# Adobe fights back... finds ally in Google



## screature (May 14, 2007)

This is a thread that could be in both the iPhone and iPad section but I think rightfully because of its scope belongs in this thread...

Adobe scraps work to bring Flash apps to iPhone



> What a difference two weeks and a few words of legalese can make to the future of a widely used programming technology.
> 
> In that span of time, Adobe Systems has gone from touting its technology for building Flash applications that run on the iPhone to canceling future development of that technology.
> 
> When Apple changed the terms of its iPhone 4.0 software developer kit license, it effectively blocked Adobe's move. But in his Tuesday announcement that Adobe will cease future development of the Flash-apps-on-iPhone technology, Mike Chambers, Adobe's principal product manager for the Flash platform, let loose a tirade that indicates the battle between the two companies isn't over yet.





> Adobe takes the matter seriously. It disclosed in a regulatory filing that its business could be harmed if the iPhone and iPad don't support Adobe technology. And Adobe could be considering legal action against Apple, too, according to one report.





> "Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," said spokeswoman Trudy Muller in a statement.





> "Fortunately, the iPhone isn't the only game in town. Android based phones have been doing well behind the success of the Motorola Droid and Nexus One, and there are a number of Android based tablets slated to be released this year. We are working closely with Google to bring both Flash Player 10.1 and Adobe AIR 2.0 to these devices, and thus far, the results have been very promising," Chambers said.
> 
> Google is a willing ally, too, as evidenced by a Wednesday blog post from Andy Rubin, vice president of engineering for the Android effort, on Adobe's Web site.
> 
> "Google believes that developers should have their choice of tools and technologies to create applications. By supporting Adobe AIR on Android we hope that millions of creative designers and developers will be able to express themselves more freely when they create applications for Android devices. More broadly, AIR will foster rapid and continuous innovation across the mobile ecosystem. Google is happy to be partnering with Adobe to bring the full Web, great applications, and developer choice to the Android platform."





> Rhetoric can have teeth, and Adobe clearly hopes to give Apple a bad reputation among programmers. Chambers, a programmer himself, is directing his own attention toward Android.
> 
> "I think that the closed system that Apple is trying to create is bad for the industry, developers, and ultimately consumers, and that is not something that I want to actively promote," Chambers said. "We are at the beginning of a significant change in the industry, and I believe that ultimately open platforms will win out over the type of closed, locked-down platform that Apple is trying to create."


Food for thought.... Thoughts...?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Food for thought.... Thoughts...?


Flash is important, Apple is stupid.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Flash is important, Apple is stupid.


Ok...... and your reason's.... If this were an essay question you would get a..... FAIL.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Flash is important to whom? I can live without it, and I'll bet so can you. The word here is "progress" as opposed to "regress." Unless of course a lack of flash will curtail your porn enjoyment.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Now, do not go picking on PORN, there are pop ups and ads that we may miss without flash!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Flash is important to whom? I can live without it, and I'll bet so can you. The word here is "progress" as opposed to "regress."* Unless of course a lack of flash will curtail your porn enjoyment.*


Nassstyy!


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

_"Google believes that developers should have their choice of tools and technologies to create applications."_

OK, I am not a programmer, so my analogy may be wrong - Google should ask Microsoft to support Cocoa so that Mac developers can make really nice software for Windows 

Cheers


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

> Adobe takes the matter seriously. It disclosed in a regulatory filing that its business could be harmed if the iPhone and iPad don't support Adobe technology. And Adobe could be considering legal action against Apple, too, according to one report.


Ok, this is where things go off the rails, logically. That's like the flour mill complaining that the bakery didn't buy flour from them and therefore they're going to go out of business. Yup - they might. But they sure as heck can't sue the bakery for this. Apple is free to support whatever technology it wants - you cannot force them to support Flash! Indeed - it is like telling Microsoft to support Cocoa.


----------



## ghcimacs (Jan 25, 2008)

I think both company's have their issues. Apple has moved onto selling overpriced toys as computers, and awesome Phones, which lack Flash due to Adobe being a SOB. I got tired of Flash fail on my Mac. Now on my PC, my cpu barely breaks a sweat, and plays wonderfully. Now to get an i5 PC. Im planning on getting an iPad or ThinkPad to replace my Power/MacBook. iPad only if it gets flash, and can play it well, by the summer.

Both company's need to grow up.
For now ill stick with My PC, Windows 7, and my third gen 20gb iPod.

-ghcimacs

I'm a PC, and Windows 7 was NOT my idea.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Apple a closed system... because they support industry standards instead of buggy, crappy flash? Yeah.... 

Adobe isn't upset because its a closed system, they're upset because it isn't _their_ system.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

ghcimacs said:


> I think both company's have their issues. Apple has moved onto selling overpriced toys as computers, and awesome Phones, which lack Flash due to Adobe being a SOB. I got tired of Flash fail on my Mac. Now on my PC, my cpu barely breaks a sweat, and plays wonderfully. Now to get an i5 PC. Im planning on getting an iPad or ThinkPad to replace my Power/MacBook. iPad only if it gets flash, and can play it well, by the summer.
> 
> Both company's need to grow up.
> For now ill stick with My PC, Windows 7, and my third gen 20gb iPod.
> ...


don't get your hopes up with the ipad and flash. Adobe shot themselves in the foot with their lousy flash for mac support.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The best thing Adobe can do to fight back is to continue to better Flash and make it portable—which is what they're doing. And the results look quite promising.

And ehMax: You're wrong. Adobe is pissed because Apple is specifically alienating their customers because of the tools they use. And they're doing it with their own closed system that utilizes a set of rules that they apply willy nilly.

Regardless, a standard that is closed is _still_ a standard. Get used to it 'cause Flash isn't going away anytime soon.


----------



## ghcimacs (Jan 25, 2008)

ehMax said:


> Apple a closed system... because they support industry standards instead of buggy, crappy flash? Yeah....
> 
> Adobe isn't upset because its a closed system, they're upset because it isn't _their_ system.


Flash seems to have become a standard. (Cr)Apple however mostly uses closed systems. Their OS is quite buggy, and unstable now. I miss Tiger, when apple had sense. Maybe 10.7 will change things, and make the OS bright and new again, but with the way Apple is going, i doubt it.

Im happy adobe and google are allys. The only real challenger to the iPhone is Google Android, and if Android gets flash, iPhone = pwnt.

-ghcimacs


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Apple a closed system... because they support industry standards instead of buggy, crappy flash? Yeah....
> 
> Adobe isn't upset because its a closed system, they're upset because it isn't _their_ system.


it's very narrow to see this as a "buggy flash" vs apple war. It's gone well past it. Apple isn't interested, in flash whatsoever, and it being buggy, or not has absolutely zero to do with it.

No, allowing flash and specifically air would have in part cannibalized the app store, and allowed developers to port to other platforms. Adobe has been feverishly developing a very good player that has so far shown itself to be far superior to the current player, but apple still, isn't interested. Instead we have the stupidity of the html5 vs flash nonsense being perpetuated, when everyone in the development field knows html5 is not a replacement for flash, and, speaking as someone who does do a lot of flash development, I also do a lot of work in html/javascript/css etc., and we are all just stoked about FINALLY seeing an end to html4 and are looking so forward to kicking that sorry spec out the door. You would be severely limiting yourself if all you did was actionscript 3. Besides the syntax is almost identical to javascript/php and a host of other languages.

There is no question apple has the wind in it's sails, and it's success is well deserved, and they have great products. I was one of the very few developers, in flash who early in the game was developing on macs, and have always defended apple. But, I do see, a bit of a rift happening in the developer world that I've not seen before, because apple hasn't been exactly smooth as butter to developers, and there is quite the backlash happening right now, _and I'm not talking about flash developers._ I see a lot of peed off iphone developers, all jumping at getting and developing for android. I thought android dev was practically dead, that's suddenly changing thanks to recent events.

