Adobe Bringing Flash to the iPhone

[hypermark]

Who blinks first?

In my opinion, this is a great test of the control v. (developer) community dynamics that will continue to play out as Apple tries to build a mainstream platform; namely, secure developer ecosystem love while maintaining the high performance bar that they have established with the iPhone/iPod touch family of devices.

In that respect, it is somewhat of a three dimensional chess game unfolding, something I blogged about in, ‘The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.’

Cheers,

Mark

 

[slffl]

I don't need/want flash on the iPhone as it is. And I don't see this working at all for a few reasons.

First, Flash uses too much CPU on mobile devices. I've seen it run on an AT&T tilt and it was choppy and wasn't worth it.

Second, Adobe will have to come out with either their own browser or a seperate app. I don't see Apple letting them mess with the built-in apps. And if it's a seperate app, this would work well for flash movies, but that's about it.

 

[morespce54]

...
flash can also do things that no amount of javascript wizardry can touch.

sure...
like... what again?

 

[jmorrison0722]

Some say flash is dumb and useless.
Some say it is literally impossible to support all flash functions on the iphone.
I would think it's hard to argue that iPhone users (heck, most mobile browser users, not just iPhone) miss out on a ton of stuff on the web because flash is not supported. It might just be streaming video via flash video or more involved things like the really cool and useful symptom checker on WebMD. There is a ton of flash content out there and web developers aren't going to stop using it anytime soon. Support for flash content is at least some instances will be a good thing.

 

[jmorrison0722]

I don't need/want flash on the iPhone as it is. And I don't see this working at all for a few reasons.

First, Flash uses too much CPU on mobile devices. I've seen it run on an AT&T tilt and it was choppy and wasn't worth it.

Second, Adobe will have to come out with either their own browser or a seperate app. I don't see Apple letting them mess with the built-in apps. And if it's a seperate app, this would work well for flash movies, but that's about it.

I don't have a clue what I'm talking about so forgive me, but isn't the iPhone CPU more powerful than most other mobile devices, even more powerful than the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP CPU's? Seems like I read this recently.

 

[morespce54]

As a designer, web citizen and developer, I do not understand the argument *for* Flash (on the desktop or iPhone).

The fact is, most implementations of Flash are for five purposes:

1. Stupid Games
2. Stupid Videos
3. Superfluous Graphics
4. Ads
5. Entire Inaccessible Sites

I wholeheartedly embrace Apple's approach to pre-SDK development for iPhone. Use web standards, implement them well, and people will come up with great accessible solutions to most of your requests. (Not to mention not making the users of a revolutionary device deal with the problems "of old." i.e. points 1-5.) In the end, it will make for a better experience for everyone.

I could continue this post, but I'll point you to John Gruber instead.

• News Flash: No Flash
• Flash on iPhone Political Calculus
• Flim-Flash
• Just the Internet

You got my vote!

 

[Niiro13]

This is going to get interesting, with the likes of Sun and Adobe attempting to fill gaps that were intentionally created by Apple.

Do guys like Adobe get assurances that their player will be allowed in the store? Creating the player isn't trivial, even with an existing code base. It isn't a weekend project.

If Apple starts rejecting apps, I smell law suits. The courts may end up having to decide what fits within the SDK agreement and what doesn't. Let us hope it doesn't come to that!

Even if the court finds it complying with the agreement, they can't force apple to put it on THEIR AppStore.

 

[pubius]

I can see you do not work in the security field.

nope, but i know my history.

 

[MacsAttack]

I don't have a clue what I'm talking about so forgive me, but isn't the iPhone CPU more powerful than most other mobile devices, even more powerful than the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP CPU's? Seems like I read this recently.

Yup.

But the concern with Flash is two-fold.

1. There is a lot of real bad flash out there - which should not be encouraged to pandering to the idiots who use it just for the sake of using it rather than adding real functionality to a web site (about 98% of Flash as it turns out). A lot of people find mobile Safari browsing a liberating experience not having to deal with all that excess Flash (and the good Flash sites usually also have a non-Flash version because the people who built them knew what they were doing).

2. The excessive battery drain (which is unnecessary most of the time - see 1)

Basically, Adobe has to try and push Flash onto the iPhone/Touch. If they don't and the platform takes of real big then their ubiquitous Flash strategy falls apart and more web sites stop using it.

