[torsoboy]

So, it appears that someone caught that flash was being displayed on the iPad in the original promotional video, but when Apple was called out on it, they removed it from the video. That brings me to this question... was the iPad video a fake (meaning they took a video of a different device/computer, and pretended the content was being viewed on the iPad), or does the iPad support flash after all? Are they just waiting for the most opportune time to say "Surprise! We added flash support! Aren't we awesome?!?!"

If they do support flash it would noticeably reduce the amount of hate for the device, so I don't know why they wouldn't want to promote it if they did.

What do you think?

Article: Apple Pulls Flash Content From iPad Promos - PCWorld

[The Godfather]

With youtube phasing to html5 video, the only reason to have flash is to navigate an architecture company website, or play flash games in the Armor Games website.

[Eug]

So, it would appear that Apple's own advertising department feels that Flash is necessary.

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

With youtube phasing to html5 video, the only reason to have flash is to navigate an architecture company website, or play flash games in the Armor Games website.

HTML5 isn't even an official standard yet. Thus, it's not going to be ubiquitous for a very long time, and thus doesn't help those actually wanting to surf the net in spring 2010.

Maybe I'd consider an iPad or like device in 2012, but now? Not a chance.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

If they do support flash it would noticeably reduce the amount of hate for the device, so I don't know why they wouldn't want to promote it if they did.

There's WAY less "hate", such as you can call it that, for the iPad than there is actual HATE for Flash.

When people say they "need Flash", they mean videos and Flash games. The former are ALL going to be offering non-Flash alternatives as the iPhone and iPad are (and become, respectively) the dominant mobile internet devices - the two biggest video platforms, YouTube and Vimeo, already are - and the latter are easily and better replaced by the App Store. Hulu has announced that they'll be supporting mobile platforms in the near future, and I'd assume that they won't ignore the biggest one.

MySpace is an exception, but that is thankfully slowly going away.

Any web designer worth being paid ALWAYS builds a non-Flash fallback alternative.


The iPhone/iPad paradox is that, for all its DRM and closed architecture, it's built upon entirely free and open standards.

Flash is proprietary, closed, and under the exclusive control of Adobe.

Flash is also the #1 source of crashes on OS X, by far.

Good-bye, Flash.

Further reading: Daring Fireball: Apple, Adobe, and Flash

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's WAY less "hate", such as you can call it that, for the iPad than there is actual HATE for Flash.

When people say they "need Flash", they mean videos and Flash games. The former are ALL going to be offering non-Flash alternatives as the iPhone and iPad are (and become, respectively) the dominant mobile internet devices - the two biggest video platforms, YouTube and Vimeo, already are - and the latter are easily and better replaced by the App Store. Hulu has announced that they'll be supporting mobile platforms in the near future, and I'd assume that they won't ignore the biggest one.

MySpace is an exception, but that is thankfully slowly going away.

Any web designer worth being paid ALWAYS builds a non-Flash fallback alternative.


The iPhone/iPad paradox is that, for all its DRM and closed architecture, it's built upon entirely free and open standards.

Flash is proprietary, closed, and under the exclusive control of Adobe.

Flash is also the #1 source of crashes on OS X, by far.

Good-bye, Flash.

Further reading: Daring Fireball: Apple, Adobe, and Flash

It may be your crusade to eliminate flash from the internet, but it is going to be around for a very long time to come. I have never (and I mean *never*) heard even a single person complain about flash except for when I come to MacNN. Maybe its a Mac thing... maybe Apple just can't figure out how to run flash decently? I'm sure there are other message boards and groups of people that dislike it, but in the real non-geek world, people love it. It is fairly easy to develop, it runs on all operating systems (except for the closed/ridiculous Apple OSs), and it doesn't require you to be using the latest technology to view it. Many many many people view flash on old machines, and there is no problem.

There are thousands and thousands of flash website across the internet, and they are not going away anytime soon. Hundreds more are developed every day. Flash developers are in very high demand as well. Your comment about a coder not being worth his pay if he doesn't build in a fall-back is patently untrue. No one expects a flash alternative. Sure, you may see one or two large sites with an alternative on some of their previously flash applications, but those are so far the minority that they wouldn't even show up as more than a small dot on a graph compared to flash sites and flash usage.

