Hey Apple...Adobe has learned its lesson! We want Flash

[flexengineer]

By careful do you mean that Flash is still not ready to be on a mobile operating system?

Looks like so far Steve Jobs was right about at least 1 thing.

Nope, Flash 10.1 has been working quite well as far as customer satisfaction is concerned with 4.5 rating out of 5 on Android, however Adobe is about to hit strong and make an impression with 10.2 cutting short any ranting about Flash ability to work on mobile as well if not better than HTML5 in term of resource consumption while bringing way more power and capability to developers. They are putting an end to that war as we speak, and Motorola wants to leverage that. Instead of embedding 10.1, they want to embed 10.2 first and probably already optimized the machine for it hand in hand with Adobe's engineers, as it has been the case with Google, HTC, Intel, ARM and many others.

For instance, do you think you will be able to deliver that quality of game (video below, notice the CPU usage) with HTML5 by the end of 2011? Because Flash will on PC, Mac, Linux, smart phones, tablets and Tvs, as both native and web based apps WITH 1 CODE BASE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNKJbDrYdU

 

[milani]

@Flex, you realize that referring to the decline of Flash as a "war" between Apple and Adobe makes you sound nuts, right?

For instance, do you think you will be able to deliver that quality of game (video below, notice the CPU usage) with HTML5 by the end of 2011? Because Flash will on PC, Mac, Linux, smart phones, tablets and Tvs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNKJbDrYdU

Why would a developer deliver a game on HTML5 or Flash? Games are always best delivered natively.

 

[Moyank24]

Nope, Flash 10.1 has been working quite well as far as customer satisfaction is concerned with 4.5 rating out of 5 on Android, however Adobe is about to hit strong and make an impression with 10.2 cutting short any ranting about Flash ability to work on mobile as well if not better than HTML5 in term of resource consumption while bringing way more power and capability to developers. They are putting an end to that war as we speak, and Motorola wants to leverage that. Instead of embedding 10.1, they want to embed 10.2 first and probably already optimized the machine for it hand in hand with Adobe's engineers, as it has been the case with Google, HTC, Intel, ARM and many others.

For instance, do you think you will be able to deliver that quality of game (video below, notice the CPU usage) with HTML5 by the end of 2011? Because Flash will on PC, Mac, Linux, smart phones, tablets and Tvs, as both native and web based apps WITH 1 CODE BASE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNKJbDrYdU

I'm not sure what you mean by leverage...You would think if Motorola would want to leverage Flash, they would be shipping with it. And if 10.1 is as good as you think it is, why would there be any ranting about it.

One thing I've noticed with Adobe, is that they always say that this "next version" is always going to be so much better...When is the last time Adoble delivered anything of quality for Mac?

 

[kdarling]

It's pretty smart on Motorola's behalf. Flash is probably destroying battery life, and they don't want all of the initial reviews to crush the Xoom, so they're shipping it without it.

As any Android user knows, that's a silly reason. Just set it to activate only when you click on a Flash area. Just the same as not going around clicking on battery-chewing YouTube links.

The fact is, Flash has never worked well on mobile platforms--it wasn't designed for mobile platforms, and with the rise in popularity in dedicated apps, it isn't necessary. In fact, the end-user experience is better with applications then it would be with Flash. And no, you can't have both--many companies will only create Flash content if given the choice, because it's the easy way out.

The fact is, until all websites stop using Flash, it's part of the real internet.

HTML5 has the same mobile issues and can be just as much as a CPU hog.

 

[milani]

The fact is, until all websites stop using Flash, it's part of the real internet.

This is, of course, a fallacious argument. According to your reasoning, Apple should also be expected to support Silverlight, Active-X, and many other plugins, because these plugins are still used in some significant measure across the web.

As has already been pointed out, Apple decided to define the "web" according to the W3's recommendations, not as an abstraction. Apple isn't obligated to include plugin support. And, by virtue of Apple's decision, the mobile web will not succumb to plugins like Flash in the first place.

It is only because a significant player in the market opted not to support plugins that the open web will flourish on mobile platforms. And, this will be good for the open web in general, both promoting open standards development (i.e. javascript), and ensuring that video can be delivered more effectively via open standards.

