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

Fallout From Apple's Exclusion of Flash-to-iPhone Export Continues

MyBrainIsSpeakn said:
HTML5 was not put on the map by Apple.
Click to expand...

Actually Apple is the reason why there still is NO HTML5 standard. In the first drafts HTML5 should support the royality free OGG codecs. However Apple of course didn't want that web developers could use any free codec because Apple wants them to use H.264 for which Apple gets royalities.

Therefore they denied the HTML5 specs. That's why there still is no HTML final specification.

To quote Apple in the W3C mailinglist (2007):

"We think it is a mistake to require Ogg support, even as a SHOULD-
level requirement."

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html
 
It's fun watching Apple screw up over and over. It's even more fun watching their clueless fanbabies praise them for things they rip other companies for. This thread delivered.
 
skyehill said:
It's fun watching Apple screw up over and over. It's even more fun watching their clueless fanbabies praise them for things they rip other companies for. This thread delivered.
Click to expand...

Except they aren't screwing up anything. They haven't really screwed up anything for years now.

it always turns out that they were right all along.

You might want to wait until you've got some actual numbers, facts, something tangible to bring to the table before you pretend the reality you *want* to exist, actually does.
 
zacman said:
Actually Apple is the reason why there still is NO HTML5 standard. In the first drafts HTML5 should support the royality free OGG codecs. However Apple of course didn't want that web developers could use any free codec because Apple wants them to use H.264 for which Apple gets royalities.

Therefore they denied the HTML5 specs. That's why there still is no HTML final specification.

To quote Apple in the W3C mailinglist (2007):

"We think it is a mistake to require Ogg support, even as a SHOULD-
level requirement."

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html
Click to expand...

WRONG.

Apple does NOT get royalties for H.264. They co-developed the standard (which is part of the MPEG specification, just like AAC), but H.264 is royalty free.
 
zacman said:
Actually Apple is the reason why there still is NO HTML5 standard. In the first drafts HTML5 should support the royality free OGG codecs. However Apple of course didn't want that web developers could use any free codec because Apple wants them to use H.264 for which Apple gets royalities.

Therefore they denied the HTML5 specs. That's why there still is no HTML final specification.

To quote Apple in the W3C mailinglist (2007):

"We think it is a mistake to require Ogg support, even as a SHOULD-
level requirement."

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html
Click to expand...

Nice point, still they did not put it on the map.
 
m... I'd just like to make a little point that I'm sure several other people have already made. Apple's license change means NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. Developers who are familiar with the App Store upload process know that all Apple asks for is the binary. (compressed .app file). They have NO WAY OF KNOWING whether you used Apple's own SDK and the C compiler of Flash CS5. There is a simple solution to Adobe's problem.

Make the export to iPhone feature 4.0 compatible (i.e., thread freeze on homebutton), and Apple won't have a clue. Hell, if Apple had it's way. Developers wouldn't be able to share all the screenshots of 4.0 we all look forward to.

I say this as a developer who already is working with the 4.0 Beta 1 SDK. As soon as you compile once with this new SDK, your app supports multi tasking (well, actually, it only supports state freezing. For true multi-tasking, the developer has to write the support).

If Flash CS5 supports this "state-freezing", Apple won't know the difference.
 
epirali said:
After reading almost every post in this thread, quite a few analysis pieces (good and bad) and thinking I came to a realization:

This is a move that can be justified both technically and from a business perspective. It in no way harms the customer, does not "milk" the developer for more money, and only causes headaches for developers who want to "write once deploy many times" which at best is only good for the developer.

So besides crying "unfair" what is the problem exactly? And yes I have read and parses all the various reasons, they just don't hold water.

If you don't like it as a developer focus development on Android.

If you don't like it as a customer don't by iPhone/iPad/touch. It's not like it's windows and you have no choice and are being screwed.

For the rest of us (both as a developer and a user) it improves things, and all I had to pay was $99.
Click to expand...


Agree and the other big factor. This isn't really a change from 3.3.2 which already prohibited 3rd party frameworks, but the wording was awkward.

As for an Apple vs Adobe, on this one, it looks more like Adobe was seeing a loophole in the old wording. Because it was always clear that thing like Java running on a JVM (or flash script running on Flash run time) was prohibited, Adobe was thinking that the could somehow slide by Java & JVM (for Flash and its Run Time) into one package would make it ok. :rolleyes:

It was pure Adobe shenanigans to think they could get away with this in the first place.
 
