Technology iPhone OS 4 event April 8th

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Casey, I'm not 10 years old. I don't get a rise out of cartoons.
I also look at facts before I call something that doesn't suit my needs "horseshit". You hold more importance to that photo than anyone else here.

Charismatic marketing methods? Hardly. The guy brainwashes fanboys like you. and "Don't be evil" is more than just a catchphrase, Google employees live by it, fact.
LOL Did you hear that Apple employees gave Jobs a round of applause when he called it a bullshit? Do you remember the time when you told everyone that "there was no pressure to make money" at Google?

Flash and AIR are great platforms. I use them regularly and have done for years. I have at least one application that I run 24/7 that is built on the AIR platform (Seesmic Desktop). Why WOULDN'T I support Adobe bringing their products to Android? For the record - Adobe first demonstrated Flash running on Android OVER A YEAR AGO - in case you are too stupid to figure out what that means, it means development of Flash for Android pre-dated this entire Apple/Adobe beef.
Well, you posted the Apple/Flash thing in here with "Apple latest fuck up" - like you always do without thinking things through. Does EVO 4G have plastic keys?

you're an idiot.
There you go again with your childish ways. An idiot is someone that calls smart people stupid. [see below]

Who had the world's first integrated application download catalog built into the phone where you could purchase apps, games, and ringtones and have them billed directly on your phone bill, FIVE YEARS before the iPhone came out, which Apple them shamelessly ripped off the idea from, as well as trying to hire as many of the UI engineers as they could?
That's as bad as me saying the HTC UI is a rip off of iPhone. You are chasing your tail again Casey.

Who? Who? Oh yeah - the Hiptop/Sidekick - designed by ANDY RUBIN. Hard keys are still a must-have feature for me, my G1 has a QWERTY keyboard as well as the touchscreen. Evidently most people agree which is why the Motorola Droid has been the biggest selling Android device to date, and Verizon have been very successful with their ad campaign for it that has been shitting on iPhone left and right.
Does the EVO 4G, "the pinnacle of mobile phone excellence" come with plastic keys?

I'll throw down any of amount of money to tell you that Flash and AIR will still be relevant in a year. Five years, maybe not, unless there's lots of advances made on it. But it's not going anywhere in the NEAR future, and the only ones too stupid to see that are Apple.
People are, SMART people are trying to push it and there you are once again calling these SMART people stupid - which makes you the stupid one.

Time and time again, you clowned on Apple's 'envelope pushing' and a few years later when Google does it, you eat the shit up like it's the greatest thing in the world. And your punchline is always 'fail' when it's never a fail.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
recent introduction of the new Apple iPad has stirred the discussion over the future of web content and application runtime formats, and shone light onto the political and business battles emerging between Apple, Adobe and Google. These discussion are often highly polarized and irrational. My hope in this post is to help provide some balance and clarity onto this discussion.
……

A Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Developers (and Audiences!)

I think it’s critical to first frame and understand this discussion with the broader political economy of Internet software platforms. Most of the debate and discussion over HTML5 vs. Flash vs. Native Apps has little to do with what is the right technical approach, or whether something is open or closed, it has to do with the expressions of power and control that drive the businesses of the Internet’s dominant platform companies — Apple, Adobe, Google and Microsoft.

Each of these companies seeks to create unique runtimes and APIs that provide a strategic wedge that can drive other aspects of their business. At one level this is a battle for the hearts and minds of developers and ISVs, but these developers are merely a means to an end. Gaining broad adoption for their runtime platforms translates into their ability to create massive derivative value through downstream products and services. For Apple, this is hardware and paid media (content and apps) sales. For Google, this is about creating massive reach for their advertising platforms and products. For Adobe, this about creating major new applications businesses based on their platform. For Microsoft, it is about driving unit sales of their core OS and business applications.

Web Apps and Content

I’m often asked “Will HTML5 replace Flash?” on the Web. The quick answer is no. However, there is a lot of nuance here and it’s helpful to make the distinction between two broad classes of content applications that are deployed in browsers.

