Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's iPad NYTimes Promo Video Shows Flash Again

I'm with Steve on this one. In a few short years, when even more big websites make the switch, like YouTube is doing, we'll all be thankfull for it.
Given the power of today's smartphones such as the 3GS, Nexus One, Droid, N900, etc, there should be no reason why Flash video shouldn't be buttery smooth by now - in fact, it should've been smooth some years back.

I'm prepared to take a short term hit now, for prosperity in the longer term.
 
OMG!

Yet another iPad / Flash thread...

Everyone knows what Steve said and everyone knows he would look like even bigger clown than he does now if he flip-flop on his nut decisions and words he said recently...

While initially I was sad about lack of Flash on the iPad, quite frankly, now I am happy since Apple helped me in making my decision to buy it or not to buy it.

If they supported Flash on the iPad I would most likely end up buying overpriced, bulky and quite limited device - now, I can relax and wait for something cheaper and better from one out of many competitors...

Thanks Apple! :)
 
I fully agree!!! Don't care much for flash on my phone buy iPad should have it until html5 is fully avail.


inkswamp said:
I hope this means Flash will be on the iPad, but I doubt it.

I've been pretty vocal in the past about my hatred for Flash. I loathe it with a passion and would love nothing more than to see it die a quick, painful death. I'm also just fine with Apple not supporting it on a mobile device if it fails to meet their demands about power consumption and user experience.

However, given that the iPad is supposed to supplant the browsing experience on a laptop--not a phone--I take the position that Apple is being absolutely moronic in excluding Flash from it. There's just no excuse. This is not a device you carry around in your pocket all day and rely on for phone calls, so power consumption is largely irrelevant. The usage would presumably center around the home or a workplace where it can be easily recharged. So even though I hate Flash, I think Apple needs to pull their head out about this and get it working on the iPad.
Click to expand...
 
The most likely answer is that because of all the publicity the NYT is getting from the iPad they will make sure that their site looks good on it.

Even if a site uses flash, there's no good reason that a site should display the broken plugin icon if someone visits the site without flash installed. HTML was designed to fail gracefully, and many sites that don't support flash have a fallback mechanism. It could be as simple as just displaying a static image in its place.
 
Macmel said:
3)No offense, but that's the most stupid "business-minded" argument I've ever heard. You make a good product putting everything you can in it for the price you think people are gonna pay. For the second generation, you polish your product: new ideas, complaints from your customers, materials and new abilities that are now cheaper, etc. You don't reserve things for a second generation so you give people what they want in little pills. If people don't get what they want, they might not buy your product. That's my case:
I don't want a device that can do very little more than an iPod touch and that actually can not substitute any of my gadgets: I still need a phone, I still need an iPod (jogging with an iPad doesn't seem right) and I still need a computer. Even I need a bag to carry it around, so I don't see how this is superior to a netbook, really. I'll buy an iPhone instead, so I can get rid of my current phone and also I can use it as an iPod when running. It's like the iPad (even with the same OS) but more versatile (phone, camera) with a smaller screen that makes it easy to transport.
Click to expand...

It may be stupid but it still seems true. It's worked for Apple- as well as every other PC manufacturing company out there. Correct- they do iron out complaint from previous generations but tell me while a year or so it was STANDARD to have 802.11b/g (in PC's- Apple jumped on draft n quite quickly) instead of draft n. Draft n had been out for quite a while yet PC manufacturers didn't include it. It was cheap but they STILL wouldn't include it. Although- you could upgrade it. That may be a poor example but it still captures my point. Apple COULD have included the camera- photos have shown a space for it BUT it most likely won't. Why? For increased product life. Same with the new nano- Apple could have included the camera in the previous generation- but they didn't. It wasn't a "new idea" or any cheaper- Product life. I don't make the rules- I just tell it how I see it.
 
Good Web Design...

Maybe the promo video is assuming that the NY Times webprogrammers/designers are not going to be lazy by assuming that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD has Flash installed and/or enabled on their computer. Instead, maybe the web designers are going to follow the principle of "Progressive Enhancement/Graceful Degradation" by displaying an alternate version of the content if Flash isn't available. It's not that hard to do...I do it on all the sites that I work with. Somebody needs to get the word out to web designers to stop being lazy and make non-Flash content for those who reject the Adobe Flash hegemony!
 
