For the most part, I don't miss not having Flash. However, with the Facebook games I play currently requires Flash, I wish I did have the option of either turning it on or off. I know there is iSwifter (or whatever it is called) out there, but it works only for WiFi and I can't get it to work with 3G Unrestricted.
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.
Do iPad users still want FLASH?
- Thread starter ehoez
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who is this "vast majority of customers who can't access HTML5"? All major browsers support HTML5 with their latest versions.
Designing a website in HTML5 and tweaking it for inconsistencies between browsers (just like web developers have always done) is a much more practical solution than maintaining Flash and HTML versions of a website.
Of course there are times when Flash will be the best solution, most notably for delivery of DRM-protected video.
If there is some content that can only be delivered via Flash, then by all means use Flash. I'm usually not very interested in that content, so I don't care.
But when we're talking about "mindsets", the prevailing mindset a few years ago was "everybody has Flash", or at least "everybody interesting has Flash". Content which did not need Flash at all was hidden behind cool-looking page-curl effects. So I, personally, see it as an advantage that I'm no longer part of an un-interesting demographic which can safely be ignored.
The same goes for websites which check your browser string and refuse to work when it's not Internet Explorer - I remember times when this happened a lot.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Baldimac, it's evident that you can see things only one way- your way. Everyone should know that most people don't have the latest browsers so implying that they do or that they will soon is a poor way to support such a point.
And those a bit more "in the know" about such stuff (maybe you're included in that group?) knows that there are far more people (web buyers) still using browsers several generations old, and history shows very clearly they won't upgrade overnight or by next year or even several years from now. For example, IE is currently on version 9, but there are enough users (which are buyers) using versions 6, 7 and 8 to motivate businesses wanting to be able to sell everyone to cling to standards & solutions that work for those generations of IE (and even IE9 doesn't handle all HTML5 very well yet). IE6 and 7 vs. HTML5 is a complete mess. IE8 fails on a lot of CSS3 without many hacks.
Unless of course the website really needs mixed media, interactive media, etc, for which then you need to go with solutions that work for the whole world of Internet users (Flash) plus the relatively small minority (iDevice users) locked out of Flash.
If the website is simple and doesn't use much mixed media, interactive media, then it doesn't have much need for flash or HTML5 equivalents.
Yes, as well as most e-learning since there are abundant tools that allow people without the ability (or financial resources) to code in Flash or HTML to generate rich, interactive media and post it to their site without having to pay a programmer to hand code it. For example, all the kinds of people who use tools like Articulate Presenter (which turns narrated, interactive, Power Point presentations into interactive Flash media without any programming required) have no equivalent tool to do the same in HTML5. And even if such a tool existed today, rendering their output ONLY in HTML5 will lock out most of the crowd trying to access it unless they have the very latest browsers (and even then there are issues). Since most of the web-connected world DOES NOT have the very latest browsers nor the ready-desire to attempt the upgrades, the Flash solution works for them... and everyone else... except iDevice users.
Make no mistake. I don't love Flash and I'll be perfectly happy when that HTML5 future gets here so that everything Flash is able to do in the last 5 years can be done in HTML5. I would much rather do all coding to ONE standard rather than more than one. Unfortunately, we'll be in this transition period for a LONG time except for those businesses who choose to screen out the world to appeal to the small subset of potential buyers who happen to have the latest HTML5 capable browsers installed on their hardware.
What are these businesses which have to use either HTML5 or Flash to achieve their purpose? I've asked this question before but haven't gotten much of an answer. In what cases are the animations and multimedia afforded by Flash actually necessary? When I ask this question I usually just get one or two links to Flash websites, but they use Flash in entirely arbitrary ways and could just as soon offer their content without using Flash and without making all that content HTML5. Just dump that content and stop using it, in other words.
Some places which can't do this: some major game sites for children (thanks kdarling). Otherwise, I don't see why HTML5 has to replace Flash in order to stop using Flash. Just trash the goofy background sounds and splash screens. If there's something else for which Flash is indispensable and is significant to a large casual user base, I'd like to know.
EDIT: Okay, DRM-protected video. Thanks BaldiMac.
Sander repeated my points.
'Mixed-media' and 'interactive media' sound like the 2011 version of MIDI files and CD-ROM encyclopaediae. Flash is very good at doing it, but who needs to do it in the first place?
