Apple should start offering Sproutcore server space so that their site won't go down when Macrumors posts a link to it...
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.
Apple Adopting SproutCore for Web Applications
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
lets be specific..
Flash as in, the video compression codec, yes,
Flash as in, Flash based sites with cool drop down windows and spinny boxes and intros.. no.
Why spend money on an adobe product when apple is now (about to) offer it for free?
also, I am under the impression that this new framework will be able to play flash based video files.
Go straight to the source
You guys should have cited the original article from RoughlyDrafted. Much better than the AppleInsider summary.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/06/14/cocoa-for-windows-flash-killer-sproutcore/
You guys should have cited the original article from RoughlyDrafted. Much better than the AppleInsider summary.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/06/14/cocoa-for-windows-flash-killer-sproutcore/
This framework is javascript. It can't do anything that javascript can't do, so it can't play video or audio. And Apple didn't make this framework, you can go and download it right now for free, its open source.
Again, javascript "replacing" flash is nothing new. Google docs anyone?
But from what it looks like, and what I imagine it will be it isn't in fact better than Flash. If it's anything like script.aculo.us (which is what I'm guessing) then it's simply a collection of javascript effects and building blocks for web apps but will do nothing for those wanting to stream video or music.
While this may help influence future web design[and in that sense, I applaud it], if the iphone/ipod-touch are really intended to show the internet as it is now, apple's really going to have to get adobe on board.
as a flash site developer i can assure you that's quite an ignorant statement...
What was ignorant?
He might have pulled 90% out of his a**, but let's be honest here. I'd say the vast majority of flash implementations could be executed using javascript. Most of the time when I see flash, it's idiots using it for rollover menus or pointless effects, both of which can be accomplished using CSS and javascript.
It isn't a standard. It is a plugin. Not sure what is wrong with that statement...
Not everyone has the flash plugin. So if you build a site with flash, you should assume not everyone can see it. Again, I don't see what is wrong with his statement.
Who needs streaming content? Progressive download is far better in most cases.
The iPhone has a custom app for youtube, which uses h.264 video and has higher quality than the flash web interface to youtube. It's somewhat funny.
You guys are missing the point. Apple and Google (referenced in the AI article) are championing STANDARDS! Not even a new standard. This is Javascript, just like we all already have.
This is really big because it helps promote the open-standards and accessibility that us web-devs always harp about on the macrumors web-dev forum. End users don't need to know the technology, but they can appreciate the concept that sites will be better off in the long haul if they don't rely on just one company to provide their technology (this is true for the internet, but possibly hard for those in the apple community to grasp, since we DO rely on one company for our computers/software, etc
).Flash can do great things, but it is used so often in ways that are not standard or accessible, or easily updatable, though that is often due to the developer being unskilled at using the tools available to make flash more compliant.
Well, as a web developer I am not ignorant.
I should have said "sites that use flash", not flash sites. Like I said, there are 10% that use flash effectively. I'm sure for every one good flash site you develop there are 10 horrible ones that have no real reason to use flash.
Also, in my opinion, a "flash site" is different than a website. If I developed all of my websites as a microsoft powerpoint slide, or a PDF file, or even an interactive quicktime movie, and simply embedded those in an HTML file, sure that would be a site. But I wouldn't expect it to work in the wild on every person's computer.
EDIT: yes, the 90% and 10% figures I pulled out of my a**. Please mentally convert those to "vast majority" and "small minority".
Why would it be better than Safari? Gecko up to now has shown itself to be inadequate for mobile use, whilst webkit (the engine behind Safari) has shown itself to be highly capable, hence why it is on Android, Symbian S60 and of course OS X iPhone.
Firefox is a good browser for finally cracking IE's dominance on the desktop and it has a burgeoning plugin architecture, which many users love along with great brand recognition.
That shouldn't detract from the fact though that in terms of mobile performance, rendering engine performance, javascript performance and support for emerging web standards then Webkit has the lead.
This is quite clear now.
Actually YouTube already does a side encoding using H.264 to support the iPhone (and Apple TV IIRC) and given HTML 5 first class support of video and audio little reason (IMHO) will exist in continuing to use flash for video playback a few years down the road.
Let me paint a picture (some of the CSS work is being supported by Apple for inclusion in a future CSS spec)...
http://webkit.org/blog/189/announcing-squirrelfish/
http://webkit.org/blog/140/html5-media-support/
http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-database-storage/
http://webkit.org/blog/182/css-reflections/
http://webkit.org/blog/181/css-masks/
http://webkit.org/blog/176/css-canvas-drawing/
http://webkit.org/blog/175/introducing-css-gradients/
http://webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/
http://webkit.org/blog/143/webkit-in-the-news/
http://webkit.org/blog/142/android-uses-webkit/
...and some rather cool stuff shown at WWDC 08 in this space that I cannot comment on...
