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

just as i said before in one thread: no webcam-no buy! and so what am hearing now is no flash and no multitasking: thats mean:"(no_buy)^3", lets skip this version then, see what iPad 2.0 will be like:), greets
 
Because when M$ does it, it's wrong, and people go insane about it. But when Apple does it, it's that they "are in business to make money". OK... Sure. Why does Apple they LIE about Flash? Just say the truth, it will cut into out profit$. I don't think that would sound too popular now would it?

I assume that by M$ you mean Microsoft. UNIX rapes DOS - period.

Aside from that, I would not expect Microsoft to have any other intention as a company than to make $$$ (speaking from a high level). Secondarily, Apples mission is to drive innovation in the digital world. I think in the last 10 years they've proven that they excel in that area. (No $$$ debt being a huge indicator) Make a list of everything that Apple products can do and the list of things they can't do becomes almost non-existent.
 
Apple is doing us a favor killing Flash. Google (youtube) and Vimeo has already html5 versions. Flash video is going to die quite soon.

Animation in websites; html5, CSS3 and javascript (jQuery) can make awesome animations keeping cpu cool. It's not more difficult than Adobe Flash, it's simply a different language.

What about Silverlight? What IF everyone starts installing that crap too?

Instead of complaining to Apple, complain to Adobe WHY flash is such a crap software? Adobe is becoming more and more crap. That company only include features making the app more bloated but never optimize it. Now if you plan to install ONE application, you have to include a bunch of other apps too.
 
Get over it. If they don't want Flash they don't want it. No reason to make a post such as that due to one piece of Software. What do you want Flash for anyway? Give me a specific reason... If you say Hulu... who cares about Hulu. Ever heard of Torrents. I would rather watch my movies and TV shows without commercials and interruption.


Oh please!

Everytime there's a debate about flash on the iPhone or ipad, we always have idiots like you saying, "bu bu bu but HTML5 is the future, use torrents!"

I could care less about what will be used in the future, it's the present, and in the present countless websites use flash. Videos, games, entire websites blocked off because Apple is being stuborn. Don't even try to say "duhh why use hulu when there's torrents duurr" Why should I have to go through the trouble of finding a torrent and waiting to download it when there's an option that let's me stream it right away. More so with the ipad which won't let you download torrents anyways.

Point is without flash, you don't have the full Internet in your hands, if it wasn't a big deal Apple wouldn't be trying to cover it up in their ads. Once HTML5 takes over, fine don't give us flash. But until then the Internet still uses flash all over the place so anyone whose dissapointed it's missing again has all the right in the world to be.

People like you who always go "meh, no one uses flash except crappy web designers so I don't care" are either blind, ignorant, or trying to fool themselves.
 
Those complaining about lack of Flash remind me of the same people who complained when Apple stopped using the floppy drive, and when they went to USB as a standard.

Everyone on the forums was absolutely up in arms for a few months...

...until they realized it was all old technology that Apple was helping to push out the door for newer, better technology.

I use ClickToFlash on my MacBook to disable Flash in 99% of cases because it's slow, makes my computer heat up big-time (and gets the fans revving loud), and more often than not crashes my browser. You know what's most commonly blocked out by it? Annoying Flash ads.

In other words, Flash is a proprietary, cludgy solution for a problem that's being resolved by HTML5. Is everyone on board with HTML5 yet? Not quite, but the same way that Apple got everyone to stop using floppies, and to move over to USB, they're doing with HTML5 adoption.

Apple is NOT worried about competition from Flash apps digging into App Store revenue. Are you kidding me? Is there a such thing as well-built, nicely-interfaced Flash apps out there? They're usually clunky, SLOW, unstable gimmicks, rather than actual useful apps. Google doesn't even use Flash for their suite of web apps.

Apple is only concerned with pushing Flash out the door as a technology faster than it would be naturally, so that we can all move on to HTML5 a little sooner. And I'm more than happy to see it happen.

Sounds like you want the rest of the world to follow your way of doing things and your preferences. Flash is not dead and right now by not allowing it's display Apple seriously compromises the ability of the iPad. If and when HTML 5 rules then fine but until then why are you and Apple so damn anxious to see a lot of people's hard work and money invested into their web sites flushed down the drain.
 
They can't call it the best web surfing experience if there's no flash. I don't care how bad flash is, so many websites use it so it matters.
 
Seems strange. There seems to be a polarized argument here. There are those that are saying the iPad needs Flash support (I'd prefer it did have some support for it) and those that say it does not need it, Flash should be dead.

The UNDENIABLE FACT remains that if Flash really was so 'unimportant' to Apple then why have your promotional material featuring Flash content ?

