DailyTech - Adobe Tries to Prod Apple to Action With Aggressive iPhone Flash Failure Message

Why

By Chaser on 11/3/2009 12:19:45 PM , Rating: 3

Outside of conspiracy theories and draconian rhetoric does anyone have a reasonably unbiased opinion on why Apple is resisting this for the iPhone?

Is it revenues?

RE: Why

By AnnihilatorX on 11/3/2009 12:29:00 PM , Rating: 1

erm battery life?

Flash is very demanding for battery juice. Check the recent Anadtech article about Windows 7 battery use, they have comparison on a laptop running Firefox with and without adblock plugin (which blocks flash).

Parent

RE: Why

By MPE on 11/3/2009 1:11:29 PM , Rating: 5

That is a myth. Battery life is only secondary if not even lower in regards to Flash viability on the iPhone. You can certainly disable it if you prefer longer battery life versus more web content.

Apple just want to control the content of the iPhone. Flash makes iTunes Store much less profitable even though most of the apps in there sucked big balls already.

How many tower defense games and dice roller do you need? Seriously.

Parent

RE: Why

By antimatter3009 on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By MPE on 11/3/2009 2:44:33 PM , Rating: 3

Really? Isn't Fetch Data optional? Auto-Brightness? Wi-Fi? etc?

All of these affects your content experience AND battery life.

Parent

RE: Why

By RW on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By yxalitis on 11/3/2009 8:44:16 PM , Rating: 2

I'm voting this important comment UP
It should be a 5, everyone needs to read this, nod wisely, and say" "...yes, yes...exactly..."

Parent

RE: Why

By ivanwolf72 on 11/4/2009 4:33:35 PM , Rating: 1

At least get your nasty comment correct if your going to hate on people as a group. Gay people don't put stuff ON their buttholes but IN. Stop hating and get a life, I hope Dailytech deletes you for such a hateful comment, and your little friend too for replying with such hate.

Parent

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 3:05:10 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
Flash hurts battery life and everyone knows it.

So does allowing apps to use GPS, camera, etc etc, (much more actually), and I don't see anyone complaining. When flash 10 comes around it will be at least partially hardware accelerated, you can't compare your results on a PC now (using only software rendered vector imaging) to what will be released soon. (which Apple has flat out said they will not support right now)

Parent

RE: Why

By quiksilvr on 11/3/2009 4:08:13 PM , Rating: 2

Its completely retarded. Flash 10.1 is what people are waiting for, however IMO I feel that Adobe Flash Player needs to be as GPU accelerated as humanly possible. Right now they are saying its for nVidia and maybe AMD, but Intel chipsets are left out in the cold. I mean, come ON. Media Player Classic along with the K-Lite Codec pack has had GPU accelerated Flash for years. Why can't we have it on the browser too?

Parent

RE: Why

By reader1 on 11/3/2009 3:45:51 PM , Rating: 2

Microsoft doesn't include a web browser on the Xbox 360 for the same reason. Flash games would kill XBLA and XNA games.

Closed platforms = more money.

Parent

RE: Why

By dragonbif on 11/3/2009 3:04:22 PM , Rating: 2

About a year ago I read an article about some of the development plans that Apple had and one of them was an application that would compete with Adobe Flash. I have not heard anything else on this other then it was a plan. If apple is still in the works for it then I could see them not wanting Flash on their products.

Parent

RE: Why

By Xenokyn on 11/4/2009 9:40:41 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
...Firefox with and without adblock plugin (which blocks flash).

Adblock only blocks flash if it comes from known ad syndicates, not flash like youtube videos or web stores that have decided to encode their entire site in flash (example: beatport.com)

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 12:32:47 PM , Rating: -1

Because

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 1:47:18 PM , Rating: -1

Too bad its so easy to overcome this messed up rating system.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 2:30:33 PM , Rating: -1

Too bad its so easy to overcome this messed up rating system.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 2:41:32 PM , Rating: -1

Too bad its so easy to overcome this messed up rating system. What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 2:51:01 PM , Rating: -1

You are going to run out of votes before I run out of posts.

What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 2:58:04 PM , Rating: -1

You are going to run out of votes before I run out of posts.

What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply. I love wasting your votes on me.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 3:09:28 PM , Rating: -1

Ever heard of "Don't feed the trolls" ? This is fun beyond belief!

You are going to run out of votes before I run out of posts.

What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply. I love wasting your votes on me.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By rudy on 11/3/2009 3:17:15 PM , Rating: 5

You are wrong that is what apple would like you to believe but the real reason is because if flash is enabled 80% of the app store would become useless as free cross platform flash would be open for anyone on any phone to use.

The company really trying to lock down is apple not M$.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By eddieroolz on 11/3/2009 3:26:18 PM , Rating: 4

Apple has "checked" Flash and has not approved it ever since the days of iPhone 2G - that was about three years ago. The Snow Leopard Flash problem happened about a month ago.

My point? Unless Apple somehow foretold that they'll screw up Flash in Snow Leopard, checking it all for malware/security is definitely NOT the reason Apple is refusing Flash....

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By Murst on 11/4/2009 3:48:21 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Just remember, HTML5 and SVG and AJAX let you do anything that Flash can do, and is available NOW.

I would suggest you consult w/ a web developer before making crazy statements like this.

There are many, many features in Flash that aren't available in any widespread technology out there, including Silverlight, not to mention stuff like HTML5, SVG (rofl), and JavaScript...

Speaking of which... how is the market penetration on HTML5 and complete SVG support? Yeah, I thought so...

Flash isn't perfect, and yeah, it would be better if there was some open solution out there that could replace it, but there just isn't anything that comes even close to having all of the features and the market penetration. Silverlight is a decent alternative (and C#+WPF is way better than actionscript+flex), but it still doesn't compare on features and the market penetration just isn't there yet.

