Opera Software Offers Thoughts on Future of Flash

[Winni]

"Flash does have its purposes and will have its purposes, the same as [Microsoft's] Silverlight and others, especially for dynamic content.

Guess what? That's exactly what Flash was made for and this is exactly the area where EVERYTHING else completely sucks, including HTML5 (which as of today NO browser actually supports), Ajax, Silverlight, Java and countless other failed approaches.

You want to implement something that's platform and browser independent and that actually works? Flash is the ONLY option. End of discussion.

 

[Anuba]

Apple is a Mobile devices company and Mobile devices have ZERO room for flash.

Oddly, said mobile devices appear to have plenty of room for 3D games that makes the battery consumption of Flash look like a breakthrough in energy saver technology. God forbid the user should be allowed to decide whether to use up the battery power or not...! Leave all control and decision making to Apple, your new government.

 

[sparks9]

This is getting beyond silly now!

LOL

What is the future?

Where is the future?

How is the future?

When is the future?

I mean future is future and if we are talking about it why not skip talk on HTML5 and start talking about HTML6 or 7 straight away!

After all it is THE FUTURE!

Well how about future as in few months from now and release of Flash Player 10.1 that even today, in its beta stage, runs perfectly fine on some mobile / portable devices... (Nexus One for example)

And Flash isn't only god damn video!

Man...

Hahahahahaha

We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

 

[Jason Beck]

Awesome quote.

Yep. I laughed at that one. It's true though. Every thing I have used Flash on heats up like a mofo. HTML5 Youtube though works great and doesn't tax my systems.

 

[prss14]

Cooking Eggs. That is funny...

 

[addicted44]

Don't forget that ARM has also blamed Flash performance for delays in "smartbooks"

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-...en-delayed-by-flash-issues-says-arm-40088854/

But the Adobe Fanboys have been spinning all the complaints about Adobe's inability to deliver a decent mobile Flash runtime for 3 years on companies trying to please Apple.

 

[j-traxx]

Guess what? That's exactly what Flash was made for and this is exactly the area where EVERYTHING else completely sucks, including HTML5 (which as of today NO browser actually supports), Ajax, Silverlight, Java and countless other failed approaches.

You want to implement something that's platform and browser independent and that actually works? Flash is the ONLY option. End of discussion.

where you see this point as a reason for everyone else to cecede, i anticipate a much needed rapid innovation of html5. the model t ford was the best in class at one time but there were unsatisfying things that the end users didnt like, thus innavation to what we now drive. html5 is what will drive the web tomorrow. dont be scurred.

 

[MacTheSpoon]

This post is missing the point. At issue is not whether Flash is going to be around in a few years. Nobody is arguing about that. The issue is whether it's being used today, and whether you want a device that lets you run it today. And the answer is yes, and yes. You want a device that gives you the option to view as much content as possible today.

If you are concerned about battery life then the answer is a browser that lets you disable the flash plugin at your discretion, not a browser that doesn't support flash, period. It's your device, it should be your choice. You wouldn't use Safari on your Mac if it didn't support Flash, so why should you accept anything less on your mobile devices, so long as they give you the option to turn Flash off?

 

[Object-X]

Irony

I find it curious that Opera is not being critical of Flash, since their browser sucks when running it. I like Opera's browser on the Mac because it's the only one that does full-screen without a stupid scrollbar! But, I have had nothing but problems with Flash on that browser; either it not working properly or it's performance being so bad I went to Safari.

 

[ranReloaded]

Guess what? That's exactly what Flash was made for and this is exactly the area where EVERYTHING else completely sucks, including HTML5 (which as of today NO browser actually supports), Ajax, Silverlight, Java and countless other failed approaches.

You want to implement something that's platform and browser independent and that actually works? Flash is the ONLY option. End of discussion.

I disagree. Ajax is far superior in terms of semantics, potentially superior in terms of accessibility, and with some tweaks it can be made to work on all current browsers, IE6 (beurk! - sorry) included. And let's not talk about resources.

On another note, is it so difficult for you to accept that some people agree with Steve Jobs' opinion on this matter, that you automatically rush to brand them as some sort of Apple zombies?

 

[AisEv]

When I first saw Flash video in late 2001, I knew it's going to be widely adopted in years to come. And I was probably the first few to have Flash video background in some website. Even before YouTube was ever heard. The other technology I thought would be widely adopted is Flash Paper.

Me no fan of Adobe or Apple. My gripe with both companies is overpriced products.

