# The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash



## groovetube

Someone goes a few steps forward, to explain this nonsense about the flash debacle. As I've said many times, it's much more than just flash. Much, much more. This post is pretty bang on.
The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash - Charlie's Diary



> Any threat to the growth of the app store software platform is going to be resisted, vigorously, at this stage. Steve Jobs undoubtedly believes what he (or an assistant) wrote in his thoughts on flash: "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 he really does not want cross-platform apps that might divert attention and energy away from his application ecosystem. The long term goal is to support the long-term migration of Apple from being a hardware company with a software arm into being a cloud computing company with a hardware subsidiary — almost like Google, if you squint at the Google Nexus One in the right light. The alternative is to join the PC industry in a long death spiral into irrelevance.





> The PC revolution is almost coming to an end, and everyone's trying to work out a strategy for surviving the aftermath.


Hold on to yer hats...


----------



## SoyMac

The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash - Charlie's Diary

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure out whether this guy might possibly be biased on one direction or another...

"...Steve Jobs explaining why Adobe's Flash multimedia format will not ever be allowed into the *garden of pure ideology* ..."

"Signs of the Macpocalypse abound. "

"...Apple have turned into paranoid security Nazis ..."

Charles Stross is so subtle, but there's _got_ to be a sign somewhere in his writing, as to how he _really_ feels about Apple and Steve Jobs.


----------



## groovetube

sure. But if you don't allow yourself to be distracted by the little digs, look at the bigger picture. I'm finding very, very few willing to see it. 

I don't see this really, as any kind of slam or anti apple rant. But I guess you -could- spin it that way and miss the point.


----------



## ehlive

i dont know why this is such a big issue. If apple made a product and doesn't want to allow a another product that will compete with its own offerings to have free access, what is the issue?

when I buy my new honda they don't offer me toyota financing. When i bought a copy of office, Microsoft didn't offer me $100 off and a copy of iwork instead...


----------



## ehMax

People have been saying for years that Apple is going to ditch hardware or working towards ditching hardware. 

The argument is baseless and completely false. Apple makes BILLIONS selling hardware. There are no plans to move away from hardware and have no clue where people are getting this idea from or why they think Apple wants to move away from hardware. 

I take Steve's letter for what it is. The arguments are completely logical and in line with Steve's ideology.


----------



## groovetube

I don't think this is particularly about, "ditching hardware" at all. It's more about platforms, and a totally changing environment. Apple is about to make more billions based on it's move to the ipad and it's successors.

This bit about flash, is simply a smokescreen. It's merely a casualty. The reasons, don't make total sense, but the business reasons totally do.

I think Steve Jobs sees this clearly, but it's amazing how many won't. Until, 5 years from now that is 

This is why microsoft, doesn't really matter anymore in the scheme of things. But somehow, for some reason, google does...



ehlive said:


> i dont know why this is such a big issue. If apple made a product and doesn't want to allow a another product that will compete with its own offerings to have free access, what is the issue?
> 
> when I buy my new honda they don't offer me toyota financing. When i bought a copy of office, Microsoft didn't offer me $100 off and a copy of iwork instead...


I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't prevent you from using iwork on windows should it be available for it. Of course they don't offer you 100 bucks off a competitors. That's silly.

I have to ask, since when did OS vendors begin controlling what apps you use and not based on it's own business reasons?


----------



## 9780

I agree with Jobs, I want my iPhone or iPad apps (if I ever get either of those) to be iApps, not ported cross-platform apps that don't quite fit with how the iphone/iPad does things, that don't quite fit with the OS, and don't take advantage of what is available in the OS as far as APIs, Kits, Frameworks, hooks, whatever.

Same as my Mac apps. I love my native Mac apps, wouldn't want to have a mish-mash of QT, Wine, Aqua, GTK, etc, none of them able to really interoperate with each other (like Opera and Thunderbird, which I can't stand for long for exactly this reason).

Patrix.


----------



## fjnmusic

ehMax said:


> People have been saying for years that Apple is going to ditch hardware or working towards ditching hardware.
> 
> The argument is baseless and completely false. Apple makes BILLIONS selling hardware. There are no plans to move away from hardware and have no clue where people are getting this idea from or why they think Apple wants to move away from hardware.
> 
> I take Steve's letter for what it is. The arguments are completely logical and in line with Steve's ideology.


Agreed. In fact, most Apple software is dirt cheap, relatively speaking (Pages for iPad for $10?) and they make the money off of selling solid hardware to put the software on. I don't hear of too many kids using Zen or Zune or any other kind of music players, and I teach a lot of kids. Mostly they tell me how indestructible the iPod is, even when the screen is smashed. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking. For Steve Jobs, it's all about quality control and aesthetics. Why not let his obsession work for you!


----------



## groovetube

Astounding.

This isn't about agreeing with Steve Jobs. What exactly, are you agreeing about? Does this article need to use a 2x4 to get the point across???

This isn't an anti-apple thing, despite the few swipes taken. Nor is this, as I've tried to point out, entirely about flash. Forget about flash for the moment.

It is NOT about apple not being a hardware company, nor agreeing with Jobs about flash. It's about where computing is going. And many, simply can't see it.



> With increasing bandwidth, data doesn't need to be trapped in the hard drives of our desktop computers: data and interaction can follow us out into the world we live in.


Think about this a little more clearly...


----------



## DR Hannon

groovetube, you are frightening me


----------



## groovetube

yes! (as I dance around the fire donning goat leggings screeching)

I just want to ensure this doesn't necessarily go down the "apple bad" flash good" road that accomplishes zip in this subject.

But the point is here, it is rather disturbing, and exciting at the same time what is happening here.


----------



## Macfury

DR Hannon said:


> groovetube, you are frightening me


It's the freaked out cat avatar in combo with the comments, isn't it?


----------



## DR Hannon

Macfury said:


> It's the freaked out cat avatar in combo with the comments, isn't it?


Ya, I was just thinking of the cat dancing in goat leggings.


----------



## groovetube

It seems you might as well.


----------



## kkritsilas

The article is a little alarmist, and very pro-mobile. While I don't have a problem with some of what is said in the blog (it is after all, an opinion piece), the premise that the personal computer revolution is over is very overblown. Now don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with a lot of stuff moving to mobile devices (in which I include smartphones and tablets/iPad type devices); what I have a problem with is that people in the future not having desktop/full laptop computers, and everything migrating to the cloud. I have no doubt that a lot of what we are doing on desktops can move to the cloud, and I do a lot of things on the iPhone that were desktop only previous to my getting my iPhone. However, that doesn't include all of the desktop stuff I used to do, and never will, even if I were to have cheap access to multi-gigabyte per second wireless data links. The things I do on a mobile device (web browsing, email, texting) are possible on a mobile device, and work well. Other things, like writing long documents, spreadsheets, on-line gaming, music production and photo/video editing, are not really going to be possible on mobile devices (combination of needing specific interfaces/huge CPU power/extreme graphics performance/screen size). While more of what I currently do with a desktop will probably move to mobile devices, I don't foresee a future where all of what I currently do will. I'm also pretty sure that the premise of a 7" or so iPad/Tablet device is flawed. It is too big to be considered truly portable, yet not a large enough screen to be considered price competitive with a 10-12" screen device.

Regarding the Apple obsession with secrecy, it should be remembered that Apple has always been more secretive about its new products than most other companies, even 10 years ago. Apple's paranoia now has been heightened because it no longer uses proprietary motherboard/chip designs or CPUs (although the Power PC wasn't proprietary, very few other companies ever used it in the personal computer field), and a lot of what is in current iPhones/iPads/iPods/laptops/desktops is available to others, and much of it ihas been designed elsewhere (as in the motheboard chip sets from Intel, the graphics CPUs from nVidia). In theory, all of this is available to other companies, making the possibility of clones/copy cat products a very real possibility.

The other part of this is the stakes with which Apple is playing. If there was a certainty that the next generation iPhone was coming out, lets say in February, iPhone 3GS sales could have taken a serious nose-dive, really hurting financially. Apple already has a road map of when their products will be renewed, probably going 3 years into the future, as many companies do. If that got out, they would have a hard time selling current products, and
the future going forward would be a much harder path.

The last part which I have a comment for is the zero margin desktop business. This is of course, on the PC side, and is a byproduct of the "race to the bottom" mentality of the PC vendors. They chose to make the PC business a commodity business, and they succeeded. When PCs became commodities, the only competitive advantage was price, and that went down and down, until the margins became zero. PC vendors don't design their own PCs, they don't manufacture them, and they don't write the software for them, either (aside from putting in a load of "crapware"). What differentiates one PC vendor from another? The PCs look a lot alike (because internally, they are), the perform almost exactly the same, and they have the same software and user interface as all of the other competing PCs. The race to the bottom started a while ago, and is now to the point where margins are so thin, that the entire PC business is on the ropes. Congratulations. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Apple's margins are sitting at roughly 40%.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

The article does sound rather alarmist, granted.

But think about it, how many really use serious computing power and use final cut, or photoshop or whatever.

Pretty small minority really. Likely in a forum like this feels like a majority. Kinda like the peecee heads trying to point out how many people build and tinker their peecees. What's interesting is that people who were excitedly saying the ipad can replace a mbp or desktop, in this context suddenly put the brakes on.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Astounding.
> 
> This isn't about agreeing with Steve Jobs. What exactly, are you agreeing about?


I'm agreeing with poster above me, which is why I also quoted him. I don't need youe permission to agree with what someone else writes, I don't believe. Last I read, MicroSoft's tech lead guy is not crazy about Flash either.


----------



## groovetube

Ok I give up.

There doesn't seem to be any reasoning power available, to get this past "I hate flash".

And of course Microsloth's lead guy isn't crazy about flash. But I'm sure he's all gaga about Silverlight! yuk yuk!


----------



## broad

> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Apple's margins are sitting at roughly 40%.


what are you basing this on?

ps-im not being snippy BTW..i am genuinely curious to know...


----------



## kkritsilas

Apple's gross margins are in the low 40% range based on the last quarter's results. Direct quote from the Apple Quarterly Results press release:

"CUPERTINO, California—April 20, 2010—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2010 second quarter ended March 27, 2010. The Company posted revenue of $13.50 billion and net quarterly profit of $3.07 billion, or $3.33 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $9.08 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.62 billion, or $1.79 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 41.7 percent, up from 39.9 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 58 percent of the quarter’s revenue.

. . . . "

I have never seen the iPad as a replacement for MBPs, Desktops, or even netbooks. I think that Apple also realizes this, as they have been very careful to position it as something between an iPhone and a laptop/desktop. The iPad, as a closest possible analogy to a current product, is an overgrown iPod Touch, but in many ways is more than that, mostly due to the size of the screen. For some, whose entire computing requirements are fulfilled by web browsing, email, and media consumption, I can see where the iPad (at least some future version of the iPad) could be a replacement for the above computers, but many (dare I say most) would find it underpowered as a sole computer system. It does have some things that may be better than a laptop or desktop, such as book reading, but the limitations make it an alternative device, not a replacement device.

Kostas


----------



## i-rui

kkritsilas said:


> The article is a little alarmist, and very pro-mobile. While I don't have a problem with some of what is said in the blog (it is after all, an opinion piece), the premise that the personal computer revolution is over is very overblown. Now don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with a lot of stuff moving to mobile devices (in which I include smartphones and tablets/iPad type devices); what I have a problem with is that people in the future not having desktop/full laptop computers, and everything migrating to the cloud. I have no doubt that a lot of what we are doing on desktops can move to the cloud, and I do a lot of things on the iPhone that were desktop only previous to my getting my iPhone. However, that doesn't include all of the desktop stuff I used to do, and never will, even if I were to have cheap access to multi-gigabyte per second wireless data links. The things I do on a mobile device (web browsing, email, texting) are possible on a mobile device, and work well. Other things, like writing long documents, spreadsheets, on-line gaming, music production and photo/video editing, are not really going to be possible on mobile devices (combination of needing specific interfaces/huge CPU power/extreme graphics performance/screen size). While more of what I currently do with a desktop will probably move to mobile devices, I don't foresee a future where all of what I currently do will. I'm also pretty sure that the premise of a 7" or so iPad/Tablet device is flawed. It is too big to be considered truly portable, yet not a large enough screen to be considered price competitive with a 10-12" screen device.


I pretty much agree with the above. HDDs are getting bigger and cheaper everyday. I know for me personally that i'll always choose to store important info where i know it's protected and only i have access to it. Although i'm sure i'll also be using cloud technology for many things, i doubt i'll ever give up on a powerful desktop for my needs (but i acknowledge that for many people a mobile device is all they'll ever need).

As for Apple's margins being in the 40% area....I think that's for their ENTIRE business, a lot of which is from itunes and the appstore. I can't imagine their hardware being anywhere near that.

edit - doing some research it seems the iphone and ipad are around 40-50% margins, while the macbooks around 30%.


----------



## groovetube

time capsule. 

However it is interesting to see people now saying the pc platform isn't going down. I saw an aweful lot of talk saying the ipad will replace the macbook pro (and desktops) and will be the next biggest thing.

I think that vast majority of people fall into the category of "web browsing, email, texting' and other items an ipad can do.

And it seems SJ thinks so too.


----------



## SoyMac

*Ex-Adobe Engineers Support Jobs*

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER! ...

Ex-Adobe Engineers Weigh In on Jobs’ Flash Attack

_"Adobe shut down the mobile business unit in 2007"_

Some excerpts...

_"Carlos Icaza and Walter Luh, former Adobe mobile engineers, said they were raising flags at Adobe in 2007 about the same complaints that Jobs detailed Thursday.

“Walter and I, being the lead architects for Flash Lite, we were seeing the iPhone touch devices coming out, and we kept saying ‘Hey, this is coming along,’”... “You have this white elephant that everybody ignored. Half the [Adobe] mobile business unit was carrying iPhones, and yet the management team wasn’t doing anything about it.”

The pair echoed many of the same concerns expressed by the Apple CEO.

“Flash was designed for the desktop world, for web and large screens, not the user experiences you want to create in these new devices with touch, accelerometers and GPS,” Luh said. “It wasn’t designed with that in mind at all.”_


Full article here


----------



## groovetube

hmmm. I guess the EX engineers never heard of 10.1

And it seems the EX engineers, have a "vested interest" since they are competitors to flash. Curious indeed!


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> hmmm. I guess the EX engineers never heard of 10.1
> 
> And it seems the EX engineers, have a "vested interest" since they are competitors to flash. Curious indeed!


You're so right, Groove. What could two former Adobe Flash Lite developers with an obvious hidden agenda possibly have to say that sheds any light on the Adobe/Apple situation? Where would they get their information, I wonder? Surely "firsthand" is not reliable enough.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, as we say in program.


----------



## groovetube

absolutely.

Far be it from me to deny anyone the choice to believe two former employees who went and started up a competitor to the technology they're trying to pan. Especially since I and many people never heard of them, well... til now anyway. H ah ah ah ha.....

Enjoy!

LOL.

Well it -is- a forum I guess it might take 10 pages before people get it to look at the bigger picture, and realize that as I've said, the flash issue is merely a manifestation of it.

Sifting through the BS on both sides bears this out. Though an article that says some not nice things about apple can be upsetting.


----------



## 9780

I don't understand this thread anymore.

It went from comments about Steve Jobs on Flash, to "this thread isn'T about Apple or Flash" (strange thread title then!), to cloud computing, to ex-Adobe engineers, to "no one understands this yet"

well duh.

I dunno, spell it out clearly, maybe it'll help us all 



> However it is interesting to see people now saying the pc platform isn't going down. I saw an aweful lot of talk saying the ipad will replace the macbook pro (and desktops) and will be the next biggest thing.


I do find this funny however, it's so true! lol. Full-on computers aren't going anywhere soon.. Except for some use cases, where some other kinds of devices will make more sense, more and more.

Patrix.


----------



## kkritsilas

Its quite simple. Groove is the only person here to knows anything about technology, and has a clear vision of the future. This is because he is a developer, and nobody else on the face of the planet has as good a read on the future of computing as he does. All the points brought up, whether valid, invalid, or just opinions, coming from users who quite obviously have been using both computers and smartphones for a while, former engineers from Adobe responsible for the initial efforts to bring Flash to mobile devices, or even Steve Jobs himself, don't understand the "big picture". Only Groove does. The rest of the planet, if not in alignment with his opinion, are in the dark, have hidden agendas, or as he has just pointed out, have vested interests against Adobe or Flash.

The rest of us are just rubes, and should be worshiping at the feet of Groove, as, I have pointed out before, only he, and only he, understands technology, and the future of computing. The rest of us "drink Kool-Aid" are deniers of the coming future, or not developers.

Kostas


----------



## kkritsilas

SoyMac said:


> CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER! ...
> 
> Ex-Adobe Engineers Weigh In on Jobs’ Flash Attack
> 
> _"Adobe shut down the mobile business unit in 2007"_
> 
> Some excerpts...
> 
> _"Carlos Icaza and Walter Luh, former Adobe mobile engineers, said they were raising flags at Adobe in 2007 about the same complaints that Jobs detailed Thursday.
> 
> “Walter and I, being the lead architects for Flash Lite, we were seeing the iPhone touch devices coming out, and we kept saying ‘Hey, this is coming along,’”... “You have this white elephant that everybody ignored. Half the [Adobe] mobile business unit was carrying iPhones, and yet the management team wasn’t doing anything about it.”
> 
> The pair echoed many of the same concerns expressed by the Apple CEO.
> 
> “Flash was designed for the desktop world, for web and large screens, not the user experiences you want to create in these new devices with touch, accelerometers and GPS,” Luh said. “It wasn’t designed with that in mind at all.”_
> 
> 
> Full article here


Another opinion piece here, based on the same Wired article:

Opinion, some notes on Adobe, Apple, the iPhone OS and Flash | 9 to 5 Mac

As far as Flash video is concerned, there is a number of codec related articles on 9 to 5 Mac, but an interesting bit is the graph at the bottom of this page:

Steve Jobs: 'A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other ?open source? codecs' | 9 to 5 Mac

The proportion of use of the various codecs is shown, but the recent release to the public domain of the VP8 codec by Google may substantially change this graph going forward, if the VP8 codec is brought to all of the major platforms (both hardware, and the leading browsers) quickly.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

kkritsilas said:


> Its quite simple. Groove is the only person here to knows anything about technology, and has a clear vision of the future. This is because he is a developer, and nobody else on the face of the planet has as good a read on the future of computing as he does. All the points brought up, whether valid, invalid, or just opinions, coming from users who quite obviously have been using both computers and smartphones for a while, former engineers from Adobe responsible for the initial efforts to bring Flash to mobile devices, or even Steve Jobs himself, don't understand the "big picture". Only Groove does. The rest of the planet, if not in alignment with his opinion, are in the dark, have hidden agendas, or as he has just pointed out, have vested interests against Adobe or Flash.
> 
> The rest of us are just rubes, and should be worshiping at the feet of Groove, as, I have pointed out before, only he, and only he, understands technology, and the future of computing. The rest of us "drink Kool-Aid" are deniers of the coming future, or not developers.
> 
> Kostas


when and if you post something that has basis in fact, I'll agree. Until then, I'll counter it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take 2 ex employees of adobe who has a competing vested interest to flash, who wants attention, very seriously. Particularly, when once again, they've left half the storey out.

Besides that, your sour grapes is a complete joke.

Perhaps in the meantime, rather than slamming the messenger, you can summarize what you think of the article from 9 to 5, and how it pertains what I'm suggesting.


----------



## kkritsilas

Well, you seem to be willing to throw aspersions on the ex-Adobe engineers pretty readily. You pointed out "Especially since I and many people never heard of them, well... til now anyway. H ah ah ah ha.....". My only question at this time is: Do you know all of the engineers who worked at Adobe at the time? I think that Wired would have the journalistic integrity to verify the history or the engineers involved, and have verified that they did in fact work on Flash at Adobe in 2007. Wired is not some high tech version of the National Enquirer. Assuming that they are indeed former Adobe engineers working on Flash, their points are disturbingly in line with what Jobs has said about Flash, in that it is CPU intensive, by extension being too power hungry for mobile device, is not secure enough, and is poorly suited to touch interfaces and mobile device in general. The performance of the Flash player (prior to the latest release that uses the GPU acceleration) on the Mac was abysmal, was crash prone, and taking that as an indication of what would happen on the iPhone, the conclusions of both Steve Jobs and the two ex-Adobe engineers seem to ring true. 

In the particular case of the iPhone, the advantages of GPU acceleration for Flash (as in GPU accelerated Flash 10.1 Beta for Mac)are not going to be anywhere as advantageous as they have been shown to be on the Mac. While the iPhone's Power VR GPU is on every iPhone, with a small difference between the iPhone 2G/3G and the one in the iPhone 3GS, I don't think the power of either of these GPUs is anywhere a Geforce 9400M level, and the amount of acceleration using the Power VR GPU will be minimal to none, which means, again, that the problem remains about the CPU load and battery consumption of Flash.

I don't know if Jobs actually really hates Adobe or Flash, but I think most of the reasons he won't allow Flash on an iPhone is that he cannot see any way that it will work properly. I think that Jobs hating Adobe, or Flash, for him is a waste of time. His major concern is making his products as usable, stable and hassle free as possible (at least in the devices category (ie. not Macs)). He sees Flash as failing in all 3 categories. Some of the past behavior of Adobe management (not supporting OSX, basically saying that Apple was dead in the mid 1990s) didn't help matters, and is similar to the case with Verizon; Dis me and you will pay the next time I have the opportunity. 

Fact is, almost all iPhone users GET ALONG FINE WITHOUT FLASH.

If you could be a little more specific about "this is much more than about Flash. Much, much, more", I would be able to respond a little more specifically. If you don't see this as being about Flash, then what is this about? If you believe this to be about protecting the "closed environment" of the iTunes store, then you are right. But as I have said in another posting, everybody who buys an iPhone is buying into that environment. If you don't want to be in that "closed environment" than don't buy an iPhone; get an Android, HP/Palm, Nokia, or whatever suits your requirements. If you are talking about the move to "cloud" computing, then I have already stated my reasons as to why this will not be entirely true, but that there will be some move in that direction for people who don't need full power computing. If you are not talking about any of the above, please define what you are talking about more clearly.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

ok, a little bit more of a reasonable reply. I'll reply later when I get some more time.


----------



## jagga

*Steve on Flash interesting.*

An interesting view; if flawed.

Let's think.

Apple fought long & hard through partnerships to create good programming tools for 3rd party software developers to rewrite their apps for the Mac OS. Partnerships. Apple has proven - through success of the AppStore and video highlights - the relative ease/power of using DevTools & XCode to create iPhone/iPod/iPad OS software and made it INCREDIBLY lucrative for developers that otherwise had their apps stolen or raw code plagiarized and gussied up & pretty much put out of relevance.

Mobile Smartphone Software:
* S60 was by FAR the most plagiarized - one just needs to google the software they want with free and come to sites like ipmart. 
* WMobile had their far share as well as traditional Palm OS (pre WebOS). 
- essentially, other than large fan forum sites or Handango there was NO platform specific software shopping location, centralized to get all you wanted. Osbscure and sepcific software needs are still missing from Handango. 

iTunes: 
Lets get this straight. Apple may has ALWAYS been a software company. They followed the philosphy to get hardware done right, you make your own software. 
* Apple Lisa OS.
* Mac OS - still predominant and core foundation to ALL their endeavors!
* iPhone/iPod/iPad/next "i" appliances are based on Mac OS X kernel.
iTunes was not Apple's first foray into cloud computing. IBM and Apple worked on AIX and similar OS for corporate use and collaborations for inter corporate purchases = cloud. iTunes though became a proven pure cloud (hardware secondary) solution to service up Music initially, and the rest you all know. iTunes as a cloud service will continue to evolve. 

Software Update: 
Just like Microsoft and Linux distros that follow it - cloud services pull/push these out to are various models. You'll see this service include TimeMachine (TimeCapsule will still remain) initially as a paid service (and seriously raided on Apple's cloud servers), along with a web-based logon to use that profile anywhere from the top browsers - and have that cloud profile update your main Mac to filter any saved bookmarks/history, software, emails, etc. I sincerely doubt Google's Chrome was their initial in-house idea without Apple's influence. 

Hardware ... will never be illuminated so long as our need to increase cpu/gpu/ram processing/speeds/efficiencies. It'll evolve to the close point or relevance of terminals, slight hardware differences to make the use of terminals efficient. 

Think Different: 
Recall Superman and Brainiac concept? 
* Servers in huge clusters
* Cloud services & applications & saved profile preferences/changes to those apps.
* Terminals all compromise of Keyboard/mouse/gesture influence input devices, Output being a screen/brialle/other means, media will be completely digital (some memory based, as optical dies off). 
* houses increasingly becoming networked via fibre to their providers. To be honest the basic concept of a modem should've changed by now where its internal to all computers and just settings auto pushed the moment you connect. WiFi does this so why not modems (without the encryption/pw/mac filtering stuff).

^ this all leads to a centralized cloud computing environment that can be accessed/interactive/updated seamlessly between home/mobile/portable computing units. This my friends IS Brainiac - a central processing entity that compromises of ALL the worlds data (useful or junk) and then making decisions on our behalf to preserve that data and our interactions and well being. It doesn't mean it'll be evil, but in 50-100yrs it would be an interesting time; especially if laws change significantly that prevent data change between rival nations, government rights vs persons right to that data (regardless of content point of creation or consumption), along with 1-5 corporations that have cross border/nation cloud services as dominant. Right now I only see 4 companies capable of this: Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.


----------



## kkritsilas

Jagga:

I must respectfully disagree. Apple has always been, and shows no sign of changing away from being, a hardware company. If Apple were a sofware company, they would have licensed OSX out to other companies, and they would have developed programs like Final Cut and Logic for other platforms (ie. windows). iTunes is not proof of a company being a software company, just like Amazon selling eBooks, or Wal-Mart selling music on-line didn't make them software companies either. iTunes is a distribution channel, whether it be music, books, video, or apps. While Apple does have some apps, the vast majority of the apps are developed outside of Apple, and all of the video, music, and soon, eBooks will also be from external content providers.

As for the following:

"
. . . . 
^ this all leads to a centralized cloud computing environment that can be accessed/interactive/updated seamlessly between home/mobile/portable computing units. This my friends IS Brainiac - a central processing entity that compromises of ALL the worlds data (useful or junk) and then making decisions on our behalf to preserve that data and our interactions and well being. It doesn't mean it'll be evil, but in 50-100yrs it would be an interesting time; especially if laws change significantly that prevent data change between rival nations, government rights vs persons right to that data (regardless of content point of creation or consumption), along with 1-5 corporations that have cross border/nation cloud services as dominant. Right now I only see 4 companies capable of this: Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.

. . . . ."

The time frame being talked about in the original article is talking about 5 years from now. 5 years from now is way too early, and in my mind, it is something that may not ever occur. It is nice to think of always on, infinitely fast, infinitely sized, infinitely reliable, provably and verifiably totally secure networks being possible, but until such time as these networks exist, most people will feel more comfortable with their data in their own computers, where they can get to it, even if the network goes down, or the "cloud" is hacked and data is stolen. This happens a lot more often than people know and are willing to admit. Now, I don't want to say that such a network will never exist, but it probably won't in my lifetime (I hope to be kicking around for the next 30 years at least). The concept is valid, the execution at this time is not possible. The Internet can't even gets its act together well enough to even limit spam, fake websites, poisoned DNS tables, etc., so getting it to the point of the totally available, totally secure, and fast enough to be a local storage replacement is very far away. There will have to be a lot of things done to accomplish this, and even when it is, it will be harder to convince people to rely on it completely for a very long time. We have seen networks that have been relied on go down (Periodic outages of RIM servers, the fiasco in the US where the Microsoft related company that held the data of a large number of phone subscribers lost their data due to a messed up upgrade, many instances of servers of major retailers (mostly in the US) being hacked and credit card information being stolen and traded around, healthcare information being stolen, even US military contractor computers being hacked into and having data stolen (suspected are the Chinese), unclear privacy policies by the likes of Google and Facebook, etc.). Until people feel completely sure that their data in the "cloud" is not being used by others, and the privacy policies of some of these major companies has been clearly defined, and is inline with the public's requirements, then the concept of the "cloud" being a replacement for desktops/laptops is very suspect.

Making predictions going 50 to 100 years into the future requires a crystal ball with a lens far better than mine, so I will not try to make any predictions that far out. There are a lot of stumbling blocks to this, many being non-technical, but political or financial in nature.

There is nothing that prevents cable/dsl modems from being built in today. They just aren't, because nothing is standardized in the last mile connection. The other problem is...do you build in a cable modem, or a dsl modem, because you know that manufacturers will NOT be willing to build in both.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

[Well, you seem to be willing to throw aspersions on the ex-Adobe engineers pretty readily. You pointed out "Especially since I and many people never heard of them, well... til now anyway. H ah ah ah ha.....". My only question at this time is: Do you know all of the engineers who worked at Adobe at the time? I think that Wired would have the journalistic integrity to verify the history or the engineers involved, and have verified that they did in fact work on Flash at Adobe in 2007. Wired is not some high tech version of the National Enquirer. Assuming that they are indeed former Adobe engineers working on Flash, their points are disturbingly in line with what Jobs has said about Flash, in that it is CPU intensive, by extension being too power hungry for mobile device, is not secure enough, and is poorly suited to touch interfaces and mobile device in general. The performance of the Flash player (prior to the latest release that uses the GPU acceleration) on the Mac was abysmal, was crash prone, and taking that as an indication of what would happen on the iPhone, the conclusions of both Steve Jobs and the two ex-Adobe engineers seem to ring true. 

***I don't need to 'throw aspersions' on them at all. It seems to me, two ex employees, who worked on the flash player a few years ago, which is a long time in internet technology, should be taken with, a little bit of a grain of salt. They have a clear vested interest in making flash look worse, As with many public announcements, often they contain things we already knew, and are presented as if it's some kind of damning information that makes Steve Jobs right (!!).

Well the truth is, we already know adobe has missed the boat early on the iphone. I think this is clear to anyone even mildly interested in the subject, so how this is some kind of great revelation and damning point to the demise of flash, is rather a mystery. But, I guess it -is- a storey, this certainly serves as a good one, and many, including yourself it seems, seem to be taking right in. Wired is as equally capable of posting sensationalist stories granulizing something rather obvious, as if it has some great significance currently.

So what have we learned? Adobe missed the boat and was slow on the realization this was a platform to pay major attention to?
WOW! Ya think??? *

In the particular case of the iPhone, the advantages of GPU acceleration for Flash (as in GPU accelerated Flash 10.1 Beta for Mac)are not going to be anywhere as advantageous as they have been shown to be on the Mac. While the iPhone's Power VR GPU is on every iPhone, with a small difference between the iPhone 2G/3G and the one in the iPhone 3GS, I don't think the power of either of these GPUs is anywhere a Geforce 9400M level, and the amount of acceleration using the Power VR GPU will be minimal to none, which means, again, that the problem remains about the CPU load and battery consumption of Flash.

***Do you have proof of this? Can you post real examples of this as fact? Are you part of the private beta program for 10.1 for mobile? Personally, I have seen right in front of my own two eyes, 10.1 running on a mobile, and it was lightening fast. There are videos on youtube if one cares to see. So, I'm interested in first hand information on this. Weren't you the one to erroneously declare that adobe did indeed have access to the necessary APIs to accelerate H.264 previously but didn't? Right.*

I don't know if Jobs actually really hates Adobe or Flash, but I think most of the reasons he won't allow Flash on an iPhone is that he cannot see any way that it will work properly. I think that Jobs hating Adobe, or Flash, for him is a waste of time. His major concern is making his products as usable, stable and hassle free as possible (at least in the devices category (ie. not Macs)). He sees Flash as failing in all 3 categories. Some of the past behavior of Adobe management (not supporting OSX, basically saying that Apple was dead in the mid 1990s) didn't help matters, and is similar to the case with Verizon; Dis me and you will pay the next time I have the opportunity. 

***I call BS on this. If thousands of us have seen 10.1 run flawlessly, then you've got to be kidding me if you believe Steve Jobs isn't aware of it. To think otherwise is simply ridiculous. Which is why Steve Job's letter was a clear sign he's willing to post inaccurate information. Also, his comments about multitouch? Well, just about every developer familiar with the 10.1 project knows, Steve Jobs is lying outright. We ALL know it isn't true. 10.1 has many new APIs to do multitouch, just fine. And you can BET Steve Jobs knows this well too.*

Fact is, almost all iPhone users GET ALONG FINE WITHOUT FLASH.

***Wow, was that cathartic? I've owned an iphone for nearly 2 years, and yes I've gotten along fine in general without it. I also, know full well why it isn't on the iphone, because flash in it's current form, doesn't cut the mustard. I know it, believe it, and understand it. Is this, clear enough now? What interests me, is the fact that regardless, of how well adobe can get flash to run, even if adobe, could address -every single performance issue- completely, Steve Jobs has indicated he isn't interested, not even, as a browser only runtime. That, speaks volumes, right there. It has nothing to do with whether flash will perform well or not, it simply interferes with his business model. End of storey. The article I posted , if you actually bothered to read it, theorized that in the bigger picture, apple has very grand plans on pushing the platform they've developed starting with the ipod and itunes, and move it aggressively to our computing platform in a few short years. And flash, just a simple casualty that doesn't fit. The fact that it performs poorly in it's current form, makes it an easy scapegoat and people will buy the reasons he gives readily. He even has people believing that HTML5 is more than capable of replacing flash, when there is plenty of evidence that it won't. People even will excitedly post articles that M$ has declared HTML5 is the future of web (not exactly saying it will replace any other technologies than HTML4 you'll notice…) Has anyone seen the videos and reports of how horribly the html5 canvas is running compared to flash?*

If you could be a little more specific about "this is much more than about Flash. Much, much, more", I would be able to respond a little more specifically. If you don't see this as being about Flash, then what is this about? If you believe this to be about protecting the "closed environment" of the iTunes store, then you are right. But as I have said in another posting, everybody who buys an iPhone is buying into that environment. If you don't want to be in that "closed environment" than don't buy an iPhone; get an Android, HP/Palm, Nokia, or whatever suits your requirements. If you are talking about the move to "cloud" computing, then I have already stated my reasons as to why this will not be entirely true, but that there will be some move in that direction for people who don't need full power computing. If you are not talking about any of the above, please define what you are talking about more clearly.

***Well, if you bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be asking this question. The article talked about Apple's plans to push a platform very aggressively in the next 5 years. So clearly, this is more about apple pushing their tightly controlled platform, and less about how well, or poorly flash performs. What I find somewhat curious, is how everyone now, is backing down saying, the pad isn;t going to replace people's computers really, it's just an "add-on", another dive like the ipod to add to your collection of computer devices. I think they're wrong. I think Steve Jobs sees things very differently as well. 5 years is a very long time in this industry, and in particular, right now. So if the pad isn't going to the big computer replacement industry shake down device I think it can be, then why would anyone think flash would be killed based on a device that will likely account for a very small blip on the web developers platform percentage pie chart to consider???*
..


----------



## groovetube

jagga said:


> An interesting view; if flawed.
> 
> Let's think.
> 
> Apple fought long & hard through partnerships to create good programming tools for 3rd party software developers to rewrite their apps for the Mac OS. Partnerships. Apple has proven - through success of the AppStore and video highlights - the relative ease/power of using DevTools & XCode to create iPhone/iPod/iPad OS software and made it INCREDIBLY lucrative for developers that otherwise had their apps stolen or raw code plagiarized and gussied up & pretty much put out of relevance.
> 
> Mobile Smartphone Software:
> * S60 was by FAR the most plagiarized - one just needs to google the software they want with free and come to sites like ipmart.
> * WMobile had their far share as well as traditional Palm OS (pre WebOS).
> - essentially, other than large fan forum sites or Handango there was NO platform specific software shopping location, centralized to get all you wanted. Osbscure and sepcific software needs are still missing from Handango.
> 
> iTunes:
> Lets get this straight. Apple may has ALWAYS been a software company. They followed the philosphy to get hardware done right, you make your own software.
> * Apple Lisa OS.
> * Mac OS - still predominant and core foundation to ALL their endeavors!
> * iPhone/iPod/iPad/next "i" appliances are based on Mac OS X kernel.
> iTunes was not Apple's first foray into cloud computing. IBM and Apple worked on AIX and similar OS for corporate use and collaborations for inter corporate purchases = cloud. iTunes though became a proven pure cloud (hardware secondary) solution to service up Music initially, and the rest you all know. iTunes as a cloud service will continue to evolve.
> 
> Software Update:
> Just like Microsoft and Linux distros that follow it - cloud services pull/push these out to are various models. You'll see this service include TimeMachine (TimeCapsule will still remain) initially as a paid service (and seriously raided on Apple's cloud servers), along with a web-based logon to use that profile anywhere from the top browsers - and have that cloud profile update your main Mac to filter any saved bookmarks/history, software, emails, etc. I sincerely doubt Google's Chrome was their initial in-house idea without Apple's influence.
> 
> Hardware ... will never be illuminated so long as our need to increase cpu/gpu/ram processing/speeds/efficiencies. It'll evolve to the close point or relevance of terminals, slight hardware differences to make the use of terminals efficient.
> 
> Think Different:
> Recall Superman and Brainiac concept?
> * Servers in huge clusters
> * Cloud services & applications & saved profile preferences/changes to those apps.
> * Terminals all compromise of Keyboard/mouse/gesture influence input devices, Output being a screen/brialle/other means, media will be completely digital (some memory based, as optical dies off).
> * houses increasingly becoming networked via fibre to their providers. To be honest the basic concept of a modem should've changed by now where its internal to all computers and just settings auto pushed the moment you connect. WiFi does this so why not modems (without the encryption/pw/mac filtering stuff).
> 
> ^ this all leads to a centralized cloud computing environment that can be accessed/interactive/updated seamlessly between home/mobile/portable computing units. This my friends IS Brainiac - a central processing entity that compromises of ALL the worlds data (useful or junk) and then making decisions on our behalf to preserve that data and our interactions and well being. It doesn't mean it'll be evil, but in 50-100yrs it would be an interesting time; especially if laws change significantly that prevent data change between rival nations, government rights vs persons right to that data (regardless of content point of creation or consumption), along with 1-5 corporations that have cross border/nation cloud services as dominant. Right now I only see 4 companies capable of this: Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.


cool post, one I agree with, mostly.

Apple isn't a "software" company. I would say they are a hardware company, first, but that doesn't quite seem correct either, because yes they do software just as much to support their hardware. Wait. They're a computer company!. Hmmm, but they dropped computer from, apple computer.

I think APple is making a concerted push, to move the entire computing platform, into a tightly controlled environment, modelled after the whole itunes thing where they control absolutely everything right down to whether you're allowed to see that south park video or not. Now I realize for mac lovers, this can be a little bit hard to swallow, afterall, this was supposed to be the company that "thought different", the renegade, the good guys. 

But the "good guys", also want to make tons of money, grow, stay relevant in the next decade, and in order to do that, dominance in a platform is needed. So, why is anyone surprised is my question...


----------



## Darien Red Sox

I can not stand flash and agree with Steve Jobs on the need to try and eliminate browser plug ins. Countless times I have gone to flash sights and had flash errors which crashed the browser.


----------



## MannyP Design

Flash errors? Hmmm. I don't see many of those. But I guess a Flash error and bad developing is indistinguishable to the average person.

It's not like it happens with regular "sights" or programs for that matter.