Some places which can't do this: some major game sites for children (thanks kdarling). Otherwise, I don't see why HTML5 has to replace Flash in order to stop using Flash. Just trash the goofy background sounds and splash screens. If there's something else for which Flash is indispensable and is significant to a large casual user base, I'd like to know.
EDIT: Okay, DRM-protected video. Thanks BaldiMac.
Sander repeated my points.
'Mixed-media' and 'interactive media' sound like the 2011 version of MIDI files and CD-ROM encyclopaediae. Flash is very good at doing it, but who needs to do it in the first place?
I think you are projecting some sort of anti-Flash stereotype onto me. I asked a simple question.
But they do have access to them.
Super. How does that translate into the "vast majority"?
Luckily, I included this exception right in the statement that I made.
Yep. That's my biggest problem with Flash - developers who create sites in Flash that would be as good or better in HTML and open standards. I have no problems with developers who use Flash when it is the best solution.
Like I said, you are projecting other people's arguments onto me in an effort to shift the discussion from the simple points that I made.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The whole computing world has access to Macs, iDevices, etc but it doesn't mean they've all switched or will all switch soon. User's having access to something that can display HTML5 is insufficient rationale to fully embracing HTML5-only options in the present UNLESS a company only wants to present itself to the small subset of people currently (and likely very soon) able to display HTML5 options now.
This makes me assume you are just playing here. If you genuinely don't know, I encourage you to do searches for browser and browser versions usage on the Internet. In those objective results, you should discover "vast majority". I'm not here to play.
Last edited:
According to that video the tool can not export filters, blending, animated masks and most importantly ActionScript code. So the things that give flash its greatest versatility, and ironically AS3 is what reduces its resource demands, do not translate over.
You keep downplaying the penetration of HTML5 capable browsers. See below. My only point was that the fact that they are not upgrading is their own choice. If they want to see newer content, they need to upgrade. You can't keep coding to the least common denominator forever, if you want to move forward.
Maybe you should do the same search. A lot has changed in the last few years. For example IE is down around 40% in usage share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
According to StatCounter, in mid 2010, "71 percent of internet users are running the latest version of their browser."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Most...ion-but-It-Doesn-t-Always-Matter-165114.shtml
Your advice runs counter to what Adobe itself is advocating. Here's John Nack, Adobe's Principal Product Manager blogging on Adobe's own website. He was talking last fall about Wallaby.
John Nack of Adobe said:
The sales numbers mean two immediate things. The first is that a Flash-free computing device is just fine for those purchasers. The second is that any website that deploys Flash apps is shutting itself out from a huge segment of the market. There are now over a quarter of a billion iOS devices, and the demographics of the owners of those quarter-billion devices are very attractive. Hobbyists can do what they want, but commercial website developers can't ignore them. Hence you get the Principal Product Manager of Adobe recommending that developers put pragmatism ahead of ideology and deploy exclusively with HTML5.
The only problem with an option like that is that people would use it.
I've discussed the accessibility problem extensively in this thread; Jobs also covers it in his Thoughts on Flash memo. Many people -- including you -- ignore what Jobs notes as the most important problem with Flash. How would you deal with Flash's accessibility problems? How would you deal with the general problem -- the most important problem that Jobs notes -- of enhanced APIs on new computers and new classes of computational devices?
Look at what happened with one simple Flash UI issue: two-fingered scrolling. It took Adobe years to upgrade the Flash runtime to scroll Flash text windows this way (and, BTW, it still doesn't work the same way that native scrolling does in the browser). Adobe's solution actually required a change in the executable file and re-building of Flash apps. Since many Flash developers don't know, don't care, or have moved on to other clients/projects, many Flash apps will NEVER be rebuilt and redeployed with the scrolling-capability. This one tiny little change broke WORA in Flash.
This is a tiny little nightmare for users. Flash apps are like a box of chocolates: you never know which ones are a bit too ... old ... to scroll correctly. It's probably even worse for users who don't comprehend this level of minutia of the Flash user experience; they just know that scrolling is broken in Flash. With this one tiny enhancement in the framework, Adobe exposed the fragility of the entire Flash ecology.
Most Flash apps are free; 30% of $0 is still $0. Adobe has released the tools; Flash apps have been available for over a month. One must wonder: why haven't we seen a "gold rush" of free Flash apps into the App Store?
I believe that Apple is fanatically interested in a superior user experience. The developed new interfaces for the iPhone and new APIs for code to access those APIs. Then they looked at Flash -- and realized that it was problematic for Adobe's product to ever access those new APIs in an elegant and seamless fashion. The were unwilling to have their user users access the Internet through a lowest-common-denominator approach.