Apple is taking quite a gamble, their platform, against several others. Others, who a developer can target, with one set of code. It may be something to laugh about now, but I'm going to guess, that it isn't something to laugh at later on down the line...

Because while apple users may be smiling and smug now, I recall the very same smugness a long time ago when windows users were still bonking their heads on dos and windows 3.1...

And we all know how THAT turned out. So, I would say nothing, despite the large successes, is a done deal. Companies stood by, as apple captured nearly the entire market with the ipod music players. And then were whacked in the back of the head, when the iphone came out. But the ipad, now the ipad, is a game changer. A game changer I think, in ways you may not be thinking about. Because if you think, the other big deep pockets, are going to totally do sit and watch another ipod scenario happen on what could be the start of the world's population's main computing platform replacing the PC, threatening the entire industry, not just music players and phones, you are off your rocker.

So this whole flash vs apple thing, merely one of the matches lighting the fuse. It'll seem practically irrelevant in a few years down the road. Personally, I like the tool and will be laughing pretty hard at the guys complaining about the bad flash things while they find out that something else replaced it and is totally worse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ghcimacs said:


> Flash seems to have become a standard. (Cr)Apple however mostly uses closed systems. Their OS is quite buggy, and unstable now. I miss Tiger, when apple had sense. Maybe 10.7 will change things, and make the OS bright and new again, but with the way Apple is going, i doubt it.
> 
> Im happy adobe and google are allys. The only real challenger to the iPhone is Google Android, and if Android gets flash, iPhone = pwnt.
> 
> -ghcimacs


it's hard to make that kind of a prediction. But I've seen an awful lot of excitement over development on android.

And you know how developers love open source. It's what drew me, and many other developers to os x. 

Although I'll be working in obj c on some projects, I'll be grabbing a nexus one to dev a few apps.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ghcimacs said:


> Flash seems to have become a standard. (Cr)Apple however mostly uses closed systems. Their OS is quite buggy, and unstable now. I miss Tiger, when apple had sense.


what are you going on about? do you think flash is open source or something? and really , like flash isn't at all "buggy and unstable".....

anyways, it's disappointing news because it shows adobe is willing to give up on a platform if pushed too far. if this rift keeps growing i'd hate to think there could be a chance of adobe leaving the entire mac platform. i wonder how large the mac os market share is for adobe cs?


----------



## ghcimacs (Jan 25, 2008)

i-rui said:


> what are you going on about? do you think flash is open source or something? and really , like flash isn't at all "buggy and unstable".....
> 
> anyways, it's disappointing news because it shows adobe is willing to give up on a platform if pushed too far. if this rift keeps growing i'd hate to think there could be a chance of adobe leaving the entire mac platform. i wonder how large the mac os market share is for adobe cs?


Ive never noticed flash to be buggy or unstable, except on Mac OS X. Ive seen P3's run Youtube great. Compared to even a g5, it runs BETTER. 

I hope adobe ditches apple. Its time for Apple to get a wake-up call. They need it.

-ghcimacs


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

PS3 does not run Youtube better than any Mac I've used—Intel or G5. It's nowhere comparable.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ghcimacs said:


> Ive never noticed flash to be buggy or unstable, except on Mac OS X. Ive seen P3's run Youtube great. Compared to even a g5, it runs BETTER.
> 
> I hope adobe ditches apple. Its time for Apple to get a wake-up call. They need it.
> 
> -ghcimacs


Boy do they need it. Stocks rising from $78 a share in January 2009 to north of, what, $250 today? Getting a jump on the competition _yet again_ with the iPad (likely over a million sold already), selling incredible numbers of iPhones, iPods, MacBooks and iMac desktop computers, blowing away the competition in growth, not laying off a single employee, and all this _during a major recession_. Yeah, Apple needs a wake-up call alright. All this success might go to their heads.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Boy do they need it. Stocks rising from $78 a share in January 2009 to north of, what, $250 today? Getting a jump on the competition _yet again_ with the iPad (likely over a million sold already), selling incredible numbers of iPhones, iPods, MacBooks and iMac desktop computers, blowing away the competition in growth, not laying off a single employee, and all this _during a major recession_. Yeah, Apple needs a wake-up call alright. All this success might go to their heads.


anyone can list quite a number of companies boasting that kind of growth, only to see a meltdown. Now I'm not saying apple will meltdown, but don't assume people are dumb enough to believe all that nonsense now...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Ok...... and your reason's.... If this were an essay question you would get a..... FAIL.


You didn't ask for an essay, you asked for thoughts. I gave you two.

Flash is ubiquitous. The fact that Apple's solution to the iPad not being able to use it is for these sites to develop their own apps is evidence of that. You're supposed to have a separate app for every site when you want to go surfing? Really?

Yes, Apple is making a lot of money. LOTS of people are stupid. Windows outsells OS X 10-1, is Windows better? No, people are just stupid.

Perhaps HTML5 will eventually be able to replace Flash, but it's not there yet that I've seen. I've yet to see even a basic video in HTML5 that competes well with a decent Flash video (no, I'm not talking about porn either). If such a thing is out there, I'd welcome seeing it.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

Interesting column on iPhone OS 4, and some thoughts on why app development is being limited to Apple tools, only:

davidquintana.com

Kostas


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> You didn't ask for an essay, you asked for thoughts. I gave you two.
> 
> Flash is ubiquitous. The fact that Apple's solution to the iPad not being able to use it is for these site to develop their own apps is evidence of that. You're supposed to have a separate app for every site when you want to go surfing? Really?
> 
> ...


the way I see it, is flash's existence really relies on 2 things. One, the rise of the other platforms, as competition to apple's mobile platform. Personally, as I've already said, I can't see this not happening. ipods, phones, maybe, but not a whole new computing platform.

second, adobe's ability to not only improve their player and make it run the way it should, but to continue to make the platform relevant. People who keep screaming html5 will replace flash don't really understand the platforms. They also mistakenly believe flash won't innovate over the next number of years before html5 starts to become reality.

If I had a crystal ball, I could tell you how this turns out. Though I have some hunches what -might- happen.

As you said, flash is ubiquitous, and this is a very huge advantage for adobe.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

groovetube said:


> anyone can list quite a number of companies boasting that kind of growth, only to see a meltdown. Now I'm not saying apple will meltdown, but don't assume people are dumb enough to believe all that nonsense now...


Most of the companies that have shown that type of growth have done in in the first few years of life, when either coming up wiht some innovative product, or a new business plan/concept that achieves success. Very few companies that are 30+ years old have done this. Microsoft's growth has slowed down to a crawl, and other companies like IBM/GE/Exxon have growth that is very much up and down based on the whims of the market and their own quarterly results. The growth of Apple over the last few years has not only been explosive, it has been sustained quarter after quarter. and by a company that was thought to be on its last legs 10 years ago.

Please define what "nonsense" you are speaking about. Apple hasn't had a serious market failure in years, and the Apple TV is the only one that isn't a huge success. The iPad may or may not be a huge success this year, but long term, the iPad will be a major success and another revenue stream for Apple.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Are you trying to suggest that any company with explosive growth that sees a downturn are only the ones a few years old??? Do you live in a hole?

No I didn't think so. That is the nonsense I speak of.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ghcimacs said:


> Ive never noticed flash to be buggy or unstable, except on Mac OS X. Ive seen P3's run Youtube great. Compared to even a g5, it runs BETTER.
> 
> I hope adobe ditches apple. Its time for Apple to get a wake-up call. They need it.
> 
> -ghcimacs


So flash runs poorly on macs....and this is apples fault? Adobe doesn't deserve some blame for not properly coding a flash player for OS X....after OS X being out for years and years and years?



