Fight Flash Here!

[Jim Lester]

Originally Posted by scottjl

Flash is not a recognized standard and has not been officially given "standard" status by any organization. It is a proprietary language wholly owned by Adobe.

True, but the file format specification has been available for a long time, and there are any number of open source projects for creating and playing Flash, the most famous of which is probably GNASH. Also some of the technology bits behind Flash such as Tamarin has been made open source and is being used by others (such as Mozilla) to do good stuff. And that's not even touching what is going on with the Open Screen Project.

So it's not correct to give the impression that Flash is completely closed either, but then again I'm biased

[scottjl]

No, it isn't completely closed. But if Adobe wanted to lock it up tight they could in an instant, never forget that. Flash is not open-source and the open-source implementations are not officially blessed by Adobe in any way. And no, neither is QuickTime nor SilverLight. Hence the push to HTML5.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Ok, I just turned off plugins in the latest Safari, but left Java and Javascript enabled.

Then I took screengrabs of some popular sites, including Disney and Pixar.

See for yourself what the web is without Flash. In other words, what it will look like on the iPad.

(for good measure, I went to the iPhone's guided tour - which of course needs another plugin to play the content....)

Ok, just for fun, I visited those sites on my iPhone 3GS
This is what they would look like on the iPad. The NY Times is the only one that doesn't work in Mobile Safari, but, considering they demoed at the iPad launch, I'm guessing they will be covered too.

[kjk]

whoops, forgot the Apple one.

To be fair, two of the sites you picked have Steve Jobs as their largest shareholder, so I'd expect them to work somehow

[scottjl]

hmm. i'd say those sites work just fine then. and the ny times did not demo their web site on the ipad but their "newspaper" (which is going to be available by subscription through itunes). i don't think i'd see much point going to the web site if you get their subscription.

[kjk]

Here is something even odder. I wanted to post pics of how I see sites with my Click2Flash plugin in Desktop Safari, alongside what it looks like without.

Then I thought I would post what I see in Mobile Safari, same site. The 3rd image is SI's crap mobile version, that all mobile phones get. The final image is the "go to full site" page that most mobile sites have...notice anything...odd?

[kjk]

Also, those dynamic scores at the top of the SI site? Those used to be Flash at one time-I remember seeing them blanked out. At some point SI moved them to some other format that works on the iPhone.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by scottjl

hmm. i'd say those sites work just fine then....

Nope, they don't.

That is, unless you consider the Cliffs Notes versions to be as good as the real thing.

For instance, the real Disney site is highly interactive site, with features appealing to its target audience. The iPhone version is nowhere near as rich and entertaining. The same goes for Nike and the others.

Here is a screengrab of the real Flish site, next to the non-Flash version:
---

[scottjl]

well you can't expect a mobile browser to deliver exactly the same experience you get on a desktop, come on.

your claim was you'd get a bad experience, and showed desktop views with flash off. ok. so the desktop version of the sites with flash off is a lacking experience. but someone went to show that the developers of those web sites took time and effort to develop mobile versions of the same web sites, so you're seeing exactly what those sites want you to see on a mobile version, and it's still not good enough for you.

no. you won't get a desktop experience on an iPad. you won't get Flash on an iPad. of those are requirements, then the iPad is not the device for you.

[kilron]

one of the basic problems with flash on a mobile platform that doesn't contain a constant physical keyboard and mouse input (i.e. iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, many other smartphones) is the variations in input.

what i mean is that most elaborate flash sites (i.e. flash content that isn't just video or ads) are built from the ground up with the implication of a standard keyboard & mouse interface. most of them have actions that pop up or change by simply mousing over (hovering without clicking) or possibly have direct input via specific keyboard presses (like same flash games, etc.). this is a prime example of how flash simply does not translate to touchscreen devices well in many cases.

as much as i loathe flash, i run a business and the main portion of my main website is encoded entirely in flash. unfortunately, its a necessary evil of the industry of my business (90% use flash for their websites entirely), but needless to say i've felt a growing need over the past 2 years for changing this issue. my last website revision last year added an iPhone/iPod touch specific version, but it will look terrible on an iPad's big screen. the only real solution is HTML5. like i mentioned above, my site looks very nice all in flash on a normal desktop or laptop computer, but using a touchscreen interface, to navigate all of the flash it would be very hard to comfortably do. most users would probably get frustrated and go away which is the exact opposite of what i want a potential client to do and the problem is clearly the entirely flash interface.

