Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, I dont see why everyone doesnt want additional support...dont want to use it, turn it off.

Everyone trollin... FLASH IS BAD >.< STEVE AND APPLE R GAWD

I should send this thread to RayWilliamJohnson...

I don't want additional support, because when you offer the option to the web designer he will continue use it, making it no longer a practical option for the user to disable. Then when Safari on your phone crashes, videos play choppy, and you battery sucks the user blames the browser, not the plug-in.

I'm very happy that as iOS has grown in popularity, the requirement for Flash on the web has diminished. This would not have happened if Flash was an option.
 
There should be an option to turn it off or on. It's simple as hell and runs extremely well and doesn't crash, and Frash should have shown you all that. But amazingly some of you don't even want the choice. Shows how ass-backwards people are in this community.

This thread would win prizes at a YouRageYouLose contests.
 
There should be an option to turn it off or on. It's simple as hell and runs extremely well and doesn't crash, and Frash should have shown you all that. But amazingly some of you don't even want the choice. Shows how ass-backwards people are in this community.

This thread would win prizes at a YouRageYouLose contests.

Performance isn't the only reason that people choose not to use flash. And you do have a choice that you make when you purchase your device.
 
You give the average consumer WAY too much credit. 99% of the people don't know what Flash is, who makes it and doesn't care.

Read reply #294. MOST people do not understand the problem and thus cause problems for Apple.

Yes but how many buy the phone that know nothing about a computer? Many would try to visit a site that has a flash and not know what is happening.

Even people who never heard of Flash find out what it is within the first day after buying an iPad or iPhone, any website that requires Flash will tell user what it is missing, and everyone know what the blue box is. After bumping into that wall dozens of time, people start to be aware. Once again, at least thanks Jobs for making Flash famous!

All responses are within +/- 2%; thus statistically the same.

I don't want additional support, because when you offer the option to the web designer he will continue use it

An who are you to decide? Have you heard about democracy? You are not telling that nobody wants Flash right? Just read this thread again, all of it. No wonder Apple is often compared with fascism, and you are carrying the ideology! It's good actually, makes it more obvious to everyone else. Keep talking.

I'm very happy that as iOS has grown in popularity, the requirement for Flash on the web has diminished. This would not have happened if Flash was an option.

Really? You are on for a trip this year!

CEOs discuss Open Screen Project -- CEOs from ARM, Broadcom, DoCoMo, Google, HTC, Intel, Motorola, NVIDIA, Palm, QUALCOMM, RIM, and STMIcroelectronics talk about how theyre bringing Flash Platform technologies to their devices and platforms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwI227m-hs

Adobe Flash: One Web. Any Screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u8ynaCPIoY

Listen, I understand the desire for having Flash on the iOS devices, and it does make sense to me to have a switch. BUT from a business sense, it may not make sense.

Consumer does not give a damn about Apple's business and corporate agenda, they pay big bucks it's not to get half the web experience.

Yes, I dont see why everyone doesnt want additional support...dont want to use it, turn it off.

Post #293

Apparently, a guy like him is stunned that a majority of posters on an APPLE forum disagrees with him and agrees with Steve Jobs. :D

Read this thread again, all of it.

Again with your references to FTC investigations. What are you claiming that Apple is doing that is illegal? Not adding plugin support to their browser? You really think the FTC can force them to do that? 11% Almost as many are upset by smudges. Sounds like not a big deal to me.

I said I am done with you, I meant it. You grab something up the top of your head (I say head to remain polite) no matter how many sources I throw at you. You have the answer to everything but at the end of the day readers have enough information on this thread to make up their own mind. Keep talking.

Wow, didn't mean to start a holy war LOL! #justsayin

The war started with Steve's rant on Apple.com, you're good ;)

Again, that Adobe package looks great for testing across many different phones, and it does reduce development errors; but it doesn't reduce the developers complexity problem.

We will figure it out, don't worry.
 