I for one welcome the idea of a Flash-free internet.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Adobe makes crappy software

... So, I think that Flash for iPhone will either be completely crappy, or significantly different from Flash on the desktop. Of course, they could surprise me.

I think you are right, and your comments highlight something that everyone is conveniently ignoring.

Adobe makes fairly crap software for the Mac (at least lately). It's arguable that they simply don't have the talent necessary to make something for the iPhone that isn't just a hacked version of some windows plug-in code. They need to carefully re-think the whole concept of the Flash plug-in to get it right and I think it's fairly likely that they just won't be able to do it.

I am a big PhotoShop user and have used all the Macromedia and Adobe stuff since the very first versions on both platforms. Anyone with that kind of experience can tell you that the current Macintosh version of CS suite, and Photoshop in particular are buggy, slow and constitute generally pretty awful programming. They are not even based on Cocoa.

To put it bluntly, CS suite sucks, badly. The apps aren't aware of spaces or Time Machine, the toolbars and palettes regularly disappear for no reason, they crash (a lot!), and they install half a terabyte of garbage on your hard drive and suck up all your resources even on the latest machine with tons of memory. They don't even use your GPU for cripes sake.

While Adobe can get by with this kind of programming on expensive desktops (because they have a monopoly), this kind of coding is the exact opposite of what would be considered "good" for an iPhone app. If Adobe even has programmers that know how to use Cocoa I would be surprised.

 

[slidingjon]

Am I the only one that isn't thrilled by this? I really enjoy not being burdened by flash on my iPhone - for the same reason I use Safari AdBlock.

 

[Yvan256]

Basically, Adobe has to try and push Flash onto the iPhone/Touch. If they don't and the platform takes of real big then their ubiquitous Flash strategy falls apart and more web sites stop using it.

Bingo, finally someone understands the situation completely.

The more people with iPhones and iPod touches (sp?), the more requests for non-Flash versions of websites, the more Flash becomes irrelevant.

I won't miss Flash either. And I wouldn't mind a setting in Safari for disabling animated GIFs either.

Jakob Nielsen's said: "Moving images have an overpowering effect on the human peripheral vision. A web page should not emulate Times Square in New York City in its constant attack on the human senses: give your user some peace and quiet to actually read the text!"

Some people seem to be less affected by things moving on a web page, others (like me) just can't read if anything is moving (which is why I browse with disabled plug-ins, since the websites I visit only seem to use Flash for banners).

 

[Niiro13]

Personally, I think you're wrong. I think if taken to the Supreme Court, Apple (and any other company including Nintendo inside the US) will lose their shirt in regards to this matter of restricting what can run on a publicly available platform. In other words, it comes down to if it's my computer, I can run whatever I want on it. PERIOD. Contracts, protecting $$$ partners, etc. is irrelevant. It's a publicly available platform. It's a computer (even if a mobile one). Software runs on computers. No company has the right to restrict software on a publicly available platform. If they don't want someone to run software on it, they should NOT release it for sale to the public. It's THAT SIMPLE.

If you don't agree or don't like it, I don't care. It WILL be fought sooner or later and they will lose because SOCIETY is ultimately what matters and countries like the US are SUPPOSED to protect the citizens of their country, NOT legal entities like corporations. And that will continue to come to the forefront as people get sick and tired of corporations controlling their lives, getting tax perks to move jobs overseas and generally ruin people's lives over making more profits for a select few shareholders. If the Supreme Court does their job and protects "We The People" and NOT "We the privileged few" then Apple would LOSE. Imagine if all the printing presses refused to print anything except what some big corporation wanted. Imagine if the Internet only allowed select people to have access or WRITE data (e.g. post mesages, host sites, etc.) Imagine trying to justify that because some companies own the ISPs and all agree you shouldn't have access unless you're on their approved list. Imagine if that approved list didn't includes certain ethnic groups, certain political affiliations or certain financial classes. But it's OK because they own the servers you use. They don't HAVE to allow you to use it! That's called discrimination and it's ILLEGAL. I don't see not allowing software on a publicly available platform as being one bit different. If I buy a product, it's my right to use it as I see fit. And that's a fair use issue that is going to continue to get worse as time goes on and companies try to force you to do only what they want as part of the contract or license agreement. Things like copyrights are privileges. They exist so someone can make money off their ideas. They were never designed so companies can control every aspect of your life.