MannyP Design said:


> PS3 does not run Youtube better than any Mac I've used—Intel or G5. It's nowhere comparable.


I agree. It's cool my PS3 can even play youtube...but i'd always watch my youtube videos on my mac (even with the crappy code and performance) it's still MUCH better. The PS3 can't even play the majority of flash vids on the net.

Anyways, I actually think apple is happy to hear adobe won't be developing flash for the iphone just so they don't have to answer "when is flash coming to the iphone?". I think not having flash isn't a huge issue for smart phones....but for the ipad it is. If the ipad is going to really take off as an internet device it needs to be able to display the majority of the web....and flash is really all over the place, and will be for years.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

groovetube said:


> Are you trying to suggest that any company with explosive growth that sees a downturn are only the ones a few years old??? Do you live in a hole?
> 
> No I didn't think so. That is the nonsense I speak of.


I don't know how you read that into my posting. What I said is that 30+ year old companies DO NOT SHOW explosive growth. Explosive growth usually happens within a few years of the company's incorporation, and tapers off gradually to a slower, more controlled growth stage, usually in the single digits. This has happened time and time again. It is an exceptional company that shows explosive growth 30+ years into its existence. 

This isn't nonsense, its the way most companies tend to grow over time. Feel free to dispute this with real world examples that disprove any of the above.

Kostas


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kkritsilas said:


> Interesting column on iPhone OS 4, and some thoughts on why app development is being limited to Apple tools, only:
> 
> davidquintana.com
> 
> Kostas


I dig nerd-talk. Thank you; that was a very helpful article.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Flash is ubiquitous; so is herpes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so it seems, are those who consistently misunderstand the isue.

That mewling about how flash be on iphones because of multitasking but ah, somehow it works on android, for some reaon has been around for a while.

Convenient I'd say.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> So flash runs poorly on macs....and this is apples fault? Adobe doesn't deserve some blame for not properly coding a flash player for OS X....after OS X being out for years and years and years?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. I've never really been overly concerned about flash on the iphone, it sucks enough to surf on it with large graphics as it is. Flash won't help. (neither will html5 canvas nonsense either...)

But yeah. no flash on the ipad. That'll be a selling point for the new "Gpad" and others.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

groovetube said:


> But yeah. no flash on the ipad. That'll be a selling point for the new "Gpad" and others.


I don't think so. Sure there are a lot of people addicted to Facebook App Games, But the majority of those are already on the iPhone/iPad.

I think when people realize the amount of annoying flash far outweighs any real "useful" flash (to which, I've seen none). The average consumer will be glad to wave goodbye (if they even know what it is/was.)

Sure, there are some okay eye-candy that're neat for about 30 seconds, but in the end, it's 30 seconds wasted of your life (add minutes if it crashes your browser/computer). Like a highly rated bad youtube video, you just can't get that time back.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Elric said:


> I don't think so. Sure there are a lot of people addicted to Facebook App Games, But the majority of those are already on the iPhone/iPad.
> 
> I think when people realize the amount of annoying flash far outweighs any real "useful" flash (to which, I've seen none). The average consumer will be glad to wave goodbye (if they even know what it is/was.)
> 
> Sure, there are some okay eye-candy that're neat for about 30 seconds, but in the end, it's 30 seconds wasted of your life (add minutes if it crashes your browser/computer). Like a highly rated bad youtube video, you just can't get that time back.


I wonder just how many times one has to see this kind of post, regurgitating the same narrow view.

Just because you say there's not much useful, simply doesn't make it so. In fact, there's a massive development community, and a 99% plugin rate out there that is laughing at you.

I wonder how long it'll be, before it'll dawn on all the geniuses that predict the 'wicked witch is dead' before they realize, that it isn't flash that is annoying them, it's the ones behind it creating the annoyances. Because if, and I say IF, flash were to go down, you can bet that there'll plenty of ways to annoy you even more, and you won't have click4flash to save your soul.

And not to speak of the thousands of big corporations, who have invested massive sums of money into developing in flex, and I can guarantee you those corporations, aren't going to be walking away from that anytime soon. Right, a small detail no one seems to know about.
Just because someone's surfing habits seem to focus on flash ads and flash video, with the odd sprinkling of finding crappy flash intros, simply doesn't erase the ubiquity of flash presentations across the web that don't fall into that category.

Now before anyone accuses me of being a flash biased crank, I have a phone call to make to a client to convince them not to use flash on a project I'm working on.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> ...Flash is ubiquitous...


Far from it. Anyone who develops standards based web sites (of which there are thousands) avoids Flash like the plague.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

ghcimacs said:


> Flash seems to have become a standard. (Cr)Apple ...


As soon as I read this part of your post, ( _Cr)Apple_ ), I stopped reading. And I will now not read anything you post here again. 
If you're trying to actually communicate relevant points on this website, you've failed by presenting yourself as hopelessly biased, and most likely simply a Troll.

Good day to you, Sir.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Far from it. Any one who develops standards based web sites (of which there are thousands) avoids Flash like the plague.


that's incorrect. And very, very tiring.

"standards based" is a term thrown around by people who don't really understand web development.

When you rise above this kind of buzz term petty crap, you try to have a balanced view and use the tools that make the most sense for the project.

If you don't, do everyone a favor, and do sometihng else.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

duplicate


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> that's incorrect. And very, very tiring.
> 
> "standards based" is a term thrown around by people who don't really understand web development.
> 
> ...


Hahaha! And those that avoid it merely do so to push their own agenda. I use Flash... but minimally and I understand web development just fine thanks. Talk about arrogant, a term that you like to bandie about. 

Web standards



> When a web site or web page is described as complying with web standards, it usually means that the site or page has valid or nearly valid HTML, CSS and JavaScript. The HTML should also meet accessibility and semantic guidelines.
> 
> When web standards are discussed, the following publications are typically seen as foundational:
> 
> ...





> Non-standard and vendor-proprietary pressures
> 
> In the current Working Draft of the HTML 5 proposed standard document,[11] the W3C has a section entitled "Relationship to Flash, Silverlight, XUL and similar proprietary languages" that says, "In contrast with proprietary languages, this specification is intended to define an openly-produced, vendor-neutral language, to be implemented in a broad range of competing products, across a wide range of platforms and devices. This enables developers to write applications that are not limited to one vendor's implementation or language. Furthermore, while writing applications that target vendor-specific platforms necessarily introduces a cost that application developers and their customers or users will face if they are forced to switch (or desire to switch) to another vendor's platform, using an openly-produced and vendor neutral language means that application authors can switch vendors with little to no cost."


Last time I checked Flash was proprietary. 

And still your comments despite being openly biased and just plane wrong don't dispute the fact that Flash isn't ubiquitous, because it isn't. There are thousands and thousands of sites and plenty developers that don't use it, who won't use it, because there are other tools that are standards based to get the job done.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

groovetube said:


> that's incorrect. And very, very tiring.
> 
> "standards based" is a term thrown around by people who don't really understand web development.
> 
> ...


Show us 1 project, just one, where Flash is necessary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well this is quite entertaining. SOmeone who decides to educate a seasoned web developer about web standards, and then uses the term arrogant.

Well I was successful in convincing a client to back down on using flash. As I said, I prefer to not regurgitate a bunch of posturing assess the project and use what is the best tools. But it seems that isn't good enough for you though.

