Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Responds to Apple's Anti-Flash Stance With Comments on Openness, Ad Campaign
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which parts are missing ?
Here, let me link you to the available spec so you can get to digging :
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/
The two parts supposedly missing involve Sorenson Spark and RTMP.
However, the RTMP spec was made public in June 2009, and Sorenson Spark doesn't belong to Adobe so obviously they can't release details unless it's OK with Sorenson. For all intents and purposes, the SWF format is open, but of course detractorts will continue to sing "nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah, not an open standard" until Adobe has handed them everything on a silver platter.
Sorenson... now where I have heard that before... Oh right, Apple's use of Sorenson Video in Quicktime 3. Now that was a pain for all the Linux/Windows users at the time. Talk about proprietary...
Sorenson Spark seems a none issue, it's basically a video codec. FLV can contain and most content creators use H.264. So even if you don't have the Sorenson crap (which I'm betting you can license from Sorenson) you still have a very functional Flash clone from just the spec.
Like you said, this isn't even part of the Flash spec per se, just like HTML4 doesn't define what JPEG is.
EDIT : Just found some rather funny piece looking up the Sorenson stuff, it seems Apple sued Sorenson for licensing the video codec to Macromedia back in 2002 :
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/01/2012217
Wow. Talk about the kettle and the pot. Apple against openness ? Wanting to be the only kid on the block with the Sorenson license ?
Indeed.
QuickTime, around the time that Windows 2000 was the norm, was hands down the worst Windows application in existence. I normally dismiss conspiracy theories, but QT was so jaw-droppingly bad that it was difficult to believe they hadn't tweaked it for maximum damage. Win2K was the first version of Windows that was good at trapping and containing apps that froze or crashed, so that it wouldn't affect the rest of the system like it did on Win98, and it worked fine with everything except QT which somehow managed to bring down the system anyway.
Oh, anyone remember back when Adobe and Apple were trying to integrate Flash with QT? Macromedia wanted video and Apple wanted interactivity on top of videos, so they actually made it so that QT would play Flash content embedded in QT movies exported from Flash. Those were the days when Apple liked to collaborate with other companies instead of playing this eenie-meenie-miney game of picking a new sworn enemy every other day.
I never claimed to be 100% right about anything I said. I just wanted to express my opinion on this issue. That's all.
All versions of HTML can easily fallback on each other.
What's your point ? That the title of that book is misleading ? Because then you'd be right.
DHTML is basically DOM manipulations using Javascript to change HTML client side. That is programming since you are using a programming language like I explained, Javascript.
There is no such thing as DHTML per say.
Do you even know why that is ? HTML easily falls back because if the spec says to ignore tags it the browser doesn't understand. It doesn't mean that if you make a HTML5 app and you try to access it in a HTML4/XHTML browser that it'll magically display using some kind of HTML4 mechanic, it means it will display any elements it understands and not the ones it doesn't.
There goes your video and your canvas.
Again, please learn a thing or two about actual Web developpement before trying to talk about it.
I never claimed to be 100% right about anything I said. I just wanted to express my opinion on this issue. That's all.
It's not really debatable. You're 100% wrong. HTML is a markup language (hence the name) and not a programming language. You can't add two numbers in HTML to take a simple example. A reasonable definition of a programming language would require it to be Turing complete (which HTML is not).
I doubt a large chunk of the user base ever even heard about the shaking baby app, which was promptly removed.
That's the thing with apps, any particular app (with the exception of titans like Facebook, Pandora, Youtube etc)) is a micro niche market that will appeal to tiny slices of the massive iPhone OS user base. And those apps are within Apple's control.
This is unlike Flash, which would be included within *the* web browser that virtually everyone with an iPhone will use. The evidence for quite some time has pointed toward Flash not being ready for prime time on mobile devices.
My post described a scenario in which Apple (if forced) would bury options to turn on/install Flash deep within the OS, with a blue window disclaimer about battery life, security, reliability etc. The idea behind this being that you could somehow limit its adoption mainly to people like us in the tech blogosphere.
A popular viral video (or an OS user's techie child) instructs everyone how to do this and non techie's say, "wow, I can finally look at that _______ website I've been wanting to see." Flash escapes quarantine and begins to conquer the one browser *everyone* with an iPhone uses and the world like a virus.
If Apple's Flash Manifesto is accurate, then you have a vast portion of your user base having a crappy end user experience. If Adobe REALLY buckles down and writes some amazing mobile Flash code, then great!
I'm not saying including Flash as an *option* (especially with a warning/disclaimer) is bad, I am saying it goes against Apple's design philosophies and they tend to REALLY stand by those. Therefore, it will never happen unless they're forced, which by the day, seems less and less likely.
Yes, there's a scenario in which people could learn to turn it off, but I will never cease to be amazed at how many people HAVE NO IDEA what lies behind the Settings icon.
I think Adobe doesn't exactly know what open is. Okay sure, open to choice. Apple choices to use HTML5 over Flash and maybe adobe is miffed because consumers wont have a choice and they will be forced to use HTML5. But I have news, if you want flash on your mobile phone (can't see why you would) get something else. There is choice for you.
And as far as open source. I'm pretty sure Flash is closed and HTML5 is open.
Thank you that is all.
And as far as open source. I'm pretty sure Flash is closed and HTML5 is open.