----------



## laserbluemini

might be a little on the side as to what you guys are talking about but...

is flash not optimized for Mac? my MBP doesn't run flash that well (2.something ghz, 2gb ram, 8600GT). It doesn't play youtube 1080p that well. also If I have too many websites up running, flash sometimes crash("flash has quit unexpectedly" window). I already have flashstop(forgot the name), but flash still crash for no reasons sometimes.
on the other hand, flash runs on my PC flawlessly.

I wouldn't want unoptimized flash in my mac or ipad at all to be honest, I would be very happy if Apple can develope something to support flash that is truly optimized for the macs.


----------



## MannyP Design

Apple is partly to blame because, until just a week or so ago, Adobe prohibited from using certain APIs on Macs, unlike on the PC. You'll be seeing some performance bumps soon when Adobe enables hardware acceleration—it'll be much more in line with what PC users have been seeing for the last several years.

The hoopla surrounding Flash on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad are a separate issue altogether.


----------



## hayesk

MannyP Design said:


> Apple is partly to blame because, until just a week or so ago, Adobe prohibited from using certain APIs on Macs, unlike on the PC. You'll be seeing some performance bumps soon when Adobe enables hardware acceleration—it'll be much more in line with what PC users have been seeing for the last several years.


Adobe was never prohibited from using any API on the Mac. The hardware acceleration API just wasn't there. And I wouldn't get too excited. Consider the following:

- VLC can play 1080p video on my Mac. It does not use hardware acceleration. It does not take 100% of my CPU, extraordinary amounts of RAM, nor does it cause my fan to come on full tilt. Flash does.
- Hardware acceleration only helps with HD H.264 video playback. What about vector animation? What about non HD, non H.264 video playback? Flash is inefficient at that as well.

Adobe really tried to sell this "no hardware acceleration" as the reason Flash was bad. Looks like some people bought it, but it's no excuse.


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> What I find somewhat curious, is how everyone now, is backing down saying, the pad isn;t going to replace people's computers really, it's just an "add-on", another dive like the ipod to add to your collection of computer devices. I think they're wrong. I think Steve Jobs sees things very differently as well. 5 years is a very long time in this industry, and in particular, right now. So if the pad isn't going to the big computer replacement industry shake down device I think it can be, then why would anyone think flash would be killed based on a device that will likely account for a very small blip on the web developers platform percentage pie chart to consider???
> ..


well, I never thought the ipad would REPLACE desktops, before or now. I don't see it as an EITHER / OR proposition.

i think that mobile touch computer sector will explode in the future, but thats because it will appeal to people who don't do CPU intensive work or who aren't geeks, and that's an untapped market.

But for people who need that power/storage/reliability, they won't move to JUST mobile touch computing. I can see them getting that technology because it's useful in ADDITION to their systems, but it won't be the death knell for powerful desktops.


----------



## Elric

I thought the REAL reason was because it made Macs crash, it sure as hell makes mine crash and I'm glad to high hell my phone doesn't crash (unless it's jailbroken)


----------



## fyrefly

groovetube said:


> "In the particular case of the iPhone, the advantages of GPU acceleration for Flash (as in GPU accelerated Flash 10.1 Beta for Mac)are not going to be anywhere as advantageous as they have been shown to be on the Mac. While the iPhone's Power VR GPU is on every iPhone, with a small difference between the iPhone 2G/3G and the one in the iPhone 3GS, I don't think the power of either of these GPUs is anywhere a Geforce 9400M level, and the amount of acceleration using the Power VR GPU will be minimal to none, which means, again, that the problem remains about the CPU load and battery consumption of Flash."
> 
> ***Do you have proof of this? Can you post real examples of this as fact? Are you part of the private beta program for 10.1 for mobile? Personally, I have seen right in front of my own two eyes, 10.1 running on a mobile, and it was lightening fast. There are videos on youtube if one cares to see. So, I'm interested in first hand information on this. Weren't you the one to erroneously declare that adobe did indeed have access to the necessary APIs to accelerate H.264 previously but didn't? Right.*


While it's almost unanimously agreed upon (at least on this forum) that Flash on Mobile was a stinkin' pile and hopefully 10.1 will fix that - it's still totally true that the PowerVR GFX chip is nothing even compared to a 9400m Chip.

The proof is in the tech specs:

The PowerVR SGX can push 250 million pixels/second vs. 9400m @ 3.6 billion pixels/sec. We're talking over 10x performance. 

Conversely, the PowerVR SGX uses 2.5 watts vs. 9400m's 12 watts, which is one of the reasons why the iPad gets its 10 hours of battery life. Versus the 5-7 on the MacBook Pros.


----------



## groovetube

fyrefly said:


> While it's almost unanimously agreed upon (at least on this forum) that Flash on Mobile was a stinkin' pile and hopefully 10.1 will fix that - it's still totally true that the PowerVR GFX chip is nothing even compared to a 9400m Chip.
> 
> The proof is in the tech specs:
> 
> The PowerVR SGX can push 250 million pixels/second vs. 9400m @ 3.6 billion pixels/sec. We're talking over 10x performance.
> 
> Conversely, the PowerVR SGX uses 2.5 watts vs. 9400m's 12 watts, which is one of the reasons why the iPad gets its 10 hours of battery life. Versus the 5-7 on the MacBook Pros.


you missed the part where he asserted that 10.1 will not show any advantages. I was wondering if he is part of the private beta testers on mobile and has access to specific info regarding this as it pertains to 10.1, -not- the current player.


----------



## groovetube

hayesk said:


> Adobe was never prohibited from using any API on the Mac. The hardware acceleration API just wasn't there. And I wouldn't get too excited. Consider the following:
> 
> - VLC can play 1080p video on my Mac. It does not use hardware acceleration. It does not take 100% of my CPU, extraordinary amounts of RAM, nor does it cause my fan to come on full tilt. Flash does.
> - Hardware acceleration only helps with HD H.264 video playback. What about vector animation? What about non HD, non H.264 video playback? Flash is inefficient at that as well.
> 
> Adobe really tried to sell this "no hardware acceleration" as the reason Flash was bad. Looks like some people bought it, but it's no excuse.


wait a second here. How was it that H.264 in html5 had access, but flash didn't but now you're saying it didn't exist at all...
hmmm. More misinformation???


----------



## MannyP Design

hayesk said:


> Adobe was never prohibited from using any API on the Mac. The hardware acceleration API just wasn't there. And I wouldn't get too excited. Consider the following:
> 
> - VLC can play 1080p video on my Mac. It does not use hardware acceleration. It does not take 100% of my CPU, extraordinary amounts of RAM, nor does it cause my fan to come on full tilt. Flash does.
> - Hardware acceleration only helps with HD H.264 video playback. What about vector animation? What about non HD, non H.264 video playback? Flash is inefficient at that as well.
> 
> Adobe really tried to sell this "no hardware acceleration" as the reason Flash was bad. Looks like some people bought it, but it's no excuse.


That API that you fondly refer to as "just wasn't there" was a key reason why your fan was kicking in.

And comparing an internet plug-in to a stand-alone application… Well, that just makes sense.


----------



## groovetube

It's not that they weren't there. Apple didn't expose access to them like windows. 

Well known.


----------



## kkritsilas

groovetube said:


> . . . .
> 
> ***Do you have proof of this? Can you post real examples of this as fact? Are you part of the private beta program for 10.1 for mobile? Personally, I have seen right in front of my own two eyes, 10.1 running on a mobile, and it was lightening fast. There are videos on youtube if one cares to see. So, I'm interested in first hand information on this. Weren't you the one to erroneously declare that adobe did indeed have access to the necessary APIs to accelerate H.264 previously but didn't? Right.*
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> ***I call BS on this. If thousands of us have seen 10.1 run flawlessly, then you've got to be kidding me if you believe Steve Jobs isn't aware of it. To think otherwise is simply ridiculous. Which is why Steve Job's letter was a clear sign he's willing to post inaccurate information. Also, his comments about multitouch? Well, just about every developer familiar with the 10.1 project knows, Steve Jobs is lying outright. We ALL know it isn't true. 10.1 has many new APIs to do multitouch, just fine. And you can BET Steve Jobs knows this well too.*
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> ***Wow, was that cathartic? I've owned an iphone for nearly 2 years, and yes I've gotten along fine in general without it. I also, know full well why it isn't on the iphone, because flash in it's current form, doesn't cut the mustard. I know it, believe it, and understand it. Is this, clear enough now? What interests me, is the fact that regardless, of how well adobe can get flash to run, even if adobe, could address -every single performance issue- completely, Steve Jobs has indicated he isn't interested, not even, as a browser only runtime. That, speaks volumes, right there. It has nothing to do with whether flash will perform well or not, it simply interferes with his business model. End of storey. The article I posted , if you actually bothered to read it, theorized that in the bigger picture, apple has very grand plans on pushing the platform they've developed starting with the ipod and itunes, and move it aggressively to our computing platform in a few short years. And flash, just a simple casualty that doesn't fit. The fact that it performs poorly in it's current form, makes it an easy scapegoat and people will buy the reasons he gives readily. He even has people believing that HTML5 is more than capable of replacing flash, when there is plenty of evidence that it won't. People even will excitedly post articles that M$ has declared HTML5 is the future of web (not exactly saying it will replace any other technologies than HTML4 you'll notice…) Has anyone seen the videos and reports of how horribly the html5 canvas is running compared to flash?*
> . . . . .
> 
> ***Well, if you bothered to read the article, you wouldn't be asking this question. The article talked about Apple's plans to push a platform very aggressively in the next 5 years. So clearly, this is more about apple pushing their tightly controlled platform, and less about how well, or poorly flash performs. What I find somewhat curious, is how everyone now, is backing down saying, the pad isn;t going to replace people's computers really, it's just an "add-on", another dive like the ipod to add to your collection of computer devices. I think they're wrong. I think Steve Jobs sees things very differently as well. 5 years is a very long time in this industry, and in particular, right now. So if the pad isn't going to the big computer replacement industry shake down device I think it can be, then why would anyone think flash would be killed based on a device that will likely account for a very small blip on the web developers platform percentage pie chart to consider???*
> ..


I haven't seen the Flash Beta 10.1 player on a mobile device. Have you seen the Flash Beta 10.1 player on an iPhone? If you are saying that the Flash Beta 10.1 player runs well on other mobile devices, I have no argument. However, Flash Beta 10.1 player running well on other mobile devices doesn NOT mean that it would run well on an iPhone, with its different hardware and OS.

The Power VR GPU on the iPhone is NOT optimized for performance, it is simply optimized for low power consumption on a moblie device with a limited screen size, in 2D. The GeForce 9400M, while an integrated graphics processor. has far greater processing power (for displays of up to 2560X1600, with 3D acceleration) than the Power VR, and by extension, would be able to provide a higher degree of acceleration for Flash.

You are right, I was a bit early in saying the API was available (by about a week). My apologies.

I'm sure that Jobs has seen Flash, even the Beta 10.1 player running on all sorts of competing devices. I just think that until the "general public" starts to complain about the lack of Flash, Jobs will not really sit down and make any concessions towards allowing Flash on the machine. Jobs is gambling that by the time Flash is actually capable of working properly (according to his definition) that HTML 5 will have made enough progress that Flash will not be an issue any longer. In the mean time, without a Flash player on the iPhone, he doesn't have to deal with complaints about sluggish performance, reduced battery life, or the potential for security breaches, all of which really end up being theoretical, as there currently is no Flash player on the iPhone.

As for the main thrust of the original article, I took it to be the "death" of the traditional PC, which as I have already written, I don't believe is going to happen for a variety of reasons. please see previous postings. At the very least, if it does happen, it will be far off into the future, at least 40 years out, if it actually does happen. Apple/Jobs has already created a "closed environment" if you take a look at it. The only real thing that is different from the original article is that the original article thinks that everything will be in the "cloud", and I don't. Both the Apple "closed environment" (iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch/iTunes) environment, and the "open environment" (Mac/Windows/Linux) environments will continue to evolve, and take advantage of the improvements in network speeds and technologies, but they will co-exist, not become replacements for each other. As I have said before, there will always be a need for desktop/laptop computers for some, and for others, they will be content to have a simple, secure device that does the things that they need, but does them well, and as easilty as possible. 

The death of the desktop thought was originally brought out when laptops started being powerful enough to replace desktops. Everybody then was saying that desktops were no longer necessary, as you could do everything on a laptop. Perhaps you could, perhaps not, but the reality is, desktops are still being sold, in significant volumes, and in enough volume that they are continuing to evolve at a steady if somewhat slower rate than they were in the past. Their volume has declined as a percentage of the overall computer market, but is still significant. Now we get the concept of the "mobile devices" (iPads, iPhones, Android phones/tablets, Windows 7 phones/tablets) being able to replace the desktop/laptop computers. As I have said before, I don't believe that this will happen, ever. Reasons are in previous posts. 

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

as I've said, many times now, I have indeed seen 10.1 mobile on a phone. I've seen no evidence yet, that it wouldn't run well on an iphone. I thought maybe you could provide it since you're sure it won't for some reason.

I have also seen HTML5 run on mobole devices including the ipad, and man, if that's what everyone is gunning for, good luck. It ran like CRAP.


----------



## kkritsilas

You didn't answer the question about Flash Beta 10.1 running on an iPhone. I'm as sure that it won't provide much of a benefit, as you are sure that it will. Both of us are speculating some, but at least I have some reason to, as the current Flash Beta 10.1 on the Mac seems to have benefited so much from the acceleration provided by the GPU. I extrapolated the relative acceleration based on the relative processing ability of the Power VR vs. the Geforce 9400m/GT320M/GT330M. While the acceleration is indeed of significant, even the Flash Beta 10.1 is still using up 50-60% CPU on a desktop Mac. If it uses up this much CPU & GPU on a desktop Mac, I'm of the opinion that the CPU & GPU on an iPhone 3GS, iPad, and whatever is in the new iPhone, won't be up to the task. It may be a reflection on OSX, or the iPhone OS, or that there are many more optimizations yet to come in Flash 10.1, but as of right now, I don't think it will be usable on the iPhone, and it remains to be seen, when it actually is released for other mobile devices, how CPU/GPU intense it will be, and the effect on battery life (which I understand not to be great for most of the Android phones right now).

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

dude, what on earth are you going on about.

If you can post some hard facts from the 10.1 player and hardware specs, rather than this unintelligible posting, great.

If it can run great on an android phone (or nokia), then there's no reason it shouldn't run on an iphone.


----------



## groovetube

a relatively balanced and sane view from the guy who founded Allaire. Remember them?
The Future of Web Content – HTML5, Flash & Mobile Apps

last paragraph really says it all.


> 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.*


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> I have also seen HTML5 run on mobole devices including the ipad, and man, if that's what everyone is gunning for, good luck. It ran like CRAP.


LMFAO!
What!? You DO realize they've been running for 3 years now on the iPhone. If they were indeed "running like CRAP", you think someone other than you would have noticed. LOL 
This thread is hilarious. It seems the only people that care about Flash on Mobile devices are the guys that can't write code for anything else.

In all seriousness, us mobile users want our content, Not some pointless menu animations or webkins mini games. Flash is for eye candy, detracts from finding the quick info you are actually looking for and wastes time. Mobile USERS don't want Flash.


----------



## groovetube

who are the ones who can't write code for anything else? You have to be a twit not to be able to write JS if you write actioncsipt. Th syntax in IDENTICAL.

And yes indeed, a whole lot of people, have noticed.

It's a big world out there...


----------



## i-rui

Elric said:


> In all seriousness, us mobile users want our content, Not some pointless menu animations or webkins mini games. Flash is for eye candy, detracts from finding the quick info you are actually looking for and wastes time. Mobile USERS don't want Flash.


I'm a mobile user, and if i could get flash running well on my iphone i'd want it. (i'm sure there's others who feel like me somewhere in this world).

The way i see it choice is good, as long as there isn't a huge performance hit i'm all for it, even if apple and jobs doesn't like it. 

Especially on a device like the ipad where for the next few years the internet experiance will be lacking without flash (even if HTML5 does kill flash, we're a few years away from that even being a possibility)


----------



## groovetube

anyone with ipads run the html5 canvas tests? I saw them run and it ain't pretty.


----------



## Elric

i-rui said:


> as long as there isn't a huge performance hit i'm all for it, even if apple and jobs doesn't like it.


I think that's the point.


----------



## kkritsilas

groovetube said:


> dude, what on earth are you going on about.
> 
> If you can post some hard facts from the 10.1 player and hardware specs, rather than this unintelligible posting, great.
> 
> If it can run great on an android phone (or nokia), then there's no reason it shouldn't run on an iphone.


i"m sorry, I thought what I wrote was pretty clear.

You have said that Flash 10.1 Beta runs well on the mobile devices that you have seen. My points are:

-Which mobile devices? Were any of those demonstrations on iPhones?
-If the demonstrations were not on iPhones, your extrapolation that the Flash 10.1 Beta would run well on an iPhone is suspect. If you have seen it run on an iPhone, then please say so. My reasons:

-The OS is entirely different between the iPhone and the other Smartphones.
Therefore the other Smartphone's ability to run the Flash 10.1 Beta is not 
indicative of the iPhone's ability to run the Flash 10.1 Beta.
-As of rignt now, the iPhone 3GS runs at 624 MHz on an ARM A8. The Nexus 1 
runs a 1GHz Snapdragon. There is a significant processor advantage on the 
Nexus 1, which probably helps it run the Flash 10.1 Beta well, and probably 
quite a bit better than the iPhone's current CPU. This may change with the 
new iPhone, which I expect to use the A4 from the iPad, but clocked down. The
clock rate of the new iPhone's CPU may or may not bring it to the same 
processor power as the Nexus 1's processor, and directly impact how fast any 
Flash player would work on the new iPhone.



My second point was that even the Flash 10.1 Beta with the h.264 GPU acceleration on the Mac STILL uses up 40-60% CPU. Considering the relatively low powered Power VR GPU in the iPhone, and the relatively low CPU power of the iPhone, even with graphics acceleration, the Flash 10.1 Beta player will not have the type of performance that would fulfill SJ's, or most user's, expectations.


Kostas


----------



## groovetube

I don't care what your "reasons" are.

Back them up with real world examples or proof. Or you're a troll making things up from google.


----------



## kkritsilas

Really. Then I suppose I am a troll, and we are to take absolutely everything you say as gospel, when you have shown your bias towards Flash repeatedly. I have presented logical arguments that support my case, and you have not refuted any of them, but now that my points have been made, you resort to "back them up with real world examples", a sheer impossiblity considering that a Flash 10.1 Beta doesn't exist on the iPhone. And as such, your contention that SJ "hates" Flash/Adobe is also full of hot air. SJ, and by extension, Apple does what they do for one of two reasons:

1. It will make sense from a financial point of view. The current sales, and rate of sales increase in iPhones does not present a glaring case for supporting Flash, as pretty much nobody, outside of the "geek: community, cares. With the percieved problems of Flash, as outlined in the SJ posting, Apple doesn't need the hassle.

2. It must be a direction that will bring future benefit. In Jobs/Apple's opinion, they think that HTML 5 will, and don't think that Flash will. End of story. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but this is the direction that they have chosen to take.

In either case, no "hate", just financial decisions, and a view towards where the Internet will evolve. 

Kostas


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I don't care what your "reasons" are.
> 
> Back them up with real world examples or proof. Or you're a troll making things up from google.


Easy there, Groove. Why is it always the other guy that's being a troll?


----------



## fjnmusic

kkritsilas said:


> Really. Then I suppose I am a troll, and we are to take absolutely everything you say as gospel, when you have shown your bias towards Flash repeatedly. I have presented logical arguments that support my case, and you have not refuted any of them, but now that my points have been made, you resort to "back them up with real world examples", a sheer impossiblity considering that a Flash 10.1 Beta doesn't exist on the iPhone. And as such, your contention that SJ "hates" Flash/Adobe is also full of hot air. SJ, and by extension, Apple does what they do for one of two reasons:
> 
> 1. It will make sense from a financial point of view. The current sales, and rate of sales increase in iPhones does not present a glaring case for supporting Flash, as pretty much nobody, outside of the "geek: community, cares. With the percieved problems of Flash, as outlined in the SJ posting, Apple doesn't need the hassle.
> 
> 2. It must be a direction that will bring future benefit. In Jobs/Apple's opinion, they think that HTML 5 will, and don't think that Flash will. End of story. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but this is the direction that they have chosen to take.
> 
> In either case, no "hate", just financial decisions, and a view towards where the Internet will evolve.
> 
> Kostas


Looks like MicroSoft is drinking the same koolaid as the rest of us trolls now.

Microsoft Joins Apple in Bashing Flash (ADBE)


----------



## groovetube

kkritsilas said:


> Really. Then I suppose I am a troll, and we are to take absolutely everything you say as gospel, when you have shown your bias towards Flash repeatedly. I have presented logical arguments that support my case, and you have not refuted any of them, but now that my points have been made, you resort to "back them up with real world examples", a sheer impossiblity considering that a Flash 10.1 Beta doesn't exist on the iPhone. And as such, your contention that SJ "hates" Flash/Adobe is also full of hot air. SJ, and by extension, Apple does what they do for one of two reasons:
> 
> 1. It will make sense from a financial point of view. The current sales, and rate of sales increase in iPhones does not present a glaring case for supporting Flash, as pretty much nobody, outside of the "geek: community, cares. With the percieved problems of Flash, as outlined in the SJ posting, Apple doesn't need the hassle.
> 
> 2. It must be a direction that will bring future benefit. In Jobs/Apple's opinion, they think that HTML 5 will, and don't think that Flash will. End of story. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but this is the direction that they have chosen to take.
> 
> In either case, no "hate", just financial decisions, and a view towards where the Internet will evolve.
> 
> Kostas


when you got nothing, throw it at me. 

You made some assertions about hardware, and the iphone, and I have asked 3 times for information backing this up.

So far, I've gotten nothing but your rambling speculation based on what, we have no idea.

So now I'm biased. Yeah someone else tried that when I nailed them too as a troll spouting misinformation.

My position has been clear, I have never questioned not running flash in it's current form on the iphone.

I'm looking for the truth, rather what is fed nonsense that everyone else seems content to swallow.

But, this -is- an internet forum, I don't always expect well thought replies, as the last 2 show quite well...


----------



## groovetube

hmmm.

So now Apple drops the mac catagory in awards fro application built for mac. Apple Drops Mac Category From Annual Design Awards - PCWorld Business Center

very, very interesting.


----------



## kkritsilas

groovetube said:


> when you got nothing, throw it at me.
> 
> You made some assertions about hardware, and the iphone, and I have asked 3 times for information backing this up.
> 
> So far, I've gotten nothing but your rambling speculation based on what, we have no idea.
> 
> So now I'm biased. Yeah someone else tried that when I nailed them too as a troll spouting misinformation.
> 
> My position has been clear, I have never questioned not running flash in it's current form on the iphone.
> 
> I'm looking for the truth, rather what is fed nonsense that everyone else seems content to swallow.
> 
> But, this -is- an internet forum, I don't always expect well thought replies, as the last 2 show quite well...


So, hard numbers:

Nvidia 9400M GPU (as used in the MacBook/Macbook Pro line): 
1.8GPixels/s, 3.6GTexels/sec.
PowerVR SGX 530 (fastest of the PowerVR handheld GPUs, 3GS): 500MPixels/s, 14 MPolygon/s
PowerVR SGX 535 (what is integrated into the Apple A4 SOC design): 500MPixels/s, 28MPolygon/s

So yeah, I think the GPU acceleration of the PowerVR will not be able to be used for accelerating Flash 10.1 on the iPhone with any great impact.

No need for a response, I am after all, a kool-aid drinking troll, as is everybody who doesn't agree with you, or happens to think that SJ's post was based on a thought out opinion, and a statement of which way was the best way to go forward. He, Microsoft, and possibly even Google don't have any valid points at all regarding the rejection of Flash, only you do.

Also, Apple dropping the Mac category from the design awards has exactly what to do with Steve Jobs hating Flash? And Apple dropping the Mac section of the awards wouldn't have anything to do with 10.6 having essentially NO NEW FEATURES over 10.5 couldn't be a factor in any way shape or form, I suppose, but there I go again, trolling and drinking kool-aid again. The awards are designed to showcase software that takes advantage of the new features in an operating system. What do you award when the new operating system DOESN'T HAVE ANY NEW FEATURES? Give it to the same folks who won last year?

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

what hard numbers? You google graphics chips specs, loosely compare them for some unknown reason, since we all know already what the comparisons are, and once again, nothing to back it up, no evidence, never mind the fact that the iphone plays video and app animations -just fine- already, and this is merely followed, once again by, "you don't THINK it'll do it? Is this a joke?

Well holy smokes readers, there's your smoking gun, your hard evidence. "he doesn't --think- it'll do it.

LOL.

Dropping the mac category has nothing to do with flash, please, at least TRY to figure this out. It has been said numerous times this has little, to do with flash, the title was almost sarcastic. K?

Man it's pretty much impossible to discuss a topic like this without getting the trolls upset and sewing just nonsense....


----------



## kkritsilas

On Adobe's lost world of Flash - Computerworld Blogs


----------



## groovetube

well, all I saw there, was outdated info and regurgitated news that's been blogged, reported, debated to death already.

Now unless there's something new there that hasn't already reported, accurately or inaccurately, point it out.


----------



## SoyMac

Daniel Eran Dilger, on Adobe, FLASH, and Apple

Excerpts:

"Quick, name the vendor who claims 96% saturation of the market for dynamic media content. No, not just “market share,” but ubiquitous ownership of the means of distribution of nearly all Internet video, rich Internet apps, and Farmville. Answer: Adobe. Now name the company that is exercising its monopoly position to prevent competition within the market for dynamic web content. Answer: also Adobe."

...

"The problem with monopoly platforms like Windows and Flash isn’t that they are popular, but that they prevent competition, due to significant barriers of entry that stop competition in its tracks. Apple does not spread its iPhone OS across the entire market; it’s only used in Apple’s own products. That means any other vendor can launch its own competitive product."

...

"How would one expect this company (Apple) to take on Flash? By licensing Adobe’s technology and spreading it? No, by developing alternatives that expose Flash as being unnecessary and unworthy of its current status. Apple’s been doing this expertly since the iPhone was released in 2007. While there are still reasons why people might want to view Flash content, Apple has beaten Adobe’s monopoly position down to a frail competitor that is weak enough to garner pity from people who don’t really understand what’s going on.

That’s competition. Apple didn’t lock Adobe out of the market by colluding with other vendors in a non-competitive pact; it didn’t spread out a broadly licensed platform that robbed Adobe of outlets to market its product. In fact, Adobe still claims Flash support from all of the major smartphone vendors, from Nokia’s Symbian to Microsoft’s upcoming WP7 to Google’s Android 2.2 to RIM’s forthcoming BlackBerry OS 6 to Palm’s webOS.

Adobe’s crying that Apple should be forced by the government to not compete against it is absolutely absurd, and all of the pundits lining up to dish this particularly stupid story have stripped themselves of their own journalistic integrity. ... "

... and much more.


----------



## groovetube

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

First, how is adobe, preventing anyone, from embedding video how they wish? Certainly adobe readily adopted H.264 as a codec to play in flash player so it could be played outside the flash player.

If, and as if, video is the main issue. The use of flash, for video, initially took off, because there -was no- other way at the time of embedding so well. Hence sites like youtube etc. taking off the way they did.

Adobe isn't trying to force apple to force it's users to use flash for video, it simply wants the ability, to have it's player downloadable to the OS.

Users can choose how they video just like they can on their pc.

Now before the fanbois trolls crap themselves silly, I'm really not trying to be very biased here.

I firmly believe the flash player as it stands should remain -off- the iphone/ipad until a decent player is released. But should adobe release a good player, then apple keeping it out is no different than the anti competitive actions of microsoft


----------



## Elric

Who says that Apple will NEVER allow Flash? Maybe if Adobe releases a functional version, it can be an App. 
But right now (and always) Apple focuses on Quality. And us consumers really appreciate that. I do not want Safari crashing because some guy thought Flash would make his website "cooler".
Remember how many sites we avoided 10-15 years ago because people thought rainbow coloured blinking text was "cool", sure it never crashed the browser, but people take note of annoying things, like apps crashing. The average user doesn't know it's Flashes fault (MOST people don't even know what Flash IS (MILLIONS of people think "Google" is the browser!)) So if an app crashes, especially Safari, a native Apple App, they will blame Apple, and not Flash.
So Apple is in the right here. I don't want my name tarnished because of some other company either.

And P.S.
If someone that knows what Flash is and really really wants, they have other options.


----------



## SoyMac

*Scribd* tells their story of switching from Adobe Flash, to HMTL5.

Scribd explains this using comic book format. Fun! 

Excerpt:
_Why the change from *Flash* to *HTML5*?
It all started when we wondered;
"Why do you need a special application to read a book, a magazine, or a presentation?"_

See full feature here.


----------



## SoyMac

Or maybe _this_ is the real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash ...

Adobe Flash demo crashes Nexus One Android phone repeatedly or doesn’t work at all

Excerpts;
"_It is starting to look like_ _Adobe's plan to move away from Apple land and into the world of Android might run aground."
_...

... _"Then, he (Ryan) pulled up the same thing on his Nexus One. The site's progress bar filled in and the 3D world appeared for a few seconds before the browser crashed."

"Apparently Ryan said 'Whoops! Well, it's beta, and this is an intense example - let's try it again,'" Farrell reports. "He tried it again and got the same result."

Farrell reports, "So he said to the audience, 'Well, this one isn't going to work, but does anyone have a Flash site they'd like to see running?' A wag shouted out Hulu and Ryan sheepishly said, 'Hulu doesn't work.' ..."_

Full Article Here


----------



## MannyP Design

SoyMac said:


> Or maybe _this_ is the real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash ...
> 
> Adobe Flash demo crashes Nexus One Android phone repeatedly or doesn’t work at all
> 
> Excerpts;
> "_It is starting to look like_ _Adobe's plan to move away from Apple land and into the world of Android might run aground."
> _...
> 
> ... _"Then, he (Ryan) pulled up the same thing on his Nexus One. The site's progress bar filled in and the 3D world appeared for a few seconds before the browser crashed."
> 
> "Apparently Ryan said 'Whoops! Well, it's beta, and this is an intense example - let's try it again,'" Farrell reports. "He tried it again and got the same result."
> 
> Farrell reports, "So he said to the audience, 'Well, this one isn't going to work, but does anyone have a Flash site they'd like to see running?' A wag shouted out Hulu and Ryan sheepishly said, 'Hulu doesn't work.' ..."_
> 
> Full Article Here


Yup. 'Cause that's never happened to Jobs. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Oh the humanity!


----------



## groovetube

Rotflmao

Someone somewhere else said something like, remember when microsoft had that blue screen of death at that demo, and we woke up the next day and apple had like 95% of the marketshare?


----------



## fjnmusic

MannyP Design said:


> Yup. 'Cause that's never happened to Jobs.


Cute! And humbling. "It's pretty awesome when it works."


----------



## groovetube

I just read today that android phones are outselling iphones in the US now.

I'm telling yous. This war, is just about to get interesting. Flash, is merely a sideshow.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I just read today that android phones are outselling iphones in the US now.
> 
> I'm telling yous. This war, is just about to get interesting. Flash, is merely a sideshow.


Take that one with a grain of salt. When we get to one particular model from one particular manufacturer that runs the Android operating system outselling the single-model single-vendor iPhone model, and it's not during a "buy one, get one free" style promotion, let me know.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Take that one with a grain of salt. When we get to one particular model from one particular manufacturer that runs the Android operating system outselling the single-model single-vendor iPhone model, and it's not during a "buy one, get one free" style promotion, let me know.


and why does that suddenly matter?

It's about the platform baby! I've said all along google i the one to watch in this game, and I'm telling you, this, is just getting started! Strap on yer seatbelts, you ain't gonna like the next couple years, trust me.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> and why does that suddenly matter?
> 
> It's about the platform baby! I've said all along google i the one to watch in this game, and I'm telling you, this, is just getting started! Strap on yer seatbelts, you ain't gonna like the next couple years, trust me.


It matters for the same reason Windows fails when it runs on so many different hardware configurations. It's harder to maintain quality control the more variables you have to consider. The Nexus One isn't doing so hot, BTW, and it's about as Android a phone as you're going to find.


----------



## groovetube

is android failing? I heard it's also has the highest growth this quarter beating the iphone.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> is android failing? I heard it's also has the highest growth this quarter beating the iphone.


Not everyone's backing the Google/Droid/Android horse:

Sprint Drops Plan for Google Phone - WSJ.com


----------



## groovetube

oh noooos!

That will kill android for sure!

LOL


----------



## fjnmusic

Here's another: 

It's Time For Google To Kill The Failed Nexus One - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## groovetube

oh my, you're on a roll. If you keep this up, you'll reverse the success of android for sures!


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> oh my, you're on a roll. If you keep this up, you'll reverse the success of android for sures!


Just pointing out that not everyone shares your enthusiasm for Android and Flash, just as not everyone shares my dismissal of them. Always look at the big picture if you want to get some perspective. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## psycosis

fjnmusic said:


> Just pointing out that not everyone shares your enthusiasm for Android and Flash, just as not everyone shares my dismissal of them. Always look at the big picture if you want to get some perspective. Paix, mon ami.


Both of the articles talk about the failure of the Nexus One and not the Android platform. While Sprint and Verizon are not selling the Nexus One, they are selling other flagship Android phones. Not exactly a knock against the platform.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Just pointing out that not everyone shares your enthusiasm for Android and Flash, just as not everyone shares my dismissal of them. Always look at the big picture if you want to get some perspective. Paix, mon ami.


So?


----------



## 9780

lol Nexus One is anything but a failure. It's an awesome phone, which was meant to show other companies how awesome Android could be and how a phone can be with Android uncrippled, and opened up. And some great phones are showing up, 2.1 updates are coming for other phones, etc.

I guess though that analysts would consider the N1 a failure because it didn't take the market by storm and obliterate everything else...

Just like the same analysts considered Apple a failure because it didn't own 90% of the desktop/laptop computer market I guess?


Patrix.


----------



## groovetube

it is an awesome phone. I have heard the incredible is, great (but maybe not 'incredible'...)

Great to see competition, something to make things interesting. Nokia's n900 is successful, and here's a prediciton, microsoft will copy apple when you least expect it.

It
s shaping up to be a much tougher fight than I think some thought. I think they left the spectator stands a little early.


----------



## fjnmusic

patrix said:


> lol Nexus One is anything but a failure. It's an awesome phone, which was meant to show other companies how awesome Android could be and how a phone can be with Android uncrippled, and opened up. And some great phones are showing up, 2.1 updates are coming for other phones, etc.
> 
> I guess though that analysts would consider the N1 a failure because it didn't take the market by storm and obliterate everything else...
> 
> Just like the same analysts considered Apple a failure because it didn't own 90% of the desktop/laptop computer market I guess?
> 
> 
> Patrix.


There you go. For better or worse, success in these circles is largely defined by how widely adopted something is. Unless you're a techno-geek, chances are the general public has no idea what the difference between Android and Droid is, let alone have they heard of the Nexus One or catch the reference to Bladerunner in the product's name. It's like Sauron and Sauromon in Lord of the Rings; needlessly confusing.

I'm sure the N1 is a nice product, but Google botched the delivery of it by a) not promoting it on TV, like the Android phones, and b) offering little to no customer service for those who did opt to buy it. You only get one chance to make a good first impression. Google fumbled the ball, and unfortunately, that association will carry over for a number of potential Android customers.

So while the N1's performance or lack thereof is not directly tied to the success of Android, it does raise a red flag or two for anyone who's paying attention. And last I checked, Android phones can't do Flash yet either.


----------



## groovetube

android is on fire for growth right now. Google isn't a hardware company, like microsoft, and unlike apple, I'm not surprised they didn't handle the release very well.

It appears, no one cares about the "red flag" LOL.

As for flash, it's currently in private beta to developers. As I've said, I saw it run, and oh yeah it can very well do flash. Flash developers are chomping at the bit to start developing for the platform. -if- adobe comes though on a very efficient player, and cs5 has some major improvements as a great platform to develop on, it's looking pretty good in that particular arena I'd say.

So if you know how to do stuff for iphone, and do stuff in flash for the other 4 platforms, I'd say you're in a pretty good position.


----------



## screature

It is great even for iPhone users that the Android is starting to do so well. Competition is good it will make Apple up their game. 

If their were only Canon or just Nikon neither one would be as good as they are, they keep leap frogging over each other in the race to be the best. It's a good thing.


----------



## Chealion

The Flash Player demo on the Nexus One without crashes:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






It looks promising - still waiting for it to actually ship.


----------



## groovetube

I also heard on twitter from guys who were actually there, that the demo that crashed, was not only totally -unplanned-, but the presenter candidly told them that the player was an outdated version. I suppose the blogger guy got his 15 minutes by leaving some key information out, sorta like what I tend to see other flash haters do in general.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> I also heard on twitter


Bahahahahahahahahahaha

"I read it on Wikipedia" too!


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> Bahahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> "I read it on Wikipedia" too!


I doubt you did. It seems you don't read very much. Because you seemed to have missed the part about it was -first hand- reports from people who were there.

Funny how people desperate to prove I don't know what will believe one blogger who left key pieces of information out, over other online accounts, several in fact, of others who were there, who gave a more complete story.


----------



## 9780

I thought the "flash on Android crashing" demo was actually just the guy hitting the home button accidentally? Anyone who's used Android knows the popup dialog that appears when an application crashes, and there was no such popup in that video...

Patrix.


----------



## groovetube

hey did you get your nexus directly from google?


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> Bahahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> "I read it on Wikipedia" too!


and further confirmation from the guy who gave he demo. http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/2010/05/examples-of-flash-content-running-on-android/

don't spend too much time on wiki hear?


----------



## morespace54

Dude, Flash is dead, get over it... 

No kidding 'tho, I was a (very) big fans of Flash (many) many years ago. Today, the only reason I can think of Flash being (really) useful is for video. And if Adobe didn't get that, well... 

I'm glad HTML5 can finally do most of the things I was using Flash for.



My 2 cents


----------



## screature

morespace54 said:


> Dude, Flash is dead, get over it...


Now you've done it...  Lo be tide, the wrath of gt is about to descend upon you. Best you leave the country now and spare yourself!


----------



## groovetube

dude. you're from mars. Did you read this like, on the internets?

Here's some info. html5, ain't here yet. and, it can't do all the things flash can do. And, html5 canvas, can run way crappier than the worst adobe flash plugin could hope to. Video, was one feature added a few years ago. flash lived well without it, but likely won't have to anytime soon.

Yeah read it on the internets.

p.s. Steve says hello, good boy.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Now you've done it...  Lo be tide, the wrath of gt is about to descend upon you. Best you leave the country now and spare yourself!


oh there's always a few somewhere on a forum who reads stuffs on the internets. 

html5. Is over rated.


----------



## 9780

groovetube said:


> hey did you get your nexus directly from google?


yes and no.. I got it from someone who got it directly from Google; that was before it was officially available in Canada  As such, being in Québec with no mobile carrier using the 1700MHz, I'm stuck with EDGE speeds only lol... oh well good enough anyway.

Patrix.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> Did you read this like, on the internets?


Says the guy that quotes Twitter and a Blog 

hahahaha 

You're funny man, this thread is a riot. It's like, when Flash disappears, you will cease to exist, so you practically beg us to want it.

Sorry man, we don't want it. Not until it works properly.


----------



## Chealion

groovetube said:


> I also heard on twitter from guys who were actually there, that the demo that crashed, was not only totally -unplanned-, but the presenter candidly told them that the player was an outdated version. I suppose the blogger guy got his 15 minutes by leaving some key information out, sorta like what I tend to see other flash haters do in general.