BTW, look up html5 canvas, and notice that, it is owned by someone. And that well, royalties won't be due until 2015...
LOL.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Also, as for the 99% (obviously false numbers) Flash install rate, ask them ALL if they have it, and I bet well over 50% have no idea, they click the install button simply because the site won't work without it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Elric said:


> Show us 1 project, just one, where Flash is necessary.


this may be somewhat shocking, or groundbreaking, but it isn't always about "necessary". I'm not quite sure what is so incredibly confusing about the notion of using the best tool for the job, however, seeing what I see on the web and what passes for web development, I guess it is of little surprise.



Now, it may be possible, to create similar presentations using other technologies. However, this worked rather well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Elric said:


> Also, as for the 99% (obviously false numbers) Flash install rate, ask them ALL if they have it, and I bet well over 50% have no idea, they click the install button simply because the site won't work without it.


post some evidence that these are incorrect numbers.

And what does the knowledge of having the plugin have to do with anything?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Elric said:


> Also, as for the 99% (obviously false numbers) Flash install rate, ask them ALL if they have it, and I bet well over 50% have no idea, they click the install button simply because the site won't work without it.


doesn't safari ship with flash installed on all new macs?

I think that says a lot if Apple is shipping their new computers with a flash player already installed. The only reason they'd do that was if they considered flash an important part of the web.

And if 50% of people are clicking the install button because a site won't work without it that also speaks volumes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> well this is quite entertaining. SOmeone who decides to educate a seasoned web developer about web standards, and then uses the term arrogant.
> 
> Well I was successful in convincing a client to back down on using flash. As I said, I prefer to not regurgitate a bunch of posturing assess the project and use what is the best tools. But it seems that isn't good enough for you though.
> 
> ...



Look you decided to go on a rant because I merely said Flash is not ubiquitous and yes you were being arrogant. Do you think you are the only one who knows about web development? I felt the need to point to the references for you because your statements were wrong not to mention not to the point.

I get it you are a "seasoned" developer, that doesn't mean you have to try and pretend there aren't such things as standards based development and those who practice it. Your philosophy is to offer whatever tool will do the job the best and I agree with that. I use Flash galleries for the photographers that I develop for because, the look is most important to them and their clients. I understand that Flash is powerful and is useful, it is just that not *everyone* uses it.

As for the canvas element, the last I had read was Apple disclosed the patents under the W3C's royalty-free patent licensing terms and the disclosure meant that Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Are we speaking in tongues here?

First off, why would you suggest that I said EVERYONE is -using- flash. I'm a very advanced developer but it accounts for less than 40% of my web development. Flash is ubiquitous in the sense that the overwhelming majority of users can view the content. And, there's a very large amount of content in flash on the web, and as some have pointed out, often users don't even know what they are seeing is in flash. I find users tend to really only notice flash when it's really bad or annoying.

And what statements were wrong? I stand by everything I said.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Are we speaking in tongues here?
> 
> First off, why would you suggest that I said EVERYONE is -using- flash. I'm a very advanced developer but it accounts for less than 40% of my web development. Flash is ubiquitous in the sense that the overwhelming majority of users can view the content. And, there's a very large amount of content in flash on the web, and as some have pointed out, often users don't even know what they are seeing is in flash. I find users tend to really only notice flash when it's really bad or annoying.
> 
> And what statements were wrong? I stand by everything I said.


Ubiquitous: existing or being everywhere, esp. at the same time; omnipresent. That's it that's all, Flash isn't.

I said to bsenka after he said Flash is ubiquitous:



> Far from it. Any one who develops standards based web sites (of which there are thousands) avoids Flash like the plague.


You said:



> that's incorrect. And very, very tiring.
> 
> "standards based" is a term thrown around by people who don't really understand web development.


That is wrong. If you develop based on web standards you avoid using Flash or don't use it at all. And it isn't thrown around by people who don't understand web development. Do you think the WC3 don't understand web development?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you totally misunderstood the meaning of 'flash is ubiquitous'. Once again, your complete arrogance shows through as you twist someones statement for something for you to argue about. Reread the idea, and think about it.

And you are assuming that everyone must develop according to WC3 standards, and that they must be adhered to. Obviously, that isn't the case, even though many firms use it as a measuring stick, and certainly many light headed individuals paste it on their site as if it somehow makes them great.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Web development has and continues to be about compromise. Since the majority of people use browsers that do NOT 100% adhere to standards, developers must compromise to ensure that most (if not all) of the people that view their sites.

Web standards have not been ubiquitous (and are not), and it's not Adobe's fault.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> you totally misunderstood the meaning of 'flash is ubiquitous'. Once again, your complete arrogance shows through as you twist someones statement for something for you to argue about. Reread the idea, and think about it.
> 
> And you are assuming that everyone must develop according to WC3 standards, and that they must be adhered to. Obviously, that isn't the case, even though many firms use it as a measuring stick, and certainly many light headed individuals paste it on their site as if it somehow makes them great.


Oh man you are such a waste of time to try discuss anything with...bye.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Web development has and continues to be about compromise. Since the majority of people use browsers that do NOT 100% adhere to standards, developers must compromise to ensure that most (if not all) of the people that view their sites.
> 
> Web standards have not been ubiquitous (and are not), and it's not Adobe's fault.


I totally agree. However, it doesn't stop those who choose to, from trying to develop in such a way that their sites adhere to WC3 standards as closely as possible. I think adhering to web standards as closely as possible makes sense if it makes sense relative to ones target audience.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

groovetube said:


> post some evidence that these are incorrect numbers.
> 
> And what does the knowledge of having the plugin have to do with anything?


LOL you are hilarious. Post evidence your numbers ARE correct.

Also, if the vast majority of end users knew what it was they were installing, you can bet they would choose NOT to.

I'm still waiting for your 1 piece of evidence where Flash is totally 100% necessary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Elric said:


> LOL you are hilarious. Post evidence your numbers ARE correct.
> 
> Also, if the vast majority of end users knew what it was they were installing, you can bet they would choose NOT to.
> 
> I'm still waiting for your 1 piece of evidence where Flash is totally 100% necessary.


you're the one that has a problem with them.

Until I see you refute the results, you're just some anonymous dude mouthing off about nothing on a forum I'm afraid.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I totally agree. However, it doesn't stop those who choose to, from trying to develop in such a way that their sites adhere to WC3 standards as closely as possible. I think adhering to web standards as closely as possible makes sense if it makes sense relative to ones target audience.


oh now you're getting it!

Best tools for the job! Sound familiar?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> oh now you're getting it!
> 
> Best tools for the job! Sound familiar?


You are such a pain. I never said anything against Flash and agreed with the philosophy of best tool for the job and I said so if you actually stopped to read. You've just got a chip on for me that blinds you to reading beyond your own pre/misconceptions. Carry on...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes you said those who develop standards based site avoid flash like the plague.

I suppose you've never heard of swfObject... here let me assist> SWFObject - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just annoying when someone continues to post misinformation and goes around in circles.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> yes you said those who develop standards based site avoid flash like the plague.
> 
> I suppose you've never heard of swfObject... here let me assist> SWFObject - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's just annoying when *someone continues to post misinformation and goes around in circles*.


SWFObject.... that's used for dusting isn't it.  Your point... do you have one?

I kinda know what you mean...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, if your desire is to continue developing standards based sites and that's your requirement, you don't need to 'avoid flash like the plague', and simply use swfObject.

I use it as a rule on any place I use flash. Always. Actually this idea of needing to feed content shown in flash to non flash is becoming a bit of a money maker for me... Perhaps I should thank apple.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Are the people who are most upset with Flash being shut out, the ones who have invested time and money into learning Flash?

