iPad Promotional Video and Images Show Properly-Displayed Flash Content

[nelmat]

Well there goes the claim, "It just works."

You are correct indeed, people will not care if company X, Y or Z makes the product, they care if it works as claimed by . This is why Adobe wants to work with to get it working and right. Or are we all being duped by Adobe.

Nope, the apple claim goes nowhere. This device just works. Flash does not. Flash is not advertised as working feature of this device.

Apple should get into a very large pile of dung if they are claiming flash compatibility (a la the suspicious screen shots) and not delivering on it.

I can't see who flash would work on a touch screen device - plug in or no plug in. Farmville certainly won't, along with the other facebook games - and this seems to be most people's problem. Do people realise that even with flash enabled on the 'Pad, those games need an interface redevelopment?

 

[SpinThis!]

So how come every plug in from silverlight to flip4mac can work efficiently, in a stable, secure fashion?

flip4mac is actually a quicktime component, not a browser plugin. As for Silverlight, where's the content? Unless you're comparing content for content, you can't compare efficiency.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

The distinction that many ignore is that most don't care if Flash is ever on the iPhone. What people want is the content that is now distributed through Flash. Note that Flash CS5 can be used to develop native applications, so that is already being addressed to some degree. Check this page:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/

Valid points, however you do realise that companies make contracts to serve mutual benefits. There is nothing to say that cannot include Flash and also acquire revenue from Adobe 1/3 of all Flash based apps. This entire disagreement between and Adobe come across as bad blood when OS X moved to intel and Adobe did not have its major apps that were x86 ready. Seems Steve Jobs needs to forgive and forget.

The developers will decide either Flash or Cocoa is best suited for they apps.

 

[Enuratique]

Flash is in trouble. Well don't tell the millions of users of FaceBook. I hear those Flash games are addictive and have quite a following. But then again who need Flash or an iPad for the matter.

Are you an employee or something, why do you care if flash ruins your web surfing experiences. The choice is up to the end user, I do not use flash, however if I wanted to use it for that one time use, I certainly do not want to be restricted. Flash has problem, so does life. Deal with it. And here I though that Microsoft was bad with restricting people to using its WMP and IE.

There is a thing called restore your iPhone, iPod Touch and soon iPad, if you run into a problem, make sure you have a backup.

Jesus Christ... Performance is just one of the reasons why Apple isn't bothering with Flash... As has been said many times before, this is about control... Yeah, sucks you can't play FarmVille (or whatever the hell it's called) but Apple has drawn the line in the sand saying "we won't stop you from developping FarmVille for the iPhone OS" as that's what they'd prefer / want. Giving people the option for it would remove Apple's control of apps - eg not gonna happen. If those games matter that much to you, request their developpers port it to the iPhone OS or make a standards compliant version.

 

[Enuratique]

I can't see who flash would work on a touch screen device - plug in or no plug in. Farmville certainly won't, along with the other facebook games - and this seems to be most people's problem. Do people realise that even with flash enabled on the 'Pad, those games need an interface redevelopment?

THIS!

 

[CoreWeb]

Not overly bothered either way about flash support, but it's not cool to deliberately doctor the screen images like this.

It's misrepresentation, pure and simple. There are millions of web pages that do not use flash, so why go to the trouble of doctoring one that does for your ads? Not cool.

Unless, of course, those images were captured on a device using 4.0

I believe the images were captured on Safari 4.0 and composited in. The reason for doing so was most likely not to hide the lack of Flash.

It will be as bad, as if the new iMacs couldn't do Flash.

I'm not sure which is worse: not having Flash, or having an unusable Flash.

Let me be clear: not having Flash is a problem, because people will woner why they can't use X or Y.

However, you can't have a usable Flash on a touchscreen device unless all the flash files are rewritten to handle touch events—and if they are rewritten, why not rewrite them in HTML or, as an app?