I don't know a single serious iPhone app developer who would use a Flash command set and simply "export" that foreign command set as an iPhone app. It's absurd. This is really a non-issue.
 
skyehill said:
It's fun watching Apple screw up over and over. It's even more fun watching their clueless fanbabies praise them for things they rip other companies for. This thread delivered.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Apple is now the 3rd largest company in the US behind Microsoft and Exxon Mobil and the 8th largest corporation in the world because they're a bunch of screw-ups. :rolleyes: Sounds like Sarah Palin Logic to me.

And how many Fortune 100 companies do you run again???
 
My next phone is not going to be an iphone. My next computer won't be a Mac (If they even make Macs by that point)

I cannot stand Apple anymore. Maybe I am done with buying apple products? The competition is catching up on all fronts anyway.
 
csimmons said:
WRONG.

Apple does NOT get royalties for H.264. They co-developed the standard (which is part of the MPEG specification, just like AAC), but H.264 is royalty free.
Click to expand...

Apple is a member of MPEG LA that announced that they will ask for royalities in 2016.

So they are now giving it away for free and wait until it gets a defacto standard and THEN get the big $$$. That's even worse as it's the same tactic that Unisys used with the LZW patents.

And don't tell me I'm wrong. Or why doesn't Apple support HTML5/OGG Theora in their products? Shouldn't the web developers be free to choose which codec they want to use in HTML5? Why doesn't Apple support this?
 
RT2020 said:
My next phone is not going to be an iphone. My next computer won't be a Mac (If they even make Macs by that point)

I cannot stand Apple anymore. Maybe I am done with buying apple products? The competition is catching up on all fronts anyway.
Click to expand...

So is it their attitude or the products themselves that bothers you?
 
RT2020 said:
My next phone is not going to be an iphone. My next computer won't be a Mac (If they even make Macs by that point)

I cannot stand Apple anymore. Maybe I am done with buying apple products? The competition is catching up on all fronts anyway.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....bye? :rolleyes:

I love people who post this stuff under the premise that they will actually be missed. Brilliant.
 
Death to flash, the emperor of unnecessary internet bloat. As the internet is moving steadily towards becoming a mobile device friendly place such archaic decadence must be put to death.
 
barberio said:
You won't want an app to read "My cat spot's homepage".

You will want an app to watch Netflix.

See the difference between when you want a browser and when you want an app?
Click to expand...

I see. So you'll just need an App for viewing Netflix, Hulu, ABC, CBS, NBC, Masters, ESPN, Bravo etc.
 
christian_k said:
Thank you. I don't need a smartphone at all but something similar to the iPad. I im glad there is choice. I got a netbook just yesterday. I never liked Microsoft but they let me install everything I want. And the netbook is nowhere as bad as Steve Jobs wants it to be...

Christian
Click to expand...

Well there you go. You had a choice and you exercised it.


A netbook is closer to a computer than a smartphone it is no wonder flash is allowed. Flash can be run on an Apple Computer too so it is pointless to suggest Apple does allow choice. It allows just as much choice regarding flash on its computers as any other computer maker. And it seems they allow just as much choice on their smart phones as other smartphone makers (the droid for instance).

Now an ipad is more like a Kindle with bonus features. A kindle can't do flash either. Some want to say it is a netbook but it is not. It doesn't even resemble one.

There is no real gripe here in terms of Apple limiting your experience.
 
zacman said:
Apple is a member of MPEG LA that announced that they will ask for royalities in 2016.

So they are now giving it away for free and wait until it gets a defacto standard and THEN get the big $$$. That's even worse as it's the same tactic that Unisys used with the LZW patents.

And don't tell me I'm wrong. Or why doesn't Apple support HTML5/OGG Theora in their products? Shouldn't the web developers be free to choose which codec they want to use in HTML5? Why doesn't Apple support this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Fraunhofer did the same with the MP3 codec. It used to be free, but as soon as everyone was highly dependent on it: BAM, they changed their license agreement and started collecting steep royalties. Other companies had built their business around mp3 players (such as Nullsoft's WinAmp) and had no choice but to pay. I hate that practice, and I dislike h264 for that exact reason, even though h264 is by far the best codec out there in terms of image quality and small file size. I wish they'd lower the licensing cost to something marginal so all browsers could use it. It would be great for the web, since h264 does extremely low bitrates while still retaining acceptable video quality without blocks (seriously, h264's deblocking algorithm is amazing).
 
Dear Jesus Christ has anyone ever ventured onto Nike's a
pathetic site? Good lawd! That place is Flashtastically shi***!
The pc at my job breaks a mean sweat as I try navigating through that junk.
And don't get me started on what it does to my 2 ghz, 2 gig of ram MacBook.
Adobe can take flash and ram it right up it's a**!
Worst user experience on the net. And if Adobe wasn't being chalenged by the likes of Apple they wouldn't so jack to change Flash.
This is a perfect example of why competition is good.
 
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