[macaddict0001]

I thought this was interesting,Thoughts on Flash

[pooka]

That is very interesting. I personally can't stand the walled garden Apple has created, but I'm impressed that Jobs has publicly stated their position. Its for the greater good....

[sek929]

Summed up:

"Basically, Flash is horribly optimized for Mac software and has been so for ten years. Adobe does not seem to care so they can go sit on a tack."

[Oisín]

An interesting read, though it doesn’t say much that hasn’t been said already.

This struck me as odd, though:

Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

So Flash isn’t a modern technology (arguably true), but JavaScript, which has been around long before Flash ever saw the light of day, is?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

An interesting read, though it doesn’t say much that hasn’t been said already.

This struck me as odd, though:



So Flash isn’t a modern technology (arguably true), but JavaScript, which has been around long before Flash ever saw the light of day, is?

I'm assuming he means the current implementation (meaning Javascript combined with HTML5 and CSS), not necessarily the tech itself.

[Lint Police]

"Suck it Adobe."

[starman]

Flash crashes for me all the time, even on a brand new OS install.

[turtle777]

A lot of words for a middle finger

-t

[imitchellg5]

On a somewhat related note, have anybody tried "Gala" Flash beta? Works great on my MBP, "only" uses 20% CPU or so to play a fullscreen 1080p YouTube clip, compared to sometimes 80-120%.

[Sealobo]

i like it very much.

[OAW]

A very well reasoned argument. Adobe will be hard pressed to the come up with valid rebuttals for the 6 points made.

OAW

[slugslugslug]

I was under the impression that the file format was well-documented enough and legally free enough that other developers could, in theory, write both viewers and creation tools for Flash. Am I wrong?

Not that I think the “open” bit is the most important point. Especially since if nobody else has bothered creating Flash editors and runtimes by now, it’s pretty academic that they’d be able to.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

On a somewhat related note, have anybody tried "Gala" Flash beta? Works great on my MBP, "only" uses 20% CPU or so to play a fullscreen 1080p YouTube clip, compared to sometimes 80-120%.

"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

[torsoboy]

He has some good points, but when it comes to the web, it should be up to the consumer what they choose to adopt or not adopt. If the consumer is fine with a Flash site, and they don't care about only watching 5 hours of video at a time, it should ultimately be up to them.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

He has some good points, but when it comes to the web, it should be up to the consumer what they choose to adopt or not adopt. If the consumer is fine with a Flash site, and they don't care about only watching 5 hours of video at a time, it should ultimately be up to them.

Exactly. If they site wants to keep its customers it is going to have to adapt to the market which means alternatives that work for the most people.

My longer answer:
http://forums.macnn.com/103/ipod-iph...4/#post3962251

[starman]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

He has some good points, but when it comes to the web, it should be up to the consumer what they choose to adopt or not adopt. If the consumer is fine with a Flash site, and they don't care about only watching 5 hours of video at a time, it should ultimately be up to them.

Ok, so how do you handle rollovers and other non-mouse events?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

He has some good points, but when it comes to the web, it should be up to the consumer what they choose to adopt or not adopt. If the consumer is fine with a Flash site, and they don't care about only watching 5 hours of video at a time, it should ultimately be up to them.

The consumer is an idiot in this case. They're fine with a flash site because they don't know any better. If presented with two versions of the same site, one in flash and the other in HTML5, do you think the average user is going to prefer one over the other?

No, the answer is no.

In this case the consumer needs to be dragged kicking and screaming away from flash so that the Internet is better overall. I'm glad it's actually happening.

[The Final Dakar]

Everyone agreed IE was pretty crappy years ago and its taken how long to really erode its marketshare?

Thank Apple for doing its best to fight against consumer and developer inertia.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by starman 

Ok, so how do you handle rollovers and other non-mouse events?

If the site doesn't work, people wont visit it on their devices. Don't make this more complicated than it is.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

The consumer is an idiot in this case. They're fine with a flash site because they don't know any better. If presented with two versions of the same site, one in flash and the other in HTML5, do you think the average user is going to prefer one over the other?

No, the answer is no.

In this case the consumer needs to be dragged kicking and screaming away from flash so that the Internet is better overall. I'm glad it's actually happening.