It will also have the ironical effect of creating a truly cross-platform environment (because all smartphones will support these open standards).

 

[err404]

It is only because a significant player in the market opted not to support plugins that the open web will flourish on mobile platforms. And, this will be good for the open web in general, both promoting open standards development (i.e. javascript), and ensuring that video can be delivered more effectively via open standards.

The fact is that the main feature users want from Flash (video) already works very well on iOS devices w/o requiring special plug-in. I don’t want to compromise my device or the openness of the internet in order to allow a site developer to use old tools. It's like any other sun-setting technology. The only way to make some developers move on is to pull support.

Flash just happens to be the biggest of the internets bastard children, but it is still just a proprietary plugin. Unfettered plug-in support is not appropriate for mobile platforms. There will always be plug-ins which support only a subset of configurations (Flash Included). If you go down the path of recognizing plug-ins as required for the “Real Internet™”, you run into a logical wall where no single browser on any single OS (desktop or mobile) can make the claim of supporting the “Real Internet™”.

 

[kdarling]

This is, of course, a fallacious argument. According to your reasoning, Apple should also be expected to support Silverlight, Active-X, and many other plugins, because these plugins are still used in some significant measure across the web.

And that, of course, is a strawman, because I didn't say that Apple had to support anything. I was simply pointing out that it helps the user to have Flash capability and that HTML5 is not currently a panacea.

As has already been pointed out, Apple decided to define the "web" according to the W3's recommendations, not as an abstraction.

Don't get me started

It will also have the ironical effect of creating a truly cross-platform environment (because all smartphones will support these open standards).

*grin* Okay, now you did it. Speaking of standards...

Apple went out of its way to define proprietary meta tags to make web apps look good on its own phone. Without support for those iPhone-specific tags, a lot of mobile sites and apps look terrible on non-iPhones.

Thus even Android browsers now support the Apple tags. And for the same reason it makes sense to support Flash. Because the real internet is full of "non-standard" code.

Yes, it'd be great if that were not true, and it's something to fight against sometimes. If the W3C wasn't so damned slow, we might be in a different situation now. I've been making mobile web apps since before the turn of the century, and they were no help.

In any case, my 85 year old mother doesn't care about the political web turf wars going on. She just can't figure out why things like the Flickr slideshow link on their website (hint: Flash) doesn't work on her supposedly magical iPad, but works fine on an old laptop running IE.

And that makes me think there's a swap to an Android tablet in her future. Why? Because she needs something that actually "just works".

Cheers!

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple went out of its way to define proprietary meta tags to make web apps look good on its own phone. Without support for those iPhone-specific tags, a lot of mobile sites and apps look terrible on non-iPhones.

You've made this claim before, and I think you are overstating it. Aren't we talking about three or four tags that provide specific control for the iPhone?

There's a tag to change the status bar. A tag to send a retina icon. And a tag to run a web app outside of Safari. None of which is a compatibility concern.

The only tag that you might have an argument with is viewport which basically allows you to scale a site better for the iPhone. It's non-standard, but at the time it was introduced, the whole concept didn't even exist. So it's hard to argue that Apple was going for some proprietary lock in.

 

[milani]

Apple went out of its way to define proprietary meta tags to make web apps look good on its own phone. Without support for those iPhone-specific tags, a lot of mobile sites and apps look terrible on non-iPhones.

Doesn't sound much different than using browser-specific CSS. And, as BaldiMac points out, Apple developed the meta tag to fill a void in the spec - given Apple's track record with webkit, it's very likely they'll submit the viewpoint meta tag to the W3 anyway - especially if other webkit mobile browsers are also using it. In either case, I'd have to agree with the comment above. You're overstating the point.

 

[err404]

Apple went out of its way to define proprietary meta tags to make web apps look good on its own phone. Without support for those iPhone-specific tags, a lot of mobile sites and apps look terrible on non-iPhones.

Thus even Android browsers now support the Apple tags. And for the same reason it makes sense to support Flash. Because the real internet is full of "non-standard" code.

Device specific meta tags do not equal proprietary. Evidenced by the fact that Google was able to adopt these tags without the consent of Apple. On the other hand this can not be done with Flash. Adobe is the sole proprietor of Flash.