Last edited:
Many people buy the phone knowing nothing about computers. It's so popular with non-techies because it's so easy to use. But we are at version 4 of the phone. You have to put a little responsibility on the consumer to know what they are forking out at least $200 (and some people spend up to $1000) on.

And Steve wants you to buy the newer version of one of his products?? Gasp!
It's a business, and his business is to sell products. This doesn't hold true for just Apple. You buy a PC, and a year later a newer version with better specs comes out. Same with cars, coffee makers, TV's, etc...All of these companies want to entice owners to "upgrade" because of newer, better features.

It's your choice to buy or not to buy. Steve/Apple hasn't forced anyone to buy any of their products. Even my buddy Flex has a MBP and an iPhone 4.

PS I think McDonalds's is more evil than Apple. Darn them for continuing to tempt us once a year with the McRib, only to take it away! They shouldn't be allowed to tell me what I can and can't order. Anyone want to meet me at the drive thru and demand that Ronald give me back my McRib?

This, my friends, is spoken by a true genius.
:)
 
I said I am done with you, I meant it. You grab something up the top of your head (I say head to remain polite) no matter how many sources I throw at you. You have the answer to everything but at the end of the day readers have enough information on this thread to make up their own mind. Keep talking.

You are only providing sources of an investigation. No one is disagreeing with the fact that there was an investigation. An investigation is not evidence. I keep asking what you think that Apple is doing that is illegal. Why is that a hard question to answer?
 
You are only providing sources of an investigation. No one is disagreeing with the fact that there was an investigation. An investigation is not evidence. I keep asking what you think that Apple is doing that is illegal. Why is that a hard question to answer?
And he keeps going on and on and on... Why are you lying again? Please quote me, where did I say Apple did something illegal? I said the matter is not performance and Apple is investigated for anti-trust matters related to the ban of Flash and iTunes. Now, let's see what is going to be your next follow up because you never stop making noise apparently. Keep talking.
 
And he keeps going on and on and on... Why are you lying again? Please quote me, where did I say Apple did something illegal? I said the matter is not performance and Apple is investigated for anti-trust matters related to the ban of Flash and iTunes. Now, let's see what is going to be your next follow up because you never stop making noise apparently. Keep talking.

Why the animosity? I'm just trying to have a discussion. I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. You clearly implied that you thought Apple was doing something illegal when you said that the results of the FTC investigation would force Apple to make changes. You also said "It is Apple's anti trust, anti competitive and anti innovation conducts." Sure sounds like you are saying that Apple is doing something illegal.

If you don't think Apple is doing anything illegal, why do you keep bringing up an investigation?

I agreed with you that the reason for Apple's decision to not include the Flash Player is not only related to performance. Apple did not claim that it is only related to performance either.

Apple has not been investigated for not allowing the Flash Player on iOS devices which is what this conversation is about. And again, an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing.
 
If you don't think Apple is doing anything illegal, why do you keep bringing up an investigation?

Why not? You want to decide what I can say too?

I agreed with you that the reason for Apple's decision to not include the Flash Player is not only related to performance. Apple did not claim that it is only related to performance either.

'CPU hog' became legendary thanks to Steve. The backslash that is going to come with the release of 10.2 will be painful, I believe.

Apple has not been investigated for not allowing the Flash Player on iOS devices which is what this conversation is about. And again, an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing.

What do you back this up with? Once again, personal believes. You do not know more than I do. I invite everyone to Google it "Apple FTC" without Adobe, and see how many time Adobe and Flash are mentioned, and use common sense.

But it is good because the more we mention Apple and FTC, the more the readers of this post will Google it.
 
Last edited:
^Good thing you were done with BaldiMac...and meant it :lol:

This thread is awesome.
 