Parent

RE: Why

By reader1 on 11/3/09, Rating: 0

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 4:43:07 PM , Rating: 2

Well, a lot of people would like the web to die. It's quite complicated and liable to security vulnerabilities.

However, Web browsing in the xbox is not within the scope yet. The box can surely handle it, but it's not there yet. It could also canibalize other markets, or limit MS's actions in other markets.

Parent

RE: Why

By Hieyeck on 11/4/2009 8:53:38 AM , Rating: 2

Totally off topic...

AUGH! THE RED, IT BURNS!

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 3:17:33 PM , Rating: -1

Ever heard of "Don't feed the trolls" ? This is fun beyond belief!

You are going to run out of votes before I run out of posts. And there are only so many you can use for each member! Good luck!!!

What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply. I love wasting your votes on me.

1. Nobody really needs flash anymore. It's a Java, a middleware, that people don't need.
2. HTML5 makes it redundant, and it always was. SVG was a, open standard created from two competing standards for what Flash animation did. It never caught on because Microsoft never backed in 1998 and to this very day never supported it (see how that works? Apple is pushing for an open standard, Microsoft never did and never will)
3. What do people do with flash? Watch video. What are all the videos going to? That's right, h.264. And does the iphone/itouch need another h.264 player when it has the most optimized one built in, proven via the YouTube app? No.
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else. But no player yet can handle anything encoded in the HP level of h.264/MPEG4-AVC, so no matter what, you have to format a copy for portable stuff in the SP level, making again, the Flash player irrelevant.
4. Why does FlashBlock exist again?

Parent

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 3:30:51 PM , Rating: 1

1. Its a Java? Are you a moron?

2. I was never a major flash supporter, but SVG just plain sucked. While you may have had some fun pulling this info from a wiki page, i've already used SVG and there was a reason it never saw widespread deployment. Furthermore SVG is nothing like flash, its just a platform for 2d vector graphics. Thats only one of the many things that flash does.

3.Can't argue here, too bad the W3C group could not (and have still yet too/perhaps never will) decide on a universal video codec to be used. i.e nothing has changed, browser makers will still be forced to implement their own codecs and API's to use them like what has been happening for years. This once again gives the leg-up to flash, as it is not up to the browser or user and should work on any machine/configuration. You can hate Flash all you want, but it the ability to 'just work' will always give them the legup until there is a suitable alternative

quote:
All HD videos on YouTube are h.264 and nothing else.

h.264 in a flash container.. hmmmm...

As I said I'm not a fan of Adobe in the slightest, (and I like silverlight technology much better), but HTML5 is not replacing either, not now, not ever. It will complement it quite nicely and it will bring rich web content to a new level, but it is not the flash killer you make it out to be.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 3:50:54 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
1. Its a Java? Are you a moron?

Both are plugin middleware that are obsolete with today's standards. When's the last time you ran into a web site that required Java? When more people start using HTML5 to deliver video, something that Google/Youtube is already trying, what will flash be used for?

quote:
2. I was never a major flash supporter, but SVG just plain sucked. While you may have had some fun pulling this info from a wiki page, i've already used SVG and there was a reason it never saw widespread deployment. Furthermore SVG is nothing like flash, its just a platform for 2d vector graphics. Thats only one of the many things that flash does.

And what did you think Flash was back when it first came out? That's right a 2D vector program.

When IE supported Flash by bundling it and not adapting SVG is the reason it went nowhere.

quote:
3.Can't argue here, too bad the W3C group could not (and have still yet too/perhaps never will) decide on a universal video codec to be used. i.e nothing has changed, browser makers will still be forced to implement their own codecs and API's to use them like what has been happening for years. This once again gives the leg-up to flash, as it is not up to the browser or user and should work on any machine/configuration. You can hate Flash all you want, but it the ability to 'just work' will always give them the legup until there is a suitable alternative

They really don't need to. Just as the image tag doesn't specify gif or jpeg or png, neither does the video tag.

quote:
As I said I'm not a fan of Adobe in the slightest, (and I like silverlight technology much better), but HTML5 is not replacing either, not now, not ever. It will complement it quite nicely and it will bring rich web content to a new level, but it is not the flash killer you make it out to be.

Use something called download helper in FF. It allows you to download the HQ mp4 vid or the old low quality .flv video.

Will flash go away? Maybe not. But while Flash's main selling point is hiding the video source for people like The Daily Show, why would the rest of the world need it for plain old web sites serving video?

Parent

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 4:35:37 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Both are plugin middleware that are obsolete with today's standards. When's the last time you ran into a web site that required Java?

Hahaha, I know you are a troll, but you are really making my day. First off, PLEASE stop comparing Java, an actual programming language to HTML, a markup language (also please stop calling it a plugin). Second, HTML5 cannot even come close to matching the web tier experience that Java can provide. Third, I'm on two websites right now that require Java.

quote:
And what did you think Flash was back when it first came out? That's right a 2D vector program.

Aweee.. are you even that old? SVG has only been in development since 1999 (Really wasnt released for a few years after that, I think 2001 when it became a w3c recommendation), which at the time Flash had already reached version 4, had full scripting support and had the support of the big players. So who cares what flash was when it came out, when SVG was released it was far more robust, and was the better solution. Had they began development at the same time then perhaps things would have been different, but once again you have proved you don't know what you are talking about.

quote:
When IE supported Flash by bundling it and not adapting SVG is the reason it went nowhere.

See above, no reason to support inferior technology. (I'm not even getting into the fact that SVG is used essentially ONLY for images)

quote:
They really don't need to. Just as the image tag doesn't specify gif or jpeg or png, neither does the video tag.