First, there are what I would call Web Productivity Apps. These kinds of applications require responsive, cross-platform, desktop like and highly interactive experiences. They often require seamless integration with existing web content and data. For several years, the Flash Platform was the best platform for creating these types of applications (per above). However, in the past several years, HTML+JavaScript (Ajax) and now HTML5 have created a highly compelling framework to build these applications, and for a large number of web productivity apps, the HTML5 approach will become the preferred model. The best examples are Google Apps, Salesforce.com, and even Microsoft’s forthcoming Office Online. There are also a class of Web Productivity Apps where Flash is the preferred runtime, especially those that involve working with and manipulating media such as images, audio and video. We, like many companies, are pragmatic and use both Flash and HTML as the technology needs require. Other examples of this include rich data visualization applications, where Flash has gained prominence inside of enterprises because of its rich data and visualization features.

The second broad class of applications are what I would call Rich Media Apps. These kinds of applications include largely consumer-facing, audience and media centric experiences. In particular, this includes online video, rich media advertising and marketing, and online games (casual games). All of these kinds of applications are highly focused on having a great and immersive experience that just works, and the creators of these apps are very focused on audience reach — anything that impedes 100% consumer acceptance is a significant concern. Here, Flash is dominant. The unique runtime characteristics of Flash, combined with its incredible reach, has led these types of apps to become highly dependent on Flash, and massive amounts of the broadband economy are dependent on it. It seems unlikely that HTML5 would be at all positioned to replace Flash for these categories, though it is clearly worth watching how consistent rich media runtimes find their way into the HTML5+ standard. Right now, it is a non starter.

The Handheld Disruption

Much of the above classes of content applications are in reference to the PC/Browser-based Web. The explosive growth in hand-held computing has introduced an entirely new dynamic into the content and app run-time battles which in turn will have a cascading impact on the PC Web. Hand-held computing includes smartphones (iPhone, Android, Nokia, et. al), portable music/entertainment devices and tablet computing devices (iPad and Android devices).

In many respects, the successful launch and growth of these devices has created an entirely new and largely blank canvas for content and applications. First, these devices offer new native services and OS-specific features (location, multi-touch UI, local media, wireless networking APIs, cameras, offline) that are giving birth to a massive new class of non-Web Apps that are built using proprietary native-code APIs and runtimes. Because of always-on broadband connectivity and easy to discovery App Stores, there has been rapid adoption of these new “disposable content apps”.

Hand-held platforms create a new opportunity for platform vendors to disrupt runtime hegemony from platforms that have seen ascendance on the PC/Web, and controlling these new run-times and developer adoption of these runtimes has a direct impact on these platform vendors ability to own audience relationships and monetization opportunities. For example, a web-centric, HTML5-centric handheld world favors Google because it can leverage it’s existing dominance in search and web advertising. A proprietary App-centric universe favors Apple because it can become the primary gatekeeper to reaching the mobile audience and already has a pole position in integrating payments and advertising into content applications.

In the case of hand-held platforms, however, it seems quite apparent that it is not a zero-sum game. Three runtime platforms will gain adoption and often even inter-mingle — HTML5 content and apps, Native Apps (that may contain Flash and HTML content), and HTML5 apps that contain and leverage Flash Player. There is a rich pallet of capabilities emerging, and each developer will need to consider what will be appropriate for their specific audience or application. It is also clear that the adoption of these diverse run-time platforms has the real potential to reconstitute fundamental relationships to audiences and monetization systems.

Video as a Cornerstone Issue

I’m also often asked “Will HTML5 Video replace Flash Video?”. Posited as a winner-take-all, absolute, the answer is clearly no. But like the nuance of HTML5 vs. Flash on the Web, there is also a very nuanced and complex evolving landscape in the video format world.

On the PC/Web, video has gained enormous momentum as a fundamental media type for all content on the Web. This has largely been driven by the adoption of Flash Video, which has approximately 75% market-share for online video. For most web and content app developers, this is fine, it is a great run-time and offers an excellent user experience and Adobe has done a very good job keeping the platform contemporary with the most demanding needs of video delivery and quality.

It is the rapid emergence of hand-held devices, however, that is bringing this issue to the forefront. With massive growth in hand-held web browsing from smartphones, iTouch devices and the pending iPad product, this has raised a deeper issue for media publishers who are eager to have their content be accessible to end-users. In particular, it is the show-down between Apple, Google and Adobe over who can control video formats on these devices that is creating challenges. Again, this is not about “what is the right technical solution”, it is about the political economy of who controls the formats that in turn lead to owning downstream audience and monetization opportunities.