That would be a simplistic and seductive approach. But it would do nothing to address the fundamental problem. With its quarter-billion iOS devices, Apple is helping to accelerate the exodus from Flash to HTML5. All users who need accessibility aids on all platforms will benefit from this initiative.
@boonlar: I don't know a single person who agrees with everything that Apple says. I disagree with some of Apple's actions; I think they were completely wrong to not license their MagSafe technology to HyperMac to use with its wonderful external batteries. It wasn't even OK for HyperMac to modify Apple's own cables; they finally had to ship a DIY kit with their batteries and have users modify their own cables.
Can you name a single person participating in this discussion who agrees with everything that Jobs and Apple says? If not, will you please promptly retract your statement?
That claim is indefensible. AFAICT, 100% of YouTube and Netflix are completely accessible without any Flash whatsoever; those two sites by themselves account for at least 1% of the videos on the internet. It was a number pulled out of ... thin air ... and has no correlation with reality.
Where?
See the John Nack quote I included earlier in this message.
You acknowledge that it should be up to a web developer to make sure accessibility is there for text. How exactly does one do that in Flash? Where exactly do you have hooks to access each platform's specific accessibility widgets? You don't!
One thing that has become radiantly clear in these Flash discussions: very few people have actually read Jobs's memo in detail. Very few Flash advocates could name what Jobs identified as the most significant issue with Flash. And Flash developers have no concept of how to comprehensively address accessibility issues in web browsers. Adobe certainly does not.
AFAICT, the only solution is to get rid of Flash in the browser.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Baldi,
Go read those articles you shared. "down 40%" doesn't change the underlying numbers of people (potential buyers) involved. Apple mac sales are "up more than 100%" from a few years ago, but it doesn’t mean the whole world has bought Macs.
Quoting the 2nd article you use as "evidence" that everyone is using the "latest browser"...
The version of IE that sort of runs some HTML5 and some CSS3 is IE9. You might want to take a good look at the top graphic here: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/201...-xp-loses-its-majority-share-of-web-users.ars Again, version 8, 7 and 6 (ALL more used than version 9) are pretty poor at HTML5 & CSS3 without lots of hacks. And again, turn percentages into number of people (number of potential buyers) to better understand the decision-making process for businesses wanting to promote themselves to the whole world. This might be helpful: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Isn't Firefox up to version 6? http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/
Read those articles. Turn relevant percentages into real numbers. Then, think about how many of those real numbers businesses wanting to sell their stuff would choose to screen out because people like you (apparently) think HTML5 is THE way to go today, that just about all browsers in use are the very latest versions of the browsers, etc.
Go read those articles you shared. "down 40%" doesn't change the underlying numbers of people (potential buyers) involved. Apple mac sales are "up more than 100%" from a few years ago, but it doesn’t mean the whole world has bought Macs.
Quoting the 2nd article you use as "evidence" that everyone is using the "latest browser"...
"60 percent of Internet Explorer users run version 8.0"
The version of IE that sort of runs some HTML5 and some CSS3 is IE9. You might want to take a good look at the top graphic here: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/201...-xp-loses-its-majority-share-of-web-users.ars Again, version 8, 7 and 6 (ALL more used than version 9) are pretty poor at HTML5 & CSS3 without lots of hacks. And again, turn percentages into number of people (number of potential buyers) to better understand the decision-making process for businesses wanting to promote themselves to the whole world. This might be helpful: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
"81 percent of Firefox users run version 3.6"
Isn't Firefox up to version 6? http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/
Read those articles. Turn relevant percentages into real numbers. Then, think about how many of those real numbers businesses wanting to sell their stuff would choose to screen out because people like you (apparently) think HTML5 is THE way to go today, that just about all browsers in use are the very latest versions of the browsers, etc.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
FloatingBones, it's obvious that you only want to see what fits your view of Flash and nothing else. You cite & find all kinds of support for your negative view when many of the exact same issues can be made with HTML5 right now. For example, "Flash accessibility" could be "HTML5 accessibility" since most of the computers on the planet cannot currently handle HTML5. That latter issue won't affect just people with disabilities.
This thread asks the question: "Do iPad Users still want Flash?"