So then why do we need HTML5 at all? There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from streaming x264 content over the net, it would just require a codec and a video plugin. Which would be exactly the same as what you just said. HTML5 would just be the container, the user would still need a codec/plugin which would be left up to the browser maker or the user. Flash on the other-hand natively supports certain codecs. All you need to do is install flash and you have support, even if you don't have say an h264 codec installed.

I don't think you understand that Flash is essentially a standard in which the user does not have to worry about codecs and other dependencies. HTML5 will not be able to do this, nor will it be able to improve over time like Adobe can do with their updates. My big problem with HTML 5 is the lack of a universal decoder. If they could chose so that all browsers required it, then what you are saying could be realized, essentially they have shot themselves in the foot. The bureaucracy of an open format can sometimes hinder its progress, and it definitely seems to be true this time around.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 5:04:49 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
Hahaha, I know you are a troll, but you are really making my day. First off, PLEASE stop comparing Java, an actual programming language to HTML, a markup language (also please stop calling it a plugin). Second, HTML5 cannot even come close to matching the web tier experience that Java can provide. Third, I'm on two websites right now that require Java.

You still don't get it because you can't think - Both Java and Flash do the same thing: Download information or code for you to execute/play inside a browser window. You thinking that Java still is necessary this day and age in a browser is ridiculous.

quote:
Third, I'm on two websites right now that require Java.

Really? Time.gov? What else needs it?

quote:
Aweee.. are you even that old? SVG has only been in development since 1999 (Really wasnt released for a few years after that, I think 2001 when it became a w3c recommendation), which at the time Flash had already reached version 4, had full scripting support and had the support of the big players. So who cares what flash was when it came out, when SVG was released it was far more robust, and was the better solution. Had they began development at the same time then perhaps things would have been different, but once again you have proved you don't know what you are talking about.

Which does nothing to disprove my point that Microsoft favored Flash so as to kill off an open standard. They regretted doing that when they released Silverlight to compete.

quote:
See above, no reason to support inferior technology. (I'm not even getting into the fact that SVG is used essentially ONLY for images)

If you want to expand the argument as to why Microsoft also favored flash, then I'll have to also bring in something called Quicktime that also was competing for some of the same functionality.

quote:
So then why do we need HTML5 at all? There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from streaming x264 content over the net, it would just require a codec and a video plugin. Which would be exactly the same as what you just said. HTML5 would just be the container, the user would still need a codec/plugin which would be left up to the browser maker or the user. Flash on the other-hand natively supports certain codecs. All you need to do is install flash and you have support, even if you don't have say an h264 codec installed.

Which again is why we don't need flash when the iphone, android and others support h.264 out of the box, without an unoptimized CPU hog that flash is.

quote:
I don't think you understand that Flash is essentially a standard in which the user does not have to worry about codecs and other dependencies. HTML5 will not be able to do this, nor will it be able to improve over time like Adobe can do with their updates. My big problem with HTML 5 is the lack of a universal decoder. If they could chose so that all browsers required it, then what you are saying could be realized, essentially they have shot themselves in the foot. The bureaucracy of an open format can sometimes hinder its progress, and it definitely seems to be true this time around.

I think you just realized why Apple, a member of the MPEG group, who is responsible for making the .mp4 container, is trying to get people to go for the web standard of HTML5 and the current video standard of h.264/MPEG4-AVC and the current audio standard with it of AAC.

Flash CURRENTLY has shown to work poorly on OSX and Linux. The OS that runs on the iphone is OSX and the OS that runs on Android, the Palm Pre WebOS, and the Nokia N900. If Flash doesn't work well on the deskop side of Linux, what makes you think it will work well on handhelds?

Do you really, REALLY, want to be tied to Adobe? You didn't like it when Microsoft did it with IE6 for 5 years.

Parent

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 6:22:19 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Both Java and Flash do the same thing: Download information or code for you to execute/play inside a browser window.

... oh little feeble mind. More than likely if you are using Java in your browser, you are merely accessing the web tier. To say that they are one and the same clearly displays that you lack the basic understanding to even make an argument on any of these topics.

Back to the real topic, I'm not here to disprove MS favored flash, but thats irrelevant. SVG was late to the scene period. Are you really knocking MS for chosing the a mature piece of software that had been out for 4 years over another that lacked features and was not already deployed to millions of computers?

quote:
Which again is why we don't need flash when the iphone, android and others support h.264 out of the box, without an unoptimized CPU hog that flash is.

You obviously don't understand what I am saying. Support for a codec does not make it a standard unless everyone supports it in exactly the same way, with absolutely no deviation. This is what flash does, no matter what system you install it on, the support is the same. In a perfect world where all manufacturers of devices/browsers can agree then perhaps you would be right, alas this is not a perfect world. Notice how there is still no defacto video standard for online content (aside from.. flash).

I'm don't like flash, I agree it is an unoptimized POS, but that does not mean it is going anywhere. Industry expects agree that HTML5 will not replace flash, its only those supporting HTML5 that continue to claim it as true.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/5/09, Rating: 0

By sprockkets on 11/5/2009 3:03:10 AM , Rating: 0

quote:
... oh little feeble mind. More than likely if you are using Java in your browser, you are merely accessing the web tier. To say that they are one and the same clearly displays that you lack the basic understanding to even make an argument on any of these topics.

Uh, you aren't referring to Javascript are you? Because javascript isn't Java the VM.

quote:
You obviously don't understand what I am saying. Support for a codec does not make it a standard unless everyone supports it in exactly the same way, with absolutely no deviation. This is what flash does, no matter what system you install it on, the support is the same. In a perfect world where all manufacturers of devices/browsers can agree then perhaps you would be right, alas this is not a perfect world. Notice how there is still no defacto video standard for online content (aside from.. flash).