So, if there is no difference/benefit to the user, what is your argument again?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Everyone agreed IE was pretty crappy years ago and its taken how long to really erode its marketshare?

Thank Apple for doing its best to fight against consumer and developer inertia.

*Everyone* did not agree it was crappy. I would say that probably 95% of the world thought it was just fine (and still does). Developers may not have liked it, but the consumer thought (thinks) it is fine.

[osiris]

Steve's letter was a good read, almost entertaining. It takes balls to write something like that, and I'm glad he still has 'em.

But this is just the beginning of a long battle, and I think Macs are going to suffer for a while until the smoke clears. Not that we haven't suffered with processor-choking poorly written code for all these years.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

If the site doesn't work, people wont visit it on their devices. Don't make this more complicated than it is.

This is EXACTLY what Apple is doing right now.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

*Everyone* did not agree it was crappy. I would say that probably 95% of the world thought it was just fine (and still does). Developers may not have liked it, but the consumer thought (thinks) it is fine.

If so many people think its fine, why is it losing marketshare?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

So, if there is no difference/benefit to the user, what is your argument again?

Like I said, a better Internet. Unless you want a single company in charge of all the video and interactive web sites...

[osiris]

oooh - Adobe responds: Adobe CEO Responds to Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash' - Mac Rumors

"In addressing Jobs' claims of technology issues with Flash, Narayen called the comments "really a smokescreen" and pointed to over 100 App Store applications created using Flash. Further countering Jobs' assertions, Narayen blamed Apple's operating systems for Flash-related crashes and called Jobs' claims of Flash hampering battery life on mobile devices "patently false"."

lol... over 100? Blames the OS? Patently false?

Get the popcorn out kiddies!

[OAW]

The Adobe CEO's response was quite comical. From the WSJ interview ....

The technology problems that Mr. Jobs mentions in his essay are "really a smokescreen,"

Oh really? Flash is dog f*cking slow on OS X. Has been for years.

Speaking about Mr. Jobs's assertion that Adobe is the No. 1 cause of Mac crashes, Mr. Narayan says if Adobe crashes Apple, that actually has something "to do with the Apple operating system."

That's funny. Seems like ever since I installed ClickToFlash on my laptop Safari never crashes anymore. Imagine that.

Mr. Narayan calls accusations about Flash draining battery power "patently false." Speaking about Mr. Jobs's letter in general, he says that "for every one of these accusations made there is proprietary lock-in" that prevents Adobe from innovating.

Now this one takes the cake. On those rare occasions I do allow Flash to load I just watch my CPU spike to 100% on my laptop. If I stay on a Flash site for more than 10 freaking minutes I can feel the heat from the bottom of it burning my legs. And he wants us to believe that such a processing load isn't a battery drain? Even Stevie Wonder can see that the battery drain would be even worse on a mobile device with a less powerful CPU!

OAW

[analogue SPRINKLES]

"In conclusion, Narayen noted that customers have the ultimate voice in the dispute, and he believes that multi-platform solutions like Adobe's will win out."

Bad news for him is the customer has already voiced in on how much they care about flash:
Tracking suggests iPad sales now likely over 1 million | MacNN

[Kerrigan]

Like a true Mac user, I was upset about the lack of Flash at first, and thought it rendered the device pointless. But after using my friend's for a week, I don't really care about Flash.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

"In conclusion, Narayen noted that customers have the ultimate voice in the dispute, and he believes that multi-platform solutions like Adobe's will win out."

That's the difference between Steve and the rest.

Narayen: arrogant, but wrong on the issue
Jobs: arrogant, but right on the money

-t

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Like a true Mac user, I was upset about the lack of Flash at first, and thought it rendered the device pointless. But after using my friend's for a week, I don't really care about Flash.

A WEEK?!
Imagine in 6 months when maybe there are 2 sites left with flash videos for no reason.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Hey remember Quark ruler of all publishing and got lazy and nastier each sporadic update so people just moved to inDesign. What ever happened to them, they still have customers or evolve into something away from a dying product and market?

[sek929]

I'd go without Youtube for a whole year just to let Flash die.

