Fight Flash Here!

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by scottjl

my point is, why should apple care about adobe running flash on their platform any more than apple care about windows applications running on their platform?

They should care because it's clear from media reports, forum post etc. that a sizeable number of people want it supported.

They should care because they want to tout the iPad as the best web browsing experience, but many sites won't display properly due to the lack of Flash and Java etc.

They're by no means required to support it. It's their device and if they don't want to support it that's fine. And people are thus free to wait on something else that supports it.

I just wish competitors would hurry up and get tablets out. And they get their head out of their ass design wise and make something that matches the iPad's form factor, battery life etc. while being more open, more powerful and catering more toward power users and work-related functions rather than just media consumption.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm also interested in companies doing what is right for the consumer. But you're right eventually the consumer will vote with their pocket book and Apple will be history.

That doesn't seem to be happening as far as the iPhone/Touch so far with over 85 million units sold in just under 3 years. If 85 million people were that unhappy over the lack of Flash, they should be ditching the iPhone in droves and that's not happening.

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by scottjl

my point is, why should apple care about adobe running flash on their platform any more than apple care about windows applications running on their platform?

Why should they care about having a web browser on their platform? Why should they care about having an ebook reader on their platform? Obviously, because they want to make a device that their consumers can use to access the content they want to access. If their web browser, for example, only supported. jpgs and not .pngs, people would complain. This is similar.

And we're not talking about them simply "not caring". I'm sure there are all sorts of apps they allow but they don't personally care about; if they're not the ones making the apps. We're talking about them actively trying to kill a certain form of content. Adobe is not asking Apple to make flash for them. They're just asking for the ability to distribute an app that they make. Many of their consumers want to make use of that.

apple != adobe. apple != microsoft. adobe flash is a parasite that runs on many platforms at the whim of that platform's creators.

Such claims just show you to be an ideologue. Flash may not be optimal in all sorts of measures, and certainly there alternatives that may be better in the long run, but to call it a parasite, when the vast majority of flash apps work perfectly well all the time, is just ridiculous.

It's just false to say that it's up to the "whim of the platform creators". Microsoft didn't have to *do* anything to make it the case that flash ran on their platforms. Adobe did. Apple wouldn't have to do anything to allow flash to run on their platform. The only difference in this case is that the iPad is so closed that nothing can be installed without their say-so.

apple chose not to allow flash. adobe can cry foul all they want (or publish "i love advertisements" as they just recently did) but at the end of the day, the iPad is apple's platform to do with as they see fit. it's not mine. it's not yours and it certainly isn't adobe's.

Perhaps I'm confused about what this thread is about. We're not here discussing whose decision it was. We're discussing whose decision it should be, and what the best decision is. And on that score, it should be the consumer's decision, and the best decision is the one each customer makes.

I'm not saying that Apple can't make that decision. I'm saying that they made the wrong one. You points are all completely and utterly irrelevant to that discussion.

It's as if a friend gambled all their money away, and I said that was a bad thing to do, and you responded by saying that it was their money to spend. I wasn't saying it wasn't their money to spend. I'm saying they spent it poorly.

microsoft wrote silverlight, they could pull the plug on flash at any time and you think they haven't considered it? just look at the ie 9 h.264 announcement. that was a light warning shot to adobe, "don't screw with us or we can pull an Apple too."

You seem to be confused about what the issues are. h.264 and flash are not competing technologies. Adobe has nothing against h.264, and I don't think they have anything to fear from IE9 using h.264.

the ipad doesn't meet your needs. don't buy one. buy a device that does meet your needs. encourage and reward the company that does create the product that does meet your needs. sitting around crying that the ipad doesn't meet your needs isn't going to change it to make it so.

I have already discussed ways in which Apple's policies affect me even if I don't own their products. Saying the same thing over and over again in a way that doesn't address these concerns is not furthering the discussion.

