Fight Flash Here! - Page 5

scottjl · 04-30-2010, 04:48 PM

That's interesting. They revised the article. When I read it earlier today they had the values I had repeated and didn't attribute it to "James Eberhardt" (they had no one's name). 8meg is far different than 3.2, and 400k is more than "a few" (though an insubstantial amount in a 64G iPad). I guess someone wanted to be more specific with numbers.

Apple has their business arguments, and they have their technical arguments. Regardless of what anyone outside of Apple thinks, they (Jobs) is going to do whatever they do. We either accept it and use their products, or don't and move on.

Sonist · 04-30-2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomsem

... That says nothing about file size overhead for a real app, or runtime memory requirements or performance, which are arguably more critical and which the article leaves very much in question - but I'm not convinced that additional file size in and of itself is evidence that this approach is a dead end.

It's rare when a multi-platform toolset can outperform a native platform toolset (assuming best practices), nobody expects that it will. The question has always been (for Flash, Java, whatever) whether the performance tradeoffs are offset by the obvious, if sometimes elusive, benefits of 'write once, run many'.

It's all moot in this case since Apple has banned all such approaches, which is their right, and while it may not be to everyone's liking, they may well be making the best call for the success of their business (I'd like to see a credible argument that it is a bad business decision, if anyone has or knows of one). It remains to be seen.

Good points.

The only credible argument for it being a shortsighted decision is that if in a few years Android becomes the platform of choice (which it may, because of its openness both in terms of hardware and software), the iPhone may start losing developers. But who knows.

In any event, full Flash will be on all new Androids as of June. IMO, this was the real cause for both the vitriol and the timing of Jobs' letter.

Trubu · 04-30-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rock

Flash has no nails in their coffin, it is nieve to even think that.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/09/a...ple/index.html

The writing's on the wall for Flash, and has been for quite a while if you've been paying attention. It will persist in one form or another for quite a while to come, but sooner or later it's going to go the way of RealPlayer. The only question is how fast that happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonist

Web apps?! If people didn't complain so loudly about web apps on the iPhone, we would never have gotten the SDK.

Google themselves seems to think there's some merit in web apps, given that that's the only thing Chrome OS will run. And have you actually tried the Google Voice web app?

Quote:

BTW, the timing of the letter is perfect, to try to steal the thunder from Google's big event on the 20th of May, when Android 2.2, meshed with Flash 10.1 is being unveiled.

Umm, if Job's intent was to steal Google's thunder, wouldn't he have waited until a day or two before the event, rather than 3 weeks before? That's an absolute eternity in terms of the news cycle.

rock · 04-30-2010, 05:13 PM

Flash and RealPlayer are two different beasts.

Flash =/= videos

Ok are video's one of the key features of Flash? Yes, but Flash is NOT just videos. I think that is the misconception going on here. Just because Flash is not going on the iPad does not mean it is going the way of the dodo. If Adobe's mobile flash works as good as they been saying it is, then it will be a hit. That remains to be seen until it is released, but by the beta video's they been showing it looks smooth, but it is a different beast when it comes out.

Honestly what I wonder is why this is such a hit topic anyway?

Like the reason why I first responded is because there seems to be a big misconception about flash. Ok flash is not on the iPad ok, they make up for it with apps no problem.

Though it seems Apple backers want to keep pushing that Flash is dying, when it isn't.

Many websites (which Adobe says is 75%, which I don't doubt) are built with flash. not just flash videos, but flash slideshows, flash buttons, etc.

Honestly this topic should have a nail in it's coffin, because Flash will never come to iPad, so it should just not be discussed anymore.

If you want Flash, don't buy and iPad/iPod/iPhone.

dmaul1114 · 04-30-2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rock

Honestly this topic should have a nail in it's coffin, because Flash will never come to iPad, so it should just not be discussed anymore.

If you want Flash, don't buy and iPad/iPod/iPhone.

Agreed.

And on top of that, it has nothing to do with reading eBooks.

This is Mobileread and this forum really should be centered on discussing the iPad as an eReader.

A lot of the bickering would go away if the mods would get the forum back on topic and limit it to discussing reading on the iPad.

There are plenty of iPad forums out there for people who want to discuss every facet of the device.

Sonist · 04-30-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trubu

...

The writing's on the wall for Flash, and has been for quite a while if you've been paying attention. It will persist in one form or another for quite a while to come, but sooner or later it's going to go the way of RealPlayer. The only question is how fast that happens.