Of course the answer is that without doctoring those promo images - the web pages on display would have gaping holes in them. Hardly enticing for promotional advertising.

Therefore one could easily argue a case of 'false advertising'.

Perfectly said....well done sir!
 
From Daring Fireball:

Apple did this for two reasons. Serlet’s stated reason on stage was “crash resistance”, as mentioned above. As for why such crash resistance was worth implementing, Serlet explained that, based on data from the Crash Reporter application built into Mac OS X — the thing that asks if you’d like to send crash data to Apple after a crash — the most frequent cause of crashes across all of Mac OS X are (or at least were, pre-Snow Leopard) “plugins”.

Serlet didn’t name any specific guilty plugins. Just “plugins”. But during the week at WWDC, I confirmed with several sources at Apple who are familiar with the aggregate Crash Reporter data, and they confirmed that “plugins” was a euphemism for “Flash”.

In other words, in Apple’s giant pile of aggregate crash reports — from all app crashes on all Macs from all users who click the button to send these reports to Apple — Flash accounts for more of them than anything else. That doesn’t mean Flash somehow causes crashes in any various app. Presumably, most of the time it’s Safari or some other browser playing Flash content. And it’s worth noting that this doesn’t necessarily mean Flash is particularly crash-prone or poorly engineered. Think of it as a formula like this:

total crashes = (crashing bugs) × (actual use)

Flash’s number and severity of crashing bugs could well be somewhat low and it would still account for a large number of total crashes because it’s actually used all the time — by any Mac user with Flash content playing in a web page. And, if Flash Player for Mac OS X actually is poorly-engineered overly-buggy code, well, that’s even worse.

But there’s another reason why Apple created this new external process architecture for web content plugins in Snow Leopard: it was the only way they could ship Safari and the WebKit framework as 64-bit binaries. Flash Player is only available as a 32-bit binary. (This is true for other third-party web content plugins, like Silverlight, but Flash is the only one that ships as part of the system.) 64-bit apps cannot run 32-bit plugins. Apple doesn’t have the source code to Flash, so only Adobe can make Flash Player 64-bit compatible. They haven’t yet. So if Apple wanted Safari to be 64-bit in Snow Leopard (and they did), they needed to run 32-bit plugins like Flash in a separate process.
 
unlike the cool people here i rarely watch a youtube video but my wife and i are always using websites where flash is a requirement. so no iPad for us. Maybe an HP Slate when it comes out.

and the nice thing about the Slate is I can load some of my Windows games on it
 
Probably because almost any website you go to has some sort of Flash content. I dont know how they can say its the best way to experience the web when you cant see everything.
I can't think of many sites that use flash. Saying "almost any site" is hyperbole at best, outright lie at worst. I typically block flash for any site not on a white list (well I did when I used FF, haven't found a good way to do that for Chrome yet).
The only reason why Apple doesn't allow Flash on their mobile devices is because the content will rival their own offerings. Apple won't get their 30% cut for games built with Flash, and Apple will lose iTunes movie store customers when allowing sites such as Hulu. In other words, pure greed. At the expense of the customer.

As for HTML5: Forget it. That will take years. Firefox and Google are using different codec implementations (try watching YouTube html5 content on Firefox... You can't!). HTML5 won't support DRM, which means services like Hulu and Netflix can't and won't use it, unless the mighty movie industry gives in.

Hulu blocks mobile browsers with Flash. I had Skyfire with Flash on a WinMo phone and Hulu blocked it because "they lack the appropriate rights to deliver media to mobile platforms".

Also, Netflix doesn't use flash. They use SilverLight. Incidentally, I would punch my mother in the face for a Netflix Instant Watch app on the iPhone/touch/iPad.
 
... REAL web designers, all the big guns, all the gurus, almost all the ones at conferences and or designing the web for the future, 2.0 to web 3.0, are doing kickass things in javascript, jquery, AJAX, and other languages which pretty much blow flash out of the water for size, effort, and most importantly compliance. You really don't NEED to ever use flash for 99.5% of all the web sites ever made, ever. Period. No discussion. Fact. Deal with it whiners. It's a deadend. It's pointless. It was okay in the 90s, but technology has passed it, and that technology runs leaner, quicker, and is compliant on EVERY platform (though sometimes excepting versions if IE but IE sucks anyways and no designer worth his salt likes IE) which, that's the beauty of NOT using Flash, design once, deploy everywhere on any platform no needs for plugins or having pages drain your battery. It's a beautiful thing.

All the lame things it does overall are only being griped and wanting by 1. people who are clueless about how it's not necessary any more and 2. their lame developers stuck with the archaic knowledge of problematic "programming" [sic] language ActionScript.