There should be an option to turn it off or on. It's simple as hell and runs extremely well and doesn't crash, and Frash should have shown you all that.
Frash doesn't tell me anything about how Flash would run on my phone. It's a partial implementation of an older Flash spec made by a different team that currently has stability suitable to it's pre-alpha state. I'll grant you that performance is ok when it's running, but the applets crash, browser crashes and there isn't any video support. And let's face it, most users only want Flash for video.
 
Why not? You want to decide what I can say too?

Nope. I'm just trying to understand your point of view. Have a conversation.

'CPU hog' became legendary thanks to Steve. The backslash that is going to come with the release of 10.2 will be painful, I believe.

How is 10.2 going to change the situation from 1 year ago when he said it?

What do you back this up with? Once again, personal believes. It has been well documentated and I provided you with enough evidences. Just Google it "Apple FTC" without Adobe, and see how many time Adobe and Flash are mentioned. I can't wait for the result to come up, I will quote every single of your lines even if that post takes 5 pages.

But it is good because the more we mention Apple and FTC, the more the readers of this post will Google it.

An investigation is not evidence. What is your point? What are you trying to show by bringing up the investigation? I don't know how many other ways to ask this in order to move this discussion forward.

Do you think Apple is doing something illegal by not bundling Flash Player?

Are you arguing that Flash apps should be included in the App Store?

I apologize if I missed your point through all of the back and forth of the forum, but it seems that you have just thrown out a bunch of talking points with no more point than "applesucks."
 
flexengineer said:
Consumer does not give a damn about Apple's business and corporate agenda, they pay big bucks it's not to get half the web experience.

Sure they do, they pay the big bucks. If it was REALLY a problem for them, they wouldn't be doing that now would they? There are plenty of options out there, if this device isn't good enough for them, they would move to one of the others. Guess what, some are, some aren't. BTW, it isn't nearly half the web. Sure for some people it might be, but for many, it isn't. I know that none of the sites I visit daily use flash. Some used to use flash, but those have actually changed. But what *I* do is irrelevant, just like any other individual. It is up to the masses to vote with their wallet. Guess what, Apple is now the 2nd largest company in the US; looks like the vote went their way.
 
I have been using the iphone for years now and i never had any problems or missed not having flash. so i feel no need to have it.
 
Apple has not been investigated for not allowing the Flash Player on iOS devices which is what this conversation is about. And again, an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing.

I just googled and basically from all of the articles that came up you are correct.

AP:

SAN FRANCISCO � The Federal Trade Commission will open an investigation to determine if Apple Inc.'s mobile software business practices are squashing competitors, according to a report published Friday.

The Wall Street Journal said the FTC will start an investigation, citing people familiar with the situation. The newspaper said that the FTC has been working with the Justice Department for weeks to decide which agency will review allegations from companies complaining of being barred from the mobile platform that runs its iPhone and iPad devices.

Apple's newest version of its mobile operating system, iOS4, will be released later this month. A new iPhone will also be released this month.

Apple rival Google Inc. is among the companies that are increasingly agitated with the iPhone maker, as new restrictions that are part of iOS4 may hamper Google's ability to sell and place ads on devices that run the software.

On Wednesday, Omar Hamoui, the head of Google's newly acquired mobile ad service, AdMob, attacked the restrictions as a threat to competition.

Prior to The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News reported on the probe.

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment. A spokesman at the FTC could not be reached for comment.


That article was from June.

Apple’s unexpected announcement Thursday that it would let programmers use third-party tools to write apps for the iPhone and iPad may deflate a federal investigation into whether the restrictions were anti-competitive because they made it difficult or ill-advised for developers to write programs for competing smartphones and tablets.

The FTC reportedly opened an investigation into the ban in spring 2010, and, according to app developer Hampton Catlin, FTC attorneys have been talking over the summer to app developers, including himself, about whether the ban makes it less likely that they will make apps for competing platforms such as Google’s Android mobile OS and Windows Phone 7 Mobile OS, among others. The FTC has wide latitude to take action against companies it thinks are engaging in unfair business practices.

