash statement over the talent and work capabilities of Flash designers. Luckily enough there are people on this board that still 'Think Different'.

Apology accepted.
 
Y
Perusing some of the comments here, it appears that at least some have missed the main point of the story, which is not the 3D CSS effects, but the news that the push for HTML 5 video element standard is DEAD for now.

HTML 5 Video element is just like Jeff Goldblum
Not Dead just open to working with a number of formats.
 
And it's here, for everyone else, but us iPhone users:

and still, those "everyone else" will have a browsing-experience that sucks when compared to the iPhone...

We need Flash on the iPhone. Now.

no, we do not. We have managed so far just fine, and I see no reason to have it now.

We MIGHT get it when Adobe pulls their head from their ass and code a Flash-player that does not suck out every possible CPU-cycle to itself. But I don't see that happening.

If you need to access retardspace (sorry, myspace) get one of those "other" phones and "enjoy" the browsing-experience.
 
and still, those "everyone else" will have a browsing-experience that sucks when compared to the iPhone...

I love the iPhone's browser, but you obviously have not looked at other platforms in a few years.

no, we do not. We have managed so far just fine, and I see no reason to have it now....

And this is about as productive as someone saying "we don't need no iPhones...," or "we don't need no electricity," because we have managed so far just fine.

From what I read, it appears, that other than the Kool-Aid crowd here, the general consensus is, that Apple will stall as long as possible on Flash, to avoid any competition with the App Store. We'll get Flash at some point, but it may be a year or more after every other platform has had it.

On another note, I went ahead and jailbroke my new 3G s, and installed iMobileCinema. Unfortunately, it didn't really do much. It seems targeted at only few select sites (Hulu didn't work for me.) But it is not a Flash Player, thus no general Flash sites, nor Flash animation work, nor would you be able to view the vast majority of video files available on the web.
 
We need Flash on the iPhone. Now.
No we don't. If only because its an easy way to lose the most annoying ads. Who needs Flash on the Phone are the people who make those annoying ads. I'm guessing you are one?

But just for fun, what competing product runs the full version of Adobe Flash. Not the mobile/lite version, but the full version?
 
No we don't. If only because its an easy way to lose the most annoying ads. Who needs Flash on the Phone are the people who make those annoying ads. I'm guessing you are one?

Some of the responses here are not making any sense. One feels like talking to the TV, or to a severely mentally-challenged person.

What part of MOST VIDEO FILES on the web are in FLASH, don't you understand? Or, MOST ANIMATION on the web is in FLASH? Or there are a bazillion sites with integrated FLASH components? Or 2+2=4? ... Geez!

But just for fun, what competing product runs the full version of Adobe Flash. Not the mobile/lite version, but the full version?

"Mobile" devices get "mobile/lite" versions.... Get it? No? Think hard, really hard....

I see that this Flash concept is beyond the abilities of some here. I guess that's why religion is so strong in some parts of the country.
 
Some of the responses here are not making any sense. One feels like talking to the TV, or to a severely mentally-challenged person.

Perhaps you should take a break from this "debate" as some may get the impression that you're taking it far more seriously and personal than you should. You're making yourself look somewhat foolish by resorting to childish name-calling over a topic that, really, shouldn't elicit such strong opinions.

"Mobile" devices get "mobile/lite" versions.... Get it? No? Think hard, really hard....

Your snide indignation aside, this is usually due to performance concerns. The same thing happens to sites that contain no Flash. Sure, MobileSafari can render a full-fledged version of Facebook, but the mobile site and, indeed, the native app are far more efficient and usable.

They may lack some of the features -- they're also far less matured products than their large scale brethren -- but they also are far more efficient. This is usually done due to hardware performance constraints. In the case of Facebook, MobileSafari's javascript runtime took ages just to allow a login.

I see that this Flash concept is beyond the abilities of some here. I guess that's why religion is so strong in some parts of the country.

Again, perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard.
 
Perhaps you should take a break from this "debate" as some may get the impression that you're taking it far more seriously and personal than you should....

Hm, I am taking it seriously, because I just spent just short of $800 for two 3G S, and committed to 24 months of service, at just about $300 per month.

So, now I find that I can't see sites, that my old phone could browse. And not because of hardware (AFAIK, the 3G S is more robust than the Pre, as fast as the Hero, and much faster than my old HTC, or most WM sets currently out.) And every other major mobile platform is getting the capability to run Flash Player 10 in two months....

And I have no hope of getting this basic feature on my new phone, likely for most of my contract term. And when a client sends me a video to look at, or a site, all I can see is a "Lego" piece in the middle of the screen.