Nice speech. Guess what? you're wrong...well, partially right.

Yes, Apple will lose in court...why do you think they haven't sued the jailbreakers? Cause they can't! Heck, develop porn for all you want. It's your iPhone!

But AppStore is owned by Apple. That's what the other guy was talking about.

Apple can't prevent you from making Flash, porn, whatever and compiling it onto your iPhone, but they can at the very least refuse to put it on AppStore.

So by all means make whatever you want and compile...the only way it's getting out is if you put the source files on a website and have people download then compile it to their iPhones.

It should not matter whether the software is Windows or MacOSX or PalmOS. If it's sold to the public for public usage, it should be open to the public for public usage. It's one thing to charge to use something like AT&T's network. It's quite another to say certain people aren't ALLOWED to use their network because they're not on our 'approved list'. And THAT is what Apple is doing. They can say we don't want certain apps on OUR STORE, but they cannot then in turn say you can ONLY USE OUR STORE. That's then discrimination and it should be fought, IMO. And no, I don't think someone like Nintendo should be able to do that either. Ultimately, Apple will have problems as they get more popular because they are trying to control both the software AND the hardware. Microsoft keeps getting into trouble for just ONE of those. It's only a matter of time, really....

Apple isn't saying that you aren't allowed to make porn or whatever...they are saying that it won't be allowed on AppStore...watch the event video and you'll see that Steve Jobs says "there are going to be some apps that we aren't going to distribute" That is the ONLY mention of any limitations. AppStore.

Apple NEVER said that you can't make those apps. The only limitations are whatever the SDK allows for and AppStore.

The question is not whether it is legal...it's whether it's even worth it (why make Flash if no one can get it...big company like Apple isn't gonna put the source on their website and have people compile it by hand).

 

[ilogic]

once the iphone does this, once the iphone does that this and that... come on folks, the iphone is the new standard of mobile devices, and we all know it, the iphone is making progress and will continue to do that... but its funny how we humans can nitpick..

 

[iphoneidiot]

In My Opinion It Needs It

iPhone needs Flash. I wrote a blog two days ago on this.

If interested read here!

 

[Di9it8]

just been building a website, with a small flash content, sorry not to be able to see it on the iPhone.
This should have been part of the iPhone along with YouTube etc as a core element.
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned

 

[JackAxe]

Please note: I am not talking about any particular person here, these are just general comments. Keep that in mind as I am not trying to start a flame war. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, including myself.

Quite true.

Before I ramble the longest post in recorded history. I know why you're making these points and why you're comparing a plug-in that's designed to run applications now days, with just HTML, but know that Flash is just as dependent on HTML as any other web-tech.
---

If you want Flash for the ability to play videos:
- HTML5 Media Support

We could assume the same support will be included in a future version of Safari for iPhone/iPod touch. Using Flash to embed videos is because we lacked a standard, cross-browser way to do it (yes I remember the old EMBED tag, and the whole Netscape/IE implementations mess).

Of course, its use won't be widespread for a number of years (or at least until IE supports it), however if the iPhone/iPod touch supports it, it will help since a lot of users will ask support for it from their favorite websites. A lot of people underestimate what a real browser-in-the-pocket really means, in terms of future marketshare. After all, we're already seeing some websites adding MPEG-4/H.264 videos with links to the file for these users (which also happens to work for people on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, etc - just not embedded into the page).

edit: it seems the current build for Opera (Windows version) also supports the HTML5 "video" tag, with other operating systems planned. I'm guessing Firefox support will not be far behind, leaving only Internet Explorer as requiring Flash to put videos into web pages.

I don't think Apple would include support for this for the same reason they haven't included Flash FLV support, as in it's a competing video format.

This HTML5 media is way worse than even Silver-lite. If people are griping about poorly developed Flash content hitting their CPU, this "simple" and small video powered up my fans as if I were rendering a complicated scene in Mental Ray. My CPUs hit 95% at times. I get angry at sites that use that much of my CPU, especially Flash sites. HD video in Flash 9 -- which is way more efficient than Flash 7 video (YouTube) -- doesn't even require that much power.

Maybe this will be adopted years down the line, but as is, it's rather primitive -- I would first go back to Flash 6 video before using this. And besides poorly developed Flash sites, Flash doens't need to load/preload a video, it streams it in. Even large sites like Nintendo are guilty of shoddy Flash work.

