Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flash is a closed source product. Adobe needs to acknowledge that they bought a dying product and cut losses. While flash has its uses still - html 5...

Yep... and iOS is an open source product... absolutely...
Please... I don't like Flash myself but it rather hypocritical this kind of argument... if Flash doesn't work very well on Apple products it is not solely because of Adobe... Apple has its responsibility...
Apple wants HTML 5 just because it is not Flash... if there was something different Apple would approve it as well... in fact... I'm sure Apple would be very happy to support a Flash version where they can control what is executed on Flash (aka... since iOS is closed as hell, and everything is controlled by Apple towards revenues of course, the same would apply to a Flash version with this kind of capabilities)
 
love YouTubes HTML5

Flash and the HTML5 <video> tag:

There's been a lot of discussion lately about whether or not the HTML5 <video> tag is going to replace Flash Player for video distribution on the web. We’ve been excited about the HTML5 effort and <video> tag for quite a while now, and most YouTube videos can now be played via our HTML5 player. This work has shown us that, while the <video> tag is a big step forward for open standards, the Adobe Flash Platform will continue to play a critical role in video distribution.

It's important to understand what a site like YouTube needs from the browser in order to provide a good experience for viewers as well as content creators. We need to do more than just point the browser at a video file like the image tag does - there’s a lot more to it than just retrieving and displaying a video. The <video> tag certainly addresses the basic requirements and is making good progress on meeting others, but the <video> tag does not currently meet all the needs of a site like YouTube:

Standard Video Format
First and foremost, we need all browsers to support a standard video format. Users upload 24 hours of video every minute to YouTube, so it's important to minimize the number of video formats we support. Especially when you consider that for each format, we also provide a variety of sizes (360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p). We have been encoding YouTube videos with the H.264 codec since early 2007, which we use for both Flash Player and mobile devices like the iPhone and Android phones. This let us quickly and easily launch HTML5 playback for most videos on browsers that support H.264, such as Chrome and Safari.

Concerns about patents and licensing have prevented some browsers from supporting H.264; this in turn has prevented the HTML5 spec from requiring support for a standard format. We believe the web needs an open video format option. One that not only helps address the licensing concerns, but is also optimized for the unique attributes of serving video on the web. To that end, we’re excited about the new WebM project. Google is open sourcing and contributing the VP8 codec to the WebM effort. Google, Mozilla, and Opera have all committed to support WebM, and we have already started making YouTube videos available in the WebM format. Adobe has also committed to support VP8, the video codec for WebM, in an upcoming Flash Player release.

Robust video streaming
Closely related to the need for a standard format is the need for an effective and reliable means of delivering the video to the browser. Simply pointing the browser at a URL is not good enough, as that doesn't allow users to easily get to the part of the video they want. As we’ve been expanding into serving full-length movies and live events, it also becomes important to have fine control over buffering and dynamic quality control. Flash Player addresses these needs by letting applications manage the downloading and playback of video via Actionscript in conjunction with either HTTP or the RTMP video streaming protocol. The HTML5 standard itself does not address video streaming protocols, but a number of vendors and organizations are working to improve the experience of delivering video over HTTP. We are beginning to contribute to these efforts and hope to see a single standard emerge.

Content Protection
YouTube doesn't own the videos that you watch - they're owned by their respective creators, who control how those videos are distributed through YouTube. For YouTube Rentals, video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed. Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.

Encapsulation + Embedding
Flash Player's ability to combine application code and resources into a secure, efficient package has been instrumental in allowing YouTube videos to be embedded in other web sites. Web site owners need to ensure that embedded content is not able to access private user information on the containing page, and we need to ensure that our video player logic travels with the video (for features like captions, annotations, and advertising). While HTML5 adds sandboxing and message-passing functionality, Flash is the only mechanism most web sites allow for embedded content from other sites.

Fullscreen Video
HD video begs to be watched in full screen, but that has not historically been possible with pure HTML. While most browsers have a fullscreen mode, they do not allow javascript to initiate it, nor do they allow a small part of the page (such as a video player) to fill the screen. Flash Player provides robust, secure controls for enabling hardware-accelerated fullscreen displays. While WebKit has recently taken some steps forward on fullscreen support, it's not yet sufficient for video usage (particularly the ability to continue displaying content on top of the video).

