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.
You guys wanna know what Apple did by not allowing flash?
- Thread starter Stirolak123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is for the most stuff used for Flash.
Flash is usually used for:
- Those fancy transitions between photo slide show - completely doable in HTML5 + AJAX stuff in most cases
- Animated Menus - ditto
- Movies - H264 HTML5, works as we've seen in various sites and works much better than Flash movies.
Anything more complicated that resembles real apps are usually really too slow to use even on the fastest mobile devices and/or are unusable with touch interface, not to mention that they often don't fit the windows properly. I guess games could be an argument, but is iOS suffering from lack of cheap/free games? The only thing I can think of is vector animations.
HTML5 is not a complete replacement for Flash, far from it. But for most stuff that are usable on our mobile devices, HTML5 is pretty much a complete replacement. Other stuff should all be developed natively.
Some have made claims which are pretty close to that point.
Fancy transitions are not HTML5. It is basic XHTML and Javascript. AJAX is useful when it comes to submitting and retrieving data, by XML requesting and transfers.
Animated menus: as above.
Movies: My experience is that the media browsing and viewing itself is not optimised. HTML5 has been eating my battery on my MacBook Air more than Flash has been (10.2). Performance-wise and presently, it is able to render graphics and animations in a more stable fashion than HTML5/codecs. One problem I see here though, is fragmentation. With Safari using something. Google pushing Web-M and Microsoft something else, with FireFox going somewhere, I am interested to see the effects of this.
I agree that all stuff should be developed natively, and content separators and media segregated where necessary. I see more web applications using Flash than video, but I don't view a lot of videos. I have iTunes for that.
On the mention of advertisements.. seen HTML5 advertisements? These just annoy the hell out of me.
So are you saying Flash should be used or shouldn't be used? As far as I can see, you haven't really refuted any of my main points, which is that for the most stuff that can be handled by the current mobile device, there's no need for Flash. The movie fragmentation issue is indeed worrying, but for now almost every mobile device has H264 hardware acceleration built in, webM doesn't.
How much longer is this Flash debate going to continue? It seems like it is thread after thread with the same arguments over and over. Apple has said they are not going to support it, so what use is it to keep beating it to death 
? Time to move on.
? Time to move on.And how does one interact with these flash games on a touch display? Besides that, do you really think the quality of most flash games even approaches what is available on the app store? You really think Apple would lose anything if they included Flash?
Why does everyone need to invent some conspiracy about why Flash isn't on Apple's mobile devices. Because it was so easy for Apple's competitors to get Flash working acceptably on their devices? Oh no, it wasn't. And the heralded Xoom, the most xtremely powerful device out there, isn't even shipping with Flash.
Maybe, just maybe, it's as simple as Apple says it is - Flash is extremely CPU and battery intensive, to the point that mobile devices are just now beginning to run it well with dual core processors - and they decided to exclude support for it early to improve the overall user experience.
Maybe you really, really, really want Flash no matter how crappy it is and no matter how much it destroys your battery. That's fine. I think in the end it is obvious Apple made the correct bet, and most people don't miss Flash on their iDevices at all. I don't.
In fact, not being able to view a site or video every once in a while is a small price to pay to avoid the constant barrage of Flash ads one encounters on the web these days. Many of which completely obscure web pages and load data heavy videos and sound and other nonsense I don't want to deal with.
Good move Apple!
You can solve that by setting Flash to "On Demand". Nothing loads unless you specifically tell it to.
Seems like such a simple, consumer-friendly fix. Weird how Adobe hasn't thought to implement that kind of control over the last 6 or so years that they have developed the Flash Player. It's almost as if they prioritize developer concerns over consumer ones.
I don't mind if Adobe's Flash(TM) is used. There are some places where it is suitable, and places where it is not.
I corrected your points, instead of refuting them, making them redundant in the argument of HTML5 and Adobe's Flash.
Contrary to the gospel: HTML5 isn't near being a finalized standard.
The people here chanting the HTML5 mantra are "forgetting" that.. probably because most of us aren't web developers in the first place.
But as someone said, don't let facts get in the way
The people here chanting the HTML5 mantra are "forgetting" that.. probably because most of us aren't web developers in the first place.
But as someone said, don't let facts get in the way
I quite like what Apple did by not supporting Flash in iOS.
They made it so Android, WebOS and WP7 have some good reasons to exist, and they help push Apple to keep evolving iOS and to keep the entire experience a step ahead of the competition.
They made it so developers can make some awesome apps and make money off of them while they get a 30% cut.
Skyfire not only has to pay for their server infrastructure and transcoding, but 30% of App Store revenue goes straight to Apple.
They made it so Android, WebOS and WP7 have some good reasons to exist, and they help push Apple to keep evolving iOS and to keep the entire experience a step ahead of the competition.
They made it so developers can make some awesome apps and make money off of them while they get a 30% cut.
Skyfire not only has to pay for their server infrastructure and transcoding, but 30% of App Store revenue goes straight to Apple.
Contrary to the gospel: HTML5 isn't near being a finalized standard.
The people here chanting the HTML5 mantra are "forgetting" that.. probably because most of us aren't web developers in the first place.
But as someone said, don't let facts get in the way
I don't think many people in this thread are unaware of this fact. And how does this fact actually matter? Or are you missing some facts?
It's amazing how the "other side" of the argument is always the one with the religious fanatics chanting their mantras and preaching their gospel.
HTML5 is the solution for current flash woes. You and others have tried to explain that quite a few times by now.
It's just so lousy that the facts are not quite supporting the claim, but let me rehash the opinions so far:
Flash sucks. Flash needs to die. Flash crashes all the time. There are no valuable flash sites. Owners of Flash sites need to be converted to pixie HTML5 (this is for free btw, no work whatsoever).
