Adobe Points Finger at Apple on 'Get Flash' Page for iPhone

[thesheep]

Flash can be very good in websites, or it can be badly misused. Just like most other tools. It exists as a powerful option for adding animation, video and various other effects and functionality.

It is a big shame that Flash is a closed standard, as it gives one company (Adobe) too much power in the web, which should be all about openness. So this sort of gives some credibility to Apple's decision not to support it. But not really. Afterall, Apple is happy for Flash to run in desktop versions of Safari.

Apple needs to be pragmatic and provide the best user experience they can. My guess is that there were originally significant technical hurdles to making Flash work well in the iPhone. But that was only 1 reason. They also wanted to push their own solutions (quicktime) and so maybe they haven't tried particularly hard to make Flash work. It hasn't been a top priority. It obviously is a bit of a problem now and they need to do something about it.

The best thing of all, however, is if Adobe would make Flash an open standard. So they can also stop whining here.

 

[Treq]

They also wanted to push their own solutions (quicktime) and so maybe they haven't tried particularly hard to make Flash work. It hasn't been a top priority. It obviously is a bit of a problem now and they need to do something about it.

Why does Apple have to do something about it? Haven't they given Adobe all the info (specs, requirements and restrictions) that they need to make a flash player for the iPhone? If Adobe can't do it within those parameters, then it's on them.

 

[NightFox]

I think it's ironic all this Apple not liking Flash business when the iPod/Nike+ pages are some of the most Flash-heavy sites I've seen.

 

[wildmac]

Get real people...

First off, to all the Flash haters, you guys are the myopic people that prevent real progress. Sure there are a lot of bad flash webpages, but there is plenty of content out there, games, video, and more that runs on Flash and you don't know it. Video is the king, and for some reason Apple doesn't want you viewing video apart from what they sell you. It's all about the $$$. Want proof? Apple added their own Flash player that only works with Utube. They had to do that or they would have been killed in the press, but still they have their own custom flash player for UTube video, but block all else.

Again, it's all about the $$$. They want to SELL you video, they don't want you getting it for free, or worse yet, buying it from someone else.

It's all part of Apple's arrogance. Now I love my MacPro, but I'm forced to buy Dell monitors because Apple keeps changing the connectors. The latest Apple 24" monitor has a cable that's too short, and an adapter that requires you to buy a new video card, or a new laptop. Get real Apple. You are going to chase people away.

 

[wildmac]

Why does Apple have to do something about it? Haven't they given Adobe all the info (specs, requirements and restrictions) that they need to make a flash player for the iPhone? If Adobe can't do it within those parameters, then it's on them.

It's on Apple. It's about the $$$. They want to sell you video, and not have you watching it for free on some other site.

(And it could also be part of the original plan with AT&T, whose network really couldn't handle all that video traffic at the start, and probably still can't.

And QT will never be the video standard, because it allows you to save the content. Flash-video sites don't want you saving the video content.

 

[Treq]

Apple added their own Flash player that only works with Utube. They had to do that or they would have been killed in the press, but still they have their own custom flash player for UTube video, but block all else.

Umm... No. YouTube on the I phone isn't flash. It's quicktime h.264. YouTube made their site work with the iPhone, and with flash. I have my MacBook set to use quicktime when I go to YouTube because Flash player for mac is so poorly written.

 

[Treq]

It's on Apple. It's about the $$$. They want to sell you video, and not have you watching it for free on some other site.

(And it could also be part of the original plan with AT&T, whose network really couldn't handle all that video traffic at the start, and probably still can't.

And QT will never be the video standard, because it allows you to save the content. Flash-video sites don't want you saving the video content.

First, you are kinda contradicting yourself there. On one hand they want everyone to use the QT video standard, which allows you to save videos. But on the other hand they don't want you getting video for free from anyone else?

Second, sure apple wants to sell you video... they are in business to make money. But is that really why they aren't allowing Flash yet? And if so why are there a multitude of apps in the app store that distribute video. (Joost, MLB, EyeTV, SlingBox...) Apple makes no money from the video in those apps, just from the initial sale of the app, and only then if it isn't a free app.

 

[balabab]

I Am Too Old To Here With Your

Apple should bundle the ClickToFlash plug-in into Mobile Safari. It prevents flash from running unless you really want it to run. This should address, in part, Apple's stated reason for not allowing flash (battery drain and stability) as the user would only enable it for those parts of the web that they really want to see.

And, while they are at it, they should enable file uploads in Mobile Safari to upload photos and videos.

I hate only being able to use part of the internet on my iPhone when there is no technical reason I shouldn't be able to do both Flash on demand and file uploads.

Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?

I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.

 

[coolings]

I wish Adobe would work something out. There have been numerous sites I could not pull up because of flash.

 

[davelanger]

Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?

I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.

Wow I thought it was just my 5 year old mac choking on flash videos because my computer was 5 years old.

So its really because flash sucks on the mac? That is good to know

 

[mac2x]

Flash doesn't just stink on Macs...I avoid Flash websites like the plague on my windows box because it slows the machine down to a crawl. Granted, it's a Pentium 4, but still it sucks. On my Mac, I only notice > 50% processor time being used by flash when viewing HD vids at YouTube. Still annoying, though. Wake up, Adobe!

 

[-aggie-]

Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?

I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.

Isn't the user experience destroyed when we can't open a page or go to a link because we don't have Flash? I know what you're saying, but it's destroyed either way (too sloooow or nothing).

 

[KristenM]

Isn't the user experience destroyed when we can't open a page or go to a link because we don't have Flash? I know what you're saying, but it's destroyed either way (too sloooow or nothing).

Exactly. While flash can be a PITA, it's really annoying to not be able to get to certain websites or other content because of the lack of flash. I'd like the option to turn it on only when I need it.

 

[adder7712]

I really hope HTML 5 video will be widely adopted and we will be less dependent of Flash.

And is also an open standard.

 

[ravenvii]

Those who design websites with Flash are just lazy and poor web designers. Fortunately, those sites are becoming more and more rare.

It's video (YouTube, et al) that Flash has a stranglehold on.

I want HTML5 video to become standardized too, but the problem is, on what? QuickTime? Windows Media? It could very well end up much worse than Flash.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Those who design websites with Flash are just lazy and poor web designers. Fortunately, those sites are becoming more and more rare.

It's video (YouTube, et al) that Flash has a stranglehold on.

I want HTML5 video to become standardized too, but the problem is, on what? QuickTime? Windows Media? It could very well end up much worse than Flash.

As someone who has worked with all kinds of websites, this post is nothing but pure foolishness. How is a flash website being lazy, or a result of a poor web designer? It's much more difficult to be a good actionscript coder than it is to throw together some HTML tags with some CSS applied. You've got to be kidding. Also, some of the coolest looking websites I've ever seen were done entirely in flash. Flash allows you to basically create interactive apps in a web browser. It can be a great tool.

On the other hand, most flash sites aren't very good just because of the fact that most websites are not very good. A bad site does not become a good one in flash. So sure, many flash sites can be bad, but the platform itself is neutral. Great Flash programmers make amazing sites. Period.

Also, asking if HTML5 will become standardized on Quicktime or Qindows Media shows a complete lack of understanding on the topic. Quicktime and Windows Media are not codecs and nothing at all would be "standarized" on containers.

Please take care to learn how these things work before talking about them in such a manner. It is frustrating to see.