Camera and Microphone access
Video is not just a one-way medium. Every day, thousands of users record videos directly to YouTube from within their browser using webcams, which would not be possible without Flash technology. Camera access is also needed for features like video chat and live broadcasting - extremely important on mobile phones which practically all have a built-in camera. Flash Player has provided rich camera and microphone access for several years now, while HTML5 is just getting started.


We’re very happy to see such active and enthusiastic discussion about evolving web standards - YouTube is dependent on browser enhancement in order for us to improve the video experience for our users. While HTML5’s video support enables us to bring most of the content and features of YouTube to computers and other devices that don’t support Flash Player, it does not yet meet all of our needs. Today, Adobe Flash provides the best platform for YouTube’s video distribution requirements, which is why our primary video player is built with it.
 
"We believe in open systems. "

Paradox?

Adobe believes in systems that are open to their closed software, so they get the lock-in, not the systems company.

Similar to Apple in a way, who wants software standards that are open (e.g. HTML5), so they can get some lock-in with other apps that only run on their attractive iDevices.

Adobe, I have been using your software for just over 20 years now. Why is it that I cant wait for another company to run you down?

Flash was a Macromedia product until far less than 20 years ago. Nothing to do with Adobe till the more recent acquisition.
 
Couldn't they make a flash for cydia, jailbreaking is legal now so there wouldn't be any bad publicity. If anything it would help there publicity and they could charge like 99 cents and they would make oodles of cash. I herd someone is working on porting flash to the ios and I bet adobe can do it faster and better. Believe me I love HTML5 I find it much better than flash but it would be useful on my iPhone and iPad for some sites.
 
This decision makes sense. They have had much support from Google and are now shipping Flash 10.1 for Android and even carriers are starting to bundle it.

People that are making this out to be a Flash vs HTML5 choice are blind. There is no choice. You can support both at the same time. Only in Apple's world does Adobe need to lose for HTML5 to win. :rolleyes:
 
I'm just fine with Flash not coming on the iPhone. But I still think it could have been a decent decision to 'allow flash' but have it disabled by default. Most people wouldn't bother enabling it since they wouldn't be missing much with how any native apps there are, and HTML5/web apps that are available. and then Adobe couldn't whine, and people that don't mind draining their battery could be warned. But honestly my biggest worry is that Adobe may slowdown / further diminish their offerings and quality of products for the Mac. I just hate to see what seems like souring relationships with companies Apple has had such a strong relationship with in the past.

Side-note (Off topic): I think Adobe needs some serious competition for all their products, and I'm glad Apple is at least (artificially) creating competition on the Flash front, hopefully it will push Adobe products to support more open standards, and push them to improve their products further.
 
Adobe is as committed to Openness as Google is to Network Neutrality... Oh, wait! :D

No, really: Adobe's got the ball right now. Jailbreaking is legal, I wonder what stops them from delivering a flash player/Packager built apps through the Cydia Store.
 
I talked to a client of mine who went to the AT&T store to get a new phone. He wanted an iPhone. The rep said, "Oh, you shouldn't buy that. Those are on recall. Here's a Droid." How ridiculous.

Interesting, so they lied to your client. AT&T has always pushed other phones since day one of the iPhone.

And the iPhone continues to be AT&T's biggest seller. :)
 
HA!!! Flash an open system? What a laugh?

Adobe is funny, they say they believe in open systems when talking about flash which is a closed system, what a bunch of bs, this guy is an idiot and needs to shut up. Flash sucks and even if it did not it is a closed system, Adobe you need to admit this.
 
Yep... and iOS is an open source product... absolutely...
Please... I don't like Flash myself but it rather hypocritical this kind of argument... if Flash doesn't work very well on Apple products it is not solely because of Adobe... Apple has its responsibility...
Apple wants HTML 5 just because it is not Flash... if there was something different Apple would approve it as well... in fact... I'm sure Apple would be very happy to support a Flash version where they can control what is executed on Flash (aka... since iOS is closed as hell, and everything is controlled by Apple towards revenues of course, the same would apply to a Flash version with this kind of capabilities)

There's nothing hypocritical at all about Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want Flash because it is a closed product they have no control over. iOS is not open either, but Apple controls it and thus will never be held hostage over it. With Flash they would be beholden to Adobe, and that's a bad place to be. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Apple wants HTML 5 because it is open for all. Thus they cannot be held hostage by it. These are business decisions that make sense.
 