While the lack of Flash support is indeed a problem, Flash support itself would still be a problem—perhaps worse than the lack of Flash.

 

[nelmat]

flip4mac is actually a quicktime component, not a browser plugin. As for Silverlight, where's the content? Unless you're comparing content for content, you can't compare efficiency.

Flip4Mac is a quicktime component that also enable WMA files to play inline using a Flip4Mac plug in. Silverlight also plays video.

I am a developer. I have published identical video on the three platforms and checked processor user. Flash sucked. End Of. Poorest video quality, longest delay before streaming, poorest sound quality, furriest full screen presentation and highest drain on processor. This wasn't just using apple devices btw, but also the office Wintel boxes.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Nope, the apple claim goes nowhere. This device just works. Flash does not. Flash is not advertised as working feature of this device.

Apple should get into a very large pile of dung if they are claiming flash compatibility (a la the suspicious screen shots) and not delivering on it.

I can't see who flash would work on a touch screen device - plug in or no plug in. Farmville certainly won't, along with the other facebook games - and this seems to be most people's problem. Do people realise that even with flash enabled on the 'Pad, those games need an interface redevelopment?

Lets say you are right and Flash does require to be redeveloped for gesturing. Is this the reason why Adobe wants the aid of . Or is is dragging its heels. I honestly believe Adobe wants to incorporate gestures, however is getting nowhere with .

 

[nagromme]

Well that's something that will have to be addressed in general, because every other significant smartphone plaform will have Flash in the near future:

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3842291

And are those devices, in the future, going to do Flash WELL? They won’t—battery life will suffer and more--and there’s no magical answer to the rollover question. “Will have to be addressed” is not an answer. What IS the way to address it?

And remember, Flash and Flash Lite are not the same.

it's not that easy

the content creators are using watching on the PC as the razor and giving it away for free on the website or Hulu. the blades or the profit is buying the content on DVD or iTunes or Amazon.

Hulu already blocked the PS3 from playing back content even though it supports flash. There is Playon, but I think it also requires flash and it's a clumsy solution if it works with the iphone. i think it does.

From what i can tell the HP Slate is going to ship with a full version of Windows 7 making it a true tablet that can do anything a laptop can and still be a tablet. the iPad on the other hand seems crippled with all kinds of Apple imposed restrictions where there might be a solution but it's clumsy and will cost more money

It’s up to Hulu whether they want to support iPhone or not (reportedly, they do ) but they don’t NEED Flash to do so. Video can be delivered securely to a native app, and I expect one to be coming. Certainly it would be easier for Hulu not to have to make a real app—but they’d have to do something custom for any mobile device, because mouseovers are needed by the current Hulu site (and many other Flash sites—probably most).

As for Windows tablets... you’re still thinking of tablets as the same products that have been failing for years, and will continue to. And they’re cool! I’d take one Especially if it ran OS X. But it wouldn’t be a great product, and Apple doesn’t make anything in that failed market. They make a NEW kind of device, which is NOT meant to be a desktop OS.

Two ways to do a tablet:

1) Do a desktop OS badly. (Certain tech hobbyists like me would be delighted, but it would flop, and in the end even I would toss it in a drawer and carry my laptop—because my laptop does it better!)

2) Do a NEW kind of OS with a new kind of interaction, really well. (One which the iPhone and iPod Touch have proven very well, in fact.)

If you think a tablet has to be #1, then the iPad isn’t even a tablet for your purposes, and you’ll need to look elsewhere (MacBook Air is great). But I’m certain that masses of people will find that #2, something NEW, fits very well into things they do all the time. And does many of them better than a mouse.