The basic idea behind HTML5 video is that there would be a common video format that could be placed and rendered into any compatible web browser, conceptually replacing the need for the Flash run-time to render video in browsers. But there are enormous challenges with this, some political, some technical and some based on audience behavior.

First, right now, there is a lack of common approach among browser makers on what format to use for the HTML video object. This lack of agreement represents a proxy for broader political battles. Apple promotes MPEG-4/H.264, which it uses for it’s device platforms. Microsoft promotes VC-1, it’s own standard video codec. Google has yet to fully weigh-in on what format to support, which leads me to speculate that they will soon introduce a new format, based on On2 VP8, but under a broad open source license to the format and technology. Firefox, with 24% share of the browser market, proposes to use the open source Ogg Vorbis codec. What few people realize is that while H.264 appears to be an open and free standard, in actuality it is not. It is a standard provided by the MPEG-LA consortsia, and is governed by commercial and IP restrictions, which will in 2014 impose a royalty and license requirement on all users of the technology. How can the open Web adopt a format that has such restrictions? It can’t. Google will make an end-run on this by launching an open format with an open source license for the technology, which according to industry experts delivers almost all of the same technical benefits as H.264. All of this is a long way of saying that there is still significant format tension and that it will take a long time for it to be resolved in next-gen browsers.

Second, but related, is the raw reality of browser adoption and churn cycles, and the fact that online video publishers will only adopt standards that have extremely broad adoption. Until penetration rates consistently reach 80%, it will be hard for publishers to switch and adopt a single, new solution. It is more likely that HTML5 Video adoption will reach that critical mass on hand-held devices before it does on the PC/Web.

Third, and equally important, is the more practical issue of the massive industry-wide ecosystem support for Flash Video. From advertising formats, to business logic for the interaction of video with ads and analytics, hundreds of 3rd party technology companies who have built solutions around online video that are built on Flash, not to mention high quality design and authoring tools that sit at the center of a large labor market for Flash design and development; all of this creates inertia for Flash and a relatively high industry-wide switching cost.

But stepping back and looking at this specifically in the context of hand-held computing, where Apple is politically motivated to block the Flash runtime, it is apparent video publishers will be driven to build and operate solutions that leverage HTML5 Video on mobile and iPad browsing environments.

It’s All About Reach

Whether on the supply side of content and applications, or on the distribution and run-time side of the equation, what is abundantly clear is that reach is still king. For platform makers, these battles will continue as they all seek to drive sufficient reach for their open and proprietary standards such that they can exploit this distribution for their core commercial goals. Likewise, and more important, whatever standards and models deliver the broadest reach will ultimately drive what is adopted by publishers, developers and ISVs.

While it is easy to take a binary position in the future of content applications and run-times, it is evident that the competing interests of platform vendors, consumers and app and content publishers will ensure that this remains a fragmented and competitive environment for many years to come.

Read more: The Future of Web Content – HTML5, Flash & Mobile Apps
 

Casey

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Casey, I'm not 10 years old. I don't get a rise out of cartoons.
I also look at facts before I call something that doesn't suit my needs "horseshit". You hold more importance to that photo than anyone else here.
Sure. Fact. We all know how important "facts" are to Apple fanboys. Conveniently ignore them when you feel like it.


LOL Did you hear that Apple employees gave Jobs a round of applause when he called it a bullshit? Do you remember the time when you told everyone that "there was no pressure to make money" at Google?
Obviously they would do that - they are Apple employees who all waste their time bearing a grudge against Google - Google employees are too busy progressing to waste time on vendettas.

I do remember that, and I stand by the statement. That pressure isn't there, resulting in a more progressive and pleasant work environment.

Well, you posted the Apple/Flash thing in here with "Apple latest fuck up" - like you always do without thinking things through. Does EVO 4G have plastic keys?
I think everything through. Unfortunately, you are too small too see the big picture of what's really going on here. The EVO is touchscreen only, but with Google's excellent innovative, visionary, voice-to-text input on any text field (something I'm sure Apple are desperately trying to rip off right now).

There you go again with your childish ways. An idiot is someone that calls smart people stupid. [see below]
Rather than just insinuating it, as you do. Pot, kettle, black?

That's as bad as me saying the HTC UI is a rip off of iPhone. You are chasing your tail again Casey.
The HTC UI is basically exactly the same as the stock Android UI with a few added HTC widgets. You clearly do not know of what you speak, as usual.