After you said "kickass things in javascript, jquery, AJAX..", now you said ActionScript language is problematic "programming"? Did you know that ActionScript and JavaScript are based on the same ECMA script?

Yes, all the beautiful web developer GURUS are using JavaScript, Ruby on Rail, AJAX, and on and on I salut them. But do you ACTUALLY know about those "web programmings"? Because I don't know. And many other professionals don't know about GURUS roxorboxr secret weapon to build a web3.0 page.

Right now there's no web animation technology closer to Flash (nor Silverlight) for small size, beauty, complexity and easiness. If indeed there's something like that, please CMIIW.

fyi. I'm an Apple fanboi, and also an ActionScript game developer. But the fact that I myself don't like whole web page as a Flash or annoying Flash ads, gives really slowness and crashing. There's no point to not including Flash technology to the iPad (except for Apple's own profits to control the apps). I definitely going to buy THE iPad. (bad name, btw)
 
They are talking about Flash being a development platform to create applications for the platform, not the availability of a flash plug-in for the web browser. Disney may create a flash application for the platform, but you cannot go to their web site and play the flash games on the web site unless you have a flash plug-in.

Could Flash apps be created to play specified Flash content (such as hulu.com videos) outside the browser? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Maybe that's what Apple is look at as its Flash solution.
 
Who cares about Flash. Any web site that uses Flash isn't worth looking at. Any developer that places Flash on a site is not thinking straight.

Flash is a resource hog and should go away.
 
Flash video sucks on the Mac because of Apple, not Adobe:

This is one reason why Flash video playback performs better on Windows than Mac OS X, and also why H.264 playback on Mac OS X is better through QuickTime (which does use hardware decoding).

According to Adobe, though, this is because they can’t. Here’s an entry from their Flash Player FAQ:

Q. Why is hardware decoding of H.264 only supported on the Windows platform?

A. In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. We will continue to evaluate when to support this feature on Mac and Linux platforms in future releases.

So blame them both. Apple won't let Adobe get access to the performance that our windows brethren enjoy. That sucks.
 
Many places of employment refuse entry of devices with camera and phone functionality. It would mean I couldn't use the iPad at work if it had a camera.

Good point. I didn't even think of that.

My work place won't allow computers, mobile phones or camera based iPod's on site for both employees and clients. Maybe the second Generation will have a choice of camera and no camera?

s.
 
No, you are the problem.

90% or more of photographers use Flash to build galleries because:

1) There are very sophisticated kits to build quality Flash galleries.

2) Flash allows them to protect their images from download

3) they are photographers, not programmers

Get it?

Develop tools for photographers to build galleries without them needing to be AJAX and php experts, then we can talk.

Dude http://visuallightbox.com/ It's a FREE WIZARD THAT GENERATES AJAX GALLERIES! No programming experience necessary... Although, if you can learn ActionScript and Flash, then you can certainly follow along with the MYRIAD jQuery plugins that do photogalleries.
 
Those complaining about lack of Flash remind me of the same people who complained when Apple stopped using the floppy drive, and when they went to USB as a standard.

Everyone on the forums was absolutely up in arms for a few months...

...until they realized it was all old technology that Apple was helping to push out the door for newer, better technology.

I use ClickToFlash on my MacBook to disable Flash in 99% of cases because it's slow, makes my computer heat up big-time (and gets the fans revving loud), and more often than not crashes my browser. You know what's most commonly blocked out by it? Annoying Flash ads.

In other words, Flash is a proprietary, cludgy solution for a problem that's being resolved by HTML5. Is everyone on board with HTML5 yet? Not quite, but the same way that Apple got everyone to stop using floppies, and to move over to USB, they're doing with HTML5 adoption.

Apple is NOT worried about competition from Flash apps digging into App Store revenue. Are you kidding me? Is there a such thing as well-built, nicely-interfaced Flash apps out there? They're usually clunky, SLOW, unstable gimmicks, rather than actual useful apps. Google doesn't even use Flash for their suite of web apps.

Apple is only concerned with pushing Flash out the door as a technology faster than it would be naturally, so that we can all move on to HTML5 a little sooner. And I'm more than happy to see it happen.

The difference with floppy drive is the control we have over our own data. Apple pulled the plug on floppy, and users were able to store and share data another way. Flash is different. I have no control over someone else's content, and if they chose Flash I'm S.O.L. on the iPhone and iPad.

This isn't a hard concept, if the product doesn't do what you want, don't buy it. Fanboys are going crazy because people are making a personal decision and not buying something they have good reasons for not wanting/needing.