You seem to be taking a very odd attitude about this thread. You began this topic so we could discuss Apple's flash policy. But then you complain when people complain. This is a discussion board. It is for discussing. What did you intend the discussion to be like? A bunch of people saying how wonderful Steve Jobs is and how we'd be lost without his infinite wisdom? Where is it more appropriate to complain about the lack of flash support than in a thread on fighting flash?

And complaining about these things IS the way they get changed. It's the reason, for example, that Microsoft's attempts to kill xhtml failed, and even IE9 will support its native mimetype. These were complaints by content providers, not by end users.

Personally, however, Apple's policy wouldn't bother me so much if they had done even a semi-adequate job implementing HTML5. But since the implementation of HTML5 in Safari on the iPad is so poor, we are left with nothing in place of flash. That disappoints me, yes.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Tamara

That doesn't seem to be happening as far as the iPhone/Touch so far with over 85 million units sold in just under 3 years. If 85 million people were that unhappy over the lack of Flash, they should be ditching the iPhone in droves and that's not happening.

I think phones are tablets are very different.

People are doing very lite web browsing on a phone. The screen is too damn small to expect a full internet experience.

People are buying tablets with full internet surfing in mind, so I think Flash is more important there.

I don't expect to be able to do anything on the Web on my phone (not that I'll ever own a smart phoen) that I can on my PC. But I do on whatever tablet I buy as web browsing is a top 3 or 4 use for a tablet for me and it needs to be able to display all the sites and content I regularly view to be worth a purchase for me.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Tamara

That doesn't seem to be happening as far as the iPhone/Touch so far with over 85 million units sold in just under 3 years. If 85 million people were that unhappy over the lack of Flash, they should be ditching the iPhone in droves and that's not happening.

Tamara, I don't think most people ever used their 3.5" iPhones as a main browsing device.

If Flash works well on Android (and all indications are, it does), it will be the main differentiating point between the two platforms.

I believe that under pressure, Apple will bring Flash to the iPad, as soon they figure out how to limit it, so it doesn't break though the wall of the walled garden. Same for Java.

Just like they brought in Apps, GPS, Search, Cut&Paste, video capture, and now the fake multitasking.

BTW, I just want to remind people of what Jobs said three years ago, about Java and Flash on the iPhone. From the NYT:


" ... Markoff: “And what are you thinking about Flash and Java?”

Jobs: “Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain.”

Markoff: “Flash?”

Jobs: “Well, you might see that.”

Funny, three years later, the Open Letter is all about being open (as long as it doesn't apply to Apple, of course).

[John F]

Originally Posted by scottjl

lol. I ask a simple question and it's trolling? I'll let the evidence speak for itself..

Compare your karma to post ratio vs kenny's.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Why should they care about having a web browser on their platform? Why should they care about having an ebook reader on their platform? Obviously, because they want to make a device that their consumers can use to access the content they want to access. If their web browser, for example, only supported. jpgs and not .pngs, people would complain. This is similar.

apple makes a device that consumers can use to access content, yes. but again, apple makes the device, and apple dictates the content you can and cannot access, regardless of type, jpg, png, avi, and flash.

And we're not talking about them simply "not caring". I'm sure there are all sorts of apps they allow but they don't personally care about; if they're not the ones making the apps. We're talking about them actively trying to kill a certain form of content. Adobe is not asking Apple to make flash for them. They're just asking for the ability to distribute an app that they make. Many of their consumers want to make use of that.

i'd hardly say apple is trying to kill adobe. apple simply chooses not to support it and not to allow it and they have their technical (battery life, performance) and business (app competition, video competition) reasons for doing so. just because flash isn't on the iDevice platform doesn't mean it's going to go away tomorrow.

Such claims just show you to be an ideologue. Flash may not be optimal in all sorts of measures, and certainly there alternatives that may be better in the long run, but to call it a parasite, when the vast majority of flash apps work perfectly well all the time, is just ridiculous.

you're mixing flash applications with flash itself. there are plenty of fine flash applications out there, and plenty of junk. you may not like my choice in terms, but flash is wholly dependant on the operating system and browser for its existence and use. flash is not an operating system, it's not even a browser, and it is very easy to write a browser that doesn't support flash. just look at mobile safari.