Anyhow, poor Adobe. Maybe they regretted buying Macromedia in 2005. Flash was their main reason. And they canned Freehand and Flash Paper. Wonder why everyone is out bashing Adobe Flash in recent times. Poor Adobe.

If Adobe wanna get out of these mess, they really need to show the world that Flash does work great in mobile devices, tablets and computers. Sadly, there's none so far.

Am looking at Adobe Flash Catalyst, it easier to build a Flash website with it but with lots of limitation. This software came too late. And it's half-baked.

On the other hand, I really hate Apple for making me do double work. Gotta do two version for a website. Flash and non-Flash. Yes, Apple is forcing me to work with HTML5. It's not a bad thing but it's really annoying when a client wants Flash.

Adobe needs to buck up and Apple shouldn't be an ass.

 

[iDisk]

I get it that Steve Jobs does all the thinking and talking for you? Any opinions - and phrases - of your own on that subject?

My friend Winni, with all the Apple bashing you do, why did you buy a 27" iMac to replace your Mac Pro?

Surely your dislike for apple would make you want to not support them.

Very funny you are and your post

 

[ericmooreart]

Ahhh HTML 5. (HTML 6 by the time its a standard)

Back to the days of client comments like: "Why does it look different when I view it in IE." and "It does this weird thing when I view it in Netscape"

 

[Object-X]

No middle man

This post is missing the point. At issue is not whether Flash is going to be around in a few years. Nobody is arguing about that. The issue is whether it's being used today, and whether you want a device that lets you run it today. And the answer is yes, and yes. You want a device that gives you the option to view as much content as possible today.

If you are concerned about battery life then the answer is a browser that lets you disable the flash plugin at your discretion, not a browser that doesn't support flash, period. It's your device, it should be your choice. You wouldn't use Safari on your Mac if it didn't support Flash, so why should you accept anything less on your mobile devices, so long as they give you the option to turn Flash off?

The problem is not just battery life. The more important problem is that Adobe wants to leverage Flash as a middle layer in the development of applications. This has been the bane of OS X since it's launch over ten years ago.

Jobs' argument that it would hinder Apple's innovation is spot on, and shows that he properly understands what Adobe wants to do and what the result will be.

So, if the issue were just battery life than your solution would make sense and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[iDisk]

Oddly, said mobile devices appear to have plenty of room for 3D games that makes the battery consumption of Flash look like a breakthrough in energy saver technology. God forbid the user should be allowed to decide whether to use up the battery power or not...! Leave all control and decision making to Apple, your new government.

3D is the next frontier.

Been there done that with FLASH.

 

[wrast]

You want to implement something that's platform and browser independent and that actually works? Flash is the ONLY option. End of discussion.

No, I want something that works great on my iPhone. I don't give a rip if it doesn't work on [insert smartphone of choice here].

 

[webman2k]

And where is this "better-than-photoshop" product? We're on version 12.0 now and still nothing in terms of real competition.

Apple is more than capable of creating a Photoshop killer, and probably pretty quickly if they needed to:

Unix -> tweaking and paint job -> Mac OS X
KHTML -> tweaking and paint job -> Safari

(I'm sure there are some other notable open source to commercial conversions I'm missing)

Gimp -> tweaking and paint job -> ?

Gimp has more than enough power to compete with Photoshop. Add in some non open source standards that need to be there, and a super slick interface, and there's your Photoshop killer.

 

[Anuba]

Cooking Eggs. That is funny...

It's funny because it's true. Flash didn't put its mobile pants on early enough. Back when everyone used desktops we never cared about heat, because we weren't sitting on the computers and the fans always sounded like jet engines anyway, whether the machine was idle or rendering Quake at max resolution. Back then, Flash was just for simple animations anyway. But then came all these goddamn developers with their wishlists and soon enough Flash was a full blown programming environment that also happened to do some graphics on the side, rather than the other way around, and the animation timeline was useless because developers love to put everything in a nested mess inside a single keyframe. Now look what you did, you birdie-bracket loving buffoons...

Apple is more than capable of creating a Photoshop killer, and probably pretty quickly if they needed to:

Unix -> tweaking and paint job -> Mac OS X
KHTML -> tweaking and paint job -> Safari

(I'm sure there are some other notable open source to commercial conversions I'm missing)

Gimp -> tweaking and paint job -> ?

Gimp has more than enough power to compete with Photoshop. Add in some non open source standards that need to be there, and a super slick interface, and there's your Photoshop killer.