These types of meta tags (and plug-ins for that matter) are allowed by the W3C spec. However the inclusion of either is not required for standards compliance.

I respect that your mother needs a device with Flash for the sites that she visits, but that doesn't make Flash a browser standard. Regardless of popularity, Flash is still a proprietary plug-in. The developers chose to require an optional component and the consequence of that is a limitation on the screens that will be able to view it.

 

[dccorona]

BlackBerry PlayBook vs iPad Comparison Side by Side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_GXvP2dL8U

Looks like I might want to get a playbook now...depending on what Apple does with the iPad 2

 

[dccorona]

You can't monetize premium content (movies, music, applications) unless you can protect them, Flash allows full protection, HTML5 does not, that is why you do not see any premium video site on Apple's browser. There is another reason: it forces businesses to build native apps and give 30% to Apple.

there are premium video sites for the iPhone...they're just all porn

 

[dccorona]

Oooh wait, maybe Flash is not on iDevices to make this possible... It is called racket in the court of law, I think.

I think we can all agree that trying to blame apple for racketeering is a bit extreme

the thing you are referencing, however, I do have to agree with you (at least in the fact that I think their new policy is wrong). But it is for very different reasons.

True, with flash, they could monetize their content and make it available online...but who cares? They've been offering that for a while (premium access to online articles, etc.) but unless you are only going to subscribe to a single publication, most people dont want to sign up for multiple online accounts on multiple websites and put multiple credit card numbers into multiple web forms. They stick with their traditional hard copy delivery methods. By providing a unified billing structure and distribution platform, Apple effectively eliminates the cost of producing and shipping a physical product, and deliver the product to a wide audience in an easy to bill way. It makes it more attractive to consumers, and that means more sales. An iOS app where you give 30% to apple would likely be more profitable than shipping physical magazines to those consumers, and almost certainly will draw more customers than offering your own billing structure through your own web app...even if built with flash

where the problem arises is for services like netflix or kindle (both of which technically fall under Apples new policy). These services aren't having a physical product replaced by digital (their product/service already is digital), and they don't have issues with attracting consumers to their billing structure. They gain no (monetary) benefit from offering an iOS app, or at least not a noticeable one, yet Apple still takes a cut.

They charged 30% of app store sales, and that was reasonable. They covered hosting and distribution (and billing/collecting/taxes) of the software. For newspapers, its reasonable...they provide a way to distribute a physical product digitally in a way people will be attracted to it, and with a billing structure they're comfortable with. But with netflix etc. it is unfair. That is where a flash web app would be useful (kindle not so much because you want to have your books stored locally, but it still is an unfair price structure for them).

But I don't think Apple not allowing flash was part of some 3 year diabolical scheme to force content through their system...they just saw how it was being used and decided they wanted a cut (or decided they deserved a cut, not sure how they justify it), not thinking about flash while doing so.

 

[err404]

the thing you are referencing, however, I do have to agree with you (at least in the fact that I think their new policy is wrong). But it is for very different reasons.

I completely agree. The new policy is worrying. To make matters even worse the scope of the change and associated fallout are still unclear. Various articles and an "email from Steve" seem to suggest limitations on the scope, but in regards to "new media" these exemptions seem arbitrary.
Until there is more clarity, I’m holding off on purchasing any new iOS devices. I don’t think we will understand the full impact until at least July 30 (June30 new policy affective date + 1 month to assess fallout).

But I don’t want to de-rail the thread topic of Flash any further then to say that I see no intentional connection between the subscription policy and the Flash decision. Having Flash or not, does not change the potential impact of the subscription policy.

 

[icanhas]

Flash is more necessary than ever. I must come across at least five sites a day on my iPhone that are unusable due to the lack of Flash.

The issue is getting worse, not better.

And Flash has never crashed my desktop or laptop more than iTunes has, even with Safari's crappy plug in handling and closed APIs.

Phazer

Such as?

 

[Faux Carnival]

iPhone maybe... But iPad definitely needs Flash. At least an option to turn it on/off should exist.

 

[mKTank]

Such as?