As an iPad user I say, YES, I still want the personal option to install a Flash player on my own iPad. Let it burn my batteries faster (just like select apps burn batteries faster than other apps). Let it crash my iDevice 10 times a day (just like select apps crash my iDevice). Etc.
That's not saying I want to force my want onto your iPad just like it makes little sense for you to try to force your want onto mine. I would like to have that option to make my iPad even more useful to ME than it is now. As is now, I happen to work with lots of companies that have various forms of Flash media needs. When I'm traveling, I sometimes need to be able to see their stuff. If I could have an optional player on the iPad it would be good enough to cover most of my needs when traveling. Instead, I have to bring the laptop along almost solely to cover this one need "just in case." There should be a complete solution app for that.
Every other computing device I touch- all my Macs & Windows machines, old computers at the library, public access computers at labs, etc ALL can run Flash media and it looks just about identical when running on all of them. This ONE device that I otherwise find tremendously flexible at doing all kinds of "on-the-go" computing CAN'T cover this one additional need.
If HTML5 is the future- and I'm confident it is- it can still get here by just being better than Flash. All web technologies are replaced by better technologies over time. What's nice about web standards- including Flash- is that the evolution typically maintains backwards compatibility while the new, better future is taking over. HTML4 was better than it's predecessor. Javascript continues to improve. CSS3 is better than CSS2 which is better than CSS1. Etc.
Right now, my iDevice browser can display websites written in the earliest versions of HTML, with or without any CSS, with all kinds of deprecated HTML code, etc. It all "just works" as it should.
Except this ONE thing. And that is merely by company choice rather than because it can't work on this hardware. You feeling differently is fine. This is not about forcing Flash onto your iDevice.
Again the question is: Do iPad users still want Flash? My answer for my own purposes is yes. Your answer is obviously no. So THE answer is that some people do and some don't.
This thread asks the question: "Do iPad Users still want Flash?"
As an iPad user I say, YES, I still want the personal option to install a Flash player on my own iPad. Let it burn my batteries faster (just like select apps burn batteries faster than other apps). Let it crash my iDevice 10 times a day (just like select apps crash my iDevice). Etc.
That's not saying I want to force my want onto your iPad just like it makes little sense for you to try to force your want onto mine. I would like to have that option to make my iPad even more useful to ME than it is now. As is now, I happen to work with lots of companies that have various forms of Flash media needs. When I'm traveling, I sometimes need to be able to see their stuff. If I could have an optional player on the iPad it would be good enough to cover most of my needs when traveling. Instead, I have to bring the laptop along almost solely to cover this one need "just in case." There should be a complete solution app for that.
Every other computing device I touch- all my Macs & Windows machines, old computers at the library, public access computers at labs, etc ALL can run Flash media and it looks just about identical when running on all of them. This ONE device that I otherwise find tremendously flexible at doing all kinds of "on-the-go" computing CAN'T cover this one additional need.
If HTML5 is the future- and I'm confident it is- it can still get here by just being better than Flash. All web technologies are replaced by better technologies over time. What's nice about web standards- including Flash- is that the evolution typically maintains backwards compatibility while the new, better future is taking over. HTML4 was better than it's predecessor. Javascript continues to improve. CSS3 is better than CSS2 which is better than CSS1. Etc.
Right now, my iDevice browser can display websites written in the earliest versions of HTML, with or without any CSS, with all kinds of deprecated HTML code, etc. It all "just works" as it should.
Except this ONE thing. And that is merely by company choice rather than because it can't work on this hardware. You feeling differently is fine. This is not about forcing Flash onto your iDevice.
Again the question is: Do iPad users still want Flash? My answer for my own purposes is yes. Your answer is obviously no. So THE answer is that some people do and some don't.
Do you know that providing that option would have negative consequences for those who choose not to opt-in? It is not as simple as 'let those who want Flash turn it on, and let those who don't leave it off'.
Also, while I get that you want the Flash option, I still don't see any reason why Apple should bother offering it. There is very little incentive for them to do so, and most of the arguments I've seen in this thread which disagree with you are arguments to that effect.
You are completely rewriting what the articles I posted said. It didn't say IE was down 40%, it said IE is down to 40%.
As far as the second article, you're just talking out of your rear. The article was from 2010, as I specifically pointed out. Those versions were the latest version of each browser at the time. And you ignored the sentence that I quoted that completely contradicted your argument. "71 percent of internet users are running the latest version of their browser."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Are the negative consequences that different than iDevice Safari still being able to properly handle HTML prior to version 5 (and 4)? Is it that different than it handling websites using CSS prior to version 3 (2 and 1 and even sites written prior to CSS)? Are they that different than it properly handling earlier incarnations of javascript? Etc.
