The comparison is *not* silly if you are discussing which devices can play flash. The comparison is dead on.
And "prostitutes itself?" Seriously? Fanboi much?
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.
NBC and Time Warner Continue to Back Flash Over HTML5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The comparison is *not* silly if you are discussing which devices can play flash. The comparison is dead on.
And "prostitutes itself?" Seriously? Fanboi much?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't suggest any malice is at play. I think this is purely business. Flash is a massive competitor to iTunes Store revenues, offering tons of games & applications far in excess of what is in the Store. Much of that is free, and chunks of that is very popular. Lots of it will never get re-coded as a native iDevice app.
However, rather than framing it as business, it is instead framed as a "bad app", "battery burning", "crashes Safari 10 times a day", et all. Curiously, I use it a lot but it doesn't crash my Safari browser on my Mac 10 times a day, and I don't notice that it rapidly burns the battery on my Macbook. I do notice that the Windows version seems to run better than the Mac version, but the Mac version is still usable... and, most relevantly, I would rather have something that covers this base than have Apple decide I shall have nothing.
If your comment is another "prove it" challenge to Adobe, I would simply point to the answer I posted in this same thread #237, page 10, which might be extremely summarized this way: Flash player is a free plugin; there's no direct monetary ROI in creating it; Apple has forbidden it on iDevices; if I was Adobe, why bother?
Actually, the comparison is not all that silly, though I agree with how you've differentiated the companies. Google are positioning Android in the same way Microsoft positioned Windows. We all know where that led to in the "Microsoft vs Apple" wars of the early nineties. Maybe if Apple started distributing the OS to other hardware manufacturers they could prevent a repeat. Or maybe they're happy with a 5-10-15% market penetration. They are after all still a hardware company and have very healthy margins. It's just the fanboys who complain that they're not dominant. The shareholders couldn't care less.
It *is* that silly, and I nearly added in a comment about Windows vs. Mac in my post to which you refer.
Apple is a hardware company, they bundle an OS on the hardware so it will run and be useful, otherwise the device would just sit there in your hand like a wet noodle. Comparing it to Windows is silly. Comparing Android to the iPhone is silly. Without hardware, Android is *nothing*. And there is no handset running Android of which I am aware that has sold as many as the iPhone.
Maybe if Apple started distributing the OS to other hardware manufacturers they could prevent a repeat. Or maybe they're happy with a 5-10-15% market penetration. They are after all still a hardware company and have very healthy margins. It's just the fanboys who complain that they're not dominant. The shareholders couldn't care less
OMG, why would Apple distribute their OS? They *only* have an OS because it sells their hardware. You quote numbers, I quote them too, but just one: 2. It is the position of Apple in market cap of companies trading on US exchanges, above Microsoft. Penetration is irrelevant, and the shareholders I'm sure care quite a lot about that.
How is that different than the free apps on the App Store and the HTML5 games and apps that will be developed in the near future?
They may be planning on wrapping h.264 in a Flash container... Therefore they'd be streaming h.264, and playing it in Flash.
That wouldn't be a bad thing for them to do - it would make sure that Idevices can't access their content.
Forgive my total ignorance, but what are we really talking about in terms of NBC and Time Warner? Video players on their web sites? Hulu?
Hulu doesn't play on mobile devices (without some workarounds) at all, so what's the big deal. NBC and Time Warner still sell content through iTunes, so this is not a total repudiation of Apple.
I'm not big on watching TV on the internet, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.
The Flash discussion is a whole separate issue and from what I've read the the Android fan sites - Flash doesn't get sparkling reviews even with 10.1 and Android 2.2.
Hulu doesn't play on mobile devices (without some workarounds) at all, so what's the big deal. NBC and Time Warner still sell content through iTunes, so this is not a total repudiation of Apple.
I'm not big on watching TV on the internet, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.
The Flash discussion is a whole separate issue and from what I've read the the Android fan sites - Flash doesn't get sparkling reviews even with 10.1 and Android 2.2.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because, by giving iDevice owners the OPTION for a Flash player if they want it, they would have access to everything in the iTunes store plus all the stuff available in Flash too. By forbidding even users willing to burn their batteries faster, et all, all iDevice owners can only access that kind of stuff via the iTunes store.
Open Screen rocks
In fact we can already feel the results via Android 2.2
I know where my money will go this autumn / winter:
1. Most probably one juicy HTC
2. Some version of Google TV
I'll stick with OS X for the time being though - but might go hackintosh way if Apple doesn't boost the hardware and / or lower the prices.
We shall see...
