Steve Jobs' Wall Street Journal Visit Reportedly Included Arguments Against Flash

[E.Lizardo]

I remember the days when the iPhone didn't have apps for the sake of stability and security....

If Apple gave Adobe the chance to develop and test flash on iPhone OS (it wouldn't cost them anything to let them do the work) then I'd agree with the statement if it did turn out to be ****.

How do we know what one has "has the best cost/battery/stability tradeoffs" if both are never tested?

Apple is not,and can not stop them from developing and testing on the iPhone.
The SDK is free and they can jailbreak it if that's not enough.

 

[Friscohoya]

whatever

agreed

 

[cumanzor]

I think one of the biggest reasons against Flash is that you're locked in to Adobes system once your content and site design is made for Flash. It would be better to go with more open standards like H.246 and HTML5 and Javascript. They are more future proof.
.

H.246 is not open, at all. This is the reason of the current <video> tag debate. Mozilla is against using H.245 because they would have to pay for the license. They only support Theora. Same goes for Opera.

Right now if your content is in flash then you miss 50 million users on iPod touch and iPhones. And they are the most active mobile internet users.

Yes but then again you still have the 95% of the internet users.

This shows that being locked into Flash can be a bad thing regardless whose fault it is that there is no Flash available. Once designers make Flash free site for iPhones then Android, Windows mobile and Palm users will use them as well. So the problem with Flash gets worse

Being locked to Flash is as bad as being locked to any proprietary and closed technology and environment. There are reasons why to ditch flash, mainly the fact that it sucks in Linux and OS X (it works fine in Windows). I believe we all just need to wait for 10.1 to bring GPU acceleration.

 

[Darkroom]

There are a lot of interactive demos here in HTML5
http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5-canvas-examples

SketchPad
Asteroids

ouch (launching Astroids in Safari 4 / Snow Leopard with HTML5)

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I remember the days when the iPhone didn't have apps for the sake of stability and security....

If Apple gave Adobe the chance to develop and test flash on iPhone OS (it wouldn't cost them anything to let them do the work) then I'd agree with the statement if it did turn out to be ****.

How do we know what one has "has the best cost/battery/stability tradeoffs" if both are never tested?

Apple is not,and can not stop them from developing and testing on the iPhone.
The SDK is free and they can jailbreak it if that's not enough.

Aren't there agreements with the sdk which would prevent them releasing anything developed on the sdk via cydia?

If relations are frayed between the two parties now, such an act would push them to the limit.

 

[RT2020]

But Real player was only used for Audio and Video ... that's only a fraction of what Flash does.

Im not comparing these two products. I just wanted to mention that I remember how RealPlayer was immensely popular during the early years of the Internet. Then it became a bloated piece of garbage. Despite it's dominance, it slowly disappeared into obscurity.

 

[HiRez]

Facebook isn't going to change because apple wants it to, more than likely, apple will change to support facebook.

If enough sites stop using Flash, they will change. Because Facebook doesn't care about Flash, or any other technology. They care about getting their product in front of as many people as possible. And if Flash usage drops off even a little bit, and can be replaced with something more ubiquitous, and more standard, such as HTML5, they will use it.

Right now, I agree it's a gamble for Apple. But really, they can't lose too badly, either they kill off Flash or worst case, they decide to support it. In the meantime, I don't think the majority of potential iPad users care one way or another.

 

[bnerd]

Honestly guys/gals ... there's no point in arguing this. Flash isn't going anywhere. in fact if you would leave your walled Apple gardens and read the news you would see the exact opposite is happening. More and more devices are moving toward Flash.

Apple will be left in the dust and consumers will move to more powerful devices that will allow them to DO EVERYTHING on the web.

 

[Anuba]

Remember Real Player? Things change

RealPlayer died because the company was unbelievably greedy. They tried to make people pay for a media player when there were tons of free (and better) alternatives. Installing the free/basic version (which became increasingly difficult to find on Real's site) took 20 minutes, out of which 18 were spent unticking 200 boxes with offers for bundled tie-in crap, newsletter spam, adware and spyware.

How do you even begin to compare this with Flash, a freeware plugin that ships with every browser? They couldn't have less in common.

 

[E.Lizardo]

What are you talking about?

Flash isn't even a factor on these devices.

What are you talking about?I was responding to the idea that not supporting flash would hurt apple( with sarcasm)by pointing out it hasn't so far to any large extent.

 

[andiwm2003]

....................

