Fight Flash Here!

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Given iPad buyers' demographics and iPad sales numbers, I figure many Web sites (especially retailers and those that lean heavily on advertising) will want iPad owners' eyeballs. So it's in their interest to adjust, because it doesn't look like Apple is budging. As more tablets emerge, Apple might have to rethink.

Flash would be nice, but isn't a priority for me. I knew going in that iPad didn't support it.

Brightcove supplies video to many huge websites and they've already announced that they're working to help their clients become compatible with the iPad.

http://www.brightcove.com/en/why-bri.../our-customers has a list of some of their clients.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Brightcove supplies video to many huge websites and they've already announced that they're working to help their clients become compatible with the iPad.

http://www.brightcove.com/en/why-bri.../our-customers has a list of some of their clients.

Glad to hear that, and thanks for the link.

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

They will just never be for the power user. Hell even their PCs aren't with the stupid 1 button mouse etc.!

Oh Lord, not that old chestnut.

1. You have been able to plug in any ol' 2-button USB mouse to Macs for years. Works fine.

2. Both the Mighty Mouse (standard on Macs for the past few years) and the newer Magic Mouse support right-click functionality out of the box - they just don't have a discrete physical right button on the exterior.

3. As a power user, I like Macs because I can easily switch between OS X, Windows and Linux, either virtually or in hardware, as the need arises. There's no other hardware solution where that functionality is nearly as easy to implement.

Sorry, the old 1-button mouse argument sets me off every time.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Flash is not a standard. It's just convenient because so many schools churned out Flash designers instead of web designers with some real skill.

Adobe also has not made a viable version of Flash for the Apple mobile platform and from the lackluster demos of Flash on Android, I'm not holding my breath that they'll ever manage to get decent performance on a mobile device.

Tamara, Flash is currently one of the most widely used technologies on the web, certainly more widely used than HTML5, or H.264, or Apple's QuickTime.

Yes, it is proprietary, but so is H.264, and QuickTime.

Most of the world is using Flash happily, just like most of the world is using Java. And most of the world doesn't even know what these are - people just enjoy the experience the technology provides.

In about a week, we'll see full Flash announced for Android, and in a few more months, for the rest of the major mobile platforms.

Which means, I believe, that in a year we'll see much fewer resource being spent on mobile versions of sites, as the numbers of smart phones and tablets having full browsing capabilities grows (you may have noticed, Android sales just surpassed iPhone's, and this is just the beginning).

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by Trubu

Chrome also autobuffers video like this - does it not autobuffer audio? Maybe they've changed that in more recent builds.

It might default to auto-buffering if the tags don't say anything about it, but Chrome respects the HTML5 tags when they tell it not to auto-buffer. Safari does not.

While this is not an optimal behavior in your case, it doesn't actually disobey the draft spec:

It's just a draft. It's not that I'm accusing them of not satisfying the spec. I didn't say it was "wrongly implemented". I said it was poorly (atrociously?) implemented, and it is, for that kind of device. I fail to see what the point of the property is if the setting you choose makes no difference to how the browser handles it. In any case, my website locked up any iPad I used to try to open it. No website should have the ability to lock up the end-user's computer using nothing but HTML, and it's a poorly constructed browser if it allows it ever to happen. Of course, I wasn't trying to be malicious, but there are those out there that would be.

I can see why you were frustrated, though. FWIW, that behavior can be worked around pretty easily with a JS onclick handler to swap in the tags "on demand."

If you read the post I linked to, you'll see that I tried that. It just led to a different problem.

And just for fun:

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well if you wanna get into the copyright and piracy discussion we an do that to.

I know a bit about that as well and it's not on my resume either.

I'm sure, along with inventing the Internet...

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Yes, it is proprietary, but so is H.264, and QuickTime.

h264 isn't a browser plugin, and it's controlled by a consortium, not a single company.

As for QuickTime ... Well, the company that controls that isn't running around claiming that the future of the open web depends on every other vendor supporting their proprietary tech, or running weird ad campaigns that seem to suggest that they're competing for a gold medal in Passive-Aggressive Downhill Racing at the 2010 Butthurt Olympics.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Brightcove supplies video to many huge websites and they've already announced that they're working to help their clients become compatible with the iPad.

http://www.brightcove.com/en/why-bri.../our-customers has a list of some of their clients.

and what percentage of the entire web/internet market do you think iPads hold?

In other words is it worth the effort? Or is it better to put pressure on the non-compatible manufacturer?

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and what percentage of the entire web/internet market do you think iPads hold?

does it matter?

In other words is it worth the effort? Or is it better to put pressure on the non-compatible manufacturer?

shrug. or *gasp* go buy a device that does what you want it to do?

if you don't like the ipad so much, why do you care what it does or doesn't do?

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by kennyc

In other words is it worth the effort? Or is it better to put pressure on the non-compatible manufacturer?

This is a business decision for those companies, not an ideological stance. They obviously think it's worth the effort or they wouldn't bother.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by scottjl

does it matter?



shrug. or *gasp* go buy a device that does what you want it to do?

if you don't like the ipad so much, why do you care what it does or doesn't do?

Of course it does. It's all about money. If you answer the question? Then you'll see how truly insignificant the market really is and why your ranting (and Job's as well) is misplaced.

Instead of spending his time trying to tell other companies what to do, may he should work on market research and product design and at least add a camera to the iPad and maybe fix it so it doesn't overheat and maybe make it's operating system more open and standards compatible. That would be a much better use of his time.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course it does. It's all about money. If you answer the question? Then you'll see how truly insignificant the market really is and why your ranting (and Job's as well) is misplaced.

Instead of spending his time trying to tell other companies what to do, may he should work on market research and product design and at least add a camera to the iPad and maybe fix it so it doesn't overheat and maybe make it's operating system more open and standards compatible. That would be a much better use of his time.

Depends what you're selling and whose eyeballs you want. Market share might not be a big factor. If you want to reach 1 million relatively affluent consumers, iPad has identified your target.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Trubu

Oh Lord, not that old chestnut.

...

Trubu, the one-button mouse is actually a particularly apt comparison in this case.

In 2003, Jobs insisted that "nobody uses" two buttons, even in Windows, and that users get confused by the two buttons.

In 2007, Jobs insisted that "“Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain.”

In 2008, Jobs claimed that "nobody reads anymore."

In 2010, "Flash Crashes Macs."

And some taking it as gospel....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Trubu

This is a business decision for those companies, not an ideological stance. They obviously think it's worth the effort or they wouldn't bother.

Sure for the company building the ads, they don't care, in fact the more things change the better they like it cause it keeps them in a job, but for the actual advertisers....that's where my question lies.

The question of the thread here though is Flash and it certainly is at the heart of this entire matter and it shouldn't be. It is a defacto standard and Apple should get with the plan and make it available on there devices. From that perspective it matters. I'm just trying to help Steve out. He's alienating a lot ot the possible markets and his customers as well.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Trubu

h264 isn't a browser plugin....

So what? Neither is Flash in the latest Chrome.

It's still proprietary.