In Jeff Croft's blog post (instead of the easy to quote tweet) he says he regrets not tracking down the speaker (Ryan) to get a closer look and get a better explanation. There is only so much that can be said in 140 characters and people like to take something that validates their viewpoint and run it into the ground even if that's not the whole story. (If anything I think his take in the blog post is exceptionally good and level headed).


----------



## groovetube

well from my perspective, there are quite a few individuals, who seem pretty much content with the clicks and grunts of headlines, and the sensationalist nonsense that really just gets tiring. I mainly see most of it on apple groups, which to me is rather surprising. I mean, this is the same group that was so hard done by for years, by the bigoted windows users, who constantly smugly denounced macs as nothing more than over priced fisher price toys, yet there they are, jumping up and down like hootin chimpanzees chanting the same kind of obvious nonsense and myths, as if it were fact. When one goes, there's 3 more to take their place.

I knew pretty early on about this incident as I knew people who were there, but the flash hater crowds (look above a couple...  ) aren't interested in what's really going on, they're interested in being buffoons. You can respond to it a few times, but if you actually expect a reasoned response, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Intelligent.

Anyway, the warz in the mobile space, is becoming really wild, as I said, flash is a bit of a sideshow, but I'm amazed that half of the interesting stuff, goes largely unnoticed in a forum. I see mostly a lot of hi fives about how great we are. And if anyone dares discuss a competing platform, the minions come rushing to our defence. 

Anyway, I'm very interested obviously in seeing flash mature in the mobile space, despite it's detractors who, don't seem to know what they're talking about. (just wait til their ipad chokes on an html5 canvas ad...LOL) as well I am eagerly awaiting html5 become standardized, because the combination, and the newer realities of where each technology works best will result in some pretty great new internet experiences.

I dislike anyone/thing trying suppress innovation, so that we have to revert to where we were 8 years ago, as if that, is somehow gonna be better.

There's that saying, what is it, right. "Be careful what you wish for". It really rings true in this upcoming and current battle. And I don't think many even get it. But oh, they will, soon enough.


----------



## kkritsilas

HTML5 will have problems even when it is ratified and becomes a standard. Browsers, not just the iPad, but across the board, will hang/crash. But the HTML5 standard will improve, as more and more of the problems are discovered, and fixed, and this will be relatively fast, as this will be an open standard. Browsers too, will improve, and fairly quickly, as well. The first few releases will crash because they are being written to a moving target (pre HTML5 ratification/standardization). However, after HTML5 is finalized/standardized/ratified, browsers across the board will evolve both in performance and stability to the point where performance and stability will be a given. With a large variety of browsers targeting full HTML5 support (Safari, Explorer, Chrome, to start) I think the browsers will be fully stable and providing good, if not great, performance 6 months after HTML5 standardizes/ratifies. iPads, Macs, PCs, and iPhones will choke on not just HTML5 Canvas, but a lot of other things within HTML5, at least initially. But that won't last long, and progress will not be held up by one, single solitary company. All the browsers will evolve, at different rates, but they will get there, in 6 months or so, by my own, personal estimate.

Flash evolves only when Adobe chooses to change it. Running the new Flash will only happen when Adobe gets around to writing a flash player for whatever platform they choose to. Nobody else has a say, and nobody else can write a Flash player.

Kostas


----------



## i-rui

kkritsilas said:


> HTML5 will have problems even when it is ratified and becomes a standard. Browsers, not just the iPad, but across the board, will hang/crash. But the HTML5 standard will improve, as more and more of the problems are discovered, and fixed, and this will be relatively fast, as this will be an open standard. Browsers too, will improve, and fairly quickly, as well. The first few releases will crash because they are being written to a moving target (pre HTML5 ratification/standardization). However, after HTML5 is finalized/standardized/ratified, browsers across the board will evolve both in performance and stability to the point where performance and stability will be a given. With a large variety of browsers targeting full HTML5 support (Safari, Explorer, Chrome, to start) I think the browsers will be fully stable and providing good, if not great, performance 6 months after HTML5 standardizes/ratifies. iPads, Macs, PCs, and iPhones will choke on not just HTML5 Canvas, but a lot of other things within HTML5, at least initially. But that won't last long, and progress will not be held up by one, single solitary company. All the browsers will evolve, at different rates, but they will get there, in 6 months or so, by my own, personal estimate.
> 
> Flash evolves only when Adobe chooses to change it. Running the new Flash will only happen when Adobe gets around to writing a flash player for whatever platform they choose to. Nobody else has a say, and nobody else can write a Flash player.
> 
> Kostas


But isn't HTML5 supposed to get ratified in 2012? so that's 2 years away, and then another 6 moths to a year or so for everything to get stable..... so pretty much 2.5 years that the iphone and ipad won't have flash, or an html5 experience that will compete with flash (and it's still not clear if html5 can really do anywhere the things that flash can do). IMO thats a really long time to be without certain technology.

Not a big deal if other mobile devices can't deliver a stable flash experience, but if adobe actually does get flash working well on the android i would hope apple would be big enough to try & get it working on their mobile devices as well.


----------



## kkritsilas

I have read on multiple sites that HTML5 is supposed to finalize this fall. With the usual slips, it may be in early/mid 2011, who knows. And the people saying that it will finalize may be wrong. If it does finalize by the fall, HTML5 will probably be stable at this time next year. If it doesn't finalize until 2011, I still think it will take 6 months or so until the browsers run it properly.

Wiki says, in part:

......
W3C standardization process

The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) started work on the specification in June 2004 under the name Web Applications 1.0.[1] As of March 2010[update], the specification is in the Draft Standard state at the WHATWG, and in Working Draft state at the W3C. Ian Hickson of Google, Inc. is the editor of HTML5.[2]

The HTML5 specification was adopted as the starting point of the work of the new HTML working group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 2007. This working group published the First Public Working Draft of the specification on January 22, 2008.[3] The specification is an ongoing work, and is expected to remain so for many years, although parts of HTML5 are going to be finished and implemented in browsers before the whole specification reaches final Recommendation status.[4]

According to the W3C timetable, it is estimated that HTML5 will reach W3C Recommendation by late 2010. However, the First Public Working Draft estimate was missed by 8 months, and Last Call and Candidate Recommendation were expected to be reached in 2008,[5] but as of April 2010[update] HTML5 is still at Working Draft stage in the W3C.[6] HTML5 has been at Last Call in the WHATWG since October 2009.[7]

Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later.[8] However, many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products:

Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>).

– WHAT Working Group, When will HTML5 be finished?[8], FAQ
.........

So, I guess it depends on who you believe, or whose approval constitutes a "standard". I think that W3C Recommendation should be stable enough to allow browser developers to start the "fully compliant" browser coding. This should mean that HTML5 is basically complete, with revisions to come, but not that any revisions would be substantial enough to hang browsers developed after W3C Recommended status is achieved. Performance improvements may take longer, but will also follow.

How fast/stable Flash will be will only be determined after the public release of Flash for mobile devices actually happens. It really hard to determine how fast or stable a moblie Flash player will be until that happens, as Beta code can still have further optimizations, and it is possible that other bugs may crop up which may require code changes. Maybe it will be great, maybe it won't.

Kostas


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> I knew pretty early on about this incident as I knew people who were there, but the flash hater crowds (look above a couple...  ) aren't interested in what's really going on, they're interested in being buffoons. You can respond to it a few times, but if you actually expect a reasoned response, you'll be sorely disappointed.


I'm sorry that you feel the need to label people. I assume you are trying to take a jab at me because I have a different opinion. C'est la vie.

The bottom line is, the average end user doesn't even know what "Flash" is, they just want their mobile devices (and desktops) to NOT CRASH. And right now, that means no Flash. Sorry if you truly are offended, but there is no need to claim you are more "intelligent" than anyone. When you do, it kind of shows us the opposite.


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> I'm sorry that you feel the need to label people. I assume you are trying to take a jab at me because I have a different opinion. C'est la vie.
> 
> The bottom line is, the average end user doesn't even know what "Flash" is, they just want their mobile devices (and desktops) to NOT CRASH. And right now, that means no Flash. Sorry if you truly are offended, but there is no need to claim you are more "intelligent" than anyone. When you do, it kind of shows us the opposite.


That's funny. I've seen users—average users—complain that they can't view Flash on their iPhone. So yeah, they do know. And it does bug them.

What I don't see is them complaining about Flash crashing their desktop/laptop. Why would they? THAT is something they wouldn't know since a crash is largely generic—only more experienced users would know for sure.


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> That's funny. I've seen users—average users—complain that they can't view Flash on their iPhone. So yeah, they do know. And it does bug them.


But I bet you it is always regarding a Video that the developer chose Flash to deliver with. Not that they can't go on Farmville or Webkins. Amirite?


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> That's funny. I've seen users—average users—complain that they can't view Flash on their iPhone. So yeah, they do know. And it does bug them.
> 
> What I don't see is them complaining about Flash crashing their desktop/laptop. Why would they? THAT is something they wouldn't know since a crash is largely generic—only more experienced users would know for sure.


so have I. Quite a lot actually. But guys like this simply ain't worth responding to anymore, when you see the "flash is dead maaaaaaan! blah de blah de apple rules and I got nothing" crap, you know it's a waste, merely to poke fun at.

Reading back, it seems people are really confused on this html5 thing. What is rather amusing, is now the issue is getting turned around to the flash haters screaming html5 will replace flash, because, first, html5 is years from even becoming candidate status. All the shrieking to see a flash player mobile in release right NOW, yet, somehow, this magical html5 that's supposed to replace flash, is merely a "proposed" standard, and I see th canvas thing buggy as hell, and, often more cpu walloping that flash! By far! So, yeah, two can play this game. SHow me the money. Let's see html5 replace flash perfectly RIGHT NOW. Let's see it... No, I don't want to see some experiments and some possibilities, let's see the real deal. And I want to see it working, on the iphone. TODAY.

Second, even when it does get closer to being a standard, html5 is far faaaaaaaaar far away from even being a remote stones throw from replacing flash. I've worked with some of the proposed stuff, and I can tell you, indeed, FINALLY html4 will get replaced, and we will have some better tools to use. I'd like the html5 spec to move faster too! But, it ain't.

I like javascript because it's basically identical to actionscript. easy peasy. However, a few things, when developing a major application, html5, is not gonna do it. Period. flash is a great platform, and in cs5 they've really improved the workflow. There is simply nothing, certainly now or in the near future, that can come close to replacing this. So the internet trolls screaming flash is dead, mouthpieces.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> so have I. Quite a lot actually. But guys like this simply ain't worth responding to anymore, when you see the "flash is dead maaaaaaan! blah de blah de apple rules and I got nothing" crap, you know it's a waste, merely to poke fun at.
> 
> Reading back, it seems people are really confused on this html5 thing. What is rather amusing, is now the issue is getting turned around to the flash haters screaming html5 will replace flash, because, first, html5 is years from even becoming candidate status. All the shrieking to see a flash player mobile in release right NOW, yet, somehow, this magical html5 that's supposed to replace flash, is merely a "proposed" standard, and I see th canvas thing buggy as hell, and, often more cpu walloping that flash! By far! So, yeah, two can play this game. SHow me the money. Let's see html5 replace flash perfectly RIGHT NOW. Let's see it... No, I don't want to see some experiments and some possibilities, let's see the real deal. And I want to see it working, on the iphone. TODAY.
> 
> Second, even when it does get closer to being a standard, html5 is far faaaaaaaaar far away from even being a remote stones throw from replacing flash. I've worked with some of the proposed stuff, and I can tell you, indeed, FINALLY html4 will get replaced, and we will have some better tools to use. I'd like the html5 spec to move faster too! But, it ain't.
> 
> I like javascript because it's basically identical to actionscript. easy peasy. However, a few things, when developing a major application, html5, is not gonna do it. Period. flash is a great platform, and in cs5 they've really improved the workflow. There is simply nothing, certainly now or in the near future, that can come close to replacing this. So the internet trolls screaming flash is dead, mouthpieces.


Have you actually READ my posts. You keep repeating the same drivel over and over again without actually READING. Remove blinders, come back when you're finished.
I don't "hate Flash", I am not "pro-HTML5", I just think Adobe needs to put the money they are using to slander Apple into developing a Flash App that will WORK.


----------



## SoyMac

*Burnin'!*

Wow, if you think groovetube's Flash-related posts are firey, look at how the propaganda battle is heating up out in the real world, as presented by MDN:

Adobe shows frayed nerves, trots out co-founders, ads to peddle proprietary Flash as ‘open’

Introduction to the article:

_Adobe must be getting really nervous about now, as sites line up to add HTML5 video to their sites in order to serve users who are not saddled with Adobe's closed, buggy, inefficient, battery-draining, old fashioned plug-in-based Flash. With the dominoes clearly falling, Adobe has launched and ad campaign (left) in a few major newspapers (the ones that remain) and on some websites (Wired, etc. via Flash-based ads no less, that users of iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads won't even see) and bypassed The Ingrate Gazoo, their ineffective and unappealing CEO Shantanu Narayen, and instead resorted to trotting out their cofounders, Chuck Geschke and John Warnock, who, sadly, have signed onto an open letter derivatively titled "Our thoughts on open markets." Adobe's even lazy when they title their propaganda. Below, we've intercut Adobe's pack of lies with Steve Jobs' April 2010 open letter, "Thoughts on Flash."

The only thing "open" about Adobe is their propaganda letter. ..._

Full Mac Daily News Article Here


----------



## groovetube

yea that really really upset the apple fanbois a lot 

It's ok for the ceo of apple to publicly say something, but god almighty if the founders of adobe says something, they're really nervous OMG they're desperate!

You'd really have to be soft in the head to buy this crap. 

Well it won't be long before the player gets released, I'm sure the first version of this player won't be 100% perfect, but I'll take a guess that it will wipe html5s arse pretty handily. A safe bet since I just saw a back to back comparison


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> But I bet you it is always regarding a Video that the developer chose Flash to deliver with. Not that they can't go on Farmville or Webkins. Amirite?


Nope.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> yea that really really upset the apple fanbois a lot
> 
> It's ok for the ceo of apple to publicly say something, but god almighty if the founders of adobe says something, they're really nervous OMG they're desperate!
> 
> You'd really have to be soft in the head to buy this crap.
> 
> Well it won't be long before the player gets released, I'm sure the first version of this player won't be 100% perfect, but I'll take a guess that it will wipe html5s arse pretty handily. A safe bet since I just saw a back to back comparison


Do you consider Flash to be proprietary software? Is Adobe promoting an "open" system or not?


----------



## groovetube

first of all, why is proprietary an issue? Apple's system is proprietary, is this ok?

The issue is not having the choice to be able to see flash content. Anyone can choose not to run it, heck everyone can choose to kill it and that would certainly mean certain death for flash.

All that flash content, is not going away anytime soon on the web, companies aren't going to spend billions replacing it anytime soon. If, and I say -if- adobe prodices a good player, than why not have it in the browser. You can choose have it, or not.

Simple.

And yeah, flash format is open source. The actionscript compiler is open source as is the player. You don't need flash ide to create flash content. But you already knew that didn't you.


----------



## kkritsilas

fjnmusic:

Flash is proprietary to Adobe. They control the language, and while they say that it is open enough to have others develop their own Flash players, the only players that I have seen are from Adobe. Again, I can stand to be corrected if untrue, but the only/most used development tools for Flash come from Adobe, which is what Adobe is trying to protect. If, I am not saying will, the majority of sites migrate to HTML5 from Flash, the money Adobe currently sees from selling Flash development tools evaporates, as the the tools for developing HTML5 will be available from many sources.

HTML5 is at a working draft stage at W3C, the body that governs most Web standards. It is an open question as to when the finalized standard will be approved, but most of the language is already defined. It is overdue, depending on who you ask, it was supposed to be out in 2007-2008. The Wikipedia article is here: (HTML5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

There is a FAQ at Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), the group writing the actual HTML5 standard at (FAQ - WHATWG Wiki). The two most relevant sections are: 

When will we be able to start using these new features?

and

When will HTML5 be finished? 

Both of which are somewhat ambiguous, but essentially say that "SOME" HTML5 features can be used now, and some are not quite finished yet. As for finalization of the standard, "W3C's official line is that the HTML5 spec will be complete , with interoperable implementations, in late 2010" (direct quote from the above FAQ). They have missed target dates before, so they may make it, but no guarantees.

As far as I know, Adobe has not submitted Flash to any standardization body, nor have they declared it to be open source (as for example, Google has/will soon declare the VP8 codec to be). I think what Adobe is trying to get at, is that there are a lot of sites that use Flash, and by not having a Flash player on the iPhone, Apple is limiting what their users can see/access from those Flash sites. The point can be argued, but if it were a real problem, I think it would have been something that would have made a bigger splash (like declining iPhone sales) than just the geek sites and message boards.

Kostas


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> first of all, why is proprietary an issue? Apple's system is proprietary, is this ok?
> 
> The issue is not having the choice to be able to see flash content. Anyone can choose not to run it, heck everyone can choose to kill it and that would certainly mean certain death for flash.
> 
> All that flash content, is not going away anytime soon on the web, companies aren't going to spend billions replacing it anytime soon. If, and I say -if- adobe prodices a good player, than why not have it in the browser. You can choose have it, or not.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> And yeah, flash format is open source. The actionscript compiler is open source as is the player. You don't need flash ide to create flash content. But you already knew that didn't you.


Not being a programmer, I don't know much. But I'm sure you already knew that too.

Why is proprietary an issue? Because Adobe claims it's technology is not proprietary, when the opposite would seem to be true. If it were not proprietary, one could create something in Flash that would play in any any environment, which obviously, it does not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It seems more reasonable to me to see Flash as a prerequisite, up to the this point anyway, in order to run video and animations on web players. It is dated, stretched beyond its original purposes, and is no longer able to keep up with many of the demands of the internet as things keep getting faster. So far, Flash has been necessary for internet in the same way MS-DOS was a prerequisite to run Windows in the old days. However, as new technologies emerge, and the old model no longer does the job, new technologies take the place of older technologies. That's just evolution.

Apple is well within its rights to choose which technologies it will use in its products. You are free to purchase or not purchase Apple products. It's that simple. Apple is not interfering one iota with your freedom of choice. You knew the limitations when you bought the product. If enough people don't purchase Apple products, or quit their iPhone contracts to pick up an Android phone (which also doesn't run Flash quite yet), Apple will get the message and perhaps revise its strategy. 

In my experience, Apple has been pretty consistent in its quality control, which has resulted in little if any virus problems, minimal malware/trojans/etc. on its Mac computers, along with quick fixes via frequent software updates, consistently decent iPod and iPhone performance, along with remedies via its well-respected customer service department. If Apple were doing things wrong, people would hesitate to buy their stuff. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

The CEO's of Adobe apparently want to turn this Adobe/Apple disagreement into some sort of statement about fascism, but it rings hollow. Steve Jobs explained in some detail why Apple doesn't support Flash, but the Adobe CEO's did nothing to refute any of the points SJ made. Given the track record, I'm going to assume SJ and Apple know what they're talking about. They could be lying, but if that's the case, at least the Apple lie is more convincing.

Adobe had the opportunity to improve their products to work better and more efficiently on Apple systems and they dropped the ball. They were given the opportunity, They were given the choice. If developers are upset, perhaps they should be directing their frustations to Adobe instead.


----------



## fjnmusic

kkritsilas said:


> fjnmusic:
> 
> Flash is proprietary to Adobe. They control the language, and while they say that it is open enough to have others develop their own Flash players, the only players that I have seen are from Adobe. Again, I can stand to be corrected if untrue, but the only/most used development tools for Flash come from Adobe, which is what Adobe is trying to protect. If, I am not saying will, the majority of sites migrate to HTML5 from Flash, the money Adobe currently sees from selling Flash development tools evaporates, as the the tools for developing HTML5 will be available from many sources.
> 
> HTML5 is at a working draft stage at W3C, the body that governs most Web standards. It is an open question as to when the finalized standard will be approved, but most of the language is already defined. It is overdue, depending on who you ask, it was supposed to be out in 2007-2008. The Wikipedia article is here: (HTML5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
> 
> There is a FAQ at Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), the group writing the actual HTML5 standard at (FAQ - WHATWG Wiki). The two most relevant sections are:
> 
> When will we be able to start using these new features?
> 
> and
> 
> When will HTML5 be finished?
> 
> Both of which are somewhat ambiguous, but essentially say that "SOME" HTML5 features can be used now, and some are not quite finished yet. As for finalization of the standard, "W3C's official line is that the HTML5 spec will be complete , with interoperable implementations, in late 2010" (direct quote from the above FAQ). They have missed target dates before, so they may make it, but no guarantees.
> 
> As far as I know, Adobe has not submitted Flash to any standardization body, nor have they declared it to be open source (as for example, Google has/will soon declare the VP8 codec to be). I think what Adobe is trying to get at, is that there are a lot of sites that use Flash, and by not having a Flash player on the iPhone, Apple is limiting what their users can see/access from those Flash sites. The point can be argued, but if it were a real problem, I think it would have been something that would have made a bigger splash (like declining iPhone sales) than just the geek sites and message boards.
> 
> Kostas


I can certainly see where Adobe's concern comes from, but arguing about "freedom of choice" will not make Adobe's product work any better. Seems like they just can't quite read the writing on the wall. There are wel over 200,000 Apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad that get by just fine without Flash, and any website that I can't access on my iPhone because of no-Flash I just skip and go on to the next one. It's like those news services that tell me I've used up my quota of free articles (like I was ever I had entered into some kind of secret contract!) and I need to subscribe to read the rest of the article. Thatnk you, no, I don't need to read it that badly, and I skip ahead to the next article. So do most people, I'd imagine. 

Adobe knows which tools are available to build stuff for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, and it's a pretty big market. They could adapt Flash, could they not? Or get on board the HTML5 train, even though it will cost them initially. Apple owes Adobe nothing, so they should quit whining.


----------



## groovetube

kkritsilas said:


> fjnmusic:
> 
> Flash is proprietary to Adobe. They control the language, and while they say that it is open enough to have others develop their own Flash players, the only players that I have seen are from Adobe. Again, I can stand to be corrected if untrue, but the only/most used development tools for Flash come from Adobe, which is what Adobe is trying to protect. If, I am not saying will, the majority of sites migrate to HTML5 from Flash, the money Adobe currently sees from selling Flash development tools evaporates, as the the tools for developing HTML5 will be available from many sources.
> 
> HTML5 is at a working draft stage at W3C, the body that governs most Web standards. It is an open question as to when the finalized standard will be approved, but most of the language is already defined. It is overdue, depending on who you ask, it was supposed to be out in 2007-2008. The Wikipedia article is here: (HTML5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
> 
> There is a FAQ at Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), the group writing the actual HTML5 standard at (FAQ - WHATWG Wiki). The two most relevant sections are:
> 
> When will we be able to start using these new features?
> 
> and
> 
> When will HTML5 be finished?
> 
> Both of which are somewhat ambiguous, but essentially say that "SOME" HTML5 features can be used now, and some are not quite finished yet. As for finalization of the standard, "W3C's official line is that the HTML5 spec will be complete , with interoperable implementations, in late 2010" (direct quote from the above FAQ). They have missed target dates before, so they may make it, but no guarantees.
> 
> As far as I know, Adobe has not submitted Flash to any standardization body, nor have they declared it to be open source (as for example, Google has/will soon declare the VP8 codec to be). I think what Adobe is trying to get at, is that there are a lot of sites that use Flash, and by not having a Flash player on the iPhone, Apple is limiting what their users can see/access from those Flash sites. The point can be argued, but if it were a real problem, I think it would have been something that would have made a bigger splash (like declining iPhone sales) than just the geek sites and message boards.
> 
> Kostas


ah you have a thing for posting half the truth don't you. Why don't you post the full information eh?



> When will HTML5 be finished?
> "Finished" is a big deal... You'll be able to use HTML5 long before then. See When will we be able to start using these new features?
> *It is estimated by the editor that HTML5 will reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012.* That doesn't mean you can't start using it yet, though. Different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>). But other sections are still being actively worked on and changed regularly, or not even written yet.
> You can see annotations in the margins showing the estimated stability of each section.
> The possible states are:
> Idea; yet to be specified -- the section is a placeholder.
> First draft -- An early stage.
> Working draft -- An early stage, but more mature than just "first draft".
> Last call for comments -- The section is nearly done, but there may be feedback still to be processed. Send feedback sooner rather than later, or it might be too late.
> Awaiting implementation feedback -- The section is basically done, but might change in response to feedback from implementors. Major changes are unlikely past this point unless it is found that the feature, as specified, really doesn't work well.
> Implemented and widely deployed -- the feature is specified and complete. Once a section is interoperably implemented, it’s quite stable and unlikely to change significantly. Any changes to such a section would most likely only be editorial in nature, particularly if the feature is already in widespread use.
> There are also two special states:
> Being edited right now -- the section is in high flux and is actively being edited. Contact Hixie on IRC if you have immediate feedback.
> Being considered for removal -- for one reason or another, the section is being considered for removal. Send feedback soon to help with the decision.
> The point to all this is that you shouldn’t place too much weight on the status of the specification as a whole. You need to consider the stability and maturity level of each section individually.
> I*t is estimated, again by the editor, that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later.* This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004. That's actually not that crazy, though. Work on HTML4 started in the mid 90s, and HTML4 still, more than ten years later, hasn't reached the level that we want to reach with HTML5. There is no real test suite, there are many parts of the spec that are lacking real implementations, there are big parts that aren't interoperable, and the spec has hundreds if not thousands of known errors that haven't been fixed. When HTML4 came out, REC meant something much less exciting than it does now.
> For a spec to become a REC today, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate). When you consider how long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to implement each feature, you’ll begin to understand why the time frame seems so long.
> *(In the interests of full disclosure, the W3C's official line is that the HTML5 spec will be complete, with interoperable implementations, in late 2010. However, that same timetable gave a date for First Public Working Draft that was eight months premature, and the W3C, as of the predicted date for the third milestone, Candidate Recommendation, had still not come anywhere near reaching the second milestone, Last Call. You can make your own judgements regarding the W3C timetable's credibility.)[*/QUOTE]
> 
> the last paragraph, was where you cherry picked you little line about 2010. You forgot to mention this part though:
> 
> 
> 
> However, that same timetable gave a date for First Public Working Draft that was eight months premature, and the W3C, as of the predicted date for the third milestone, Candidate Recommendation, had still not come anywhere near reaching the second milestone, Last Call. You can make your own judgements regarding the W3C timetable's credibility.)
> 
> 
> 
> It's always good to give the full story.
Click to expand...


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Not being a programmer, I don't know much. But I'm sure you already knew that too.
> 
> Why is proprietary an issue? Because Adobe claims it's technology is not proprietary, when the opposite would seem to be true. If it were not proprietary, one could create something in Flash that would play in any any environment, which obviously, it does not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> 
> It seems more reasonable to me to see Flash as a prerequisite, up to the this point anyway, in order to run video and animations on web players. It is dated, stretched beyond its original purposes, and is no longer able to keep up with many of the demands of the internet as things keep getting faster. So far, Flash has been necessary for internet in the same way MS-DOS was a prerequisite to run Windows in the old days. However, as new technologies emerge, and the old model no longer does the job, new technologies take the place of older technologies. That's just evolution.
> 
> Apple is well within its rights to choose which technologies it will use in its products. You are free to purchase or not purchase Apple products. It's that simple. Apple is not interfering one iota with your freedom of choice. You knew the limitations when you bought the product. If enough people don't purchase Apple products, or quit their iPhone contracts to pick up an Android phone (which also doesn't run Flash quite yet), Apple will get the message and perhaps revise its strategy.
> 
> In my experience, Apple has been pretty consistent in its quality control, which has resulted in little if any virus problems, minimal malware/trojans/etc. on its Mac computers, along with quick fixes via frequent software updates, consistently decent iPod and iPhone performance, along with remedies via its well-respected customer service department. If Apple were doing things wrong, people would hesitate to buy their stuff. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> The CEO's of Adobe apparently want to turn this Adobe/Apple disagreement into some sort of statement about fascism, but it rings hollow. Steve Jobs explained in some detail why Apple doesn't support Flash, but the Adobe CEO's did nothing to refute any of the points SJ made. Given the track record, I'm going to assume SJ and Apple know what they're talking about. They could be lying, but if that's the case, at least the Apple lie is more convincing.
> 
> Adobe had the opportunity to improve their products to work better and more efficiently on Apple systems and they dropped the ball. They were given the opportunity, They were given the choice. If developers are upset, perhaps they should be directing their frustations to Adobe instead.


as I said, the actionscript compiler is open source. You could create flash content without the flash ide.

And if someone really thought they could create a better player, swf is open, and they're free to do so.

Adobe does indeed control the format in that they add features etc.

But personally, I find this big fight regarding proprietary open blah a bunch of titans throwing stones in a glass house.

Choice to me, having the ability to have a flash player on my device, that runs well, should I want it.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> ah you have a thing for posting half the truth don't you. Why don't you post the full information eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will HTML5 be finished?
> "Finished" is a big deal... You'll be able to use HTML5 long before then. See When will we be able to start using these new features?
> *It is estimated by the editor that HTML5 will reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012.* That doesn't mean you can't start using it yet, though. Different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>). But other sections are still being actively worked on and changed regularly, or not even written yet.
> You can see annotations in the margins showing the estimated stability of each section.
> The possible states are:
> Idea; yet to be specified -- the section is a placeholder.
> First draft -- An early stage.
> Working draft -- An early stage, but more mature than just "first draft".
> Last call for comments -- The section is nearly done, but there may be feedback still to be processed. Send feedback sooner rather than later, or it might be too late.
> Awaiting implementation feedback -- The section is basically done, but might change in response to feedback from implementors. Major changes are unlikely past this point unless it is found that the feature, as specified, really doesn't work well.
> Implemented and widely deployed -- the feature is specified and complete. Once a section is interoperably implemented, it’s quite stable and unlikely to change significantly. Any changes to such a section would most likely only be editorial in nature, particularly if the feature is already in widespread use.
> There are also two special states:
> Being edited right now -- the section is in high flux and is actively being edited. Contact Hixie on IRC if you have immediate feedback.
> Being considered for removal -- for one reason or another, the section is being considered for removal. Send feedback soon to help with the decision.
> The point to all this is that you shouldn’t place too much weight on the status of the specification as a whole. You need to consider the stability and maturity level of each section individually.
> I*t is estimated, again by the editor, that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later.* This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004. That's actually not that crazy, though. Work on HTML4 started in the mid 90s, and HTML4 still, more than ten years later, hasn't reached the level that we want to reach with HTML5. There is no real test suite, there are many parts of the spec that are lacking real implementations, there are big parts that aren't interoperable, and the spec has hundreds if not thousands of known errors that haven't been fixed. When HTML4 came out, REC meant something much less exciting than it does now.
> For a spec to become a REC today, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate). When you consider how long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to implement each feature, you’ll begin to understand why the time frame seems so long.
> *(In the interests of full disclosure, the W3C's official line is that the HTML5 spec will be complete, with interoperable implementations, in late 2010. However, that same timetable gave a date for First Public Working Draft that was eight months premature, and the W3C, as of the predicted date for the third milestone, Candidate Recommendation, had still not come anywhere near reaching the second milestone, Last Call. You can make your own judgements regarding the W3C timetable's credibility.)[*/QUOTE]
> 
> the last paragraph, was where you cherry picked you little line about 2010. You forgot to mention this part though:
> 
> 
> It's always good to give the full story.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is a good point. By the same logic, OSX is also still a "work in progress." It is not finished. But it is good enough until the next software update or the next version comes along (i'm hoping for OSX 10.7 Cougar/Milf personally). Point is, the Death Star didn't have to be finished before it could be used (although it did get taken down by a small virus of rebel forces, I suppose). Neither Flash nor HTML5 are quite ready for primetime on mobile devices, and I imagine we're a little at the mercy of what those who actually build and program the devices believe will work the best over the long haul. The prevailing winds seem to be shifting toward HTML5 if Apple and MicroSoft have anything to say about it. And they make lots of stuff.
Click to expand...


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Well, this is a good point. By the same logic, OSX is also still a "work in progress." It is not finished. But it is good enough until the next software update or the next version comes along (i'm hoping for OSX 10.7 Cougar/Milf personally). Point is, the Death Star didn't have to be finished before it could be used (although it did get taken down by a small virus of rebel forces, I suppose). Neither Flash nor HTML5 are quite ready for primetime on mobile devices, and I imagine we're a little at the mercy of what those who actually build and program the devices believe will work the best over the long haul. The prevailing winds seem to be shifting toward HTML5 if Apple and MicroSoft have anything to say about it. And they make lots of stuff.


not a good analogy. 

There are -some- html5 stuff starting to see some use. namely, one we all really like, is the video tag. People think this is a flash killer, it ain't. It'll take far more than that, to kill flash.

there's LOTS of stuff that will be a while off before it even begins encroaching on flash. None of the people I've encountered, have been able to show me that any of it is ready for prime time, despite the yelling it's gonna kill flash.

Flash, has a development cycle of about 18 months. sometimes, the next version, is -drastically- different, massive upgrades and features. html5, moves waaaaaaaaaaaaaay slower. And that, is an understatement. html5 began 6 years ago for god's sake.

Also, if CS5 is any indication, one thing adobe has focused on, is the development platform. One of the things to consider, is not only, can we use flash for this or html5 for this, but what is the most efficient way to create the project.

Most of the flash haters crowd, don't seem to quite fathom that little detail.

Make no mistake, I want to see html5 get standardized sooner than later.


----------



## MannyP Design

fjnmusic said:


> Do you consider Flash to be proprietary software? Is Adobe promoting an "open" system or not?


Not at all. Adobe is not restricting anyone from using it, developing for it, or publishing it. You don't need to buy Adobe products to make Flash files.


----------



## kkritsilas

fjnmusic said:


> I can certainly see where Adobe's concern comes from, but arguing about "freedom of choice" will not make Adobe's product work any better. Seems like they just can't quite read the writing on the wall. There are wel over 200,000 Apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad that get by just fine without Flash, and any website that I can't access on my iPhone because of no-Flash I just skip and go on to the next one. It's like those news services that tell me I've used up my quota of free articles (like I was ever I had entered into some kind of secret contract!) and I need to subscribe to read the rest of the article. Thatnk you, no, I don't need to read it that badly, and I skip ahead to the next article. So do most people, I'd imagine.
> 
> Adobe knows which tools are available to build stuff for the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, and it's a pretty big market. They could adapt Flash, could they not? Or get on board the HTML5 train, even though it will cost them initially. Apple owes Adobe nothing, so they should quit whining.


Some of the stuff Adobe is saying is trying to take advantage of the user experience with PCs and Macs, which do have Flash Players already. This may be a double edged sword, as the Mac's Flash Player really doesn't have a very good reputation. The tools to build iPhone/iPad apps are really cheap or free if you sign up for the developer program, so there isn't any money to be made there. Certainly, there is more money in making tools for Flash, if the demand is there. Adobe sees the erosion of the Flash market, perhaps not immediately, but long term, and is doing what it can to make sure that cash cow continues to deliver.

Adobe going to HTML5 tools would put them into a competitive situation with all of the other folks making HTML5 tools. Exclusivity, and market domination (in Flash development tools) come to an end, and I think that this doesn't sit well with Adobe's view of the world, or at least the world they would like.

In all honesty, I don't know what the problem is. Apple has always controlled the operating environment, even for the Mac (see user interface guidelines for Mac OSes (prior to OSX)). This is an equivalent to what is going on with Flash on the iPhone. Apple always has, and always will, control the user experience. Whether this is good or bad may be open to debate, but what isn't up for debate is whether this will change. IT WILL NOT. I think Apple sees themselves as being responsible for the entirety of their platforms, and so, controls them as it sees fit. When something fails to work properly on a Mac, iPhone, iPod, or iPad, you go to Apple. There is no "This is a hardware problem" by Microsoft; "This is a Windows problem" by the PC vendor; "This is a driver issue" by the application software vendor. In the Apple world, IT IS ALL APPLE"S PROBLEM. So, Apple exerts control to make sure that stuff works properly, and when it doesn't, they usually get down to the issue pretty fast. This is the reason that Apple will do things like write HP printer drivers when the equipment vendor doesn't write them, or does a poor job.

In the Apple world, you are buying into the platform, not just a box of hardware and a box of software, and hoping that it works properly.

Kostas


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Well, this is a good point. By the same logic, OSX is also still a "work in progress." It is not finished. But it is good enough until the next software update or the next version comes along (i'm hoping for OSX 10.7 Cougar/Milf personally).


i don't think that's an accurate comparison. OS X goes thru beta releases - THAT would be accurate to compare, but not a full public release. Once code goes "prime time" it's expected to work, and things like "standards" can't really be changed. So people creating HTML5 coded websites NOW could find that their websites won't display on TRUE HTML5 browsers TOMORROW (well, not tomorrow ...probably 2.5 years from now...whenever the standard gets ratified).

But a few things. I think it's silly to pretend flash isn't propriety. It's Adobes format. they control it. Yes people can create stuff with it, but ultimately Adobe will call the shots. HTML5 WILL be OPEN....meaning no one entity or group will control it.

I think it's silly that it's developed in to a HTML5 vs Flash argument. No reason they can't work together. Even at the very least Flash could act as a bridge before HTML5 gets up and running (if it truly can, eventually, do everything people expect of it).

Regarding the "Open Letters"...well, Steve Jobs said a lot of stuff i agreed with, but he also left out a lot of stuff, and glossed over a few very important facts (i.e HTML5 isn't READY yet!!)

But the Adobe "open Letter" was really ridiculous, and bent & twisted facts more than SJ did (Imo).


----------



## groovetube

the html5 vs flash is becoming incredibly stupid. It's become a war of words publicly between adobe and apple, with both CEOs now publishing their thoughts, and it's become a battle of public opinion, ad campaigns now on how best to steamroller the other with facts and ideas that suit each side.

People in the middle are like STFU already.

Adobe make a good player, release the damn thing, and apple stop mewling about adobe.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> Adobe make a good player, release the damn thing, and apple stop mewling about adobe.


I totally agree with this. Adobe should just submit a functional app, THEN see if Apple denies it or not. Then we'd truly see where the bias is.


----------



## Chealion

What's fun on this general argument (here and elsewhere) is that too many of the points on both sides are getting confused with each other. Talking about how you don't need Flash to do video on mobile and then throwing out the rest of Flash ignores what else Flash can do. On Apple's side you have:

Web - They just want open standards. And you can play H.264 video and a couple audio formats that the hardware supports.

App Store - Apple's walled garden/playground. Apple's rules.

On Adobe's side you have:

Video - Flash is well known as a video player but is just a small part of what Flash can actually do.

Animations, vector graphics, etc. - This is what Flash was known for before video. The software was a hog but it allowed you to do things not possible with HTML and other bits.

Ads - Everyone hates ads. Especially buggy ones that I would surmise have significantly helped the image of Flash being super buggy.

Choice - We have taken the words Open and Choice and made our version of PlaysForSure! It's open so long as it can run Flash.

======



groovetube said:


> ...but the flash hater crowds (look above a couple...  ) aren't interested in what's really going on, they're interested in being buffoons. You can respond to it a few times, but if you actually expect a reasoned response, you'll be sorely disappointed.


That's about the same with any internet based debate - 



> I dislike anyone/thing trying suppress innovation, so that we have to revert to where we were 8 years ago, as if that, is somehow gonna be better.