My anecdotal opinion; since I installed ClickToFlash, Safari runs much smoother and doesn't ever crash anymore.

*ClickToFlash effectively disables Safari from loading flash, putting a gray box there with a square to click if you want to open it.
 
If Flash is soooo open...

Why does Adobe charge $700 for it? If it were truly an open platform, the software to create Flash should be free like all the other open platforms. Adobe is full of BS.
 
I laugh so hard I could cry

Jailbreaking is legal....according to that nationally recognizable legal body the Library of Congress.

At least if you're going to make a statement, make a true one. Jailbreaking has been deemed acceptable by the Library of Congress. I don't see any judges there making an informed legal opinion.

Adobe discusses Flash as being "Open"?

Says the man whose company holds the licensing and requires licensing fees for their proprietary software and technology. (duh, it is a business afterall)

How about using the term widespread.

HTML5 on the other hand is proprietary, yet FREE for now.

Let's educate the media writers so that they get their terms right for a change.
 
Adobe has moved on...

So did many Apple customers...


Good Job Steve!
Love your signature. How much does Adobe pay you to astroturf for them?

Flash is mainly used for advertising. I have no interest in CPU consuming Flash ads on my iOS device. I guess this is the end of your checks from Adobe eh?

I could install flash in the form of (FRASH) on my jailbroken devices any time I wanted to but I chose keep that crap off my device.
 
This decision makes sense. They have had much support from Google and are now shipping Flash 10.1 for Android and even carriers are starting to bundle it.

3 years later. 3 years ago they were pissing on Apple's head while having nothing to show and 3 years later it still sucks. I think the message is loud and clear.
 
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear (again). What I meant was Apple didn't learn from the Macintosh vs Windows era in the sense that they need to innovate 10x harder in order to compete with the number of manufacturers on the other end.

My moot point is not necessarily connected to this Adobe vs Apple issue. It's more of a Apple vs Google+HTC+Motorola+etc...

I think Apple DID learn. They did learn to build a business model relying on profitability rather than market share. And they're doing fine. If they license iOS to third-party manufacturers, they'll lose everything they are. Apple won't be Apple anymore, IMO.
 
Why does Adobe charge $700 for it? If it were truly an open platform, the software to create Flash should be free like all the other open platforms. Adobe is full of BS.

It is free. You're the one that is full of BS. Flash CS5 is one tool, Adobe does provide others, like the Flex SDK which are free. For an IDE, you can use Eclipse, which has a plug-in for it.

Not to mention the spec to SWF files is published and open source implementations are being done (see Gnash, the GNU Flash runtime).
 
Flash is a closed source product. Adobe needs to acknowledge that they bought a dying product and cut losses. While flash has its uses still - html 5...

Of course. When Adobe says 'We believe in open systems' what they really mean is: 'Well, our system is open to US!'.

My anecdotal opinion; since I installed ClickToFlash, Safari runs much smoother and doesn't ever crash anymore.

Same here. Everyone running Safari on Mac OSX should get it. It's a beautiful thing.
 
Does this mean they are going to slow down or stop altogether the development of the flash plugin for OS X? I know the article suggest for iOS but you never know.

They wouldn't stop developing for osx as well. A lot of people use macs, especially now with all apples recent publicity and new releases. If they stopped developing for osx flash would be redundant within months. Every site worth worrying about would use other ways, be it html5 or something else.

Bad move adobe.
 
Not to mention the spec to SWF files is published

For the most part. Anything related to DRM is not published, along with other minor features. You are not going to be able to play videos on Hulu, for example, using these specs.

and open source implementations are being done (see Gnash, the GNU Flash runtime).

Gnash supports Flash 7, and some features of 8 or 9. It's up to you to decide if that says anything about the published specs.
 
Always annoys the hell out of me the two-faced cheek of Adobe.

"We believe in open systems."

Given the argument between Apple and Adobe was over Flash... which is a closed system.

While I dont think the spat between Apple and Adobe has been good at all for us consumers, I'm little tired of this whole 'wounded animal' act Adobe is peddling. It just doesn't wash. They're just sore because they didn't see the HTML5 thing coming.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.