Which again, you STILL don't understand how you can simply install a codec instead of a plugin. Google Chrome and Safari already have H.264 support, further simplifying and negating any need for a codec or plugin.

quote:
I'm don't like flash, I agree it is an unoptimized POS, but that does not mean it is going anywhere. Industry expects agree that HTML5 will not replace flash, its only those supporting HTML5 that continue to claim it as true.

The people who say it isn't going away is Adobe.

Parent

RE: Why

By neogrin on 11/4/2009 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Too bad its so easy to overcome this messed up rating system.

quote:
This is fun beyond belief! You are going to run out of votes before I run out of posts.

That's odd, I can't find one post from user sprockkets that hasn't been marked down to -1.

Did you run out of Posts?
Did we run out of Votes?

Hmmm

quote:
What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Have nothing to offer but stupid rate downs?

I dare you to reply

They did and have debunked all of your "truth".
Go home Troll you have been owned.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/5/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/5/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By Natfly on 11/4/2009 2:07:29 AM , Rating: 1

I'm going to attempt to ignore the trollish attention-whorishness of your repeated posts (yes, that what is is when you repeatedly post the same thing over and over again until you receive a reply) and address the actual merits of flash.

I honestly used to detest flash until I finally understood in essence what it is. Flash is similar to java and .net in the fact that the code written by developers is all executed in a managed environment that is the same regardless of the operating system it is running under. While transparent to the end user it is an incredible advantage to the software developers. Sure a company can release a product that performs the same function on one operating system as another, but the development resources used ensure compatibility across operating systems is ridiculous, especially when the environments are drastically different.

One of the things these managed run-time environments provide is that a developer can code to one, and only one environment and predict how it will run the same on every OS supported. Having to code for OSX, Android, Windows, Solaris, iPhone, etc, etc to reach a maximum target audience is tedious.

Even coding against "standards" you have to worry about the way each vendor interprets those standards. You cite HTML 5 as an alternative to Flash, but how many different ways is it be implemented? Do you know how much IE specific code is out there to handle the way IE interprets the "standard" HTML 4?

Sure Flash is owned by Adobe and is proprietary, but how is that different than using proprietary API calls in OSX? There is no difference, either you write specific code for the OS or you write it for the managed run-time environment. Same time involved, the only difference is that with one you can reach a much larger target audience.

That's not to say flash is without it's downsides. For one, any program running in flash is going to run considerably slower than a program running using direct access to the OS's API. Another is that you have a single point of failure, if Adobe all of a sudden stops support for flash, your entire product loses support; as opposed to if OSX stops support of it's APi you only lose support of your OSX client.

You can claim HTML 5 and SVG are better alternatives all you want, but that doesn't make it the best option for developers. Flash, whether you like it or not, is going to be around for a while longer.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/5/2009 1:04:10 PM , Rating: 2

Bud, when people implement a standard, it works fine across the board. That's why an h.264 MPEG4-AVC video encoded to a specific profile works fine on an ipod or zune or anything else.

You are confusing the sh it that Microsoft did in the late 90s to prevent standards from being used to what is going on today, which isn't the case. IE intentionally crippled quicktime and also tried to embrace, extend and extinguish Sun's Java.

And while it is true that Flash is cross platform, it only works well in Windows. Saying that it will work well on 5 different other platforms when Adobe can't even make it work well on the current 3 is dubious at best, and is why Apple doesn't feel like waiting on them to optimize for the iphone.

Flash used On2's codec for years, and just recently added the superior h.264.

Adding support to current browsers is easy, and in fact Google's Chrome and Safari already support it, out of the "box".

Parent

RE: Why

By Manch on 11/3/2009 12:38:20 PM , Rating: 5

Because Flash is not Apple's proprietary tech, they cannot lock it down. Basically flash applications will open up the phone to all kinds of stuff like games, etc. Apple will not be able to control content or charge you for it. Allowing this would cut into their profits.

Parent

RE: Why

By MPE on 11/3/2009 1:06:18 PM , Rating: 5

This.

Flash makes a huge portion of the iTunes App Store redundant or useless. Many of those profitable tower defense games, utilities and etc can be made easily by Flash writers. Since it is cross platform, all those FREE PC FLASH stuff is now free.

You also bypass Apple's standards approval process.

Publication would be instant - no matter of opinion.

Parent

RE: Why

By bespoke on 11/3/2009 1:15:26 PM , Rating: 5

And ditto on top of this. It's all about the iPhone app approval process.

Apple claims the approval process is in place so that application quality is guaranteed and that no malicious apps are created. Now we've all seen enough examples of badly written apps to know this isn't the full truth. It's also about making sure there is only one way to distribute (and buy) applications.

Apple gets a cut of all money spent on apps. If Flash was allowed on the iPhone, you'd have an easy avenue for avoiding revenue sharing with Apple.

Parent

RE: Why

By Stillone on 11/3/2009 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 5

Agree. Apple likes making you do what they want. They don't like it when people do what they want to do. As an example: Apple doesn't let you do what you want with your music you put on itunes, and they don't want you to be able to play movies (Hulu)and games for free (flash-based), but they are more than happy to keep you from doing it. Until these other devices start using Flash, Apple won't feel any pressure to change their ways.

I'm a free man! Apple needs to stop telling us how to live our lives and just sell us the stupid device without dictating what we do with it!

Parent

RE: Why

By reader1 on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By Alexstarfire on 11/4/2009 12:00:49 AM , Rating: 2

No, no it isn't. It's not even remotely similar. In one you are breaking the law by pirating a game and the other you have the ability to play free content legally. Content which can be played on other form factors/platforms, but not Apple. So in what way are they the same?

