Adobe Could Release Flash for iPhone if Apple Approves

[nagromme]

...and why now and not 2 years ago...

To be fair to Adobe, even Apple's PRIVATE tools--and the iPhone OS itself--were brand new and nowhere near complete two years ago. It's a young and rapidly-changing platform, and it's clear that Apple pushed hard to deliver the SDK even a year later, and still had things (push, copy-paste, GPS heading) that weren't ready on launching the SDK.

So Adobe didn't have the tools to do this 2 years ago. Nor would it have made any sense for Apple to wait and not launch the iPhone until Adobe finished Flash. It was a chicken and egg situation, and last year--a fast growing iPhone user base but no official SDK yet--was the chicken! We only just recently got the egg.

 

[salvatorereda]

like this is really going to happen, ever.

sal

 

[happydude]

would be nice, but would be great if they give the option to turn it off when not needed.

 

[nagromme]

I'm missing an important argument from this discussion:
One of the main reasons for Apple not to allow full Flash, is that it will give Apple less control over media content on the iPhone.
With Flash, users could potentially play music, stream audio and video, play games, etcetera.
This would mean new "derivative" markets, that Apple would have no control over, and that potentially compete with their AppStore and some of their business relations (YouTube, Google).

Apple already allows streaming media--Pandora, Last.FM, PangeaVR, numerous photo-sharing apps, etc.--and Apple will also let you offer a free app as a front-end for a paid online service that Apple gets no cut of. (They allowed that even before there was an App Store of course, but now I'm pretty sure they allow it within apps too. For one thing, some of the free services also have a premium paid version.)

Games, however, would indeed violate Apple's terms. Apple will let you access web services or stream media, but they won't let you run apps by means other than the official SDK:

"No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."

That Apple quote from Daring Fireball...
http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/adobe_speaks_of_flash_player_for_iphone
...who is sure Flash is not coming. But (although I find the site very intelligent on the whole) I feel he has overlooked two important things:

1. The possibility of Flash content BUILT IN to app store apps, courtesy of tools supplied by Adobe to developers.

and

2. You already CAN write games and other software without Apple's own SDK. They can be done in JavaScript! Flash would work the same way--it's still a Web app and not an app installed on the phone.

Think about it: If there were a Flash player for the iPhone, you could write games and other software in Flash rather than in Cocoa Touch.

But of course, Apple's own SDK has huge advantages: it supports the multitouch screen and other features, it installs apps that don't require the Internet and start right up with no Web-loading wait, and it allows sales and promotion through the App Store.

 

[bki122689]

hold on, let me see if i understand this.

First and i will pray that thy do release flash for iphone.

but

if adobe said that it will be an app released through app store how would it run. doesnt apps quite when you press the home button?

 

[bki122689]

ok let me see it understand this.

first i hope flash does come out for iphone cause i will be f***ing awsome.

but

if adobe said they would release it through app store, which will make it an app. then how would flash run if every time you press a home button the app quits. Unless it is released through an update.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

So Adobe didn't have the tools to do this 2 years ago. Nor would it have made any sense for Apple to wait and not launch the iPhone until Adobe finished Flash.

Don't make me laugh, mate. You really think Apple is going to allow Flash on the iPhone? You really think Apple regretted Flash not being ready? If anything, Java would likely be first - not that it matters either way.

 

[thelordnyax]

When I first got the first iPhone...i really wanted Flash Player, and thought i needed it...but now...i can live without it, though i would certainly welcome it...

and yes, i think it'd have to be a separate application that launches from a link in safari like youtube does...

If it does function that way, i see no reason why Apple would turn it down...unless they're worried that being able to watch flash-based videos will reduce their iTunes TV show sales

 

[thelordnyax]

but

if adobe said they would release it through app store, which will make it an app. then how would flash run if every time you press a home button the app quits.

hmm, i'm guessing you didn't read any of the above posts saying it'd be run as a separate application like YouTube does? 'cause that'd be the only way that i think Apple would allow it, if they do...