Since when is what the consumer mass is used to a good solution? Most people don't even know what CPU load is, nevermind caring about how much Flash uses.

I said it once and I'll say it again. 1080p Apple trailers in fullscreen take about 50% of both of my cores. A standard def Youtube video, not fullscreen, pegs my cores at 80% and above.

Ludicrous.

[Kerrigan]

I know. It turned out that there were only two websites I visited that use Flash. And neither is especially crucial to my daily routine (Fratmusic.com and the other is a sports gambling site. The latter I am better off not visiting.)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I know. It turned out that there were only two websites I visited that use Flash. And neither is especially crucial to my daily routine (Fratmusic.com and the other is a sports gambling site. The latter I am better off not visiting.)

Not to mention you could find similar as apps in the app store.

[Phileas]

Your average consumer doesn't give a flying monkey about any of this. Your average consumer has no idea that this entire pissing match is even happening. S/He just wants a device that works, with minimal margin for error.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This is EXACTLY what Apple is doing right now.
-t

Apple is killing the sites that would work, and the sites that wouldn't work. There's kind of a difference there.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If so many people think its fine, why is it losing marketshare?

It is losing market share because there are now options, where in the past there were not. My mom using Firefox exclusively now, but when you ask her why, she says "because your brother told me it was better than Internet Explorer." People don't need a reason. I dislike the way that IE handles CSS, but you generally can't tell the difference between surfing in Firefox and surfing in IE (or Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.).

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Like I said, a better Internet. Unless you want a single company in charge of all the video and interactive web sites...

You said "a better internet", but also said that the user would not be able to select which is better. So, a better internet for who, if not for the user? For Apple? Yeah, that's true.

Besides that, this is a silly argument in general. There are already multiple companies that have flash-like applications, so it wouldn't be "one company" running the show. Additionally, the exact same thing could be said for Apple's iTunes App Store... you want one company in charge of everything you watch/read/play/purchase on your mobile devices?


I always jump into these stupid flash vs apple threads and regret it later. It is always the exact same thing rehashed over and over again. I can't think of a single valid reason to not include Flash, and some of you can't think of a single reason to include it.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Your average consumer doesn't give a flying monkey about any of this. Your average consumer has no idea that this entire pissing match is even happening. S/He just wants a device that works, with minimal margin for error.

Exactly. Some people here just don't get that and want a device that offers you every option even if they have a negative impact from cost - battery.

Thing is there are tons of products on the market that fit their needs yet they still don't buy those either and bitch that apple needs to make their version of a flawed product (i.e. Netbooks, pen interface, physical keyboards on ipad/iphone.

Not gonna happen and its better in the long run for consumers not lazy business'.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Apple is killing the sites that would work, and the sites that wouldn't work. There's kind of a difference there.

In the eyes of the consumer the website is at fault for not working not the iPad.
If it doesn't work they move on. 90% of people will not know if the sites they frequent use flash and only find out after the case. Somehow I don't see to many returns for lack of flash.

Just like sites were "ie, Netscape" compatible now the developer needs to spend that extra work to get iPad support. We are still doing it for IE6 for a crap product so why not for the Ipad?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

It is losing market share because there are now options, where in the past there were not. My mom using Firefox exclusively now, but when you ask her why, she says "because your brother told me it was better than Internet Explorer." People don't need a reason. I dislike the way that IE handles CSS, but you generally can't tell the difference between surfing in Firefox and surfing in IE (or Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.).

There were options five years ago, too. So why would it be losing marketshare today if its "just fine"? Because it was not, contrary to your claims. People don't move away from the default bundled web browser just by accident.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Hey remember Quark ruler of all publishing and got lazy and nastier each sporadic update so people just moved to inDesign. What ever happened to them, they still have customers or evolve into something away from a dying product and market?

Yeah, see unlike Adobe it turns out Quark doesn't suck. There were just a lot of loud Adobe fanbois whining in unison - but then when Adobe releases it's "Quark-killer" it turns out Quark wasn't so bad after all.

QXP:

It's stable.

It's Cocoa (since forever)

It's uncluttered with stupid palettes.

It's fast.

It's got all the features of InDesign.

It works.