Parent

RE: Why

By reader1 on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2

Reader1, I know in general you don't like the web. You even call PC's 'Stupid Webboxes' or something similar. Could you explain the reason for this?

My reason for asking is that you don't like webboxes, but at the same time you don't seem to like RIA platforms (Silverlight, flash), but at the same time you seem to favor using connected systems.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 2

They stop it in their store but don't lock it out of the phone. You are free to install and use java in your WinMo, and use all the Java applications you want on it. The JVM is called jBlend, but there are others.

Again, remember there was a huge suit on this matter (Java on Microsoft) and MS lost and have to route anything Java related through Sun.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By Alexstarfire on 11/3/2009 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 2

Dude, you make no sense. Microsoft get's in a lawsuit, loses, and you complain about what they are forced to do afterward?

And while I'm not sure about the availability of Google Voice in the actual Windows App store I know full well that WinMobile phones are very capable of using it, unlike the locked down iPhone.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 4:48:49 PM , Rating: 2

Ehm, again. The only one that forbids java in a platform is Apple in their iPhone. No one forbids java in their OS on PCs and such.

I can tell you do like your java apps and flash. But you don't make sense in your claims. In general microsoft doesn't stop java except in the xbox. Apple doesn't stop java except in their phones.

Given the story of java, I would say Apple's position is more damaging. Java is way more used in mobile gaming and apps in general.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 5:16:25 PM , Rating: 2

That's just a statement of fact in regard of the Microsoft store. It means it won't sell Java apps. It doesn't mean you can't run them. Java apps have their own store.

The same idea applies to flash apps in the Microsoft store. They won't be sold but again, they have their own store. However people care about them more than java apps in general.

The difference with Apple and the iPhone is that they both don't sell the apps and will actively get in the way of you running those apps by not allowing the frameworks to run in the phone. That's what people complain about in regard of flash/iphone.

In the short future, Microsoft will have the same problem with Apple in relation of mobile Silverlight apps. Apple won't let them add silverlight ot the iPhone, while all other mobile OSs will have it. We will then have the same debate, even if you don't have practical use for a mobile silverlight app in particular. Believe me, I don't much like java either.

As for feature discovery (like keypad/touchscreen) that's something developers are supposed to do with some support from the OS. It is easy to do in the iPhone because, similar to coding for a console, there is only one hardware implementation. If the success of iPhone apps is predicated on developers who cannot abstract the platform from the software it goes to tell you how well they are doing their job.

Parent

RE: Why

By HighWing on 11/4/2009 1:02:18 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
The reason why both Microsoft and Apple forbid JIT or Java or Flash as well is because it allows apps to later on download content, compile it via Java or any other JIT, and present either unauthorized or unintended side effects, and these cannot be later checked as well because these apps run with higher privileges.

Seriously you really are pulling this information out of nowhere cause that is not true at all. Java IS on WinMo phones already!! and flash has been off and on for years.

Currently WITHOUT The app store you can already download java apps and use them on WinMo phones. SO why should it even matter that they don't allow them IN the app store as they aren't really "blocking" java apps on WinMo phones in the first place.

I currently have several java apps on my WinMo phone that I got for free. I could care less about the app store since they don't support below 6.5 anyways.

And I've had WinMo phones long enough to have had older versions of flash on them at one time. So I can personally say for a fact I know that part of your statement is completely false.

if you stop posting your "opinions" as facts people would stop blasting you for them.

Parent

RE: Why

By InternetGeek on 11/3/2009 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 2

As for Google Voice in WinMo. I think it depends on Google rather than Microsoft. In general, Microsoft sells you a product and doesn't care what you do with it. The only platform in which they put conditions is XBL. Even community games, which they tout as a huge plus of XBL, are not likely to make it into the store in XBL. However, Devs can still make money out of them.

WinMo has Skype and, as you said, there are a lot of other options from independent developers. Also starting from WinMo 6.5 VoIP is a critical part of the OS and phone makers are not allowed to take it out they way they have before. This could also be the reason makers are jumping into android so much. It has no strings, and they can customize it to their liking. What I mean the software support and hardware are there for Google to take advantage of in WinMo.

Parent

RE: Why

By Manch on 11/3/2009 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 3

The article is about Apple. Don't deflect with sarcasm, your assholiness, or point fingers at someone else to try and make a point. You just come off as a retard.

Since you brought them up, they do the same thing for the same reason. To control the content. Also the same reason why the 360, the PS3, the Wii all disallow certain things. Hell, my helio phone is no different. By controlling the content/middleware etc, they can tailor the experience to what they deem is acceptable and force you to by their applications increasing their profit. The previous post asked why they did it, not if they were being "evil".

Now go back under your bridge troll.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 4:02:30 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
Enjoy your Flash 7 capable plugin which isn't good enough for youtube anyhow.

*watches video on youtube* with his Flash 9 compatible plugin. (very close atleast, only ActionScript 2.0 support)

REALLLY NOW????

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 4:41:17 PM , Rating: 2

HTC Diamond

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=5...

This is full flash 8 (but can view some flash9 content) support, not flashlite.

This on a device which has a comparable cpu to the original iphone. (and a weaker GPU)

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 6:37:07 PM , Rating: 2

Ya I screwed up the link here you go: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=5...

quote:
Like you and I have been discussing, what's the diff btw viewing the actual h.264 content natively as apposed to waiting for Adobe to finally get their act together?

There is no difference, but thats not the problem. With Flash the developer can chose any codec they please as long as flash supports it, and it is totally transparent to the user, they have no idea what codec they are using, they don't have to have that codec installed, everything 'just works'. THis is why flash gained so much traction in the first place, the user does not have to worry about any dependencies at all whatsoever as long as they have flash.

