|
|
Do you think Flash will ever come to iPod/iPad/iPhone? (Page 4)
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't think Youtube will be a major problem. The problem will be those background advertisements and idiotic intro splash screens, etc. The better solution would be a setting (or plugin) to turn off flash adds, but with clickable access like ClickToFlash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
The better solution would be a setting (or plugin) to turn off flash adds, but with clickable access like ClickToFlash.
That's exactly what I'd like to see in iPhone OS. Most of the time not having Flash display on the iPhone is a good thing. However, every once in a while you'd really need it. It would be great if you could just click on a little icon and get the Flash stuff to display à la ClickToFlash.
I'm not getting my hopes up, but it sure would be nice. Is there something like ClickToFlash for Android browsers or is it all or nothing for them?
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thoughts on Flash
That was posted to Apple.com and it does not look like Flash is coming to iPhone or iPad any time soon, if ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mdc
Thoughts on Flash
That was posted to Apple.com and it does not look like Flash is coming to iPhone or iPad any time soon, if ever.
I think it's pretty obvious that we'll never see flash on an iDevice. Good riddance, I say.
|
All glory to the hypnotoad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mdc
Thoughts on Flash
That was posted to Apple.com and it does not look like Flash is coming to iPhone or iPad any time soon, if ever.
We knew it wasn't gonna happen. Now we KNOW.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm gonna make a poster out of that page. Flash sure as hell will NOT be missed by me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
That's exactly what I'd like to see in iPhone OS. Most of the time not having Flash display on the iPhone is a good thing. However, every once in a while you'd really need it. It would be great if you could just click on a little icon and get the Flash stuff to display à la ClickToFlash.
I'm not getting my hopes up, but it sure would be nice. Is there something like ClickToFlash for Android browsers or is it all or nothing for them?
Fail. Firstly these websites need to remember that you and all of us are the customer/visitor which they are either trying to provide information to (for profit) or sell us some product or services.
If these websites enjoy the traffic they generate and want it to not decline then they should make their websites and content EASILY accessible to as many people as they possibly can. They should do this in a way that doesn't make it inconvenient to the visitor to discourage them from finding it on another site. This means don't make them install plugins or wonder why there is no navigation and only a big blank box where flash content is but needs to be clicked to load first.
This is exactly what web designers have been doing since the early 90's.
For example until about the year 2000 all websites were designed for 256 colours, Netscape/IE compatibility, 28.8k dial up and 800x600 resolution (Max). This was in order to ensure that the average lowest common denominator visitor could view your site and not go to the thousands of other options.
Even today we design for 1024x768 as about 30% of visitors still have that resolution.
When your website receives 5 million hits a month if you suddenly have a 30% drop in visitors heads will roll in management and it will be corrected at whatever the cost.
Flash is not on "98%" of devices first of all. It is 98% of DESKTOP PC's. That's not counting Macs or linux. Granted that's still very high but 2 other things to consider are that mobile is the largest growing user base and it is only going up and there are many different versions of flash.
Recently I was working with canada's largest online reseller doing web design. We started making parts of the site as flash 8 files instead of the usual flash 7 as it was necessary for the wimpy new features we wanted. Overnight the customer service (totally separate devision) line got FLOODED with calls from angry customers who said the site didn't work. Turns out a ton of people still use flash 7 and you still have to cater to them.
Parts of the site was also made completely in flash as a microsite and after lots of customer research they discovered that it wasn't well received as people hated the loading, the wonky back button, the sending of links the minimal animations etc. All the things we have known since the late 90's but still do because some marketer wants the content to be animated and flashy and force the issue. The following version is always flashless and what was recommended by the online team to begin with.
Same company is also getting so many websites hits from mobile devices they are working on a fully mobile version for the future and in the mean time already reducing the use of flash.
If Apple had tried to better the market for us the consumer years ago I would agree it isn't a good idea. Now there are free, non-propriatary alternatives for almost everything flash can do and they work better for the most part there is no excuse. The only ones who are scared are flash developers and Adobe. There is no excuse to create flash videos any longer and nobody will miss flash ads except the marketing department.
Companies can either switch to new better standards to maintain their visitors/customers or they can try to fight a pointless battle for little or no reason. In the short term they can offer both.
This is exactly what has happened a million times before and everyone had a fit but it was soon forgotten.
Computers:
- No Floppy Drives in first iMac
- No Serial only USB on future macs
- PPC - Intel
- 68k apps to PPC/Universal
- OS6-OS7
- Carbon vs CoaCoa
- Dial Up modem
- DVD drives
Web:
- 640x480 resolution
- 256 colours
- Dial Up
- Splash Screens
- All Flash Sites
- Plug ins
- Frames
- Netscape
- Tables
Instead of "netscape navigator 4.0" compatible images on our sites now we can just have "works with iPhone".
Flash is never coming to the iPlatform. Never. For the next couple years companies are going to use "uses full flash" as a selling point for their phones as they have nothing else to push. Since the iPad has already sold 1 million units in the first month it has ALREADY shown that flash is not an issue for the average customer. It is only going to get worse and worse for flash. In 6 months the sites still serving flash video content are going to be the old school hold outs and turn into MySpace.
The issue is not going to change. If you think you need flash then you either have to wait to all your flash content is available in another format or you have to get the idea of wanting one out of your head.
You can also buy one of the many alternatives that do support flash even though they perform poorly and sell even worse. It's up to you as apple isn't forcing you to buy anything.
If you find a product that does suite your means with someone else just buy it and be happy. This is apples stance in best interest of the consumer and if that isn't your cup of tea just move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
this whole flash versus apple thing is pretty funny actually. but i guess its a good thing. consumers will benefit when the companies get their act together for a common standard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Although that huge rant up there quoted me, it didn't really have anything to do with what I wrote and it didn't attempt to answer the one question I had either. I'm still curious about this:
Originally Posted by Simon
Is there something like ClickToFlash for Android browsers or is it all or nothing for them?
Anybody around with Android experience who can shed some light on this?
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not to beat a dead horse (but lemme just wag this stick a little), this was three months ago:
Originally Posted by Eug
If HTML5 is ahead of Flash by 2015, I wouldn't be that surprised. If HTML5 is ahead of Flash by 2012, I'll be absolutely shocked.
Originally Posted by Simon
I find it extremely amusing that the very same people who say computers aren't quite there yet (alluding that mobile iPad-like devices is what almost everything will be developing towards) have no trouble claiming the end of Flash has already arrived.
Just as the iPad won't replace most computers, most embedded Flash content is still well, Flash. But what I see a lot here is people who confuse their hopes for future development with the actual reality 99% of all computer users deal with every day.
The iPad has to sell today. It faces the market today. What might happen in 2015 is pretty irrelevant if you're interested in how well this iPad will sell in 2010. Even more so when nobody can really say today in which format content will be delivered in 2015.
Originally Posted by Eug
Personally I think all the conflict between the various browsers around this and ogg, etc, will only serve to slow the adoption of HTML5. Apple will continue to refuse to support ogg, and Mozilla will continue to refuse to support H.264. Meanwhile Flash will continue to be used while this all sorts itself out, since Flash is already entrenched.
Originally Posted by Eug
2) Flash is already ubiquitous, and there is always quite a bit of inertia out there from coders, content providers, and end users. End users use what coders and content providers provide. Coders and content providers provide for what end users have. Adobe's Flash currently has 98% penetration to end users.
3) Mozilla so far refuses to support H.264, and Microsoft also refuses to support H.264. Microsoft currently holds 2/3rds of internet browser market share. Mozilla is number 2.
This was yesterday:
H.264 Already Won—Makes Up 66 Percent Of Web Videos
Woah.
I realize that doesn't mean Flash-based sites vs. HTML5 sites, but that's pretty heavy statistics for content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
With YouTube offering h264 that doesn't surprise me. What do they have? 60% of the web video content?
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Microsoft refuses to support H.264? They've committed to supporting it in IE 9 via HTML5 video tags, haven't they?
I can't *wait* until I can ditch using Flash for my audio players which are skinned to suit the look and feel of the site for Javascript/HTML5 players I can skin with CSS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
With YouTube offering h264 that doesn't surprise me. What do they have? 60% of the web video content?
Good point.
TFA says 40%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Microsoft refuses to support H.264? They've committed to supporting it in IE 9 via HTML5 video tags, haven't they?
They've committed to supporting h.264 *exclusively* in IE9.
But that wasn't clear three months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is an interesting response from the free software movement about this feud:
Pot, meet kettle: a response to Steve Jobs' letter on Flash
Some good points in there. Fans of freedom really should be rooting for something more open than either the whole iPhone or Flash ecosystems. This isn't to say that there is a worthy open competitor to either, but the whole open standards high horse is a little lame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Actually, it's pretty sad that Ars doesn't seem to get that there is a difference between free, open *web* and free, open *developer tools* for a specific hardware platform.
