I can see making it an option for people. Maybe for marketing reasons.. Just as long as it can be disabled or removed by the user. Don't want it at all. It's just not practical or needed.
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.
Hey Apple...Adobe has learned its lesson! We want Flash
- Thread starter TapHappy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh snap!
"The idea that you'd have to embed an entire instance of the Flash player just to play a 30 second audio clip? It's crazy." -Firefox VP
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781348/firefox-vp-thinks-flash-is-crazy-too
"The idea that you'd have to embed an entire instance of the Flash player just to play a 30 second audio clip? It's crazy." -Firefox VP
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781348/firefox-vp-thinks-flash-is-crazy-too
If you give developers the option to take the easy way out and fall back on plugins like Flash player and Silverlight, they will do so nearly every time. But is that really good for the web? Is it good for users? I would argue that in both cases, in the long run, it is not.
Adobe has held a monopolistic domination of web video and audio for a decade or more, and much of the web has now become dependent on Adobe. Regardless of your personal opinion, Adobe is not an egalitarian organization. It's de-facto monopoly on web video violates the most fundamental principles of the web, and it has stifled standards-based innovation in video delivery.
The only reason that codec-based playback and HTML5 video and audio are starting to enjoy meaningful uptake is because Apple bit the bullet and has continued to disallow plugins like Flash player and Silverlight - to the absolute benefit of web standards and the open web.
Then do it with HTML5 and then try to sell it. Now you have a choice: Flash or Silverlight for free in the browser or an iOS native app with a 30% tax on all revenue compliments of Apple.
The languages use to develop Flash and Silverlight are way more complex and require a higher level of professional education so who is taking the easy way exactly? There is a reason why a HTML developer runs at $25-40/h versus $75-$150 for AS3 (Flash) and ASP.NET with WPF (Silverlight). We build banking and trading systems for the biggest banks and corporation in the world, have you heard of any in HTML5? So what's easy again?
That is probably because of that attitude that Apple failed to make its products that appealing for business market. It is not up to some ideology to define what a business should program and develop with, and the truth of the matter is that AS3 has grown into the solution of choice. While everyone is screaming and kicking the largest corporations in the world and hundreds of start-ups are building more and more B2B and B2C applications using Flex and AIR, those businesses will produce simplified low budget version to feed the Apple market, how long do you think will Apple be able to maintain the smoke screen? Talking about creating a minority marginalization, here is one and it sounds like Macintosh all over again, soon we are going to hear from Apple's fan that sucky experience on iPhone is due to Adobe not making enough effort. Watch it!
It's a big PR smoke screen, it is now in the hands of the "open standard" and look at the mess. I blogged on that weeks before Google dropped its most recent bomb: giants fight make progress and innovation through open standards close to impossible, they run the show and neither you, I or the consumer win from this. You like it, have it and play with it. I will not build with it, nor will any serious software engineer working on complex systems (pretty much anything beyond displaying a page).
Javascript is Barbie to the programming world, and like some random act of god it is the only language Apple allows in the browser. Now again, out of the browser Apple cut is 30% so basically we can play with Barbie for free, or we can pay 30% business tax to Apple for the right to play serious business like grown up adults, which operations will be still under the full control of Apple and subject to the approval of Apple. That is a lot of Apples to start with and a big cut to end up without.
Last edited:
The standards concern is over the client side requirements. The user shouldn't care what is used on the hosting server. It's a bit disingenuous to lump a server side tech like like ASP.NET with a client side requirement of Flash/Silverlight.
As for banking and trading, yes I have seen many backend implementations and the vast magority do not require client side plugins. Of those that do, Java has a much larger foothold then Flash. In general these apps are in the process of a rewrite in order th eliminate these requirements.
Also many of these institutions are piloting internal and client facing tablet initiatives with iPads playing a dominant role in the compatibilty specifications.
Both Flash and Silverlight are presentation layers for rich internat applications, a presentation layer is the client, I did not talk about back end systems and I only mentioned .NET because it is to Silverlight what ActionScript 3 is to Flash, from a programmatic language standpoint.