Now lets look at h264, everyone would have to develop using this codec in order for it to become the same kind of standard. Making matters worse, once it becomes the standard, it really can't change for a much longer period of time. Flash has no such problem, next big thing comes out, Adobe sends out an update and voila..

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Why

By kattanna on 11/3/2009 12:38:47 PM , Rating: 1

one thing i can think of that could be a legitimate reason is bandwidth.

ATT cant even handle current loads, imagine if it also had to deal with all those flash enabled sites

Parent

RE: Why

By Alexstarfire on 11/3/2009 3:50:11 PM , Rating: 2

Sounds like yet another AT&T problem and not an Adobe or Apple problem.

Parent

RE: Why

By corduroygt on 11/3/2009 12:51:38 PM , Rating: 3

Because 90% of the applications in the app store can be replaced by a flash-enabled web page. You can even put shortcuts to web pages as an app-like icon in the main iphone menu. This would piss off apple and developers and cut into their revenue stream.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 2

How does that throw anything out the window? Jobs was only pushing the use of AJAX apps because he did not want to open the app store to third party developers. It was his way of saying too bad for you, use safari. Apple had no idea opening up the appstore would be this successful, or they would have done it from the get go. In otherwords, your little theory is not only BS, it makes absolutely no sense.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Why

By Alexstarfire on 11/3/2009 3:52:27 PM , Rating: 2

Except if the developers made the "app" free by using the web then they don't get any money for it. I guess you fail at Business 101. Yea, it's obviously better for the consumer if you can use it anywhere, but since when does the consumer get what they actually want?

Parent

RE: Why

By omnicronx on 11/3/2009 3:55:27 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
No, he didn't want third party apps access to the OS layer of the phone.

He didnt want third party apps accessing the OS layer and as a result he did what? How can you say 'No' when all you've done is further extend my original point. The 'why' is irrelevant anyways, which as why I left it out of my post (nor do I believe it). Any way you put it, Apple was not going to open up the App store to third party devs, and as such told devs to use Safari/AJAX PERIOD!

You've also just caught yourself in a pile of BS.

quote:
so that people can develop apps that are cross platform and not tied to any particular OS.

quote:
No, he didn't want third party apps access to the OS layer of the phone.

So which one is it? Or are you just going to flip flop again and come with another reason. You just clearly wrote that he wanted people to use AJAX+Safari because it is an 'open platform', then you go on to say that its because Jobs wanted to lock down the OS layer.

quote:
No, its obvious you don't understand.

The only thing obvious here is that you can't even use the internet correctly. We all know you don't know what you are talking about, the least you can do is wiki the correct information, and not contradict yourself.

Parent

RE: Why

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

By sprockkets on 11/3/2009 4:11:36 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
Except if the developers made the "app" free by using the web then they don't get any money for it. I guess you fail at Business 101. Yea, it's obviously better for the consumer if you can use it anywhere, but since when does the consumer get what they actually want?

Business apps, buddy, business apps, where they are all internal. And with companies like Bank of America, Papa Johns and others are interested in you using their apps to use their services, not to make profit off the apps themselves.

quote:
He didnt want third party apps accessing the OS layer and as a result he did what? How can you say 'No' when all you've done is further extend my original point. The 'why' is irrelevant anyways, which as why I left it out of my post (nor do I believe it). Any way you put it, Apple was not going to open up the App store to third party devs, and as such told devs to use Safari/AJAX PERIOD! You've also just caught yourself in a pile of BS.

Not really, you are the one who said that Job's didn't want third party devs in the app store, which is why you look stupid because

1. There was no app store back when the iphone was revealed and he was advertising the openness of Safari and
2. the app store is all 3rd party or business internal apps. Not allowing 3rd party app store development as you worded it means no apps at all.

quote:
So which one is it? Or are you just going to flip flop again and come with another reason. You just clearly wrote that he wanted people to use AJAX+Safari because it is an 'open platform', then you go on to say that its because Jobs wanted to lock down the OS layer.

I guess you still don't understand: Safari is sandboxed and prevents rogue web code and other stuff from hacking the iphone - that's why it's open for anyone to develop for. And when vulnerabilities of its open source code are found, they are quickly patched.
Cocoa or objective C apps of today require an approval process to make sure that the apps are not malicious and are not trying to hack or steal personal info, because they run at a much higher level in the phone. That's why neither Microsoft nor Apple allow JIT or any other middleware to process code afterwards.

quote:
The only thing obvious here is that you can't even use the internet correctly. We all know you don't know what you are talking about, the least you can do is wiki the correct information, and not contradict yourself.

I don't get info from wiki's because they are unreliable.

Parent

RE: Why

By Alexstarfire on 11/4/2009 12:15:06 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, there are certain companies that simply don't need to make an app for the iPhone, including both of the ones you named. Of course, they had websites before the iPhone even came out. So we just use the internet for things like that. Though, I suppose you didn't realize I was actually agreeing with what you said.

Parent

RE: Why

By aj28 on 11/3/2009 9:19:31 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
So which one is it? Or are you just going to flip flop again and come with another reason. You just clearly wrote that he wanted people to use AJAX+Safari because it is an 'open platform', then you go on to say that its because Jobs wanted to lock down the OS layer.

Proper punctuation and grammar is generally a sign of a well-formulated argument. Yours is seriously lacking in both.

More on point though, you don't seem to understand the concept of the "OS Layer," or at least what Jobs is trying to do by restricting it. Having access to the OS layer would mean, for example, being able to access and edit files which affect the way the OS functions at its core. We're talking device drivers, interface mods and that sort of thing.

Supporting the use of powerful web-based standards like AJAX is entirely different because they exist only in the cloud and don't touch your local resources whatsoever. Thus, they are not a threat to the security or, more important to Apple, the stability and compatibility of the iPhone's OS.