Third-party development tools, including those made by Adobe, allow developers to write apps once and then programmatically create variations for multiple platforms. Last spring Apple changed its development agreement to force developers to write apps for iOS devices using its own programming language “Objective-C”, arguing that third-party tools made apps that weren’t as powerful and secure as they should be.

But on Thursday, Apple unexpectedly reversed course.

The FTC thought the ban might instead have been a way to protect Apple’s dominance in the burgeoning app market, according to Catlin, who was interviewed by the FTC in early August. Catlin, until recently the lead mobile developer for Wikimedia, also developed the popular Dictionary! app for the iPhone.

After his conversation with the FTC lawyers, Catlin told Wired.com that they were “concerned that by making non–Objective C apps illegal, then you can’t develop cross-platform.” To the lawyers, Apple saying to developers, “You can’t be cross-platform,” seemed anti-competitive.

The FTC was also reportedly interested in Apple banning Adobe’s Flash, a popular multimedia browser plug-in used for a lot of online video, which Apple says is just too buggy for the iPad and iPhone. But according to Catlin, that reported interest “might just be a red herring” and the FTC was really concerned about the developer rules.

While Catlin said he’s not sure regulator intervention is a good thing, Apple’s rules did have a personal impact.

“When they asked if I was less likely to develop a cross-platform app now (cooling effect), my answer surprised me …. “yes/” I am less likely to develop a cross-platform app, because I don’t want to get pushed off iPhone!,” Catlin said. “Its not that Apple has even gone through with the threats, but they are definitely scaring us developers subtly!”

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether FTC pressure led to Thursday’s reversal. The FTC neither confirms nor denies investigations until they are closed.

So, no, it doesn't seem as the meat of the investigation is about banning Adobe. It was about developers not being allowed to develop cross-platform apps, which could be seen as trying to monopolize the market. There were complaints by Adobe before the investigation began, but of course either side can't comment. Though it may be that Google lodged the first complaint after becoming aware they may not be able to have ads on iOS.

What may hurt the case is the success over the past year of the Android platform. Just as Apple's success hurt the FTC's case against Google acquisition of AdMob.

In this case for Apple, Android's popularity and success may be a good thing.
So, the more apps in Android's marketplace that are developed with Adobe software the better it is for Apple, in this case.
 
I just googled and basically from all of the articles that came up you are correct.




That article was from June.



So, no, it doesn't seem as the meat of the investigation is about banning Adobe. It was about developers not being allowed to develop cross-platform apps, which could be seen as trying to monopolize the market. There were complaints by Adobe before the investigation began, but of course either side can't comment. Though it may be that Google lodged the first complaint after becoming aware they may not be able to have ads on iOS.

What may hurt the case is the success over the past year of the Android platform. Just as Apple's success hurt the FTC's case against Google acquisition of AdMob.

In this case for Apple, Android's popularity and success may be a good thing.
So, the more apps in Android's marketplace that are developed with Adobe software the better it is for Apple, in this case.

How could they be under investigation for not allowing the Flash Player on iOS devices? It makes no sense. It's not illegal to design a web browser without (any) plugin support.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

BaldiMac said:
I just googled and basically from all of the articles that came up you are correct.




That article was from June.



So, no, it doesn't seem as the meat of the investigation is about banning Adobe. It was about developers not being allowed to develop cross-platform apps, which could be seen as trying to monopolize the market. There were complaints by Adobe before the investigation began, but of course either side can't comment. Though it may be that Google lodged the first complaint after becoming aware they may not be able to have ads on iOS.

What may hurt the case is the success over the past year of the Android platform. Just as Apple's success hurt the FTC's case against Google acquisition of AdMob.

In this case for Apple, Android's popularity and success may be a good thing.
So, the more apps in Android's marketplace that are developed with Adobe software the better it is for Apple, in this case.