Do you actually understand that Flash is a lot more than Flash video, and that HTML5, when adopted in a few years, will not replace most of the non-video functions of Flash?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trubu

And have you actually tried the Google Voice web app?

Yes I have. And that's why I wrote what I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trubu

Umm, if Job's intent was to steal Google's thunder, wouldn't he have waited until a day or two before the event, rather than 3 weeks before? That's an absolute eternity in terms of the news cycle.

This is why you are Trubu, and he is Jobs....

Sonist · 04-30-2010, 07:02 PM

Some interesting thoughts in rebuttal letter by John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation, published in ArsTechnica:

"...
Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash" is the latest volley in this bout between pot and kettle, and while it makes many dead-on criticisms of Adobe and Flash, it does not change the fundamental character of this disagreement, nor does it solve any concerns about Apple's broader intentions.

What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable.

If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino.

...

Part of the reason why Flash and iPhone OS are proprietary is that Adobe and Apple agreed to the terms of the H.264 patent license. H.264, despite Jobs's claim, is not a free standard—patents necessary to implement it are held by a group that requires all users to agree to a license with restrictive terms. Those terms have previously even been unavailable for examination online. We are publishing them on fsf.org today in order to comment on their unethical restrictions. The fact that H.264 is a commonly used standard does not make it a free standard...."

Trubu · 04-30-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonist

Do you actually understand that Flash is a lot more than Flash video, and that HTML5, when adopted in a few years, will not replace most of the non-video functions of Flash?

Having developed in Flash off and on over the past 10 years, yeah, I have a pretty good handle on its capabilities. I also understand that for most of the things people actually use Flash for (ie, not whiz-bang tech demos and portfolio sites that allow AS developers to show off), HTML5 + JS will be a perfectly suitable replacement.

The RealPlayer thing was probably an overstatement - I don't expect Flash to disappear entirely, and it's possible that it could maintain a strong presence in certain areas, like casual gaming. But 10 years from now, it will be nowhere near the pervasive presence it is now, and the web will be better for it.

Sonist · 04-30-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trubu

...
The RealPlayer thing was probably an overstatement - I don't expect Flash to disappear entirely, and it's possible that it could maintain a strong presence in certain areas, like casual gaming. But 10 years from now, it will be nowhere near the pervasive presence it is now, and the web will be better for it.

This, Trubu, is a perfectly reasonable assessment. I think developers will use whatever tools are easier, most capable and allow them to reaches the right, or the widest, audience. But Flash will most likely coexist with HTML5 for the foreseeable future. Who knows what the web will be like in 10 years?

What disturbs me, though, is the insistence that the banning of Flash and Java from the iPad is a good thing. It has nothing to do with the gradual replacement of Flash Video with H.264, but with Apple's goal of monetizing everything within its walled garden.

As noted in the Free Software Foundation letter I cited above, H.264 is proprietary.

Many who have given some thought to the push for H.264, fear that at some point in the not too distant future, when H.264 is an established "standard" (in the same fashion as Flash Video is now), the patent holders will impose licensing fees.

If licensing fees are imposed for the de facto standard, it will effectively preclude the development of any non-commercial browsers.

Which means, that without competition, commercial browser providers can easily make alliances with content providers (Apple is already both), and achieve the old goal of monetizing the browser ecosystem, which may not necessarily be in the interests of consumers.

So, while I like H.264 as a codec, I am not celebrating the replacement of one proprietary video format with another.

The big hope has been that Google will release VP8 as open source, and according to NewTeeVee, it looks like this may be happening.

But with the fanboys whipped into a H.264 frenzy by Jobs, I am not certain the idea of open video even registers with the mob.

Trubu · 04-30-2010, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonist

What disturbs me, though, is the insistence that the banning of Flash and Java from the iPad is a good thing.

I think it's a "good" thing only in the sense that it has spurred some large content providers to start using HTML 5; anything that pushes web standards forward is a win, IMO.

Personally, I'm not bothered by the lack of Flash on the iPs, but I wouldn't object to it being included either, as long as there was a way to turn it off. Apple could even throw up a big notification box every time the plug-in brought down Safari, just so people would know who to blame.

Quote:

So, while I like H.264 as a codec, I am not celebrating the replacement of one proprietary video format with another.

Fair point (though technically we're talking about replacing a proprietary container with an open one, regardless of the codec used - lots of Flash video uses H.264). At the moment H.264 seems like the best of a bad lot; there just isn't a viable codec that meets all of the standards for openness that we'd have in an ideal world. But yeah, I'd feel better if they could standardize on a codec that met H.264's quality while being free of any potential poison pills down the road.