Flash's API for working with video streams is highly efficient and flexible/powerful. There are very few limits to what I can personally do with it and rarely do I give my clients components, since they're bloated. For reference, the video players I put together are generally only about 3k. Components, which most use, because they're easy to implement, are just over 50k and require about a 5k skin file.

With Flash, I can build a custom video player that will play in any browser or from the desktop. This HTML 5 video would always require a browser and like SVG, it will never have a consistent set of standards and support across browsers. And this HTML5 would certainly not work with older browser. I mention this, because you deem it as a valid point of why not to use Flash.

And Microsoft has its own agenda with IE. Their plan is to replace Flash FLV with WMV via Silver-lite.

If you are complaining about websites which requires Flash:
- this is what happens when websites aren't done with web standards and use proprietary plug-ins (it doesn't matter if it's Flash, Quicktime or something else)
- complain to the webmasters/owners of the website in question that you can't use their website and can't install plug-ins (which is also true of some computers in the workplace, i.e. locked-down, can't install anything)

Complainers. If I were on Linux, I would have complained about Flash, but not now days, since Adobe has shown them some love.

I'll get to this later, but your points here are easily remedied, it has to do with SEO.

To those who say "Flash is used on the majority of websites":
- it's not.

Really, Flash isn't that widespread. Please continue reading instead of hitting "reply" because I do have an argument, not only an opinion.

True, since the majority includes joe-blows-blog, but what you're missing, is that Flash is a corporate standard, that's all that matters.

Maybe the websites YOU visit use Flash because you like Flash content (games and "designer/concept" websites), but otherwise Flash isn't that popular in the real-world apart from games and annoying banners. I repeat "annoying banners" because for most of us, that's the only thing we see Flash used for, apart from embedding videos or music into webpages.

Yep, we all hate them, but like commercials, they're here to stay. My only request, is that some of these larger shops higher compitent developers that know how to optimize their work. Most Flash devs have matured, or are maturing, so things will change and the REALLY annoying banners should eventually become a thing of the past. But then again, I can't speak for the cheezeball sites that are more spam than substance.

I do really high-end Flash work, but most of it is for trade shows, etc. The larger demos I build, are generally targeting developers, not the public. Think of Flash like Java, but with a much faster rendering engine and a smaller footprint.

I could very well say the same thing, after all: "most websites are either online catalogs of electronic components or Mac-related" since I've been visiting Digi-Key.ca, Mouser.com, 123Macmini.com and MacRumors.com every day in the last month. ;-)

See my corporate comment...

And yes, I know that Ajax can't do 95% of the things Flash can do. But a "website" done in Flash isn't a website any more than a "website" done as a PDF document with links inside it. Or a website done as huge GIFs or JPEGs images with the content embedded into the image and links as imagemaps.

Your comparisons between Flash and a PDF (BTW, the new PDFs will embed Flash.), a GIF, etc., are completely off and are the farthest thing from the truth. It was only true back in the early days, so think 10 years ago.

Flash has access to all of the browser's goodies, it's really only limited by the developer. It's not just a box full of Flash, it's an entity that cuddles with any browser to share personal info.

I'll ramble about this some more, because it pertains to your next points.

A real website should allow us to do the following:
- change the size of the text (Opera does it best IMHO, as it changes the size of the whole page, including images)
- index all pages by search engines
- bookmark a page (please spare me those "Flash websites" which reload a different HTML page and restart the whole Flash thing every time you click a link, that goes against the nature of Flash itself)
- use the scrollwheel on both the content and the scrollbars
- print (screen capture doesn't count)
- select/copy the content (including images)
- be used by people with disabilities
- be used by people with slow connections or older browsers (you can disable images and even CSS for slower connections, slower computers and older browser versions).

Everything you mention is fully possible with Flash and in use now and for the most part I agree. I know you mention this tid-bit later, but I must elaborate on how Flash handles it. *ramble*

- change the size of the text (Opera does it best IMHO, as it changes the size of the whole page, including images)
Your first point can be done, even with a full screen Flash site, it would be quite a bit more work, but I could build classes that would adjust all content in relation to the point size. I already format all of content dynamically. If my clients wanted it, I would build it for them. BTW, I do not like sites that takes over my screen without my permission. This is annoying, especially since I'm on a 30".