Java on the backend and Flex (which is Flash on steroid) on the front end is the standard, second comes Silverlight. Speicalized agencies like Lab49, which has half Wall Street among its clients, rely entirely on Flex/AS3 or Silverlight on the front end and Java or .NET for the back.
http://www.lab49.com
Could you list the companies that are "in the process of a rewrite in order th eliminate these requirements", because what I see is big budgets going to technologies like Flex and AIR and low budget "alternatives" being attempted with HTML5 to feed Apple's consumers. Meanwhile Flash Player get baked into OS and products, does not require download anymore and get updated on the fly. The advantages of Flash vs iOS becomes so significant and the weaknesses have been addressed so quickly that I believe Apple is literally screwing itself here.
I do not know of one single large bank or corporation switching direction away from Flash, I even posted recent podcast from lead engineers at VMWare who explained why it's Flex and nothing else for their needs, and it is a good illustration of what's happening accross the board. Is Flash as an animation tool to build catchy website dying? Yes, because finally HTML is now becoming capable of doing the dirty job which actually does a favor to Flash (will not be accused to be responsible for nasty ads or 'animated websites' anymore). However, as long as Adobe will be delivering best in class technologies for RIA through the Flash Platform (especially Flex and AIR) it will remain the solution of choice for applications on all screens the same way it was and remained the solution of choice for video for a long time (constantly beating all other media technologies no matter how big, rich or powerful the owner is). No one refrains anyone from coming up with better technology, competition is good but unfair practices from companies incapable of doing better or motivated by second agenda is a bit big to swallow. At the end, it looks like Flash is going to save the day for H.264, how ironic is that?
Last edited:
Banks using Flash is the main reason why I do all my banking in person or over the phone. It's so much easier to go in or call than to deal with a website that does nothing but slow down my computer and give me a headache from all the flashing ad crap. It was cool 10 years ago but it's time for something else to replace it.
Reply
I think all those people who hate Flash are iPhone or iPad users. Flash is just not compatible to Apple gadget. Flash is more compatible to PC's and Laptops. It is very useful especially for viewing movies and streaming sites.
I think all those people who hate Flash are iPhone or iPad users. Flash is just not compatible to Apple gadget. Flash is more compatible to PC's and Laptops. It is very useful especially for viewing movies and streaming sites.
You realize nobody cares about Flash as long as there are native applications which provide quality user-end experiences, right? Many major banks have created native apps because they realize how useful they are. And many that don't have mobile websites that provide access to account information such as those created by MShift--my own bank included.
Look at the Flash experience on a Galaxy Tab, for example. It's often not very good. Do I want my iOS device to run like this? You aren't even refuting points--you're simply relying on two or three talking points and repeating them over and over, along with a spattering of unsubstantiated claims.
Look at the Flash experience on a Galaxy Tab, for example. It's often not very good. Do I want my iOS device to run like this? You aren't even refuting points--you're simply relying on two or three talking points and repeating them over and over, along with a spattering of unsubstantiated claims.
Umm, Flash is not compatible to Apple gadget, and more compatible to PC's and laptops? Flash is on Apple Macs. Flash runs fine on the newer Android phones that I have. The problem is that Steve Jobs doesn't want it. One main negative is that along with flash would come free flash games, and Jobs is not having that. And for those that say they "don't want flash", we can all debate our opinions on things, but one thing is fact, without flash, you cannot have a full web browsing experience because there are many websites that still use flash. And if Jobs was worried about battery life, he could make it so you can turn flash on and off in the browser settings.
The issue is entirely to do with the fact that Apple - as a technology company with a CEO named Steve Jobs - decided to adhere to the W3's definition of the web, not as an abstraction. As such, they decided not to support web plugins, which are not part of the web by the W3s definition.
The only reason that you believe that you're getting "the whole internet" on your Atrix or XOOM is because of Android marketing. If you define the web as web standards and plugins, then Android does not offer the full web - last time I checked it does not support Silverlight, Active-X or any one of the other two hundred or so web-based plugins.
The core issue is not technological, it's philosophical. On a long enough timeline Adobe should be able to deliver an acceptable experience with Flash on mobile; however, web-based video delivery (the primary function of Flash) should not be solely owned and controlled by Adobe. It's for that reason that most people who understand the real issues don't like Flash.
The only reason that you believe that you're getting "the whole internet" on your Atrix or XOOM is because of Android marketing. If you define the web as web standards and plugins, then Android does not offer the full web - last time I checked it does not support Silverlight, Active-X or any one of the other two hundred or so web-based plugins.