Flash is not required for innovation.



kkritsilas said:


> Running the new Flash will only happen when Adobe gets around to writing a flash player for whatever platform they choose to. Nobody else has a say, and nobody else can write a Flash player.
> 
> Kostas


The 'SWF" specification is "open" (in that it's documented but it's not open for people to make changes to) and people *can* make a Flash player (see Gnash, etc.) - but without the DRM bits that Adobe keeps tightly sealed away or Adobe's ability to "out-innovate" by making sure any competitors are always playing catch up make it a decidedly bad idea.



groovetube said:


> What is rather amusing, is now the issue is getting turned around to the flash haters screaming html5 will replace flash, because, first, html5 is years from even becoming candidate status. All the shrieking to see a flash player mobile in release right NOW, yet, somehow, this magical html5 that's supposed to replace flash, is merely a "proposed" standard, and I see th canvas thing buggy as hell, and, often more cpu walloping that flash! By far! So, yeah, two can play this game. SHow me the money. Let's see html5 replace flash perfectly RIGHT NOW. Let's see it... No, I don't want to see some experiments and some possibilities, let's see the real deal. And I want to see it working, on the iphone. TODAY.


In the mobile world on smartphones (Android or iPhone) are all runnings various versions of WebKit that does already include parts of HTML5. (Google Voice for example is an example of a web app that leverages HTML5). RIM has announced a WebKit based browser.

HTML 5 never will (or should) completely replace Flash. Flash is not a replacement for the web either despite what Adobe would really love to happen.



groovetube said:


> I*t is estimated, again by the editor, that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later.*


The standardization date for better and worse is a dead point. How soon do you see it in widespread browser implementations and how close are the different implementations? That's the more important point and one that can't be answered for sure. IE 9 comes out later this year and has a slew of HTML 5 implemented - but given it drops XP how many web users will be using IE 6, 7 or 8?

My preferred solution; a page saying getting a real browser isn't a viable or realistic solution. ;-)



groovetube said:


> Choice to me, having the ability to have a flash player on my device, that runs well, should I want it.


Now when Adobe ships a final version that proves Apple wrong I'll agree with you. I still maintain Apple was right - a 400? Mhz chip (the original iPhone and 3G processor speed IIRC) is by far a *lot* slower than the processor you see in the iPad, iPhone 3G S, Nexus One, etc. If it's smooth on a Nexus One, it doesn't mean it's smooth on a processor with almost half the CPU speed.



groovetube said:


> the html5 vs flash is becoming incredibly stupid. It's become a war of words publicly between adobe and apple, with both CEOs now publishing their thoughts, and it's become a battle of public opinion, ad campaigns now on how best to steamroller the other with facts and ideas that suit each side.
> 
> People in the middle are like STFU already.
> 
> *Adobe make a good player, release the damn thing, and apple stop mewling about adobe.*


You sir, are my hero. I've been saying something similar to this for months. The PR war only does a disservice to Adobe's engineers.


----------



## groovetube

Well at the end of the day, the debate runs aground, until adobe can release a player. I'm sure the first revision won't be perfect, but it runs very well, they -could- save themselves



Chealion said:


> Flash is not required for innovation.


I know. But the point is, people are excited about creating things, that flash could do 8 years ago. Flash has leapfrogged lightyears ahead of that, and has become a full fledged application development platform, something html5 will never achieve. That's why I say most don't really understand this, so they screech flash is dead.

Well, I don't think if flash dies, that it'll be html5 that kills it.


----------



## satchmo

Chealion said:


> Animations, vector graphics, etc. - This is what Flash was known for before video. The software was a hog but it allowed you to do things not possible with HTML and other bits.


Is anyone aware of any HTML5 workaround to achieve vector graphics/animations? Is it even possible?
For instance, could Adobe create a new HTML development tool that essential does what Flash does?


----------



## groovetube

it is going to be possible with canvas, but that's pretty buggy, and far from being in use much less a standard at the moment.

And flash CS5 exports to html5 canvas actually.


----------



## SINC

Found this today and thought of this thread:


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> ...and has become *a full fledged application development platform, something html5 will never achieve.* That's why I say most don't really understand this, so they screech flash is dead.
> 
> Well, I don't think if flash dies, that it'll be html5 that kills it.


Hmm... really? HTML 5 will still support JavaScript and specifies scripting APIs. I already use HTML based applications. For example Open Cube's QuickMenu for building complex standards based navigation quickly and easily. So HTML 4 (let alone HTML 5) can and is already being used as an application development platform.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Hmm... really? HTML 5 will still support JavaScript and specifies scripting APIs. I already use HTML based applications. For example Open Cube's QuickMenu for building complex standards based navigation quickly and easily. So HTML 4 (let alone HTML 5) can and is already being used as an application development platform.


if you know the flash/flex application development platform, you would know that there is a HUGE difference. Creating menus is pretty fisher price stuff.

This is why the google link geniuses who seem to yell the loudest I find, have no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Well at the end of the day, the debate runs aground, until adobe can release a player. I'm sure the first revision won't be perfect, but it runs very well, they -could- save themselves
> 
> 
> 
> I know. But the point is, people are excited about creating things, that flash could do 8 years ago. Flash has leapfrogged lightyears ahead of that, and has become a full fledged application development platform, something html5 will never achieve. That's why I say most don't really understand this, so they screech flash is dead.
> 
> Well, I don't think if flash dies, that it'll be html5 that kills it.


Even if Adobe releases a great player, Apple is not compelled to use it. Given the dirty laundry that's already been aired, and particularly the fell-sorry-for-me attitude of the Flash guys, I think Adobe would be foolish to throw good money after bad developing for the Apple platform, and Apple would be foolish to adopt a mediocre technology out of some kind of guilt. They can perfect Flash all they want to run on the hugely-selling Nexus One ad other smart phones that can handle it, but they should accept the fact that Apple has moved on. Apple can pick its parts, just like you can pick your computer or your smart phone brand. That's called competition, with a good dose of survival of the fittest.


----------



## groovetube

Personally, I could care less if apple takes it or not.

There's over 80% of the market that might. If adobe makes it work really well, it'll become a selling point on all the other platforms. Android (not just nexus one btw) the fastest growing mobile in the world and just getting legs, RIM, Nokia (who already puts plash players on their phones) win7 phones etc.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> if you know the flash/flex application development platform, you would know that there is a HUGE difference. Creating menus is pretty fisher price stuff.
> 
> This is why the google link geniuses who seem to yell the loudest I find, have no clue what they're talking about.


No plug in required. All JavaScript and CSS... I will take Open Cube and QuickMenu over Flash based navigation every day of the week. I have made plenty of Flash based navs, it is very easy... just not universally accessible... can you say iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad? 

Not to mention they are lighter and faster. 

Of course there is a difference, it does not invalidate that HTML can and is used as an application development platform.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> No plug in required. All JavaScript and CSS... I will take Open Cube and QuickMenu over Flash based navigation every day of the week. I have made plenty of Flash based navs, it is very easy... just not universally accessible... can you say iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad?
> 
> Not to mention they are lighter and faster.
> 
> Of course there is a difference, it does not invalidate that HTML can and is used as an application development platform.


I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing about. Are you?

If you're building an html page/site, and you can build a lightweight nav with the required features in html/css/javascript, then why would you use flash?

The point I made, is flash/flex has much higher capabilities as an application development platform far faaaar beyond this kind of simple day to day web programming.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing about. Are you?
> 
> If you're building an html page/site, and you can build a lightweight nav with the required features in html/css/javascript, then why would you use flash?
> 
> The point I made, is flash/flex has much higher capabilities as an application development platform far faaaar beyond this kind of simple day to day web programming.


The original point that I made and that you deflected from is that HTML can be used as an application development platform. I merely cited Open Cube's QuickMenu as an example of that. That is it, that is all... you took it on the tangent.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> The original point that I made and that you deflected from is that HTML can be used as an application development platform. I merely cited Open Cube's QuickMenu as an example of that. That is it, that is all... you took it on the tangent.


Ok, you're wading into something that you don't seem to know a lot about.

I'm talking about application development, not making navs for websites.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Ok, you're wading into something that you don't seem to know a lot about.
> 
> I'm talking about application development, not making navs for websites.



Did you even look at what Open Cube has done!? They have made an application for developing navs using only HTML, JavaScript and CSS. You said HTML 5 will never be used as an application development platform. HTML 4 already is used in as such. That is the point and the only point I was making. Gees you seem to have difficulty reading and comprehending.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Did you even look at what Open Cube has done!? They have made an application for developing navs using only HTML, JavaScript and CSS. You said HTML 5 will never be used as an application development platform. HTML 4 already is used in as such. That is the point and the only point I was making. Gees you seem to have difficulty reading and comprehending.


you really enjoy yapping about a subject you have only a cursory knowledge about to look smart don't you?

Yes I have seen what they have done. And yes, you can create a lot of great things using html5/CSS3/javascript etc. This is hot news???

However, flash/flex is still by far, a much more powerful, and robust application development platform, once... again.

But it doesn't mean it's the best tool, for everything. But, I think, that is rather obvious, to even the novice programmer.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> you really enjoy yapping about a subject you have only a cursory knowledge about to look smart don't you?
> 
> Yes I have seen what they have done. And yes, you can create a lot of great things using html5/CSS3/javascript etc. This is hot news???
> 
> However, flash/flex is still by far, a much more powerful, and robust application development platform, once... again.
> 
> But it doesn't mean it's the best tool, for everything. But, I think, that is rather obvious, to even the novice programmer.


Really? I guess that makes us even with your political commentary??  At least I *have *worked as a web developer.

But to your point.. not at all. You made an all encompassing point about HTML 5 and I merely pointed out that it wasn't completely true. Your ego doesn't allow for any descenting opinions so you go off in all directions, anything but admit the validity of the point (talk about yapping, I guess in your case is more Yewooww, Phfftt, Phfft). Obviously Flash/Flex is a more robust development platform, I never said it wasn't, I merely pointed out that HTML can be used as such. Something you denied as a possibility.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Really? I guess that makes us even with your political commentary??  At least I *have *worked as a web developer.
> 
> But to your point.. not at all. You made an all encompassing point about HTML 5 and I merely pointed out that it wasn't completely true. Your ego doesn't allow for any descenting opinions so you go off in all directions, anything but admit the validity of the point (talk about yapping, I guess in your case is more Yewooww, Phfftt, Phfft). Obviously Flash/Flex is a more robust development platform, I never said it wasn't, I merely pointed out that HTML can be used as such. Something you denied as a possibility.


This is the problem with you screature. You make statements about something you don't know a lot about, and when you're corrected by someone who is a professional in that specific subject, you go in circles.

Point out where, I ever suggested that CSS javascript could not be used at all for application development. I said html5 may never achieve becoming a "full fledged application development platform". Perhaps you should reread that, again.

I commented that creating something to build navigations, is pretty fisher price stuff. That doesn't mean the application isn't valid, nor useless. It in fact may be a great thing.

And flash/flex, is a much more powerful platform.

This is just bloody stupid.


----------



## screature

Oh I have my problems alright... 

I guess it comes down to what you mean by "full fledged". Was Flash developed as an application development platform? No. It was developed as a multimedia platform used to add animation, video, and interactivity to Web pages. 

HTML makes the web possible. Without it there would be no (severely limited use of Flash) Flash. Flash exists largely because HTML exists... so which is the "full fledged" application development platform???? 

The web (HTML) can and has existed just fine without Flash, the other way around... not so much.

But you're right, I don't know what I am talking about. And you're right, this is just bloody stupid.


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> The web (HTML) can and has existed just fine without Flash, the other way around... not so much.


Actually, no. The reason why Flash exists is because HTML has not existed just fine. In fact it's had a lot of problems. It's only taken about 10 years for it to catch up to Flash.


----------



## groovetube

this is very true. And the reason why flash used as a video player became so pervasive is because there wasn't any better solution at the time. Flash has always stayed way ahead of things.

And all this assumes flash has stopped staying ahead of the game.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> Actually, no. The reason why Flash exists is because HTML has not existed just fine. In fact it's had a lot of problems. It's only taken about 10 years for it to catch up to Flash.


Really? I think you need to look at the history of the web and how and why it came about if you think the web ever *needed* Flash for its existence. Flash exists because the web exists. Period. Without the web and HTML there would be no Flash. My statement is correct.

Sure Flash makes certain things on the web better, (multi-media delivery) but the web is and has always been about much more than multimedia delivery, in fact it was never intended for it in the first place at all.


----------



## groovetube

flash thrived because there was no better way to create the kind of interactive experiences with html or javascript/css. People wanted that, and the rest is history.

No one NEEDS any of it, We don't even NEED a computer for freaks sake this is stupid.


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> Really? I think you need to look at the history of the web and how and why it came about if you think the web ever *needed* Flash for its existence. Flash exists because the web exists. Period. Without the web and HTML there would be no Flash. My statement is correct.
> 
> Sure Flash makes certain things on the web better, (multi-media delivery) but the web is and has always been about much more than multimedia delivery, in fact it was never intended for it in the first place at all.


LOL. I was using Flash when it was called FutureSplash. Trust me, I know. We're talking about HTML and not "The Web". 

Big difference. 

HTML would not be what it was without "The Web". Remember dial-up BBSs? Compuserve? Telnet?


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. I was using Flash when it was called FutureSplash. Trust me, I know. We're talking about HTML and not "The Web".
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> HTML would not be what it was without "The Web". Remember dial-up BBSs? Compuserve? Telnet?


You are confusing the Internet with the Web. BBS, Compuserve, Telnet are part of the Internet not the Web. And you have it backwards, first there was hypertext, then there was the web. Like I said before you don't know the history of the web very well.

The Web exists as we know it because of HTML. Do your homework.



> In 1980, physicist Sir Samuel R Willacy, who was a contractor at CERN, proposed and prototyped ENQUIRE, a system for CERN researchers to use and share documents. In 1989, Berners-Lee wrote a memo proposing an Internet-based hypertext system.[2] Berners-Lee specified HTML and wrote the browser and server software in the last part of 1990. In that year, Berners-Lee and CERN data systems engineer Robert Cailliau collaborated on a joint request for funding, but the project was not formally adopted by CERN. In his personal notes,[3] from 1990 he lists[4] "some of the many areas in which hypertext is used", and puts an encyclopedia first.





> The World Wide Web, abbreviated as WWW and commonly known as *The Web, is a system of interlinked hypertext documents contained on the Internet*. With a web browser, one can view web pages that may contain text, images, videos, and other multimedia and navigate between them by using hyperlinks. Using concepts from earlier hypertext systems, English engineer and computer scientist Sir Tim Berners Lee, now the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, wrote a proposal in March 1989 for what would eventually become the World Wide Web


----------



## kps

Compuserve, AOL, BBSs were never part of the internet. They were local content accessed by dialing in to a standalone server(s). Later on when the internet became publicly available did AOL, Compuserve and even BBSs (like Magic) become gateways to the internet. Later still they became part of the web...and then they died. LOL


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Compuserve, AOL, BBSs were never part of the internet. They were local content accessed by dialing in to a standalone server(s). Later on when the internet became publicly available did AOL, Compuserve and even BBSs (like Magic) become gateways to the internet. *Later still they became part of the web*...and then they died. LOL


BBSs available through Telenet could be part of the Internet or at least accessible through it depending on how they were set up.

AOL and Compuserve have been part of the Internet, albeit they didn't start out that way. 



> AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), formerly known as America Online and logo typeset as 'Aol.', is an American global Internet services and media company.





> the CompuServe Information Service has operated as an online service provider and an Internet service provider.


_"Later still they became part of the web"_... or perhaps more accurately they became accessible through the Web.


----------



## kps

Ur pick'n nits...

...and saying the same thing in your own way. LOL

The momentous occasion was when the internet became publicly available. That turned services like AOL, Compuserve and others into ISPs. From what I recall, the www came onto the scene no more/less than 2 years after public access to the internet. 

I'm going from memory because I belonged to Compuserve, AOL and Magic BBS before they all had anything to do with the internet and have vague recollections of these transitions. I think it was '93-'94 when it all exploded.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Ur pick'n nits...
> 
> ...and saying the same thing in your own way. LOL
> 
> The momentous occasion was when the internet became publicly available. That turned services like AOL, Compuserve and others into ISPs. From what I recall, the www came onto the scene no more/less than 2 years after public access to the internet.
> 
> I'm going from memory because I belonged to Compuserve, AOL and Magic BBS before they all had anything to do with the internet and have vague recollections of these transitions. I think it was '93-'94 when it all exploded.


Fair enough... picki'n nits.  

However, the difference between the Internet and the Web (as you seem to be quite aware, unlike MannyP...) is not pick'n nits.


----------



## groovetube

yeah Many, do your homework.

What are we arguing about again?

Oh. The internet is different than the web?

Now wait, that isn't right. Damn it all to hell, I'll have to find another line of work. I've been had.


----------



## kps

I don't know what you and Manny are arguing about. 

I see the Web as nothing more than a platform to serve content viewed in a browser. A platform which comprises many internet protocols and also commonly used opensource and/or proprietary protocols and applications. The big difference is you need that browser and consequently there's a dependance on it when it comes to development.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yeah Many, do your homework.
> 
> What are we arguing about again?
> 
> Oh. The internet is different than the web?
> 
> Now wait, that isn't right. Damn it all to hell, I'll have to find another line of work. I've been had.


Quite right... back to our regularly scheduled programming... I'm goin' to the kitchen, anyone want anything?


----------



## kps

screature said:


> I'm goin' to the kitchen, anyone want anything?


Yeah sure, grab me a cold Pilsner and some pretzels.


----------



## screature

C'mon right up. What kind off Pilsner, I have everything you cam imagine.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> I don't know what you and Manny are arguing about.
> 
> I see the Web as nothing more than a platform to serve content viewed in a browser. A platform which comprises many internet protocols and also commonly used opensource and/or proprietary protocols and applications. The big difference is you need that browser and consequently there's a dependance on it when it comes to development.


i don't what me and Manny are yapping about either. But I just came in from outside and I'm going back out.


----------



## kps

Fell in love with this one available at the LCBO.

Don't you just love the webinet?


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> i don't what me and Manny are yapping about either. But I just came in from outside and I'm going back out.


I was replying to screature, but you jumped in between. Come back in for a cold one.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> I don't know what you and Manny are arguing about.
> 
> I see the Web as nothing more than a platform to serve content viewed in a browser. A platform which comprises many internet protocols and also commonly used opensource and/or proprietary protocols and applications. The big difference is you need that browser and consequently there's a dependance on it when it comes to development.


Good definition. But there is a difference between the Internet and the Web (which is what, at least I am arguing about, and how it relates to HTML and Flash development and its history/how we got to where we are today and that Flash owes its existence to HTML/the Web.), here is a good (IMHO) synopsis of the difference:



> Internet - inter-connected computers around the world that allows the sending and travel of information
> 
> World Wide Web (WWW) - collection of multi-media resources accessible via the internet
> 
> Answer:
> 
> The WWW is PART of the Internet. The Internet itself is just tons of computers connected together through various connections (a very large "network"). The WWW was an additional "service" which became a part of the Internet. Most people think of the WWW as the Internet but only because that is the only way to connect to the web. Browsers are used to connect to the www part of the Internet.
> 
> Telnet, FTP, SSH, and other types of communications are also allowed and used on the Internet.


What is the difference between the World Wide Web and Internet?

Another type of communication that should be added to the Wiki Answers list is VOIP.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Fell in love with this one available at the LCBO.
> 
> Don't you just love the webinet?


Never tried it... I will have to give it a try. Out of Quebec (where I live) I like Belle Gueule Pilsner. Don't know if you can get it where you are but it is light, refreshing and crisp with just a nice amount of after taste... Great for summer afternoons. 

Hey gt they make use of Flash on their web site... compadres... you should try it.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> C'mon right up. What kind off Pilsner, I have everything you cam imagine.


Do you have any Flavor Aid?


----------



## kps

screature said:


> Good definition. But there is a difference between the Internet and the Web (which is what, at least I am arguing about, and how it relates to HTML and Flash development and its history/how we got to where we are today and that Flash owes its existence to HTML/the Web.), here is a good (IMHO) synopsis of the difference:
> 
> .


The difference you speak of is so esoteric to the average user that the line is pretty much blured. Who the hell telnets these days or even uses a browser like Lynx? FTP is built into all browsers, email is web based or HTML on the client side. The 3w portion of the internet is dominant and will continue to be dominant.

You guys are arguing over nothing. 

The big players will continue to fight over standards and protocols. Remember when the evil one was Microsoft by trying to destroy Java, HTML and whatever else they didn't own or control?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Do you have any Flavor Aid?


You really want some Flavor Aid don't you fjnmusic... unfortunately the answer is the same here... you have to go to the States for that.


----------



## kps

screature said:


> Out of Quebec (where I live) I like Belle Gueule Pilsner. Don't know if you can get it where you are but it is light, refreshing and crisp with just a nice amount of after taste... Great for summer afternoons.


I'll see if they carry it here.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You really want some Flavor Aid don't you fjnmusic... unfortunately the answer is the same here... you have to go to the states for that.


I read in Lewis Black's book, "Me of Little Faith," that the jim Jones cultists actually drank Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid, back in 1978. Kool Aid's had a bad rap ever since. I'm just trying to set the record straight.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> The difference you speak of is so esoteric to the average user that the line is pretty much blured. Who the hell telnets these days or even uses a browser like Lynx? FTP is built into all browsers, email is web based or HTML on the client side. The 3w portion of the internet is dominant and will continue to be dominant.
> 
> You guys are arguing over nothing.
> 
> The big players will continue to fight over standards and protocols. Remember when the evil one was Microsoft by trying to destroy Java, HTML and whatever else they didn't own or control?


Perhaps true, but we aren't average users and it does not diminish the difference. The Web is not the Internet and the Internet is not the Web. Some people refer to their computer as their CPU, it doesn't mean they are right.

If you want to understand the point I am making kps, you need to follow the thread back.


----------



## groovetube

have we solved the internet yet?

Man I need to get to more web work and it's kinda hard when someone suddenly pulls the rug out and redefines or illuminates something revolutionary.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> have we solved the internet yet?
> 
> Man I need to get to more web work and it's kinda hard when someone suddenly pulls the rug out and redefines or illuminates something revolutionary.


The internet is a series of tubes. And some of the those tubes feature people in very interesting positions.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> The internet is a series of tubes. And some of the those tubes feature people in very interesting positions.


:lmao:


----------



## hayesk

kps said:


> The difference you speak of is so esoteric to the average user that the line is pretty much blured. Who the hell telnets these days or even uses a browser like Lynx? FTP is built into all browsers, email is web based or HTML on the client side. The 3w portion of the internet is dominant and will continue to be dominant.


Uhm... I'd have to say you are mistaken on email. While you may get to your email via the web, many still do not. And even if you do, your email is certainly not getting to its destination via the web.


----------



## kps

hayesk said:


> Uhm... I'd have to say you are mistaken on email. While you may get to your email via the web, many still do not. And even if you do, your email is certainly not getting to its destination via the web.


Read what I said. A web app can pull email from a SMTP or LDAP server, a non web email client can write and display HTML, connect to hyperlinks, etc.

Underastand the blured lines now?


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Uhm... I'd have to say you are mistaken on email. While you may get to your email via the web, many still do not. And even if you do, your email is certainly not getting to its destination via the web.


Not to mention FTP and VOIP.


----------



## groovetube

we aren't seriously arguing about the various protocols used... on the web are we?

the web, is a series of wires....

Who cares what protocol you're using to push and pull data.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> we aren't seriously arguing about the various protocols used... on the web are we?
> 
> the web, is a series of wires....
> 
> Who cares what protocol you're using to push and pull data.


FTP and VOIP are not part of the web... these are protocols of the INTERNET. Mmm'k?

Again the web and the Internet are NOT the same thing... except perhaps for those born after 1990 and who are ignorant of that fact.


----------



## groovetube

ok there professor screature.

Will there be a pop quiz?

Maybe you could send out a flyer down here and offer a 1 hour seminar to all the web guys do... er, internet guys. How about both of them?

Double your audience. Hey all you web gys! And all you internet guys! A seminar, on the web, the internet and why there's a difference!

It'll sell, HOTT. Double T HOTT.


----------



## screature

You know for someone in the "biz" you would think you would know such things and not be so willing to dismiss the FACTS.

Oh and by the way I just found out a close neighbour of mine dropped dead suddenly yesterday while was walking his dog on the beach on the Ottawa river. He was only 68 and died alone without ID on him and his dog didn't have her tags on at the time. So the family had to send out search parties and only knew that he had died when they gave up looking for him and started checking the hospitals and going into the ICU's and were eventually were able to identify his body. And his beloved Jesse had spend the night in the SPAC kennels.

So if this is the last civil post you receive for me on the matter, you will know why. I'm not going to be very receptive of your* Bullsh*** for a while.


----------



## groovetube

because screature, I just really couldn't give a 3 stinky craps about the difference between the "web", and the "internet". And I'm guessing, no one else does either.


----------



## screature

Stay classy gt... stay classy.

I feel sorry for you... I really do. :-(


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> FTP and VOIP are not part of the web... these are protocols of the INTERNET. Mmm'k?
> 
> Again the web and the Internet are NOT the same thing... except perhaps for those born after 1990 and who are ignorant of that fact.


Mmm'k. Classic! Don't do mari-ja-wanna, kids, mmm'k? Mari-ja-wanna's bad, mmm'k?

Mmmm'k, Mr. Macki. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> because screature, I just really couldn't give a 3 stinky craps about the difference between the "web", and the "internet". And I'm guessing, no one else does either.


I care.

And I care about Flash, too, poor guy. Most underrated of all the superheroes. All he could do was run fast.


----------



## MannyP Design

fjnmusic said:


> I care.
> 
> And I care about Flash, too, poor guy. Most underrated of all the superheroes. All he could do was run fast.


He was still better than Aquaman, though. Nobody likes him.


----------



## fjnmusic

MannyP Design said:


> He was still better than Aquaman, though. Nobody likes him.


You're right. Too slimy.


----------



## MannyP Design

Future of the web? Our Solar System ? An experiment with CSS3 border-radius, transforms & animations.

Interesting. Slow. Choppy. I'll stick with Flash for now.


----------



## groovetube

OMG they're making vector circles move?????


Holy CRAP flash is dead.


----------



## DR Hannon

groovetube said:


> OMG they're making vector circles move?????
> 
> 
> Holy CRAP flash is dead.


Finally he has seen the light!!! lol, just kidding.


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> Future of the web? Our Solar System ? An experiment with CSS3 border-radius, transforms & animations.
> 
> Interesting. Slow. Choppy. I'll stick with Flash for now.


That's actually pretty cool (from a parent of an 11 year old point of view), still kinda useless.

As for the Slow and Choppy, what are you using? On a 3 year old mac mini with Safari and on my 3G iPhone, it's flawless,


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> That's actually pretty cool (from a parent of an 11 year old point of view), still kinda useless.
> 
> As for the Slow and Choppy, what are you using? On a 3 year old mac mini with Safari and on my 3G iPhone, it's flawless,


I'm on an iMac 2.4Ghz Intel C2D and it's far from flawless—even on my iPod Touch.


----------



## groovetube

it runs ok here, except it seems to skip every revolution.

I wonder what the development process is to create this, and then create interactive layers on top of this.

I see a lot of simple vector animations that were possible in flash 2 (futuresplash) and people getting excited.


----------



## fjnmusic

Apparently Apple can't be _totally_ at war with Adobe if they endorse CS5.

Adobe Software - Apple Store (Canada)


----------



## MannyP Design

fjnmusic said:


> Apparently Apple can't be _totally_ at war with Adobe if they endorse CS5.
> 
> Adobe Software - Apple Store (Canada)


It's not like Apple is doing them any favors. Adobe doesn't need Apple to sell software for them. They're pandering to the creatives (and making a few bucks on the side in the process).


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> it runs ok here, except it seems to skip every revolution.


Perhaps this is the differences between Leopard and Snow Leopard?


----------



## groovetube

I donno. But it is starting to come out that the hype on html5 is, well still in the "hype" stage. There's lots of great new features, and new capabilities, which is great since there are things that I'd rather not use flash for really, and leave the heavy lifting for flash.

I see a number of concept examples floating around, but I don't see too many flash sites being replaced yet.

YouTube - Steve Jobs HTML5 web experience on the iPad


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> I'm on an iMac 2.4Ghz Intel C2D and it's far from flawless—even on my iPod Touch.


I would definitely look into that.


----------



## groovetube

I'm on a 2.8 intel C2D.

and I'm nt going to look into it since I know it's more common.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> I'm on a 2.8 intel C2D.
> 
> and I'm nt going to look into it since I know it's more common.


I dunno, when something doesn't work, I get it taken care of stat. Maybe I'm just anal.

Maybe you aren't using a Webkit browser?


----------



## groovetube

it isn't my computer.

It also, isn't the first html5 ani I've seen stutter. (see youtube) Yes I saw it with a webkit, but what's the use of anything if you can't see it outside of a webkit?

FAIL.


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> Future of the web? Our Solar System ? An experiment with CSS3 border-radius, transforms & animations.
> 
> Interesting. Slow. Choppy. I'll stick with Flash for now.





Elric said:


> That's actually pretty cool (from a parent of an 11 year old point of view), still kinda useless.
> 
> As for the Slow and Choppy, what are you using? On a 3 year old mac mini with Safari and on my 3G iPhone, it's flawless,


so in the interest of objectivity i ran this on a few machines.

on my mac pro it's smooth as silk

on my tablet pc (windows (bleh) 2ghz c2d 4gb ram) running safari it's choppy

on my iphone 3g it's a little bit choppy. when i zoomed in on it it became more choppy, very glitchy and didn't redraw properly.

on my g4 dual 1ghz 1g ram mdd - very choppy

on my g4 733ghz 1g ram- very choppy.

(granted flash on ppcs suck...but i think it can still run something similar to this example)

so i don't really see this as a flash replacement or ready for prime time as of now.


----------



## groovetube

pretty much my assessment. Certainly want to see some of this mature son actually. Can use it in projects I have on the table.


----------



## SoyMac

Well, maybe _this_ is the real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash:

Test shows Adobe Flash 10.1 significantly bogging down Android 2.2 

Excerpt:

_"Adobe's launch of Flash 10.1 for Android is almost single-handedly responsible for slowing down the experience of the browser and the Android phone themselves, early adopters have discovered in a test. While Flash is installed, the browser on a Nexus One is slower to load content than both an iPhone and an HTC HD2. Android 2.2 is significantly faster without the plugin, but the OS with Flash installed bogs down PocketNow's phone to where it produces a low memory error after visiting only a few websites.

The plugin is still in a beta stage and has room for optimization, but some of the slowdown can be attributed to Flash itself."_



Read more (and view video of test): http://www.electronista.com/article...oid.hurt.specifically.by.flash/#ixzz0os7LdA00


----------



## i-rui

i know it's only a demo, but looking at that i think it's evident that adobe has to implement some sort of 'click to flash' feature on their mobile player. As much as adobe would hate to have to do that I just don't think any amount of coding is going to overcome the limited processing power & ram of mobile devices.


----------



## fjnmusic

C'mon, GrooveTube-man! We're waiting for a good comeback, as the local Flash apologist around here.


----------



## groovetube

i was out enjoying the sun, while you guys were getting your panties in a knot because someone who needs attention tried to look smart by announcing a beta is not running 100%

Wow I'm shocked. 

My experiences with it, are not as bad as this guys. But it isn't quite ready for release, which is I suppose why it's called a beta, and it seems to have come a hell of a long ways from the last version. So, I'll go back out in the sun, and let you all get worried about it.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> i was out enjoying the sun, while you guys were getting your panties in a knot because someone who needs attention tried to look smart by announcing a beta is not running 100%
> 
> Wow I'm shocked.
> 
> My experiences with it, are not as bad as this guys. But it isn't quite ready for release, which is I suppose why it's called a beta, and it seems to have come a hell of a long ways from the last version. So, I'll go back out in the sun, and let you all get worried about it.


Thank you, oh sun worshipper! I knew you wouldn't let us down.


----------



## groovetube

dude, that may be the root of your problems. Have a glass of wine or similar beverage, and it'll be ok.


----------



## DR Hannon

I am going to put this thread to rest. Why does Steve hate flash? CAUSE. Now let this thread die, enough already!!!!tptptptp


----------



## Newdeal

wow that demo made me lose all interest in android and in flash. Basically people just need to stop using flash in their websites, but by all means continue using it for ads, I don't want to see them anyway especially not on my phone, I would however like to be able to browse to honda.com on an ipad or one of the many other sites that is mostly flash


----------



## groovetube

wow you'll believe anything wont you.


----------



## Elric

Beta works for open source. But a companies product? C'mon. They wanted it in the spotlight sooner rather than later. You know, when it's a finished product.
Imagine if everyone handed in their rough drafts to "keep people/the boss happy". Musicians release just the guitar track etc. But it's okay, they just Beta, until I figure out what to do and hopefully everyone else can tell me how to fix what the people I'm paying can't.


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> Beta works for open source. But a companies product? C'mon. They wanted it in the spotlight sooner rather than later. You know, when it's a finished product.
> Imagine if everyone handed in their rough drafts to "keep people/the boss happy". Musicians release just the guitar track etc. But it's okay, they just Beta, until I figure out what to do and hopefully everyone else can tell me how to fix what the people I'm paying can't.


Or how about just release an IOU? At least we know why Apple doesn't tell us anything until there is something to tell. Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.


----------



## i-rui

Elric said:


> Beta works for open source. But a companies product?


pretty much every company releases beta software into public use for testing (even apple).



fjnmusic said:


> Or how about just release an IOU? At least we know why Apple doesn't tell us anything until there is something to tell. Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.


And apple has also had their share of embarrassments with released software (how about snowleopard deleting accounts when the guest feature was set... )

It's just silly to pretend adobe is the bad guys and apple is the white knight in shinning armor.

More important to me is practical solutions to this. Some of the mobile flash player demo WAS impressive, but it's not worth the trade off of performance vs. it's features.... but if they could implement click to flash i think they'd have a very workable solution.


----------



## MannyP Design

Nice selective editing. You seemed to have missed this paragraph:

_As the files sometimes range into megabytes rather than the kilobytes of many regular pages, they not only take more time to download but consume the relatively limited memory available to smartphones. Some newer Android phones have 512MB or even 1GB of RAM, but Android's higher memory usage combined with Flash needs can push the limits of the plaform._​
This is not unique to Flash. Good luck viewing any sort of web content that has high demands.



SoyMac said:


> Well, maybe _this_ is the real reason Steve Jobs hates Flash:
> 
> Test shows Adobe Flash 10.1 significantly bogging down Android 2.2
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> _"Adobe's launch of Flash 10.1 for Android is almost single-handedly responsible for slowing down the experience of the browser and the Android phone themselves, early adopters have discovered in a test. While Flash is installed, the browser on a Nexus One is slower to load content than both an iPhone and an HTC HD2. Android 2.2 is significantly faster without the plugin, but the OS with Flash installed bogs down PocketNow's phone to where it produces a low memory error after visiting only a few websites.
> 
> The plugin is still in a beta stage and has room for optimization, but some of the slowdown can be attributed to Flash itself."_
> 
> 
> 
> Read more (and view video of test): Test shows Flash 10.1 bogging down Android 2.2 [video] | Electronista


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> pretty much every company releases beta software into public use for testing (even apple).
> 
> 
> 
> And apple has also had their share of embarrassments with released software (how about snowleopard deleting accounts when the guest feature was set... )
> 
> It's just silly to pretend adobe is the bad guys and apple is the white knight in shinning armor.
> 
> More important to me is practical solutions to this. Some of the mobile flash player demo WAS impressive, but it's not worth the trade off of performance vs. it's features.... but if they could implement click to flash i think they'd have a very workable solution.


yeah they like to pretend flash player is the only beta software to exhibit problems. When I heard flash player 10.1 went public beta, I knew it was a matter of mere minutes before someone would shoot video of any problems they could find, likely because they knew it's great publicity.

People will just believe anything.

Adobe has a monumental task in front of them. Another challenge they have, is the mountain of badly coded flash out there. There isn't a big a wealth of bad html5 out there yet to compare, oh, but there will be... The howls and wails of flash ads, special effects, etc. Just wait til they all realize that the upcoming html5 can, and will exhibit the very same problems...

the gnashing of the teeth that will follow...


----------



## Chealion

i-rui said:


> i know it's only a demo, but looking at that i think it's evident that adobe has to implement some sort of 'click to flash' feature on their mobile player.


It's actually a preference available in Android's browser. Something along the lines of dynamic loading of plug-ins. The exact wording is escaping me.



groovetube said:


> Another challenge they have, is the mountain of badly coded flash out there.


Would you go so far as to say it's the primary reason people hate Flash? (For me at the moment I go so far as to say it's the second reason right behind the Adobe management's whining and marketing speak about openness) Like VB6, so much potential and far too much abuse. Though unlike VB6, Flash has inherent performance hurdles (being a browser plug-in) that don't help it's case of poor performance and instability.


----------



## bsenka

Did you guys watch the same demos I did? 

I was really impressed. Mobile Flash works much better than I expected it to, especially for games and video. Yes, a full webpage of all kinds of flash is slow to load, so you clearly would want a clicktoflash style opt-in. The fact remains that for the one thing at a time that you'll actually be using, it works really well.


----------



## groovetube

Chealion said:


> It's actually a preference available in Android's browser. Something along the lines of dynamic loading of plug-ins. The exact wording is escaping me.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say it's the primary reason people hate Flash? (For me at the moment I go so far as to say it's the second reason right behind the Adobe management's whining and marketing speak about openness) Like VB6, so much potential and far too much abuse. Though unlike VB6, Flash has inherent performance hurdles (being a browser plug-in) that don't help it's case of poor performance and instability.


well, from an -average person's- standpoint, who really couldn't give a rats behind about what the technological points are, yeah. I've heard so many times the bloated, oversized, buggy blah blah, slow argument. What's frustrating, is I know first hand flash has the ability to be far faster, lighter weight, and far more efficient in dealing with large media files than a html site. But it's important to note that I said "it has the ability".

Unfortunately, there are too many idiot programmers out there who don't understand the concepts of optimization, loading schemes, garbage collection etc.

I'm guessing though, when html5 matures, those same programmers will make a nice mess of that too pretty quick. Unfortunately, SJ ain't gonna be able to police the web.

Truthfully, I think the idea that everyone 'hates flash' is totally overblown. If they did, flash would not have the 99% penetration rate, and people would be uninstalling it enmasse.


----------



## MannyP Design

I haven't delved too deep into this but this looks like a game changer that _may_ calm the waters (just a little): Smokescreen |

_It runs entirely in the browser, reads in SWF binaries, unzips them (in native JS), extracts images and embedded audio and turns them in to base64 encoded data:uris, then stitches the vector graphics back together as animated SVG._​
Not sure what the limitations are (performance hits?) and how it runs on mobile devices/iPad and such but it looks pretty nifty.


----------



## groovetube

Yeah I saw that. There has been a lot of talk about this sort of thing, and adobe has been working with google to have flash projects run natively in their browser too.

From my perspective, there's many things many of the "flash sucks!" crowd likely don't understand.

I don't know how far into the new completely done from the ground up actionscript 3, but if you've gotten into it, isn't it rather astounding how exactly the same it can be to... javascript???

I'm writing a js project today, and I'm just flying in it like actionscript... I seem to know more know than I ever did and I never studied anymore javascript?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> From my perspective, there's many things many of the "flash sucks!" crowd likely don't understand.


I think the majority of the "Flash sucks" crowd are end users not developers. All they really need to know or understand (from their perspective) is does it work for me/provide a satisfying experience.

By way of example, for a consumer all they need to know about how a TV works is, is it easy to use and provide a good/great picture. For them the rest are meaningless technical details that do not impact their opinion. In other words the specs are meaningless if the picture doesn't look good. It is the same with Flash and how end users judge it. 

