iPhone The Guardian UK: The iPhone is the new Internet Explorer 6, says mobile developer

[kjk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...swer-criticism

On the flip side of the debate about whether Flash is ill, in rude health, or simply untroubled by Apple's wilful refusal to countenance it on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, we have an analysis from Peter-Paul Koch, a "mobile platform strategist, consultant and trainer" who says (with plenty of swearing to boot, if you're in filter territory) that the iPhone is the Internet Explorer 6 de nos jours.

Yes. That's right. He's saying: don't develop for it. Or rather, don't develop exclusively for it to the exclusion of other mobile browsers, and certainly don't give it special status.

This is the core of his argument, and it is a good one: that in developing only for the iPhone, you ignore all the other people out there, and that's not good.

The Guardian UK article links to the original-it's a pretty funny rant. I do agree though that designing for specific platforms at the expense of others does lead to an uncomfortable balkanization of the Web...besides, the beauty of the new mobile browsers is the promise of the "real web, at your fingertips".

[Yoshi 1080]

That guy writes a lot of stuff. But every single argument of his is based on and therefore falls with his false equation IE6 = iPhone.

The problems we got from IE6 were not due to its then-modern rendering engine but due to its not being standards-compliant. The IE6 rendered many tags the wrong way and even introduced some of his own. iPhone's Webkit-based Mobile Safari, however, is fully standards-compliant. So the only problem is that some competing mobile browsers are not as advanced yet as Mobile Safari is today. Android and Nokia both use Webkit just like Apple does. Same with Palm.

Sure, most websites that feature a mobile version are optimized for 320x480, but you can hardly blame anyone for that since it's a defacto standard. Plus, smartphones with higher resolutions than that should have no problems displaying such websites, and surfing the web at even lower resolutions wouldn't make much fun anyway.

To put it shortly: developing websites exclusively for specific devices is never a good idea, but that guy talks a lot of trash.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Yoshi 1080

... iPhone's Webkit-based Mobile Safari, however, is fully standards-compliant. So the only problem is that some competing mobile browsers are not as advanced yet as Mobile Safari is today....

Well, except that Mobile Safari doesn't do Flash, which is a HUUUGE hole in its compliance.

People grudgingly accept the lack of Flash on the iPhone, because most don't use it to browse the web heavily, plus until Flash 10, the mobile Flash experience has been marginal.

But the iPad is being marketed as "the best way to experience the web." At which it would totally fail, since most major sites have important features in Flash, which will be unavailable on the iPad.

Moreover, HTML5 will not completely replace Flash, even when widely adopted. Flash just does a lot of things which will be very hard, or impossible to do in HTML5.

IMO, the lack of Flash is the Achilles heel of the iPad.

[Yoshi 1080]

The lack of a proprietary web plugin has nothing to do with compliancy of web standards.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Yoshi 1080

The lack of a proprietary web plugin has nothing to do with compliancy of web standards.

Whether it's proprietary, or open, doesn't have anything to do with the standard. Jobs pronouncements are even less relevant.

Flash works on virtually every computer in the world and content providers and developers know this.

TechCrunch has a well-informed article on the subject:
"The Future of Web Content – HTML5, Flash & Mobile Apps"

[kilron]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Whether it's proprietary, or open, doesn't have anything to do with the standard. Jobs pronouncements are even less relevant.

you can say his pronouncements are less relevant, but that doesn't make it so. and being open or not has A LOT to do with the standard, as in, its NOT a true standard. it IS an ubiquitous internet protocol, but not a true standard because of its closed nature. that's a major part of the problem. the other part is adobe itself. they bitch and complain and yet don't actually DO anything to fix the issue.

Flash works on virtually every computer in the world and content providers and developers know this.

works? yes. works well? now that's another story.

it also depends on your definition of a "computer". the term is broadening each day, and the more devices that are included, the more flash's saturation percentage falls.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Well, except that Mobile Safari doesn't do Flash, which is a HUUUGE hole in its compliance.

by whom? you're making a big assumption here that everyone loves flash.

People grudgingly accept the lack of Flash on the iPhone, because most don't use it to browse the web heavily, plus until Flash 10, the mobile Flash experience has been marginal.

with flash 10 (and we'll see how much integration it actually gets), the mobile surfing experience isn't going to improve much, if at all. so much of web flash integration is based on large computer screens (13"+) with a mouse. so right off the bat you're dealing with an issue of integration and another reason why flash isn't necessary, especially on mobile platforms.

But the iPad is being marketed as "the best way to experience the web." At which it would totally fail, since most major sites have important features in Flash, which will be unavailable on the iPad.

if by "important features" you mean "lots and lots of paid advertising", then yes, that would be correct. video is adapting too as the push for the h.264 is growing.

Moreover, HTML5 will not completely replace Flash, even when widely adopted. Flash just does a lot of things which will be very hard, or impossible to do in HTML5.

you're making 2 assumptions here. first, you're assuming that its a bad thing, and secondly, you're assuming that developers won't adapt and find a better way. what makes you so sure of those 2 assumptions?

IMO, the lack of Flash is the Achilles heel of the iPad.

it hasn't seemed to have had a large detrimental effect on the iPhone and iPod touch. why makes you think the iPad would be different? because it has a larger screen?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kilron

... it hasn't seemed to have had a large detrimental effect on the iPhone and iPod touch. why makes you think the iPad would be different? because it has a larger screen?

Uhm, yeah.... Because people will actually expect to use the iPad to browse the web, which is something few do extensively on the iPhone.

I suggest you read the pretty balanced TechCrunch piece I posted above.