I suspect a number of Flash designers who suddenly find their skills in less demand. This is unfortunate, but not uncommon. 
It does however seem to shut out those who are not 'code savvy' but are more comfortable with WYSIWYG type applications to create animations.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> Until I see you refute the results, you're just some anonymous dude mouthing off about nothing on a forum I'm afraid.


he, and the rest of us, would probably say the *exact* same thing until you show some proof that what you are saying is correct.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

satchmo said:


> Are the people who are most upset with Flash being shut out, the ones who have invested time and money into learning Flash?
> 
> I suspect a number of Flash designers who suddenly find their skills in less demand. This is unfortunate, but not uncommon.


Again, I wouldn't really call people that play with Flash "developers". If they were, they would know how to code without it. I assume the ones bitching ONLY know Flash.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

broad said:


> he, and the rest of us, would probably say the *exact* same thing until you show some proof that what you are saying is correct.


it isn't -me- who came up with these numbers. Those are published results from a company who did the research.

Now I as a small company, can only do my own research based on sites I have out there, and I have. The numbers I got, pretty much were similar to the published results. So, I have no reason to believe they're very wrong.

But, if any of you, have reason to believe, and the evidence/research to back it up, well, here is the link to the published results, who did it, go nuts and show us why it's wrong. Thanks.
Adobe - Flash Player Version Penetration


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

satchmo said:


> Are the people who are most upset with Flash being shut out, the ones who have invested time and money into learning Flash?
> 
> I suspect a number of Flash designers who suddenly find their skills in less demand. This is unfortunate, but not uncommon.
> It does however seem to shut out those who are not 'code savvy' but are more comfortable with WYSIWYG type applications to create animations.


actually, that isn't the case, if you actually know anything about this, or are following closely. It isn't only flash developers being shut out at all. They are part of it, and are the higher profile ones, that's all. But I understand why people who are really not following things could latch on to this.

Here's an iphone developer who is a little ticked. He doesn't do flash at all, and his living comes from iphone dev. The iPhone App Developers' Blog: iPhone Programming, Developer News, Interviews And Tutorials — Mobile Orchard

Most flash developers are very well versed in several languages as I have said oh A THOUSAND times but I guess some people can't read. So many of us will still be making barrels of cash whether flash lives or dies. However, as I said oh A THOUSAND times it's really about liking a certain platform for what it can bring to the table. I don't have some blind allegiance to it. I'm actually happy to see adobe get a bit of a fire under it's butt to see some more innovation and improvement.

Does this make any sense now.

Now hopefully we're done with the spew of misinformation and stompings of feets yelling FLASH BAD! HTML GOOOOOD!, because wow I can't imagine a better way to contribute to a discussion eh.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> well, if your desire is to continue developing standards based sites and that's your requirement, you don't need to 'avoid flash like the plague', and simply use swfObject.
> 
> I use it as a rule on any place I use flash. Always. Actually this idea of needing to feed content shown in flash to non flash is becoming a bit of a money maker for me... Perhaps I should thank apple.


For what ever reason, one that I never said that is for sure, you seem to think I develop standards based web sites or are somehow promoting strict adherence to them. As I said I use Flash so right there my sites aren't strictly standards based. I obviously strive to be as standards based as possible because it makes for better cross browser compatibility, better but obviously not perfect.

I mentioned "those" developers who strive for web standards development because I know plenty who develop based on that principle, there are whole communities out there of such developers. Just because I acknowledged their existence doesn't mean that I am one of them or endorse their goals. Although as I have said I think writing code and using tools that adhere to web standards for "cross browser compatibility" (WC3) in general make it a good idea, I'm far from fanatical about it, but there are those who are.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

to be honest screature, and with the deluge of posters who seem to think regurgitating misinformation they got from some blog as fact is really a great fact, I don't know what you do.

I just wanted to point out that those developing standards based sites don't necessarily avoid flash like the plague at all, though some who don't have a very good grasp of flash may avoid it, and to be honest, I see that as a good thing. The less -bad- flash out there, there better for everyone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> to be honest screature, and with the deluge of posters who seem to think regurgitating misinformation they got from some blog as fact is really a great fact, I don't know what you do.
> 
> I just wanted to point out that those developing standards based sites don't necessarily avoid flash like the plague at all, though some who don't have a very good grasp of flash may avoid it, and to be honest, I see that as a good thing.* The less -bad- flash out there, there better for everyone.*


On that we can agree...


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I have no issues with Flash when it's used really well - your site, GrooveTube was a nice example of Flash being used appropriately. My beef is with the idiots who use it for text headings (because they just have to have some special, but usually not terribly different, font) and to turn sites into three-ring circuses when all you want is to find out where the damn restaurant IS. The members of the "look Ma, no hands!" school of web development, who think the way the site looks/behaves is far more important than whether or not the user can actually find any useful information seem to be legion, and I think it's those developers and their sites who really get up most of our noses. 

venomous porridge - A conversation I have every month or so

I did have to chuckle though about the way the firm doing Adobe's survey chooses its participants:



> Note on Lightspeed Panelist Recruitment
> Lightspeed maintains rigorous standards about who qualifies to become a member of its panels. They verify the identity and demographic information of our respondents through our unique recruiting structure. Further, each panelist chooses a unique password when they register. In addition, they ask each prospective panelist to complete an extensive background questionnaire, providing great detail on each member.
> 
> Panelists are recruited from multiple sources such as RDD, in-person interviews, Web partners, _as well as banner ads._ 100% of Lightspeed Research’s panel members have opted to participate in the panel.


 (italics mine)

Would those be FLASH banner ads by any chance? Anyway, the survey in question was commissioned by Adobe, who of course have a distinct vested interest in showing that Flash is ubiquitous. I'd be willing to bet that indeed, most people have it installed - I'd rather see numbers produced independently of Adobe however. And only relatively savvy sorts are going to have ClicktoFlash installed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Paddy said:


> I have no issues with Flash when it's used really well - your site, GrooveTube was a nice example of Flash being used appropriately. My beef is with the idiots who use it for text headings (because they just have to have some special, but usually not terribly different, font) and to turn sites into three-ring circuses when all you want is to find out where the damn restaurant IS. The members of the "look Ma, no hands!" school of web development, who think the way the site looks/behaves is far more important than whether or not the user can actually find any useful information seem to be legion, and I think it's those developers and their sites who really get up most of our noses.
> 
> venomous porridge - A conversation I have every month or so
> 
> ...


thx. Though I have yet to do the smart thing and offer alt content. I do enough wordpress php/myQL drupal yadda yadda setups you'd think I'd do it for myself.

Certainly adobe wants to cast themselves in the best light. I've read a number of people who have done their own researches, and some have found numbers in the high 80s, low 90s, and certainly high 90s.

It really does depend on where your target is. 99% though seems just a bit hot. I use JS to embed, and last I checked that sits just above 90% turned on in browsers, so I'd say it's safe around the 9 out of 10 range. Though that may change if mobile gets serious.

I may, or may not have been guilty of some pretty numbskull projects in the past 
I really am trying o pay penance for each ad every one of them now though.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

satchmo said:


> Are the people who are most upset with Flash being shut out, the ones who have invested time and money into learning Flash?
> 
> I suspect a number of Flash designers who suddenly find their skills in less demand. This is unfortunate, but not uncommon.
> It does however seem to shut out those who are not 'code savvy' but are more comfortable with WYSIWYG type applications to create animations.


Let me tell you something, and it's not exactly a secret: Flash development is still in demand.

Shocking, I know. But the truth is Flash demand just won't drop like a fly because a bunch of people buy an iPad or iPhone. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people who use computing devices are Flash capable. We're talking over 90% of the computing market (including mobile OS).

End of story.