Flash also plays MP4-encapsulated h264/aac, as demonstrated on all HD-videos on Youtube.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I believe the issue is that "we" want all the content players to serve up their content with ads so that we don't have to pay for it. Since Apple forbids Flash on their iDevices- even for those that would be willing to burn their batteries faster, etc- the ONLY way to get that same content for "free" (ad supported) is if all of the majors build an app for it (like ABC's app) or if all the majors create a special version of their website in HTML5 + H.264 + javascript so that it is compatible with Apple iDevices. In this case, some are choosing not to do that yet, so that is taken as a strike against Apple, which means they are "dumb companies", "not seeing the future", and so on.
Sure, their content can be purchased ad-free in iTunes, but a lot of squawkers don't want to pay for that content, and they can't find fault with Apple forbidding even a Flash user option on their iDevices (which would give them this same content for free (ad supported)), so the only "villain" is these companies who choose not to do whatever Apple wants them to do.
One thing to note is that the Android 2.2 running around is an early RC build. It's not the final build. It was only supposed to go out to just a few select testers.
as much as i despise flash, It's not going to die. It just offers more than HTML5 . However it's up to the developer or corporation to ultimately decide which language to choose. Both are options, you are not required to use one over the other. Nobody in the corporate world really cares that your iDevices do not support it, these are just a small percentage of their audience.
Computers and electronic devices are tools, if you bought the tool that fails to meet you're needs, then perhaps you should have bought a better tool that will.
Flash is BACK!!!
You guys just don't get it, Flash is not going away anytime soon.....HTML 5 is FAR away from being standardized at this point.....a little company called Google has decided to make Flash NATIVE in Chrome and updated within Chrome, The biggest Automation company in the World, Crestron is becoming Flash centric soon, Vizio, Sling Media are using embedded Flash to serve their on-screen menus with many more companies coming on board. Flash is actually going stronger, I hope MORE companies take a stance to keep Flash......this is AWESOME news!!!! Just uninstall the plug-in and be on your way cuz Flash is here to STAY!!
You guys just don't get it, Flash is not going away anytime soon.....HTML 5 is FAR away from being standardized at this point.....a little company called Google has decided to make Flash NATIVE in Chrome and updated within Chrome, The biggest Automation company in the World, Crestron is becoming Flash centric soon, Vizio, Sling Media are using embedded Flash to serve their on-screen menus with many more companies coming on board. Flash is actually going stronger, I hope MORE companies take a stance to keep Flash......this is AWESOME news!!!! Just uninstall the plug-in and be on your way cuz Flash is here to STAY!!
That's not what you said in the post that I was replying to. You said banning Flash "is purely business" because "Flash is a massive competitor to iTunes Store revenues." Free apps and HTML5 apps developed in the near future are also competitors to App Store revenues. Apple has no problem with these apps.
So basically "you" are able to watch a lot of content for free (ad supported) using Flash and therefore you want to keep doing so. Ok. I get that.
What I still don't get it is the complaints about choice. So Apple doesn't provide it. Jailbreak and get it or buy another device (I've jailbroke my 3g and may stay with it for a while though I'm eligible for an upgrade on 6/7/10, unless the new iPhone really impresses or the N8 gets an American carrier, not sold on Android). All this moaning and complaining won't change anything.
Do you know the reason that Android exists? It's got one purpose: to collect more personal information about *you*. They want it on every handset they can get it on, and that is why it exists. With more personal information, the more ad money they can get.
Fanboi? Are you serious? Or just an anti-fanboi yourself where everyone with an opinion you don't share is obviously in the opposite group (because there are always only two groups on life: 1) those *you* are in, and those with evil people - how simplistic a view of life).
Remember hearing how Hulu threw a fit when ABC said they were releasing an iPad app? This could just be the other companies banding together to make a hulu SUBSCRIPTION more lucrative. If you can only get the content on the iPad for $10 a month there's no reason to just put it out there ad supported.
Very little to do with the merits of Flash over HTML5.
Never going to happen. But thanks for playing.
a) That would be too short-sighted, and b) It's never going to happen anyway.
Never going to happen... so perhaps "brain-dead" might better describe flashboys.
[y'all seem to enjoy posting useless messages, because... pssst, it's never going to happen.]Never going to happen. Whether or not it would be either "correct" or a "solution" perhaps, is open to debate. I don't believe giving folks a choice would in fact be the wiser path for Apple (or for us either). Flash would just linger, and —without all this hoopla —there wouldn't be much motivation for Adobe to crank up Flash's performance. It would have held up the iPhone's progress, IMO. Frankly, folks don't need it half as much as they need to be free of it. [whether they realize that or not.]
Easy out? Bend? Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis?
[did i say "Never.Going.To.Happen" yet?]Never going to happen, um... Einstein.