Alexander Turcic · 05-01-2010, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

This is Mobileread and this forum really should be centered on discussing the iPad as an eReader.

A lot of the bickering would go away if the mods would get the forum back on topic and limit it to discussing reading on the iPad.

If I understand the thread starter correctly, his intention for starting this topic on Flash was to avoid going off-topic in other threads, which is generally appreciated.

Bickering is never appropriate and usually counter productive. If it becomes overly disruptive or abusive, we reserve the right to take disciplinary action, such as suspending or even banning the offender(s) from posting or commenting in the community.

Please feel free to consult our guidelines if you are unsure about our posting policies.

And now let's be nice to each other. Thank you.

Alexander
MobileRead Team

Fat Abe · 05-01-2010, 08:52 PM

Alex,

I'm not concerned with the cognitive dissonance in this thread. This is typical in my line of work, where techies argue long and hard for a given cause. Let's wait until Flash 10.1 is introduced in Froyo. Here is a demo from Neowin:

http://www.neowin.net/news/flash-101...e-io-froyo-too

Flash or HTML 5 have a great deal of influence on people who buy e-readers that are capable of internet access. Why not have this extra capability? Why should it be divorced from e-reading features? News is a form of reading/viewing. Anyway, I await the beta and final version releases of Flash 10.1. With a real product, we can then evaluate instead of speculate.

scottjl · 05-03-2010, 12:45 AM

take it with a grain of salt, but it appears that h.264's popularity is on the rise and flash for video encoding is dropping since this time last year. at least according to one company that encodes video for web sites.

TadW · 05-03-2010, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottjl

take it with a grain of salt, but it appears that h.264's popularity is on the rise and flash for video encoding is dropping since this time last year. at least according to one company that encodes video for web sites.

Actually, Flash and H264 are not mutually exclusive. Since 9.0, Flash supports H264, and since 10.1 (beta), they support H264 hardware acceleration.

Fat Abe · 05-03-2010, 02:55 AM

More fodder to add to the fire:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/...s-flash-dying/

Flash and h.264 are not incompatible, nor exclusive to one another. The Fortune blog is not too deep, but the followup posts are very enlightening. Here is the commentary of one reader (CM Owen, Monroeville, Alabama):

Seems a lot of folks don't know the difference between the technologies.

FLV (Flash video) is a container. It can (and usually does these days) H.264. Embedded Flash is then used to play the FLV (because we need some way to embed it in a web site).

Contrary to what most people think, HTML5 is not a standard. It is still in development and at this point there is no agreed upon CODEC for video embedding. In fact, Ian Hickson has stated it probably won't have a final draft until 2022 and wide-spread "early" adoption will happen around 2014. HTML5 is not a video format in itself. It is what a handful of companies (Apple, Mozilla, and Opera) have been putting together to replace the currently aged XHTML schema from W3C. It was kind of "forced" onto the W3C as they have slack in further development of web standards.

I haven't followed the standards committee work on HTML5, and cannot vouch for the 2022 final draft or approval(?) date cited above. Neither HTML5 or mobile Flash are a slam dunk yet. I'll sit on the sidelines until both formats are out in the field and ready to be tested by end users. Apple can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

P.S.: Tadw, you beat me to the punch.

04-30-2010, 05:13 PM	#64
rock Addict Posts: 240 Karma: 18772 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: Nook, Astak EZ Reader Pocket, iPhone 3g, Droid	Flash and RealPlayer are two different beasts. Flash =/= videos Ok are video's one of the key features of Flash? Yes, but Flash is NOT just videos. I think that is the misconception going on here. Just because Flash is not going on the iPad does not mean it is going the way of the dodo. If Adobe's mobile flash works as good as they been saying it is, then it will be a hit. That remains to be seen until it is released, but by the beta video's they been showing it looks smooth, but it is a different beast when it comes out. Honestly what I wonder is why this is such a hit topic anyway? Like the reason why I first responded is because there seems to be a big misconception about flash. Ok flash is not on the iPad ok, they make up for it with apps no problem. Though it seems Apple backers want to keep pushing that Flash is dying, when it isn't. Many websites (which Adobe says is 75%, which I don't doubt) are built with flash. not just flash videos, but flash slideshows, flash buttons, etc. Honestly this topic should have a nail in it's coffin, because Flash will never come to iPad, so it should just not be discussed anymore. If you want Flash, don't buy and iPad/iPod/iPhone. Last edited by rock; 04-30-2010 at 05:46 PM.