Also, that last line just doesn't make sense. If you were talking about Dreamweaver, I might be inclined to agree. But Flash is just too deep and rich in features that you really can't nail it down to a particular demographic.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> But the truth is Flash demand just won't drop like a fly because a bunch of people buy an iPad or iPhone. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people who use computing devices are Flash capable. We're talking over 90% of the computing market (including mobile OS).


No one is saying it will drop entirely. If your website is specifically targeted to people browsing from home and will never EVER be used by anyone whilst they are mobile then by all means, use Flash (properly).

BUT and this is a big BUT. If your company or products are going to be Googled by someone when it's convenient for them, at the VERY least you MUST have a simple mobile redirect for them to grab the info they need and fast. If you are fine building 2 separate websites, then so-be-it. Most people (especially if they are paying someone to do it for them) will opt for one flashless website that can be viewed by everyone at any time on any device. Yes, some mobiles have (or will have) Flash, but:








You will note that Skyfire (the only Mobile Browser that supports Flash currently) is not even on the list.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Elric said:


> No one is saying it will drop entirely. If your website is specifically targeted to people browsing from home and will never EVER be used by anyone whilst they are mobile then by all means, use Flash (properly).
> 
> BUT and this is a big BUT. If your company or products are going to be Googled by someone when it's convenient for them, at the VERY least you MUST have a simple mobile redirect for them to grab the info they need and fast. If you are fine building 2 separate websites, then so-be-it. Most people (especially if they are paying someone to do it for them) will opt for one flashless website that can be viewed by everyone at any time on any device. Yes, some mobiles have (or will have) Flash, but:
> 
> You will note that Skyfire (the only Mobile Browser that supports Flash currently) is not even on the list.


I think this was covered earlier—web developers need to know their audience. And while the iPhone commands a great deal of the mobile market, it's barely a droplet in when you compare it to desktop/portable marketshare.

The ±70% Apple holds for their iPhone OS starts to look pretty tiny when you see the bigger picture:










Like I said: Flash isn't going away anytime soon.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's kinda humorous when someone tries to inflate the importance of numbers to make some ridiculous point.

Seriously Elric, do you develop online strategies for a living or are you just making this crap up? Because it doesn't reflect reality in the industry very accurately at all.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

What we're saying is that right now, HTML5 is the exception and Flash is the rule. Soon enough this paradigm will shift and Flash will be the exception, HTML5 the rule. If you're a developer. don't be caught with your pants down just for nostalgia's sake. 20 years ago, the Mac with its graphical user interface and mouse was the exception and MS-DOS was the rule. Sony walkmans, discmans and other-brans were the rule and the iPod was the exception. A touchscreen interface like the iPhone was laughed at by BlackBerry users. These things have changed. If the new technology is superior, has the right marketing and a large installed user base, as products Apple endorses have, things will change. Be prepared for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

What you think HTML5 will become popular??? WOW!

We never would have thought. I think you should go let all the web devlopers who have been waiting for this spec know about this fantastic piece of news!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> What we're saying is that right now, HTML5 is the exception and Flash is the rule. Soon enough this paradigm will shift and Flash will be the exception, HTML5 the rule. If you're a developer. don't be caught with your pants down just for nostalgia's sake. 20 years ago, the Mac with its graphical user interface and mouse was the exception and MS-DOS was the rule. Sony walkmans, discmans and other-brans were the rule and the iPod was the exception. A touchscreen interface like the iPhone was laughed at by BlackBerry users. These things have changed. If the new technology is superior, has the right marketing and a large installed user base, as products Apple endorses have, things will change. Be prepared for it.


Uh, no. You're mixing analogies. But hey, at least a tape that played in a Walkman was guaranteed to play in any tape deck. Can't say that HTML5 will work/look exactly the same in Safari vs. Explorer vs. Opera, however… but whatever 

HTML5 is the progression of a programming language, and it is only as good as those who develop browsers that adhere to it's standards. So far, nobody has a 100% compliant browser. It addresses issues from the past, like video, and it's also introducing new bells and whistles. It's taken a considerable amount of time to even progress THIS far and people are STILL arguing about the best way to deliver video (hint: It's not necessarily about Flash).

Video was not part of the original vision of Flash, but it filled the void where others failed. Adobe (Macromedia) stepped up and offered a solution that worked well.

This isn't about a new way to interface with a computer—there's no paradigm shift—it's the next development cycle of a programming language.

And unless Apple, somehow, sells enough iPads, iPod Touches, and iPhones to surpass the other 95%± of the computing industry, there is NO way Flash is going to get wiped out by HTML5 let alone iPhone OS.

Flash is *not* going anywhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it isn't really worth responding to without laughing... 

this graph shows where the growth is, Google makes biggest gain in smartphone market share

iPhone, and android. Android is kinda the newish kid on the block, and it seems to me, is suddenly starting to get legs. As I mentioned, I've been rather surprised at the level of enthusiasm just in the last few weeks in droid based phones, it seems to be accelerating. I did say in another thread, that while I don't really see the apple slam as a particularly 'flash is bad' issue, it certainly has galvanized the developer and tech community's interest and enthusiasm for google all of a sudden. I'll predict that while android remains currently behind iphone significantly, their growth is higher, and it's accelerating. I like the iphone, and have one, but I wouldn't want to see it dominate anymore than I would android or win7.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Flash is *not* going anywhere.


On this we are in agreement. Flash is a dead-end. :clap:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> Let me tell you something, and it's not exactly a secret: Flash development is still in demand.


+1

If anything, I'm seeing an increase in demand for content created in Flash.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> On this we are in agreement. Flash is a dead-end. :clap:


No, a dead-end is trying to have a half-intelligent conversation with people on the internet who offer insipid remarks that have no basis in real life.

:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

he just doesn't give up does he. Always someone with google who thinks himself an expert.

Anyone else here going to fitc this weekend at the Hilton?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Alas. You developer types who think that unless we consumers have not had extensive programming experience then we have no right to an opinion. High tech bigotry!

For what it's worth, if Adobe had fixed up Flash to run as well on Apple machines as it does on PC's, Apple probably would have adopted it, but frankly, it's just not good enough for what Apple wants to do. If not for Flip4Mac (not an Adobe product) I wouldn't even be able to use Flash video on my Mac. What does that tell you about Adobe's commitment to the Apple platforms?

Perhaps some of you techies who think you know so much should read a little more about _why_ Apple doesn't embrace Flash.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> he just doesn't give up does he. Always someone with google who thinks himself an expert.
> 
> Anyone else here going to fitc this weekend at the Hilton?


Two things groovetube...

Thanks for the prompt to see what fltc is... didn't know about it as I am not in TO. But looks really interesting. Thanks. 

And fjnmusic's post in following your's says a lot... 

Creatives/developers/designers/producers/etc., those who make things for others to use/view/participate in/etc., should listen to those who use/view/enjoy/etc. the things we/they make... good or bad right or wrong, without fear of chastisement or ridicule. We/they may or may not agree with them and may or may not take action based on their criticism, but they should have the right to freely express their opinion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Alas. You developer types who think that unless we consumers have not had extensive programming experience then we have no right to an opinion. High tech bigotry!...


In like regard to what I just posted to groovetube I think the same applies to Apple and the very thing you said above.

Apple are being tech bigots when it comes to Flash. If their customers/consumers want Flash capabilities on their mobile devices, then they should listen to them and not conduct a trade war with Adobe at the customer/consumer's expense.

In regards to the whole Flash "ubiquity" issue that I posted about several posts back, I was only looking at it from a developer's point of view . There *are* plenty of web developers who avoid Flash. They have their reason's for doing so as they are web "purists" who want to develop web sites that, as strictly as possible, adhere to the web standards of WC3. But as MannyP has pointed out, even the browsers that the end user may be using doesn't strictly adhere to the WC3 standards, the worst violator being Microsoft. 