Flash! Ahaaaah!

Flash - ahaaaah! - saviour of the internet!
Flash - ahaaaah! - Flash for ev'ry one of us
Flash - ahaaaah! - it'll save ev'ry one of us

Flash - ahaaaah!

Flash Video's alive?????

Flash - ahaaaah! - he'll save ev'ry one of us


Flash, Flash, I love you!
But we only have fourty days to save the iPad!
 

Attachments

  • Flash-Gordon.jpg
    Flash-Gordon.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 99
With something as evidently stupid, hypocrit and greedy as Apple decision not to include Flash when 75% of videos, games and lots of internet websites are displayed in Flash, those who agree are not Fanboys.

They're Groupies.

Stop the BS
1)It's the second time they can't even display a proper AD.
2)As I said, lots of content is still in Flash.
3)Developpers/Artists have made the choice to use one of the mainstream standards for their product/project. Who's Jobs to tell these millions of people they can't do this choice ?
4)HTML5 is not even a Standard, and the beta release of Youtube is a...BETA, and it's not brillant. How can you say that HTML5 can replace Flash now ?

The difference between Apple and groupies, is that Apple is making money and has a strategy (even thought it seems like a bad one). I consider myself as a real fanboy, I don't follow blindly until I realise the fall of Apple and all the money I've spent while other more intelligent customers have switched, I try to push Apple back in the good way so I can continue enjoying the products and innovation, while they can continue enjoying making money, that's what real fanboys do.
 
cutthroughthebs said:
Don't buy it then! If looking @ flash content is your thing just use your little hacked netbook with a cracked version of OSX and explain to everyone how your positive contributions are leading to better computing experiences for users! If you don't see where I'm getting @ then this is the reason things are in the mess they're in! If watching flash is your thing there are alternatives... if it's not there are alternatives like the iPad... big deal! Some people don't buy a car as an extension of their personality... others do. So if flash is what you mainly cater to go get something that will use flash and sit on the charger! Oh yeah, ever hear of RSS? Lots of users don't want or need all the Las Vegas signage and ads... they just want to read the content their trying to get to... RSS has been very popular and for good reason!
Click to expand...

I don't use a netbook. In fact I don't use anything except an Apple device. As I said, I will not buy it. I am no fan of Flash - no more than anyone else. But why buy something that doesn't cater for the majority of websites. That is my point. If the iPad was going to be of use as a book reading device or a movie watching device here in Japan, things might be different. The fact of the matter is that iBooks is not likely to be launched here and is certainly not on the cards for the initial sale of the product and there are ZERO movies contents on iTunes in Japan. Perhaps the content issue is more to do with the providers than Apple, but what is left? Do I really need a giant iPod? The answer is no, I don't. It doesn't justify the price and my MacBook and MacMini will do the same thing at home and iPod Shuffle (2G), iPod Nano (3G) and my iPod Touch (2G) will do the rest on the move. This is called consumer reality. I like the iPad and would like one. There just isn't enough on offer in the 1G model about to be sold that will convince me to buy one. If Flash was available, it may have swayed me, but an irritating internet experience is not what I am looking for. Don't shout at me, shout at 1) the web designers that continue to use Flash and 2) at Apple for failing to provide us with at least some balance for the lack of iBooks and no movie content. At the end of the day, it's not whether I want to buy or not, it's whether Apple wants to sell or not.
 
giosaccone said:
Flash won’t ever work well on any mobile touchscreen platform. It’s not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes. It’s because of the hover or mouseover problem. Many (if not most) current Flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It’s pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of Flash content. New Flash content designed just for touchscreens can be done, but people want existing Flash sites to work. All of them—not just some here and there—and in a usable manner. That’s impossible no matter what.

Read this!
http://www.cultofmac.com/the-real-reasons-iphoneipad-wont-ever-support-flash-they-cant/31097
Click to expand...

Explain this then:

Flash 10.1 running great on Android:
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1781

This is how I want the internet on my mobile device to be!

No one in my family is able to use the YouTube or Vimeo HTML5 Beta (hell if they even know what that means).
What most people here don't realize is that Safari/Chrome users are a minority compared to the amount of users who have the Flash plugin installed.