Streetfire, unmolested YouTube, Newgrounds, Pizza Hut, many sites out there that use Flash menus, many sites out there that have Flash games, etc etc.

Don't pretend like Flash isn't a vital plugin to have for regular web experience.

 

[Randman]

1) No one really wants or needs Flash.

2) If you think you do, Skyfire Web browser.

 

[err404]

Streetfire, unmolested YouTube, Newgrounds, Pizza Hut, many sites out there that use Flash menus, many sites out there that have Flash games, etc etc.

Don't pretend like Flash isn't a vital plugin to have for regular web experience.

I think you need to re-read the comment that you responded to, since your examples actually do more to support icanhas's claim then challenge it.

The Phazer was suggesting that the situation for Flash-less browsers has gotten worse since the iOS launch a few years ago. icanhas was asking for examples of this (sites moving away from HTML and embracing Flash exclusively during that time frame).

The sites you mentioned had been Flash for years prior to the iOS launch, so they dont support the claim of increasing Flash dependency. Also, from the examples you gave, I come to the conclusion that Flash has become less significant. For example Pizza Hut and Youtube have made significant strides and no longer require Flash and Streetfire provides a native iOS app.

This leaves only Newgrounds not being supported, which isn't surprising given that their basic mission statement is to promote Flash apps.

 

[mKTank]

1) No one really wants or needs Flash.

2) If you think you do, Skyfire Web browser.

1) You're wrong. Most people still care about Flash seeing as it's the number one platform for delivering video and interactive content online. You don't want Flash. Then again, you don't speak for anybody but yourself.

2) Skyfire sucks. The videos are always low FPS, take forever to prepare, and Skyfire will only work for videos anyway, so you can kiss games, interactive menus, etc. goodbye.

 

[mKTank]

I think you need to re-read the comment that you responded to, since your examples actually do more to support icanhas's claim then challenge it.

The Phazer was suggesting that the situation for Flash-less browsers has gotten worse since the iOS launch a few years ago. icanhas was asking for examples of this (sites moving away from HTML and embracing Flash exclusively during that time frame).

The sites you mentioned had been Flash for years prior to the iOS launch, so they dont support the claim of increasing Flash dependency. Also, from the examples you gave, I come to the conclusion that Flash has become less significant. For example Pizza Hut and Youtube have made significant strides and no longer require Flash and Streetfire provides a native iOS app.

This leaves only Newgrounds not being supported, which isn't surprising given that their basic mission statement is to promote Flash apps.

Unmolested YouTube means a YouTube that actually -loads- videos worth a damn and doesn't have to buffer every 10 seconds. Not to mention the lack of music videos. No thanks. Pizza Hut Canada still uses Flash. Streetfire app sucks and doesn't have most of the video content.

I like how Apple's plan backfired, though. They say no to Flash, and all other companies combined say yes. Thus, Flash is now more popular than ever and only the iPhone is not going to get it.

Meanwhile, you will enjoy the killer performance of HTML5 on the iPad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DplCnbwFD2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

It has severe problems trying to render really basic canvas demos Oh yeah, Flash killer alright.

 

[Geckotek]

Sorry, but my flash based YouTube sucks. Depending on the video it is constantly stopping to buffer. I have a 6MB connection and a Core i7 920 w/ 6 GB of ram so it's not my connection or my pc. It's YouTube and/or flash.

The fact that I have had to add a "helper" to my browser has always been a major sticking point for me. I say bring on HTML5 and get all these add-ons the hell out of here. I HATE FLASH!

 

[Faux Carnival]

You hate Flash because Uncle Steve wants you to. New mobile optimized Flash will be killer and you won't have it. Get over it.

 

[AdrianK]

You're wrong. Most people still care about Flash seeing as it's the number one platform for delivering video and interactive content online. You don't want Flash. Then again, you don't speak for anybody but yourself.

"Don't speak for other people"... "Most people do want flash" I don't remember being surveyed

Personally I don't want flash.
I don't give a **** who wants flash, and I don't give a **** if Apple implements flash as long as there's a way to turn it off.

I understand that most people in this thread just want an argument, but couldn't you be doing something more productive?

 

[mKTank]

No, I couldn't, seeing as there is no Flash.

Sent from my Samsung Focus using Board Express