But those 50 million are locked out by Apple's choice, not because the hardware or software couldn't support Flash now. It can't be a "bad thing" unless you lay blame solely at Apple's feet, who, in choosing to NOT allow their customers to use a free Flash plugin, are solely responsible for those customers NOT being able to access content they might want to access.

...............................

Of course it's apples choice. But that doesn't increase Adobes chance to keep Flash alive. Apples power in the mobile market could be just enough to push Flash out. And it doesn't matter if it's Adobes fault for delivering lousy performance for years or if it's Apples/Steve's arrogance.

I think it's really a 50/50 chance now if Flash makes it or not.

And based on that chance newspapers will make their determination to go with Flash or HTML5.

In my personal experience (I have click to flash) I need flash for 3 sites out of 30-40 sites I use often. If those sites offer a HTML5 version Flash is dead for me. Others surf lots of Media rich sites and they have maybe 50% of sites where they really need Flash.

 

[billystlyes]

This is one of the reasons why I gave up on Apple. Steve is far too controlling for my liking. I want the freedom of choice to have Flash on my iPhone or iPad. He's just talking trash to protect iTunes sales. It's kinda sad actually. He should retire. Oh well, I can't wait to buy an HP Slate.

 

[Mac 13]

Why people keep on posting this link is beyond me...

It just proves that whole HTML5 thing is crap!

I run MBP c2d 2.4 with 8600M + 10.5.8 + latest Safari...

THIS PAGE GIVES SPINNING BEACH BALL ON SAFARI AND IT DOESNT WORK!

I mean... LOL

Am I the only one in this forums that cant run that video!?!?!

Your internet connection must be super slow, Safari is fine. This player doesn't require plug-ins that's the whole point of this technology buddy



>
>

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

>
>

 

[HiRez]

Apple will be left in the dust and consumers will move to more powerful devices that will allow them to DO EVERYTHING on the web.

Just like how lack of Flash support killed the iPhone? Yeah, they really got left in the dust...

 

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

Right, umm... maybe Apple should've thought of that before they made the Adobe's proprietary PDF format a cornerstone of OS X.


Yes, which is of absolutely zero relevance in this case. Has Steve's IQ suddenly dropped below 100, or was he just hoping that the WSJ audience was borderline retarded?

Since Flash is a popular software-based platform, not an impopular and outdated data port standard, here's a more apt comparison for you Steve:

You've been trying day and night for 25 years to retire this platform called Windows, insisting that Apple's alternative is vastly superior. You've done this by hammering home the message through innumerable TV ads, print ads, keynotes, the works. For 25 years! The result? Windows still holds a 90% marketshare worldwide. At this rate, it will take another 200+ years to erase Windows from the map. And that, Steve, is how "easily" you'll be able to kill Flash.

The "battery hog" argument is even more ridiculous. It's not Flash itself that uses the power, it's the goddamn content. CPU/GPU intensive content is a power hog. You should know this from, you know, iPhone/iPod games. Do you REALLY annoying banners and intros will go away only because you replace Flash with HTML5, Steve? Do you really think it won't drain the battery just as quickly?

LOL!

So true!

Awesome post man

 

[skorpien]

Everything is very simple. Just optimise Flash on Mac and all sins will be forgiven, yet Adobe sits on it's fat body part doing nothing.

Thank you!

For all those making the FarmVille argument, I play it and let me tell you that I NEED to boot my Mac into Windows for it to be playable. On OS X, Flash causes my CPU usage and temperature to spike, slows to a CRAWL, and just plain doesn't work at times. There is no reason for Adobe to shaft Mac users the way they have and not even try to optimize Flash for OS X. It is this exact mentality on Adobe's part that makes me hope that Flash dies a gruesome death.

For those defending Flash, believe what you will, but the fact that the exact same Flash content performs so differently on the exact same hardware between OS X and Windows?... Something doesn't add up...

 

[RT2020]

-=XX=-Nephilim: How's it like working for Adobe these days?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Those weren't their words, but I agree that's the likely scenario.

Yes, those were their words:

(DENVER, CO, US – 2 February 2010) – MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.

http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG LA News List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf

In the meantime, we've all been paying for Flash for over a decade and will keep paying for it between now and 2016.

Where have you been paying for flash? I haven't. I doubt youtube would have become the site it's become today if they were paying licensing fees.

And again, the licensing is a red herring anyway because Flash videos often use H.264 behind the scenes. When they don't they use Flash's own codec which is just trash, and not open.

.flv is an open format. Any software maker can write a .flv encoder if they feel like it without incurring any extra costs or licensing fees.