Now flip it. The negative consequences for trying to force HTML5 instead of Flash blocks out the vast majority who can't currently handle HTML5 (which is way more people than us iDevice users). The negative consequences for businesses trying to cover all bases is having to create HTML5 AND Flash version of mixed and interactive media (double the cost, double the coding, double the time). Etc.
I'd argue that it is as simple as "let those that want it install it" just like any other of the hundreds of thousands of apps. People often argue that iTunes exists to sell hardware. If Flash playback matters enough to some people to influence their choice of buying an iDevice vs. something else (laptop, netbook, etc), allowing it to be included can help sell more hardware. It would make it even more useful for those people.
I can make arguments counter to this. For example, the whole argument that forbidding it might somehow accelerate adoption of HTML5 alternatives has some merit. But the attempt at applying that argument quickly exposes the reality which is that it is far from being an either
r solution for developers UNLESS those developers are solely aiming at a small minority capable of utilizing HTML5 today. HTML5 fully replacing Flash for all users everywhere is a very long time out into the future. We'll be through several more generations of iDevices before we all get there. I'd like solutions for today.We just went through this at my company. If you want to reach out to the whole world of web users and not just the smallish crowd currently ready for HTML5 in its current state, the ONLY choice is to develop both HTML5 and Flash. Else solely embracing the former will screen out most Internet users (by far) and solely embracing the latter screens out the iDevice crowd. That reality translates into creating dual versions of relevant media which often involves twice the cost, twice the code, etc.
Why should Apple bother offering it? First Adobe would carry most of the burden of putting the player together. Apple would be very obviously in the "we told you so" position if Adobe doesn't deliver a wow implementation that makes best efforts to address Steve's gripes. Second, if the goal is to sell more hardware, added software functionality tends to be a good catalyst for even more hardware sales. I don't exactly love "Angry Birds" and similar but it's availability for those who do helps sell some iDevice hardware too.
Early in this thread, I referenced the fact that in a single month, iDevice users tried to "download the Flash player" more than one million times. That's people using their iDevice and being locked out of being able to access something they wanted to see or do. That's > one million disappointments that could be rectified if there "was an app for that". Assuming that translates to more than one million disappointments per month, that's more than 12 million disappointments per year.
If it's all about user experience, that is an easy one to try to improve, putting the burden of the solution entirely on another company. Adobe fails to do a good job? "We told you so". But frankly, in my own situation, even a less-than-stellar implementation would make me happy compared to being locked out. I'd really rather leave the laptop at home when on the go. I wish there was an "app for that" need, NOT forced on everyone else but just for those of us who have that need or want. We'd still get to the HTML5 future, but (user optional) added functionality in the present would be the better bridge (IMO).
I submit that they are. Two of them (among many):
1) People will continue to use Flash when producing websites
2) People will 'just want to play X' and will be told to turn Flash on to do so and then will not realize the negative consequences that come with it, nor when those consequences are in effect. 'Click-to-flash' is a kludge of a solution, only a step better than 'click to load image', and a stop-gap which as such should just be bypassed completely, instead of being implemented. It would just defer a replacement under the guise of waiting for one.
The stuff about forcing HTML5 is irrelevant to me because of my post earlier. Just lose the dumb multimedia. What is left? What sorts of things can't be implemented more simply through basic HTML etc. (instead of trying to replicate Flash junk with a new means)?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I see my mistake on the "40%". My apologies. I'd offer (and did with the ars link) that others don't see IE share being that low. But sorry for the mis-read.
As far as "talking out of my rear" people can read our discussion for themselves. I can probably go back far enough in time to find articles that says that nearly 100% of Mac users are using IE5.X, but that shouldn't imply that it is still the case.
Those very articles and those I referenced paint a different picture than the one you tried to imply. The link I offered to the more recent article at Ars paints a different picture than your implication that only 40% were still using IE. Besides, it still doesn't matter. Your argument pro HTML5 over Flash relies on the world being upgraded to the latest version of browsers and even IE9 has issues with HTML5. Anyone can do a tiny bit of research for themselves to see that the whole world is not upgraded to the latest browsers and that IE9 has issues with HTML5.