Parent

RE: Why

By wired00 on 11/3/2009 6:31:10 PM , Rating: 2

i though its obvious why they don't want flash. Its because they make money selling their apps via the istore. If people could install flash apps for free they wouldn't be making money from the store.

Parent

RE: Why

By Marlonsm on 11/3/2009 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2

How would Apple sell the new iPhone 3GSF, with Flash support, if they make other iPhone also compatible with Flash?

Parent

RE: Why

By pcfxer on 11/4/2009 7:55:05 AM , Rating: 2

Until Adobe supports Flash on FreeBSD then Apple shouldn't even budge.

Parent

Adobe should add...

By Marlin1975 on 11/3/2009 12:15:52 PM , Rating: 5

Adobe should add... "Blackberry and Windows phones work great with flash".

;)

RE: Adobe should add...

By melgross on 11/3/09, Rating: -1

RE: Adobe should add...

By dubldwn on 11/3/2009 12:30:26 PM , Rating: 1

F flash. It's more annoying than useful. What's more irritating than a Camaro driving over the article you're trying to read? If the iPhone had flash I'd turn it off. We just need a Hulu app.

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By fic2 on 11/3/2009 2:00:46 PM , Rating: 1

I agree with this even more. I run all my computers browsers with FlashBlock. Nothing more annoying than a websites front page being all flash for no reason.

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By B3an on 11/3/2009 2:53:30 PM , Rating: 4

Dont blame Flash for the decisions of idiot webmasters and advertises that choose the use it in a bad way.

Flash has many many uses, but sadly lots of advertises use it for advertising because of the many things it's capable of (animation, integrating video and music easily and so on)
This isn't the fault of Flash. Flash is great, one of the best web technologies out there. The Flash developer software is some of the most fun and creative software i've ever used. The amount of things you can do with it is almost limitless. Games, video, complete website, are just a very small example.
Another good thing about is you dont have to p*ss around getting stuff to work and display properly in all the different browsers, when you make something in Flash, it will look the same in any browser as it's displayed by Flash Player.

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By dubldwn on 11/3/2009 4:03:45 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Dont blame Flash for the decisions of idiot webmasters and advertises that choose the use it in a bad way.

But as a practical matter that’s what I encounter and don’t want. Off the top of my head, the only useful thing I can think of is YouTube and Hulu, and there’s already a YouTube app. What are all these great flash videos, flash games, and flash apps that I’m missing out on? You know, the ones that make "90%" of the app store obsolete. If they’re so cool then surely we’ll see them on all the other flash enabled phones. Right?

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By BailoutBenny on 11/3/2009 6:09:10 PM , Rating: 2

www.addictinggames.com

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 3:10:22 PM , Rating: 1

So you never go on Youtube?

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By JediJeb on 11/3/2009 6:15:15 PM , Rating: 2

I think I have been to Youtube once to browse, and had a few links sent to me, but not really into it myself. Of course on dialup it really is a huge time sink lol.

Parent

RE: Adobe should add...

By fic2 on 11/3/2009 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2

That's what I was thinking. Instead of this message

quote:
To view this content upgrade your browser and flash plug-in.

They should have changed it to something like this:

To view this content upgrade your phone to a Blackberry, Android or Windows phone.

Parent

Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By KingofL337 on 11/3/2009 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 2

We should join a Flash for iPhone group maybe if enough people join it will convince apple.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19053219607

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By kmmatney on 11/3/2009 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2

Haven't really come across an instance where I've needed flash yet with my phone. I'm pretty happy with it not supported, unless ATT upgrades their network big time.

Posted from my iPhone, btw

Parent

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By Alexstarfire on 11/3/2009 3:56:07 PM , Rating: 1

Does it make you feel superior when you say "posted from my iPhone?"

Cause no one really gives a shit what you used to post your message.

Parent

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By sprockkets on 11/3/09, Rating: 0

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By BailoutBenny on 11/3/2009 6:44:22 PM , Rating: 2

Why are you so supportive of corporate collusion? That's all "open" standards are anyway. All the big corporate players you love to hate (or just love in Apple's case) come together and think of a way to stifle competition and innovation between themselves with "standards" and then proclaim to everyone that they have leveled the playing field when really all they did was flatten the market and save their own asses from becoming immediately obsolete.

I love Silverlight, Java and Flash. I hope more proprietary cross platform technologies come out. This can only help the overall user experience. Standards like HTML 5, while making the browsing experience consistent (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, it just isn't the best way to do it), do not help drive creativity and innovation. New technology does. The only way to achieve continually better experiences is for people to continually compete with each other, creating new technologies, not to lock them all into the same crappy technology.

Apple will not approve Flash solely because it can and would compete with the app store. Like Apple's slogan, with Flash "there's an app for that." That is the one and only reason Apple is resisting it. It has nothing to do with security or exposing the underlying OS to developers. The security excuse is a diversion because Flash is a virtual machine and can, just like Java, implement an extremely secure sandbox. The virtual machine is what interfaces to the OS and can be written to expose or hide OS functionality. The developer must work within what is exposed.

You tout AJAX as write once and run anywhere but Flash is the same thing. The virtual machine just needs to be written for the OS you want the code to run on and every major OS has a Flash implementation.

I'm an embedded systems programmer. We use Java exclusively for programming. Not too long ago, the embedded industry had custom C code for every device but the move to Java has really changed things. DVR boxes, cable boxes, refrigerators, microwaves, cell phones and more all use Java. Websites still use it and with the new JavaFX platform, Java just improves the technology. It was Java that pioneered and pushed things like automatic garbage collection, the write once - run anywhere software paradigm, a process sandbox for security to prevent malicious code execution, etc. that has led to higher quality and more easily producible code.