I'd say that's a huge difference.
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Actually, it's pretty sad that Ars doesn't seem to get that there is a difference between free, open *web* and free, open *developer tools* for a specific hardware platform.
I'd say that's a huge difference.
-t
H.264 is not truly open if it requires a license fee, end of story.
(
Last edited by besson3c; May 2, 2010 at 05:45 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Actually, it's pretty sad that Ars doesn't seem to get that there is a difference between free, open *web* and free, open *developer tools* for a specific hardware platform.
It was an op-ed from the EFF, not a regular Ars staffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
tagline at the end says FSF not EFF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
tagline at the end says FSF not EFF.
Opps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by turtle777
Actually, it's pretty sad that Ars doesn't seem to get that there is a difference between free, open *web* and free, open *developer tools* for a specific hardware platform.
Actually I think the author (from FSF, not Ars itself) did note that several issues are being convoluted here. In fact, he elaborated on the apparent breach in Steve's argument. He makes a good point about how Steve never explains why the Web should be open and free. I think the author is also correct to allude that Steve choses not to do so because that might bring up questions surrounding why he on the the other hand choses to close down everything else on iDevices. Until Steve comes up with a good explanation for what appears to be a remarkable contradiction, his "Thoughts on Flash" could indeed come across as hypocritical.
Originally Posted by John Sullivan
What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable.
If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's."
...
Although Jobs talks part of the talk when he says, "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open," his walk goes the opposite direction, advocating both a proprietary video format, H.264, and proprietary software for engaging it—iPhone OS.
(
Last edited by Simon; May 3, 2010 at 04:13 AM.
)
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
Actually I think the author (from FSF, not Ars itself) did note that several issues are being convoluted here. In fact, he elaborated on the apparent breach in Steve's argument. He makes a good point about how Steve never explains why the Web should be open and free. I think the author is also correct to allude that Steve choses not to do so because that might bring up questions surrounding why he on the the other hand choses to close down everything else on iDevices.
There are two, IMO entirely separate, discussions here:
1. Locking down of the iPhone's developer environment (a.k.a. Section 3.3.1 of the developers' agreement).
2. Flash on the web.
I think the only reason these two issues are so readily conflated is because Adobe chose to mix them up in their public extortion of Apple over the Flash app development issue - which they must have known would get knocked down by Apple. So they tied it into the "OMG we need Flash for grandma's BubbleBurst game!" public perception issue.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
Points 1-5 deal with (1.).
Point 6 deals with (2.).
Even before his essay, Steve has responded clearly on why the iDevices are locked down, especially by provision 3.3.1 of the developers' agreement:
Originally Posted by http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2010/04/steve-jobs-response-on-section-3-3-1/
If Apple makes itself dependent upon third-party development environments (and if, say, one-third of a platform's apps are written in a certain environment, or even just two mission-critical apps, then the platform IS dependent upon that environment), especially cross-platform environments, then Apple is completely at the mercy of people whose own best interest is to keep all platforms as homogenous as possible.
I.e., if Adobe's Flash generator produces cross-platform apps, then it is directly in Adobe's interest to keep Apple uncompetitive and stagnant, as it makes their own job easier and improves the marketability of their own development platform.
(
Last edited by Spheric Harlot; May 3, 2010 at 04:26 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Personally, while I agree with Steve's stance on not allowing Flash to get between Apple's API and developers in order to make sure iPhone development doesn't become hostage to Adobe, I do not follow why they are actively trying to block consumption of Flash content on the web. Those are two separate issues. There is not allowing Flash apps and there is not allowing Flash content.
Apple makes a good case why there are better ways to view content than Flash. I agree with those and in fact I believe a vast majority of users would agree too. However, the very same Apple then proceeds to hold the user incapable of making that decision for himself. And they never explain why they are justified in making that decision for a supposedly unable user.
The web should be entirely free, I fully agree. But I just as well believe that while you should be conservative in what you create, you should remain liberal in what you accept. Apple is only succeeding at one half of that.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh whups, I was busy editing my post as you wrote yours.
The problem with allowing users to make that choice is that most users NEVER DO make a choice. They use what's there, and as long as it works, they don't give a shit.
And here's the issue:
If large parts of the web depend upon a technology which REQUIRES a third-party plug-in, then whatever platform can access the web is, once again, held hostage to that third-party software maker.