Never going to happen. BTW, "Orwellian" is a better description for Adobe's de-facto dominance of web video.
No one says the widespread standard (if you want to call Flash a "standard" that is) would be killed off. You and many others are confused, or intentionally trying to confuse others. Flash and other delivery mechanisms can coexist simultaneously. Ever hear of YouTube? They stream different formats all day.
No one gets "blocked". Ever hear of YouTube?
No one is talking about having media companies "abandon" anything. Ever hear of YouTube?
What a doofus post. Are you a doofus?
How depressing... those poor unfortunates.
Oh quick, someone call the WC3, and the IETF and all the other acronyms. Tell them we need to wait until everyone upgrades from IE6 before HTML5 can be rolled out.
True. In fact, it is Adobe who has control. A single company (as opposed to a consortium) has had supreme control of web video for over a decade. Wait a second.....OK.. you mean to tell me that you approve of that? Or maybe you don't understand why that situation (antiquated plugin methodology) needs to end so that standards can improve?
Whoa whoa whoa... the other flashboys are trying to say that Jobs has cut Flash to make *more* money in the AppStore. You guys should have a meeting to get your talking points straight.
Of the billions[?] browsing the Internet, most people don't "use" Flash. Not that they're *aware* of i mean. And of the millions who might like to delete their accumulated cookies occasionally, very few realize that Adobe has hidden other (super) cookies in secret hard-to-find places. So really, you should say that "Flash uses people."
And clearly you are not above juvenile tactics which attempt to defuse obvious offensive attacks with a childish "LOL" added to the end of the attack. Care to discuss, or attack? If you don't want to do anything but attack I can only assume you have nothing substantive to say, therefore I win.
Green. I win again.
Now care to discuss? Or will you continue this "attack and say nothing substantive" tack, which progresses the discussion not one bit?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Apps developed in the future don't exist in the present. Thus, today you have the singular choice of- say- a game for sale in the App store but not that same game (or similar clones) available in Flash. Sure, the coders might decide to learn to re-code their Flash apps, e-learning, interactive video, etc native for the iDevice SDK, but many won't. If we had the option for Flash on our iDevices, we could enjoy that content in addition to all iTunes Store content (and even the future content created in HTML5 + H.264 + javascript). Instead we must do without today. Or, as you suggest, wait until something similar is created in the future using HTML5 + h.264 + javascript. However, that's still doing without until someone actually gets around to coding or re-coding that way.
There are well over a decade of accumulated Flash apps, e-learning, interactive video, etc existing TODAY that could run in an iDevice with the user OPTION for Flash. Sure, a great deal of it is junk... but so are fart apps in the iTunes store. Some of it is very popular and some of it is even needed (such as a great deal of e-learning), but iDevice owners can't access that stuff until the creators of that content comply with Apple's stance.
If it's not driven by business reasoning, why should Apple block that content? We have Flash on Macs. We have it on portable (battery-backed) Macs too. It runs in OS X which is heavily underpinning OS X Touch. Last December, there were 8 Million requests for Flash playback on iDevices (for just December alone), which to me looks like a pretty big number of Apple iDevice users wanting to access Flash. Why completely block those users? Isn't Apple all about delighting us users?
If Apple allows Flash, then existing ad models based in Flash work with iDevices. Thus, Apple's own foray into mobile advertising is pressured- especially given Apple's demands on advertisers.
If Apple allows Flash, a great deal of content that is sold in the iTunes store is free (ad supported) on Flash-driven sites- including the very sites referenced in this thread. Apple hasn't shown much interest in an ad-based, free content model via iTunes (not much money in free content) or the companies that own the content don't want their video assets to get underneath Apple's thumb like their buddies in the music business.
Very simply: there are lots of business reasons that Apple would want to forbid Flash for all users, even those willing to burn their batteries faster, crash their Safari "10 times a day", and so on. Hiding behind these "user experience" reasons is a big brother-ish stance that gives one fear should Apple ever grow to heavily dominate any of the industries in which they play.
Flash is a big, well-established chunk of the Internet that Apple has arbitrarily decided to block from all iDevice owners. Why? For Apple's gain of course, as it sure doesn't seem a "win" for users who want or need access to that content to find out their shiny new iDevice can't serve it. Should Apple gain even more dominance on the industry (think Microsoft dominance), I wonder what else Apple would decide to decide for users that seems to be for Apple's benefit over their own users.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big Apple fan and own lots of Apple stuff myself. It's just lately they seem to be turning more and more into Microsoft 2 with all this kind of maneuvering. As Apple gains more power, will this kind of stuff get better or worse for users?