The real question is whether the delivery system will be closed, with all dues paid to Adobe (Flash) or open (HTML5).

Youtube or google owe nothing to Adobe for their traffic or content. Beyond some copies of Flash CS4 to create the next source .swf skin in their page, or flash streaming server software on their boxes, the cost is entirely bandwidth.

HTML5 is open, but what the video tag supports, h264, is not. It is held by a patent pool company, MPEG LA, which makes a living licensing it's tech and suing other companies. Almost every press release on their site is about them suing someone:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

Yes, you might as well... except that there are plenty of other options. You seem to be, as most people are, advocating a Flash-only ecosystem for video (and interactive content), which means it becomes a pay-to-play system.

I don't care if flash is phased out, but not into some format that will force companies to monetize their content in a few years to offset their licensing costs. Right now we get a few ads in hulu. Imagine now if the bigger their site gets, the more they have to pay.

That's going to suck for us.

 

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

Your internet connection must be super slow, Safari is fine. This player doesn't require plug-ins that's the whole point of this technology buddy



>
>

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

>
>

I use broadband connection, all web content loads fine, Mac works perfectly and browser never crashes... That is until I get to that page... Beach spinning ball of Safari death and only way to cure it is to force quit unless it dies on its own...

Perhaps I need to upgrade to 10.6 in order to enjoy HTML5 video!?!?!

 

[Mac 13]

This is one of the reasons why I gave up on Apple. Steve is far too controlling for my liking. I want the freedom of choice to have Flash on my iPhone or iPad. He's just talking trash to protect iTunes sales. It's kinda sad actually. He should retire. Oh well, I can't wait to buy an HP Slate.

OS X still better then Windozzze no matter how much freedom you have.

>
>
>
>
>

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

....................



But those 50 million are locked out by Apple's choice, not because the hardware or software couldn't support Flash now. It can't be a "bad thing" unless you lay blame solely at Apple's feet, who, in choosing to NOT allow their customers to use a free Flash plugin, are solely responsible for those customers NOT being able to access content they might want to access.



...............................

Of course it's apples choice. But that doesn't increase Adobes chance to keep Flash alive. Apples power in the mobile market could be just enough to push Flash out. And it doesn't matter if it's Adobes fault for delivering lousy performance for years or if it's Apples/Steve's arrogance.



I think it's really a 50/50 chance now if Flash makes it or not.



And based on that chance newspapers will make their determination to go with Flash or HTML5.



In my personal experience (I have click to flash) I need flash for 3 sites out of 30-40 sites I use often. If those sites offer a HTML5 version Flash is dead for me. Others surf lots of Media rich sites and they have maybe 50% of sites where they really need Flash.

Apples power in the mobile market compared to Symbian?



We'll have Symbian, Balckberry, Android & WebOS all supporting flash and you think everyone will drop it for iPhone OS devices?



(Not sure on Windows P7S flash support)

 

[bnerd]

Just like how lack of Flash support killed the iPhone? Yeah, they really got left in the dust...

As many other people mentioned Flash on such a small device doesn't really matter. No one sits and surfs the web for long periods of time on an iPhone.. at least not the average user... so the lack of Flash on the iPhone isn't a big deal. We're talking about bigger form fact devices like Tablets, Netbooks, ect.

These devices are all moving to Flash 10.1 ... and even throwing it in Apple's FACE by advertising.. "WE HAVE FLASH".

I give Apple credit for trying to move people away from Flash.. but they lost the war ... and the Apple has become the butt of jokes for not only the iPad but for not having a full web experience on their device.

 

[stagi]

if jobs is getting this vocal about flash I bet it will be a dead tech in a year or two. I am glad, even though my main site is flash it does always cause lagging issues, crashes and wish there was some better alternatives out there for rich media.

 

[HLdan]

He's so conceited, I really hope the newspapers keep using flash, just to spite him. Never-mind I also disagree with his whole philosophy of trying to tell other companies what's in their best interests.

With your way of thinking the industry would still be on Windows 95, since we don't need anyone telling us that we need better or what's in our best interest.

 

[Jason Lee]

Why people keep on posting this link is beyond me...

It just proves that whole HTML5 thing is crap!

I run MBP c2d 2.4 with 8600M + 10.5.8 + latest Safari...

THIS PAGE GIVES SPINNING BEACH BALL ON SAFARI AND IT DOESNT WORK!

I mean... LOL

Am I the only one in this forums that cant run that video!?!?!

No problems on my 12-inch PowerBook.