When Flash provides the ease of use and experience they are looking for the won't say "Flash sucks" any more. It is really that simple. Unless of course, they are just bigoted and will never like Flash because it is Flash.


----------



## groovetube

has provided not a lot of problems for me. I may not always like the content, but well I can find just as many sites that suck using css and javascript as flash.

Anyway, I was actually talking about the platform, which was the whole point of my post.


----------



## screature

Well yes that is true about the platform, the point that I was trying to make is the end user really doesn't care (for them there is no need to understand the platform) about the platform, only their experience of it.


----------



## groovetube

well flash didn't get to about 99% because people hate it, or thought it was a horrible user experience. Just like people aren't buying iphones in droves because it sucks.

In any case, it's interesting that a number of "users" seem qualified enough to argue strongly throwing myths around like facts about the platform, even though they, don't really care about the platform. If they don't like flash, well, it's easy to simply... uninstall it and shut up.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> well flash didn't get to about 99% because people hate it, or thought it was a horrible user experience. Just like people aren't buying iphones in droves because it sucks.
> 
> In any case, it's interesting that a number of "users" seem qualified enough to argue strongly throwing myths around like facts about the platform, even though they, don't really care about the platform. If they don't like flash, well, it's easy to simply... uninstall it and shut up.


People install it to see what their browser prompts them to see, that is why it has a 99% installation rate. Once it has been installed it doesn't mean they are happy with what they see. That is as much bad developers fault as it is Adobe's.

The end user has every right to comment about their experience with Flash, all the more so if they don't like it... To say "If they don't like Flash, well, it's easy to simply... uninstall it and shut up." is like saying "if you don't like the government just shut up and move."


----------



## groovetube

no it isn't. If you don't like a certain piece of software, get rid of it. Only you would equate that to picking up your life and moving to a whole new country because you don't like the government.

That's fine, if you don't like it, say so. But don't act like you're an expert in the platform and have insights on where things are going. It's like the geniuses in the GW thread pretending they're scientists because they're snakey with Google...


----------



## SoyMac

Hmmm, I wonder if _this_ is the real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash ...

Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad
Excerpt;
_"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store.

... A designer who examined the Wired app reports "each Wired issue is actually a bunch of XML files that lay out a bunch of images. And by 'a bunch of images' I mean 4,109 images weighing in at 397MB."

His investigation, published on the InterfaceLab blog, notes that "each full page is a giant image – there are actually two images for each page: one for landscape and one for portrait mode. Yes, I’m laughing on the inside too. There is no text or HTML, just one gigantic image. The 'interactive' pieces where you can slide your finger to animate it are just a series of JPG files. When you press play on the audio file and see the progress meter animate? A series of PNG files.

"Something is wrong with this picture. Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate," he added. ... "_

Full article here.


----------



## SoyMac

Heeeeey! Could it be ... that _this_ ... is the _real_ reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash? ...

Opera joins in Jobs vs Flash argument

_"... But at Opera we say that the future of the web is open web standards and Flash is not an open web standards technology.
Flash does have its purposes and will have its purposes, the same as [Microsoft's] Silverlight and others, especially for dynamic content.
But flash as a video container makes very little sense for CPU, WiFi battery usage etcetera – you can cook an egg on [devices] once you start running Flash on them and there's a reason for that.' ..."_


Read more: Opera joins in Jobs v Flash argument | News | TechRadar UK


----------



## Elric

screature said:


> People install it to see what their browser prompts them to see, that is why it has a 99% installation rate. Once it has been installed it doesn't mean they are happy with what they see. That is as much bad developers fault as it is Adobe's.
> 
> The end user has every right to comment about their experience with Flash, all the more so if they don't like it... To say "If they don't like Flash, well, it's easy to simply... uninstall it and shut up." is like saying "if you don't like the government just shut up and move."


For then average user, picking up and moving is a lot easier than trying to figure out how to uninstall a browser plugin.


----------



## MannyP Design

No, Jobs screwing Adobe is why. Duh. Why would anyone suddenly scramble to get the magazine out in such a fashion?

Because Apple suddenly changed the rules in the middle of the game. 

The is the byproduct of of Apple's decision to change the rules to prohibit certain technologies from making iPhone OS apps. Obviously they were well underway when it happened and had to scramble to meet their deadline. Corners are cut.

It's called damage control.

Future versions will be different, just like all software interations.



SoyMac said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if _this_ is the real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash ...
> 
> Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad
> Excerpt;
> _"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store.
> 
> ... A designer who examined the Wired app reports "each Wired issue is actually a bunch of XML files that lay out a bunch of images. And by 'a bunch of images' I mean 4,109 images weighing in at 397MB."
> 
> His investigation, published on the InterfaceLab blog, notes that "each full page is a giant image – there are actually two images for each page: one for landscape and one for portrait mode. Yes, I’m laughing on the inside too. There is no text or HTML, just one gigantic image. The 'interactive' pieces where you can slide your finger to animate it are just a series of JPG files. When you press play on the audio file and see the progress meter animate? A series of PNG files.
> 
> "Something is wrong with this picture. Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate," he added. ... "_
> 
> Full article here.


----------



## MannyP Design

There's no mystery. Just look at the words from the horse's mouth:

Video: Steve Jobs at the D8 Conference | The Loop

P.S. They're not offering anything new to the plate, just trying to ride coattails with their irrelevant software. 



SoyMac said:


> Heeeeey! Could it be ... that _this_ ... is the _real_ reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash? ...
> 
> Opera joins in Jobs vs Flash argument
> 
> _"... But at Opera we say that the future of the web is open web standards and Flash is not an open web standards technology.
> Flash does have its purposes and will have its purposes, the same as [Microsoft's] Silverlight and others, especially for dynamic content.
> But flash as a video container makes very little sense for CPU, WiFi battery usage etcetera – you can cook an egg on [devices] once you start running Flash on them and there's a reason for that.' ..."_
> 
> 
> Read more: Opera joins in Jobs v Flash argument | News | TechRadar UK


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> For then average user, picking up and moving is a lot easier than trying to figure out how to uninstall a browser plugin.


well at least we understand the sheer lunacy of your position. Thanks.



MannyP Design said:


> There's no mystery. Just look at the words from the horse's mouth:
> 
> Video: Steve Jobs at the D8 Conference | The Loop
> 
> P.S. They're not offering anything new to the plate, just trying to ride coattails with their irrelevant software.


The original wired app was pretty damn cool, if you got a chance to see it.

I can think of many instances where scrambling at the last minute to completely redo an app resulted in a pretty botched code. 

But the lemmings will eat this crap up like breakfast.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> well at least we understand the sheer lunacy of your position. Thanks.


You remind me a guy I know that works at RIM in tech support. Once he's proven wrong, simply resorts to way-too obvious insults.

Either that or you have this "selective reading" that I've been hearing so much about.


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> For then average user, picking up and moving is a lot easier than trying to figure out how to uninstall a browser plugin.


The fundamental problem with screature's logic is that Flash is a default plug-in with most (if not all) browsers, and has been for quite some time.

If the average user REALLY wants to rid themselves of Flash, they will.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> no it isn't. If you don't like a certain piece of software, get rid of it. Only you would equate that to picking up your life and moving to a whole new country because you don't like the government.
> 
> That's fine, if you don't like it, say so. But don't act like you're an expert in the platform and have insights on where things are going. It's like the geniuses in the GW thread pretending they're scientists because they're snakey with Google...


Yes only me...  

The analogy is not meant to be taken literally... only you would think so.  The point is if you don't like something you *do* have the right to complain without getting rid of it or removing yourself from the equation.

I never said I'm an expert in the platform and where things are going and I'm not saying I don't like Flash, I'm merely expressing that the people who complain about Flash have their reason's and they have every right to express them, they don't need to be told to shut up by you.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> The fundamental problem with screature's logic is that Flash is a default plug-in with most (if not all) browsers, and has been for quite some time.
> 
> If the average user REALLY wants to rid themselves of Flash, they will.


Ah no, that would make my point all the more valid as I was speaking to the reason why Flash has 99% penetration. Just because Flash is there doesn't mean that people are happy with their Flash experience.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> The fundamental problem with screature's logic is that Flash is a default plug-in with most (if not all) browsers, and has been for quite some time.
> 
> If the average user REALLY wants to rid themselves of Flash, they will.


I doubt that'll be something he'll understand. If people really hated flash, it's rather simple to uninstall it. But it seems there are some geniuses who think it's easier to completely pick up one's life and move to another country, rather than spend 2 minus uninstalling something you dislike.

It simply couldn't get, anymore brainless.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I doubt that'll be something he'll understand. If people really hated flash, it's rather simple to uninstall it. But it seems there are some geniuses who think it's easier to completely pick up one's life and move to another country, rather than spend 2 minus uninstalling something you dislike.
> 
> It simply couldn't get, anymore brainless.


tptptptp


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> Ah no, that would make my point all the more valid as I was speaking to the reason why Flash has 99% penetration. Just because Flash is there doesn't mean that people are happy with their Flash experience.


Yeah, sure. And just because every Mac has OS X doesn't mean people are happy with their computing experience. 

Flash was included in browsers by default because it gained a high level of penetration unlike Shockwave and 99% of the other plug-ins available on the web.


----------



## Chealion

MannyP Design said:


> Flash was included in browsers by default because it gained a high level of penetration unlike Shockwave and 99% of the other plug-ins available on the web.


Flash gained such a high level of penetration because it *was* included with browsers by default starting with Internet Explorer 4 or 5. I sure don't miss the "you don't have this plug-in" days. (See Old Version of Flash Player 4 Download - OldApps.com for hitting "100 million installations" with Flash Player 4 - which is still very sizeable but they required being shipped with a browser to become ubiquitous)


----------



## MannyP Design

Flash (or Futuresplash) was already gaining momentum prior to version 4. Why else would developers include a plug-in for their browser than any other reason than ubiquity or convenience for the end-user?


----------



## groovetube

exactly. It wasn't as if adobe was stuffing microsofts pockets with bundles of cash. Weren't other plugins included with browsers at one point?

Flash became ubiquitous for a number of good reasons. Being bundled certainly helped, but it wouldn't have done a lick of good if it wasn't a fantastic platform to develop in. Truthfully, after really putting CS5 through it's paces the couple weeks, adobe knocked this one out of the park as well. If they continue on the path of as3 becoming more javascript like and more html5 exports (it already has it), it will continue to be quite relevant for a long time.

It ain't as if adobe makes anything off of their players, it's the IDE and the platform they make money on. Something to ponder before typing out "I hate flash! it's dead!".....


----------



## Chealion

MannyP Design said:


> Flash (or Futuresplash) was already gaining momentum prior to version 4. Why else would developers include a plug-in for their browser than any other reason than ubiquity or convenience for the end-user?


That's why I added "which is still very sizeable but they required being shipped with a browser to become ubiquitous". Without browser inclusion it would have taken a lot to become truly ubiquitous - not that it was nothing without being shipped with the browser.

All that said I'm still waiting for Flash (not Lite) to ship. Just shy of two years after getting my iPhone 3G. The original iPhone shipped 3 years ago - but I don't think it's fair to have expected something to have actually shipped from Adobe in the first year. The two years since? There is a reason Apple's iPhone OS ship kept sailing without Flash.


----------



## broad

i cant believe this thread is still going. 

screature and his cutesy-pie little emoticons strike again!


----------



## groovetube

Chealion said:


> That's why I added "which is still very sizeable but they required being shipped with a browser to become ubiquitous". Without browser inclusion it would have taken a lot to become truly ubiquitous - not that it was nothing without being shipped with the browser.
> 
> All that said I'm still waiting for Flash (not Lite) to ship. Just shy of two years after getting my iPhone 3G. The original iPhone shipped 3 years ago - but I don't think it's fair to have expected something to have actually shipped from Adobe in the first year. The two years since? There is a reason Apple's iPhone OS ship kept sailing without Flash.


it is shipping now actually.But only android froyo supports it right now, and froyo isn;t officially out on a full public release.

Here's my take, full flash, as in the real deal plugin, couldn't run on a 600MHz processor especially now that we've been enjoying dual processors above 2GHz these days for some time now. So, it was only a matter of time before phones hit 1 GHz, and adobe knew it, so now it runs pretty well. It'll be out on nokia phones pretty quick, and it's known it'll be out on RIM and win7 (if that matters, but even though I'm laughing at win7 phones, I wouldn't discount it!!). Adobe knows this, and is being very careful with it.

So, it'll be rockin long before html5 kills it, trust me. But, it I don't know that it's a done deal. Where it has a real hold, is the dev platform. It's better than ever.

Don't hold your breath on the iphone though.


----------



## Chealion

groovetube said:


> it is shipping now actually.But only android froyo supports it right now, and froyo isn;t officially out on a full public release.
> 
> Here's my take, full flash, as in the real deal plugin, couldn't run on a 600MHz processor especially now that we've been enjoying dual processors above 2GHz these days for some time now. So, it was only a matter of time before phones hit 1 GHz, and adobe knew it, so now it runs pretty well. It'll be out on nokia phones pretty quick, and it's known it'll be out on RIM and win7 (if that matters, but even though I'm laughing at win7 phones, I wouldn't discount it!!). Adobe knows this, and is being very careful with it.
> 
> So, it'll be rockin long before html5 kills it, trust me. But, it I don't know that it's a done deal. Where it has a real hold, is the dev platform. It's better than ever.
> 
> Don't hold your breath on the iphone though.


A *beta* is available - still waiting for it to actually ship (yes - they take time). Full Flash never could have run on 400 Mhz (iPhone, iPhone 3G) and won't run well on a 600 Mhz (iPhone 3G S) yet Adobe get making it sound like Apple was being mean, unopen, draconian, etc. and not allowing Flash. Mind you what else are we to expect from the Flash team re: Apple? (After all I remember being told Flash Player 10 was supposed to cure all the ills of Flash Player on the Mac by the same people who are trumpeting 10.1 being the saviour of the world now)[2].

And now with Apple's new HTML 5 page my hail mary hope of "Adobe proving Flash performance won't suck on a mobile device and Apple will concede"[1] is a moot point.

1 - My hope for Flash eventually coming to the iPhone was that there are other things Flash does that HTML 5 can't do. However those get lost in the war over what HTML 5 can technically replace Flash for now.
2 - Not developers. Just Flash Platform Evangelists. And Dowdell.


----------



## zen.state

Regardless of Job's (or anyone else's) stance on flash is is by far the worst video format ever used in the history of computing. It should have died at least 5 years ago.

Whomever is responsible for flash or what it has come to be.. they really should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## MannyP Design

zen.state said:


> Regardless of Job's (or anyone else's) stance on flash is is by far the worst video format ever used in the history of computing. It should have died at least 5 years ago.
> 
> Whomever is responsible for flash or what it has come to be.. they really should be ashamed of themselves.


Don't blame Flash for the state of internet video. Blame those who couldn't come to a consensus and finalize some sort of web standard. How long does one really need? :lmao:


----------



## SoyMac

Chealion said:


> ...And now with Apple's new HTML 5 page ...


Chealion, are you referring to this? ...
*EDIT:* Chealion, I just noticed that you already started a thread on this, here.


If anyone thinks that Apple's fight with Adobe is cooling down or in a ceasefire, well, it looks like the battle is _on_, Baby! beejacon

Apple highlights interactive capabilities of HTML5

Excerpts:

_"Apple this week posted a new section on its website, showing off the abilities of HTML5 in a standards based browser such as Safari, including interactive videos and photos."

" 'Every new Apple mobile device and every new Mac — along with the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser — supports web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript," the website reads. "These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient. They allow web designers and developers to create advanced graphics, typography, animations, and transitions. Standards aren’t add-ons to the web. They are the web. And you can start using them today.' "_

Full article here.


----------



## Chealion

zen.state said:


> Regardless of Job's (or anyone else's) stance on flash is is by far the worst video format ever used in the history of computing. It should have died at least 5 years ago.
> 
> Whomever is responsible for flash or what it has come to be.. they really should be ashamed of themselves.


Flash does far, far, far more than just video - but the main uses you'll see for Flash are video playback and ads.

The biggest reasons you see poor performance from Flash is the fact that anything drawn on screen has to first be rendered by Flash - passed to the browser which then can pass it to the OS to draw. So Flash has 2 intermediaries it has to put up with before showing the content on screen. Any bottleneck in the intermediaries (which are out of their control) harms Flash considerably. It's the nature of a browser plug-in. So for performance Flash has an uphill battle to start - and I still contend it's one they have to win and not depend on Moore's law.



MannyP Design said:


> How long does one really need? :lmao:


Long enough for a major unnamed company to get their browser back into the race of actually improving what you can do on the web again instead of abandoning it for almost 6 years? ;-)


----------



## 9780

I thought you guys would be blue in the face by now


----------



## MannyP Design

patrix said:


> I thought you guys would be blue in the face by now


That's the beauty of the internet.

If this had taken place in real life, it'd be proper discussion, followed by heated arguing, fisticuffs, all out bar brawl, and then hugs n' beer singing Friends in Low Places.


----------



## zen.state

I understand that flash is more than just a video format. I find Camino is very good at only giving you the flash YOU want to see. It can block all flash and only loads what you click on.


----------



## BigDL

Flash and PDF good for losing control of your device according to this report from the BBC


BBC said:


> Adobe has acknowledged a "critical" security flaw in its Reader, Acrobat and Flash Player software.
> 
> Adobe says the vulnerability potentially enables hackers to take control of affected computer systems


Adobe acknowledges critical security flaw in software

Perhaps Mr. Jobs isn't just looking out for Apple but it's clients also. The clients who in turn first would blame Apple for the crashes and infections as well.


----------



## Elric

BigDL said:


> Flash and PDF good for losing control of your device according to this report from the BBC
> 
> Adobe acknowledges critical security flaw in software
> 
> Perhaps Mr. Jobs isn't just looking out for Apple but it's clients also. The clients who in turn first would blame Apple for the crashes and infections as well.


Careful, Groovetube will try to tell you that everyone knows what Flash is (and EVERYONE knows how to uninstall it) and no one would blame the device/OS manufacturer...

Or he'll read something else entirely and totally outlandish and try to convince you BBC isn't "real news"... it's just the way he rolls.


----------



## groovetube

the flash haters have already crapped their pants here:
http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/87223-security-issue-acrobat-flash.html


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> the flash haters have already crapped their pants here:
> http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/87223-security-issue-acrobat-flash.html


That was FAST!, but somehow, it's missing it's usual hilarity.... is this an impostor?


----------



## groovetube

not as fast as you apparently.


----------



## SoyMac

Is this the real reason Steve Jobs _likes_ HTML5? ...

An Unexpected Apple Ally: Porn Industry to Drop Flash


----------



## groovetube

wishful thinking. Many industries especially the porn industry rely on the features of flash that html5 can't do.

But, like a lot of the rest, whenever anyone says they will serve video accessible with html5, people go shrieking in the streets that the whole world is dropping flash.

Fools.

As youtube says...


----------



## zen.state

I'm sure the last thing Apple wants for Safari is for it to be known as the porn browser.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> wishful thinking. Many industries especially the porn industry rely on the features of flash that html5 can't do.
> 
> But, like a lot of the rest, whenever anyone says they will serve video accessible with html5, people go shrieking in the streets that the whole world is dropping flash.
> 
> Fools.
> 
> As youtube says...


I think he was referring to the historical fact that whatever format for video that porn supports, wins.
Like VHS vs Sony's Beta, Lasredisc vs DVD, and the latest "video format" war, Flash vs HTML 5.

I don't think he meant they were ditching Flash entirely, just for Video. Which is what we've all been saying, Flash sites will still exist, he wasn't shrieking in the streets, but if your site relies on serving content to a mobile device... if your site is designed to be viewed and "played with" from a desktop, I'm sure they'll still use Flash.


----------



## i-rui

Elric said:


> I think he was referring to the historical fact that whatever format for video that porn supports, wins.
> Like VHS vs Sony's Beta, Lasredisc vs DVD, and the latest "video format" war, Flash vs HTML 5.


Laserdisc vs dvd was never a format war. maybe you meant hd dvd vs blu-ray?


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> I think he was referring to the historical fact that whatever format for video that porn supports, wins.
> Like VHS vs Sony's Beta, Lasredisc vs DVD, and the latest "video format" war, Flash vs HTML 5.
> 
> I don't think he meant they were ditching Flash entirely, just for Video. Which is what we've all been saying, Flash sites will still exist, he wasn't shrieking in the streets, but if your site relies on serving content to a mobile device... if your site is designed to be viewed and "played with" from a desktop, I'm sure they'll still use Flash.


Except porn didn't win the Blu-Ray war—It was Hollywood. Porn picked HD-DVD early in the race and it had little to no effect.

It wasn't until Warner Bros. chose to drop HD-DVD and use Blu-Ray exclusively after seeing strong sales for Blu-Ray. It was a dog-pile after that: BestBuy, WalMart, and Netflix all jumped on the bandwagon within a month of Warner's announcement.

When Microsoft et al heard of Warners announcement at CES, "cancelled all the meetings it had scheduled with journalists at high profile Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas and called off a press conference booked for Sunday evening".

One month later, MS pulls their HD-DVD players.

Porn is and will continue to be an "on-line" thing and will use whatever technology will work best for them.


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> Except porn didn't win the Blu-Ray war—It was Hollywood. Porn picked HD-DVD early in the race and it had little to no effect.
> 
> It wasn't until Warner Bros. chose to drop HD-DVD and use Blu-Ray exclusively after seeing strong sales for Blu-Ray. It was a dog-pile after that: BestBuy, WalMart, and Netflix all jumped on the bandwagon within a month of Warner's announcement.
> 
> When Microsoft et al heard of Warners announcement at CES, "cancelled all the meetings it had scheduled with journalists at high profile Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas and called off a press conference booked for Sunday evening".
> 
> One month later, MS pulls their HD-DVD players.
> 
> 
> Porn is and will continue to be an "on-line" thing and will use whatever technology will work best for them.


Yeah, I knew that it didn't affect BD vs HD-DVD, but that happened after the online porn boom. We accidentally sold a used HD-DVD player for the XBox with a porn disc still inside, that was embarrassing, glad the "right guy" bought it!


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> I think he was referring to the historical fact that whatever format for video that porn supports, wins.
> Like VHS vs Sony's Beta, Lasredisc vs DVD, and the latest "video format" war, Flash vs HTML 5.
> 
> I don't think he meant they were ditching Flash entirely, just for Video. Which is what we've all been saying, Flash sites will still exist, he wasn't shrieking in the streets, but if your site relies on serving content to a mobile device... if your site is designed to be viewed and "played with" from a desktop, I'm sure they'll still use Flash.


that's what the headline SAID. It said the porn industry was going to drop flash. A shrieking in the streets headline if I ever saw one. Of course further down, it refers to one company saying it's abandon flash once browsers support html5. However, wait til they figure out html5 likely can't do all the things they'll require. 

I wasn't attacking soymac, rather poking fun at the headline.


----------



## fjnmusic

Hmmm...so what kinds of things do you need your porn to do that HTML5 won't be able to handle? I've read that Flash makes the porn...hotter.


----------



## groovetube

asked by someone who I guess doesn't understand the specs and the capabilities of these technologies, yet seems to have such a strong opinion...

It isn't -just- the porn industry that makes use of the capabilities of flash video. If html5 videos gets waaaaaaay more possibilities perhaps then it'll be a bigger threat.

But these headlines yelling entire industries dropping flash, the stuff for light headed twits.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> asked by someone who I guess doesn't understand the specs and the capabilities of these technologies, yet seems to have such a strong opinion...
> 
> It isn't -just- the porn industry that makes use of the capabilities of flash video. If html5 videos gets waaaaaaay more possibilities perhaps then it'll be a bigger threat.
> 
> But these headlines yelling entire industries dropping flash, the stuff for light headed twits.


Nice opinion, but doesn't answer the question.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Nice opinion, but doesn't answer the question.


google makes you smart. Go use it. Explaining the vast differences and the capabilities is more time than I have. Sorry.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> that's what the headline SAID. It said the porn industry was going to drop flash. A shrieking in the streets headline if I ever saw one. Of course further down, it refers to one company saying it's abandon flash once browsers support html5. *However, wait til they figure out html5 likely can't do all the things they'll require*.
> 
> I wasn't attacking soymac, rather poking fun at the headline.


Just asking you to clarify your own statement, GrooveTube, but apparently you are too busy to be able to do that. It's easier to be dismissive than persuasive it seems.


----------



## groovetube

no I don't have time to fully explain an extremely complicated development platform. The capabilities are huge. No just 3 lines huge either.

The information is readily available, should you want to spend your valuable time learning.


----------



## ssent1

Steve Jobs and Apple realize the power and potential for value creation if they "own the customer relationship." I'm sure with their economists, their management are no strangers to the idea of monopoly profits. A device can be replaced easily. It is far more difficult to change relationships, habits, and beliefs. The Apple ecosystem engenders this with little chance of seriously being accused of being anti-competitive.


----------



## 9780

excuse me while I go to the supermarket to restock on popcorn.


----------



## groovetube

beter get enough for the next year or so, this will continue to play out for quite some time.


----------



## 9780

groovetube said:


> beter get enough for the next year or so, this will continue to play out for quite some time.


Heck I thought I had enough for 10 years! I might have to contact Orville Redenbacker directly to get it delivered to my apartment....:heybaby:


----------



## 9780

Speaking on the topic though, I've had Flash 10.1 beta3 on my Nexus One for a couple of weeks now, and the only time I used it was when I wanted to check if it was working.

I can't comment further on how good or bad, useful or useless, flash is on a mobile device since I haven't had a use for it.. yet! I rarely use the browser though, I mostly use apps that do what I want, occasionally the browser, and the rest of the time the email/IM/sms/phone functions.

Patrix.


----------



## fjnmusic

And that would be kind of the point, wouldn't it? Both Google and Adobe seem to prefer a future where you are more reliant on "cloud computing," not less. Native apps that access the net occasionally, which tend to provide a more reliable user experience, represent a threat to both of these companies and they know it. How often do you use Google Apps on an iPhone, for example? Ever?


----------



## groovetube

apple would never think of using cloud computing, ever. 

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> apple would never think of using cloud computing, ever.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> :lmao:


Man, you can be obtuse sometimes. Of course Apple uses cloud computing--MobileMe for example--but it tries hard not to crash your system, unlike some other technologies that tend to crash Apple systems. Apple is under no obligation to use a particular company's technology if it chooses not to, or if it can find or build something that works better. You seem to be suggesting that Apple somehow owes Adobe a living.


----------



## groovetube

I'm "obtuse".... when I read absolutely ridiculous things.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I'm "obtuse".... when I read absolutely ridiculous things.


k

That's right, obtuse, as in deliberately stubborn. I get myself that way on occasion as well. But here's the bottom line: could it be the real reason Apple doesn't support Flash is because there's nothing to support yet?
New Flash Player Could Help Lift Adobe Stock - TheStreet

"Flash 10.1 supports a broad range of smartphone operating systems, including Google's(GOOG) Android OS, RIM's(RIMM) BlackBerry OS, Palm's(PALM) webOS, Nokia's(NOK) Symbian OS, and MeeGo."


----------



## biovizier

rounded at the free end


----------



## 9780

fjnmusic said:


> And that would be kind of the point, wouldn't it? Both Google and Adobe seem to prefer a future where you are more reliant on "cloud computing," not less. Native apps that access the net occasionally, which tend to provide a more reliable user experience, represent a threat to both of these companies and they know it. How often do you use Google Apps on an iPhone, for example? Ever?


If native apps are a threat to Google, explain the Android Market, the Android SDK, all the Android apps, including the ones by Google, Adobe (yes I have Photoshop Mobile on my Nexus One, Adobe PDF reader, Amazon Kindle, and a lot more), and so on? If apps are a threat to Google, maybe they should ban the recently-released Yahoo Messenger/Mail/search apps that popped up last week? Maybe Google should completely remove the ability to "sideload" apps, meaning, installing apps not from the market, which on most Android phones is one checkbox to enable or disable?

I don't get it lol. (of course maybe you weren't replying to me, but I still don't get it)

Patrix.


----------



## fjnmusic

What I was responding to, Patrix, was the notion that Apple somehow needs Flash to survive. Clearly, it doesn't, and Adobe would be wise to realize if they want to make money at the Apple game, they have to adapt and if they can't adapt, to quit whining. The article I referenced shows Adobe's success on several fronts, Apple notwithstanding. It's their choice if they wish to not even try to develop for Apple, the shunning method, but it is also foolish, since Apple is the both the market leader and chief innovator when it comes to touchscreen multitouch technology.

You would know far more about the Google ecosystem than I would. From what I read, Google wants to incorporate cloud computing, search and ads into darn near everything because that's where their bread and butter is. If you can completely bypass Google on an iPhone, which many people do now, how does Google make money off of Apple users? Google seems to be doing well with it's Android phones, but Apple is still the one to watch, I'd say.


----------



## groovetube

did someone post the 'notion that apple needs flash to survive'?


----------



## 9780

Everyone can be happy now, at least until the next iOS update lol :


"Well-known iOS jailbreaker Comex has proven Flash can run on the iPad through Frash. The unofficial mod converts Flash 10 for Android through a translation layer that lets a jailbroken iPad use Adobe's plugin through Safari. From a hands-on video (below), it not only appears to run smoothly but includes audio and keeps working properly even after resizing the view.

Read more: http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/07/04/frash.brings.unofficial.flash.to.ipad/"

(wow electronista/macnn uses that javascript that adds a url when you copy text from articles, complete with a tracking ID - which I deleted from the link above)


----------



## SINC

http://www.ehmac.ca/ipod-itunes-iphone-apple-tv/87913-frash-iphone.html


----------



## 9780

SINC said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/ipod-itunes-iphone-apple-tv/87913-frash-iphone.html


thanks, I had looked in the iPad section and not the iPhone before posting my reply  Since it was released for iPad, it made sense lol


Patrix.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## SoyMac

Or, is Steve Jobs simply a humanitarian, and eager to create jobs in the fledgling HTML5 sector?

From TechCrunch ( Mmmmm, *crunch!* ):
Freelancer.com Spots Massive Increases In Demand For HTML5, Geolocation Jobs


----------



## makuribu

See no.7:
The Oatmeal


----------



## screature

SoyMac said:


> Or, is Steve Jobs simply a humanitarian, and eager to create jobs in the fledgling HTML5 sector?
> 
> From TechCrunch ( Mmmmm, *crunch!* ):
> Freelancer.com Spots Massive Increases In Demand For HTML5, Geolocation Jobs


LOL... no I don't think. Just a man with an agenda/vision and the power/money and the ego/intellect to see it through... Now if his health just holds up.


----------



## kkritsilas

There may be heat coming down from the European Commission regarding the closed nature of Apple's policies. The new "Digital Agenda" looks like it may eventually force Apple to allow Flash on the idevices, and also open up iTunes to other devices aside from Apple's. Link:

EU Could Force Apple to Put Flash on iPad, iPhone


----------



## SoyMac

Or, maybe _this_ is the really, really, _real_ reason Steve Jobs hates FLASH ...

Apple-backed SproutCore takes on Flash in race to deliver multitouch web apps


----------



## screature

^^^ An interesting read.


----------



## groovetube

it has far less to do with a technology being good, or not, as it has to do with control.

Granted Adobe has dropped the ball in many ways in particular with the mac and iOS platform, but adobe clearly has risen to the challenge and has put out it's first real flash player for mobile, it runs extremely well on Android, and before long it'll be on all the nokia phones and likely backberries. And as anyone who knows anything of the flash platform, it will progress really really quickly, there's a complete overhaul of it every 14 to 18 months, html5, well, every 10 years. Apple has to do -something- to speed things up...

The control theme, can be spotted everywhere inarticles if you just try to fade out all the moronic noise you see and hear from the light headeds screaming about "flash is dead!!! Ahhhhh!".

It will be indeed, a battle of development platforms. Which is what I've said from the beginning.

flash, html5/CCS3/piles-o-javascript, whaever, all have the potential to slow/eat-battery-life/crash if improperly built or whatever. It's about, control. Why do you think, after a few hundred iphone apps that were built with the new flash CS5 iphone app packager, built, submitted, and accepted and used in the iphone app store, was suddenly nixed??? It wasn't like those apps were creating any problems for users....


----------



## SoyMac

Wait, wait ... wait!
Could Steve Jobs be RIGHT about FLASH?! :
Clickety Click Right Here


----------



## MannyP Design

SoyMac said:


> Wait, wait ... wait!
> Could Steve Jobs be RIGHT about FLASH?! :
> Clickety Click Right Here


With another op-ed piece? Oh ya. Fer sure! :lmao:


----------



## 9780

It's a good thing the Android browsers gives an "on-demand" option for loading plugins, which means Flash won't load when I browse unless I tap on the green arrow placeholder for Flash content... I can even uninstall it if I don't want it.


----------



## groovetube

so, if I write a BS article full of misinformation, that is a "FAIL" on flash, do ya think I'll get linked to a whole bunch of forums as fact? Probably.

Seems a sure fire way to get noticed and get hits is to write a flash is bad article. Plenty of people will swallow too.


----------



## Elric

SoyMac said:


> Wait, wait ... wait!
> Could Steve Jobs be RIGHT about FLASH?! :
> Clickety Click Right Here


That article can be altered ever so slightly to describe Flash on my Mac. Take out the "not optimized for mobile" bit and it's identical!


----------



## i-rui

^^surly it's better to have the OPTION of watching flash content then to NOT be able to watch it. (if it can easily be disabled, or with a click to flash implementation)

Although from what i've read the Flash mobile player hasn't exactly been a rousing success, i'd still like to see a version on the iphone so i CAN see flash content if i so choose.

Thank god i have the option on my mac.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> ^^surly it's better to have the OPTION of watching flash content then to NOT be able to watch it. (if it can easily be disabled, or with a click to flash implementation)
> 
> Although from what i've read the Flash mobile player hasn't exactly been a rousing success, i'd still like to see a version on the iphone so i CAN see flash content if i so choose.
> 
> Thank god i have the option on my mac.


Yep, Steve is dead wrong denying us the option. It just sucks.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Yep, Steve is dead wrong denying us the option. It just sucks.


And let's say Adobe gets it's act together and creates a version if Flash for iOS that doesn't suck (which it hasn't done yet) and you install it and find you're now experiencing other unexpected problems that irritate you. But at least you have choice! Is that really going to be a better option? Jobs' "father knows best" approach may not be right from your perspective, but just maybe he's right for the machine he's selling. You're always free to go with another platform. Do Android owners bemoan the fact they can't connect to the iTunes store? Is it unfair they can't do some of the things the iPhone can do? Nope. They get over it or get an iPhone. 

Most non-techies I know don't even know or care what Flash is. I skip the web pages on my iPhone if they require Flash and find a better page. Who's losing out? Me, or the person who was hoping I'd visit their web page?


----------



## groovetube

Most non techies I know, are the ones bitching about no flash, because they can't understand why, it would blocked, nor do they care, why Steve Jobs hates it.

The techies, are the minority few that spend their time reading blogs, parroting them like they know something, and spend their days watching their activity monitor while most sane people, are out enjoying the good weather.

And that, is the truth.


----------



## hayesk

Most non-techies I know don't know what Flash is, let alone how bad it is. But one thing I've heard over the years on the Mac platform, that Apple doesn't want on the iPhone platform is novice users complaining
"Third-party product x is buggy and crashy on a Mac, I'm switching to Windows" 

It doesn't matter if it's third-party product x's fault or Apple's, Apple always gets blamed. It also doesn't matter if third-party product x is also buggy on Windows - once someone made the switch, it's hard to get them back.

Apple is trying to avoid this. Putting the option for Flash on the iPhone prevents two things from happening:
1. A good user experience surfing the web on an Apple device. Novices don't know or care why Flash is buggy - if it's on by default, they'll complain about their Apple device being buggy. If it's off by default, they'll come across a page, recommendation from their neighbourhood geek, whoever, that will tell them to turn it on, without explaining that it's bad technology.
2. Convinces web developers to switch to a more open technology (e.g. HTML5). By keeping it off, the popularity of Apple devices is persuading web developers use open technologies rather than Flash.

So, if you want Flash, get an Android - there's your choice. When Adobe fixes Flash, then Apple can and should reconsider. But for now, it's unfinished, bad technology and is best left off a consumer device whose hallmark feature is a good user experience.


----------



## i-rui

hayesk said:


> But for now, it's unfinished, bad technology and is best left off a consumer device whose hallmark feature is a good user experience.


unless it's IOS4 on a 3G.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> unless it's IOS4 on a 3G.


zing!!!

It takes on average about 10 seconds to launch camera. And many apps now crash.

Nothing like quality user experience eh?


----------



## i-rui

I can actually accept that apple is having trouble getting it to run stably on 3G phones (hey, **** happens)

But what is TOTALLY unacceptable is that Apple has taken away the option for users to rollback to IOS3. Once someone updates their 3G iphone apple will tell you you're out of luck, and have to wait for an update that will "fix" IOS4 (but there is no set date, so don't hold your breath).

The only way to get IOS3 back on an iphone is to jailbreak it and jump through a few hoops. Thank god apple wasn't able to make jailbreaking illegal.


----------



## 9780

i-rui said:


> I can actually accept that apple is having trouble getting it to run stably on 3G phones (hey, **** happens)
> 
> But what is TOTALLY unacceptable is that Apple has taken away the option for users to rollback to IOS3. Once someone updates their 3G iphone apple will tell you you're out of luck, and have to wait for an update that will "fix" IOS4 (but there is no set date, so don't hold your breath).
> 
> The only way to get IOS3 back on an iphone is to jailbreak it and jump through a few hoops. Thank god apple wasn't able to make jailbreaking illegal.


I've never had an iPhone, so who knows how well this works:

How-to: Downgrade the iPhone 3G to iOS 3.1.3 from iOS 4 | MacFixIt - CNET Reviews

Doesn't look like it needs jailbreaking or anything...


----------



## SoyMac

... Oooooorrr, is _this_ the _real_ reason Steve Jobs is fed up with FLASH? ...

Flash hobbles Android use of BBC iPlayer versus iPhone

Excerpt from the electronista article:

_"A Freedom of Information request to the BBC completed just Thursday has revealed that Android use of iPlayer may have been hurt, rather than helped, by the use of Flash," Electronista reports. "As the Android version of iPlayer requires the still-rare Flash plugin to work, British viewers streamed just 6,400 episodes in July. In comparison, 5,272,464 shows streamed to iPad, iPhone and iPod touch owners."_


----------



## groovetube

There could be a time, in the future, when people stop frothing at the mouth in regards to video, mobile, flash, etc.

There'll likely be the chorus of hooting chimpanzees sitting on the ledge every time someone says something bad about video, and flash, but one just gets used to the idea that people will believe everything they read.


----------



## kkritsilas

And it goes on, Jobs doesn't know what he's talking about, and all of us are kool-aid drinking non-developers, who are faboys and sheep at the same time.

However, all of the above not withstanding, can anybody please let me know if Adobe has developed a Flash player for a mobile platform (ANY mobile platform) that works well. There was a lot of talk about the Android version of the Flash player, but from all reports (because I am not going to buy an Android phone for the sole reason of running a Flash player, when I already have an iPhone 4), its not the earth shaking development that proved Jobs wrong, at least at this point in time. Has it been done on the HP/Palm WebOS, or the Blackberry, or any other smartphone?