Yeah, I get exasperated, when I hear the fanboys chant: "I hate Flash/I don't use Flash/I'd rather take my eyes out than see a Flash animation." And yeah, maybe I overreacted to the last guy who said the same thing....
 
Hm, I am taking it seriously, because I just spent just short of $800 for two 3G S, and committed to 24 months of service, at just about $300 per month.

So, now I find that I can't see sites, that my old phone could browse. And not because of hardware (AFAIK, the 3G S is more robust than the Pre, as fast as the Hero, and much faster than my old HTC, or most WM sets currently out.) And every other major mobile platform is getting the capability to run Flash Player 10 in two months....

And I have no hope of getting this basic feature on my new phone, likely for most of my contract term. And when a client sends me a video to look at, or a site, all I can see is a "Lego" piece in the middle of the screen.

Yeah, I get exasperated, when I hear the fanboys chant: "I hate Flash/I don't use Flash/I'd rather take my eyes out than see a Flash animation." And yeah, maybe I overreacted to the last guy who said the same thing....

Then research a product properly before buying next time and choose a device that fits your own needs.
 
Some of the responses here are not making any sense. One feels like talking to the TV, or to a severely mentally-challenged person.
You do realize that you are coming off as a complete, raving lunatic?

What part of MOST VIDEO FILES on the web are in FLASH, don't you understand? Or, MOST ANIMATION on the web is in FLASH? Or there are a bazillion sites with integrated FLASH components? Or 2+2=4? ... Geez!
So is it the Flash video that you are being unfairly deprived of? Or the animation?

"Mobile" devices get "mobile/lite" versions.... Get it? No? Think hard, really hard....
I really think you need to go back on your meds.

The Mobile/Lite version of Flash doesn't play all the Flash video out there, it doesn't play a lot of the animation, and it doesn't play many of the games. Sometimes its as simple as the developer not factoring in a smaller screen, sometimes it has to do with features that Flash Lite doesn't support. So most of your "experience" is whatever your cell company thought you needed to have. Its not like you get the whole Intarwebz Flash on these tiny little screens or anything, you get whatever Flash they give you.

I've got to wonder if you've even seen the Flash Lite experience IRL, or if you just have some idea in your head (you know, where all those other voices live) about what the mobile version of Flash can do?

I see that this Flash concept is beyond the abilities of some here. I guess that's why religion is so strong in some parts of the country.
You seem like a manic/depressive to me. This little bitty disagreement has you completely over a barrel. I suggest you seek professional help. (You know, that place with the white jackets with long, wraparound sleeves and the nice men that have large needles with the sedatives when you get out of control?)

To recap: The iPhone never had Flash support to begin with, and it doesn't have it now. So if that was that important to you, then you shouldn't buy an iPhone. Instead, why not buy one of the phones that has Flash Lite support or get a nice little netbook. And some more Xanax or Zoloft while you are at it.
 
No we don't. If only because its an easy way to lose the most annoying ads.

You mean the same ads that provide a crucial revenue stream to sites like MacRumors? Yes, let's block the ads that make possible the FREE content that we all enjoy. Could there be a better way to impliment these ads without Flash? Maybe. But half the ads on this site are Flash-based and I have never once visited this site and thought, "Wow, those ads are really hindering my computer's performance." Not once.

Sure, MobileSafari can render a full-fledged version of Facebook, but the mobile site and, indeed, the native app are far more efficient and usable.

Yes, but is it more efficient for the web site owners who have to invest time and money into designing, developing, and maintaining mobile versions? Personally, I'd trade features for efficiency, more often than not.
 
...
So is it the Flash video that you are being unfairly deprived of? Or the animation?
...
I really think you need to go back on your meds.

....

The Mobile/Lite version of Flash doesn't play all the Flash video out there, it doesn't play a lot of the animation, and it doesn't play many of the games. Sometimes its as simple as the developer not factoring in a smaller screen, sometimes it has to do with features that Flash Lite doesn't support. So most of your "experience" is whatever your cell company thought you needed to have. Its not like you get the whole Intarwebz Flash on these tiny little screens or anything, you get whatever Flash they give you.

I've got to wonder if you've even seen the Flash Lite experience IRL, or if you just have some idea in your head (you know, where all those other voices live) about what the mobile version of Flash can do?
...

This little bitty disagreement has you completely over a barrel. I suggest you seek professional help. (You know, that place with the white jackets with long, wraparound sleeves and the nice men that have large needles with the sedatives when you get out of control?)
...

And I was feeling bad about what I said about you....