But what I wasn't considering, as groovetube was pointing out, is the "ubiquity" of the end user's capabilities to view Flash generated content through the installation of Flash Player. In this regard groovetube is right, Flash *is* almost ubiquitous amongst desktop/laptop computing platforms.

So, people are used to seeing Flash on their "computing" devices... which now would logically follow to include smart phones and their ilk, the iPod Touch and now the iPad and the soon to follow alternatives. That Apple is refusing to support Flash is a power play on their part with Adobe. Basically they are saying, "With our 65% market share in smart phones, you better tow the line, shape up or we will continue to"ban" you."

A calculated risk on Apple's part to be sure. But now Adobe is fighting back in alliance with Google and the future prospects of the Android. With this alliance a line in the sand has been drawn and it seems we are facing a "platform war" ala Microsoft vs. Apple all over again.

I think as it is now playing out Apple has created, of its own doing, a bigger war than they had planned on, or are at least ensuring it happens. Before it was Apple vs. Adobe... not really a fair fight in terms of economic clout. Now with the alliance that is shaping up, it is Apple vs. Adobe + Google... now that is a whole different kettle of fish in economic terms!

I think (IMHO) Apple would do well to back peddle from their position regarding Flash support, if for nothing else other than to quell the war drums that are beating. They had the advantage when it was just Apple vs. Adobe, now that it is Apple vs. Adobe + Google, they have a fair fight on their hands and it is one that they could win or loose, but in the end I think they will be worse off (economically) for having to fight this particular war, than if they didn't have to fight it in first place.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Alas. You developer types who think that unless we consumers have not had extensive programming experience then we have no right to an opinion. High tech bigotry!


:lmao: Who said I was a developer?

When you start making Walkman analogies then, yeah, you have every right to an opinion.  It doesn't take extensive programming experience, though, just a cogent thought. 



> For what it's worth, if Adobe had fixed up Flash to run as well on Apple machines as it does on PC's, Apple probably would have adopted it, but frankly, it's just not good enough for what Apple wants to do. If not for Flip4Mac (not an Adobe product) I wouldn't even be able to use Flash video on my Mac. What does that tell you about Adobe's commitment to the Apple platforms?


Look. This isn't entirely about Adobe. Even Gruber (Adobe's most vocal critic) admits that it was never entirely in Adobe's hands (January 2010):

_I’ve been hard on Flash Player for Mac OS X, but this performance situation is not entirely in Adobe’s hands. On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. This is one reason why Flash video playback performs better on Windows than Mac OS X, and also why H.264 playback on Mac OS X is better through QuickTime (which does use hardware decoding).

According to Adobe, though, this is because they can’t. Here’s an entry from their Flash Player FAQ:

Q. Why is hardware decoding of H.264 only supported on the Windows platform?

A. In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and *Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs*. We will continue to evaluate when to support this feature on Mac and Linux platforms in future releases._​
Golly, gee and lo and behold, Apple just released an API that Adobe can use to accelerate Flash.

Maybe it's not entirely Adobe after all. 



> Perhaps some of you techies who think you know so much should read a little more about _why_ Apple doesn't embrace Flash.


Apple doesn't embrace much of anything that isn't theirs—that is to say, they typically embrace what they can outright acquire. That speaks volumes.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it would be very interesting to have an Flash player/plug in made available as a download on the App Store. That way, Apple doesn't need to support it, and iPhone users can judge for themselves if the ability to view Flash enabled web sites is worth the load it puts on the hardware and the reduced battery life. 

As for "Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs", now that Mac OSX does expose those APIs, let's see how long it takes Adobe to come up with a Flash player that takes advantage of the new APIs. I'm willing to bet that it will take longer than a year. Look how long it took Adobe to come up with a fully native OSX version of Photoshop and the rest of the creative tools.

As for the "alliance" between Google and Adobe, I wonder how much of this is somebody wanting this to happen, vs. reality. Google's Chrome browser is as good a HTML 5 browser as there currently exists, and Google recently put the VP8 video standard into the public domain. In addition, the 10.1 Flash player has yet to arrive on Android phones (slated for later this year, if it arrives on time). So how close of an alliance is this?

Kostas


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> In like regard to what I just posted to groovetube I think the same applies to Apple and the very thing you said above.
> 
> Apple are being tech bigots when it comes to Flash. If their customers/consumers want Flash capabilities on their mobile devices, then they should listen to them and not conduct a trade war with Adobe at the customer/consumer's expense.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a decent argument. I can see why developers who rely on Flash would be upset by Little Stevie's no-Flash decision, but I also know that Apple is not stupid, and it wouldn't likely cut off its nose to spite its face. If they're putting its eggs in a different basket than the Flash basket, they've probably dome their homework and know what they're doing. Apple hasn't made too many unwise decisions lately.

From what I've read, it's not so much that Apple _won't_ adopt Flash for the iPhone/iPad, but more that perhaps it _can't_, and neither can a number of "other" smartphone platforms. I don't know if HTML5 is better, but it appears to be a more open architecture, as opposed to Flash, which is owned and operated solely by Adobe. It is ironic that Adobe would look at Apple as being closed when it is advocating the very same practice, except with its own technology at the centre.

Ultimately, the consumer doesn't give a rat's @ss what's inside, as long as it works and works consistently. I'd say the best bet for developers is to go with whichever way the wind will blow, more than one way probably, and which way the wind is likely to be blowing a year or two from now.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> What you think HTML5 will become popular??? WOW!
> 
> We never would have thought. I think you should go let all the web devlopers who have been waiting for this spec know about this fantastic piece of news!


Yeah, I remember those kinds of comebacks when I was in junior high. Seriously, GT, dismissiveness does not improve your persuasive skills.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kkritsilas said:


> ...Google's Chrome browser is as good a HTML 5 browser as there currently exists, and Google recently put the VP8 video standard into the public domain. In addition, the 10.1 Flash player has yet to arrive on Android phones (slated for later this year, if it arrives on time).* So how close of an alliance is this?*
> 
> Kostas


One that appears to be evolving.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

groovetube said:


> it's kinda humorous when someone tries to inflate the importance of numbers to make some ridiculous point.
> 
> Seriously Elric, do you develop online strategies for a living or are you just making this crap up? Because it doesn't reflect reality in the industry very accurately at all.


Sorry, I come at this from a business owner perspective, and we want our site to be available to whoever needs it, however they can access it at all times. Being a small business, one customer can make the difference between a good day and a stellar day. I am aware that a lot of not-so-tech-savvy business owners may be unaware of certain things. Maybe I was a little naive in thinking all businesses big or small felt the same way.

Either way, our goal is to have a functional site for everybody everywhere. Like all the major news and TV networks. I believe they have either created an app, or converted their whole website, simply because 1 reader/viewer CAN make all the difference in the world.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

Everything in the world of high tech is in a state of constant change. However, in all of the posts made in this thread, no evidence has been shown of a Google being an ally of Adobe. Google is no more an ally of Adobe than Microsoft is. I will grant that there is not the same adversarial relationship with Google and Adobe, as there seems to be between Apple and Adobe, but it is far from an alliance. The fact that there will (sooner or later) be a Flash player for Android phones is no proof of a Google-Adobe alliance. Anybody can make any program that they want for Android, and put it into the Android marketplace without having to get Google's approval (unlike Apple and the iPhone). This however, is also no proof of a Google-Adobe alliance. It just simply means that Adobe made a Flash player for Android.