It's just false to say that it's up to the "whim of the platform creators". Microsoft didn't have to *do* anything to make it the case that flash ran on their platforms. Adobe did. Apple wouldn't have to do anything to allow flash to run on their platform. The only difference in this case is that the iPad is so closed that nothing can be installed without their say-so.

that is a naive statement. apple would have to allow api's into the OS and mobile safari for flash to be able to run on the iDevice platform, and apple would have to continue to support those api's to allow flash to continue to run. just look at hardware accelleration on desktop macs, adobe only recently got the api's from apple to allow that. flash doesn't run as a separate application you can download from the app store, flash needs to hook into the browser to catch a mime type, then hook into the OS to render its content correctly, to catch responses from the user if needed, to store its "super cookies". there's a lot more to flash than just displaying a hulu video.

Perhaps I'm confused about what this thread is about. We're not here discussing whose decision it was. We're discussing whose decision it should be, and what the best decision is. And on that score, it should be the consumer's decision, and the best decision is the one each customer makes.

actually i initally created this thread so some people would stop hijacking other threads with complaints that the ipad didn't support flash. didn't work.

I'm not saying that Apple can't make that decision. I'm saying that they made the wrong one. You points are all completely and utterly irrelevant to that discussion.

this is where your argument fails. who are you to say that apple made the wrong decision? unless you're steve jobs in disguise of course. and to discard my points as "completely and utterly irrelevant" writes you off as close minded and unable to accept someone else's opinion, the same things you accuse me of.

It's as if a friend gambled all their money away, and I said that was a bad thing to do, and you responded by saying that it was their money to spend. I wasn't saying it wasn't their money to spend. I'm saying they spent it poorly.

you sure like to be bossy to your friends. who are you to make the judgement that they spent their money poorly or wisely? it isn't your money. there's a famous quote about judge not.. or another about walking a mile..

You seem to be confused about what the issues are. h.264 and flash are not competing technologies. Adobe has nothing against h.264, and I don't think they have anything to fear from IE9 using h.264.

i think you missed the point of microsoft's announcement. they are supporting h.264 as a video delivery system and not flash. the two are competing when it comes to a delivery system. yes, flash can continue to be used for other types of content, and even for video content, but it won't be natively supported in IE. and as i said, it's just a warning shot, microsoft has silverlight waiting in the wings. microsoft could easily block flash from running on the windows platform and push developers to use silverlight instead. adobe exists not only at apple's whim but microsoft's as well and could be shut out of either platform with a simple update.

I have already discussed ways in which Apple's policies affect me even if I don't own their products. Saying the same thing over and over again in a way that doesn't address these concerns is not furthering the discussion.

i must have missed that posting. sorry. saying the same complaints over and over again doesn't bring flash to the ipad either.

You seem to be taking a very odd attitude about this thread. You began this topic so we could discuss Apple's flash policy. But then you complain when people complain. This is a discussion board. It is for discussing. What did you intend the discussion to be like? A bunch of people saying how wonderful Steve Jobs is and how we'd be lost without his infinite wisdom? Where is it more appropriate to complain about the lack of flash support than in a thread on fighting flash?

no, i would have started a "worship steve jobs" thread, but personally i don't like the man, so you won't find me there. i find it funny that if you like apple's products people resort to calling you a "cult member" or say that you "worship steve jobs" instead of actually engaging in discussion on the topics at hand. if people want to accusing me of being in a cult then they have more than apple's to sign me up for, i use and like many products by HP, Sony, Segate, Western Digital, Microsoft, Dell, Canon, Nikon, Motorola, hell I even have a Chumby. That sure is a lot of cults. if spending money on technology counts as tithe then i'm going to heaven for sure!