- index all pages by search engines
- bookmark a page (please spare me those "Flash websites" which reload a different HTML page and restart the whole Flash thing every time you click a link, that goes against the nature of Flash itself)
I practice Flash SEO, as do most Flash developers now days. It's simple, the same HTML pages which embeds the Flash object via JS, contains all of the info which Flash uses, it's also what search bot finds. Like other tech, it can also parse in XML or gather info from a database. AND NO, the person does not need an annoying refresh as you mention -- those sites SUCK. The great thing about Flash, is that it eliminates the page refresh when going to a new section -- of course some use this as an excuse to put in an obnoxious transition animation. I was guilty of this in 2000.

- use the scrollwheel on both the content and the scrollbars
On the PC side, this is not an issue, but on the Mac side, even though we have had wheel support since OS 9, Macromedia/Adobe has ignored us. Now for the good news, this has been worked out with JS for the Mac side with SWFMacWheel, which extends Flash's Mouse class. Prior to this, I had been working on my own way of passing the delta info into Flash, but it saved me time and it works great.

- print (screen capture doesn't count
Flash has a nice Print API. I can custom format and print anything I want, even just one pixel. I can target the entire page, or just a sentence. With Flash I don't need to redirect a user to a print friendly HTML page, I can take my content and format it transparently in the background for print. So with a bit of complexity, I can make a user's life easer. With HTML it prints everything on the page and adds its own garbage to the top and bottom.

- select/copy the content (including images)
With Flash, I can say which content I want to be copied and I can easily make any image available for copying, via a right click, or even a drag out -- this is all in the developers control. The big plus of Flash, is that I don't have to worry about someone selecting things that I don't want them to have access to. Of course I can't stop a screen shot, or a user from looking at Activities to see where the image(s) was loaded from. I can state wether or not a text field is selectable when it's built.

Some things should not be selectable and Flash has the control to make that happen. Look at Apple's slider as example. It looks nice, but I can select parts of it, which in turn make it ugly. Oh and I can't grab/coppy the images BTW. Apple should be punished! I can control all of these aspects in Flash.

- be used by people with disabilities
Before I ramble, can you point me to a site that does this? I've never seen an option for it. Does MacRumors even have an option?
A Flash site can be desiged for people with disabilities. It actually has way more control here, since Flash can programatically change any of its content way beyond anything that HTML/CSS can do period. HTML/CSS/Flash is absolutely superior here. Flash's image and font control are unparalleled when it comes to cross platform/browser support. And Flash has full access to the keyboard. By default, buttons are set to accept tabbed input.

- be used by people with slow connections or older browsers (you can disable images and even CSS for slower connections, slower computers and older browser versions).
Simply not true. This goes back to the SEO thing, if a person's browser can't see Flash -- it would have to be REALLY OLD -- they'll see what the bot sees.

And on the connection and slow computer thing, boy are you wrong and when I say wrong, you were targeting the moon, but hit the sun, especially with Flash 9. But I can see why you would say this, since most Flash devs don't know the first thing about restraint, let alone optimization. If you want me to elaborate on this, it's going to be another long post. I have almost 13 years under my belt when it comes to web development and I can make Flash purr even on a slow comp. I like sites that load fast, so I know Flash can do this and it can do it quite well, and it can do it with a level of art that HTML/CSS can not.

And a website made with CSS degrades for older browsers - it's not as pretty but the navigation works and the content is accessible.

As I mentioned above, this is also true for Flash, given the developer knows what they're doing

If a developer bulids their sit entirely in Flash, it better be SEO and function as a normal site, so take advantage of the browser's buttons, bookmarking, etc. This stuff does take more work, but that's the price to pay for an application that can create applications.

Yes, a lot of these things can be added to Flash content by the author (I've seen scrollwheel support and the ability to select text). But that's my point: it's not built-in, it has to be added/coded by every author.

Besides the scrollwheel on the Mac side, all of the things you mentioned are built in. Like I said, Flash can build applications, so is quite powerful and flexible. And yes, l it can be shared, how do you think I got it. Text can either be selectable or not, it's a choice, something which HTML does not offer -- well, you could use an image of text.

I know that everything I stated above backs up your statement. But it's a tradeoff. I can build an efficient application in Flash that can be used on pretty much every comp. I can't even begin to touch that with other web-techs. The closest tech to Flash is Java BTW.