People are, SMART people are trying to push it and there you are once again calling these SMART people stupid - which makes you the stupid one.

Time and time again, you clowned on Apple's 'envelope pushing' and a few years later when Google does it, you eat the shit up like it's the greatest thing in the world. And your punchline is always 'fail' when it's never a fail.
When it comes to Apple, it's almost always a fail.

When you read up and understand why Apple lost the personal computer war to Microsoft because of stubborn attitudes and closed, proprietary software (hint, as Rubin said "it's a numbers game) - then maybe you'll see how history is repeating itself. I actually have a bet going on right now with a friend of mine who happens to be one of the most well known hackers on the planet (I wonder if you're familiar with Cult of the Dead Cow).....and he's a very smart guy who's supporting Apple in this battle.

But I'm confident that both you and he will have to concede, 12 months from now, when Android is the dominating mobile OS by a country mile. Let's just see how it goes, eh? ;)
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Apple don't have the ability to push standards "other than Flash".

HTML5 will replace Flash, but not for at least 18 months, and when it does, it'll be because of Google - when they decide to make YouTube fully HTML5 (they're demo-ing at the moment).

Right now, Flash is necessary, especially for a larger screen device. You can get away with not having it on a smartphone but that's it.

yup proves my points on Flash.
"Simple answer yes"

but

"very nuanced and complex evolving landscape"

The basic idea behind HTML5 video is that there would be a common video format that could be placed and rendered into any compatible web browser, conceptually replacing the need for the Flash run-time

Google has yet to fully weigh-in on what format to support, which leads me to speculate that they will soon introduce a new format, based on On2 VP8, but under a broad open source license to the format and technology.
This sounds to me like while Google is aligning with Adobe for mass appeal, they are at the same time looking to replace it. Do you understand where I am coming from? Care to correct me? Remember "don't be evil".

This part

The explosive growth in hand-held computing has introduced an entirely new dynamic into the content and app run-time battles which in turn will have a cascading impact on the PC Web
This part

the fact that online video publishers will only adopt standards that have extremely broad adoption.
So, yes - Flash does have 75 some percent of the market right now.

Another statistic is that the ABC app was downloaded on to nearly 50% of iPads, which last time I checked sold about a million units and that generated several million ad impressions for ABC all without Flash. iPhone OS adoption is broad based on the statistics posted in this thread (although it's horseshit according to Casey) - I'm still a little confused on what Google is trying to do - my guess is that Google will adopt something other than Flash when major publishers, due to Apple's broad appeal, goes the way of HTML5. I am not saying Flash will be gone - I'm saying that the average users, the real money generators, will be using something else.


Now, we must wait for Casey to proclaim "iPad fail, Apple stupid!"
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
This sounds to me like while Google is aligning with Adobe for mass appeal, they are at the same time looking to replace it. Do you understand where I am coming from? Care to correct me? Remember "don't be evil".
It's not like it happened overnight. Flash for Android is nothing new.

That part about html5 replacing the need for a flash plug-in to watch embedded videos is true. However right now it works slower than in Flash (Check youtube for example and switch to html5 mode).
It's not the core strength of flash though. Nothing is going to replace flash animations and web apps in the nearest future.

Another statistic is that the ABC app was downloaded on to nearly 50% of iPads, which last time I checked sold about a million units and that generated several million ad impressions for ABC all without Flash. iPhone OS adoption is broad based on the statistics posted in this thread (although it's horseshit according to Casey) - I'm still a little confused on what Google is trying to do - my guess is that Google will adopt something other than Flash when major publishers, due to Apple's broad appeal, goes the way of HTML5. I am not saying Flash will be gone - I'm saying that the average users, the real money generators, will be using something else.
That many users bought that app because otherwise they couldn't fully use that site. They had no choice if they wanted to see its content. That's an outcome of limiting users.
Average users still like to browse sites and see full content instead of having to rely on apps (and hope that there is one for their favorite sites).
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
^ well, I guess the hard work of engineers who are trying to improve the functions of HTML5 is completely worthless then? No.

So, I guess adopting other methods, which both Google and more so with Apple are doing is stupid because it's going to take a long time? No.