I notice that you didn't give your opinion about why you thought Apple might have put flash on their iPad demos. You are full of hate for flash, when it has nothing to do with flash, and everything to do with Apple. On a PC there is no problem (and I have used *many* PCs). The people at Apple obviously use it as well. Also, read through your own linked article and you will see that it IS apple that is at fault for the poor performance of flash on their OS... apparently "Apple does not provide a public API to make this [flash improvements] happen." The writer's comment that says "you may wish that Hulu, which is entirely Flash-based, worked on your iPhone and worked better on your Mac. Apple wishes that Hulu’s content was going through the iTunes Store." is also hitting the nail on the head... Apple dislikes flash for it's own political reasons. There is nothing wrong with flash, the problem is with Apple.

My opinion is that Apple, in the not-too-distant future (maybe 3 months), is going to announce that flash as "now supported" on the iPad. There will be big fanfare, and all of the mac fan-boys will sing praises to Apple for being so innovative that they got flash to work on their devices.

[Spheric Harlot]

You didn't read the article, did you?

And do ponder the difference between a crusade and an opinion, will you?

[Spheric Harlot]

Also, Apple didn't put Flash in their demos; they forgot to edit it out when compositing.

The little blue Lego showed up during Jobs' first public demo of the thing, fer Chrissakes. Coincidence or statement? Apple has been pretty vocal on the Flash issue, and it's no secret that they and adobe don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.

It is also apparent that Adobe is trying to establich their software and formats as the de facto platform, independent of the OS. This can also be seen in their complete disregard for platform-specific UI conventions in the CS Suite and photoshop elements.

If Flash is the de-facto standard in mobile browsing and web-based apps, then the basic user experience is at the mercy of some other company's proprietary software. User experience is Apple's core business.

[Wiskedjak]

If there ever was going to be Flash support for the iPad, Steve probably yanked it after the flame war from Adobe.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You didn't read the article, did you?

And do ponder the difference between a crusade and an opinion, will you?

I read the whole thing. You?

Th article was saying that the writer sides with Apple, although Flash could be better if Apple allowed it to be. Apple wants the control, and that about sums it up.

[jokell82]

There is no chance Flash will be on the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch.

Check out every site that makes you want flash on those devices. What is one thing they all require? A keyboard and/or mouse. Neither of which any of these devices have. This presents a HUGE UI problem. I have yet to see anyone complaining about the lack of flash on Apple's products come up with a good solution to that problem. And if you think "But I don't need a keyboard or mouse to push play on Youtube" - that's true. But how do you move the volume slider? Click, hold, and drag. Can't do that on the iPad, it'll just scroll the page.

And then there's the inefficiencies of flash on anything other than Windows. Why any mobile handset maker would want to deal with those headaches is beyond me.

[Cold Warrior]

in additino to the Daring Fireball article linked to previously, this one is also good:
Gone in a Flash: More on Apple’s iPhone Web Plans — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

and good strategic reasons why Apple wants Flash dead, part of a larger article:
Cocoa for Windows + Flash Killer = SproutCore — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I read the whole thing. You?

Th article was saying that the writer sides with Apple, although Flash could be better if Apple allowed it to be. Apple wants the control, and that about sums it up.

Actually, you wanted to say "Flash could be better if Apple allowed it to directly access the hardware". Brilliant.

All the sandboxing and hardware abstraction Apple built into the OS thrown in the trash, because now, a Flash plugin crash can TAKE DOWN YOUR WHOLE SYSTEM.

HELL YEAH, Apple wants control!

[Spheric Harlot]

Daring Fireball: Who Can Do Something About Those Blue Boxes?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

My opinion is that Apple, in the not-too-distant future (maybe 3 months), is going to announce that flash as "now supported" on the iPad.

I hope all you Flash supporters would hold your breath on this.