 

[Pikemann Urge]

Amen, that's why I am rooting for Android and smaller, sleeker, open source iPhones and all the developers that got turned away to go to google.

I think you're making too much of the fact that some devs got rejected (fair or not, I don't know yet). It seems ATM that 90%+ of devs are happy. Let time tell on that one, though.

not being able to wipe music on the device,

I think you can, actually.

non dedicated GPU on all the lower end Apple models.

They are dedicated. Just not as powerful as we'd like.

Some folks say it's inevitable that Flash needs to come to the iPhone. I say it's inevitable that it won't.

 

[BergerFan]

I may have interpreted this wrong, but I'm sure Adobe only want to release a Flash video player, not to enable Flash in web pages, mirroring how You Tube works.
All that'll take on Apple's part, is just to put the code into Safari to activate the links. It shouldn't take up any more resources than the current You Tube app does.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Adobe hasn't commented on how well that version runs, but if Flash's persistently dreadful performance on Mac OS X is any indication, my personal money is on a performance rating of "Martha, get mah shotgun."

I'm with ars on this one...

 

[Chortos-2]

I may have interpreted this wrong, but I'm sure Adobe only want to release a Flash video player, not to enable Flash in web pages, mirroring how You Tube works.

Now this is something I would not mind. However isn’t a piece of ‘Flash video’ still a ‘Flash application that downloads and shows video’?

Personally, I am against Flash at all. On any platform. But, I believe, I am in the minority— As for if they do bring Flash to iPhone OS, I would, as many before me, most like it to be similar to what the YouTube plug-in for Safari is now, launching when I tap a Flash object in Safari. As for having a plug-in to use in other applications, I would be upset if developers started abusing it, creating applications that in fact do nothing but launch the plug-in to run their Flash version of the same application. Luckily, there is this ban on interpretable code, but they would sure somehow find a way around it.

All that'll take on Apple's part, is just to put the code into Safari to activate the links. It shouldn't take up any more resources than the current You Tube app does.

It should, because the YouTube application plays H.264 video that is supported natively by the OS or the MediaPlayer application.

P.S. Adobe really isn’t the evil that has made Flash be a performance disaster, it’s Macromedia that has been developing Flash until Adobe bought them. Hopefully Adobe manages to fix Flash sometime (or better yet, people give up using Flash). Regarding ‘people in Adobe being able to program for Mac’, take a look at Photoshop.

 

[The Phazer]

Those who think Flash is going anywhere are wrong. Flash is doing a lot of work to build in DRM into Flash which broadcasters need to prevent capture of all that streaming content to make their business models work. It's easily a hundred billion dollar market, and the lack of DRM will mean the HTML5 tag will do nothing to replace Flash because it's too easy to capture.

The only alternative to Flash is Silverlight gaining a foothold instead, again, because it has DRM and DRM in streaming is the next big thing.

There are plenty of sites I try and struggle though on a daily basis that miss Flash. I hope it comes soon, integrated into Safari.

For a start, given the absence of any improvements in the YouTube app's navigation being beyond useless, it'd mean I could actually bother with YouTube again.

EDIT: Oh, and for UK people Flash is the only forseeable way that we're going to see downloads for the iPhone from the BBC iPlayer - Apple refuse to licence Fairplay to the BBC, so the Mac version will use Adobe AIR for the timed expiry DRM.

Phazer

 

[Aurial]

While I understand your view, it is a valid point. There are text-to-speech programs that do enable the blind to navigate the web. I'm sure you knew this, and when it comes to flash content, those programs are pretty useless.

What use is an iPhone to a blind person anyway, regardless of whether it has flash or not?

If you're put off Adobe because they don't cater to blind people then I'm sure you'll find many a flaw in the iPhone's design.