For the new guys that don't know how to program, there are components. For other programmers, I can share my classes and vice versa. This is happening now. I didn't have to write my own class to tie Flash into the browser, nor did I need to write one for MouseWheel support on the Mac. Others have shared their work. It's there, you just need to look.

Flash has a HUGE developer community, this is why its great and has become so popular. Just like any platform that's popular, there will be more crap than good, but that's yet another tradeoff. The good stuff out shines the crap making up for the fact there's crap. Did I mention crap...

And you're SOL anyway if your platform doesn't have Flash to begin with, which is what this whole debate is all about.

This is why Plug-ins are a good thing. And it's a good thing that Flash support so many platforms/devices. This is why it appeals to me. I'm still sure that if Flash weren't synonymous with web video, Job's would have included Flash support.

To everyone else:
- can someone please tell me what this "Plug-Ins" on/off switch is supposed to be doing in Safari on iPhone/iPod touch? (really, I have no idea - does it has built-in Quicktime or what? There has to be something, Apple wouldn't put a switch that does nothing... would they?)
- I'm thinking that maybe Apple could start adding Flash-style capabilities into Quicktime (which wouldn't fix anything IMHO as Quicktime is as proprietary as Flash. Sames goes for Microsoft's Silverlight)


Ok, now you can hit "Reply".

DAM YOU FOR MY LONG REPLY.

<]=)

 

[Delia]

I pray they add Flash to the iPod Touch!

 

[aznkid25]

Adobe: Flash is harder than we thought

http://madowney.com/blog/2008/03/19/flash-on-the-iphone

Here is their updated statement:
“Adobe has evaluated the iPhone SDK and can now start to develop a way to bring Flash Player to the iPhone. However, to bring the full capabilities of Flash to the iPhone web-browsing experience we do need to work with Apple beyond and above what is available through the SDK and the current license around it. We think Flash availability on the iPhone benefits Apple and Adobe’s millions of joint customers, so we want to work with Apple to bring these capabilities to the device.”

Will Apple be willing to help?

http://www.flashdevices.net/2008/03/adobe-flash-player-coming-to-iphone.html
Here’s the real info that you should be aware of about Flash on the iPhone:

1. We've played around with the iPhone SDK since it was introduced and think we can now begin development on delivering Flash Player on the iPhone.

2. More work needs to be done with Apple however, as the SDK and the license associated with it doesn't enable us to bring the full Flash experience on the iPhone's Safari web brower.

3. We know lots of iPhone users are wanting Flash. Adobe's goal is to make Flash as ubiquitous as possible, so that means delivering Flash to as many platforms as we can. Much to everyone's surprise we announced on Monday that Flash was coming to the Windows Mobile Platform. So if we can do it with Microsoft, we're certainly hoping that it's not that complex for Flash to make it to the iPhone.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on this topic yet. Keep in mind that this is your opinion and not really based in reality.

There's nothing ridiculous about allowing equal access to public products and services. If Delta Airlines suddenly said that it will not allow anyone on its planes that doesn't carry a certain brand of luggage, people would be outraged. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR planes. They're providing a public service and platform to travel. They cannot discriminate who rides on their planes unless it threatens the safety of the plane or a federal law or something. Yet we accept that a computer vendor can approve or diapprove WHO is allowed to sell or offer software for their computer platform? Why should we? A computer is a platform and offers a service also. There is no fundamental difference. And as I said before, Nintendo should not be able or allowed to limit who can offer software for their gaming platforms either. (And YES, an iPhone IS a computer platform whether some here want to believe it or not; it runs software and computes; it's a computer).

You can call that silly or stupid or whatever you want, but discrimination is discrimination. If Apple allows Microsoft to offer an office product for the iPhone but does not allow Joe Public to offer a competing product, they are discriminating. It's the very thing that got Microsoft into trouble when they tried to discourage other browsers from running on their Windows OS. Why should it be any different because the operating system is OSX and is running on a small portable computer with a phone capability (i.e. the iPhone)? Because Apple is a smaller company? That doesn't make it right. Because the iPhone isn't a desktop or even a laptop by definition? So what? It's a computer that runs OSX. Period.

Here we have Apple potentially stopping Flash and/or Java from being offered on the iPhone because they want you using all Apple tech. How is that different from Microsoft discouraging (through various business deal tactics and tying the OS into key functions) people from using other browsers than Internet Explorer? It's the same thing. It's the same legal precedent and the fact that the DOJ fouled it up by taking a bribe doesn't change it for what it is (upheld in Europe).