Flash is here now, and here to stay for the foreseeable future, regardless of what Jobs says. As I said, it does A LOT more than video, and for many multimedia purposes is still way more robust than HTML5.

As to "lots and lots of paid advertising," this is what pays for all the free content on the web. Without ads, the web will be much poorer.

BTW, since most content providers rely on ad revenue, and since as you point out ads are mostly in Flash, why would the content providers care to adapt the rest of their site for the iPad, which would be in effect a freeloader device?

[kilron]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Uhm, yeah.... Because people will actually expect to use the iPad to browse the web, which is something few do extensively on the iPhone.

what makes you so sure? you're making a huge assumption based on what?

Flash is here now, and here to stay for the foreseeable future, regardless of what Jobs says. As I said, it does A LOT more than video, and for many multimedia purposes is still way more robust than HTML5.

i guess we can agree to disagree. i'm not saying that flash is dead, but i certainly believe that its penetration will continue to fall as it is now and it will be replaced by html5 in the long run. THAT is a good thing for the web on the whole.

As to "lots and lots of paid advertising," this is what pays for all the free content on the web. Without ads, the web will be much poorer.

that is a TERRIBLE argument. tell that to consumers everywhere and see how much sympathy you get. you're not proving to me why flash is something that people actually WANT on their mobile devices by saying that companies need it for their revenue.

BTW, since most content providers rely on ad revenue, and since as you point out ads are mostly in Flash, why would the content providers care to adapt the rest of their site for the iPad, which would be in effect a freeloader device?

seriously?? because if they can't see their site they'll go somewhere else. really? that's your argument?

again, companies are out there NOT to support adobe and support flash. they're out there to make money. and how do you do that? you HAVE TO get your product out there and seen by people. if a growing number of people can't see your product/services/ads on your website, THAT IS A PROBLEM. what you're suggesting is that these companies stick their feet in the ground, not change and hope the world adapts to them.

if you go that route, more and more businesses will very soon be out of business. the only way to thrive in business is to adapt to the ever changing world.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kilron

...
if you go that route, more and more businesses will very soon be out of business. the only way to thrive in business is to adapt to the ever changing world.

You don't even see the irony here....?!!

Apple decides not to support one of most widely used technologies on the web on its new device, and you are predicting the imminent death of every major website, because the iPad and the iPhone do not support Flash?!!!

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You don't even see the irony here....?!!

Apple decides not to support one of most widely used technologies on the web on its new device, and you are predicting the imminent death of every major website, because the iPad and the iPhone do not support Flash?!!!

its weird and funny.

but funny because its true.

[Yoshi 1080]

Sonist, you are still missing the point here. Flash is merely a plugin that can "enhance" (ehem) websites. By not supporting it Apple is not breaking ANY standards. The problems we got with IE6 were mainly due to its false interpretation of web standards, leading to non-valid markup intended to work around those bugs. IE also introduced some tags of its own which were incompatible to existing web standards, hence incompatible to competing browsers.

Developing for iPhone means being limited to a subset of features in some regards; developing for IE6 meant breaking standards compliancy in order to fix its messed up rendering of websites.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Yoshi 1080

Sonist, you are still missing the point here. Flash is merely a plugin that can "enhance" (ehem) websites. By not supporting it Apple is not breaking ANY standards....

Fine, Yoshi. Some weird "standards" universe, this must be!

Flash, which has almost 100% penetration, which is supported by EVERY major browser, and ustilized by most of the major sites on the web, is not a "standard?"

But HTML5, which is still in draft mode, which is supported to only varying degrees by the major browsers, which very few are brave enough to actually use, is a standard?!

Here is what it says on the HTML5 draft page: "Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways."


And again, I am still amazed by the ignorance of some about HTML5 and Flash. HTML5, even when adopted, will NOT be a comprehensive replacement for Flash. Flash is Not only for video. There are applications where Flash will remain a better tool than HTML5.

I am reposting the link to The Future of Web Content – HTML5, Flash & Mobile Apps, hopefully it will enlighten some as to the capabilities of Flash and HTML.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You don't even see the irony here....?!!

Apple decides not to support one of most widely used technologies on the web on its new device, and you are predicting the imminent death of every major website, because the iPad and the iPhone do not support Flash?!!!

Yeah, that's really over estimating the % of total web browsing that is done on iPhones (and will be done on iPads).

The iPhone is a bug success, but it's a miniscule drop in the bucket as far as total web browsing goes. Even iPhone owners (and iPad owners in the future) will do most of their browsing on PCs and Laptops. The mobile devices are just for occasional browsing on the go when they're not at their PC or laptop.

So not having Flash isn't going to have much impact on ad revenues of sites, as iPhone/iPad views will be a tiny % of the views they get each day.

For sites that have mobile versions of their website, they can easily adapt and not use flash adds on the mobile site, while keeping them on the full website.

More people will not buy an iPad for lack of flash (people like me that watch a lot of TV shows on Hulu, network sites etc.) than sites will go out of business because of declining ad revenues due to viewers not seeing flash ads on their iPhones/iPads because NO sites will go out of business for that reason.

[CyGuy]

Flash is out there, everywhere. A tablet that is supposed to be an "always connected media device" should certainly support something that is so widely used.

[Yoshi 1080]

Sonist, please read this sentence carefully (ideally read it twice): Not supporting a standard is not the same as breaking a standard! iPhone's Mobile Safari supports a valid subset of official web standards!

And by the way, no, a proprietary, closed-source technology cannot ever, by definition, be called a standard. It may be a defacto standard, a pseudo standard, but it's not a real standard. Flash is as far away from being a standard as Microsoft Word's .DOC is.

Regarding your weird argument about Flash being more than video: so is HTML5. So what exactly is your point?