How could they be under investigation for not allowing the Flash Player on iOS devices? It makes no sense. It's not illegal to design a web browser without (any) plugin support.

They aren't. The investigation is about Apple not allowing app developers to develop cross-platform applications. I won't pretend to be an engineer but it looks like they would only allow developers to use software that only worked on iOS. Thus appearing to try and create a monopoly for their app store. The complaint from Adobe stemmed from the fact that none of their software (or whatever one would use to develop an app) could be used for iOS app development.

It's going to be hard to prove a monopoly when Apps are obviously being designed for the Android platform that does include Adobe.
 
This thread has gotten so far off topic that it's an embarrassment to the forums. Should be locked tbh.
 
flexengineer said:
Then you are not visiting a Flash website, but just a website with a Flash video stream, because Skyfire is the biggest scam in the history of iPhone, You cannot see Flash, period. Apple sucks a bit more money out of you to pretty much see Youtube embedded videos that are free for everyone else.

Skyfire can't display games, nor applications. It only takes Flash video from somewhere, send it to their server, transcode it and then send it back to you. That is a lot of bandwidth and overhead just to once again play video from Youtube embeds everyone sees in full for free, with all the features of the player which you can't have on Skyfire no more than on Safari. And who pay for that overhead? You.

The video stream is all I care about. Not the boatloads of adds that load on the side. If I really truly need to visit a site built entirely around flash and I can't on the iPad, I'll get on my desktop or laptop. I did my homework before buying the ipad and knew what I was getting into. The end result? I still don't want flash on the iPad even with the inconveniences I have ran into in the past of needing to access a site through another means. I don't expect the iPad nor ever have to replace the traditional laptop or desktop. No one else should either.

Would I be opposed to the option of having flash? Absolutely not. I think the ability to toggle it on and off would be a great idea. There if I need it and off if I don't. On all the time? No way. I have a droid x deployed to me by my work and my wife's personal device is a droid 2. I've see how buggy and resource heavy it can be. The browsers randomly crash when viewing the content, the phone gets hot and the OS slows to a crawl. Even with the X rooted and the CPU over clocked I still feel this way.

And the overhead? It was $5. I can afford $5 for something I want. But I would gladly pay $10 for an app to turn flash off if it was on at all times.
 
The video stream is all I care about.

Oh really??!! Let's take one of the many examples, I am sure you all know Simon Fuller, the creator of a pretty popular franchise call Idol, also know as “American Idol” in the US. Well, he created last year a new web based series entirely based on Flex and Flash. Simple and straight: no one on the iPhone and iPad were able to enjoy it, www.ificandream.com was displaying a “sorry you can't view this on your device”. No HTML version, no alternative, nothing, nada, niet. Here is a snapshot, the whole house was rendered in 3D and you were able to just switch cam and turn the house around and do stuff nobody every seen before. There is no way in hel;l HTML5 can deliver not now, not in 5 years. Don't challenge me on this! THERE IS NO WAY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:If_I_Can_Dream_screenshot.png

So, maybe you only care about video and live in 1990's but in today's web you just cannot get the full experience nor the full web on the iPhone, period. You guys can go on and on and on, everyone with an iDevices hit the wall of stuff they can not see every single day.

They aren't. The investigation is about Apple not allowing app developers to develop cross-platform applications.

I never said otherwise. I said that Apple was investigated for anti trust matter, I never said the anti trust matter was Flash Player, I said it was triggered by Adobe because the only purpose of the change of TOS was to refrain developers from using their existing tools and technology of choice to write app.

Now that the European Commission put Apple together, I can write my application in ActionScript using Flash Builder and just package it for the iPhone. I do not have to spend time developing only for the iPhone.

Refraining that is a violation of anti-trust law and you can put it any way you want, Apple backed off for a reason! That alone show what I call “anti trust, anti competition and unfair practices”. The European Commission, the Department of Justice and the FTC agreed. Why would have Apple backed off few weeks later otherwise? Once again , they got put together thanks to Adobe's complain.

