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.
Best flash capable web browser?
- Thread starter skoo9382
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Soon they will all be flash capable, at least as far as streaming video. Haven't you guys read the headlines this week?
The Adobe streaming server will no longer stream to iOS devices using Flash. They will use the already-supported HTTP streaming protocols to iOS devices.
It's incorrect to say that the iPhone and iPad are now "flash capable" because of Adobe's product enhancement.
It's disappointing that Adobe prohibits users on other platforms to get the HTTP streaming protocols. A far better solution would have been to have the open standards be the default protocol with Flash as a secondary protocol available for anyone who needed it.
Saying it is Flash capable is the correct. Saying it runs Flash natively is incorrect.
I've been using Photon. Works great. Like someone mentioned though, the bookmarks organization sucks.
The correct?
@Darn, absolutely nothing has changed on iOS devices; they have been capable of receiving open-standard media streams via HTTP for years. The Wowza Media Server has served up streaming data in many formats -- including the HTTP streaming standards -- for some time. Wowza's more-complete coverage is probably what caused Adobe to blink and add the open capabilities to their product.
There has been massive confusion about the enhancement of the Adobe server's capabilities. We all need to take care to speak plainly to ensure we don't add to the confusion.
@Darn, you are knowledgable about Flash protocols. I do not see any advantage for the end-user in Adobe's use of Flash as the primary protocol for streaming the data. I would prefer to see Flash used as a backup protocol. Flash should only be used if the client is unable to receive the stream via open-standards protocols. Can you explain why it would possibly be advantageous to the end-user to receive the stream via Flash instead of an open protocol? TIA.
The correct?
Don't be pedantic, it's obviously a typo.
You are correct that nothing has changed in that they can receive streams. AFAIK what has changed is that it's only recently receiving Flash sites as streams with full interactivity.
If another protocol can stream flash websites then there is no problem with that. It might solve some latency and frame rate issues those solutions currently have.
I was only correcting you that with a browser like iswifter the iPad is flash-capable.
With all due respect, the entire posting made no sense.
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Adobe's competitor had the capability to live-stream to all clients -- including iOS. The Adobe Streaming Server couldn't stream to iOS. Adobe was losing sales, so they blinked. They added the ability to live-stream to iOS with open protocols. Flash is fading fast as a streaming protocol.
Then why not let the user decide?
The new Adobe Streaming Server will only use open protocols when streaming to iOS devices. Why force users on OS X to use Flash to view videos from the Adobe streaming server? It would be far better to use open protocols whenever possible and use Flash only if there is some compelling reason to use the proprietary protocol.
At the very least, the server should allow the user to specify what protocol to use.
Aha. That's the source of the misunderstanding. I haven't said anything about iSwifter in this thread.
Why, you said iOS wasn't Flash-capable, and I said it was. Seems pretty clear to me. Since I can view and interact with my site in iSwifter it is flash capable, just not flash-native.
Are you only talking about streaming video? I'm talking about all Flash content, not just video.
What I meant was that while iOS has been able to receive streams for a while, its a recent development that technology lets a server send you a stream of flash elements that you can interact with instead of just watching a linear video.
So its ok to let the user decide which protocol to use, but not if they want to use flash natively? The crux of this argument is that the user should decide what they want to use.
You said iOS was not Flash capable, and I said with certain browsers it is Flash-capable. I mentioned iSwifter as an example of iOS being flash-capable.
No, I didn't say iOS "wasn't Flash-capable". Here are the exact words I said:
Please read the words closely: I never commented in this thread on whether or not the iPad was Flash-capable.
Now, you may complain that you think I'm being pedantic. I think it's very important to be very precise when talking about Flash: it's very useful to understand what is being done where in order to interact with Flash code on an iPad.
Note: this is very different than the first comment that you made in the thread:
I think it's fundamentally confusing to ever say that an iPad is "Flash-capable". iOS devices have always been Flash-free in the browser, and odds are near 100% that they will forever remain Flash-free. Services like iSwifter use cloud computing resources to convert Flash content and then use an open protocol to interact with the iOS device. Services like Splashtop allow iOS users to interpret the Flash content on their Mac or PC and use open protocols to deliver that content to the iPad.
If I were an English-speaking diplomat at the UN and were listening to a speech from a Japanese-speaking diplomat through a translator, it would be silly to say that I had become "Japanese-capable". All of my capabilities to interact with the Japanese speaker come through an intermediary. In a similar fashion, it is silly to claim that an iOS device is "Flash-capable" simply because I'm using some intermediary computer to translate the Flash protocols to open protocols.
If you carefully re-read message #8 in this thread, you should be able to answer your own question.
iOS has been able to receive streams with open protocols since the the beginning: the iPhone in 2007. Remote-control apps have let an iOS user interact with the browser on a laptop or desktop PC for years.
One side note before I address your larger question: Adobe clearly doesn't think that it's OK to let the user decide which protocol to use. The only reason they added open protocols to the Adobe Streaming Server was that the Wowza server had that capability, and Adobe was clearly losing sales to that competitor. Adobe's streaming server still doesn't allow the user to choose to be Flash-free on other platforms, and I hope that Wowza finds a way to exploit that weakness in the Adobe product.
Apple didn't allow any of the "lowest common denominator" runtime environments in web browsers on iOS machines. They didn't allow Java, and they didn't allow Flash. It was interesting to see David Pogue's comment about both Java and Flash on this in his June 27, 2007 review of the iPhone: "The browser cant handle Java or Flash, which deprives you of millions of Web videos." He also noted the shortcoming of programs: "You cant install new programs from anyone but Apple; other companies can create only iPhone-tailored mini-programs on the Web."