As I said, if someone were to challenge them legally and have the funding to back the case up, I think they'd lose. The problem is not many companies have the capital to fight giant corporations in court, let alone Joe Average just trying to sell a small app for a small business.

 

[Freakofnature]

Here's my stupid question for the day...

What format are the videos in when we access them through the YouTube app?

Are they flash?
Are they MP4?

Surely not ALL uploaded videos in their native format are able to play via the YouTube App...But they do.

So, again, how does that App then work?

 

[MattInOz]

There's nothing ridiculous about allowing equal access to public products and services. If Delta Airlines suddenly said that it will not allow anyone on its planes that doesn't carry a certain brand of luggage, people would be outraged. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR planes. They're providing a public service and platform to travel. They cannot discriminate who rides on their planes unless it threatens the safety of the plane or a federal law or something. Yet we accept that a computer vendor can approve or diapprove WHO is allowed to sell or offer software for their computer platform? Why should we? A computer is a platform and offers a service also. There is no fundamental difference. And as I said before, Nintendo should not be able or allowed to limit who can offer software for their gaming platforms either. (And YES, an iPhone IS a computer platform whether some here want to believe it or not; it runs software and computes; it's a computer).

You can call that silly or stupid or whatever you want, but discrimination is discrimination.

You are not allowed currently to use Cell phone on planes as they may interfere with the primary function moving people safely at speed, if your choice of lugage is going to effect that would have been banned to.

These things get relaxed over time ie. phones with flight mode or electronic devices and even soon full cell service on planes.

The iPhone is a product buyer beware.
Nothing to do with discrimination.
Apple let Straight people buy their products as well these days.

 

[Niiro13]

There's nothing ridiculous about allowing equal access to public products and services. If Delta Airlines suddenly said that it will not allow anyone on its planes that doesn't carry a certain brand of luggage, people would be outraged. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR planes. They're providing a public service and platform to travel. They cannot discriminate who rides on their planes unless it threatens the safety of the plane or a federal law or something. Yet we accept that a computer vendor can approve or diapprove WHO is allowed to sell or offer software for their computer platform? Why should we? A computer is a platform and offers a service also. There is no fundamental difference. And as I said before, Nintendo should not be able or allowed to limit who can offer software for their gaming platforms either. (And YES, an iPhone IS a computer platform whether some here want to believe it or not; it runs software and computes; it's a computer).

You can call that silly or stupid or whatever you want, but discrimination is discrimination. If Apple allows Microsoft to offer an office product for the iPhone but does not allow Joe Public to offer a competing product, they are discriminating. It's the very thing that got Microsoft into trouble when they tried to discourage other browsers from running on their Windows OS. Why should it be any different because the operating system is OSX and is running on a small portable computer with a phone capability (i.e. the iPhone)? Because Apple is a smaller company? That doesn't make it right. Because the iPhone isn't a desktop or even a laptop by definition? So what? It's a computer that runs OSX. Period.

Here we have Apple potentially stopping Flash and/or Java from being offered on the iPhone because they want you using all Apple tech. How is that different from Microsoft discouraging (through various business deal tactics and tying the OS into key functions) people from using other browsers than Internet Explorer? It's the same thing. It's the same legal precedent and the fact that the DOJ fouled it up by taking a bribe doesn't change it for what it is (upheld in Europe).

As I said, if someone were to challenge them legally and have the funding to back the case up, I think they'd lose. The problem is not many companies have the capital to fight giant corporations in court, let alone Joe Average just trying to sell a small app for a small business.

So the court finds in favor of you vs. Delta Airlines...but the courts can't make Delta Airlines put you on their plane.

Like I said before. Even if you win against Apple (which you will), the courts can't make Apple distribute your app. Watch the event again! Apple never said they were preventing malicious apps, porn, etc. They just said they won't distribute it. That's it! You can't sue them for refusing to distribute your app...you can sue them for preventing you to compile YOUR OWN programs on YOUR OWN iPhone. Which they never prevented! There's nothing in the SDK that pops up an error message when you compile saying "This app is porn! Compiler error!" That's when you can sue.