This whole brouhaha is already a case in point:
Had Apple worked closely with Adobe three years ago to provide a Flash plug-in for the iPhone, then Adobe would have already had Steve's balls in a vise over the Flash application development issue!
"Whoops, sorry about the Flash plug-in - we're running a little late on that, yeah. Yeah, we know it's breaking most of the web for your customers, and we're sorry: We've had to invest a lot of effort into this here new CS5 Flash app builder, y'know? But we'll get right around to fixing Flash player for iPhone just as soon as we've deployed this app builder and worked out the basic bugs, mmkay? Good boy Stevie-O. Now sit."
Apple is betting their entire future on a completely new market, and they're gonna do their damnedest not to allow ANYBODY to marginalize them by stifling their head-start the way that happened to the Mac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
The problem with allowing users to make that choice is that most users NEVER DO make a choice. They use what's there, and as long as it works, they don't give a shit.
That's not so wrong though. If it works to their satisfaction they're indeed fine. If you come up with something that offers an advantage and they find out about it they'll switch to that. h264 offers advantages. I believe in allowing users to experience that and then make an informed decision.
I'm not so pessimistic about users as you are maybe. I believe the 20% or so Mac and Linux users attest to the fact that there will always be people who chose to give a shit and seek for something that's better than "what's there". Maybe Apple needs to concentrate on those.
I don't think the users are so much the issue here though. I believe it's rather that by blocking Flash Apple is trying to pressure content providers to think about alternatives. Users can only make a choice if a choice is presented to them. If providers say "Flash is there and that's good enough" they won't think about alternatives and users won't have that choice.
Essentially Apple is forcing providers to provide a choice and IMHO that's a good thing. But ironically, iDevice users still don't get a choice. Instead of being forced to use Flash they're being prevented from seeing anything that's in Flash. Bottom line is they're being used as bargaining chips. iDevice buyers need to be aware of that. IMHO Apple isn't justified in declaring users as incapable of thinking for themselves. Communism failed at forcing people into something for their own supposed good. The Macintosh failed at that as well. I hope Apple won't make the same mistake with the iDevices.
FTR, I'm not disagreeing with Steve or with you. I'm trying to argue that there are shades of gray here and the discussion is not quite as clear cut as Steve is trying to make it (Adobe = bad guy, Apple = good guy).
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
I realize that doesn't mean Flash-based sites vs. HTML5 sites, but that's pretty heavy statistics for content.
Yeah, YouTube is huge. Undoubtedly that's why Jobs went after YouTube first. I wonder how much Apple spent to get that. From Apple's perspective though, that's money well spent.
Getting MS on board is a big win for the Apple faction. (Interesting turn of events by the way.) With this, we could see sites go mostly H.264 closer to 2012 than 2015.
It will be interesting to see what Mozilla does though. MS's choice here has put Mozilla in a serious bind, exactly where MS wants them. MS has deep pockets (and so does Apple these days), but Mozilla not so much. Either they'll have to back down from the bluff, or they may eventually go the way of the dodo bird.
Originally Posted by Simon
Actually I think the author (from FSF, not Ars itself) did note that several issues are being convoluted here. In fact, he elaborated on the apparent breach in Steve's argument. He makes a good point about how Steve never explains why the Web should be open and free. I think the author is also correct to allude that Steve choses not to do so because that might bring up questions surrounding why he on the the other hand choses to close down everything else on iDevices. Until Steve comes up with a good explanation for what appears to be a remarkable contradiction, his "Thoughts on Flash" could indeed come across as hypocritical.
I agree. When I read his "Thoughts", first thing I thought myself was "hypocrite". He would have been better off (in my mind anyway) just saying nothing.
It kind of reminds me about Jobs' call for DRM-free music. Jobs was a hardcore pusher of DRM for movies, when wearing his hat at Pixar, but when it comes to music, the world should be open and free of DRM. I like having DRM-free music, but I'd like to have DRM-free movies as well. It would make my personal catalogue of purchased movies much easier to manage.
(
Last edited by Eug; May 3, 2010 at 09:01 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
Although that huge rant up there quoted me, it didn't really have anything to do with what I wrote and it didn't attempt to answer the one question I had either. I'm still curious about this:
Anybody around with Android experience who can shed some light on this?
Flash hasn't been released for Android (or any other platform) yet. There is a manufacturer that is putting Flash Lite on its phones, but I don't remember which one.