It isn't just another app for pushing Flash, like pretty much everything that oozes out of Adobe these days. Quark XPress is actually the best layout app available.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

If the site doesn't work, people wont visit it on their devices. Don't make this more complicated than it is.

So if my bank decides to start weighting their page down with flash crap I'm just going to not do online banking and teach the bank a lesson?
This isnt that simple actually. In some cases we're forced to use it if the website we need uses it. Not like I can just up and go to another bank like that... And thats just one of many examples I can come up with.
consumers dont decide anyway. People are fad driven and just do what the rest of the sheep do.

Flash serves no niche or purpose that html 2 maybe 1.0 cant handle. It used to be that simple html code could make a button change color on a site. Now with every site being in flash the simplest things require that I practically download an entire program and wait for it to load. Thanks Steve for fighting for us.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'd go without Youtube for a whole year just to let Flash die.

Since when is what the consumer mass is used to a good solution? Most people don't even know what CPU load is, nevermind caring about how much Flash uses.

I said it once and I'll say it again. 1080p Apple trailers in fullscreen take about 50% of both of my cores. A standard def Youtube video, not fullscreen, pegs my cores at 80% and above.

Ludicrous.

Well, just use HTML5 YouTube. Or use Gala.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well, just use HTML5 YouTube. Or use Gala.

Not all videos are in HTML5 and Gala only works on HD content which again is a small fraction.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by starman 

Ok, so how do you handle rollovers and other non-mouse events?

Adobe could fix this with a Flash update like I believe Apple did with the iPad or perhaps even earlier: when there is a mouseover event defined a single tap triggers the mouseover, a double tap triggers the click.

I'm not saying that they would, but this is in theory a solvable problem on their end. The only tradeoff would be they would have to do something about double clicks, maybe changing them to triple clicks or something? This would probably only apply to games and other interactive content though, as there is no double click convention on the web.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Adobe could fix this with a Flash update like I believe Apple did with the iPad or perhaps even earlier: when there is a mouseover event defined a single tap triggers the mouseover, a double tap triggers the click.

I'm not saying that they would, but this is in theory a solvable problem on their end. The only tradeoff would be they would have to do something about double clicks, maybe changing them to triple clicks or something? This would probably only apply to games and other interactive content though, as there is no double click convention on the web.

That would break the paradigm of clicking a link because the user doesn't yet know what they're clicking is a link.

[starman]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So if my bank decides to start weighting their page down with flash crap I'm just going to not do online banking and teach the bank a lesson?

No bank's webmaster in their right mind would do that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Yeah, see unlike Adobe it turns out Quark doesn't suck. There were just a lot of loud Adobe fanbois whining in unison - but then when Adobe releases it's "Quark-killer" it turns out Quark wasn't so bad after all.

I'm no print guy, but from what I gather:

Before InDesign came out, Quark users went through a HEFTY dry patch of utterly crappy user support and ever-more-bloated mess of a monster with complex and expensive upgrade requirements.

The company changed leadership twice IIRC, and it wasn't until the last change that Quark finally began realizing that they had CUSTOMERS, not victims, and treating them as such.

People defected from Quark in droves not because they were whiny Adobe fanboys, but because the Quark infrastructure SUCKED, and InDesign came along as the nimble new kid on the block that did 90% of what they needed, natively on OS X, without the cruft, and without the politics.

It took Quark years to dig themselves out.

NB: This was my take as a non-expert in that particular market.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by OAW 

That's funny. Seems like ever since I installed ClickToFlash on my laptop Safari never crashes anymore. Imagine that.

I wish I had known about ClickToFlash years ago- thanks for the (unintentional?) tip! Best bit of free software I've downloaded in years!

[turtle777]

Flash is dead.

Internet Explorer 9 will natively support h.264

We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

Dean Hachamovitch
General Manager, Internet Explorer

IEBlog : HTML5 Video

-t

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Internet Explorer 9 will natively support h.264.

Flash is dead.

Wrong conclusion.

Internet Explorer 9 will natively support h.264.

Firefox is dead.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Wrong conclusion.

Internet Explorer 9 will natively support h.264.

Firefox is dead.

Wrong conclusion.

Many people will still not trust IE due to a bad security track record.
FF is here to stay for a while.

-t