I hate how people keep posting this same argument! Apple can't prevent you from making your own programs! No one is arguing against that! We're saying that Apple can refuse to distribute it! Which they can! Everyone's using two different arguments that everyone already agrees on to try to use it against each other? That's like saying oranges are orange, when the other person is saying that apples are red!

Here's my stupid question for the day...

What format are the videos in when we access them through the YouTube app?

Are they flash?
Are they MP4?

Surely not ALL uploaded videos in their native format are able to play via the YouTube App...But they do.

So, again, how does that App then work?

Easy...when you upload to YouTube...even before iPhone...YouTube converted that video. Apple just asked YouTube to convert the video to mp4 instead/as well as flv. That's all.

 

[Freakofnature]

Easy...when you upload to YouTube...even before iPhone...YouTube converted that video. Apple just asked YouTube to convert the video to mp4 instead/as well as flv. That's all.[/QUOTE]


Hmm, thanks for your suggestion as to how, but I find it hard to believe that YouTube would convert every single video to MP4. Surely rather, it's a case of "on call fromXiPhone, convert X file to..."?

I donno, all a bit techie for me.

 

[frankly]

There's nothing ridiculous about allowing equal access to public products and services. If Delta Airlines suddenly said that it will not allow anyone on its planes that doesn't carry a certain brand of luggage, people would be outraged. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR planes. They're providing a public service and platform to travel. They cannot discriminate who rides on their planes unless it threatens the safety of the plane or a federal law or something. Yet we accept that a computer vendor can approve or diapprove WHO is allowed to sell or offer software for their computer platform? Why should we? A computer is a platform and offers a service also. There is no fundamental difference. And as I said before, Nintendo should not be able or allowed to limit who can offer software for their gaming platforms either. (And YES, an iPhone IS a computer platform whether some here want to believe it or not; it runs software and computes; it's a computer).

You can call that silly or stupid or whatever you want, but discrimination is discrimination. If Apple allows Microsoft to offer an office product for the iPhone but does not allow Joe Public to offer a competing product, they are discriminating. It's the very thing that got Microsoft into trouble when they tried to discourage other browsers from running on their Windows OS. Why should it be any different because the operating system is OSX and is running on a small portable computer with a phone capability (i.e. the iPhone)? Because Apple is a smaller company? That doesn't make it right. Because the iPhone isn't a desktop or even a laptop by definition? So what? It's a computer that runs OSX. Period.

Here we have Apple potentially stopping Flash and/or Java from being offered on the iPhone because they want you using all Apple tech. How is that different from Microsoft discouraging (through various business deal tactics and tying the OS into key functions) people from using other browsers than Internet Explorer? It's the same thing. It's the same legal precedent and the fact that the DOJ fouled it up by taking a bribe doesn't change it for what it is (upheld in Europe).

As I said, if someone were to challenge them legally and have the funding to back the case up, I think they'd lose. The problem is not many companies have the capital to fight giant corporations in court, let alone Joe Average just trying to sell a small app for a small business.

And so what do you do but follow it up with something even less informed than your last post.

1) Your analogy is ridiculous on its face. Delta already tells you what you can and can not carry on the plane. Similarly Apple is telling vendors what they can and can not distribute onto the iPhone platform. It isn't the brand of luggage. It is what is in the luggage, how much it weighs, is it potentially harmful, etc. That is exactly what Apple is looking at.

2) Try looking up the word discrimination before you continue to throw it around. It requires unjust or prejudicial treatment. So you are using it in the wrong context and then to justify it you are throwing around examples of things that HAVE NOT HAPPENED. You are basing your argument that Apple is discriminating based on something they haven't done.

3) Apple isn't stopping Flash and/or Java in order to force you to buy "Apple tech." You are going to be able to buy applications created by a slew of other vendors. Stop inventing justifications and then arguing why they are wrong.

4) Wow, imagine my surprise to see ANOTHER person that doesn't understand why Microsoft got in trouble for what they did. Microsoft did NOT get in trouble for installing their browser and their media player. They got in trouble by leveraging a near monopoly that they had with Windows in order to force other products down people's throats. If they didn't have the Windows near monopoly at the time then their other actions would NOT have been illegal. Apple DOES NOT have a near monopoly with the iPhone. There are TONS of other devices on the market. In fact, even in the smartphone area Apple isn't the biggest player. Those would be RIM in the U.S. and Nokia worldwide.

So, please read a book or two before responding again.