 

[pcorrado]

c) Many/most Flash games, menus, and even video players would not even WORK on a touch device. They are coded to use button down/up events and rollovers--like video controls that pop up when you mouse over--that simply have no equivalent in touch. (Imagine what happens when you click a video—it pauses. Versus when you mouse over it without clicking: controls appear. Versus when you right-click—you get a menu with security settings. How does touch distinguish those three? It doesn’t without the Flash content being completely re-done for multitouch—in which case, just re-do it with HTML 5 or as a native app.) Plus Flash games apps often expect a single-pixel mouse arrow, not a finger touch, so the while UI, when it does work, would feel imprecise and frustrating. Is every Flash site going to reprogram everything to no longer use mouse-over functions and small button areas? No.

This is the best point in this thread and one of the things advocates for both sides forget to mention. The flash utilized in websites is not designed for a touch interface - which means even if you could view material coded in flash you wouldn't be able to interact with it anyway.

I should say I really don't care about incorporation of flash one way or another - in general I think both sides have valid points but in the end it is a usability v. accessibility argument -

flash may affect usability if installed but without it there are definite problems with being able to access content (not just videos or games but what about menus, sales ads, photography sites?)

 

[alent1234]

Why can't we have at least the option to install Flash Player? Steve's ego can be so annoying sometimes - excluding half the web is not the ultimate experience and who cares about HTML 5 anyway?

iTunes is a huge profit maker for Apple no matter what they say. Flash and full OS X on the iPad means you can go watch TV for free or download a torrent instead of buying from iTunes. Apple's earnings are already artificially high due to the accounting change. iTunes sales was something like $1.1 billion with profit in the $700 million range. Total profit was $3.3 billion vs $2.5 billion last year. iTunes is huge profit growth engine no matter what apple says.

if i was the CFO i would kill Steve Jobs if he put Flash on the iPad and risked itunes revenues

 

[nelmat]

Lets say you are right and Flash does require to be redeveloped for gesturing. Is this the reason why Adobe wants the aid of . Or is is dragging its heels. I honestly believe Adobe wants to incorporate gestures, however is getting nowhere with .

Then Adobe need to hire better developers. Apple is busy making their own products, its not their job to build other companies for them.

 

[steve-p]

If those games matter that much to you, request their developpers port it to the iPhone OS or make a standards compliant version.

So that's going to be your advice to a new iPad owner who bought it without knowing what Flash even was, and their favourite games don't work? Back to the Apple store it goes...

 

[mrgreen4242]

1- Games (iPad will NEVER be a serious or even lite gaming device without it and end up just being a gimmick)
2- Video
3- just about every website my kids goto
sesamestreet.com nick.com pbskids.com scholastic.com
I could list about 15-20 more but i think you get the point

Its their device i suppose and they can make it do whatever they want or not do whatever they want. I would buy the iPad as a gaming device to spend time with my son. But without Flash it leaves out 80% of the content we use...

I dont really complain too much on the lack of Flash on my iPhone, but the iPad is a completely different story. Without Flash its just not all that intriguing... Ill stick to my laptop.

Are you being factious? Not a serious gaming device without FLASH? Name one "serious" gaming device that uses flash for it's content. ONE.

The kids site I can see your point, but I suppose I would counter I wouldn't want someone visits sesamestreet.com putting their fingers all over my iPad (I say this as the father of a 2 year old ).

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Jesus Christ... Performance is just one of the reasons why Apple isn't bothering with Flash... As has been said many times before, this is about control... Yeah, sucks you can't play FarmVille (or whatever the hell it's called) but Apple has drawn the line in the sand saying "we won't stop you from developping FarmVille for the iPhone OS" as that's what they'd prefer / want. Giving people the option for it would remove Apple's control of apps - eg not gonna happen. If those games matter that much to you, request their developpers port it to the iPhone OS or make a standards compliant version.

So either hundreds if not thousands web developers re-write and release they products to suit iPhone OS X or can incorporate a Flash plugin with Adobe to allow gestures.

Something does not add up:

100-1000+ developers play to the tune of 1 company
or vice-versa.

is nothing without its developers, lets not forget that. Seems there would be more work for 100 if not 1000+ developers, or some work for .