You are completely wrong about the ABC app - it's free, it's supported by advertisements. Users made the decision to download it. It offered a better user experience because the app was tailored to the platform. I find it to be opposite of limiting. Trust me, the app loads faster than the website.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
^ well, I guess the hard work of engineers who are trying to improve the functions of HTML5 is completely worthless then? No.

So, I guess adopting other methods, which both Google and more so with Apple are doing is stupid because it's going to take a long time? No.
No, I didn't mean any of these. HTML5 is just a new html with new and interesting features. It's just that there are just one or two things it can do that flash player does and flash still does it faster. If html5 will do it faster then it's all good. Good for them and good for me too.

Apple can do nothing to replace flash. Since unfortunately they have a huge user base for mobile devices they can try to force the world to use worse alternatives to flash (like direct downloading of files instead of seeing them embedded streaming on a website). It's definitely not good nor convenient at all.

You are completely wrong about the ABC app - it's free, it's supported by advertisements. Users made the decision to download it. It offered a better user experience because the app was tailored to the platform. I find it to be opposite of limiting. Trust me, the app loads faster than the website.
yes that's a positive side to apps. The point is still valid - people downloaded that app mostly because they couldn't otherwise easily browse that site.
Also, it would be annoying to have to download a new app for each website I want to visit. Not to mention that only the biggest websites have their apps (and not all of them). Others are crippled without Flash and that's it.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Since unfortunately they have a huge user base for mobile devices they can try to force the world to use worse alternatives to flash (like direct downloading of files instead of seeing them embedded on a website). It's definitely not good nor convenient at all.
I don't understand that part. I don't see any direct downloading going on.
Flash or not, video still require data transmission.
Apps? I want to download them.

The use of the word "force" has once again left a funny taste in my mouth.
Didn't we go through the whole thing about Google trying to replace Flash video?
Oh, but Apple is North Korea and Google is Open Wonderland according to Andy Rubin. heh

I know, masta, I know you love flash as much as I love Apple.
We are both stubborn :)

people downloaded that app mostly because they couldn't otherwise easily browse that site.
Also, it would be annoying to have to download a new app for each website I want to visit. Not to mention that only the biggest websites have their apps (and not all of them).
I'll show you this again

iPad ready sites - notice ABC is there
Apple - iPad-ready websites
Browsing is very very easy

Instruction on coding your site
Technical Note TN2262: Preparing Your Web Content for iPad
It doesn't require an expensive software to do it

Like you say, HTML5 is not as fast but it's probably faster on a Mac lol.
Here are some links for you, sent by Mr. Gruber

HTML5 app
CanvasMol

HTML5 games (yeah, no better than the shitty Flash games)
Akihabara

I'm wrong all the time too, it's no big deal ;)
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Flash games still allow waaay more than html5 games.
I don't understand that part. I don't see any direct downloading going on.
I can't find it right now but I already saw a site with youtube-like streaming videos that had "have ipod/ipad? Download directly to your phone". It's the best you can do with you Iphone/Ipad but is still inconvenient.

I agree that it would be nice to replace Flash video.

And no, I'm not a Flash fanboy. I just really appreciate things done in Flash. It's a great, powerful tool. You can't compare html5's basic multimedia functionality to the functionality of flash.
Not that I'm a big fan of current flash players though but still I appreciate them and understand that they are very useful.

"Ipad/Iphone friendly" usually just means simplified and castrated from any flash content Flash.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
I can't find it right now but I already saw a site with youtube-like streaming videos that had "have ipod/ipad? Download directly to your phone". It's the best you can do with you Iphone/Ipad but is still inconvenient.
iPhone OS doesn't allow direct downloads like that... it's one of the 'disadvantages' people write about. You either get h264 streaming or blue flash block. Even if it did, it's no different than the..... load.... times..... i... ge.....t....on.....You....T....ube.

"Ipad/Iphone friendly" usually just means simplified and castrated from any flash content Flash.
meh I'm like a broken record - yes, it's a powerful too but everything Flash can do as far as content delivery, they use can do it with Objective C and whatever other language they might use to creat app for the iPhone. Or I guess in this case we're talking about website using HTML5, CSS and Java. Go to an Apple store again and visit those sites - they are not limited at all. There's is no way to get around that fact.
 

Flipmo

VIP Member
Staff member
This isn't Apple or Google talk, but chances are if I opened a thread that isn't revolved around one or the other, it would fade away. lol.

So...