If there was an alliance with Google and Adobe, I would have thought that the release of the VP8 codec would not have happened, as the VP8 codec removes one of the compelling reasons for Flash (video) in the first place, and in fact, raises the prospect that HTML 5 adoption will be accelerated. I think that Google is just doing what it sees as its best interests, and at this point, those interests are not in direct opposition to those of Adobe. This also is not, to me, an indication of a Google-Adobe alliance.

Kostas


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Alas. You developer types who think that unless we consumers have not had extensive programming experience then we have no right to an opinion. High tech bigotry!


I'm not a developer, I'm an artist. I have literally no programming experience. I generally draw in ink, scan, then finish the colour and text details in Photoshop and Illustrator. Demand for Flash is increasing right across the board to the point that clients are asking me to DRAW in Flash so that the entire artwork is all Flash sprites only.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kkritsilas said:


> Everything in the world of high tech is in a state of constant change. However, in all of the posts made in this thread, no evidence has been shown of a Google being an ally of Adobe. Google is no more an ally of Adobe than Microsoft is. I will grant that there is not the same adversarial relationship with Google and Adobe, as there seems to be between Apple and Adobe, but it is far from an alliance. The fact that there will (sooner or later) be a Flash player for Android phones is no proof of a Google-Adobe alliance. Anybody can make any program that they want for Android, and put it into the Adroid marketplace without having to get Google's approval (unlike Apple and the iPhone). This however, is also no proof of a Google-Adobe alliance. It just simply means that Adobe made a Flash player for Android.
> 
> If there was an alliance with Google and Adobe, I would have thought that the release of the VP8 codec would not have happened, as the VP8 codec removes one of the compelling reasons for Flash (video) in the first place, and in fact, raises the prospect that HTML 5 adoption will be accelerated. I think that Google is just doing what it sees as its best interests, and at this point, those interests are not in direct opposition to those of Adobe. This also is not, to me, an indication of a Google-Adobe alliance.
> 
> Kostas


No there is no formal alliance nor I doubt there will ever be. Is there an alliance between Microsoft and Creative? No? But how may Creative devices have you ever seen (aside from speaker which are OS independent) have you seen made for the Mac? Very few (any?), an alliance doesn't have to formal to exist. Also, as I said this "relationship" (if that suits you better  ) appears to be an evolving one. 

The reason why the word alliance was used in the first place was because of a reference in the original article which says that "Adobe seems to have found an "ally" in Google."

It may not constitute an alliance in the terms you are thinking of it, but Adobe and Google seem to be "on the same page" when it comes to certain mobile web developments. A page that apparently, for now, Apple has not turned to.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kkritsilas said:


> I think it would be very interesting to have an Flash player/plug in made available as a download on the App Store. That way, Apple doesn't need to support it, and iPhone users can judge for themselves if the ability to view Flash enabled web sites is worth the load it puts on the hardware and the reduced battery life.
> 
> As for "Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs", now that Mac OSX does expose those APIs, let's see how long it takes Adobe to come up with a Flash player that takes advantage of the new APIs. I'm willing to bet that it will take longer than a year. Look how long it took Adobe to come up with a fully native OSX version of Photoshop and the rest of the creative tools.
> 
> ...


Flash challenges the app store. end of storey. 

Apple has exposed the APIs? When did this happen? I didn't hear about this at all I must have missed this!

This is the last I heard from flash player beta 10.1 


> In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. We will continue to evaluate adding the feature to Linux and Mac OS in future releases.


Do you have a link to new info? thanks.

And once again, now I don't know what it will actually take for this to become noticed. But everyone, including flash developers (who are often html/css/js developers as well), have been looking forward to the html5 spec for some time now. Long before Steve Job's nonsense of 640k ram is good for ever... er html5 is good for everyone, we all have been happy about the upcoming spec. There are indeed many things, that I would use html5 I used flash for in terms on simple day to day type stuff. So worry not all who think the flash ads are going somewhere, someday that click4flash will fail you. oooh the wailing....

Google chrome mozilla and adobe, are working on a new plugin api, here's some info.
Flash Player To Come Bundled With Google Chrome, New Browser Plugin API Coming

And as for the comment we're all just developers and need to listen more. bollocks. More BS from someone who zip about this subject yet persists on spouting crap.

No one said any of the technologies were perfect, and if you talk to any flash developer, or any developers in general, you will get an earful on what is wrong with said platform and what they think should be fixed. And I think you might find that it is a much more in depth, concise explanation.

I've always said I'm not surprised apple banned the flash player from the iphone. It is indeed up to adobe to up the game. But apparently, apple, isn't interested.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> I'm not a developer, I'm an artist. I have literally no programming experience. I generally draw in ink, scan, then finish the colour and text details in Photoshop and Illustrator. Demand for Flash is increasing right across the board to the point that clients are asking me to DRAW in Flash so that the entire artwork is all Flash sprites only.


small trick. draw it all in illustrator. select all and set the transparency to 99%. save, import the AI to flash. Since there is an effect applied, flash will auto create symbols of everything with the color effect set to advanced, alpha 99% 

you may have to name symbols, if, you need to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> small trick. draw it all in illustrator. select all and set the transparency to 99%. save, import the AI to flash. Since there is an effect applied, flash will auto create symbols of everything with the color effect set to advanced, alpha 99%
> 
> you may have to name symbols, if, you need to.


Good trick groovetube.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

got it from joshua davis.

Between that, and the new illustrator/photoshop import coolness, I'm lovin illustrator again.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

groovetube said:


> ....
> Apple has exposed the APIs? When did this happen? I didn't hear about this at all I must have missed this!
> 
> This is the last I heard from flash player beta 10.1
> ...


The Mac OSX API that allows GPU acceleration is called Open CL. See here:

Apple - Mac OS X - New technologies in Snow Leopard

Its about half way down the page. You obviously did miss it. Note the specific reference to media applications and larger media and graphic files. Again, Adobe has made NO commitment to using Open CL. Is any of this Apple's issue, or is it, once again, Adobe dragging their feet on supporting Open CL (as they did with supporting OSX, and 64 bit)?

I don't know when the Adobe statement regarding GPU acceleration not being available under OSX was made; if it was made before the release of 10.6, then they had a valid point. If it was made after the release of 10.6, then it is obviously incorrect. In either case, I am interested in seeing how long it will take Adobe to come out with a GPU accelerated Flash player for OSX. They were indicating that Open CL support may take 2 years for Photoshop. Again, I ask, is Apple the problem here?

The 640K RAM being good forever was not Jobs, it was Gates (hence the 640K barrier in MS DOS that existed for many years).

Kostas


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> got it from joshua davis.
> 
> Between that, and the new illustrator/photoshop import coolness, I'm lovin illustrator again.


When you say new do you mean CS5?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kkritsilas said:


> The Mac OSX API that allows GPU acceleration is called Open CL. See here:
> 
> Apple - Mac OS X - New technologies in Snow Leopard
> 
> ...


it isn't incorrect. Check once again, and you find -everyone-, has reported the the required APIs for hardware acceleration to flash player, is indeed UNAVAILABLE. After the release of 10.6

The new flash player 10.1 beta, is currently, being developed, and this is current, information. 

I know where the 640 ram reference came from, that was the point of the dig...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> When you say new do you mean CS5?


no the ai/psd importer has been available since CS3.

I've way too busy keeping up the the increased demand for flash work that apparently is going down lately to scope out CS5 too much yet

I'll see first hand the CS5 stuff since all the adobe top guys will be at this shindig starting tomorrow.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> got it from joshua davis.
> 
> Between that, and the new illustrator/photoshop import coolness, I'm lovin illustrator again.


It's a great trick... thanks!!!

Why did you ever stop loving Illustrator though? I ask because it's been my main go to for many years, and I've yet to see anything that can even come close to competing with it. I cringe when clients send in Freehand or CorelDraw files!


----------