I've put up with my iPhone not having Flash, and as far as I'm concerned Apple carried over a major failure from the iPhone to the iPad. I know how bad it is to surf with a gimped browser, and nothing will change my own mind.
 
iz??? I believe the correct spelling is 'is'! I can't stand that. It's not like it is a long word that needs abbreviating. It's two freaking letters! Learn how to spell people!! Maybe I'm just not hip because I don't use z's instead of s's...

By the way, screw flash, I have survived 2+ years on the iphone without it.
 
Oh please!

Everytime there's a debate about flash on the iPhone or ipad, we always have idiots like you saying, "bu bu bu but HTML5 is the future, use torrents!"

I could care less about what will be used in the future, it's the present, and in the present countless websites use flash. Videos, games, entire websites blocked off because Apple is being stuborn. Don't even try to say "duhh why use hulu when there's torrents duurr" Why should I have to go through the trouble of finding a torrent and waiting to download it when there's an option that let's me stream it right away. More so with the ipad which won't let you download torrents anyways.

Point is without flash, you don't have the full Internet in your hands, if it wasn't a big deal Apple wouldn't be trying to cover it up in their ads. Once HTML5 takes over, fine don't give us flash. But until then the Internet still uses flash all over the place so anyone whose dissapointed it's missing again has all the right in the world to be.

People like you who always go "meh, no one uses flash except crappy web designers so I don't care" are either blind, ignorant, or trying to fool themselves.

I don't think I said half the stuff you claim I said... What I say is an opinion. I gladly watch my TV shows when they air on TV. If I miss them I download them via Torrent on a Mac! I never once said torrent on iPad. Don't change my words around. Never once mentions HTML5 either... I don't think I have missed having Flash once while browsing the web on my iPhone. Don't think I will miss it on my iPad either.
 
Seems strange. There seems to be a polarized argument here. There are those that are saying the iPad needs Flash support (I'd prefer it did have some support for it) and those that say it does not need it, Flash should be dead.

The UNDENIABLE FACT remains that if Flash really was so 'unimportant' to Apple then why have your promotional material featuring Flash content ?

Of course the answer is that without doctoring those promo images - the web pages on display would have gaping holes in them. Hardly enticing for promotional advertising.

Therefore one could easily argue a case of 'false advertising'.

I agree. They should have just pretended the sites did what sites SHOULD do: feed a still image (or JavaScript) to non-Flash devices. Or feature sites that do!

Luckily Apple is advertising something they won’t actually take your money for, so they have 60 days to swallow their embarrassment over these videos and clarify what Adobe has already said: the iPad doesn’t do Flash.

Woah, wait a minute. Most people are saying Flash is "ubiquitous" and on nearly every web page.

Of course, mostly in the form of annoying ads.

Not having a flash plugin to render ads and popups is theft of content! Shame on Apple!

Then it’s also “theft of content” when I turn off the Flash plugin on my Mac. In reality, it’s not theft—it’s a lazy, careless advertising system that fails to deliver a NON-Flash ad automatically. I’m a Flash developer. I do that all the time. The HTML/JS code is built right into Flash to easily deliver an animated GIF, JPEG, JS app, MP4 video, or anything else when Flash is not found. And non-Flash users, thanks to iPhone/iPod, are not rare.

The real theft, then, may be the sites (or ad agencies) that take an advertiser’s money and then fail to make both Flash AND non-Flash versions of the ad.

...
Develop tools for photographers to build galleries without them needing to be AJAX and php experts, then we can talk.
...

iPhoto does that—and iWeb does it with extra polish--and you don’t even need a .Mac account! It saves the gallery files to disk, and you can upload them to any free or paid hosting service you desire. I’ve done it—it’s amazingly quick and looks great. (Flickr and others are fine too, of course—and Flickr is great on iPhone.)

That said, the convenience of pro photographers having more options when building their portfolio sites is a tiny niche compared to the audience of every day users that Apple is actually targeting.
 
Flash video sucks on the Mac because of Apple, not Adobe:



So blame them both. Apple won't let Adobe get access to the performance that our windows brethren enjoy. That sucks.

But that's crap, because the Mac version ALWAYS performed at about half the speed of the PC one, before any of this was implemented. Sounds like an excuse to me.
 
I hardly ever comment.

Here's my perspective (not that anyone asked)...and it's probably already been stated since the thread is so long, and I haven't read all the posts.

I am a retired business owner. For years I designed my company website. I was a programmer before owning my own company, so it wouldn't have been a problem for me to use Javascript, Java applets, Flash, etc.