I'm tired of trying here. Believe what you wish. You don't convince me you're right by selectively referencing- or not referencing- stats & info. I'm not even interested in convincing you that I'm right. It's not about who's right or wrong here. The thread asks it's question and I answered it for myself. I'm not wrong for feeling that way and you're not wrong for feeling as you do about this topic.
----------
But they're doing that anyway. They can't embrace JUST HTML5 unless they want their site to only be usable to the tiny subset that is Apple, Chrome and a few others people. We just went through this at my company. We couldn't dump Flash for HTML5 unless we wanted to screen out most of our potential customers for the relative few. The only choice to cover everyone was to do BOTH and that's what we did. It translated to double code, double cost, etc. Fortunately, we were in a position to deal with those kinds of issues. Not everyone can do so.
iOS could pop up a screen asking "are you sure?" with a link to the reasons a user should not want to continue. Then user's can decide for themselves. It's how everything I install on my Macs work. This would be the same. If their "Safari crashes 10 times a day" because of Flash, everytime they load it anew a window could pop advising them that Flash crashed the browser... just like it works on my Macs now. Etc.
Narration, e-learning, video media, etc. We could all get everything we see on television or at the movies in static text (books) and still images (book illustrations) but the argument doesn't seem to support getting rid of our TVs and movie theaters. There's a place for multimedia and interactive multimedia- especially in education.
Last edited:
Why do you keep ignoring this? "71 percent of internet users are running the latest version of their browser."
You said the "vast majority" of internet users can't access HTML5. You were wrong. Empirically.
When did I make that argument? Like I said, you are projecting someone else's argument onto me to shift the discussion away from the fact that you are wrong.
I don't use Flash. I haven't since before the iPhone even existed. I am happy that Apple decided not to support Flash on iOS devices, because it has meant more content accessible to me. I don't care if you use Flash or not.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because it's not true. Your "proof" is ONE outdated article against which there is plenty to counter that stat. And it references "latest version" as older generations of browsers that certainly can't play well with HTML5. I'm in this business. I know the stats. Just because you found that line in that ONE article doesn’t make it true.
I can find articles about the world ending at various points over the last 20 years. But we're still here.
If it helps any, I wish it was true. It would make my job a lot easier.
----------
People can do their own math. I'm pretty confident that Apple doesn't have 1.2 Billion iOS users. Do you think before you post?
http://www.tipb.com/2011/04/19/apple-sold-187-million-ios-devices/ (note that devices sold isn't unique users but many of the same users upgrading their devices over and over).
Here's something even newer: http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/06/...on-ipads-14-billion-apps-downloaded-and-more/ (and again total number of devices sold is not equal to total number of unique iOS users).
The difference here is that I provided direct evidence of my claim. You have not. You just keep repeating your opinion.
Yeah, again, I'm not arguing about replacing Flash with HTML5.
This amounts to zero incentive for Apple to implement this. Disrupt their interface with notifications for activating Flash and a link to something that will never be read, only to enable Flash which will, as you indicate, predictably cause the browser to crash, later informing the user of why it crashed, so that a subset of users can access:
1) Moshi's Monsters
2) DRM-encoded video
3) educational video websites?
I don't think this really fits with Apple's vision for the end-user experience. It's far worse then 'oh, this site doesn't work, welp, time to do something else'.
"I want Flash for X reasons" is a far leap from "Apple has X reasons for implementing Flash". They have very few reasons to do so, and absolutely no obligation to do so; I've yet to be convinced otherwise.
I fail to see how either Flash, HTML5, or both, are the only solutions to providing this content on iOS devices.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I included a link in my response. Did you not click it? Here it is again: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/201...-xp-loses-its-majority-share-of-web-users.ars Note in this one that for your belief to be correct, IE9 should be heavily loaded vs. IE8, IE7 and IE6. In actuality, it's got the least share of the 4 generations of that browser.
I also encouraged you to read the very links you shared with me as "proof" as IE8 is not IE9, Firefox 3.6 is not Firefox 6 and so on.
Here's a pretty good link: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201007-201107 Note where the "latest browsers" fall vs older browsers like IE8, IE7, IE6 etc. There's plenty more like this one.
For most people to be using the latest version of their browser, you need to see just about every such site ranking the latest versions of the browsers higher than older versions of those browsers.
Again, I have to believe that you just playing around here. And I've had enough. Anyone can do their own simple search to decide what is true and what is false. I encourage anyone still left in this thread to do so and see for themselves.