No, I don't have a "little bitty disagreement" with you, or anyone else. I don't particularly care what you think, about Flash or anything else. I am simply disappointed, that I just forked out a lot of money, for a phone I generally love, but which is effectively crippled, and is unable to access a large portion of web content.

But you are obviously totally ignorant of what's available on other platforms.

Here are a couple of samples: the first one is a Flash browser I used for almost a year on my HTC, which, BTW, is a totally underpowered phone, compared to the iPhone 3G S:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aybnOJ0Y7ec

and here is a Flash Player 9 demo on Android (not Flash 10, even though that's leaked, and it will be out in two months):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxAa8g9iIro&NR=1

I still like the iPhone, a lot. But I am not sure I'll keep mine for the duration of my new contract, unless Apple implements Flash capabilities soon (which I doubt.)

And no, I didn't really think about Flash when I got it, but that's partially because Flash is so ubiquitous, I don't usually think about it.
 
Sorry, but irrespective of whether this is a rip off of Cooliris, this doesn't appear to be what it promises.

Does the page work with JS disabled? No. You get nothing. That's not how I understand CSS and JS trickery to work.

I see a shed load of Javascript on that page, I haven't looked into it in detail but I would expect at the very least that page to display a flat grid of images without JS enabled.

The CSS and JS should all be gravy, not getting in the way of people viewing the content.

You're right... However, this was a Proof-Of-Concept written in 3 nights by the developer... I'm sure if he was writing something intended to be reused by other people, he would have taken care of that edge case.

++ Accessibility is key, but a quick demo is unlikely to optimize for users without JS. While JS required it's for things CSS cannot do. JS sets up the events for user controls and runs the "app" including the interaction with Flickr.

However, we're talking CSS, and all the relevant 3D CSS properties are within a <style> block in the demo HTML. Below is a snippet this CSS affecting two layout "container" <div>s, which form the viewer's frame. Its 3D nature is quite apparent when you press-n-hold on L or R keys.

div#camera
{
-webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
-webkit-transition-duration: 5s;
-webkit-transition-timing-function: cubic-bezier(0.2, 0.6, 0.6, 0.9);
-webkit-transform: translate3d(0, 0, 0);
}

div#dolly
{
-webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
-webkit-transition-duration: 550ms;
-webkit-transition-timing-function: ease-out;
-webkit-transform: translate3d(0, 0, 0);
}
http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/snowleopard/snowstack.html

When JS detects your keyboard navigation, it changes the values of the -webkit-transform properties of div#camera and div#dolly. CSS animation properties -webkit-transition-duration and webkit-transition-timing-function tune the animation.
 
Perusing some of the comments here, it appears that at least some have missed the main point of the story, which is not the 3D CSS effects, but the news that the push for HTML 5 video element standard is DEAD for now.

HTML 5 Video element is just like Jeff Goldblum
Not Dead just open to working with a number of formats.

macUser2007,

"push for HTML 5 video element's codec standard is DEAD"

should be

"push for HTML 5 video [element] to also standardize the codec is DEAD"

Like MattInOz says, the <video> element is going to be a part of HTML5 standard. Like Flash and Silverlight, content providers will get to choose which codec to deliver.

What's significant about this whole situation is the forthcoming HTML5/CSS3 standards will enable many of the experiences that currently only these proprietary plugins provide. The whole web benefits.
 
You mean the same ads that provide a crucial revenue stream to sites like MacRumors? Yes, let's block the ads that make possible the FREE content that we all enjoy. Could there be a better way to impliment these ads without Flash? Maybe. But half the ads on this site are Flash-based and I have never once visited this site and thought, "Wow, those ads are really hindering my computer's performance." Not once.
I selectively unblock ads for some sites, including this one. But I block all Flash ads, because they run like effin' crap on Macs. Adobe seems to think that 100% CPU usage (which drains laptop batteries) is "normal". Knowing what it does to my MacBook, I can only imagine what that would do to the battery life of my iPhone.

And if you think about it, anyone marketing their Flash-based ads on a Mac site wasn't very bright to begin with.

I still like the iPhone, a lot. But I am not sure I'll keep mine for the duration of my new contract, unless Apple implements Flash capabilities soon (which I doubt.)

And no, I didn't really think about Flash when I got it, but that's partially because Flash is so ubiquitous, I don't usually think about it.
So return your iPhones and save us all the friggin' drama. El Jobso has always been clear that Flash is not going to be available for the iPhone. Do a little research next time before you drop a bunch of cash on a product instead of b1tching at us when the world knows for free what it took you several benjamins to figure out.