In the last four years, both shortcomings have been comprehensively dealt with. Virtually all videos are viewable with open protocols, and hundreds of thousands of low-cost apps are available through the app store. Adobe's reluctant enhancement of their streaming server will mean that virtually all streaming content will be directly available to iOS users with open protocols.
Keeping iOS devices Flash-free was a deliberate decision by Apple. Jobs spelled out why Apple made this decision in his Thoughts on Flash memo. He noted six reasons why Flash was excluded from iOS devices, and he noted which was the most important reason: Flash and accessibility are mutually incompatible. Inside of that memo, you can hear a larger commitment: the world-wide web should be a place where everyone -- regardless of their abilities -- should be able to access all information. Flash on the web is incompatible with that mission.
Apple deliberately limited the capabilities of their device, but they did it for a strategic reason: to transition the web where all information was accessible for everyone. There's a question that the Flash-enthusiasts need to address:
Do you see any way to make the web accessible for all without flushing Flash?
When you look at Flash from that larger perspective, you should be able to understand why Apple made that strategic decision in 1997. IMO, Apple's choice to make iOS devices Flash-free was correct. If you think not, you should provide answer to the question. I have asked that question repeatedly in multiple threads but nobody has responded.
Actually I have responded several times, but you like asking that question. No you can't make it accessible for all. Now since you like dealing with absolutes, there are many who are so handicapped that they can't make use of an iOS device regardless of the many accessibility widgets. What about them? The thing is, very few clients actually ask for their sites to be tested with accessibility widgets, so regardless of Flash's ability to do it most clients just don't care enough about it.
In regards to the rest of your post I misread what you said.
Rather than dragging this thread down with our bickering I'll get back on track.
i have used iSwifter and Puffin, and for some reason I liked iSwifter more. Maybe its the interface. They both have similar frame rates I I couldn't tell a difference in lag/latency. iSwifter requires WiFi, which I have overcome via Jailbreaking. Puffin has a phone version while iSwifter requires an iPad. Both have quick links to flash content, but I never fooled around with those features so I can't speak on them. IRC, Skyfire is only for Flash video so its very limited.
On an aside. Puffin is the only browser I've found that will load turntable.fm and get the music playing.
Last edited:
Actually, you have never ever answered the question. If you think you have, please provide a reference.
And this doesn't answer the question, either. If "mak[ing] it accessible" means honoring the accessibility configuration specified by the user on his iPad, then you can't make it accessible at all. Even if you could deal with the configuration issue, the size and complexity (and expense
) of the Flash code would increase tremendously by adding your own adapters. I spelled out the details in an earlier message: here is a reference to that message.I clearly like an accessible web, but where did I say I like dealing with absolutes?
Do you think we should ignore accessibility because Apple can't make iPads that are accessible to 100% of the population? That's quite silly. Should we also not bother to make buildings for businesses wheelchair-compliant because those buildings still can't accommodate 100% of the population? Yours is one of the most tone-deaf knee-jerk arguments about accessibility I have heard in a long time. I fondly hope it's not representative of the attitudes of Flash programmers in general.
We do what we can for now. We flush the segments of the web that are fundamentally incompatible with accessibility -- like Flash. Microsoft seems to be following Apple's lead. From this MSDN blog entry, it appears that the Metro flavor of Windows 8 will be entirely Flash-free. This should be a strong hint to websites: any new development with Flash for the web would be a terrible idea.
We count on developers of software to find new and novel ways for computers to be more accessible in the future. We reward the innovators in the marketplace who continue to raise the bar.
I can't tell how much due diligence you have put into the accessibility question. There have been some completely unexpected (and delightful) results on the iPad for parents with autistic children. Have you looked around for the wonderful ways that tablet computers have contributed to accessible computing?
Bingo. People paying for Flash websites will never budget what it takes to make an accessible site. And, even with both a developer and client strongly motivated to make an accessible site, designing an accessible site is problematic. The answer is for websites to be designed with a language where their data is transparent (HTML) and accessibility adapters can automatically be applied by the user's computer. We already covered all of these points and details in this message.
Thank you.
I don't have the time to dig through old posts. I did say that you can make Flash sites mostly accessible.
Back on track, has anyone tried Photon? Its Flash-capable and it looks pretty good.
Back on track, has anyone tried Photon? Its Flash-capable and it looks pretty good.
Last edited:
In other words, you can't back up your claim.
No Flash advocate has ever answered the question: Do you see any way to make the web accessible for all without flushing Flash? It appears to be a difficult issue for Flash-advocates to face.
Your response was to say that we can't make the web accessible for everybody. And you seemed to think that means that there's no point in working on to make the web more accessible. Is that what you meant?
Unfortunately, that statement is also false. If it were feasible to build Flash pages with accessibility adapters matching current Mac or iOS functionality, it would have already been done by somebody. The reason it hasn't been done is clear: creating a Flash app with accessibility adapters from scratch is prohibitively expensive. If somebody somewhere had created an accessible Flash page, then the Adobe and Flash programmers should be able to provide us with that example's URL.
The truth is that Adobe doesn't give a hoot about accessibility in Flash. We are dealing with turing machines; while it is theoretically possible for someone to make your "mostly accessible" Flash page, no real accessible Flash pages ever seem to get built.
The way to make accessible webpages: use HTML.
The way to make the web as a whole more accessible: get rid of Flash.
It's still handicapped by operating through an intermediate server in the cloud.
One obvious way to cut the latency is to have the Flash-interpretation services running on the same host serving the website. Have any of the iSwifter-like vendors thought of selling their software to be distributed and run directly on those machines? That way, the websites would be functioning completely through open protocols.
Both render websites on remote servers and send the results back to the iPad. Puffin does it over 3G while iSwifter requires wifi, although it shouldn't matter.