Here is a demo of WIRED magazine using an app built with Flash. See for yourself:
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1792
 
I think the ad will reflect the HTML 5 version of the site. I think the transition will be faster than 5 years for HTML 5. 5 years is a long time in Internet Time. I don't mind the silly lego icons for now.
 
saving107 said:
Steve Jobs is a very persuasive man, maybe he was able convince the NYTimes to dump Flash for HTML5.



Doesn't Steve Jobs know what we want more than we do?
Click to expand...

If persuasion equals money I suppose your statement is true.
 
Craigy said:
You know, I'm a big fan of none-flash content. But I have to say that the current HTML5 Beta pages on YouTube leave a lot to be desired in my experience - long loading times, jittery video etc. I know that Vimeo is doing a better job though.

One thing that does bother me with HTML5 media on the iPhone is that Audio / Video won't play 'in-place' on the web-page, but opens the related media in the separate player. I hope they address this on the iPad at least as it will be annoying having every video / audio element have to open up in a new window.

My 2c ;-)
Click to expand...

I have had the exact opposite experience with HTML5 Youtube, so perhaps nothing needs to be addressed beyond your machine/internet connection?
 
I wait all weekend for an update to Macrumors and you make the update after I got to sleep!!

I would love to see the NYT offer an iPad specific site with compatible content. I wonder if Apple would offer some money as well as talent to help make that happen pre-ship. I think it is possible.
 
yyy said:
The iPad must support Flash. Whether you hate Flash or not, Apple markets the device as "the best way to experience the web" so I believe most users will expect the iPad to show every website exactly as it is shown on their computers.
Click to expand...
The iPad can't really support Flash. Neither can the iPhone for that matter. In fact, NO touchscreen-only device can promise a "best way to experience the web" promise, and then attempt to use Flash like a desktop machine (that has a mouse and keyboard). Why? Read this article if you have the patience to grasp each of its points.

I’m biased. I’m a full-time Flash developer and I’d love to get paid to make Flash sites for iPad. I want that to make sense—but it doesn’t. Flash on the iPad will not (and should not) happen—and the main reason, as I see it, is one that never gets talked about:

Current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware.

That’s not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes.
Click to expand...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/

If you then look at Flash on ANY of these new mobile operatings systems (for instance, Android), you'll see the demo being curiously limited and short. Why? Because its an AWFUL EXPERIENCE. People want to say, "Look, Flash on a mobile device!" and be incredibly impressed with this feat, ignoring the fact that the user experience is AW-FUL.

Look at this Flex video (Adobe Flex running on Android Flash Player 10.1):
http://www.jamesward.com/2010/02/19/flex-4-list-scrolling-on-android-with-flash-player-10-1/

Read the comments after the video. Developers are insulted. They're saying, "Are you kidding me? That's a simple list, why is the performance so bad? Why would you even show this?" This "prove that it works" mindset at Adobe simply isn't good enough. It's not good enough to put Flash in the browser on mobile devices, and have MOST applications of it not function properly because they were designed for a mouse.

~ CB
 
What about this? The New York Times said from the beginning that they would go to HTML5 when needed and demoed it which was the basis for the ads. They couldn't get it together for the dog and pony show for the Ipad and what we saw is what it currently was. I'm sure that HTML5 will evolve (faster than flash since it is an open source standard) and competing providers will be motivated to improve on performance.
 
Borrowing someone else's words from another site...
Adams, an interactive content developer, wrote to the Roughly Drafted blog to explain in terms more measured than those used by Mr. Jobs with editors of the Wall Street Journal last week why Flash won’t ever work well on any mobile touchscreen platform:

It’s not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes. It’s because of the hover or mouseover problem.

Many (if not most) current Flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It’s pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of Flash content. New Flash content designed just for touchscreens can be done, but people want existing Flash sites to work. All of them—not just some here and there—and in a usable manner. That’s impossible no matter what.
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad the iPad won't have Flash. That means there will be a couple less people I have to stand behind when the line wraps around my local Apple Store the day this gem of a device is released.
 
I am willing to bet as part of the deal to bring content to the iPad, Apple sent a team to the NY Times to help them convert to HTML5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back