 

[twoodcc]

i really hope this gets released. i would like to see it, and i'm sure there are others as well

 

[jalcide]

the flash we should have had, shouldn't have.

if adobe really gets a non-flash-lite version, say 8 or above, ported and performing even somewhat reasonably, not only will i be totally blown away, but i think they should seriously consider re-porting the optimized iphone version back to the desktop. ;-)

(sorry, i'm a flash proponent and that was highly cynical of me.)

now for my real prediction...

aside from a few recent hardware accelerated overtures, the core vector/anti-aliasing/alpha-blending/compositing display engine for flash was developed almost a decade ago, with display hardware almost as low-powered as current (as of this writing) iphone display hardware. so maybe it is possible. another way of saying this, it's amazing how "flat" flash performance has been over the years with ballooning cpu power (i.e. floating point and specialized math processors) and the almost exponential performance we've enjoyed in dedicated video/gpu processing. in some alternate "slider world" the flash side of the web might have performed and scaled on the order of a "3d (or 2d) video game experience" by this time (and at fullscreen resolutions). oddly, it may be just this unfortunate resistance to perform well (the arbitrary bottlenecks) that allows flash to "magically" work on a mobile arm processor. if so, cool, but for a very back-handed reason. the flash we should have had, shouldn't have.

- jalcide

 

[boomchip]

Doesn't anyone realize that if they did release this as an option, you probably could turn it off if it were within Safari. Not to mention they said the plan is to release it within the App Store, meaning you wouldn't be required to download it or use it if you didn't want to.

Quit whining about battery usage... deal with it. If you want to be able to use anything Flash-driven, you'll get over it pretty quick. The iPhone/iTouch isn't meant to replace the computer, it's just an accessory to life and a convenience while not near a real computer. That being said, Flash usage on the iPhone wouldn't be as heavy as it is on the computer, and it never will be IMO.

I also love how Steve is saying that the Flash product wouldn't "run well" on the iPhone... as if he were the one developing it. Just come out and say it as you have in the past: Flash is not welcome on our platform. How about let Adobe take care of it and decide if it can be run or not?

 

[Pierremaison]

the only thing that apple will do that "compromises" their original idea of the iphone is they will eventually put a keyboard on it. Because apple knows that it doesn't matter how good their virtual keyboard is...business people will not seriously look at the iphone until there is a physical keyboard attached to the phone.

Absolute rubbish, I run 50 of them within my company. It is a fantastic business tool, better than any alternative I have seen.

 

[Nick D]

Please!

Can I haz plugins?

This would be amazing if Apple actually accepted it into mobilesafari. However, if they won't even let podcaster into the app store I highly doubt that they would let adobe make a mobilesafari plugin, esspecially since it would set a precedent for a TON of other (mostly useless) plugins.

However, a man can hope can't he? If the do accept it, they wont have to censure their ads in the EU

I have my fingers crossed for you adobe!!!!!

 

[iPhoneJoe]

while this would be a great thing, I am not counting on it

 

[Chwisch87]

Honestly, i don't really care about flash. Non of the sites i go to are flash sites sooo just one less thing to take up the battery. Hell its probably a good thing it doesn't since youtube switched over most of their videos to something that might take up less processor power. MORE BATTERY.

 

[Pooshka]

I do not want Flash.

Feedback sent.

 

[iEdd]

Nearly time to jailbreak?

Things like flash, Podcaster app, tethering, emulators, even VoIP over 3G and I'm sure many more great things are possible on the iPhone, but I think once something reaches about 8/10 on the awesome scale, it's not allowed by Apple.

Damn, I really don't want to have to jailbreak. I'll give it another few months.

Edit: I agree that flash implementation is almost always awful on websites, and I kinda wish the format would die, but seeing as it exists, having it would increase compatibility with so many more sites.

Edit 2: People that don't want flash, move along. This would be optional if implemented with enable/disable. The 3 reasons I'd like flash are:
• More compatibility with websites
• www.youtube.com [The problem with the youtube app is it doesn't support basic features, like, I dunno, actually being able to read the title of a video if it's more than about 3 words long]
• Google streetview, anywhere, anytime.

 

[acvball92]

please bring flash to the iphone Apple, web browsing would be so much better.