Sure they do, they pay the big bucks.

No they do not, customers do not give a damn about Apple's business and corporate agenda. Stock holders do but customers do not give a damn about stock holders neither. They want a product that is not limited and they do not want to compromise. As you said many time, they will simply not buy the phone. The first generation of users got screwed because they did not know better but now it is a different story. Apple will do good don't get me wrong, but as good as Macintosh, not as good as Windows! Flash will do as good as Windows. Actually Flash will do better, it will do on mobile same as it did on computers. Nothing you, Apple or Steve Jobs can do about it.

This thread has gotten so far off topic that it's an embarrassment to the forums. Should be locked tbh.

Why are you here then?
 
Last edited:
I never said otherwise. I said that Apple was investigated for anti trust matter, I never said the anti trust matter was Flash Player, I said it was triggered by Adobe because the only purpose of the change of TOS was to refrain developers from using their existing tools and technology of choice to write app.

I think you may be giving Adobe too much credit as being the trigger. Most of the articles I read stated or inferred that Google made the complaint, because with the restrictions they wouldn't be able to advertise on iOS. And it wasn't only Adobe tools that were banned, others were as well. Articles made it seem like Adobe was just one of the companies that complained.
 
I think you may be giving Adobe too much credit as being the trigger. Most of the articles I read stated or inferred that Google made the complaint, because with the restrictions they wouldn't be able to advertise on iOS. And it wasn't only Adobe tools that were banned, others were as well. Articles made it seem like Adobe was just one of the companies that complained.

FTC denies request for documents on Adobe complaint, confirms investigation of Apple's SDK rules?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/05/ftc-denies-request-for-documents-on-adobe-complaint-confirms-in/

EU joins FTC Apple investigation over Flash
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/08/10/eu-joins-ftc-apple-investigation-over-flash/

European Union joins FTC investigation into Apple's opposition of Flash
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...tigation_into_apples_opposition_of_flash.html

European Union teams with FTC on Apple's Flash policies
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/08/10/months.left.in.investigation.source.claims

EU Joins FTC Probe of Apple
http://www.cultofmac.com/eu-joins-ftc-probe-of-apple/54431

European Union joins FTC probe into lack of Flash support in Apple’s iOS
http://www.tipb.com/2010/08/11/european-union-joins-ftc-probe-lack-flash-support-apples-ios/

Want more???
 
I think you may be giving Adobe too much credit as being the trigger. Most of the articles I read stated or inferred that Google made the complaint, because with the restrictions they wouldn't be able to advertise on iOS. And it wasn't only Adobe tools that were banned, others were as well. Articles made it seem like Adobe was just one of the companies that complained.

No, he's not. You need to look at the timing of banning cross compilers and the timetable of investigations. Anybody should be able to piece it together - clearly the banning of Adobe's cross compiler was a major factor.

For all your abilities at googling information, you seem to lack the most rudimentary analytical skills.
 
No, he's not. You need to look at the timing of banning cross compilers and the timetable of investigations. Anybody should be able to piece it together - clearly the banning of Adobe's cross compiler was a major factor.

For all your abilities at googling information, you seem to lack the most rudimentary analytical skills.


I would pretend to be offended, but I don't have the time to look up rudimentary in the dictionary.

I actually don't care to piece it together. Until the full details of the investigation come out we don't know. But many of those articles said that many companies complained about the policy, not just Google and Adobe.

But, hey, I could probably spend the next 2 hours googling and analyzing all the crap and those who didn't agree could find articles that would dispute whatever conclusion I came to. But I'm not going to, because as much as I like debate, I draw the line when it becomes insulting.

And honestly, I really don't care as much as you guys seem to. Like I said, I like a good debate.

The bottom line is, I'm going to continue to enjoy my phone, with our without flash...and continue to wait for the McRib to come back.

Good Luck with your quest. You may need it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.