I don't think you have any grasp of what you're talking about or what you read.
Flash based websites are everywhere. Everything from splash front pages for eye candy to interactive training to sites that look like very advanced css, etc. They were built in flash. Every web browser comes with flash. It's a standard that can be counted on, and unlike Quicktime, browsers can detect the exact version of flash you have and navigate you directly to the download if needed.
Apple is talking about it being a replacement for THEM. IOW they didn't need flash to create the programs they did. YOU still need flash to access the multitude of mainstream sites that use flash if you want to see and use them on your iphone.
And it's no quick fix to use javascript instead of flash for video. That doesn't even make sense actually. Flash video is a totally different concept here. That's a video codec that is supported only by the flash plugin. You can't just change some html and let html play the flash video. What are you talking about? There's not html code to replace ANYTHING flash. Many flash things can be done in CSS or Javascript, but you can't replace flash code (there isn't any flash code in a webpage anyway, just an embedded flash file) with a couple lines of html. Once again, what are you talking about?
QFT (see original comment above
)Some of you guys think flash is just for web banners and the like, and if thats what you have come to know and (hate) about flash, then its about time that you wipe off your glasses and join the rest of us.
Flash and its developers have ALOT of foothold on the web. They have technologies ranging from video all the way to database scalability (flex, cold fusion) that's been in the game for a number of years.
Their video technologies aren't just customizable play and pause buttons. From the user experience including the customization and clean delivery all the way down to the content providers who have tools which allow them to protect, manage and otherwise distribute content quickly and efficiently.
http://www.adobe.com/resources/business/rich_internet_apps/#open
I'm fairly certain the applications developed for the companies in the above site didn't choose flash for its "Ub3r bnnR grfx"
Its bigger than that.
Your understanding of the technology here seems very fuzzy indeed. What I was talking about was HTML 5.0, which already gives coders the ability to embed videos in web pages a la Youtube.
The SproutCore stuff is JavaScript which is also already supported by all the browsers out there and is not something proprietary from Apple (as you seem to be implying by your "javascript-include" comment.) Flash is still a good solution for animations and advertisements but now (relatively) lousy for video embedding and really poor for rich web application development given that it's proprietary and only really works well on Windows.
If you were creating a web site today, and all you wanted was to embed video, the HTML way is clearly the way to go. If you want rich functionality that's seamless across browsers, then JavaScript would be a good choice now for that given these new SproutCore tools.
What I am saying is that since web sites are dynamic and are redeveloped over and over again, if you want to target the "bleeding edge," all those millions of new iPhone users, as well as all those millions of new Mac users .... you might want to drop the use of Flash and use combinations of these standards based technologies instead.
Apple's ajax applications are very impressive from the demos.... I especially love that iPhoto-like rollover on the gallery images and I'm anxious to see how that was built... probably css sprites using the background-position property to flip through them and a background application generating the sprite thumbnails. Very slick nonetheless.
HTML5 can't come soon enough. The problem with dropping Flash support is that pesky browser named Internet Explorer. It's too bad the web changes slowly enough that the IE team "keeps" up but implements just enough to keep everybody 5 years behind the curve.
Definitely a gusty move on Apple's part to drop IE6 support but it needed to happen and I hope other developers follow suit.
HTML5 can't come soon enough. The problem with dropping Flash support is that pesky browser named Internet Explorer. It's too bad the web changes slowly enough that the IE team "keeps" up but implements just enough to keep everybody 5 years behind the curve.
Definitely a gusty move on Apple's part to drop IE6 support but it needed to happen and I hope other developers follow suit.
Meh. I surf constantly on my iPhone and I've had very few problems finding web sites I can't use because I don't have Flash. There's a few, but the vast majority I visit regularly (MacRumors, ArsTechnica, Yahoo! Sports, Yelp, Amazon, Rotten Tomatoes, Truthout, etc.) work for the most part just fine on the iPhone. I get a lot of plugin icon boxes where ads would go, but that's just fine with me. And many sites that do require Flash could easily be rewritten to not require Flash (or other custom plugin), especially those just using it to play video.