Flash is cool. Lots and lots of websites use Flash. I understand this - we all know this. However, I also know that there is a large percentage of the population that doesn't use or like Flash, for many reasons. Many have computers that aren't powerful enough to display Flash content very well. Many still have slow Internet connections and don't want to download huge Flash content just to browse a website. Many don't want the ads. Many use computers with operating systems that don't have very well optimized plugins for displaying Flash content.

As a business owner I decided NOT to use Flash when designing my website because there would always be a large percentage of potential clients that I could not reach if I used Flash. My website could have been cooler. It could have taken less time to design. However, I decided to design the website so that I could reach nearly everyone.

So, when I browse to a website that only supports Flash, I wonder if the developer of the website and owner of the company realize how shortsighted they are being. Millions and millions of people simply cannot see their website, no matter how cool or awesome it looks.

If Apple decides not to support Flash on the iPad, I support and appreciate their decision. I believe they are trying to make a global statement. I bet that the iPhone and the iPad will be a catalyst and convince many people to modify their websites to work without requiring Flash. I bet it already has.

So, I believe that the argument shouldn't be to convince Apple to implement Flash on the iPod and iPad. It really should be to convince people to stop using Flash.

Just my $0.02.
 
Thank you so much Macrumors for bringing AAPL down by another $4/share today on your phony story. You are being credited today (not by me) for this achievement. Why does it even matter if the iPad supports Flash. Obviously, with HTML5, Flash is going to disappear at some point because most programmers prefer to write in the standards-based code. So, in the pursuit of sensationalism, you may have just delivered a significant blow to people holding AAPL. The financial analysts, who know very little about the technology, are reading your site and making their decision to sell or to buy based on the information you are posting here. Please be responsible when posting stories like these that have no informational value but bring up all the FUD about Apple and that cost us, the shareholders, thousands of dollars.
 
Exactly. The primary reason that everyone has an issue with the iPad isn't because of the lack of a camera or a USB port (those are secondary). The primary offense is the closed nature of the device. It's attempting to replace a very open market type of device, a netbook. And with just about any netbook on the planet I can install any OS I want and any software I want. With the iPad, I can install any iPhone App that Apple permits me to, and that's about it. A competing web browser? Nope. Competing mail client? Nope. Those "duplicate iphone functionality", so Apple says 'take a hike'. I don't mind companies shipping devices with default settings and software that simplifies the experience for the consumer. But when you cross the line and prevent me from changing that once it's in my possession, now you're controlling me instead of enabling me.

Hmm. Did you write this same rant when you purchased a PS3, or XBOX, or any other gaming system? What about your TV? Cause, you know, they are completely closed system that do not allow games from other systems to be played. . Nor do they enable some one to do spreadsheet work, word processing, etc. I guess you also go to Wendy's and demand a herb-crusted penguin on a sesame seed moon rock, a side of turnip halos, and an Elk blood shake. This just goes to show that the customer is not always right. Especially when the customer is demanding something that the company is not selling and has no intention of selling.

As mentioned before, this is more an appliance than a netbook or laptop. Yes, its a big ipod. I actually have no problem with that. I like my browsing experience on my iphone but do wish it had a bigger screen. I love reading books on it before i go to bed. Its absolutely great around the house. Plus, i don't have to wait for it to boot up for a minute or two just so i can reference the weather, a factoid, or play a short game while I'm waiting for dinner. Its more like a gaming console. Albeit one that has several functions. Its not for you. I'm really sorry. I hope that you'll be able to find some other device that allows you to completely control every single component in its case and comes with software that allows you to do anything you want it. With no limitations. Linux is right up your alley.

But this is obviously not for you... or for that matter, most of the rest of the techies out there in internet land (even though most will probably end up with one eventually). However, those who bought the iPhone or iPod Touch will probably snap these up Why? Much like the iPhone was panned when first released by all the techies about lack of physical keyboard, no flash (remember when Jobs told the world it was the whole internet in the hand despite the lack of flash... yeah that really killed the iphone), closed system, etc. those things just don't matter to the average person on the street.

Much like console gamers, they want something they can turn on without waiting for boot-up times and game loads, play immediately, and not have to futz around with computer settings, monitory calibrations and game optimizations. Its not that there stupid or sheeple, its just that, like you, they know what they want. And they appear to want something simple, reliable, and easy to use. I would be great around the house. It would be great traveling.

<end rant>

About the camera thing: I would love it but I think Apple is seeing more the limitations of ATT's network and thinking that putting a camera for video conferencing is going to completely destroy it. Pretty much making the vid camera useless. Plus I can't imagine how ridiculous it would look to hold this up like a camcorder.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.