05-01-2010, 08:52 PM	#72
Fat Abe Man Who Stares at Books Posts: 1,816 Karma: 10606722 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: 50th State, USA. Also, PA, NY, CA, and elsewhere. Device: All of the Above	I'm from Missouri, Flash Me Alex, I'm not concerned with the cognitive dissonance in this thread. This is typical in my line of work, where techies argue long and hard for a given cause. Let's wait until Flash 10.1 is introduced in Froyo. Here is a demo from Neowin: http://www.neowin.net/news/flash-101...e-io-froyo-too Flash or HTML 5 have a great deal of influence on people who buy e-readers that are capable of internet access. Why not have this extra capability? Why should it be divorced from e-reading features? News is a form of reading/viewing. Anyway, I await the beta and final version releases of Flash 10.1. With a real product, we can then evaluate instead of speculate.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First to Fight	Treven	Reading Recommendations	0	07-19-2010 03:57 PM
Flash developers fight back	Fotoman	Apple Devices	0	05-28-2010 06:59 PM
Fight the Good Fight ... against DRM	neilmarr	News	17	05-21-2010 11:19 AM
Can't get new f/w - flash site broken again and non-flash not updated	jusmee	Astak EZReader	8	03-13-2010 11:26 AM
SpamBayes: Fight Spam now!	Colin Dunstan	Lounge	2	08-23-2006 04:13 AM

04-30-2010, 04:48 PM	#61
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	That's interesting. They revised the article. When I read it earlier today they had the values I had repeated and didn't attribute it to "James Eberhardt" (they had no one's name). 8meg is far different than 3.2, and 400k is more than "a few" (though an insubstantial amount in a 64G iPad). I guess someone wanted to be more specific with numbers. Apple has their business arguments, and they have their technical arguments. Regardless of what anyone outside of Apple thinks, they (Jobs) is going to do whatever they do. We either accept it and use their products, or don't and move on.

04-30-2010, 07:02 PM	#67
Sonist Apeist Posts: 2,126 Karma: 381090 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: The sunny part of California Device: Generic virtual reality story-experiential device	Some interesting thoughts in rebuttal letter by John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation, published in ArsTechnica: "... Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash" is the latest volley in this bout between pot and kettle, and while it makes many dead-on criticisms of Adobe and Flash, it does not change the fundamental character of this disagreement, nor does it solve any concerns about Apple's broader intentions. What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable. If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino. ... Part of the reason why Flash and iPhone OS are proprietary is that Adobe and Apple agreed to the terms of the H.264 patent license. H.264, despite Jobs's claim, is not a free standard—patents necessary to implement it are held by a group that requires all users to agree to a license with restrictive terms. Those terms have previously even been unavailable for examination online. We are publishing them on fsf.org today in order to comment on their unethical restrictions. The fact that H.264 is a commonly used standard does not make it a free standard...."

05-03-2010, 12:45 AM	#73
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	take it with a grain of salt, but it appears that h.264's popularity is on the rise and flash for video encoding is dropping since this time last year. at least according to one company that encodes video for web sites.

05-03-2010, 02:55 AM	#75
Fat Abe Man Who Stares at Books Posts: 1,816 Karma: 10606722 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: 50th State, USA. Also, PA, NY, CA, and elsewhere. Device: All of the Above	More fodder to add to the fire: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/...s-flash-dying/ Flash and h.264 are not incompatible, nor exclusive to one another. The Fortune blog is not too deep, but the followup posts are very enlightening. Here is the commentary of one reader (CM Owen, Monroeville, Alabama): Seems a lot of folks don't know the difference between the technologies. FLV (Flash video) is a container. It can (and usually does these days) H.264. Embedded Flash is then used to play the FLV (because we need some way to embed it in a web site). Contrary to what most people think, HTML5 is not a standard. It is still in development and at this point there is no agreed upon CODEC for video embedding. In fact, Ian Hickson has stated it probably won't have a final draft until 2022 and wide-spread "early" adoption will happen around 2014. HTML5 is not a video format in itself. It is what a handful of companies (Apple, Mozilla, and Opera) have been putting together to replace the currently aged XHTML schema from W3C. It was kind of "forced" onto the W3C as they have slack in further development of web standards. I haven't followed the standards committee work on HTML5, and cannot vouch for the 2022 final draft or approval(?) date cited above. Neither HTML5 or mobile Flash are a slam dunk yet. I'll sit on the sidelines until both formats are out in the field and ready to be tested by end users. Apple can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? P.S.: Tadw, you beat me to the punch.

Advert

Advert