Kostas


----------



## Elric

kkritsilas said:


> However, all of the above not withstanding, can anybody please let me know if Adobe has developed a Flash player for a mobile platform (ANY mobile platform) that works well. There was a lot of talk about the Android version of the Flash player, but from all reports (because I am not going to buy an Android phone for the sole reason of running a Flash player, when I already have an iPhone 4), its not the earth shaking development that proved Jobs wrong, at least at this point in time. Has it been done on the HP/Palm WebOS, or the Blackberry, or any other smartphone?
> 
> Kostas


Nope.
But strangely, Apple is the only smartphone maker that has to hear the slack about it.


----------



## groovetube

kkritsilas said:


> And it goes on, Jobs doesn't know what he's talking about, and all of us are kool-aid drinking non-developers, who are faboys and sheep at the same time.
> 
> However, all of the above not withstanding, can anybody please let me know if Adobe has developed a Flash player for a mobile platform (ANY mobile platform) that works well. There was a lot of talk about the Android version of the Flash player, but from all reports (because I am not going to buy an Android phone for the sole reason of running a Flash player, when I already have an iPhone 4), its not the earth shaking development that proved Jobs wrong, at least at this point in time. Has it been done on the HP/Palm WebOS, or the Blackberry, or any other smartphone?
> 
> Kostas


it's amazing how you just repeat the same mantra, over, and over, and over again. 

Yes, there is a mobile flash player now, yes it's no longer beta, it runs very well, (better than many crapware on my iphone too), and now that smartphones are beginning to have more power than computers in 1999, the flash player will likely begin performing better and better.

The posting yet more articles on the video playing aspect of flash, is just tiresome. We -know- the video tag rocks. We've all, as developers been looking forward to not always having to use flash for video. 

Man people are gullible.


----------



## fyrefly

I think the issue is that for a lot of users, Flash = video on the web. There are a lot of other uses, and a lot of good, viable uses that'll be around for a long time. But Flash video on the web on a smartphone is a bit of a dog. I've heard stuff from both side (you've been a strong supporter, Groovetube of the flash player for Android), but there's a lot of techie blogs out there panning it, and not just Apple die-hards.

Just how bad is Flash on Android?


----------



## kkritsilas

From what I have read regarding Flash on Android, it seems to work well on Flash sites that have been optimized for mobile. I don't know how hard it is to get a regular Flash site optimized for mobile, but if it is non-trivial, this will bring up the question of re-optimizing for mobile flash, or bringing it over to HTML 5, which will allow iPhones, and later on, Windows Mobile 7, to use the site without need for a Flash Player being installed. An open question for all of the people with Flash sites. On Adobe's part, they would do well to make the process of optimizing Flash for mobile as easy as possible. The more effort that it takes to make a regular Flash site mobile optimized, the greater the possibility that the site will just be moved to HTML 5.

The other uses for Flash seem to suffer from the assumption that people will be using a very precise mouse/pointer combination, not relatively imprecise fingertips. 

None of the reviews that I have read on Flash Player for Android have given it an unqualified approval. 

A couple of links here:

Mobile Flash Fail: Weak Android Player Proves Jobs Right

Speed Tests Show Flash 10.1 Slowing Down Android 2.2 Significantly

I know there will be posts saying that I only posted links that fit with my opinion, but as I have yet to see any posts saying that Flash Player is an unqualified success, I have tried to post links from neutral sites. Gizmodo, at the very least, isn't exactly a fan of Apple.

Kostas


----------



## chas_m

I have to weigh in with fyrefly and Kostas on this.


----------



## Elric

I'm incredibly surprised that no one here has posted this viral link. It's basically the evolution of Music Videos and it's done with HTML5 (but you need Chrome for this)
It's Arcade Fire's new video, even if you aren't a fan, you gotta check it out for your inner (or outer) Nerd.

The Wilderness Downtown


----------



## groovetube

fyrefly said:


> I think the issue is that for a lot of users, Flash = video on the web. There are a lot of other uses, and a lot of good, viable uses that'll be around for a long time. But Flash video on the web on a smartphone is a bit of a dog. I've heard stuff from both side (you've been a strong supporter, Groovetube of the flash player for Android), but there's a lot of techie blogs out there panning it, and not just Apple die-hards.
> 
> Just how bad is Flash on Android?


blog sites looking for hits based on FLAH SUCKS! links mean crap to me.

Do you own an android phone?


----------



## groovetube

I guess typing flash+android into google doesn't work for you.

Android 2.2 'Froyo' and Flash run like butter on Nexus One (update) -- Engadget

In any case, searching and hunting down blog sites looking to jack their readership on sensationalized BS isn't any method of proof. Go see for yourself, FIRSTHAND. 

I believe that the real bottom line will be as users on the street, use the newly released version of flash now out on several models of android phones. As I said, the real problem for flash, is that the power of smartphones, has been no more than what we had on our desktops in like 1998. And we're surprised flash runs like crap on this? Boy are we geniuses! Up until now, what runs well, is simple, barebones code optimized to run well on a slow as hell tiny computer. I can remember when programs were much smaller, simpler UIs etc. when we had windows 3.1 (or OS er, 4) because think of the power we had. Smartphones, have just now, begun to hit the minimum threshold of power to run things like flash. Just try using a 3G iPhone right now with any regular application and see how we are a mere few hundred MHz and meg of ram from running at pentium 400 speeds...

The race is on now to ramp up processor and ram speeds, and it'll happen quickly. And flash will benefit greatly as it -is- a very intensive interactive component, and I'm pretty sure this is why adobe has controlled it's release the way it has.

Oh, and some interesting news for anyone who does do either some or a lot of flash development... 

Flash Back: Demand Up in Engineering Specialty - WSJ.com


----------



## groovetube

I posted the news in the iphone forum, but today the news is, I guess steve jobs doesn't hate flash so much now that developers have been flocking to android and other platforms.
Apple Lifts App-Store Flash Ban, Publishes App Review Rules | Gadget Lab | Wired.com


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I posted the news in the iphone forum, but today the news is, I guess steve jobs doesn't hate flash so much now that developers have been flocking to android and other platforms.
> Apple Lifts App-Store Flash Ban, Publishes App Review Rules | Gadget Lab | Wired.com


Nahh he still hates it, but he isn't stupid and he has a duty to Apple's share holders to admit when a given strategy shows weakness and could harm the business.


----------



## groovetube

or maybe he's currently fixated on hatin facebook.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> or maybe he's currently fixated on hatin facebook.


Could be that too.


----------



## MannyP Design

I think it's a very good move but this has nothing to do with shareholders—they're already making tons of money without Flash-built applications—however, this move could be considered showing weakness by changing their stance on Flash-built apps. Expect the pundits to come out with some interesting articles shortly.

But I have to wonder why Apple reconsidered—it certainly wasn't altruistic. Especially when they've been so aggressive attacking Flash. Methinks there could have been serious repercussions to restricting 3rd party development software that they had no recourse but to reverse their stance. But I could be wrong.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> I think it's a very good move but this has nothing to do with shareholders—they're already making tons of money without Flash-built applications—however, this move could be considered showing weakness by changing their stance on Flash-built apps. Expect the pundits to come out with some interesting articles shortly.
> 
> But I have to wonder why Apple reconsidered—it certainly wasn't altruistic. Especially when they've been so aggressive attacking Flash. Methinks there could have been *serious repercussions* to restricting 3rd party development software that they had no recourse but to reverse their stance. But I could be wrong.


What could serious repercussions be that *don't* affect shareholders?


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> What could serious repercussions be that *don't* affect shareholders?


Directly? It'd have to be enough to affect the bottom line.

Do you believe Apple's original ban was a sign of weakness?


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> I think it's a very good move but this has nothing to do with shareholders—they're already making tons of money without Flash-built applications—however, this move could be considered showing weakness by changing their stance on Flash-built apps. Expect the pundits to come out with some interesting articles shortly.
> 
> But I have to wonder why Apple reconsidered—it certainly wasn't altruistic. Especially when they've been so aggressive attacking Flash. Methinks there could have been serious repercussions to restricting 3rd party development software that they had no recourse but to reverse their stance. But I could be wrong.


being in the developer community, I've seen a huge galvanizing of support for platforms like android. Before this whole brew ha ha it seemed to me like very few people were considering or actively developing for android. Suddenly, within weeks it seemed like everyone was jumping on.

Maybe, this has something to do with it perhaps?

I did say some time ago, apple needs to learn NOT to **** off developers. I realize they feel every should be so lucky as to make money on their app store, but the attitude really rubbed the dev community the wrong way in a serious way.


----------



## 9780

groovetube said:


> being in the developer community, I've seen a huge galvanizing of support for platforms like android. Before this whole brew ha ha it seemed to me like very few people were considering or actively developing for android. Suddenly, within weeks it seemed like everyone was jumping on.
> 
> Maybe, this has something to do with it perhaps?


IMO it has more to do with the increase in the number of Android phones out there, especially in the US. A year ago you had the Hero and the Magic/Dream (t-mobile G1 and so on), and the paltry Motorola offerings as well as their flagship Milestone/Droid.

Now you got like a million devices of all shapes and sizes and capabilities. Millions of active devices out there. Of course developers would take notice, flash or no flash.

Perhaps Apple's attitude did have some to do with it, OTOH, for example, Canadians STILL cannot be sellers on the Android Market due to Google Checkout restrictions. There's lots of pissed off devs on the Android side too, many who are forced to sell their apps independently out of the market (less visibility, more hassles) because they can't do it from their home country (yet).

Good and bad, cuz hey at least they are able to sell their apps in some way and get them installed!


----------



## groovetube

patrix said:


> IMO it has more to do with the increase in the number of Android phones out there, especially in the US. A year ago you had the Hero and the Magic/Dream (t-mobile G1 and so on), and the paltry Motorola offerings as well as their flagship Milestone/Droid.
> 
> Now you got like a million devices of all shapes and sizes and capabilities. Millions of active devices out there. Of course developers would take notice, flash or no flash.
> 
> Perhaps Apple's attitude did have some to do with it, OTOH, for example, Canadians STILL cannot be sellers on the Android Market due to Google Checkout restrictions. There's lots of pissed off devs on the Android side too, many who are forced to sell their apps independently out of the market (less visibility, more hassles) because they can't do it from their home country (yet).
> 
> Good and bad, cuz hey at least they are able to sell their apps in some way and get them installed!


i dont know if you are a developer, and have seen to huge massive push to android -right after- apple's famous flash app lockout.

I did.

This happened before the huge headlines of how well android was doing, and then the 'buzz' happened in the developer world.

I see it as hand in hand, and apple wizened up. As I said, you don't treat the developer community with such disdain and not feel some backlash. Had apple's app store not offered such good opportunities, it would have died a very, quick death.

As much as I think Ballmer is a fool, he did have one thing right...


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> Directly? It'd have to be enough to affect the bottom line.
> 
> Do you believe Apple's original ban was a sign of weakness?


No. I don't think you are getting my point... never mind.


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> No. I don't think you are getting my point... never mind.


I did get your point. And then I asked you question specifically about your original post.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> I did get your point. And then I asked you question specifically about your original post.


Well I don't think you did get the point I was making. Because you said you don't think it has anything to do with shareholders. He is the CEO of a publicly traded company so ultimately every decision that could possibly affect the company's bottom line (which is almost every single decision he makes) has to do with the shareholders if he is doing his job properly.

You then asked if the original ban was a sign of weakness? I wasn't talking about the decision "showing" or being a sign of weakness I was suggesting that the *strategy* was beginning to show that it may be flawed or had a weakness in some way and that is why the changes have come about.


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> Well I don't think you did get the point I was making. Because you said you don't think it has anything to do with shareholders. He is the CEO of a publicly traded company so ultimately every decision that could possibly affect the company's bottom line (which is almost every single decision he makes) has to do with the shareholders if he is doing his job properly.
> 
> You then asked if the original ban was a sign of weakness? I wasn't talking about the decision "showing" or being a sign of weakness I was suggesting that the *strategy* was being to show that it may be flawed or had a weakness in some way and that is why the changes have come about.


The goals of the CEO (Jobs) and the shareholders (generally speaking) are mutually exclusive. Jobs' vision is not the shareholders vision—they may meet eventually; ie: success (money), but how they get there is directed by one person.

The decisions to outright ban Flash was the belief of one man. Now, reasons to reverse that decision may be one that brings an onslaught of antitrust lawsuits; causing developers to consider alternatives on other platforms; or perhaps they got a lot of hate mail; and every conceivable scenario in between.

They all vary in degrees in seriousness as far as repercussions go—most do not affect shareholders directly (if at all).

My query about weakness had nothing to do with your point; it was an aside. I wanted clarification on your post as to why banning Flash was considered a sign of weakness.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> *The goals of the CEO (Jobs) and the shareholders (generally speaking) are mutually exclusive.* Jobs' vision is not the shareholders vision—they may meet eventually; ie: success (money), but how they get there is directed by one person.
> 
> The decisions to outright ban Flash was the belief of one man. Now, reasons to reverse that decision may be one that brings an onslaught of antitrust lawsuits; causing developers to consider alternatives on other platforms; or perhaps they got a lot of hate mail; and every conceivable scenario in between.
> 
> They all vary in degrees in seriousness as far as repercussions go—most do not affect shareholders directly (if at all).
> 
> *My query about weakness had nothing to do with your point; it was an aside. I wanted clarification on your post as to why banning Flash was considered a sign of weakness.*



That is why I said you didn't get it... I never said it was a sign of weakness, that was your interpretation of my post. I said that the recantation was a sign of weakness in the *strategy* to ban Flash from development.



> The decisions to outright ban Flash was the belief of one man.


That is your assumption. Could be true or it could have been the advice of some his VPs with whom he agreed.



> Now, reasons to reverse that decision may be one that brings an onslaught of antitrust lawsuits; causing developers to consider alternatives on other platforms; or perhaps they got a lot of hate mail; and every conceivable scenario in between.


All of which could affect the share price. Clearly there was a reason to recant and the only "real" reason would be because the strategy to ban Flash outright was going to affect the bottom line, ergo Apple's share price, i.e. Job's responsibility to the shareholder.



> *The goals of the CEO (Jobs) and the shareholders (generally speaking) are mutually exclusive.*


If you really believe this you have never worked at a high level in the marketing communications department of a corporation. This is almost a laughable statement. I worked for 6 years at the highest levels, working directly with the CEO of GSI Group (a multinational high tech company specializing in precision motion products, lasers, and laser systems, that are used to boost efficiency and productivity in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial markets) in preparing Annual reports, quarterly reports, investor relations, web development, branding and positioning, etc, etc.). Trust me any CEO worth his salt is constantly aware of how his decisions affect share price i.e. what is in the best interest of the shareholder. The shareholder is to whom the CEO is ultimately responsible and why CEOs can be let go by the Board of Directors, as has happened to Jobs in the past... Maybe he has learned from his past and thus the reversal.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> i dont know if you are a developer, and have seen to huge massive push to android -right after- apple's famous flash app lockout.
> 
> I did.


You are constantly bragging that you are "in the developer community", what is it that you actually do?


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> That is why I said you didn't get it... I never said it was a sign of weakness, that was your interpretation of my post. I said that the recantation was a sign of weakness in the *strategy* to ban Flash from development.


That's certainly not how you phrased it. But whatever.



> That is your assumption. Could be true or it could have been the advice of some his VPs with whom he agreed.


No assumption whatsoever. That was my guess as It could have been a lot of things.



> All of which could affect the share price. Clearly there was a reason to recant and the only "real" reason would be because the strategy to ban Flash outright was going to affect the bottom line, ergo Apple's share price, i.e. Job's responsibility to the shareholder.


Given the profit Apple continues to make, I highly doubt it.



> If you really believe this you have never worked at a high level in the marketing communications department of a corporation. This is almost a laughable statement. I worked for 6 years at the highest levels, working directly with the CEO of GSI Group (a multinational high tech company specializing in precision motion products, lasers, and laser systems, that are used to boost efficiency and productivity in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial markets) in preparing Annual reports, quarterly reports, investor relations, web development, branding and positioning, etc, etc.). Trust me any CEO worth his salt is constantly aware of how his decisions affect share price i.e. what is in the best interest of the shareholder. The shareholder is to whom the CEO is ultimately responsible and why CEOs can be let go by the Board of Directors, as has happened to Jobs in the past... Maybe he has learned from his past and thus the reversal.


And here we go with the chest thumping. :lmao:

Sorry, but that doesn't impress me—I'd dare say the CEO you "worked directly with" is a good contrast as to why Apple, Jobs et al are as successful as they are year over year.

It's not the investors who envisioned the products they've developed since his return. In fact, if you've ever listened to an Apple quarterly conference call, Apple doesn't disclose much to their investors. They have practically ZERO influence on the direction Apple takes. Very few people knows what Apple is up to. Everyone knows this.

Sure. They could boot him (as they have in the past) but show me in the past 10 years, or so, where Jobs took the lead from an investor. :heybaby:

You're right, though. I bet he's learned a great deal from the past—investors don't care where you go so-as long as you provide a decent ROI.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> That's certainly not how you phrased it. But whatever.


Well, I did clarify it once before this for you already and it was why I said I don't think you get where I am coming from and never mind.



MannyP Design said:


> No assumption whatsoever. That was my guess as It could have been a lot of things.


"The decisions to outright ban Flash was the belief of one man." Isn't phrased as a guess it is phrased as a declarative statement.... so if I am guilty of not saying something the way I meant it I guess you are as well. 



MannyP Design said:


> Given the profit Apple continues to make, I highly doubt it.


Virtually every decision that is made at that level of the company is a forward looking decision. I think Jobs truly believes that HTML 5 is the way of the future and it is better for Apple not be tied to any proprietary software other than their own and he has a certain bone to pick with Adobe. However, for any of number of reasons, lawsuits, loss of competitive edge in development of apps for the iDevices, etc., banning Flash as a developer tool was somehow going to "hurt" the company. The only "hurt" that ultimately matters is the bottom line ergo the share price (especially even self-interestedly for a CEO who draws no salary and makes all his money based on how well the stock is performing). He has a fiduciary responsibility to Apple's shareholders to defend them against threats to the company's market position and overall profitability.



MannyP Design said:


> And here we go with the chest thumping. :lmao:


No chest thumping, a statement of relevance to underscore my direct experience in the understanding of such matters and defending the validity of my statements.



MannyP Design said:


> Sorry, but that doesn't impress me—I'd dare say the CEO you "worked directly with" is a good contrast as to why Apple, Jobs et al are as successful as they are year over year.


I could care less if it impresses you, the statements weren't made to impress but only to do what is mentioned above. How would you "dare say" anything about something of which you know nothing about? Do you know anything about GSI Group and the markets they serve and the success of the company in their market space? Do you know anything about Charles Winston and his acumen as a CEO?

All CEOs share at least one thing in common, their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and this the point that I have been consistently making and one that you consistently seem to be willing to dismiss. I can only assume that your willingness to do so is because you have no experience in working with CEOs in order to understand this one very overriding principle within their mindset.



MannyP Design said:


> It's not the investors who envisioned the products they've developed since his return. In fact, if you've ever listened to an Apple quarterly conference call, Apple doesn't disclose much to their investors. They have practically ZERO influence on the direction Apple takes. Very few people knows what Apple is up to. Everyone knows this.


This statement has nothing to do with what I am talking about and quite frankly is rather obvious. No investor, unless they hold a majority or exceptionally large share holding, has any influence over the direction of any company. Who ever said they did or where was it ever implied? The main thing that shareholders and the executives have in common is to make money from the company. Period. 



MannyP Design said:


> Sure. They could boot him (as they have in the past) but show me in the past 10 years, or so, where Jobs took the lead from an investor. :heybaby:


Again completely irrelevant and never even implied in anyway. If you think that this somehow is an argument against my rebuttal of your statement, "The goals of the CEO (Jobs) and the shareholders (generally speaking) are mutually exclusive." it is not for it is not what I was talking about. The goals of Jobs and the shareholders are not mutually exclusive because of the aforementioned reason... to make money from the company and for it to be successful. It is Jobs business to make this happen.



MannyP Design said:


> You're right, though. I bet he's learned a great deal from the past—investors don't care where you go so-as long as you provide a decent ROI.


Finally a point we can agree on. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> You are constantly bragging that you are "in the developer community", what is it that you actually do?


web developer. DUH.


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> Well, I did clarify it once before this for you already and it was why I said I don't think you get where I am coming from and never mind.
> 
> "The decisions to outright ban Flash was the belief of one man." Isn't phrased as a guess it is phrased as a declarative statement.... so if I am guilty of not saying something the way I meant it I guess you are as well.
> 
> Virtually every decision that is made at that level of the company is a forward looking decision. I think Jobs truly believes that HTML 5 is the way of the future and it is better for Apple not be tied to any proprietary software other than their own and he has a certain bone to pick with Adobe. However, for any of number of reasons, lawsuits, loss of competitive edge in development of apps for the iDevices, etc., banning Flash as a developer tool was somehow going to "hurt" the company. The only "hurt" that ultimately matters is the bottom line ergo the share price (especially even self-interestedly for a CEO who draws no salary and makes all his money based on how well the stock is performing). He has a fiduciary to Apples shareholders to defend them against threats to the company's market position and overall profitability.
> 
> No chest thumping, a statement of relevance to underscore my direct experience in the understanding such matters and defending the validity of my statements.
> 
> I could care less if it impresses you, the statements weren't made to impress but only to do what is mentioned above. How would you "dare say" anything about something of which you know nothing about? Do you know anything about GSI Group and the markets they serve and the success of the company in their market space? Do you know anything about Charles Winston and his acumen as a CEO?
> 
> All CEOs share at least one thing in common, their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and this the point that I have been consistently making and one that you consistently seem to be willing to dismiss. I can only assume that your willingness to do so is because you have no experience in working with CEOs in order to understand this one very overriding principle within their mindset.
> 
> This statement has nothing to do with what I am talking about and quite frankly is rather obvious. No investor, unless they hold a majority or exceptionally large share holding have any influence over the direction of any company. Who ever said they did or where was it ever implied? The main thing that shareholders and the executives have in common is to make money from the company. Period.
> 
> Again completely irrelevant and never even implied in anyway. If you think that this somehow is an argument against my rebuttal of your statement, "The goals of the CEO (Jobs) and the shareholders (generally speaking) are mutually exclusive." it is not for it is not what I was talking about. The goals of Jobs and the shareholders are not mutually exclusive because of the aforementioned reason... to make money from the company and for it to be successful. It is Jobs business to make this happen.
> 
> Finally a point we can agree on. :lmao:


Zzzzzz

Your experience is irrelevant because you don't work for Apple. But thanks for making a simple conversation even more convoluted and meandering.

Yes. All CEOs share something in common. Three letters: C. E. O. And that's it. To compare either as equals is silliness. :lmao:

Thanks for that.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> Zzzzzz
> 
> Your experience is irrelevant because you don't work for Apple. But thanks for making a simple conversation even more convoluted and meandering.
> 
> Yes. All CEOs share something in common. Three letters: C. E. O. And that's it. To compare either as equals is silliness. :lmao:
> 
> Thanks for that.


Can't... take... the... pain. XX)

*Your experience is irrelevant because you don't work for Apple.* You do do? Wherein lies the validity of any of your statements other than opinion. You don't need to work for Apple to have an understanding of the responsibilities of a CEO to their sharholders. 

*But thanks for making a simple conversation even more convoluted and meandering.* Hey, as far as that goes I was the one willing to let it go after two posts, you kept it going and wouldn't leave it alone with "never mind".


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> web developer. DUH.


Examples?
"DUH"
I made an Angelfire website too


----------



## groovetube

good for you.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> good for you.


So I take it, nothing reputable?

That's all I was asking. Thanks.


----------



## groovetube

absolutely nothing reputable.

Wouldn't know an if/else statement if it hit me over the head.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> absolutely nothing reputable.
> 
> Wouldn't know an if/else statement if it hit me over the head.


I really hope you aren't like this in real life.
I was trying to get a gauge on your expertise. 
"I know a guy, who knows a guy" is hardly a reputable source.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> absolutely nothing reputable.
> 
> Wouldn't know an if/else statement if it hit me over the head.


Link, or it didn't happen.


----------



## SoyMac

*Is THIS it?*

Heeeeeeey, is this the real, real, REAL reason Steve Jobs hates FLASH?


*Zero-day flaw in Adobe Flash Player already being exploited in the wild*
Monday, September 13, 2010 

Adobe has issued the following Security Advisory for Flash Player:

Release date: September 13, 2010
Vulnerability identifier: APSA10-03
CVE number: CVE-2010-2884

Platform: All

SUMMARY

A critical vulnerability exists in Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android. This vulnerability also affects Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh. This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2884) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild against Adobe Flash Player on Windows. Adobe is not aware of any attacks exploiting this vulnerability against Adobe Reader or Acrobat to date.

We are in the process of finalizing a fix for the issue and expect to provide an update for Adobe Flash Player for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Android operating systems during the week of September 27, 2010. We expect to provide updates for Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 for Windows and Macintosh during the week of October 4, 2010.

AFFECTED SOFTWARE VERSIONS

Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android
Adobe Reader 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX
Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh
SEVERITY RATING

Adobe categorizes this as a critical issue.

DETAILS

A critical vulnerability exists in Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android. This vulnerability also affects Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh. This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2884) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild against Adobe Flash Player on Windows. Adobe is not aware of any attacks exploiting this vulnerability against Adobe Reader or Acrobat to date.

We are in the process of finalizing a fix for the issue and expect to provide an update for Adobe Flash Player for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Android operating systems during the week of September 27, 2010. We expect to provide updates for Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 for Windows and Macintosh during the week of October 4, 2010.

Adobe actively shares information about this and other vulnerabilities with partners in the security community to enable them to quickly develop detection and quarantine methods to protect users until a patch is available. As always, Adobe recommends that users follow security best practices by keeping their anti-malware software and definitions up to date.

Users may monitor the latest information on the Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team blog at the following URL: Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) Blog or by subscribing to the RSS feed 
here: http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/atom.xml


----------



## MannyP Design

Safari has a few of it's own exploits that remain unfixed. But I guess that doesn't count, either.


----------



## Elric

SoyMac said:


> Heeeeeeey, is this the real, real, REAL reason Steve Jobs hates FLASH?
> 
> 
> *Zero-day flaw in Adobe Flash Player already being exploited in the wild*
> Monday, September 13, 2010
> 
> Adobe has issued the following Security Advisory for Flash Player:
> 
> Release date: September 13, 2010
> Vulnerability identifier: APSA10-03
> CVE number: CVE-2010-2884
> 
> Platform: All
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> A critical vulnerability exists in Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android. This vulnerability also affects Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh. This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2884) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild against Adobe Flash Player on Windows. Adobe is not aware of any attacks exploiting this vulnerability against Adobe Reader or Acrobat to date.
> 
> We are in the process of finalizing a fix for the issue and expect to provide an update for Adobe Flash Player for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Android operating systems during the week of September 27, 2010. We expect to provide updates for Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 for Windows and Macintosh during the week of October 4, 2010.
> 
> AFFECTED SOFTWARE VERSIONS
> 
> Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android
> Adobe Reader 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX
> Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh
> SEVERITY RATING
> 
> Adobe categorizes this as a critical issue.
> 
> DETAILS
> 
> A critical vulnerability exists in Adobe Flash Player 10.1.82.76 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Adobe Flash Player 10.1.92.10 for Android. This vulnerability also affects Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh. This vulnerability (CVE-2010-2884) could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild against Adobe Flash Player on Windows. Adobe is not aware of any attacks exploiting this vulnerability against Adobe Reader or Acrobat to date.
> 
> We are in the process of finalizing a fix for the issue and expect to provide an update for Adobe Flash Player for Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, and Android operating systems during the week of September 27, 2010. We expect to provide updates for Adobe Reader 9.3.4 for Windows, Macintosh and UNIX, and Adobe Acrobat 9.3.4 for Windows and Macintosh during the week of October 4, 2010.
> 
> Adobe actively shares information about this and other vulnerabilities with partners in the security community to enable them to quickly develop detection and quarantine methods to protect users until a patch is available. As always, Adobe recommends that users follow security best practices by keeping their anti-malware software and definitions up to date.
> 
> Users may monitor the latest information on the Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team blog at the following URL: Adobe Product Security Incident Response Team (PSIRT) Blog or by subscribing to the RSS feed
> here: http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/atom.xml


Hahahaha I was JUST about to post this!


----------



## groovetube

OH MY GOD SOMETHING HAS AN...... EXPLOIT OR SOMETHING!!!! ARRRRGGHHHH!!!!


SHUT OFF YOUR COMPUTER!!!!! THE BOOGEYMAN WILL GEEEEETTTT YOOOUUU!!!!!!!!


Some people are just sooo gullible.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> OH MY GOD SOMETHING HAS AN...... EXPLOIT OR SOMETHING!!!! ARRRRGGHHHH!!!!
> 
> 
> SHUT OFF YOUR COMPUTER!!!!! THE BOOGEYMAN WILL GEEEEETTTT YOOOUUU!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> Some people are just sooo gullible.


Hey GT…got any links yet?


----------



## groovetube

you first.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> OH MY GOD SOMETHING HAS AN...... EXPLOIT OR SOMETHING!!!! ARRRRGGHHHH!!!!
> 
> 
> SHUT OFF YOUR COMPUTER!!!!! THE BOOGEYMAN WILL GEEEEETTTT YOOOUUU!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> Some people are just sooo gullible.


Wow, that really adds to the conversation. Thanks "guy who knows people in the developer community"


----------



## groovetube

you're always welcome to buy a ticket and go to a conference where a lot of front line developers will be, and find out lots of info if you're interested.In fact there's a major one for mobile development this weekend at the mtcc I'll be at, you could find out LOTS of info firsthand! Without reading it, on a... blog! It isn't hard to get off your chair and away from your computer, and go out and find things out for yourself. Not everything, can be proved, believed, by simple links, or "look what I can do!" (use Stuart's voice) , or reading blog who says it's so.

If I read something absolutely brainless and ridiculous, it's hard not to mock it. In this case, the fact that people are jumping up and down like a pile of chimpanzees hootin and clapping their hands because they found something with security holes, something that everything you use on your computer will have ( and receives updates as a result) like oh I donno, OS X perhaps?

Just sheer lunacy.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> you first.


I never claimed to be a developer. You did. A developer without a portfolio, apparently.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I never claimed to be a developer. You did. A developer without a portfolio, apparently.


no I don't one thing in my portfolio no. None whatsoever.

You guys just really need to have links. Now go read a blog somewhere quick like a bunny.


----------



## MannyP Design

In my opinion, whenever someone asks to see your work in a thread like this is not because they want to know if you're qualified—but to use it as ammo for personal attacks if they feel the body of work isn't of merit.

Or worse, they track down the clients…

It's a straw man tactic, and a cheap one at that.


----------



## cap10subtext




----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> In my opinion, whenever someone asks to see your work in a thread like this is not because they want to know if you're qualified—but to use it as ammo for personal attacks if they feel the body of work isn't of merit.
> 
> Or worse, they track down the clients…
> 
> It's a straw man tactic, and a cheap one at that.


yep. It's happened before. Not interested.


----------



## Elric

It's funny. We aren't supposed to believe press releases, or heaven forbid post links to them in a thread that is "on topic", if we do, we are all excited and jumping up and down "like a pile of chimpanzees".

But we're supposed to believe some guy with absolutely no clout or credibility just because his name sounds cool?

As for the "Straw Man Tactic", if you really believe that, then you must be a paranoid idiot. When someone claims to know everything, it'd be nice to have some sort of evidence. If you tried to pull me over, I'd sure as hell want to see a badge.


----------



## groovetube

cap10subtext said:


>


allow me to, reiterate.


----------



## groovetube

interesting, sitting here at the mobile conference, in the iphone dev room, half full. The Android, over capacity. Couldn't get in.

I couldn't make this stuff up.


----------



## screature

Doesn't this in some ways make sense though? There are already thousands and thousands of apps for the iPhone while for the Android not so much so in some regards there is greater opportunity in that market space. Not trying to be provocative just trying to think of a rational reason for what you are witnessing.


----------



## hayesk

groovetube said:


> interesting, sitting here at the mobile conference, in the iphone dev room, half full. The Android, over capacity. Couldn't get in.
> 
> I couldn't make this stuff up.


iPhone Developers go to WWDC, not to a mobile conference.


----------



## hayesk

I don't know about other developers, or those "in the developer community" but I certainly don't see a mass transfer to Android for one main reason - Fragmentation.

Android - the platform that's supposed to be open - is OS locked by the carriers. There are lots of Android phones out there running 1.6 or whatever version can't be upgraded. So, I as a developer, don't have a good sense on how many people can run my app unless I support 1.6 - but I want the new features in the newer versions. So what do I do? I know, I make iPhone apps where there are clear sales numbers available as to who can run iOS 4 and who can't. And, I don't have to account for several screen sizes, hardware features, or restrictions that may or may not be published somewhere. With Apple, I have two screen sizes, and have easy access to the capabilities of the device.


----------



## jeepguy

screature said:


> *thousands and thousands of apps for the iPhone*


You mean there are thousands of crap apps, yes there are a few really cool apps, but most are crap, and flash will add more crap apps and I'm sure Android is the same.


----------



## groovetube

hayesk said:


> iPhone Developers go to WWDC, not to a mobile conference.


Wrong.

This is for mobile developers, and the business, of mobile development.

I was here last year. You could fire a connon ball through the android dev room. EMPTY. (nearly).

But it was standing room only in the iphone room. Massive change this year. It isn't that iphone dev is going down, it's just the excitement about another platform happening.


----------



## groovetube

hayesk said:


> I don't know about other developers, or those "in the developer community" but I certainly don't see a mass transfer to Android for one main reason - Fragmentation.
> 
> Android - the platform that's supposed to be open - is OS locked by the carriers. There are lots of Android phones out there running 1.6 or whatever version can't be upgraded. So, I as a developer, don't have a good sense on how many people can run my app unless I support 1.6 - but I want the new features in the newer versions. So what do I do? I know, I make iPhone apps where there are clear sales numbers available as to who can run iOS 4 and who can't. And, I don't have to account for several screen sizes, hardware features, or restrictions that may or may not be published somewhere. With Apple, I have two screen sizes, and have easy access to the capabilities of the device.


perhaps you need to spend some time in xcode. And come back and talk to us, about fragmentation.

Once again, you are dead wrong about this. There is quite a shift towards android. It's very clearly, noticeable. The sheer number of apps just in the last while heading to android, is evidence of this.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This is for mobile developers, and the business, of mobile development.
> 
> I was here last year. You could fire a connon ball through the android dev room. EMPTY. (nearly).
> 
> But it was standing room only in the iphone room. Massive change this year. It isn't that iphone dev is going down, it's just the excitement about another platform happening.


I find it strange that you find that strange, being "in the developer community" and all.

Seems like common sense to everyone else.


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> As for the "Straw Man Tactic", if you really believe that, then you must be a paranoid idiot. When someone claims to know everything, it'd be nice to have some sort of evidence. If you tried to pull me over, I'd sure as hell want to see a badge.


It's not paranoia if it's real, chum. I've seen some interesting folks on this board pull some pretty stupid stunts.


----------



## da_jonesy

I work in the web performance industry, and I'm 100% behind Steve Jobs on Flash... Flash should go the way of the dinosaur (or more appropriately find a little niche like pure Java applets).

Flash is my bane... I cannot wait until HTML5 (and whatever comes after that) supplants Flash entirely.


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> I find it strange that you find that strange, being "in the developer community" and all.
> 
> Seems like common sense to everyone else.


I never said I found it strange, just saying what I saw. Anyone can get off their computer and find out for themselves. Too many people act like they know something, go find out for yourself.



da_jonesy said:


> I work in the web performance industry, and I'm 100% behind Steve Jobs on Flash... Flash should go the way of the dinosaur (or more appropriately find a little niche like pure Java applets).
> 
> Flash is my bane... I cannot wait until HTML5 (and whatever comes after that) supplants Flash entirely.


I don't think flash is going anywhere, in fact, I think it's gonna get bigger. I had my doubts for some time where things were going, I started some time ago focusing and building non flash projects, even steering some clients away from flash. But seeing the progress, the initiatives, the new flash player, (played with a wild 3d site on android today) it convinced me, this aint going anywhere.

I think html5 is a great thing, adobe has been pushing html5 capability updates to even illustrator now. But truthfully, many of the capabilities are stuff flash did better ten years ago, and between not being sure how far down the road browsers adopt the standards (slooooowwwww), then the cross browser conflicts of who supports what, and not, it's not going to be the flash killer everybody thought it would be, whatsoever.

The flash IDE still remains a very very good platform, and there's a reason why developers choose it to develop. HTML 5 will now allow us to use simpler methods to accomplish things that flash shouldn't be used for.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I never said I found it strange, just saying what I saw. Anyone can get off their computer and find out for themselves. Too many people act like they know something, go find out for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think flash is going anywhere, in fact, I think it's gonna get bigger. I had my doubts for some time where things were going, I started some time ago focusing and building non flash projects, even steering some clients away from flash. But seeing the progress, the initiatives, the new flash player, (played with a wild 3d site on android today) it convinced me, this aint going anywhere.
> 
> I think html5 is a great thing, adobe has been pushing html5 capability updates to even illustrator now. But truthfully, many of the capabilities are stuff flash did better ten years ago, and between not being sure how far down the road browsers adopt the standards (slooooowwwww), then the cross browser conflicts of who supports what, and not, it's not going to be the flash killer everybody thought it would be, whatsoever.
> 
> *The flash IDE still remains a very very good platform, and there's a reason why developers choose it to develop. HTML 5 will now allow us to use simpler methods to accomplish things that flash shouldn't be used for.*


Fair post gt... 

I don't know about Flash getting bigger... but maybe because of the Android market possibly so and why the about face by Apple... I think it may be a transitional thing though until HTML5 reaches maturity. After that as Dr. G. says, we shall see...

For the mobile market though I think you are right, Flash isn't going anywhere (at least as a development platform is concerned) for the immediate and midterm future and again thus the reversal on Apple's part. 

My 2 cents and probably that is all it is worth.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Fair post gt...
> 
> I don't know about Flash getting bigger... but maybe because of the Android market possibly so and why the about face by Apple... I think it may be a transitional thing though until HTML5 reaches maturity. After that as Dr. G. says, we shall see...
> 
> For the mobile market though I think you are right, Flash isn't going anywhere (at least as a development platform is concerned) for the immediate and midterm future and again thus the reversal on Apple's part.
> 
> My 2 cents and probably that is all it is worth.


I'm not trying to push flash as -the- platform to develop as far as mobile is concerned. I've seen a number of frameworks emerge, some failed, some have really matured. I really was ready to jump ship there for a bit, and dev in straight obj C is likely the better route in many respects. But What I'm seeing, well from my perspective, is something interesting.
Android, is kicking very serious arse, far more so than I first thought. They are looking to have flash on more than 50% of smartphones in a couple years. That was an eyeopener.


----------



## Elric

I think this article reiterates the answer to the actual topic of this thread.
Great read Flash vs. HTML5: Adobe Weighs In
(sorry it's from a blog GT)

STEVE JOBS hates it because it's not functional on his money makers.

Flash will always be around (and bigger) for the projects that need it. Desktops, and eventually, tablets (and eventually phones... Etc) when they get powerful enough for it.

But right now, it's non functional, and when something is nonfunctional, the average consumers complain about the product, and Steve Jobs doesn't want his products to be blamed for someone elses mistakes.


----------



## groovetube

eventually, phones?

C'mon, just try, to be informed. k?


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> eventually, phones?
> 
> C'mon, just try, to be informed. k?


I'm not sure what part you don't understand, but yes, all cell phones will eventually get more powerful.


----------



## groovetube

my, that's quite a prediction.