Honestly, if Adobe really cared about getting Flash on the iPhone, they could make a good faith effort by releasing a version of Flash for OS X that didn't completely suck (which I doubt).
 
... the <video> element is going to be a part of HTML5 standard. Like Flash and Silverlight, content providers will get to choose which codec to deliver.

What's significant about this whole situation is the forthcoming HTML5/CSS3 standards will enable many of the experiences that currently only these proprietary plugins provide. The whole web benefits.

O.K., maybe. But first, you have to qualify "standard," to include "de-facto standards," and not only "required" ones. Because the HTML5 standard will list a whole lot of requirements, but the subsections dealing with audio and video were recently deleted, thus they are not part of the "required standard."

The decision is left to the market to create a "de-facto standard,) most likely likely based on adoption rates (a fight Apple will most likely lose, as Safari is the ONLY one, of the five major browsers, to exclude Ogg support.)

Ironically, this is exactly the same selection process, which has made FLASH a "de-facto standard," as it is installed on 98% of all PCs, and on 800 million mobiles.

Second, and more important point to my gripe is, that whatever future HTML5 standard emerges, it will come to be a long-long time from today, and it will be irrelevant to the sets we now own. And if it's Ogg which wins, Safari will deprive the faithful of it, for as long as it can (and longer on the iPhone....)

So, if Flash is a de-facto standard today, as its numbers seem to indicate, why isn't Apple letting me use it on my iPhone?

(I figured that the answer is the App Store, but it doesn't make me feel better.)
 
I selectively unblock ads for some sites, including this one. But I block all Flash ads, because they run like effin' crap on Macs...."

Huh?! Retarded? Anyway, replace that Mac Classic, so you can stop bitching about Flash slowing you down.


... Do a little research next time before you drop a bunch of cash on a product instead of b1tching at us when the world knows....).

I see all I said went way over your head (LOL, is this why you have as location "Flyover Country?)
 
From Engadget's review of the HTC Hero w/ Flash:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/23/htc-hero-review/

"So Flash is kind of a big deal on new smartphones. The iPhone doesn't have it, the Pre doesn't have it, BlackBerry devices don't have it... but the Hero does. Unfortunately, in our testing, we found the inclusion actually hurts operation of the phone more than it helps. When browsing to a site heavy on Flash (there are many), the browser loading times were abysmal. Furthermore, trying to view videos in-window produced choppy, nearly unwatchable results. You may have a better experience with lighter kinds of content, but in our opinion the main reason to introduce Flash into a mobile environment is to allow for broader media viewing options, and in the current state of this Flash player, you're not really going to get much mileage out of it."


He even manages to say it is maddening. Huh, tell me more about how great Flash is.

Yep, thet's the truth. Even on YouTube, which is what Apple touts a its great format ally, the iPhone can view only a portion of the content.

Perusing some of the comments here, it appears that at least some have missed the main point of the story, which is not the 3D CSS effects, but the news that the push for HTML 5 video element standard is DEAD for now.

Which means, that Flash is unlikely to die anytime soon, and if anything, Microsoft's Silverlight will be its biggest competitor for video. When is THAT coming to the iPhone

It's not nearly as big a deal as you're making it out to be. It's not a if there is 15 different formats. There's two. One has all the hardware and software support. h.264 is basically already the de facto standard of the web for the past year. The only difference is that some of these websites are unecessarily using a Flash wrapper.
 
Why the iPhone doesn't support Flash

So, if Flash is a de-facto standard today, as its numbers seem to indicate, why isn't Apple letting me use it on my iPhone?

Here's why: Engadget HTC Hero review

engadget said:
Unfortunately, in our testing, we found the inclusion actually hurts operation of the phone more than it helps. When browsing to a site heavy on Flash (there are many), the browser loading times were abysmal. Furthermore, trying to view videos in-window produced choppy, nearly unwatchable results. You may have a better experience with lighter kinds of content, but in our opinion the main reason to introduce Flash into a mobile environment is to allow for broader media viewing options, and in the current state of this Flash player, you're not really going to get much mileage out of it.

Money quotes from the embedded video link:
engadget said:
"It's not really that snappy. Its actually kind of maddening, waiting for pages to load."
...and...
engadget said:
"This is an unpleasant experience for the most part."
...and...
engadget said:
"This is not a decent experience for Flash... At all!"
...and...
engadget said:
"As you can see, the performance here is pretty bad."
...and...
engadget said:
"Nice to have Flash, but Flash is really useless if the content isn't viewable."

The difference is that El Jobso would've never allowed that monstrosity of a phone to ship, vs. Google/Android/HTC which has no problem shipping that kind of user experience.

Thanks for playing! :p
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.