I really don't see why you would be against more choice in your web experience and insist that locking the platform down to a single collusive standard would be a good thing.

Parent

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By Alexstarfire on 11/4/2009 12:24:16 AM , Rating: 2

I can see both sides for this argument. Think of it this way. If we never had open standards how well do you think the internet would run? It really wouldn't at all. You'd have different web sites using different standards and only certain browsers would display them properly. You'd literally need tons of different browsers just to view everything on the internet like you can today.

You really need both. Some things need to be standard while others don't. You need a standard for streaming content, that way you can stream it from anything. Just like you need a standard for DVDs, HD-DVDs, CDs, Blu-Ray, etc. if you didn't you'd need multiple devices just to play stuff on the same format. It'd be stupid and help no one. You don't need a standard when it comes to video files you download onto your computer and things like that. When you can add and customize your device that's when you don't need standards. On anything that locked down, which includes all mobile phones, consoles, media players, and probably tons of other devices, you need a standard.

Parent

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By BailoutBenny on 11/4/2009 12:12:34 PM , Rating: 2

I would still argue that "open" standards with a collusive standards body is not necessary. Good technology would become a defacto standard on its own merits without the need for everyone to be forced to comply.

Just because there would be increased competition does not mean people would be forced to get all these different technologies. People would get the technologies necessary to view the content they wanted to view OR companies would support a range of technologies that people have chosen to get, similar to what they do now. Eventually some technologies would rise to the top as defacto standards, similar to the growth in popularity of Flash and Silverlight. In fact, those 2 competing technologies are a great example of how it would work.

Parent

RE: Join the iPhone Flash Facebook Group

By Alexstarfire on 11/4/2009 6:39:36 PM , Rating: 2

In other words, companies would spend more to do exactly what they can do now. That seems like it'd be really bad for competition.

Yea, you'd think some things would just become a standard naturally, which some have. But most companies are always going to think that their product is superior to others and therefore won't support others. Some might, but if they did it'd be only a few.

It's hard to say what would happen, but for the internet I feel it would only hurt both sides.

Parent

Flash doesn't matter ...

By n00bxqb on 11/3/2009 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 2

... because Jobs knows people will still buy iPhones and iPod Touches. Why pay Adobe royalties until it's proven to benefit them financially ?

If Adobe hate Apple so much ...

By chick0n on 11/3/2009 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 2

Might as well start changing its CS suite to work better on the Windows Platform ?

Cuz its really bad on Windows platform, I tried the Apple version and its much better. OSX still shit, btw.

I can't wait...

By Roffles on 11/3/2009 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 2

I need the Yahoo sports fantasy StatTracker on my phone as soon as possible.

Also, I love how some of you are saying "flash is going to ruin my browsing experience with advertising". As if they haven't already found a way to invade your browsing experience. The mobile browsers will evolve to block this content just like on the PC. Why defend Apple's stance on such a moot point.

n

By Zingam on 11/3/2009 3:32:42 PM , Rating: 2

And will Adobe listen to us and release a free Adobe Reader for all smartphones (symbian) that actually works???
I really have no idea why I would need Flash on my smartphone (I do have it though) but PDF viewer would have been nice!

Jobs is a lying sack of SH*T

By aguilpa1 on 11/3/2009 3:34:29 PM , Rating: 2

He must be the author of the I'm a Mac commercials because those are also based on disseption and lies. To have the balls to actualy say iphone customers have not requested adobe flash is a bold face lie. The man must live in an ivory tower.

I said the same thing about A2DP and was pleasantly proven wong but...

By CZroe on 11/3/2009 4:58:23 PM , Rating: 2

I said the same thing about A2DP and was pleasantly proven wong but... Apple will never support it. *crosses fingers and hopes he's wrong*

Flash support would undermine the App Store and allow people to program a Flash app that runs on multiple smartphones without Apple's approval.

A2DP undercut their ability to control the dock market. Basically, no one has to pay to interface and remote control via an open-standard Bluetooth profile but they have to pay to interface with the proprietary dock connector without triggering the "unauthorized" messages. It wasn't nearly as big a deal as undermining the App Store though.

64 Bit Support

By knowom on 11/3/2009 6:08:50 PM , Rating: 2

Nice to see Adobe cares so about Iphone so much with their passive aggressive nagging, but won't add 64 bit support for windows. I hope Apple ignores them the way they've ignored and stifled 64 bit support.

I hate both of these companies

By JuPO5b4REqAYbSPUlMcP on 11/3/2009 7:14:45 PM , Rating: 2

I really dislike this message and this attitude.

Sham

By celticbrewer on 11/5/2009 2:25:43 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
CEO Steve Jobs has stated in interviews that Flash is irrelevant and not something that iPhone customers have demanded.

Why do people still get on their knees for this hack? Jobs is a liar and only interested in profit and stroking his ego.

Apple is not innovative in any way, they are just a marketing firm with expensive toys- much like the Sharper Image which filed chapter 11 in 2008. Let's hope Apple is the next trend to die, because it is just that- a trend.

I don't think Adobe tries to be aggresive or humorous

By kroker on 11/7/2009 1:50:52 AM , Rating: 2

I bet Adobe got flooded with questions from iPhone owners as to why their supreme space-age device is not able to run Adobe's primitive Flash, and Adobe got tired of taking the blame. I don't think they tried to be aggressive or humorous, they just wanted to tell the iNoobs that it's not their fault, it's Apple's fault. Then the iNoobs go "Oooooh! Well then, if Apple doesn't want Flash, then I don't want it either!".

iNoobs:
Some one else's fault -> complain.
Apple's fault -> accept it and praise it as the right thing to do. Go with the "trend".