You should start a blog.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I'm not trying to push flash as -the- platform to develop as far as mobile is concerned. I've seen a number of frameworks emerge, some failed, some have really matured. I really was ready to jump ship there for a bit, and dev in straight obj C is likely the better route in many respects. But What I'm seeing, well from my perspective, is something interesting.
> Android, is kicking very serious arse, far more so than I first thought. They are looking to have flash on more than 50% of smartphones in a couple years. That was an eyeopener.


I am trying to understand, and I mean that in the most seriously and friendly way.  

You have been in this thread IMHO a big Flash supporter (if not exactly a promoter). By your comments you at one point thought that Flash was not the way to go for development. Then at some point you changed your mind, or are in the process of doing so, is it the Android market potential that is making you feel/think differently?


----------



## groovetube

not really so much a supporter, but more setting the record straight, as there was plenty of people shrieking parroting the bullcrap coming off blogs.

I've always agreed readily with the problems with adobe, and flash. It was in general, a case of a few things. Would adobe rise to the challenge. They did. They re wrote the plash player from scratch, and the first version, is running very well. Not perfectly, but has proven adobe is up to make it happen. They had to. Also, is there going o be a roadmap, meaning, not just flash/flash player. There is.

There's also apple, the other players, marketshare, etc. It's become very clear google has become the major player, having surpassed iphone, and it is now projected to double and quadruple in size, dwarfing apple bigtime. This has a big impact on where flash is going.

There's so much to this storey really. Most here miss it, likely because all they do is read "FLASH IS GONNA DIE CAUSE STEVE JOBS SAYS SO" and that's pretty much all we get.

Flash is one of the tools I use, and while it would be a drag if i did go down, my engine would still be running full tilt.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> ...There's so much to this storey really. Most here miss it, likely because all they do is read "FLASH IS GONNA DIE CAUSE STEVE JOBS SAYS SO" and that's pretty much all we get.
> 
> Flash is one of the tools I use, and while it would be a drag if i did go down, my engine would still be running full tilt.


I hear yah... much like the misinformation re: politics I read everyday... So what is the way of the future as you see/hear it?


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> my, that's quite a prediction.
> 
> You should start a blog.


I sense your sarcasm, I just don't understand what you are disagreeing with. As a Flash evangelist, you of all people should agree with the Adobe guy that it's the project, and it's target audience/device that dictates which tool should be used. As a developer, this should be common sense to you.
Did you even read the article? Or just assume it badmouthed Flash and stomped your feet like a child? RTFA.


----------



## groovetube

Elric said:


> I sense your sarcasm, I just don't understand what you are disagreeing with. As a Flash evangelist, you of all people should agree with the Adobe guy that it's the project, and it's target audience/device that dictates which tool should be used. As a developer, this should be common sense to you.
> Did you even read the article? Or just assume it badmouthed Flash and stomped your feet like a child? RTFA.


mind... blown. The right tool, for the job. Who'd a thunk it?

I haven't assumed anything, but you seem to be pretty good at that. btw I don't know who the flash evangelist is.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> mind... blown. The right tool, for the job. Who'd a thunk it?


Certainly not you, it took 40 pages to get you to realize it. LOL


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> Certainly not you, it took 40 pages to get you to realize it. LOL


I'm pretty sure that was cover somewhere between page 10 and 15.


----------



## fjnmusic

I don't care why Steve Jobs doesn't like Flash; here's another reason that I don't like it. Y'all know about flash cookies?

"At issue is a little-known piece of computer code placed on hard drives by the Flash program from Adobe when users watch videos on popular Web sites like YouTube and Hulu.

The technology, so-called Flash cookies, is bringing an increasing number of federal lawsuits against media and technology companies and growing criticism from some privacy advocates who say the software may also allow the companies to create detailed profiles of consumers without their knowledge.

Unlike other so-called HTML cookies, which store Web site preferences and can be managed by changing privacy settings in a Web browser, Flash cookies are stored in a separate directory that many users are unaware of and may not know how to control."

You can read the article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/technology/21cookie.html?_r=1&partner=yahoofinance


----------



## groovetube

flash "cookies" have been around for years and years. I've used them for what they were intended for, storing preferences like setting etc., I've used it mainly, to stop animations and other flash stuff from appearing once a user has seen it to lower the annoyance factor.

But this makes for a good headline though.

This is the first I've heard that anyone can actually use it to track and retrieve site to site, I didn't know this was even possible.

But experience tells me, if they can't use flash cookies, they'll use something else to achieve their aims.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> I'm pretty sure that was cover somewhere between page 10 and 15.


gotta love forums.

You too, can be an expert.


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> I'm pretty sure that was cover somewhere between page 10 and 15.


I know that, and you know that, but someone here doesn't


----------



## groovetube

lots of people don't understand it.

Perhaps you can take the time to summarize it all in detail for us.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> lots of people don't understand it.
> 
> Perhaps you can take the time to summarize it all in detail for us.


Wow. Perhaps your mom can read you the article lol 

Jeez man, I really hope that you are just pretending to be stupid.


----------



## groovetube

well that's what I thought. Just thought I'd ask. As for the article, that's a famous one we've all read and discussed it over and over again. Perhaps you can point out whatever it is you have found so incredible so as not to have been thought of here.

anyway, back on topic, here's an interesting video comparing canvas performance on an ipod touch, to flash on android. I'm seeing this sort of comparison pop up more and more. As these get more noticed, I'll guess we'll see far more headlines on flash player's security holes. Not that, you know, os x ever has any though eh.


----------



## hayesk

I think the HTML 5 Canvas has a lot of optimization left in it - it's a new technology after all. As for Flash, well, all I know is it runs like garbage on MacBook. If they can't get it right with virtually infinite memory and a much faster CPU on the desktop, I'd hate to run it on a battery powered mobile device.

If Adobe really gets down to work and makes Flash run well on a mobile device (beyond a bouncing ball animation) then I'll have no problem with advocating its acceptance on a mobile platform. Until then... it can run on the "open" Android platform.


----------



## groovetube

I guess you haven't seen 10.1 run on android.

And while I readily agree that flash player has been slow, buggy, and in general a poor POS piece of software, 10.1 has been completely rewritten, and runs far, far better. I haven't tested the new 64 bit version yet.

In truth, Steve Jobs has actually done flash developers a huge, huge favor.

At this point, flash is actually one step ahead of canvas. Time will tell.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> As for the article, that's a famous one we've all read and discussed it over and over again. Perhaps you can point out whatever it is you have found so incredible so as not to have been thought of here.


As for the article, I posted the link, the day it came out, perhaps there's another thread on this same topic?

But the whole point was summarized in the last paragraph for you. Let me hi-light the part you seem to not be able to grasp.

"*For current developers, sadly, making the decision to go Flash or HTML5 is still going to be difficult. It’s still at the “depends on the project” stage.* For video and mobile content, HTML5 is winning. For more rich and interactive content, Flash has a huge advantage that isn’t going to be displaced anytime soon."

As a self proclaimed developer, wouldn't you want your content seen by as many people as possible? Not just a small handful of the Android market? Back when this whole ordeal started, there was not a single phone that could run flash, but no one cried to RIM or Nokia...

This is getting really boring now, once Flash becomes more common (on mobiles), then we can all cry that we want it on our mobiles. As for me personally, I do not miss the Flash based advertising. And I really couldn't care less about Flash menus and that basic crap, if I want to see some "awesome eyecandy", I'll check it out at home in my spare time from my desktop... like the new Arcade Fire Video (but even that's HTML5)


----------



## hayesk

groovetube said:


> I guess you haven't seen 10.1 run on android.


True, I've only seen staged videos online where select tests have been performed. The truth is, I don't know anyone who owns an Android phone, so I can't test Flash on a mobile device myself.



> In truth, Steve Jobs has actually done flash developers a huge, huge favor.
> 
> At this point, flash is actually one step ahead of canvas. Time will tell.


Agreed. But if SJ did flash developers a favor, then that's good. Competition is a good thing.


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> agreed. But *if sj did flash developers a favour, then that's good. Competition is a good thing.*


+1


----------



## groovetube

yes indeed. At least, I certainly see it tat way, and I know I'm not alone.

I see our resident genius is still yammering about the right tool for the job. SHould someone tell him, it's pretty basic 101 stuff? Perhaps there is a point at the end we'll finally get.

Anyway, at this time, it appears, it won't be long, before iOS, will be the only, platform that doesn't run flash. I can't predict, where that will go, but when eventually, 75% of the mobile smartphones can run flash, I wonder.

It should be an interesting, few years as things grow. Because this will move quickly. Typically, people use their smartphones for 2 or 3 years.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> It should be an interesting, few years as things grow. Because this will move quickly. Typically, people use their smartphones for 2 or 3 years.


...and the resident "developer" still can't stay on topic or see anything from the end user perspective.


----------



## groovetube

the topic, is steve jobs, and his hatred of flash.

Now go away troll. Or offer something on topic thanks.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> the topic, is steve jobs, and his hatred of flash.
> 
> Now go away troll. Or offer something on topic thanks.


Ah, the advice of fools. I have been on topic since day one buddy. And I still can't figure out why you are so angry all the time, but glad it's not JUST to me, I was starting to get a complex! lol You need to lighten up.


----------



## groovetube

Welcome to my ignore filter genius. Go troll someone else. 

Now back to the topic.

There's a few demos of the very same new samsung tab I played with recently. 

It seems devices are getting much faster, and can run the new streamlined version of flash very well.

oops forgot the link: Radar running on the Samsung Galaxy Pad (European) | www.flashmobileblog.com


----------



## Elric

LOL

Wow.

Another good read... IF you actually read it.

W3C Says HTML5 Isn’t Ready for the Web

(I apologize if this was posted in that other thread GT raves about)


----------



## groovetube

I just heard on the radio (no less) that there is a rumor, that Microsoft may buy, adobe. Just when you thought things would get better, it takes a turn fir the worst.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I just heard on the radio (no less) that there is a rumor, that Microsoft may buy, adobe. Just when you thought things would get better, it takes a turn fir the worst.


Boosted Adobe's shares by 11.5% too. But only for today, since the rumor turned out to be BS.


----------



## MannyP Design

Wow, can't imagine why a rumor of MS acquiring Adobe would cause stocks to rise. When was the last time MS did anything right? They've had nothing but a steady stream of failures and flops for the past 5 years or so. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

right, I would think someone at adobe would have a brain, and think, wow, this is a colossal mistake. Hooking up with the titanic isn't exactly a good move.

This is where one morning we wake up, and google will have bought them...


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> right, I would think someone at adobe would have a brain, and think, wow, this is a colossal mistake. Hooking up with the titanic isn't exactly a good move.
> 
> This is where one morning we wake up, and google will have bought them...


That's equally frightening… Google isn't exactly artist-friendly, if you know what I am saying.


----------



## ehMax

Apple should dip into their 50 bajillion dollar bank account and buy Adobe. Seems it would make sense business wise. On the other hand, Microsoft owning Adobe and controlling the main design apps for the Mac platform. :yikes: If anything, there's incentive enough to buy them.


----------



## screature

^^^ I thought Apple had 100 quadrillion in cash.


----------



## kps

ehMax said:


> Apple should dip into their 50 bajillion dollar bank account and buy Adobe. Seems it would make sense business wise. On the other hand, Microsoft owning Adobe and controlling the main design apps for the Mac platform. :yikes: If anything, there's incentive enough to buy them.


I would not have any issue with this, provided they keep them operating as separate entities and Steve stays away from the pro apps. There are times where Steve Jobs's vision of dumbing down software has no place.


----------



## ehMax

kps said:


> I would not have any issue with this, provided they keep them operating as separate entities and Steve stays away from the pro apps. There are times where Steve Jobs's vision of dumbing down software has no place.


*Cough* iMovie *Cough*


----------



## MannyP Design

ehMax said:


> Apple should dip into their 50 bajillion dollar bank account and buy Adobe. Seems it would make sense business wise. On the other hand, Microsoft owning Adobe and controlling the main design apps for the Mac platform. :yikes: If anything, there's incentive enough to buy them.


There's too much application overlap, and it wouldn't benefit anyone; and frankly the fox does not belong in the henhouse. It would do nothing but cause grief.

I think Adobe is just fine where it is thankyouverymuch.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> There's too much application overlap, and it wouldn't benefit anyone; and frankly the fox does not belong in the henhouse. It would do nothing but cause grief.
> 
> I think Adobe is just fine where it is thankyouverymuch.


I agree that Adobe is better off as a separate entity (competition is good) but if it came down to them being bought up by MS or Apple, I sure would prefer it be Apple over MS.


----------



## groovetube

the end result for adobe? I doubt it'd matter if it was MS or apple who bought them.


----------



## The Doug

Isn't _anyone_ hoping it's MS? Just think, their *Microdobe Creative Suite 6 Design Premium Home Platinum Edition Collection (now with Silverlight!)* could be the killer app designers everywhere don't yet know that they need.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> the end result for adobe? I doubt it'd matter if it was MS or apple who bought them.


The end result for Adobe would be the same... it is the rest of us I am thinking about.  Especially Mac users.


----------



## groovetube

yeah that wouldn't be pretty. They finally redid the CS apps and in 64bit, CS5 runs sooo much better than CS4.


----------



## Lawrence

...and here I thought it was because of battery life,
Flash is just too battery intensive, Thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## Ottawaman

Microsoft and Adobe Executives Meet to Discuss Apple, Possible Merger


----------



## CubaMark

*Has Adobe seen the writing on the wall?*

*Adobe previews its Edge HTML5 animation tool*





> Pretty much since it was announced HTML5 has been touted by many pundits as signaling the death of Adobe’s Flash. Whether or not that eventuates, only time will tell but a tool being developed by Adobe codenamed Edge is only likely to fan the flames for those predicting Flash’s demise. Still only in prototype form, Edge is an HTML5 animation tool that makes it easy for web developers and designers to create animations and transitions without having to slug through line after line of HTML5 code.


(GizMag)


----------



## MannyP Design

Adobe is doing what they've always done: Make applications.


----------



## MannyP Design

Ottawaman said:


> Microsoft and Adobe Executives Meet to Discuss Apple, Possible Merger


Maybe Adobe is going to acquire MS. :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

*Manny, my favourite comment to the article you linked:*



> *Steve Z*
> October 7th, 2010
> 6:04 pm
> 
> It's kind of interesting to think about the collective gasp of abject horror that would ensue if the world's least creative company bought the company most of the world's creative artists depend on. And just when you thought Flash couldn't get any worse.
> 
> Get ready for Microsoft Photoshop Office Home Premium Starter Edition for Enterprises!


----------



## groovetube

you are already able to export HTML5 canvas out of flash.

Anyone who thought adobe isn't on board with html 5 doesn't understand this whole thing at all. As Manny said, they make applications to create. Period.

I've always considered the new AS3 being so insanely close to javascript as, no coincidence.


----------



## CubaMark

*Here's another tool that may be of interest...*

*Sencha about to unleash CSS3 Flash animation killer*





> Adobe is not the only company preparing for the heralded death of Flash on the web. Sencha has announced the developer preview of a new CSS3-based animation tool for the creation of rich media animations in HTML5-enabled browsers. The new desktop application is said to allow developers to bring web animations to life without having to mess around with hundreds of lines of complicated code.
> 
> Like Adobe's Edge prototype, Sencha's Animator has been created with Webkit browsers and touchscreen mobile devices in mind.


(Gizmag)


----------



## groovetube

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Nice... Are you in a bad mood today? Does it make you fell superior if you ridicule other people... even those with whom you have common ground.

Do you have a compulsion to isolate yourself from others?

Sorry but,



groovetube said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Really... Is that polite to CM when he has never shot you down on this subject but is merely contributing to the thread? 

I think you can let him know that you don't see what he is posting is earth shaking from your point of view without being so condescending. 

Sorry but I think you are being rude....

And I don't want to talk about any other irrelevant exchanges... just this one.


----------



## groovetube

dude. Drink some chamomile tea. Seriously. My response isn't a dagger at anyone, it's a genuine response, really.

The thing is, after 11 years of having worked with flash, I have seen the term "flash killer" no less than a thousand times. Yes, we all know canvas, javascript animations, CSS3, etc., are becoming more popular. You have to understand, it's a very natural progression, as it has been since we first learned to change that horrible blue link color to something else. As a developer, who uses several technologies to accomplish things, I have seen things grow, change, fail, etc., several times now.

One really, has to -begin-, to understand the full capabilities of flash, to know why, I posted, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz". And, to put into persepective, yet another "flash killer" shriek, really means in the sceme of things. 

It isn't a disrespect to CM at all. He's merely posting a news item. I haven't seen the sort of ponitificating nonsense from him as I've seen from others, who clearly know not one thing about it, but are only too happy to act like they do, those google it drama queens.

Of course there will be tools to create animations as these technologies mature, we have expected this to come to pass, and look forward to them, any developer is more than eager to see better, easier tools to make money!

But pardon me, if I er... "zzzz" a little when something with 1/100th the capabilities of flash is touted, as a "flash killer". Nothing is going to 'kill flash'. Flash will either continue to stay relevant and morph as I suspect it will, or, it won't, and fade into irrelevance in time.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> dude. Drink some chamomile tea. Seriously. My response isn't a dagger at anyone, it's a genuine response, really.
> 
> The thing is, after 11 years of having worked with flash, I have seen the term "flash killer" no less than a thousand times. Yes, we all know canvas, javascript animations, CSS3, etc., are becoming more popular. You have to understand, it's a very natural progression, as it has been since we first learned to change that horrible blue link color to something else. As a developer, who uses several technologies to accomplish things, I have seen things grow, change, fail, etc., several times now.
> 
> One really, has to -begin-, to understand the full capabilities of flash, to know why, I posted, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz". And, to put into persepective, yet another "flash killer" shriek, really means in the sceme of things.
> 
> It isn't a disrespect to CM at all. He's merely posting a news item. I haven't seen the sort of ponitificating nonsense from him as I've seen from others, who clearly know not one thing about it, but are only too happy to act like they do, those google it drama queens.
> 
> Of course there will be tools to create animations as these technologies mature, we have expected this to come to pass, and look forward to them, any developer is more than eager to see better, easier tools to make money!
> 
> But pardon me, if I er... "zzzz" a little when something with 1/100th the capabilities of flash is touted, as a "flash killer". Nothing is going to 'kill flash'. Flash will either continue to stay relevant and morph as I suspect it will, or, it won't, and fade into irrelevance in time.


All well and good and sorry if I overreacted but you have been singularly dismissive of other's posts in this thread and this just seemed like another in that vein.... 

We all have our own expertise and should be respectful of those who have less expertise in a given area... myself included (3 three fingers pointing back at me)... especially when they haven't been previously confrontational with us. IMHO. 

Happy Halloween... 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

ZZZZZzzzzz....*snort*....*huh*.... wha...? Did I miss something? C'mon guys, it's Sunday... I'm trying to... to.... zzzzZZZZZZ!!!!!!


----------



## groovetube

Ha ha I'm trying desperately to offload the last bowl of candy before I end up eating it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Candy's great, but watch out for those poisoned apples…


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> All well and good and sorry if I overreacted but you have been singularly dismissive of other's posts in this thread and this just seemed like another in that vein....
> 
> We all have our own expertise and should be respectful of those who have less expertise in a given area... myself included (3 three fingers pointing back at me)... especially when they haven't been previously confrontational with us. IMHO.
> 
> Happy Halloween...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Yes I have been dismissive quite often. it's just tiring sometimes it's often the same thing over and over. If it were interesting news framed somewhat differently, maybe it'd be different. 

Anyway. I am looking forward to the progression of food tools, though there is little replacement for good hand coding. Regardless of language. In the end, the results often end up the same.

Except click4flash won't block so many ads anymore.  one needs to be careful what they wish for.


----------



## Elric

Fuuuuuuun!
Flash Vs HTML5


----------



## BigDL

*Just in from Wired.com*



Wired.com said:


> iPhone App Plays Flash Video, Though It Hardly Matters
> 
> Maybe Apple approved Skyfire, an iPhone web browser that plays Flash videos, to prove a point: Flash is losing relevance.
> 
> Despite widespread excitement over the first app to work with Adobe’s plug-in, it turns out that Skyfire isn’t very useful.
> 
> My hands-on time with the app, which came out Wednesday (and quickly “sold out,” according to the developer’s press release), was an eye-opening experience. The app’s primary function is to take websites that use embedded Flash video and automatically transcode that video into HTML5 so that it’s viewable on the iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch. To test it, I had to find a popular website loaded with Flash video.
> 
> The search was difficult.
> 
> I looked at several video-heavy websites, only to realize they were already HTML5-ready. Examples include The Onion, DailyMotion, ESPN, CollegeHumor and CNET. The biggest video websites — YouTube and Vimeo — have moved to HTML5, too.


The rest of the story


----------



## SoyMac

I have a feeling that _this_ is the real reason Steve Jobs hates FLASH ...

Dropping Adobe Flash boosts Apple's MacBook Air battery life by 2 hours

Excerpt:
"Apple has stopped bundling Adobe Flash on new Macs, ostensibly so users could obtain the latest, secure version themselves, but vastly increased battery life seems to be another leading reason.

According to testing performed by Chris Foresman of Ars Technica, the new MacBook Air can last for a full six hours after loading a series of webpages in Safari, but its battery performance drops down to four hours once Adobe Flash is installed and the same sites are loaded.

"Flash-based ads kept the CPU running far more than seemed necessary," Foresman wrote. Without the Flash plugin installed, websites typically display static ads in place of Flash content, erasing the need for constant processing power demanded by the Flash plugin's rendering engine.

With Flash ads consuming as much as 33 percent of the MacBook Air's battery potential, it's no wonder why Apple has demonstrated no interest in getting a version of Flash installed on its iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, all of which have much smaller batteries."

Please see the full article here: 
AppleInsider | Dropping Adobe Flash boosts Apple's MacBook Air battery life by 2 hours


----------



## chas_m

SoyMac:

At this point even I'm going to say you're just baiting GrooveTube.

The article does point out a truth -- Flash uses more resources than it should, FACT.

But a more, let's say, SCIENTIFIC test would be one that sets the same model computer against another one. One is running a YouTube video playlist in Flash, the other in HTML5.

I suspect I know what the results would be, and they would still not favour Flash -- but we'd have a better idea of the impact from a more evenly-matched test. The article referenced above simply shows us that static ads use less horsepower than animated ones, which might be news to SOME people but wasn't particularly surprising to me.


----------



## i-rui

Elric said:


> Fuuuuuuun!
> Flash Vs HTML5


haha

that's pretty neat.


----------



## SoyMac

Well, is this the _sideways_ reason Steve Jobs hates FLASH?!

Starts out as an article about Microsoft in discussions with Adobe, but quickly segues in to the ol', "FLASH Makes Your Mobile Device Die Fast" theme;

Report: Microsoft and Adobe brass in blood oath to kill iPhone?

Excerpt:
_According to a New York Times Bits blog report, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen met recently to discuss joint strategies to defeat Apple’s iOS platform. The story said a merger of the two companies was discussed.

In the Bits blog post, Nick Bilton reported that Microsoft had considered a purchase of Adobe in the past.

One person familiar with the discussion said the two companies had talked about the blockade that Apple’s chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, had placed on Adobe’s Flash software for its handheld devices and whether a partnership by Adobe and Microsoft could fend off Apple, which continues to grow at juggernaut speeds.

In the past week, many technological and strategic issues were raised about the Web platform strategies for both companies._

Full article here:
Report: Microsoft and Adobe brass in blood oath to kill iPhone? | ZDNet


----------



## MannyP Design

Adobe has teamed up with just about every Apple competitor… They're working with RIM as well (ever heard of Playbook?). It's their business, not some nefarious scheme to keep Flash alive, FFS. Here's a hint: Adobe doesn't live and die by Flash.


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> Fuuuuuuun!
> Flash Vs HTML5


Actually the HTML5 paddle motion on the right was much smoother for me than the one on the left. Is that about accurate?


----------



## Elric

fjnmusic said:


> Actually the HTML5 paddle motion on the right was much smoother for me than the one on the left. Is that about accurate?


That's how it was with me too. But we all know Flash still doesn't play very well with Snow Leopard. I'm guessing it's different for Windows users...?


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> That's how it was with me too. But we all know Flash still doesn't play very well with Snow Leopard. I'm guessing it's different for Windows users...?


Don't know if Windows users would even be able to detect that level of refinement and precision, to be honest.


----------



## MannyP Design

fjnmusic said:


> Don't know if Windows users would even be able to detect that level of refinement and precision, to be honest.


They seemed to be the same for me. I guess "twitch" gamers may notice.

What's interesting is the Flash component of the page is smaller than the embedded font used for the HTML side, as well as the jQuery/JS and the other various widgets (combined) to enable the HTML side of the game.

Just saying. :heybaby:


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> They seemed to be the same for me. I guess "twitch" gamers may notice.
> 
> What's interesting is the Flash component of the page is smaller than the embedded font used for the HTML side, as well as the jQuery/JS and the other various widgets (combined) to enable the HTML side of the game.
> 
> Just saying. :heybaby:


I suspected as well. 

Both sides run flawlessly (html5 being weighter notwithstanding) for me on any OS.

But the point wasn't which side ran faster, it was done in fun, but it certainly ensared some though didn't it. :baby:


----------



## fjnmusic

Not faster, my friend; smoother.


----------



## groovetube

whatever. Smoother, faster, better, turns you into a 9 year old hindu boy and pass all yer gamblin' debts, free brochure... oh my god steve you're RIGHT!

whatever, is really important to you.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> whatever. Smoother, faster, better, turns you into a 9 year old hindu boy and pass all yer gamblin' debts, free brochure... oh my god steve you're RIGHT!
> 
> whatever, is really important to you.


I can't really tell what upset you about his post... 

He seemed really calm on my screen. Even seemed surprised the HTML5 side ran smoother... I was surprised, I expected the Flash to run smoother.


----------



## groovetube

apparently, it's hard to tell the difference between upset, and outright mocking.

The apple defence league, always finds controversy, even in something that was intended as a joke!

Amazing.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> whatever. Smoother, faster, better, turns you into a 9 year old hindu boy and pass all yer gamblin' debts, free brochure... oh my god steve you're RIGHT!
> 
> whatever, is really important to you.


A 9 year old Hindu boy? Seriously? Who moves with his family from their family run zoo in Pondicherry only to have their boat capsize, where he finds himself alone on a liferaft with an orangutang, a hyena, a zebra with a broken leg, and a 450 pound Bengal tiger? Sounds like a good premise for a story.


----------



## groovetube

or you could buy a tom waits record...


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> I can't really tell what upset you about his post...
> 
> He seemed really calm on my screen. Even seemed surprised the HTML5 side ran smoother... I was surprised, I expected the Flash to run smoother.


"He" (as in I) probably seemed calmer on your screen if you weren't running Flash. Cause if you were, your puter probably started to heat up, kicking in the fan noise you would have otherwise heard.

Also, I noticed that the pong paddle on the left side of the screen seemed to be sweating more.


----------



## groovetube

not a tom waits fan in the lot of you.

sad.


----------



## screature

Not true, I used this song at an ad hoc "illegal" show/sale of small sculpture (couldn't be any larger than 1" x 1" x 1") as a project in my graduating year of a sculpture class in 1989. We set up a booth without a permit on the Rideau Centre Bus Mall in Ottawa when it existed and played the song from at "ghetto blaster" as our "theme music" before we were shut down by the Rideau Street Mall Authority.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






*Step Right Up*

Step right up
Step right up
Step right up
Everyone's a winner, bargains galore
That's right, you too can be the proud owner
Of the quality goes in before the name goes on
One-tenth of a dollar
One-tenth of a dollar
We got service after sales
You need perfume? we got perfume
How 'bout an engagement ring?
Something for the little lady
Something for the little lady
Something for the little lady, hmm
Three for a dollar
We got a year-end clearance, we got a white sale
And a smoke-damaged furniture
You can drive it away today
Act now, act now
And receive as our gift, our gift to you
They come in all colors, one size fits all
No muss, no fuss, no spills
You're tired of kitchen drudgery
Everything must go
Going out of business
Going out of business
Going out of business sale
Fifty percent off original retail price
Skip the middle man
Don't settle for less
How do we do it?
How do we do it?
Volume, volume, turn up the volume
Now you've heard it advertised, don't hesitate
Don't be caught with your drawers down
Don't be caught with your drawers down
You can step right up, step right up

That's right, it filets, it chops
It dices, slices, never stops
Lasts a lifetime, mows your lawn
And it mows your lawn
And it picks up the kids from school
It gets rid of unwanted facial hair
It gets rid of embarrassing age spots
It delivers a pizza
And it lengthens, and it strengthens
And it finds that slipper that's been at large
Under the chaise longe for several weeks
And it plays a mean Rhythm Master
It makes excuses for unwanted lipstick on your collar
And it's only a dollar, step right up
It's only a dollar, step right up

'Cause it forges your signature.
If not completely satisfied
Mail back unused portion of product
For complete refund of price of purchase
Step right up
Please allow thirty days for delivery
Don't be fooled by cheap imitations
You can live in it, live in it
Laugh in it, love in it
Swim in it, sleep in it
Live in it, swim in it
Laugh in it, love in it
Removes embarrassing stains from contour sheets
That's right
And it entertains visiting relatives
It turns a sandwich into a banquet
Tired of being the life of the party?
Change your shorts
Change your life
Change your life
*Change into a nine-year-old Hindu boy*
Get rid of your wife
And it walks your dog, and it doubles on sax
Doubles on sax, you can jump back Jack
See you later alligator
See you later alligator
And it steals your car
It gets rid of your gambling debts, it quits smoking
It's a friend, and it's a companion
And it's the only product you will ever need
Follow these easy assembly instructions
It never needs ironing
Well it takes weights off hips, bust
Thighs, chin, midriff
Gives you dandruff, and it finds you a job
It is a job
And it strips the phone company free
Take ten for five exchange
And it gives you denture breath
And you know it's a friend, and it's a companion
And it gets rid of your traveler's checks
It's new, it's improved, it's old-fashioned
Well it takes care of business
Never needs winding
Never needs winding
Never needs winding
Gets rid of blackheads, the heartbreak of psoriasis
Christ, you don't know the meaning of heartbreak, buddy
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
'Cause it's effective, it's defective
It creates household odors
It disinfects, it sanitizes for your protection
It gives you an erection
It wins the election
Why put up with painful corns any longer?
It's a redeemable coupon, no obligation
No salesman will visit your home
We got a jackpot, jackpot, jackpot
Prizes, prizes, prizes, all work guaranteed
How do we do it
How do we do it
How do we do it
How do we do it
We need your business
We're going out of business
We'll give you the business
Get on the business
End of our going-out-of-business sale
Receive our free brochure, free brochure
Read the easy-to-follow assembly instructions
Batteries not included
Send before midnight tomorrow, terms available
Step right up
Step right up
Step right up
You got it buddy: the large print giveth
And the small print taketh away
Step right up
You can step right up
You can step right up
C'mon step right up
(Get away from me kid, you bother me...)
Step right up, step right up, step right up
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Step right up
You can step right up
C'mon and step right up
C'mon and step right up


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Not true, I used this song at an ad hoc "illegal" show/sale of small sculpture (couldn't be any larger than 1" x 1" x 1") as a project in my graduating year of a sculpture class in 1999. We set up a booth without a permit on the Rideau Centre Bus Mall in Ottawa when it existed and played the song from at "ghetto blaster" as our "theme music" before we were shut down by the Rideau Street Mall Authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Step Right Up*
> 
> Step right up
> Step right up
> Step right up
> Everyone's a winner, bargains galore
> That's right, you too can be the proud owner
> Of the quality goes in before the name goes on
> One-tenth of a dollar
> One-tenth of a dollar
> We got service after sales
> You need perfume? we got perfume
> How 'bout an engagement ring?
> Something for the little lady
> Something for the little lady
> Something for the little lady, hmm
> Three for a dollar
> We got a year-end clearance, we got a white sale
> And a smoke-damaged furniture
> You can drive it away today
> Act now, act now
> And receive as our gift, our gift to you
> They come in all colors, one size fits all
> No muss, no fuss, no spills
> You're tired of kitchen drudgery
> Everything must go
> Going out of business
> Going out of business
> Going out of business sale
> Fifty percent off original retail price
> Skip the middle man
> Don't settle for less
> How do we do it?
> How do we do it?
> Volume, volume, turn up the volume
> Now you've heard it advertised, don't hesitate
> Don't be caught with your drawers down
> Don't be caught with your drawers down
> You can step right up, step right up
> 
> That's right, it filets, it chops
> It dices, slices, never stops
> Lasts a lifetime, mows your lawn
> And it mows your lawn
> And it picks up the kids from school
> It gets rid of unwanted facial hair
> It gets rid of embarrassing age spots
> It delivers a pizza
> And it lengthens, and it strengthens
> And it finds that slipper that's been at large
> Under the chaise longe for several weeks
> And it plays a mean Rhythm Master
> It makes excuses for unwanted lipstick on your collar
> And it's only a dollar, step right up
> It's only a dollar, step right up
> 
> 'Cause it forges your signature.
> If not completely satisfied
> Mail back unused portion of product
> For complete refund of price of purchase
> Step right up
> Please allow thirty days for delivery
> Don't be fooled by cheap imitations
> You can live in it, live in it
> Laugh in it, love in it
> Swim in it, sleep in it
> Live in it, swim in it
> Laugh in it, love in it
> Removes embarrassing stains from contour sheets
> That's right
> And it entertains visiting relatives
> It turns a sandwich into a banquet
> Tired of being the life of the party?
> Change your shorts
> Change your life
> Change your life
> *Change into a nine-year-old Hindu boy*
> Get rid of your wife
> And it walks your dog, and it doubles on sax
> Doubles on sax, you can jump back Jack
> See you later alligator
> See you later alligator
> And it steals your car
> It gets rid of your gambling debts, it quits smoking
> It's a friend, and it's a companion
> And it's the only product you will ever need
> Follow these easy assembly instructions
> It never needs ironing
> Well it takes weights off hips, bust
> Thighs, chin, midriff
> Gives you dandruff, and it finds you a job
> It is a job
> And it strips the phone company free
> Take ten for five exchange
> And it gives you denture breath
> And you know it's a friend, and it's a companion
> And it gets rid of your traveler's checks
> It's new, it's improved, it's old-fashioned
> Well it takes care of business
> Never needs winding
> Never needs winding
> Never needs winding
> Gets rid of blackheads, the heartbreak of psoriasis
> Christ, you don't know the meaning of heartbreak, buddy
> C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
> 'Cause it's effective, it's defective
> It creates household odors
> It disinfects, it sanitizes for your protection
> It gives you an erection
> It wins the election
> Why put up with painful corns any longer?
> It's a redeemable coupon, no obligation
> No salesman will visit your home
> We got a jackpot, jackpot, jackpot
> Prizes, prizes, prizes, all work guaranteed
> How do we do it
> How do we do it
> How do we do it
> How do we do it
> We need your business
> We're going out of business
> We'll give you the business
> Get on the business
> End of our going-out-of-business sale
> Receive our free brochure, free brochure
> Read the easy-to-follow assembly instructions
> Batteries not included
> Send before midnight tomorrow, terms available
> Step right up
> Step right up
> Step right up
> You got it buddy: the large print giveth
> And the small print taketh away
> Step right up
> You can step right up
> You can step right up
> C'mon step right up
> (Get away from me kid, you bother me...)
> Step right up, step right up, step right up
> C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
> Step right up
> You can step right up
> C'mon and step right up
> C'mon and step right up


That's a friggin' long song. And I thought I was the king of obscure references. Anyway, I liked my Yann Martel reference better, which apparently was also less than recognized.


----------



## groovetube

Tom Waits in fine form.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of fans and cpu usage, this html5 set of ads knocks my i7 right up to 90%

HTML5 Ads are awesome! Nooooot!


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> speaking of fans and cpu usage, this html5 set of ads knocks my i7 right up to 90%
> 
> HTML5 Ads are awesome! Nooooot!


Like Little Stevie said: Flash _memory_. We love Flash _memory_. Point taken, though. My CPU's rose to about 75% with that little demo.


----------



## groovetube

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's something I've known for some time, but the deafening apple fan shrieking on apple forums about how bad flash is, and how glorious it's gonna be when clcik4flash no longer stops those bouncing ads (cause now they're in html5/jquery/canvas blah blah) making your cpu scream.

It makes me shake my head. In the meantime, adobe has gotten it's act together to completely rebuild the flash player from scratch which is working quite well. It is worth noting that it performs less than stellar in safari, but brilliantly in firefox.

I'm not sure, who's fault that one is


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> That's just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> It's something I've known for some time, but the deafening apple fan shrieking on apple forums about how bad flash is, and how glorious it's gonna be when clcik4flash no longer stops those bouncing ads (cause now they're in html5/jquery/canvas blah blah) making your cpu scream.
> 
> It makes me shake my head. In the meantime, adobe has gotten it's act together to completely rebuild the flash player from scratch which is working quite well. It is worth noting that it performs less than stellar in safari, but brilliantly in firefox.
> 
> I'm not sure, who's fault that one is


Well if HTML5 animation turns out to be a pig the market will speak and Flash/Adobe should win the battle in that department... It is all about competition. The "best" doesn't always win the battle (a la beta/VHS) but even if the inferior technology wins a given skirmish, history seems to show that a new technology/format/paradigm/etc. will leap frog over the "roadblock" anyway.... time and technological development is funny that way...


----------



## fjnmusic

I watched the last Apple keynote streaming live on my iPhone using HTML5 and I was amazed at how smooth it was. If the other players use the new medium efficiently, I think Flash will become a bit player eventually, like an old record store.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I watched the last Apple keynote streaming live on my iPhone using HTML5 and I was amazed at how smooth it was. If the other players use the new medium efficiently, I think Flash will become a bit player eventually, like an old record store.


ah the defence league leaps to action. HTML5 is beautiful! It's great! Really it is! You're preaching to the choir. But I've tried to point this out numerous times. Developers have waited to long for the big update from html4. Trust me.

if the deal was all about video playback, that prediction could have a chance at being true.

However, since it's not, your prediction really amounts to, well, uninformed speculation. Despite the increased use of html5 for video, it still doesn't accomplish much of what flash video can, and by the time html5 gets better, flash will have released 2 full verisons by then.

And most of us, still see the same demand (increased sometimes) for flash based projects even now.




screature said:


> Well if HTML5 animation turns out to be a pig the market will speak and Flash/Adobe should win the battle in that department... It is all about competition. The "best" doesn't always win the battle (a la beta/VHS) but even if the inferior technology wins a given skirmish, history seems to show that a new technology/format/paradigm/etc. will leap frog over the "roadblock" anyway.... time and technological development is funny that way...


It's about what will stay relevant. All the apple fans on forums in the world (which accounts for, not a whole lot in the scheme of things including me) can't bring flash down. Even Steve Jobs has noticeably backed down somewhat.

And you're very right about it isn't the best technology that wins, it's often the most relevant, and easiest to use.

And if history is any guide, I have heard this line about "flash killer" oh since flash version 3, no less than a few thousand times. 

I recall the great demise in around 2000ish, I did actually think flash was going to bite it then.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Despite the increased use of html5 for video, it still doesn't accomplish much of what flash video can...


...like get our attention with all those wonderful ads. Yup, I know what you mean.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> ...like get our attention with all those wonderful ads. Yup, I know what you mean.


No, you don't know at all what I mean. Learn the capabilities of flash video before you speak.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> No, you don't know at all what I mean. Learn the capabilities of flash video before you speak.


Look, Groovetube, I don't know who you think you are or how much you think you know, but your superiority complex is really starting to get annoying. I know you started this thread, but that does not give you the right to act like a jerk. Everyone has a right to express their opinion _on an open forum_, for gosh sakes, and you do not have the right to tell people to shut up. Also, you may want to look into acquiring a sense of humour once in a while. My experience of Flash is that it is annoying, and my experience of you is that you are a defensive Adobe apologist who belittles others rather than engaging in an actual debate.