HTML5 IS a web standard. just because its not supported by Internet Explorer (not arguably, the worst web browser out there... why do you think ballmer himself has toyed with the idea of completely trashing the microsoft made IE engine to switch to WebKit??), that doesn't mean it can't be a standard. the internet has moved on from IE and shouldn't have to wait for them to catch up. Mozilla (Firefox, Camino, etc.), Google (Chrome), Apple (WebKit: Safari, Android, WebOS, RIM's browser), and Opera... they all "get it". HTML5 is the face of the new internet, with or without flash.

the debate over Ogg Theora vs. h264 can easily be made moot with an excellent HTML5 video player like SublimeVideo by Jilion. though i suspect that eventually firefox will add h.264 support, possibly simply because they don't want to be the odd one out. as it is, h.264 will remain fee-less for free internet video through 2016.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kilron

... flash simply does not translate to touchscreen devices well in many cases..."

Not true.

Either do search, or even easier, read this article from O'Reilly's InsideRIA: Preparing for Multi-touch in Flash - A Primer

Originally Posted by kilron

... HTML5 IS a web standard....

Also not true.

It is a draft. Here is what it says on the HTML5 page, in bold letters:

"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."

[kilron]

seriously, do you work for adobe?

yes, HTML5 is a standard. that bold stuff there doesn't say anything about it not being a standard. it may be still in draft form, but its widely implemented and accepted already. its a done deal. quit trying to discount it with trivialities. and you were the one that had the loose definition of "standard". sounds a little hypocritical to me...

and yes, i've seen many flash interfaces, my own website for one, that don't translate well. no articles are going to change that. if i have to radically change the implementation to support a touch interface, then why even bother with flash?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kilron

seriously, do you work for adobe?

yes, HTML5 is a standard. that bold stuff there doesn't say anything about it not being a standard. it may be still in draft form, but its widely implemented and accepted already...."

HTML5's acceptance is at best half of the acceptance of Flash, and I am being generous. Moreover, HTML5 implementations are currently few and far between, particularly if you ignore (the proprietary) H.264, which is fully supported by Flash nowadays.

Originally Posted by kilron

... and yes, i've seen many flash interfaces, my own website for one, that don't translate well. no articles are going to change that. if i have to radically change the implementation to support a touch interface, then why even bother with flash?

Because Flash, like most other technology, changes. And because you have a tremendous installed base, and because there is a large developer community, and because it is widely supported across platforms.

No, I do not work for Adobe. While I like what Flash provides in terms of user experience, I also think HTML5 is a good thing.

I just don't see it as an zero-sum game, and believe that Flash will be around and it will coexists with HTML5 for the foreseeable future.

I also like the idea of the iPad and since I don't see anything else right now which comes close to it, I am fuming that it doesn't support Flash. (I was just as p***ed at Jobs for the decisions he made for the Apple TV, so I returned mine and now I am still stuck with a HTPC running W7 MCE, which is O.K., but....)

[nikkie]

Flash is slow, crappy, and awful on everything but its original platform. I'm glad it won't be showing up on the iPad!

Seriously though, my experience with it on Linux and my mac(s) were just awful. It was always crashing my browser or using up all of my memory. I doubt it would be much better on the iPad if we had it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by nikkie

Flash is slow, crappy, and awful on everything but its original platform. I'm glad it won't be showing up on the iPad!

Seriously though, my experience with it on Linux and my mac(s) were just awful. It was always crashing my browser or using up all of my memory. I doubt it would be much better on the iPad if we had it.

That really does not match my experiences with it. Too bad we won't get a choice, we could always turn it off.