Thank you that is all.
*sigh*
You made the same mistake the other guy did. Read this post, it's on the page right before the one you posted on :
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9905245/
It seems people don't even participate in the discussion and then bring us back to square one.
It's hardly "choice" if you think that the iPhone rocks but other phones suck, but you also think the absence of Flash is a major bummer.
"Here's your choice. You can either eat this turd for dinner and then go free, or you can eat this delicious pizza but afterwards we get to beat you up with a stick." Wonderful, I feel so blessed, it's such a privilege being alllowed to choose between a rock and a hard place.
Page loading speed is SO important to people it is one of Google Adwords primary criteria for judging the value of an advertiser on their search engine. Page loading speed is extremely important. As you note it is a big turn off for most people and people will simply move on. I have abandoned a couple look ups today and moved on due to slow loading pages.
This is only one of the many reasons why Flash makes for a horrible webpage. Flash has its place as part of a website providing very specific content, but not for the foundation and framework and navigation of a website. It sucks at all those things compared to just using html or html wrapped in php.
W3C says HTML5 is currently in the Working draft. Every pro-Flash-fanboy person seem to think that just because its in the "working draft" stage it isn't finished and thus "isn't usable." In laymen's terms working draft simply means "beta," according to WHAT Working Group, because right after that is "last call comments," a.k.a nearly done, otherwise known as release candidate by technical terms.
Now the definition of beta was slightly altered by Gmail when Google sent out renewable invites in 2004 and again when it went public in 2007. All despite it current state (ie. beta). Gmail wasn't officially completed until 2 years after its public release. So... that means that HTML5, despite being in the working draft stage, is usable.
HTML is the core of the web. Its it's native language the same way Objective-C is to the Mac. I do support Flash. However, the internet has become more of an OS recently ever since web apps took off. Problem is most of these apps have been made using Flash and which is, at the moment, still just a plugin. HTML5, in my opinion, is trying to fix this by evening the odd. By giving developers a choice to choose how they wish to make their web-apps.
I'd also like to note that Flash uses a totally different programming language then HTML. It would be impossible for it to be completely be native. ActionScript would haft to be rewritten from the ground up, drop legacy support, and possibly even merge with Dreamweaver.
Just look at the difference:
HTML 1-5
Code:<BODY> <P>Hello World.</P> </BODY>
ActionScript 2.0
Code:createTextField("greet", 0, 0, 0, 100, 100); greet.text = "Hello, world";
ActionScript 3.0
Code:var greet:TextField = new TextField(); greet.text = "Hello World"; this.addChild(greet);
I'm sorry for my TL;DR post, but I'm sick of mindless war! So this is just my epic two cents.
One of the best posts I have read on the subject.
I did a quick little research. Your right but you didn't need to make me look clueless dolt in the process in order to prove your point. This is why I hate this pointless war.
However, while DHTML may not be a language, there is such thing.
However, while DHTML may not be a language, there is such thing.
As far as "programming in DHTML", no there isn't. I explained everything on that page already to you.
As for making you look like a dolt, this is what happens when one tries to give their opinion in a field they do not understand.
I debunked that post. So if that is the best you've read, you need to read more about the subject.
What about the parts that allow Hulu to deliver their content in a DRM protected format?
Dude, I've been designing and coding web pages since 2000. It was just a common misunderstanding. You make it sound like I don't know ****.
So you've been doing Web developpement for 10 years and got trapped in a "common misunderstanding" ?
Sorry, I don't make it sound like nothing. You're doing the talking here.
Well I've been on and off. No one is perfect.
Glad someone likes my post.
What's up with all this whining about no Flash for the iPhone?
This is like buying a Mac (as opposed to a PC) and then whining you can't play whatever your favourite PC game is.
Really, if you need/want/whatever Flash, don't buy an iPhone.
What's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to buy a Mac, nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone, and so on.
Just buy an Android and a PC and enjoy your flash and games and whatnot.
Apple has no obligation to support every piece of software you happen to like - and you have no obligation to buy Apple computers if you don't like their lack of that software.
This is like buying a Mac (as opposed to a PC) and then whining you can't play whatever your favourite PC game is.
Really, if you need/want/whatever Flash, don't buy an iPhone.
What's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to buy a Mac, nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone, and so on.
Just buy an Android and a PC and enjoy your flash and games and whatnot.
Apple has no obligation to support every piece of software you happen to like - and you have no obligation to buy Apple computers if you don't like their lack of that software.
No it's not. Unless your favorite PC game had this history about it :
"Valve ported Steam and Portal to the Mac. Launch date was set for the 12th of May. On the 11th of May, Apple updated their Mac Dev License agreement to say that their SDK and tools and compilers can't be used to build games and software to purchase games. They updated their OS X EULA to say that only software built using their compiler is allowed to run on OS X".
The problem isn't that Adobe is not porting Flash to iPhone. They made the tools to transform Flash apps into iPhone apps. They were ready to ship them, the Beta tools they had in the wild had been used to make apps that did make it on the App Store. They have an Android plugin for the webkit browser in the works which probably started as an iPhone project.
Then Apple came in and changed a few lines in the agreement to make it impossible and Steve started writing letters about Freedom from choice.
That is what people are whining about. Apple going out of their way to stop something.