----------



## groovetube

sorry pal, but repeating "flash sucks", or flash is annoying" over 48 pages is not, "actual debate".

It might surprise you to know actual debate happens if you actually know something about the subject. Beyond, y'know, "flash sucks".


----------



## Elric

fjnmusic said:


> Look, Groovetube, I don't know who you think you are or how much you think you know, but your superiority complex is really starting to get annoying. I know you started this thread, but that does not give you the right to act like a jerk. Everyone has a right to express their opinion _on an open forum_, for gosh sakes, and you do not have the right to tell people to shut up. Also, you may want to look into acquiring a sense of humour once in a while. My experience of Flash is that it is annoying, and my experience of you is that you are a defensive Adobe apologist who belittles others rather than engaging in an actual debate.


:clap:
And here I was beginning to think our opinions and our experience over the decades of surfing the net were actually wrong!

Maybe Groovetube will start to tell us how awesome <blink>THIS</blink> is! LOL


----------



## MannyP Design

Yeah, and most people who place a sticker with Calvin peeing a Chevy logo don't know the inner workings of their car, either. :lmao:

And so it goes…


----------



## groovetube

yeah but flash sucks. And I wanna say it 400 times and pretend it means something every time I say it.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> yeah but flash sucks. And I wanna say it 400 times and pretend it means something every time I say it.


It's also humorous to me that you're the only one that actually says "Flash Sucks"
"The Apple Defence League" still claim "Right Tool for the Job". And HTML5 was the right tool for streaming... ah... Jobs


----------



## groovetube

ah the apple defence league is indignant.

This must be that 'actual debate' thing referred to.


----------



## ehMax

This thread sucks.


----------



## groovetube

more than flash I think.


----------



## BlueMax

Opinions are like .... armpits. Everyone has 'em and they usually STINK!


----------



## Elric

ehMax said:


> This thread sucks.


It's kinda like a car accident, we only come back to see the latest he's come up with.


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> It's also humorous to me that you're the only one that actually says "Flash Sucks"
> "The Apple Defence League" still claim "Right Tool for the Job". And HTML5 was the right tool for streaming... ah... Jobs


He's also the only one here who hasn't figured out that his manners suck even more than Flash.


----------



## groovetube

when ya'll are done gleefully slappin each other on the arse, lemme know when an 'actual debate' breaks out, y'know with facts and stuff beyond I dun like the flash. 

Otherwise, yer all just mouthing and contributing nothing.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> when ya'll are done gleefully slappin each other on the arse, lemme know when an 'actual debate' breaks out, y'know with facts and stuff beyond I dun like the flash.
> 
> Otherwise, yer all just mouthing and contributing nothing.


Here's the other thing, Groove; common etiquette dictates that you should not attack the people you are inviting to debate the merits of something with you, even if you disagree with them. Whenever I do a little research, for example, you are dismissive of anything that I find, even if what I find adds merit to your argument. In short, your bad manners do not make me feel like debating anything with you, not because of your knowledge or lack thereof on a given subject, but because you don't seem capable of having an argument without making it personal. That's karma, I suppose. Good luck.


----------



## MannyP Design

Ho boy. Now we're talking about etiquette on the internet... this thread is chock full of win.


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> It's kinda like a car accident, we only come back to see the latest he's come up with.


If you think you're the rubbernecker passing by, I got news for ya chum. LOL :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

MannyP Design said:


> Ho boy. Now we're talking about etiquette on the internet... this thread is chock full of win.


That's debate etiquette, not internet etiquette. I guess I'm under the delusion that such a thing still exists.


----------



## MannyP Design

fjnmusic said:


> That's debate etiquette, not internet etiquette. I guess I'm under the delusion that such a thing still exists.


Perhaps we should refresh ourselves on the concept of debate first before getting into etiquette. :lmao:


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Here's the other thing, Groove; common etiquette dictates that you should not attack the people you are inviting to debate the merits of something with you, even if you disagree with them. Whenever I do a little research, for example, you are dismissive of anything that I find, even if what I find adds merit to your argument. In short, your bad manners do not make me feel like debating anything with you, *not because of your knowledge or lack thereof on a given subject, but because you don't seem capable of having an argument without making it personal. That's karma, I suppose*. Good luck.


Sorry to say I have to agree in general.. sometimes I think gt takes his avatar too literally and just feels the need to live up to it.


----------



## screature

MannyP Design said:


> Perhaps we should refresh ourselves on the concept of debate first before getting into etiquette. :lmao:


Formal debate has rules of engagement... as a trained formal debater I would argue civil debate has plenty of etiquette. Just as any "sport" has rules. Like in hockey how it isn't cool to cross check someone just because you can... If you do, you end up in the penalty box... as you should.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> Perhaps we should refresh ourselves on the concept of debate first before getting into etiquette. :lmao:


debate? There was a debate? Don't people need to know something about it beyond what google says?

gah! there goes my etiquette




screature said:


> Sorry to say I have to agree in general.. sometimes I think gt takes his avatar too literally and just feels the need to live up to it.


glass houses my friend, glass houses. There's more than one who gets bent out of shape about simple things here too.

But now that there is a self help group here, maybe I can look somewhere else where people can stick to the subject, and actually contribute something, beyond flash is gonna die.

really. You, don't... say. It's little wonder why one might get just a little tired of it.


----------



## ehMax

In other news, there's *this report*. 

Apple has detailed the security issues patched by Mac OS X 10.6.5 and the corresponding Security Update 2010-007 for Mac OS X 10.5, indicating that more than half of the security vulnerabilities in Mac OS X actually affect the Adobe Flash plugin.

The most security vulnerabilities by far are associated with the Adobe Flash plugin, with a whopping 55 issues listed, the "most serious of which may lead to arbitrary code execution," Apple reports in its Apple Product Security update.


----------



## groovetube

ehMax said:


> In other news, there's *this report*.
> 
> Apple has detailed the security issues patched by Mac OS X 10.6.5 and the corresponding Security Update 2010-007 for Mac OS X 10.5, indicating that more than half of the security vulnerabilities in Mac OS X actually affect the Adobe Flash plugin.
> 
> The most security vulnerabilities by far are associated with the Adobe Flash plugin, with a whopping 55 issues listed, the "most serious of which may lead to arbitrary code execution," Apple reports in its Apple Product Security update.


yeah I saw that, but you know how appleinsider is like the fox news of , er, news.

all those flash security fixes, are they all, for the current flash player, or, are they for all, the point releases inclusive. You know, as if apple released security fixes all in one for 10.6.0, 10.6.1, 10.6.2... and so on.

damned details...


----------



## ehMax

groovetube said:


> yeah I saw that, but you know how appleinsider is like the fox news of , er, news.
> 
> all those flash security fixes, are they all, for the current flash player, or, are they for all, the point releases inclusive. You know, as if apple released security fixes all in one for 10.6.0, 10.6.1, 10.6.2... and so on.
> 
> damned details...


It's just presenting *Apple's security update information* in an article format. It lists fixes for all products with security vulnerabilities, including many of Apple's own. 

The security release contains Adobe's specific CVE's (Common Vulnerabilities and exposures). They are specific issues, not just updates for point versions. Feel free to look each one up in the *National Vulnerability Database*. 

I'll do the first few for you since you like details:

*CVE-ID: CVE-2008-4546*
Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.277.0 and 10.x before 10.1.53.64, and Adobe AIR before 2.0.2.12610, allows remote web servers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and browser crash) by returning a different response when an HTTP request is sent a second time, as demonstrated by two responses that provide SWF files with different SWF version numbers.

*CVE-2009-3793*
Unspecified vulnerability in Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.277.0 and 10.x before 10.1.53.64, and Adobe AIR before 2.0.2.12610, allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) or possibly execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors.

*CVE-2010-0209*
Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.280 and 10.x before 10.1.82.76, and Adobe AIR before 2.0.3, allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via unspecified vectors, a *different vulnerability* than CVE-2010-2213

*CVE-2010-1297*
Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.277.0 and 10.x before 10.1.53.64; Adobe AIR before 2.0.2.12610; and Adobe Reader and Acrobat 9.x before 9.3.3, and 8.x before 8.2.3 on Windows and Mac OS X, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via crafted SWF content, related to authplay.dll and the ActionScript Virtual Machine 2 (AVM2) newfunction instruction, as exploited in the wild in June 2010.

*CVE-2010-2160*
Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.277.0 and 10.x before 10.1.53.64, and Adobe AIR before 2.0.2.12610, allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly execute arbitrary code via an invalid offset in an unspecified undocumented opcode in ActionScript Virtual Machine 2, related to getouterscope, *a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-2165*

*CVE-2010-2161*
Array index error in Adobe Flash Player before 9.0.277.0 and 10.x before 10.1.53.64, and Adobe AIR before 2.0.2.12610, might allow attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified "types of Adobe Flash code."

Details, details.

Stop with your smug remarks about "The Apple defence league" when you are clearly just blindly jumping to Adobe's defence yourself. 

I really don't care either way about this flash debate, but you need to be called out for your so called superior rational debating. 

I'll let you get your 2¢ in, then I'm closing this thread. At least do me one favour... fix your keyboards shift key.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry, but there was nothing smug, in my reply, certainly not personal. I was being sarcastic towards the appleinsider article, which is well known to post things in such a way to stir the pot. AI is a hot bed of people who hate flash, for whatever reasons.

I'm sorry you took it personally, but since I work in this daily, I can spot the inaccuracies, and I point thm out. That was the purpose, of this thread. I wasn't interested in people getting upset at my doing this, and I'm sorry if I got just a little frustrated at being bombarded with the same nonsense story over 48 pages.

And for the sake of details, adobe lists all of the security fixes for the -current player version- here.

And one can see, the full list of security fixes, all the way back to version 9...
Adobe - Security bulletins and advisories

scroll down to flash player.

It's well known flash player has had security vulnerabilities, as does -anything- that accesses the internet, but to paint the current version as having 55 of them, well excuse me if I sort of reacted to that.

This is certainly a thread fail, but I won't take full responsibility for that.

I wanted to add... I think if you stop and think about it, witness the kind of responses you see when a bunch of PC guys constantly post nonsense information about macs, being toys, yada yada in a thread. And do it, over and over, and over again. You may not think it's nonsense, but I know this subject.

That's how I feel listening to the misinformation being posted about flash.


----------



## 9780

Hm, so OS X+opensource components has as many security vulnerabilities as the horribly insecure Flash??? Uh oh... That's bad news for OS X!!!!!!!!

(yes, some sarcasm there too... I just think this whole thing is being blown out of proportions, and as usual numbers and facts can be manipulated to suit any agenda... This is just ridiculous FUD from each side. there shouldn't even be sides in this!)


----------



## ehMax

My apologies... I'm looking back at the beginning of this thread and re-reading the *original article* you posted. I don't think you meant to start this thread on is flash good or bad.  I don't remember when this thread was started if I actually read the article. (Don't think so) It's actually a very interesting piece. 

I do smell something in the air (clouds). Apple building the mega server farm, their new Macbook Air's, 10.7 and the Mac App Store. Worth starting a new thread over and getting out of this Flash sucks mire.


----------



## groovetube

it wasn't my intention no, though over time, what ended up happening was, I felt cornered into defending flash, when in truth, I have many issues with it.

I had hoped to address them, but, alas, this thread is no different than a PC vs mac thread and likely should be abandoned for more interesting less fight type topics. agreed.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> it wasn't my intention no, though over time, what ended up happening was, I felt cornered into defending flash, when in truth, I have many issues with it.
> 
> I had hoped to address them, but, alas, this thread is no different than a PC vs mac thread and likely should be abandoned for more interesting less fight type topics. agreed.


Hopefully better manners and an open mind will prevail next time out.


----------



## screature

Pull the plug already ehMax!!! Before another bunch of flamed posts!!

For God's sake man... "The humanity...!!"


----------



## groovetube

yes. agreed. The baiting continues. 

(oooh an istockphoto? )


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yes. agreed. The baiting continues.
> 
> (oooh an istockphoto? )


Yeah... Google you know... the best I could find...


----------



## fjnmusic

I agree this thread has outlived it's usefulness. However, if we do not examine the several communication break downs in this thread, it is quite probable that the same pattern will repeat itself. If you consider this comment to be "baiting," that is unfortunate because it certainly is not my intent.

Let's see, what have I learned so far? Well, I've discovered that Flash as way to view internet media has its pros and cons. I've discovered that GT also has concerns about Flash but feels cornered into defending it. I've discovered many videos that used to be inaccessible on my iPhone now magically work and I don't know why, but I'll go with it. I've learned that Steve Jobs is a control freak who likes it the way he likes it, but often his choices make for a better "user experience" for me, so I'll take the good with the bad. And most important, I've learned that it's difficult to make any real progress in a discussion with fellow ehMac'ers if people feel like their contributions are going to be dismissed or ridiculed on all sides of the argument because positions have been established and entrenched long ago. This discussion began about six months ago, and both Adobe and Apple have made attempts to play nicely since then. I imagine we should be able to do the same.

So lock away, Mr. Mayor. Better luck to all of us next time out.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Yeah... Google you know... the best I could find...


I figured you to be at least a corbis man.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I figured you to be at least a corbis man.


Oh I use many stock services.... this was just a quick find to get the message across. I should have said "the best I could find in 30 seconds".


----------



## fjnmusic

For those who are still interested on actually discussing the subject matter of this thread, here is an interesting finding: of the 131 vulnerabilities repaired in Mac OS X 10.6.5, Apple’s latest update to its Mac operating system, 55 were related to Flash.
That’s about 42 percent.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...pdate-flash-related/?reflink=ATD_yahoo_ticker

So would this be primarily an Apple problem or an Adobe problem?


----------



## MannyP Design

You tell us. Why would Apple update Adobe software?


----------



## groovetube

this was just covered.


----------



## fjnmusic

MannyP Design said:


> You tell us. Why would Apple update Adobe software?


Well, what I understood from the article is that both Apple's OSX software and Adobe's Flash software were experiencing problems, which is what software updates try to address, but that Apple's hands are tied when it comes to Flash vulnerabilities because they cannot fix things that are beyond their control. As I understand it, this is why Apple, as personified by Steve Jobs, would prefer to own the bat, the ball, the diamond, the lights, the stadium, and maybe even the neighborhood in which the stadium is located. But will people still pay to see the baseball game? My guess is yes, at least for now, because although many of the developers may want freedom, the fans just want to watch a good game in comfortable seats.


----------



## groovetube

this makes absolutely zero sense.

How many other pieces of software, has security issues on macs? Browsers? All kinds of items? I seem to need to update firefox on a regular basis it seems. Does Steve Jobs want to block that now too?

For some reason, some need to spin things with all these security flaws. But, as was -already mentioned-, but doesn't seem to be of interest for some reason, is are all these security updates addressing the current point release, or does it address... a number of them.

It appears, as many other items, fanning the flames because, they don't have a whole lot else. Maybe they'll repeat the performance/battery lines soon when this one runs out. I thought comparing intensive interactive to static conent for performance/battery issues was particularly, enlightening.

A little frustration aside, having held adobe's feet to the fire for this long, is having quite an effect on progress it appears.


----------



## fjnmusic

In other news, Adobe CFO Mark Garnett Says the Flash Debate Won't Hurt Sales. For the record, a CFO is much like a CEO except that he also knows how to speak French. 

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/sto...sales.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA


----------



## fjnmusic

Mark Garnett: "If you're trying to create content for a PC, TV, mobile phone or a slate device, we help you create it once, and then deploy it everywhere."

Well, not QUITE everywhere, it seems. Some Google Android phones will get Netflix and some won't, apparently due to... *ahem* ...fragmentation.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/14/your-android-phone-may-never-get-netflix.aspx


----------



## groovetube

.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> .


Odd response from someone who starts a thread about why Steve Jobs hates Flash, but then refuses to acknowledge articles as they emerge on the very topic he started. These articles are fairly recent and definitely topical. Perhaps other people have things to say on the subject. Why else have a thread devoted to it?


----------



## 9780

fjnmusic said:


> Mark Garnett: "If you're trying to create content for a PC, TV, mobile phone or a slate device, we help you create it once, and then deploy it everywhere."
> 
> Well, not QUITE everywhere, it seems. Some Google Android phones will get Netflix and some won't, apparently due to... *ahem* ...fragmentation.
> 
> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/14/your-android-phone-may-never-get-netflix.aspx


My own interpretation is not so much fragmentation or lack of strong drm measures (they always get cracked, even on Mac, windows, iphone...) just the same war TVs networks seem to be waging against Google tv. Pretty strange lol.

I mean they say they can't do it on android cuz it's too easy to have root access to the system and circumvent the drm? (That's what I understood anyway) how is that not an issue with PC's and Macs?

I don't see how they can't implement Netflix drm themselves, why the os and vendors matter? Sshouldnt it just be an apply you install? Doesn't make sense to me.

Lies lies everywhere. Not that netfflix matters to me lol.


----------



## fjnmusic

patrix said:


> My own interpretation is not so much fragmentation or lack of strong drm measures (they always get cracked, even on Mac, windows, iphone...) just the same war TVs networks seem to be waging against Google tv. Pretty strange lol.
> 
> I mean they say they can't do it on android cuz it's too easy to have root access to the system and circumvent the drm? (That's what I understood anyway) how is that not an issue with PC's and Macs?
> 
> I don't see how they can't implement Netflix drm themselves, why the os and vendors matter? Sshouldnt it just be an apply you install? Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Lies lies everywhere. Not that netfflix matters to me lol.


What I understood was they'd like to have Netflix available on all Google phones (and why not? more money! $$$), but due to the "open" nature of the Android operating system (what Jobs refers to as "fragmented"), there are just so many versions of Android and variations in the architecture of the phones themselves they simply can't find a one-size-fits-all solution. Hence some phones, probably the ones running Gingerbread or whatever they call it, will have the capacity to run Netflix and older models will not. Just a guess though.

This is somewhat similar to the lack of Flash on the iOS platform, in that Adobe would need to write a version of Flash that works for iOS, but so far does not have much interest in doing so. Mark Garnett, Adobe's CFO, states quite bluntly that "we'd like Apple's platform to be more open and support Flash on the iPhone or iPad, but that's not going to happen. In the meantime, we work with everybody else." Seems to me that Adobe would have to put in a little more effort than that if they really want to be everywhere. There is an app that sort of works around the problem, I understand, Skyfire I believe it's called, that could work as a bridge in the meantime. But still, it's a little like kids on the playground when they don't get their way.


----------



## 9780

fjnmusic said:


> What I understood was they'd like to have Netflix available on all Google phones (and why not? more money! $$$), but due to the "open" nature of the Android operating system (what Jobs refers to as "fragmented"), there are just so many versions of Android and variations in the architecture of the p*hones themselves they simply can't find a one-size-fits-all solution*. Hence some phones, probably the ones running Gingerbread or whatever they call it, will have the capacity to run Netflix and older models will not. Just a guess though.


How come nearly all apps are able to find a one-size fits all solution, then?  

Sure, some apps will only work on phones with front-facing cameras, but duh that makes sense if they're a video-chat app like Tango. Ok.

But viewing videos? Come on....... Some older models, sure, they wouldn't have powerful enough juice in their CPU/GPU, but man they can already play youtube and whatnot, so I really don't see what the deal is.

Screen sizes? See all points above.

Still, they could make a requirement for Android 2.1 or 2.2 or 2.3, again, that's not about fragmentation just about some features that are available in some version of the OS. Like new APIs in OS X that make apps leave behind older versions...

All I see is fact-twisting unfortunately, and the same accusations that aren't the complete picture (not just about Android, but about iOS, Windows, OS X, etc). It's hard to get the truth from blog posts, company executives, marketing departments, etc. For example if your argument holds true, and yes there probably IS some truth to that if they require APIs from some more recent version of Android, then why the talk about piracy and DRM? It's not like Piracy is limited to Android... I just don't see the connection between piracy and fragmentation and being able to support some devices vs not others.

Except of course that SOME device manufacturers lock down some of their phones really tightly, making it very difficult (yet less and less so) to unlock the bootloaders and root the phones or install custom ROMs...

It's a messy situation, and saddens me that facts are mixed up or twisted to make some points 

Patrix.

PS: if anything hurts Android it's not the so-called fragmentation but rather poor subpar attempts like the Toshiba Folio: Toshiba's Android tablet sales stop in UK after major flaws | Electronista yowwwwwww


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Odd response from someone who starts a thread about why Steve Jobs hates Flash, but then refuses to acknowledge articles as they emerge on the very topic he started. These articles are fairly recent and definitely topical. Perhaps other people have things to say on the subject. Why else have a thread devoted to it?


you simply repeated misinformation that was just discussed, and now things have gone totally off-topic. Not an odd response at all.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> you simply repeated misinformation that was just discussed, and now things have gone totally off-topic. Not an odd response at all.


Good grief. You could just try to go with the flow once in a while, you know. If anything, things are now back ON topic, despite your attempt to divert. Interesting.


----------



## fjnmusic

patrix said:


> How come nearly all apps are able to find a one-size fits all solution, then?...


You raise many good points, Patrix. Not being a developer myself, I do not understand why some of these companies can't play nicely together, but I can certainly see that they choose not to. In any event, each company represents a huge chunk of the population and is sacrificing a lot of sales in the process.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Good grief. You could just try to go with the flow once in a while, you know. If anything, things are now back ON topic, despite your attempt to divert. Interesting.


you are incorrigible.

First, you repeat the info already brought up by ehmax, and discussed. Again.

Then it's about netflix, and android's fragmentation.

I don't see much going on about flash and Steve Job's banning of it from iOS.

The thread is dead.


----------



## 9780

fjnmusic said:


> You raise many good points, Patrix. Not being a developer myself, I do not understand why some of these companies can't play nicely together, but I can certainly see that they choose not to. In any event, each company represents a huge chunk of the population and is sacrificing a lot of sales in the process.


Yeah. For some reason though, what pisses me off even more than what those companies do (or don't do) is the rampage of fanboys on either side. I mean I frequent both Mac/iPhone and Android forums.. And the vitriol on both sides is just appalling at times. I still can't believe I'm actually reading some of the things I'm reading on there, it's really that bad lol.


----------



## fjnmusic

patrix said:


> Yeah. For some reason though, what pisses me off even more than what those companies do (or don't do) is the rampage of fanboys on either side. I mean I frequent both Mac/iPhone and Android forums.. And the vitriol on both sides is just appalling at times. I still can't believe I'm actually reading some of the things I'm reading on there, it's really that bad lol.


Well, Android may have Flash, but streaming Netflix on all Android phones looks to be an insurmountable problem at this point. It would seem embracing "open" architecture is like exchanging one set of shackles for another.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/15/netflix-knocks-android.aspx


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> you are incorrigible.


Are you sure this is the term you mean to use?

incorrigible: impervious to correction by punishment
Opposites:
- corrigible
Also See:
- disobedient
Similar to:
- unreformable, unregenerate
- uncontrollable, uncorrectable, unmanageable

I don't believe it was me who was told to stop making smug remarks about the Apple Defense League.

In any event, if you don't want to discuss sub-topics that branch off from the original topic, nobody says you have to. But it hardly gives you the right to stop others from participating in the discussion. Be well, fellow citizen.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Odd response from someone who starts a thread about why Steve Jobs hates Flash, but then refuses to acknowledge articles as they emerge on the very topic he started. These articles are fairly recent and definitely topical. Perhaps other people have things to say on the subject. Why else have a thread devoted to it?


I thought you wanted to stay on topic.

I don't think no netflix on android is anywhere close. Enough of this, and the obvious baiting.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I thought you wanted to stay on topic.
> 
> I don't think no netflix on android is anywhere close. Enough of this, and the obvious baiting.


Aw, lighten up, Groovetube. You're way too serious. Threads branch off all the time. So do conversations. It drives linear sequential people crazy, but us random abstracts are fine with it. As I recall, Ol' Stevie didn't like Flash because he didn't want to have to rely on Adobe for updates to make Adobe products work properly on Apple systems. As I recall. Flash works on Macs but uses a lot of processing power, and the concern was that that processing power would use up memory and battery life on iOS. He figured if you wait long enough, HTML5 would come to replace it anyway, which is now true sometimes and sometimes not. 

The connection is that Google's Android system prides itself on being open and capable of running Flash, although the results seem to be inconsistent so far. Android fanbois trumpet Android's openness as being the superior system and reject Apple's "walled garden" approach. However, the tradeoff appears to be inconsistency; some Android phones, for example, will be able to offer Netflix and some won't.

When I read the original thread title, I guess I read into it more about why Steve Jobs/Apple make the choices they do, even if it means alienating a certain segment of the public. Not accommodating Flash (directly) on iOS is one way that Apple distinguishes itself, rightly or wrongly. I apologise if I missed the intention of this thread, but in my defense, I would say that Jobs' comments on Flash are pretty consistent with his philosophy on technology as a whole. He's a control freak, but if that makes for better products that work consistently, I'm all for it, and it would seem that much of the consumer population is too.

Now, we can stick with Steve's thoughts on Flash, if you want, or perhaps we can segue into other parts of the market that are affected by Steve's thoughts on Flash. Or we can ask the mayor once again to kill the thread. I'm OK either way.


----------



## groovetube

It isn't about being too serious. It's being tired, of seeing the same damn lies over and over and over again. It's tiring to anyone who hoped to have at least a frank and factual conversation about it, and then when everyone concluded the thread isn't working, you up and post the same news item we just talked about. Did you not see this? It isn't like it's pages back.

It has nothing to do with sequential anything, it's knowing -something- about what is actually going on, and when someone who does know something points out the incorrect facts, it accomplished nothing to call me serious when I get just a little tired of the baiting, the nonsense, the outright lies, and the constant misinformations, over, and over, and over again. And when I, who apparently seem to be the only one here who actually uses flash, constantly have to correct the nonsense, then I'm an adobe shill, or defending flash, and now, I'm too serious.

Nonsense.

And I fail to see how Steve's thoughts on flash, has -anything- to do with netflix not being on android, whatsoever.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> And I fail to see how Steve's thoughts on flash, has -anything- to do with netflix not being on android, whatsoever.


I do believe it's called an "Example". If you read his entire post, it's a pretty damn good one.

ex·am·ple   
[ig-zam-puhl, -zahm-] Show IPA
noun, verb, -pled, -pling.

–noun
1. one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole: This painting is an example of his early work.
2. a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided: to set a good example.
3. an instance serving for illustration; specimen: The case histories gave carefully detailed examples of this disease.
4. an instance illustrating a rule or method, as a mathematical problem proposed for solution.
5. an instance, esp. of punishment, serving as a warning to others: Public executions were meant to be examples to the populace.
6. a precedent; parallel case: an action without example.


----------



## fjnmusic

Elric said:


> I do believe it's called an "Example". If you read his entire post, it's a pretty damn good one.
> 
> ex·am·ple
> [ig-zam-puhl, -zahm-] Show IPA
> noun, verb, -pled, -pling.
> 
> noun
> 1. one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole: This painting is an example of his early work.
> 2. a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided: to set a good example.
> 3. an instance serving for illustration; specimen: The case histories gave carefully detailed examples of this disease.
> 4. an instance illustrating a rule or method, as a mathematical problem proposed for solution.
> 5. an instance, esp. of punishment, serving as a warning to others: Public executions were meant to be examples to the populace.
> 6. a precedent; parallel case: an action without example.


Why thank you, Elric. It's good to be understood.


----------



## steviewhy

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Elric

steviewhy said:


> <offtopic>
> I want flash enabled on my iPhone regardless of why Steve Jobs hates flash. I know it will decrease battery time and require more CPU cycles. I can always plug it in to recharge it.
> </offtopic>
> I also don't believe that html5 is the answer to an alternative to flash content. It's still not standardized by w3c. Safari requires m4v/mp4 containers. Firefox requires an .ogg container and who knows what M$ will require with IE9. HTML5 seems like a cluster***k in my opinion.


It's not off topic at all. But we all knew going in, there was going to be no Flash on the iPhone (hell, there was no Flash on ANY phone at the time and no one cared)

But the options are there now and we can all make educated purchases in the future.

Like any purchase, weigh out the pros and cons in advance.

Some people buy Blackberry strictly for the messenger even though the rest of the UI is sub-par at best.


----------



## Guest

steviewhy said:


> I also don't believe that html5 is the answer to an alternative to flash content. It's still not standardized by w3c.


Really?

HTML5

Not saying that I think html5 will replace flash content. Video? Yes most likely, but flash has many uses beyond/besides video.


----------



## groovetube

steviewhy said:


> <offtopic>
> I want flash enabled on my iPhone regardless of why Steve Jobs hates flash. I know it will decrease battery time and require more CPU cycles. I can always plug it in to recharge it.
> </offtopic>
> I also don't believe that html5 is the answer to an alternative to flash content. It's still not standardized by w3c. Safari requires m4v/mp4 containers. Firefox requires an .ogg container and who knows what M$ will require with IE9. HTML5 seems like a cluster***k in my opinion.


it isn't offtopic though these other few think it is but perhaps they should read the thread title. No netflix on android IS NOT an example it isnt even close to the topic. Android isn't bliocking it.

Yes any intensive graphic program will use more battery life, apparently if you turn off your phone and don't use it, it will also save battery life 

I think people will be in for a shock when devs start using tons of html5 js canvas to do things. But that will come down the road. Blocking JS to get rid of ads will really suck... no click4flash to save you.

IIn any case, this is why android's flash plugin employs it's own version of click4flash, to give the user the option to run flash I don't know that that has quite dawned on too many though. They prefer a blog looking to increase traffic with half truths to tell them things apparently.


----------



## groovetube

mguertin said:


> Really?
> 
> HTML5
> 
> Not saying that I think html5 will replace flash content. Video? Yes most likely, but flash has many uses beyond/besides video.


I think he means it's not out of a working draft yet. It'll be a long time. Hopefully they don't sit on their hands for too long on this, I'm already using some CSS3.


----------



## Guest

groovetube said:


> I think he means it's not out of a working draft yet. It'll be a long time. Hopefully they don't sit on their hands for too long on this, I'm already using some CSS3.


Yep, agreed on both counts. w3c takes a long time to get anything out of working draft, it's the nature of the beast. Now that browsers are adopting it maybe it will light a fire under them, but I'm not holding my breath. It's not as if all the browser makers actually _follow_ the standards anyway. IE9 beta is a prime example. They took some big steps forward and a few bigger steps back at the same time :/


----------



## groovetube

that isn't surprising about IE. 

I've been doing a lot o CSS wordpress php projects lately, and the when you're not in flash, dealing with the whole cross browser thing is just a nightmare sometimes.


----------



## Guest

groovetube said:


> that isn't surprising about IE.
> 
> I've been doing a lot o CSS wordpress php projects lately, and the when you're not in flash, dealing with the whole cross browser thing is just a nightmare sometimes.


Especially with Wordpress layouts  It gets better every year though ... we're finally starting to see some semblance of common ground between browsers. I did something a few weeks ago that's never happened before ... I did a css heavy layout that actually worked as expected on all my target browsers without having to make any tweaks! It even included some nice CSS3 and webkit/moz specific CSS options (but it still falls back nicely when those options don't work).


----------



## groovetube

I don't bother with any of the supplied wordpress layouts, I write my own and yank wordpress in to it. It seems to work better.

Once in a while you get lucky, but certainly keeping things simple helps a great deal. This is one of the reasons why flash is so much easier. (ducks for cover)


----------



## Guest

groovetube said:


> Once in a while you get lucky, but certainly keeping things simple helps a great deal. This is one of the reasons why flash is so much easier. (ducks for cover)


On that same note a lot of people make websites that look fantastic, but they are just a whole whack of images. Both those and all flash will get you about the same SEO but the all image ones are viewable on more platforms and browsers


----------



## groovetube

mguertin said:


> On that same note a lot of people make websites that look fantastic, but they are just a whole whack of images. Both those and all flash will get you about the same SEO but the all image ones are viewable on more platforms and browsers


that's true. The viewable thing is a real consideration. Though I have a large clientele that is flash only and likely won't change, they aren't concerned much for mobile devices as the presentations are huge and immersive enough they don't care.

I have heard a few times now that things will work out for flash and the ipad in future though I don't know that it wil be as simple, as simply allowing the new flash plugin on.

In the meantime, swfobject is the best option for items using flash.


----------



## Guest

Flash and the iPad (any touch screen device really) is a whole new beast in terms of a design standpoint -- and it's not just flash, it's pretty much something that affects any web based interactive interface elements regardless of what you're using to achieve them. There's no hover (not really anyway). While that doesn't seem like a big deal it really can be. From a user interface standpoint you lose a lot of options on how to present information in a non-intrusive way or get feedback without requiring a click/tap. To further complicate this problem phones have tiny screens which makes interfaces tougher again.


----------



## robbyd

I'm with Groovetube on this one. I don't think it's an anti-apple thing at all. May be the author is just trying to sound a bit anti-apple to balance out the article so it's not completely biased in neither direction?


----------



## robbyd

May be apple can come up with something entirely new and better than flash or silverlight, so we can resolve this once and for all?


----------



## groovetube

mguertin said:


> Flash and the iPad (any touch screen device really) is a whole new beast in terms of a design standpoint -- and it's not just flash, it's pretty much something that affects any web based interactive interface elements regardless of what you're using to achieve them. There's no hover (not really anyway). While that doesn't seem like a big deal it really can be. From a user interface standpoint you lose a lot of options on how to present information in a non-intrusive way or get feedback without requiring a click/tap. To further complicate this problem phones have tiny screens which makes interfaces tougher again.


well, like any interface developer using whatever technology, we have to start thinking a little differently in terms of how interaction happens. Platforms like flash have already adapted long ago to utilizing all the touch screen actions. 

It'll certainly be an interesting couple years.


----------



## fjnmusic

One more reason to be concerned about Flash (as if there weren't enough already)...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-Is-In-Talks-With-Adobe-paidcontent-3238093011.html?x=0&.v=2


----------



## groovetube

...which can easily be shut off.


----------



## Elric

groovetube said:


> ...which can easily be shut off.


Easily for a lot of people, but the average user doesn't even know what a BROWSER is, let alone a Cookie.

YouTube - What is a Browser?


----------



## Guest

Then it's PEBKAC not software issues


----------



## Elric

mguertin said:


> Then it's PEBKAC not software issues


I prefer the term PICNIC 

But I think software should be user friendly enough to take PICNICs into account... like OSX...


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> I prefer the term PICNIC
> 
> But I think software should be user friendly enough to take PICNICs into account... like OSX...


OS X is definitely _not_ a user-friendly OS when it comes to "average users", at least by your definition. If the "average person" doesn't know what an f'n browser is, how the hell could they even manage to use OS X at all? Seriously. Explain that to me because I sincerely doubt they would be able to set up their email or even figure out what the Safari icon is for in their dock.


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> OS X is definitely _not_ a user-friendly OS when it comes to "average users", at least by your definition. If the "average person" doesn't know what an f'n browser is, how the hell could they even manage to use OS X at all? Seriously. Explain that to me because I sincerely doubt they would be able to set up their email or even figure out what the Safari icon is for in their dock.


LOL you're kidding right?

If my mom can set up her Mac it's pretty User Fricken Friendly lol


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> OS X is definitely _not_ a user-friendly OS when it comes to "average users", at least by your definition. If the "average person" doesn't know what an f'n browser is, how the hell could they even manage to use OS X at all? Seriously. Explain that to me because I sincerely doubt they would be able to set up their email or even figure out what the Safari icon is for in their dock.


you just can't account for... y'know.

nonsense is just a waste of time. Your time is better spent playing caps. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design

Elric said:


> LOL you're kidding right?
> 
> If my mom can set up her Mac it's pretty User Fricken Friendly lol


Well then I guess that means she's not "the average" user, right? I mean, surely she KNOWS what a browser is, then, right? Because, according to you, they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. :lmao:


----------



## Elric

MannyP Design said:


> Well then I guess that means she's not "the average" user, right? I mean, surely she KNOWS what a browser is, then, right? Because, according to you, they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. :lmao:


I would rank her on the far-below-average user lol
And if I said open your browser, she'd have no idea what I meant.


----------



## fjnmusic

To be honest, you don't have to know that something is called a browser in order to use it, just like you don't have to know the particular style of cheese in order to make a sandwich with it. I don't have to know all the parts of an automobile to drive one. It helps, but it's not necessary. That's why "average" users tend to work only at the high level of computer language, while developers know the low level lingo as well as the high level and everything in between.

Yo momma may not know the term "browser" but I'll bet she knows what Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer are.


----------



## screature

To be honest Elric I think the average computer user these days does know what a browser is as I think the average user has probably been using computers for 10 years or more now or they have grown up using them. Now in terms of the overall population the "average" person may not know what a browser is, but for the average computer user e-mail and the web are the most commonly used aspects of a computer and most likely the first things they learn how to use so I think they would be familiar with the term browser, IMHO.


----------



## Elric

screature said:


> To be honest Elric I think the average computer user these days does know what a browser is as I think the average user has probably been using computers for 10 years or more now or they have grown up using them. Now in terms of the overall population the "average" person may not know what a browser is, but for the average computer user e-mail and the web are the most commonly used aspects of a computer and most likely the first things they learn how to use so I think they would be familiar with the term browser, IMHO.


Agreed, but to dabble in settings and cookies and what-not? I don't think so. And when something goes wrong, they still blame the entire machine, not the actual software/cause.


----------



## screature

Elric said:


> Agreed, but to dabble in settings and cookies and what-not? I don't think so. And when something goes wrong, they still blame the entire machine, not the actual software/cause.


True enough of many people.


----------



## groovetube

It's a fact of life that your OS, browser(s), and a host of other software that accesses the internet are constantly plagued by security holes on a constant basis. Cookies are nothing new, in flash, an in browsers. It's just as easy to limit them in either technology.

As far as flash is concerned, it's rather like OS X in the sense that I haven't heard of anyone getting their macs hacked because of a security hole. Safari is regularly hacked every year, I still haven't heard of anyone getting hacked through safari (yet).

But it is good to be aware of these threats.


----------



## kkritsilas

I guess the announcement that Adobe will be abandoning Flash for mobile devices (see: Flash to Focus on PC Browsing and Mobile Apps; Adobe to More Aggressively Contribute to HTML5 (Adobe Featured Blogs)) pretty much kills off any pro-Flash mobile arguments. Only question remaining is what will be happening on the desktop, and that is something that will take time to play out. I personally belive that it will be a long, perhaps slow, or even very slow decline, with eventual discontinuation. Could be wrong though. My reason is based on developing for desktops only with Flash, or desktops and mobile devices with HTML5. Seems pretty clear and simple that HTML5 is the way to go, unless developers want to develop for two platforms vs. just one.

Kostas


----------



## groovetube

actually dude, flash is fast becoming a very popular platform to develop for mobile. I've said that from the start, the plugin model isn't something adobe profits from, and the models are changing.


----------



## CubaMark

*Adobe To Kill Mobile Flash Starting August 15*



> It has been just over two years since Steve Jobs wrote his "Thoughts on Flash" essay.
> Jobs criticized Adobe because, "flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice...But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."
> Apparently Jobs was right.
> In a blog post yesterday, Adobe addressed concerns that it would no longer support mobile flash on Android's latest operating system, Jelly Bean. The flash-maker confirmed previous news that they in fact will not support mobile flash but instead the company will focus on flash for PC.



([URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/adobe-to-kill-mobile-flash-starting-august-15-2012-6]Business Insider[/URL])


----------