And before people call this hyperbole, read a few of similar threads before you throw that at my feet
I assume some will actually cough and agree that this is indeed the gist of it. But assumption is the mother of all **** ups.Really, only a fool would look a tad further and maybe question the decision or at least imagine it's done for cold hard business reasons (feelings are sweet if you read the statements of both sides) and has didley to do with "the best for the open web and the customers".
I mean, why would that even enter our minds?
And yes, I love my Macbook OSX and I think the Ipad is by far superior to the competition. That doesn't make the lack of flash right though. It's a major pain in the butt.
A simple "yes or no" flash option would have given the best of both worlds.
Oh and a final thing: HTML5 animations aren't lightweight at all, at least not now (contrary to what is being claimed). And if you think that the death of Flash will eliminate animated advertisements; I have a bridge to sell to you.
Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.
It's just so lousy that the facts are not quite supporting the claim, but let me rehash the opinions so far:
Flash sucks. Flash needs to die. Flash crashes all the time. There are no valuable flash sites. Owners of Flash sites need to be converted to pixie HTML5 (this is for free btw, no work whatsoever).
And before people call this hyperbole, read a few of similar threads before you throw that at my feet
Really, only a fool would look a tad further and maybe question the decision or at least imagine it's done for cold hard business reasons (feelings are sweet if you read the statements of both sides) and has didley to do with "the best for the open web and the customers".
I mean, why would that even enter our minds?
And yes, I love my Macbook OSX and I think the Ipad is by far superior to the competition. That doesn't make the lack of flash right though. It's a major pain in the butt.
Wow. That's quite a rant. What does it have to do with what I actually said? Since you quoted me and all.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are more than two worlds.
I quoted I don't think many people in this thread are unaware of this fact. You used phrases like those in other threads, where you called out hyperbole or anecdotical evidence when people had no issues with flash, yet remained mumb on anti flash anecdotes.
You take up the sword for a crowd of people, yet if someone says something you act "that is not my opinion". You can't have your cake and eat it to.
And no, it's not a rant. As a consumer I shouldn't have to suffer or choose in a spat between two huge capatilistic Molochs over the axis of "open standards". That people accept this, fine. But if that crowd tends to say: Flash is unimportant, HTML5 is the solution, excuse me for calling this bubbly talk by people who have no grasp of reality whatsoever.
And yes, you will retort by "that's not my position" Well, too bad, others here repeat this mantra over and over again.
There's definitely a conspiracy somewhere...just need to keep throwing spaghetti against the wall until we find a story that sticks
As an Adobe product customer for 20+ years, they've done some great stuff over that time. However, much of it has been the 'bloatware' paradigm: great new features, but invariably with a heavy burden which bogs down even heavy duty tower workstations. The shift to mobility and portability has been going on now for a decade ... its cellphones today, but it was laptops before that ... and Adobe is long overdue to wake up and realize that their products are resource pigs that need to go on a "Biggest Loser" magnitude of a diet.
I don't see it disappearing all too rapidly either, but these statistics are probably very highly misleading.
For example, the "90% creative pros have Adobe software on their desktop". I don't doubt it is true - - but is this for a $500 license for Photoshop? Or is this the $0 Acrobat Reader? Perhaps it is $200 for Acrobat Writer...but then again, it could simply be pointing out that pretty much all desktops have the $0 Flash plug-in...not just the 'creative pros'.
Similarly, for the very high percentages of websites that use Flash ... how much of that is value-added content versus obtrusive advertising?
And so on.
Adobe serves their developer base by not allowing their consumers to "turn off" Flash. This is motivated by what that Flash content often is: advertising.
FWIW, I've already seen a few "one man operation" websites that have explicitly asked their readership to disable their Click-to-Flash software, because its popularity within his readership was putting a big dent in his ads-based revenue stream...in essence, the webhost said: "I bring this website to you guys for free through having Flash ad on the site, and you now need to keep up your side of the deal by tolerating those Flash ads instead of defaulting to off via click-to-flash".
Sounds like a reasonable enough request...and it is the same social contract that we make to watch mainstream network TV, particularly back in the days before everyone was willing to drop an extra $100/month on a Cable TV bill, instead of getting the free Over-the-Air TV signal.
-hh
I quoted I don't think many people in this thread are unaware of this fact. You used phrases like those in other threads, where you called out hyperbole or anecdotical evidence when people had no issues with flash, yet remained mumb on anti flash anecdotes.
You take up the sword for a crowd of people, yet if someone says something you act "that is not my opinion". You can't have your cake and eat it to.
You have an odd view of my responsibilities in this forum. Just because I do not use Flash does not mean that I support all the ridiculous anti-Flash rhetoric in these forums. I am here to have a discussion. Not to rehash any party line. My opinions are my own.
It's pretty much the definition of a rant. Off topic, extremist arguments with an ad hominem argument thrown in for good measure.
As a consumer, that is your exact responsibility. To choose between competing products.
I'm pretty sure that I know my position better than you. When I say "that's not my position," it because it's not my position. Please stop making things up about what I think.
Yes. I just tested. I can watch videos in the middle of IGN articles just fine.
I hear rehab works wonders for drug addictions.
You are aware that different people use the internet for different things aren't you?
Although, you may have a point I suppose. I mean the fact that one in 50 iPad owners downloaded this obviously means that everyone misses Flash on the iPad.
I appreciate of course that the above stat may be incorrect. Was the browser iPhone compatible as well? If so then I apologise, it was about one in every 380 iOS users that rushed to download it.