I asked where the Photoshop killer is today. Predictably, I got a vague answer about something that may or may not materialize in the future. Apple? Right, except they don't do Windows software (unless it's called iTunes and lets them sell iPods to PC folk), and as Steve said, the OS X version of Creative Suite accounts for roughly half of Adobe's sales. You can't expect to kill Photoshop if you can only reach half of the customer base.

Gimp? Well let's see. Today it's free, and still isn't as popular as the $999 alternative. Good luck there.

 

[skyehill]

Opera is wise. Support all formats well. Unlike Apple, who moronically are keeping their consumers from a huge chunk of web content. Thanks for all the PLEASE LOAD FLASH PLUGIN messages on my wife's iPad, Apple? Failures.

 

[ranReloaded]

Apple is more than capable of creating a Photoshop killer, and probably pretty quickly if they needed to:

Unix -> tweaking and paint job -> Mac OS X
KHTML -> tweaking and paint job -> Safari

(I'm sure there are some other notable open source to commercial conversions I'm missing)

Gimp -> tweaking and paint job -> ?

Gimp has more than enough power to compete with Photoshop. Add in some non open source standards that need to be there, and a super slick interface, and there's your Photoshop killer.

I'd rather have Apple code their "Photoshop Killer" from scratch. I mean, let's face it: If you have used Ps for more than, say 5 minutes, GIMP on the Mac SUCKS ***HARD***

 

[JBytes]

Once again, they all look to Apple to lead the way. Where were all these anti-Flash sentiments before Steve Jobs spoke up?

 

[m4c1nt05h]

it's not just video playback that sucks on flash.

i am a dj and i buy 90% of my songs from a site called Beatport. this site is made entirely of flash, and every single time i use it, some component of the site breaks and i either have to quit the browser or log out and log back in. i use safari, chrome, opera, and firefox and it happens across ALL browsers. the play button just stops working and i can't sample a song. the back and forward buttons don't work. sometimes the pages don't load correctly. refreshing the browser most often doesn't fix it. one of these problems i listed here will happen every time i use Beatport.

this site is not a video site so turning flash on and off with break the whole site and make it useless.

 

[Anuba]

Once again, they all look to Apple to lead the way. Where were all these anti-Flash sentiments before Steve Jobs spoke up?

The same place that anti-semitic sentiments were before Adolf H. spoke up: in the back of their heads somewhere, or non-existent.

It's not necessarily that these CEOs were dying to speak their minds about Flash, but after Steve made it an issue, a lot of people are probably asking them about their position on Flash. Google just released a version of Chrome with integrated Flash, so it's not like there's a bandwagon. There's Steve and some little dude from Norway.

it's not just video playback that sucks on flash.

i am a dj and i buy 90% of my songs from a site called Beatport. this site is made entirely of flash, and every single time i use it, some component of the site breaks and i either have to quit the browser or log out and log back in. i use safari, chrome, opera, and firefox and it happens across ALL browsers. the play button just stops working and i can't sample a song. the back and forward buttons don't work. sometimes the pages don't load correctly. refreshing the browser most often doesn't fix it. one of these problems i listed here will happen every time i use Beatport.

this site is not a video site so turning flash on and off with break the whole site and make it useless.

You can't blame Flash for crappy site programming any more than you can blame OS X for crappy third party apps that keep crashing. Flash has issues of its own, sure, but the problems you're describing aren't issues on quality sites. I've played advanced Flash games that never crash, and I've tried others that crash before I've barely begun playing. The problem with unleashing something like Flash that's more or less an application platform, is that quality assurance will never be on par with 'real' software applications. Site designers usually aren't very aware of that aspect, they don't beta test properly, they just throw stuff out there "because it worked on my machine".

 

[dvrk547]

Guess what? That's exactly what Flash was made for and this is exactly the area where EVERYTHING else completely sucks, including HTML5 (which as of today NO browser actually supports), Ajax, Silverlight, Java and countless other failed approaches.

How does HTML5 suck? How does Ajax suck?

You want to implement something that's platform and browser independent and that actually works? Flash is the ONLY option.

Nope.

 

[mex4eric]

This is getting beyond silly now!


I mean future is future and if we are talking about it why not skip talk on HTML5 and start talking about HTML6 or 7 straight away!

After all it is THE FUTURE!
Hahahahahaha

The header for HTML5 is actually HTML, which will include 6 and 7 when they happen, hopefully. What all the fuss is about is the <video> tag in HTML5, which will survive into 6 and 7 (and maybe the <canvas> tag and a few others).