That way, we don't have to deal with this in the future

-t

[besson3c]

We are indeed pretty far away from being able to replace Flash entirely. Don't forget that Flash is used for more than just a video/mediaplayer wrapper or making lame Flash-only sites just because. It is also used for sites like Homestar Runner, JibJab, the MLB Gameday app, etc.

I think Apple has to meet in the middle somewhere. They've made many concessions for Windows users, support a lousy MS Office suite, support Boot Camp, etc. They need to offer at least some sort of crippled version of Flash on their way to being able to phase it out.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They need to offer at least some sort of crippled version of Flash on their way to being able to phase it out.

That logic escapes me: offering something to help it go away ?

Doesn't work.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

It does if it sucks badly enough.

It's already working fine on the Mac, as this thread shows.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It does if it sucks badly enough.

It's already working fine on the Mac, as this thread shows.

Why implement it at all ?

Absence is teh epic sukk.

-t

[besson3c]

You offer it as a stop gap measure, a transitional technology until the new one is ready to replace it. Apple has done this with Classic, Internet Explorer, supporting PPC, etc. If they do this they also need to provide a clear roadmap so that developers know when Flash will no longer be supported.

For now though, you can't just phase out something when there is no replacement ready, as much as it pains me to say this. Nobody will be happier to see Flash go away than I

[Spheric Harlot]

Stop-gaps just mean nothing ever develops, because there's no need.

Carbon was a stop-gap. Gee, Adobe sure picked up the message.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You offer it as a stop gap measure, a transitional technology until the new one is ready to replace it. Apple has done this with Classic, Internet Explorer, supporting PPC, etc. If they do this they also need to provide a clear roadmap so that developers know when Flash will no longer be supported.

For now though, you can't just phase out something when there is no replacement ready, as much as it pains me to say this. Nobody will be happier to see Flash go away than I

The iPhone worked just fine for 2.5 years w/o Flash. No need for a "new" transition technology.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Stop-gaps just mean nothing ever develops, because there's no need.

Carbon was a stop-gap. Gee, Adobe sure picked up the message.

That's true, but you could also say that Apple didn't offer much of a stick since they supported Carbon for so long. If they set a drop dead date for support and stick to it, it's either sink or swim for sites currently using Flash.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The iPhone worked just fine for 2.5 years w/o Flash. No need for a "new" transition technology.

-t

True, Apple could also continue to cut their losses by not supporting it. I'm fine with that strategy too.

However, it would be ever better for Apple to lead on this by really pushing developers to transition to HTML5/Canvas and paving the way for them to do so. Right now their intent in dealing with Flash is a little bit unclear and muddy, sort of wait-and-see, so it seems. If they took a more religious approach this would make it clear that as a developer you have to decide which way you want to go, adopt your own plan-of-attack and roadmap for phasing out Flash, and people looking for new sites can make better informed decisions about what technologies to use.

Right now there seem to be some that believe that Apple might one day support Flash. I guess my opinion is that they need to take a clear stance.

[thesearcher]

How do the Touch, iphone etc. play Youtube videos without flash?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by thesearcher 

How do the Touch, iphone etc. play Youtube videos without flash?

It accesses the videos in h.264 format, which is already supported by Youtube.

Apple wants to push that open standard for all video delivery on he web.

-t

[thesearcher]

I wonder if Nintendo could use that for the DSi. They keep saying the DSi doesn't have enough memory for flash.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It accesses the videos in h.264 format, which is already supported by Youtube.

Apple wants to push that open standard for all video delivery on he web.

Of course it does, since Apple gains royalties from H.264.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Of course it does, since Apple gains royalties from H.264.

But Adobe is a non-profit organization, pushing Flash out of the goodness of their heart ?

Also, AFAIK, Apple doesn't collect h.264 royalties. It's the MPEG-LA .

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But Adobe is a non-profit organization, pushing Flash out of the goodness of their heart ?

Not a chance. However, you keep insinuating Apple is pushing technologies for the greater good... and I keep pointing out that Apple and Adobe both are pushing their chosen technologies TO MAKE MONEY. In that respect, Apple is no different from Adobe.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not a chance. However, you keep insinuating Apple is pushing technologies for the greater good... and I keep pointing out that Apple and Adobe both are pushing their chosen technologies TO MAKE MONEY. In that respect, Apple is no different from Adobe.