 

[tatonka]

Yeah I think your cute little protest will get Apple to turn around.

Good Luck.

Yeah I think Apples cute little protest will get the Internet to Turn away from flash.

Good Luck

Flash is so much more then video and does things HTML5 doesn't allow. Get over it flash, silverlight and company are here to stay. I think the lack of it on a mobile phone is ok ( although I would still appreciate the option to be stupid and drian my battery) but I find it ridiculous on a device promising the best web experience ever. 10 hours video playback? That battery should well capable of dealing with a little flash.

 

[calzon65]

It's pretty slimy on Apple's part to produce these kinds of "doctored" and misleading presentations where they fake flash support.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I use a MacBook Pro, and carry an iphone. But for the life of me, in it's current form, I can't see what the iPad is for. The flash support is just part of it.

What is it? An oversized music player? An oversized datebook? A $500 electronic picture frame/photo album? An oversized 'portable' email device?

My iPhone does all that exceptionally well, it has a phone, and fits in my pocket. Why would I want to carry something that large around that duplicates the same functionality? In it's current form, I can see no other function or feature besides e-books, possibly used in Academia, that would justify people bothering to carry it around vs. an iPhone. This thing is basically a Kindle on steroids...

Hear you there maybe. I am on the fence here on whether I will get an iPad. Lucky for me I will have at least an extra month to decide - since I would want one with 3G capability.

In fact I briefly thought of giving up the iPhone if I got the iPad. But in the last few days I took and looked at how I use my iPhone - sad to say I am a net junkie! LOL I steal glances of my new emails, browse some web sites during down time, add contacts and calendar events on the fly, etc.... I see that I can't give up the iPhone just yet.

A lot depends on the content of the iBooks store. In particular in regards to newspapers and magazines. If the NYT app is any indication, as well as the SI example video of what is possible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk&feature=player_embedded#) - I will once again subscribe to the Washington Post and some of my favorite magazines.

I dislike what seems to be limited content with some websites of publications. i look forward to maybe having the "feel" of the printed publication with something like the iPad.

Would be nice at lunch to have an iPad next to me that is easier to read then the iPhone sitting next to my lunch. Not unusable, but would be nicer with the iPad.

If they're going against netbooks, then it also has to do what the netbooks do, only better.

A red herring I think. Yes, Jobs mentioned the netbook when announcing the iPad. But I think the iPad is something intended to be between the iPhone and the netbook concept.

1) Despite the more powerful processor, the OS still does not allow application multi-tasking, so you can't bounce back and forth between mail and excel, or word. Highly annoying on iPhone, but a killer on a 'netbook replacement'

Valid points... but I think too much is being placed on the idea of a "netbook replacement". Many netbook users I have talked with don't truly "multitask". When they do it is on things like AIM, Twitter, and the such. These could be addressed by Apple and these services allowing for push notification.

2) The iPhone OS hides the file storage structure, so saving files (like word documents) will be strange and probably messy.

Thought I read somewhere that was being addressed. But even then what is wrong with Apple wanting to address that by having folks sign up for MobileMe?

3) Forcing the use of an onscreen keyboard, which reduces screen realestate and is unstable with the rounded back of the iPad, will be goofy and unproductive.

Will have to see first hand on that in the end. Their case for the iPad makes it look usable on a desk at least. And the docking base with the keyboard looks nice - though I would have preferred a docking base that allowed for a separate keyboard - easier for traveling...

4) No camera, This would have been the ideal video conferencing platform to finally achieve the George Jetson kind of communication. Nope. Heck the iPhone 3Gs has a 3mp camera, are you telling me they couldn't fit one in the iPad?

My guess is that is was about meeting price points at this time. We may have to wait for rev B for the camera. But then people would argue over the fact they can do video conferencing, but can't easily take a still picture if they needed to.