HP bought Palm for $1.2 billion. I thought Nokia was gonna swoop in and buy them actually. It seemed like Nokia had an interest...
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Dear Leader has spoken.

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

Thank you, dear leader.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Adobe's CEO: Jobs' Flash letter is a 'smokescreen' for 'cumbersome' restrictions -- Engadget

There's no official transcript yet, but the Wall Street Journal just live-blogged an interview with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen, in which he responded to the Steve Jobs "Thoughts on Flash" letter posted this morning. Substantively, Narayen didn't offer much we haven't heard Adobe say before, but his frustration with Apple is palpable even in summary form: he called Jobs' points a "smokescreen," said Flash is an "open specification," and further said Apple's restrictions are "cumbersome" to developers and have "nothing to do with technology." What's more, he also said Jobs' claims about Flash affecting battery life are "patently false," and suggested that any Flash-related crashes on OS X have more to do with Apple's operating system than Adobe's software.

Perhaps most importantly, Narayen reiterated that Adobe is fundamentally about making it easier for devs to write multiplatform tools -- a stance Jobs specifically took issue with in his letter, saying multiplatform tools lead to bad user experiences. Apple and Adobe and the rest of us can argue about battery life and performance all night, but that's clearly the central philosophical difference between these two companies, and we doubt it's ever going to change. That is, unless Adobe absolutely kills it with Flash 10.1 on Android 2.2 -- and given our experiences with Flash on smartphones and netbooks thus far, we'll be honest when we say that's going to be a major challenge. We'll link over to the full transcript when it goes up, but for now, hit the source link for the liveblog.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I guess developers will have to stick with the the FREE Xcode to write apps for iPhone OS. Sucks to be them. No more paying hundreds of dollars for Adobe compiler. Shame on you Apple!


HP may also be abandoning Intel-based hardware for it’s slate lineup simply because it’s too power hungry. That would also rule out Windows 7 as an operating system.
Read more: Hewlett-Packard To Kill Windows 7 Tablet Project

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Using WebOS and HTML5 sounds like a good route, good job HP

The silicon valley tectonic plates are releasing tension - prepare for earth shattering eruptions that will forever change the industry landscape.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
Moving Forward
POSTED BY KEVIN LYNCH, CTO ON APRIL 29, 2010 5:32 PM

This morning Apple posted some thoughts about Flash on their web site.
The primary issue at hand is that Apple is choosing to block Adobe's
widely used runtimes as well as a variety of technologies from other
providers.
Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and
our technologies. We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work
together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a
terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
However, as we posted last week, given the legal terms Apple has
imposed on developers, we have already decided to shift our focus away
from Apple devices for both Flash Player and AIR. We are working to
bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the
mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP),
Microsoft, Nokia and others.
We look forward to delivering Flash Player 10.1 for Android
smartphones as a public preview at Google I/O in May, and then a
general release in June. From that point on, an ever increasing number
and variety of powerful, Flash-enabled devices will be arriving which
we hope will provide a great landscape of choice.
Blah blah blah

jeez guys, why don't you just say his thoughts were 'horseshit' ??
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I guess developers will have to stick with the the FREE Xcode to write apps for iPhone OS. Sucks to be them. No more paying hundreds of dollars for Adobe compiler. Shame on you Apple!
Well, I agree with most things that guy from Adobe said.

And as a not-yet-pro developer I'd love to rather invest once in Flash which is the nicest environment I've worked with by now with objective c being literally one of the worst. It's an archaic, dead language.
Most people learning it learn it only to develop apps for Apple. Yeah, it does what Jobs wants - no easy porting of their apps to other non-Apple devices.

And it's annoying how something made people think that HTML5 will replace flash. Probably it's "repeat something enough times and people will believe".
Again - it cannot replace it because it's a totally different thing for fucks sake lol
Html5 can do some thing flash PLAYER could do. Which means less things to do for Flash Player.

Flash is a technology for all kinds of awesome animations and games while html5 is a web sripting language.
 

Casey

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Regarding the HP Tablet - when the FIRST announced it, information that leaked to the web suggested they would make two versions - one running Win7 and one running Android.

Of course, it seems they'll go with WebOS now that they've bought Palm, but it's all good. WebOS is a better platform than iPhone OS also, but it still doesn't have the development structure and support Android does.

My money is still on Notion Ink's ADAM tablet as well as the rumored Android tablet that HTC are making.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top