They set the PHONE date and time the same throughout the ads. Doesn't mean they were all filmed within 1 minute on June 3rd.
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.
Flash on the iPhone?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nail in the coffin? I'm pretty sure Apple realizes that there are more web sites than just Apple.com, and that most of them use the "competing" standard (including nytimes.com, featured so prominently in Apple's own ads). Flash would be cake to implement on the iPhone, and if it were missing, a lot of people would realize they aren't getting the "full" internet.
I wonder how much the Apple TV / YouTube / H.264 deal actually had to do with the iPhone and wireless broadband access to video? I also wonder if Google will also follow suit and make their videos available that way?
It seems like a technology something loosely like Flash is here to stay on the web. It might stop being Flash fairly soon. It might become Silverlight. It might be something else we're not expecting. But I have a hard time seeing that kind of ability drop out of web development.
It seems like a technology something loosely like Flash is here to stay on the web. It might stop being Flash fairly soon. It might become Silverlight. It might be something else we're not expecting. But I have a hard time seeing that kind of ability drop out of web development.
From a technological standpoint adding the Flash player to the iPhone is not hard. And the iPhone has plenty of horsepower to render resonable flash movies.
The problem is that Adobe is trying hard to make a lot of money licensing the flash player to embedded devices. While the desktop versions of the flash player can be distributed for no cost, Adobe would like to charge a hefty per-unit licensing fee on other types of devices.
Maybe Adobe and Apple can work out a deal and maybe not.
The problem is that Adobe is trying hard to make a lot of money licensing the flash player to embedded devices. While the desktop versions of the flash player can be distributed for no cost, Adobe would like to charge a hefty per-unit licensing fee on other types of devices.
Maybe Adobe and Apple can work out a deal and maybe not.
it has to have flash
i mean, soooo many big sites are completely dependent on it that I absolutely can't imagine them not having it. something as big as nba.com for example, is pretty much unusable without flash support.
i mean, soooo many big sites are completely dependent on it that I absolutely can't imagine them not having it. something as big as nba.com for example, is pretty much unusable without flash support.
Isn't there a possibility that seeing as apple have already convinced Google to convert all their YouTube videos away from flash they may also be doing this for NY Times and other large sites? This would mean that the owners of the websites they are approaching are doing all the work to allow their content to be viewable on the iphone.
There is no way that after all these demonstrations on the NY Times pages from the iPhone it'll eventually turn out that it isn't fully compatable; it just wouldnt make sense. Something is going on that Apple isnt telling us...
There is no way that after all these demonstrations on the NY Times pages from the iPhone it'll eventually turn out that it isn't fully compatable; it just wouldnt make sense. Something is going on that Apple isnt telling us...
Yeah, kinda. I agree with your motives for saying that, but it's just not true, from an end-user stadpoint. Homestarrunner, anyone?
A couple of reasons:
1. ObjectiveC isn't widely used
2. Developers may not be interested in learning ObjectiveC, due to (1)
3. Since Java is platform independent, its less hassle to port to a Java capable iPhone than it is to port to another language ( which you may have to learn - going back to (1)
There's a ton of Java apps out there... some of which are good.
ObjC is OK, but for me, its not a priority to learn fully because its not widely used.
I gotta disagree with you there. If the internet had to rely on animated GIFs, MOVs and WMVs to do any type of animation, things would be pretty sad. Do you really want to see YouTube with WMVs?
While I do believe the iPhone will support Flash, I also believe the webpage featured in the ad is a mockup. If you re-watch the ad you'll notice that the only advertisements visible on the webpage are for Apple and AT&T. On the right of the page there's an advertisement for the Nike+iPod Sports Kit, and just above that an ad for AT&T.
The real New York Times website features lots of ads including ads up in the Masthead- none of these are present in the iPhone commercial.
The real New York Times website features lots of ads including ads up in the Masthead- none of these are present in the iPhone commercial.
I personally don't really want to see a bunch of existing apps come to iPhone "as is." That would be like running DOS apps on Windows. iPhone apps are different, with different ways of interacting. A different UI is called for, if you want a good experience. So I'd be happier to see NEW apps written than have a poor experience with something meant for a stylus or other non-Apple system.
Touché
I didn't intend for that to sound hostile, sorry.
:-(
I know what he means about Java apps having a different UI etc. Its not uniform with native apps.
I hate Flash. Maybe that's too broad a statement for a whole technology, but I'm sick and tired of going to websites looking for information and being forced to have an experience.
Flash has its place, but it's become a monster.
I don't want to go to a website looking for a data sheet on a camera and be forced to either watch a 2 minute abstract video intended to imbue the corporate image and vision or figure out how to click around it.
I don't want to go to a store locator and be forced to watch a "loading..." bar increment through percent by percent just so each button I press can jiggle in novel ways and make cute cartoon noises before rolling out a standard drop down menu.
The web isn't a series of pre-generated cartoon shorts. You're supposed to drill down through information looking for what you want, not pre-loading the entire site.
Not having Flash would be a blessing, in my opinion. If Apple really sees Quicktime and Flash in competition (I don't, myself), then I could easily imagine them using a high profile product like this as the thin edge of the wedge. The YouTube change over isn't because of this, but other sites will probably offer alternate content choices simply because they see the iPhone demographic as a potentially lucrative one.
The flip-side though is that it gives a very obvious point of criticism against the iPhone. I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much Flash in the first place is that it's the only way to give a consistent experience across browsers.
Flash has its place, but it's become a monster.
I don't want to go to a website looking for a data sheet on a camera and be forced to either watch a 2 minute abstract video intended to imbue the corporate image and vision or figure out how to click around it.
I don't want to go to a store locator and be forced to watch a "loading..." bar increment through percent by percent just so each button I press can jiggle in novel ways and make cute cartoon noises before rolling out a standard drop down menu.
The web isn't a series of pre-generated cartoon shorts. You're supposed to drill down through information looking for what you want, not pre-loading the entire site.
Not having Flash would be a blessing, in my opinion. If Apple really sees Quicktime and Flash in competition (I don't, myself), then I could easily imagine them using a high profile product like this as the thin edge of the wedge. The YouTube change over isn't because of this, but other sites will probably offer alternate content choices simply because they see the iPhone demographic as a potentially lucrative one.
The flip-side though is that it gives a very obvious point of criticism against the iPhone. I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much Flash in the first place is that it's the only way to give a consistent experience across browsers.
Look at the video controls that appear on the Ad and the ones that appear on the NYtimes webpage right now...
Strange huh?
Screenshot from the Ad:
Screenshot from nytimes.com
Makes the Ad look kinda fake...
But what about this..... n[ate]vw found this on nytimes, it has the same controls, the page was last modified Wed, Dec 27, 2006, the controls appear to be from a previous ver. when the ad was made... maybe
For those looking here's the interview from January with Jobs saying no java / yes javascript / maybe flash
Oh, and I don't see any of those ads on websites, I use AdBlock Plus for firefox, add myspace trackers to the list and you're ready to go!
Any Web site built entirely in Flash is not a Web site, IMHO.
I see Flash objects, though, as perfectly viable media types within the context of a Web site.
I would have agreed with you five years ago. However, the web is becoming more of a consumer-driven environment and we can't sit up on our high horses of web development and insist on academically pure models anymore.
We used to be able to set strong standards for how sites were built. Now, we build what the consumer wants to see or we don't get paid.