The core issue is not technological, it's philosophical. On a long enough timeline Adobe should be able to deliver an acceptable experience with Flash on mobile; however, web-based video delivery (the primary function of Flash) should not be solely owned and controlled by Adobe. It's for that reason that most people who understand the real issues don't like Flash.
Last edited:
Dude, "The only reason that you believe that you're getting "the whole internet" on your Atrix or XOOM is because of Android marketing." Really? Umm, if I go to a webpage that uses flash on a pc, or a newer Android phone, we see the flash content. Go to the same page on a Ipad, Ipad 2, or Iphone, and we see a blank page, or error message.....that's all there is to it, and that's the only issue.
Did you even read my post?
Can you access Silverlight or Active-X content from your Android device? No? Then you don't have "the full internet". You've been duped by a marketing term, my friend.
Flash video content can be played by the H264 codec, which is why the iPhone and the iPad do not need the Flash player plugin.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yes, but what about the sites that use non-video Flash elements? For example, BMW.
milani said:
Did you even read my post?
Can you access Silverlight or Active-X content from your Android device? No? Then you don't have "the full internet". You've been duped by a marketing term, my friend.
Flash video content can be played by the H264 codec, which is why the iPhone and the iPad do not need the Flash player plugin.
Yes, but what about the sites that use non-video Flash elements? For example, BMW.
Gadzooks! This is topic is still rumbling on?
In any case, the more I see of Flash programming the more I dislike it, for the user interfaces in Flash applets tend to be primitive -if a good user experience is desired, a native app seems to work best. And I don't like the persistent Flash LSO's. As for Flash video, there's Skyfire.... I think maybe Jobs was right about this one.
In any case, the more I see of Flash programming the more I dislike it, for the user interfaces in Flash applets tend to be primitive -if a good user experience is desired, a native app seems to work best. And I don't like the persistent Flash LSO's. As for Flash video, there's Skyfire.... I think maybe Jobs was right about this one.
Did you even read my post?
Can you access Silverlight or Active-X content from your Android device? No? Then you don't have "the full internet". You've been duped by a marketing term, my friend.
Flash video content can be played by the H264 codec, which is why the iPhone and the iPad do not need the Flash player plugin.
This thread isn't even about freakin Silverlight, look at the title, we are talking about flash, and you have a more full browsing experience with flash than you do without flash.
Sent from my VZW iPhone using Tapatalk
With all due respect we - the people who have been participating in this thread for some time - have moved beyond the uninformed demand for Flash on iPhone.
We are now examining the wider misconceptions associated with Flash - that it is somehow an essential part of the web, which is not true, and that Apple should be forced by regulators to include it, which is an entirely nonsensical argument for reasons pointed out many times over.
Flash is a plugin, like Silverlight. It can be used in niche cases, but it shouldn't be a crutch for developers to avoid web standards. Likewise, there is no owness on Apple or any other company to provide support for these plugins.
Despite your delicate sensibilities, Adobe Flash player isn't a special case - it's just another plugin.
We don't really know what "the alternative" is and really means unless we have a Flash enabled smartphone to compare and most of us iPhone users don't, because this is not an alternative it is an insult on a $600 device:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_GXvP2dL8U
You need to reconsider your vision of Flash, we are talking about a solution that deliver enterprise class applications with full commerce and monetization capabilities on all operating systems and browsers including desktop and mobiles as both web based app running instantly in the browser or native app to download and install on desktops or mobile devices. Except everything Apple.
Meanwhile, this is what's happening:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/apple_ios_throttles_web_apps_on_home_screen
Go on Youtube and search for "playbook and ipad side by side" or "xoom and ipad side by side". This is 2011 with Flash Player 10.2, Flex 4.5 and AIR 2.5 which I believe will be the standard for web based and native applications on all screens, there is simply no other technology with that reach, one application, every screen, every browser, every operating systems, even on Television starting with all 2011 Samsung TVs. Even the freaking Tivo is made in Flash (has always been), did you know that? Problem is when it is not used right for stupid stuff which is now being switched to HTML5, thanks God.
Yeah, technically you can also start a fire on the roof and socialize or conduct business using smoke signs, Adobe calls it the freedom of choice, Apple calls it think different.
Which got dumped by Google and removed from Chrome, turns out H.264 might end up staying alive thanks to Flash Player which always supported the format, among others.
Last edited: