Fight Flash Here!

scottjl · 02-09-2010, 06:16 PM

I see a lot of threads hijacked by Flash arguments. How about we consolidate all the pro/con Flash debates here and leave other threads alone to their original topics.

Sonist · 02-09-2010, 06:33 PM

Well, any thread addressing the general viability/success of the iPad will have to take into account the Flash issue....

I am still hoping, that there will be a surprise when the product is introduced (just like with the camera, since there is a hole in front of the iPad). Perhaps if during testing they figure out the iPad, without Flash, is going to be killed by Android 2.1....

But definitely not holding my breath.

kjk · 02-09-2010, 06:43 PM

I think Apple just isn't interested in a proprietary format they can't control...they don't want to be too beholden to another company's release schedule, fixes, and road map.

I think that is one reason why Microsoft released Silverlight, as well...they want control of their own destiny.

Interesting post by Dave McAllister at Adobe:

http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/...pen_trail.html

Quote:

Flash is open.

No, it's not pure open source. It's not a perfect standard with national bodies arguing over each must, will, or shall.

But in follow the comments from our CTO's posting "Open access to Content and Apps", I noticed that there are comments about Flash not being an "open" technology and questions about why we don't open source the Player, so I thought I'd jump in and provide some details to help clear up some misconceptions and explain how open we are with the Flash Platform.

(Might I also suggest you check out this "Open at Adobe" video on YouTube.)

The main reason we can't release Flash Player as open source is because there is technology in the Player that we don't own, such as the industry standard hi-def video codec, H.264. Adobe pays for that codec so video plays reliably worldwide, across browsers and OS's. So we make it as open as we can - by releasing the specifications.

The Flash file format (SWF) specifications are open and unrestricted, so any company - even Apple - can build their own Flash Player if they want. Also freely available are related specifications for the Flash ecosystem: RTMP, FLV/F4V, AMF, and MCD.

He makes an interesting point-Apple could make their own Flash player. They did it with PDF; in my usage, Apple's Preview is much faster and more reliable than Adobe Acrobat Reader.

dmaul1114 · 02-09-2010, 07:36 PM

Honestly, Flash or anything like it that allows website version of their Apps, games etc. isn't going to be very likely to be supported on the iPhone or iPad web browsers.

The fact is most of the apps that people are buying up are things you can find website versions of (often flash program versions) that you can use or play for free.

By supporting flash, there cutting out sales of some apps with people who just opt for the free web version.

They want people buying the Apps so they can get their cut, not using it for free on the Web with flash, some future Apple version of flash etc.

HansTWN · 02-09-2010, 08:07 PM

They could just allow a third party browser like Skyfire for WM, where everything is done on outside servers. Then you can do absolutely everything. That would be an easy, face saving solution.

Sonist · 02-09-2010, 09:26 PM

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....)

kjk · 02-09-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

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....)

My Flash plugins are already disabled-and have been since Click2Flash was first released

So browsing on the iPad will match my long time experiences on both my desktop and my iPhone...although the little blue lego might be a bit bigger.

scottjl · 02-09-2010, 10:01 PM

hmm. well. i don't hit disney nor pixar. so those sites won't bother me. i also use NoScript with flash and javascript turned off. i enable javascript on a few sites i want it to be on. the rest stay off. it's kinda nice browsing without flashy ads.

@sonist, i see in your last capture that you disabled quicktime. so that screen shot isn't really valid for what you're trying to prove.

Bremen Cole · 02-10-2010, 06:31 AM

I too grow tired of the endless flash ads on major sites.... it's one of the reasons I like my iPhone. I think it would be fine to have flash, as long as there's an option to turn it off.

Sonist · 02-10-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

... I think it would be fine to have flash, as long as there's an option to turn it off.

Look, I understand that there are different people, with different likes and dislikes. As I said, some like typewriters, others swear by vinyl, some wait for ultra-super-hi-def audio.

But, this animosity to what is a good, widely adopted standard, and the rejoicing that the iPad does not support it, all based on "I don't need/hate Flash" is misguided, at least.

I like Flash. Some of the most interesting and imaginative sites are made in Flash. It's a great platform, and right now there is nothing more robust or better out there.

Here is what eWeek has to say on the subject:

"... “Apple’s exclusion of Flash from the iPhone/iPad and Google’s YouTube beta that uses an HTML5 video tag are recent events that have caused investors to raise concern over the future of Flash (which is today’s leading Internet rich media/video container),” Jefferies & Co. analyst Ross MacMillan wrote in a Feb. 10 research note. “We think Flash will remain a leading (but not the only) rich media platform, and, more importantly, this has almost zero bearing on numbers over the next 18 months.”

Furthermore, MacMillan added, “HTML5 in its current specification does not support many of the features that Flash supports, such as audio streaming or games. Finally, we find it hard to believe that Flash will remain off the iPhone indefinitely, especially as it is supported by the competing Android OS.” ..."

scottjl · 02-10-2010, 09:03 PM

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.

Sonist · 02-10-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

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.

I am not sure how the above relates to the last few posts, but.... You know very well what people mean, when they use the term "standard" in this sense. This is an idle chat, not a legal document....

Plus, don't you think this is a little bit Kafkaesque?

Flash has been for years, an is currently on virtually every desktop out there, it is used by a huge number of sites, it will shortly be on all the major mobile platforms, except the iPhone..., but you dismissed it, because it "has not been officially given "standard" status by any organization." ?!!

BTW, scottjl, the reason I included the "QT plugin missing" screen above, was to point to the irony, that Apple requires you to have a different, proprietary plugin, to view their content.

scottjl · 02-10-2010, 10:02 PM

I'm simply trying to make sure your terminology is clear. Working in the IT field and having done work with several standards bodies in my time there is a clear difference between something being accepted as a "standard" and "everyone uses it". Just because "every desktop out there" has Flash installed doesn't mean it's a good thing, as they say "everyone jumps off a bridge, are you going to too?"

As for your QT screenshot, you originally had it posted claiming it was a Flash plugin missing screenshot and changed your message after I pointed out this fact. As for Apple requiring their own proprietary plugin to view content on their site, so what? Adobe's site is full of Flash. Microsoft's site is full of SilverLight. Really no difference. At least Apple makes their own hardware and supplies QuickTime with it. Microsoft supplies Silverlight with Windows (well, they push it hard for you to download it). Speaking of, why isn't anyone crying for SilverLight on the iPad?

Sonist · 02-10-2010, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottjl

I'm simply trying to make sure your terminology is clear. Working in the IT field and having done work with several standards bodies in my time there is a clear difference between something being accepted as a "standard" and "everyone uses it". Just because "every desktop out there" has Flash installed doesn't mean it's a good thing, as they say "everyone jumps off a bridge, are you going to too?"

I appreciate that as an IT professional, you are a stickler for correct terminology. But I was also merely pointing out, that while neither Flash, not HTML5 are currently a "standard," according to your own definition, at least Flash is in a position where "everyone uses it," and HTML5 is not.

Thus, iPad not supporting the "everyone uses it" technology of today, may be at a disadvantage, with those members of the public, who just want to see what "everyone" else can see on the web.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottjl

... As for your QT screenshot, you originally had it posted claiming it was a Flash plugin missing screenshot and changed your message after I pointed out this fact....

Absolutely, unequivocally, not true.... I vehemently protest such aspersions on my character.

(Check the time-stamps for your comment, and for my edit. My unfortunate edit, to bold the key sentence, is precisely 32 minutes before the comment in which you missed my point....)

kjk · 02-10-2010, 10:41 PM

One other interesting aspect to the whole Flash/HTML5/h264/Theora debate going on:

Firefox devs have made a pretty big deal about how HTML5 should use Theora, not h264, because Theora is open source, while .h264 is proprietary.

My question is, why did Firefox do everything they could to ensure Flash, another proprietary format, to become so ubiquitous in the first place, by including it within Firefox, instead of requiring a separate download, to allow it to compete?

02-09-2010, 06:16 PM	#1
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	Fight Flash Here! I see a lot of threads hijacked by Flash arguments. How about we consolidate all the pro/con Flash debates here and leave other threads alone to their original topics.

02-09-2010, 09:26 PM	#6
Sonist Apeist Posts: 2,126 Karma: 381090 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: The sunny part of California Device: Generic virtual reality story-experiential device	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....) Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Sonist; 02-09-2010 at 09:29 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

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

02-09-2010, 06:33 PM	#2
Sonist Apeist Posts: 2,126 Karma: 381090 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: The sunny part of California Device: Generic virtual reality story-experiential device	Well, any thread addressing the general viability/success of the iPad will have to take into account the Flash issue.... I am still hoping, that there will be a surprise when the product is introduced (just like with the camera, since there is a hole in front of the iPad). Perhaps if during testing they figure out the iPad, without Flash, is going to be killed by Android 2.1.... But definitely not holding my breath.

02-09-2010, 07:36 PM	#4
dmaul1114 Wizard Posts: 2,300 Karma: 1121709 Join Date: Feb 2009 Device: Amazon Kindle 1	Honestly, Flash or anything like it that allows website version of their Apps, games etc. isn't going to be very likely to be supported on the iPhone or iPad web browsers. The fact is most of the apps that people are buying up are things you can find website versions of (often flash program versions) that you can use or play for free. By supporting flash, there cutting out sales of some apps with people who just opt for the free web version. They want people buying the Apps so they can get their cut, not using it for free on the Web with flash, some future Apple version of flash etc.

02-09-2010, 08:07 PM	#5
HansTWN Wizard Posts: 4,538 Karma: 264065402 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Taiwan Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD	They could just allow a third party browser like Skyfire for WM, where everything is done on outside servers. Then you can do absolutely everything. That would be an easy, face saving solution.

02-09-2010, 10:01 PM	#8
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	hmm. well. i don't hit disney nor pixar. so those sites won't bother me. i also use NoScript with flash and javascript turned off. i enable javascript on a few sites i want it to be on. the rest stay off. it's kinda nice browsing without flashy ads. @sonist, i see in your last capture that you disabled quicktime. so that screen shot isn't really valid for what you're trying to prove.

02-10-2010, 06:31 AM	#9
Bremen Cole Wizard Posts: 1,115 Karma: 2718 Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Texas Device: iPad	I too grow tired of the endless flash ads on major sites.... it's one of the reasons I like my iPhone. I think it would be fine to have flash, as long as there's an option to turn it off.

02-10-2010, 09:03 PM	#11
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	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.

02-10-2010, 10:02 PM	#13
scottjl Reader of Books Posts: 1,632 Karma: 2697 Join Date: Oct 2009 Device: none	I'm simply trying to make sure your terminology is clear. Working in the IT field and having done work with several standards bodies in my time there is a clear difference between something being accepted as a "standard" and "everyone uses it". Just because "every desktop out there" has Flash installed doesn't mean it's a good thing, as they say "everyone jumps off a bridge, are you going to too?" As for your QT screenshot, you originally had it posted claiming it was a Flash plugin missing screenshot and changed your message after I pointed out this fact. As for Apple requiring their own proprietary plugin to view content on their site, so what? Adobe's site is full of Flash. Microsoft's site is full of SilverLight. Really no difference. At least Apple makes their own hardware and supplies QuickTime with it. Microsoft supplies Silverlight with Windows (well, they push it hard for you to download it). Speaking of, why isn't anyone crying for SilverLight on the iPad?

02-10-2010, 10:41 PM	#15
kjk . Posts: 3,408 Karma: 5647231 Join Date: Oct 2008 Device: never enough	One other interesting aspect to the whole Flash/HTML5/h264/Theora debate going on: Firefox devs have made a pretty big deal about how HTML5 should use Theora, not h264, because Theora is open source, while .h264 is proprietary. My question is, why did Firefox do everything they could to ensure Flash, another proprietary format, to become so ubiquitous in the first place, by including it within Firefox, instead of requiring a separate download, to allow it to compete?

Advert

Advert