Two patents could be involved in making it work for everyone. One that Sony might have on the flip able camera like they had one of their sub-notebooks. And the other with Samsung with their digital camera with a small LCD screen on the front of the camera for self pics...

5) No Adobe Flash. Come on, it can't be that hard. Did anyone notice the audience laughter during the presentation, when Jobs brought up a website with a giant hole in it, from the lack of flash support? They cut away quickly, but it was still there.

Addressed maybe in my first comments to your posting....

In it's current form, I can see no other function or feature besides e-books, possibly used in Academia, that would justify people bothering to carry it around vs. an iPhone. This thing is basically a Kindle on steroids...

In response to about "Academia"... this is a huge market. Even without flash support. One would hope to see a bit of a savings for schools of all sorts. It could drive the web space towards a universal standard for "flash based type" of content.

In the US alone there are 16 million college students. And about 54 million in grades from K-12. Quite a market for Apple and others. A tough version of the iPad or the Kindle for the grades K-6 maybe.

Remember reading some where that here in the US that $250 is spent on books each year. So it could be possible for the education system to save money - if the publishers factor in production cost savings when selling books to the schools.

On the business side of the iPad. many companies, in particular those that are more serviced based could see big savings. In my shop (a camera store) I can see nine linear feet of space being saved from the endless catalogs and price lists we have.

I can see being able to do a Spotlight search on a vendor and getting their catalog and price lists. More so being able to click on a link in the catalog to show a customer the manufactures detailed info on a product that we don't carry.

I can see a repair person being able to do the same. Maybe even providing a video for the repair.

The possibilities are endless of course. And the iPad moves us closer with rev A. It will be some years for all these dreams to be realized. But in the end Apple may have moved us closer to that reality. They could be the winners, or they could be like the Quicktake 100 that led us to digital photography.

 

[Enuratique]

So that's going to be your advice to a new iPad owner who bought it without knowing what Flash even was, and their favourite games don't work? Back to the Apple store it goes...

Sadly, that may be the end result... My advice to them in the future would be to do some research on products I'm interested in before buying. Amazon reviews are pretty reliable. And if they live near a major metropolitan area, they can test drive the iPad themselves and see if it meets their needs.

If they bought it as a fashion accessory because of the shiny Apple logo, then they got what they deserved...

Call me cantankerous, but I don't think it's the end of the world if you can't play a freaking game...

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Then Adobe need to hire better developers. Apple is busy making their own products, its not their job to build other companies for them.

Maybe its an intellectual property issue or not, however this is where a contract comes in handy for future revenue via Flash based apps. It is in best interest to satisfy its consumer/customer base, if not they will look else where. toots billions in the banks, to show they strength as a company. However not willing to help other companies and reap some reward down the road is just plain blind IMO.

Support the developers and they will strengthen your brand and company. Alienate them and fade away. Without content the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad are nothing more then watered down mobile devices.

 

[nelmat]

So either hundreds if not thousands web developers re-write and release they products to suit iPhone OS X or can incorporate a Flash plugin with Adobe to allow gestures.

Something does not add up:

100-1000+ developers play to the tune of 1 company
or vice-versa.

is nothing without its developers, lets not forget that. Seems there would be more work for 100 if not 1000+ developers, or some work for .

Yes, the same as developers have learned new skills to deal with new advances in technology in the past. That is why they are called Developers. They develop.

 

[Enuratique]

Maybe its an intellectual property issue or not, however this is where a contract comes in handy for future revenue via Flash based apps. It is in best interest to satisfy its consumer/customer base, if not they will look else where. toots billions in the banks, to show they strength as a company. However not willing to help other companies and reap some reward down the road is just plain blind IMO.

Support the developers and they will strengthen your brand and company. Alienate them and fade away. Without content the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad are nothing more then watered down mobile devices.

Where did you get the idea that Adobe sees any money from the Flash apps created from their Creative Suite? Adobe gets paid for their creation suites, a revenue sharing agreement for apps wouldn't work. It behooves Adobe for Flash to remain dominant so that people need to continue buying their creative suites.