And complaining about these things IS the way they get changed. It's the reason, for example, that Microsoft's attempts to kill xhtml failed, and even IE9 will support its native mimetype. These were complaints by content providers, not by end users.

right, but if you expect change, then you ought to be complaining in the appropriate forum. i find it highly unlikely that jobs visits mobileread.

Personally, however, Apple's policy wouldn't bother me so much if they had done even a semi-adequate job implementing HTML5. But since the implementation of HTML5 in Safari on the iPad is so poor, we are left with nothing in place of flash. That disappoints me, yes.

as a few people like to point out, html 5 isn't yet a set-in-stone standard, so guess we'll just have to wait and see what support updates bring us in the future. what browsers do support it 100% at this point?

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Just like they brought in Apps, GPS, Search, Cut&Paste, video capture, and now the fake multitasking.

fake? how so? lol.

you might want to take a look at a comparison between platforms. Apple's implementation is certainly better than Microsoft's and Palm's. Android? Google had to limit what applications could do in the background because multitasking was chewing through battery life.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by John F

Compare your karma to post ratio vs kenny's.

yeah, i don't get much into epeen comparisons. i measure a man on the weight of what he says and how he can back it up. kenny makes a lot of statements, but offers little/no supporting evidence when asked for it.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by scottjl

fake? how so? lol.

you might want to take a look at a comparison between platforms. Apple's implementation is certainly better than Microsoft's and Palm's. Android? Google had to limit what applications could do in the background because multitasking was chewing through battery life.

I do have a question about the OS 4 multi tasking.

Is it true multi-tasking in that one could be reading or whatever and also have an instant messenger program running and some indicator of when a new message came through etc.?

The videos I saw just showed ways to switch between apps--which is ok, but not a big improvement since it's already easy to switch between apps. Maybe a bigger deal if it saves progress in things like games where you currently are usually reset if you exit out to do something else.

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Personally, however, Apple's policy wouldn't bother me so much if they had done even a semi-adequate job implementing HTML5. But since the implementation of HTML5 in Safari on the iPad is so poor, we are left with nothing in place of flash. That disappoints me, yes.

I'm curious as to what you find so poor about the iPhone/iPad's HTML 5 support. It does't support everything the desktop Safari does (yet), but it's certainly used to good effect on a number of Google's services sites, MLB, etc. What are you trying to do that it doesn't support?

[kennyc]

Oh, wait, I thought the title was

"Fight for Flash Here"

Dang! I'm so confused....

[rock]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh, wait, I thought the title was

"Fight for Flash Here"

Dang! I'm so confused....

No it should have been "Everyone must succumb to my opinion, or they are a troll. Also I will say other people have no knowledge of IT when I don't present any knowledge of IT myself."


Still amazed with the warnings he has gotten he hasn't been banned, and still does the same stuff.

I know I am on ignore, because I guess I put up too many points he couldn't counter without going to personal attacks, because I think he believe joining a network is just putting in an IP address.

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I do have a question about the OS 4 multi tasking.

Is it true multi-tasking in that one could be reading or whatever and also have an instant messenger program running and some indicator of when a new message came through etc.?

You can do that now with push notifications. IM isn't one of the background services that will be offered in 4.0.

The videos I saw just showed ways to switch between apps--which is ok, but not a big improvement since it's already easy to switch between apps. Maybe a bigger deal if it saves progress in things like games where you currently are usually reset if you exit out to do something else.

There are several different components to the multitasking - one is the background services I mentioned, that will allow things like GPS, audio streams, and downloads to continue running in the background while you're in another app. Another is the fast app switching, and the ability for the OS to save apps in their current state.

You can do this now by having a listener in your app that can respond to "your application is going to be terminated" notices from the OS (so you can save important information and put the user back where they were when they reopen the app), but devs won't have to do anything special in 4.0 to implement it anymore; that capability will be baked into the OS.

[dmaul1114]

So in short, IM won't work like it does on a PC or mac where you can have multiple conversations going while doing a bunch of other stuff?

That, and audio streams like Pandora (which will work in background) are about all the multitasking I care about on a tablet.