Flash for Android isn't expected until the second half of this year. And it won't be on Windows Phone 7 when it's released, either.
|
All glory to the hypnotoad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
OK, thanks. It's weird, I could have sworn I've seen YouTube clips of people running Flash games on Android.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
There we go. I knew I had seen that somewhere.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
Those tests are such bullshit. Playing a flash video can be around the same as playing h264.
Throw in constant flash banners loading on websites when casually surfing or try playing a flash game and watch what happens to the battery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Throw in constant flash banners loading on websites when casually surfing or try playing a flash game and watch what happens to the battery.
So are you suggesting HTML5 stuff won't be used for ads when HTML5 stuff is more popular?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Those tests are such bullshit. Playing a flash video can be around the same as playing h264.
Not necessarily. Adobe's own site says the following:
"Our own tests show that video can be played for well over 3Hours over WIFI from youtube in H.264 (Baseline 1.2)"
However, the Nexus One claims 7 hours of battery life while watching videos stored on the device. So playing it via flash cuts the battery life in half, as stated by Adobe themselves.
|
All glory to the hypnotoad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
So are you suggesting HTML5 stuff won't be used for ads when HTML5 stuff is more popular?
No I'm not. Like iAds I am sure there will be lots of ads in HTML 5. There is no way around ads for the most part.
But at least on the plus side said ads won't eat your CPU and battery for lunch. Nor will they have as many automatic triggers, secret cookies and looong list of security issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Those tests are such bullshit. Playing a flash video can be around the same as playing h264.
Throw in constant flash banners loading on websites when casually surfing or try playing a flash game and watch what happens to the battery.
It's not bullshit. I believe 10.1 now does hardware acceleration on the Mac. The lack of hardware acceleration, like Jobs says, is what really kills performance on the Mac. I'm sure that even regardless Flash would not be a stellar performer, but the difference wouldn't be so stark.
This doesn't change much though. It's freakin' 2010 and we are just getting hardware acceleration now? Adobe might be right that Apple wouldn't let them add hardware acceleration by cooperating with them, but then again, Adobe doesn't exactly have a good track record for being swift at improving their software. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and they've certainly had years to put public pressure on Apple to allow them to add this hardware acceleration. I think they simply became complacent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jokell82
Flash hasn't been released for Android (or any other platform) yet. There is a manufacturer that is putting Flash Lite on its phones, but I don't remember which one.
Flash for Android isn't expected until the second half of this year. And it won't be on Windows Phone 7 when it's released, either.
The HTC Droid Incredible (have one on the way) supports Flash Lite. But from all accounts I have read, it sucks. Android 2.2 is rumored to have full Flash support. I'm not going to hold my breath that it will be any better than Flash Lite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
It's not bullshit. I believe 10.1 now does hardware acceleration on the Mac. The lack of hardware acceleration, like Jobs says, is what really kills performance on the Mac.
Firstly, this is only for HD content. It will not make any difference or use any less CPU for standard videos (90% of what we watch) or every single banner ad out there.
Secondly how did all the other Developers use hardware decoding the second 10.6 came out?
Third. I don't' hold much hope it will help.
"Our i5 saw strangely different numbers, though, with Gala actually increasing the load on the CPU by as much as about 20 percent."
Adobe's Flash Player 'Gala' OS X preview tested: results may vary -- Engadget
I am using CS5 and it is a scary interface mess that it looks like it was made in Java. In reality most of it is a Adobe Air port and totally non-standard UI elements and it lags like hell.
Adobe are lazy bastards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh and an interesting note only 13% of people in the poll want flash and Apple has already sold 1mil Wifi iPads in 1 month in the US only.
Combine that with iPod/iPhone which are also flashless and the message is clear.. The consumer has decided what is important and all the arguing between us, steve, Adobe over flash on the iPlatform is pointless.
If they sell that well with the well known fact of no flash and not full alternatives can you imagine in a year?!
Adobe better come up with some new killer app as the 3.5 bil the paid for Macromedia in 2005 has to pay off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Firstly, this is only for HD content. It will not make any difference or use any less CPU for standard videos (90% of what we watch) or every single banner ad out there.
Secondly how did all the other Developers use hardware decoding the second 10.6 came out?
Third. I don't' hold much hope it will help.
"Our i5 saw strangely different numbers, though, with Gala actually increasing the load on the CPU by as much as about 20 percent."
Adobe's Flash Player 'Gala' OS X preview tested: results may vary -- Engadget
I am using CS5 and it is a scary interface mess that it looks like it was made in Java. In reality most of it is a Adobe Air port and totally non-standard UI elements and it lags like hell.
Adobe are lazy bastards.