 

[rowspaxe]

flash is a defacto standard

why is it assumed here that html5 will not succumb to the same standards balkanization that have plagued earlier versions. Flash is not a standard--it is a proprietary plug--and its main value is not video playback but consistant display in all browsers.

Apple has profited greatly when it has dispensed with its indiosyncratic approach and embraced intel procs, 3 button mouse functionality, etc. I see ipad as a return to the bad old days, along with magic mouse, and apple tv--where apple presents quirky technologies that go nowhere.

What about the iphone? while i don't doubt macrumors readers use the iphone as a browser, most iphone users reguard its browsing functionality as a toy or stopgap--it is too slow, too small.

If apple releases an ipad with no flash--it will either not sell, or be the most returned product in the history.

 

[steve-p]

Sadly, that may be the end result... My advice to them in the future would be to do some research on products I'm interested in before buying. Amazon reviews are pretty reliable. And if they live near a major metropolitan area, they can test drive the iPad themselves and see if it meets their needs.

Indeed - not so much outside the US with regards to Apple stores though. It would be an idea for Apple to just state very clearly on the website and promotional materials that Flash is not supported, and an example of the things that won't work as a result, so that the buyer can make their own decision. It might look a bit negative, but honesty has got to be better in the long run than bad PR from word of mouth if people buy it and don't like it.

Call me cantankerous, but I don't think it's the end of the world if you can't play a freaking game...

Me neither, but there's way too much of people just looking at the world from their own usage standpoint in this thread and others recently

 

[nagromme]

This is the best point in this thread and one of the things advocates for both sides forget to mention. The flash utilized in websites is not designed for a touch interface - which means even if you could view material coded in flash you wouldn't be able to interact with it anyway.

I should say I really don't care about incorporation of flash one way or another - in general I think both sides have valid points but in the end it is a usability v. accessibility argument -

flash may affect usability if installed but without it there are definite problems with being able to access content (not just videos or games but what about menus, sales ads, photography sites?)

Yes. And those “other” tablets (Android) etc. that will try to succeed in future won’t have any solution to that either. The ONLY solutions to the mouseover problem are:

a) Every Flash site is redesigned, by its own programmers, just for touchscreens (whether still in Flash or not) so that it doesn’t use mouseovers. That’s a ton of work, and isn’t going to happen. Plus, with many sites, mouseovers are so fundamental that the very concept of the site would be altered, creating a whole different experience that would annoy the site’s users.

b) Gestures or extra physical buttons are created that simulate mouseover—which is absurd since mouseovers, by their nature, are meant to be simpler than a click, not more complex. And meant to be natural, not something new to learn. Not a whole set of habits that violates our desktop habits.

c) Make clicking—the fundamental, constant action--itself MORE complex. Like requiring a double-tap. (This is what Mobile Safari does for JS popup menus.) But Flash apps already use double-click for things. This is an awkward workaround and STILL would require Flash sites to be re-programmed.

d) Have a mouse pointer near your finger, and not touch things directly. This is not the point of direct finger manipulation. This is “like a laptop but worse” and has little reason to exist.

Even if you ignore battery, slowdowns and crashes (and these are real), you CANNOT design a touchscreen to use current Flash sites well. It’s not that Apple has refused. It cannot, logically, be done. A finger is not a mouse, and Flash sites are designed to expect a mouse pointer in vital, fundamental ways.

So there IS NO GOOD solution to Flash on a touchscreen. If not having Flash is a “joke,” then so is having Flash that doesn’t work!

In that case, every tablet will always be a joke. (Flash sites on Android will be for sure.)

But I don’t think the market will react that way to the iPad. They will snap it up despite the lack of Flash, and get good value from it. The vocal minority of Flash defenders will continue to complain—but they’ll still have no good, intuitive solution to the mouseover problem.