I think Flash is a great technology for its time, but its time may be coming to an end. Whenever you can accomplish the same thing using a nonproprietary, ubiquitously-available, standard technology, all else being equal it's an improvement. That applies to Adobe AIR as well. Great technology, but there may be better, more standard ways to accomplish what it does, if not now then in the next few years as new HTML and browser standards are adopted.
Well, when it comes to programming (the last program I wrote was in IBM assembler language for a water-cooled mainframe!), I'm probably the least qualified to address technical questions or comments about javascript vs flash vs HTML vs Cocoa vs anything else. But I do have an opinion about what's going on with the evolution of the web.
As has been the case in countless other "tech wars", there is usually a scrambling and jockeying for position among technologies, until someone is declared a winner and the "standard": cassette tapes vs 8-track, VHS vs Betamax, Blu-ray vs HD DVD, etc. When it comes to the web, when a new technology is introduced, there are usually those who rush to use it, just for the sake of using it, while others sit back and say "how can this best be applied?" The web is still in its infancy. Ultimately, I believe the consumer will rule. Let me explain:
We have seen the development of the first "pop-up" on the web, then a rush to use that concept, then an abuse of it, then a consumer backlash, then new technology developed to block it. Think about your own browsing experience. When you find a site that has annoying pop-ups, flash images flying around the screen, ads or elements that you can't shut off or get rid of, you get irritated with that site. The sites that I believe will have long-term success will be the ones that are most user-friendly, not annoying, easy to navigate and intuitive in their function, regardless of the underlying technologies involved.
Adobe, as an example, is well known, in use by millions, but is also a resource hog in many of its products. As the consumer cries out for more speed and efficiency, companies like Adobe will either adapt and change and improve, or some small "in-your-face" startup company will come steal their customer base right out from under them! Look at how Microsoft didn't listen to their customer base long enough and now Apple, Linux, etc. are gaining market share because they did things better.
It will take time, but I'm optimistic about where all this is going.... it's just taking a while to get there. The winning approach will ultimately be, "what's best for the consumer?"
As has been the case in countless other "tech wars", there is usually a scrambling and jockeying for position among technologies, until someone is declared a winner and the "standard": cassette tapes vs 8-track, VHS vs Betamax, Blu-ray vs HD DVD, etc. When it comes to the web, when a new technology is introduced, there are usually those who rush to use it, just for the sake of using it, while others sit back and say "how can this best be applied?" The web is still in its infancy. Ultimately, I believe the consumer will rule. Let me explain:
We have seen the development of the first "pop-up" on the web, then a rush to use that concept, then an abuse of it, then a consumer backlash, then new technology developed to block it. Think about your own browsing experience. When you find a site that has annoying pop-ups, flash images flying around the screen, ads or elements that you can't shut off or get rid of, you get irritated with that site. The sites that I believe will have long-term success will be the ones that are most user-friendly, not annoying, easy to navigate and intuitive in their function, regardless of the underlying technologies involved.
Adobe, as an example, is well known, in use by millions, but is also a resource hog in many of its products. As the consumer cries out for more speed and efficiency, companies like Adobe will either adapt and change and improve, or some small "in-your-face" startup company will come steal their customer base right out from under them! Look at how Microsoft didn't listen to their customer base long enough and now Apple, Linux, etc. are gaining market share because they did things better.
It will take time, but I'm optimistic about where all this is going.... it's just taking a while to get there. The winning approach will ultimately be, "what's best for the consumer?"
Your being a real ass here and I won't get drawn into an argument, so here is a one-time response.
If you read what I said closely and compare it to your response, you will see that I didn't assert anything like what you thought I did. I said absolutely nothing about using javascript to embed videos on a website for instance.
It seems from your response that I was perhaps somewhat less than clear, but I could easily say the same of your post. I really don't know what the heck *you* are talking about as you seem to be replying to things I did not say.
Finally, please dial down the hyperbole a bit. Personally, I run with Flash turned off on all my browsers and all it really means to me is that I have to turn it back on for those few times I want to watch a video on Youtube. Flash is certainly not everywhere nor is it really necessary in most cases.
My main point was only that with these new developments we have a hope of seeing Flash relegated to the sidelines as it most likely should be. It's good for animations, and that's about it IMO.
The type of site that benefits from Flash and can't be recreated in JS:
http://vidal.jp/360snap/
There is no need to create macrumors.com in flash, it's an information heavy, news site. But for building unique online experiences that aren't just about pictures + text, you need Flash.
http://vidal.jp/360snap/
There is no need to create macrumors.com in flash, it's an information heavy, news site. But for building unique online experiences that aren't just about pictures + text, you need Flash.