I'm not sure this is right. Flash works in vectors which can be GPU accelerated. Maybe you're right that 10.1 only adds GPU acceleration to h.264 video, but it is my understanding that up to this point, all vector animation in Flash (such as Homestar Runner and the ads you are lamenting) and embedded video is purely software driven whereas on Windows it is GPU accelerated.
I'm not sure what developers you are referring to, what they were accelerating, and how this relates to 10.6, but even if Apple added GPU acceleration hooks to Snow Leopard that Adobe could use that weren't their prior it's been long enough for logic to dictate that Adobe is in no rush to add this feature. I agree with you that they are extremely lazy.
I'm thinking that basic vector animation GPU acceleration is probably more of a Quartz Extreme feature which came about in Jaguar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
What do you guys, particularly web developers like yourself Sprinkles, do and say when people you know oh and ahh and rave about some 100% Flash website? There are still people that are wowed by what you can do with Flash, and it's sort of hard to explain to them the many drawbacks of Flash. At least the no iPod/iPhone/iPad support is a pretty clear argument, but what else do you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
What do you guys, particularly web developers like yourself Sprinkles, do and say when people you know oh and ahh and rave about some 100% Flash website? There are still people that are wowed by what you can do with Flash, and it's sort of hard to explain to them the many drawbacks of Flash. At least the no iPod/iPhone/iPad support is a pretty clear argument, but what else do you say?
I'd say 80% of my clients who want a website and aren't a tech company STILL want splash screens, flash intro and sometimes the whole site in flash.
I give them a million reasons why it is a bad idea and almost all of them change their mind and agree with me after presenting the facts.
The main problem most clients have with it is that it is very expensive to update after the fact. With CSS or wordpress you can easily make one little change that effects everything sitewide. With flash no such dice as you have to get expensive flash developers involved. A
In the past you also couldn't select text, hit the back button, be found by search engines etc. This was corrected in later versions but you still have to export flash 7-8 files which are missing many of the new features to correct its issues but the majority of visitors are years behind in the player.
I never have to make an argument about user base on cellphones as there are a million more important drawbacks before it.
I have hated it since 1997 for many of these reasons and the one Steve mentions. Every job I have ever done I have resisted flash and in the end it always worked out for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
I'd say 80% of my clients who want a website and aren't a tech company STILL want splash screens, flash intro and sometimes the whole site in flash.
I give them a million reasons why it is a bad idea and almost all of them change their mind and agree with me after presenting the facts.
The main problem most clients have with it is that it is very expensive to update after the fact. With CSS or wordpress you can easily make one little change that effects everything sitewide. With flash no such dice as you have to get expensive flash developers involved. A
In the past you also couldn't select text, hit the back button, be found by search engines etc. This was corrected in later versions but you still have to export flash 7-8 files which are missing many of the new features to correct its issues but the majority of visitors are years behind in the player.
I never have to make an argument about user base on cellphones as there are a million more important drawbacks before it.
I have hated it since 1997 for many of these reasons and the one Steve mentions. Every job I have ever done I have resisted flash and in the end it always worked out for the better.
How about not being able to bookmark specific pages? How about SEO? Do you guys ever use those sorts of arguments?
Analogue, my experience is similar to yours, people think they want Flash but can be talked out of it. Which of your reasons against it seems to carry the most weight, in your experience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
I stand corrected, you're right! No general GPU acceleration of vector calcs, just limited H.264. Whoop dee doo, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
How about not being able to bookmark specific pages?
This is so ****ing annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Which of your reasons against it seems to carry the most weight, in your experience?
Flash = more time and money. That usually ends it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
I hate to commend Adobe, but it appears they did put it into Flash the moment Apple made it available: TN2267 released April 22, Gala released April 29.
Apple released the code as a sign of good faith from all the Anti-flash stance.
Adobe quickly added support as they are getting a ton of bad press and reputation for being lazy with dated software. Normally they wouldn't haven't even tried for years.
Even with that this is only for h264 video encoded in HD.
Where the heck is the GPU acceleration for all the other crap or at least optimized code that is up to the windows version.
For years I have been making small little banner ads and microsites only to see it run at half the framerate on a Mac for no reason.
Even with this added code and hardware decoding Flash is still a format that is in the process of being purged from the net over the next few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Any discussion about H264 acceleration in Flash is a waste of time. Why bother wrapping H264 in a Flash wrapper to begin with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Status:
Offline
|
|
Adobe's new ad campaign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|