Do you have any documents that support Apple making money from H.264 royalties? The wiki entry for H.264 doesn't mention Apple once.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not a chance. However, you keep insinuating Apple is pushing technologies for the greater good... and I keep pointing out that Apple and Adobe both are pushing their chosen technologies TO MAKE MONEY. In that respect, Apple is no different from Adobe.

Sure. Apple wants to make money, with putting out superior products.

That can't be always said of Adobe.

At any rate, Flash (generally) is an eye sore and a resource hog. The combination of the two makes me reject Flash.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Do you have any documents that support Apple making money from H.264 royalties? The wiki entry for H.264 doesn't mention Apple once.

MPEG LA - The Standard for Standards - AVC Licensors

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

MPEG LA - The Standard for Standards - AVC Licensors

That doesn't mean Apple is getting any money from it.

-t

[Eug]

Essentially, yes it does. Apple holds part of the AVC patent pool, and gets its fair share of licencing fees because of that. I don't know how much that is because AFAIK that's not public information, but obviously it's in Apple's best interests to push H.264 as much as it can.

The same reason is why Microsoft pushes VC-1 so hard, and why Apple hates VC-1, even though both H.264 and VC-1 are official standards.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, it would be ever better for Apple to lead on this by really pushing developers to transition to HTML5/Canvas and paving the way for them to do so. .

Right now there seem to be some that believe that Apple might one day support Flash. I guess my opinion is that they need to take a clear stance.

They can't make it much clearer - you haven't been listening.

Also, you don't "really push" somebody to change their product by expending effort to enforce the status quo. It's a lot more effective to dominate the fastest-growing market and simply not offer support for the old products.

[thesearcher]

This is the same format used by Blu-ray?? So how can Apple say that Blu-ray is a "World of hurt", if they have to pay license fees to Mpeg-la anyway? And I do remember the spiel over GIf images all those years ago.

For all the complaining people do about flash, on this and other boards, replacing one proprietary standard with another doesn't seem to be the answer.

[Eug]

To be clear, H.264 is an open standard, but an open standard can still generate royalties. Apple makes money off H.264. People (indirectly) pay Apple to use it. In contrast, Flash is not an open standard.

And yes, H.264 is what is used by Blu-ray (along with VC-1 and MPEG2), although you're likely right that it would cost more for Apple to implement Blu-ray than the money they'd make off the H.264 in Blu-ray. Lot's of technical issues with the DRM too from what I gather.

[thesearcher]

But does Adobe collect royalties from anyone who wants to use Flash content on their site? Apparently MPEG-La is going to aggressively start doing that at the end of the year.

I'll admit, in Apple's defense, it does seem much cheaper to get a stand-alone BD player than it is to get a BD-ROM and (current) playback software. Although that doesn't make much sense...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by thesearcher 

But does Adobe collect royalties from anyone who wants to use Flash content on their site? Apparently MPEG-La is going to aggressively start doing that at the end of the year.

Not directly, but indirectly.

The Flash authoring tools cost good money.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

EThe same reason is why Microsoft pushes VC-1 so hard, and why Apple hates VC-1, even though both H.264 and VC-1 are official standards.

Firs time I've ever heard of VC-1. Ever.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Firs time I've ever heard of VC-1. Ever.

Really? Have you been hiding under a rock?

It's one of the mandatory codecs for Blu-ray. MPEG-2 is the third, but takes up much more space, so people tend to prefer either VC-1 or H.264. If you happen to own some Blu-ray discs, chances are one of them is VC-1.

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray FAQ

BTW, GPUs now offer hardware decode acceleration for both H.264 and VC-1.

[thesearcher]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not directly, but indirectly.

The Flash authoring tools cost good money.

-t

I guess we'll see what happens at the end of the year when/if MPEG-LA starts charging royalties for h.264. It seems like a case of "be careful what you wish for".

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Of course it does, since Apple gains royalties from H.264.

That is ridiculous. Apple pays royalties for h264. It's share of incoming royalties is tiny while it pays millions to license the whole codec.