Print 44 comment(s) - last by Azure Sky.. on Sep 13 at 1:35 PM

Perhaps company was visited by a very early Christmas ghost -- or more likely is desperate to beat Android

Apple gave its iOS developers some shocking news today -- it was reallowing ports using third-party tools, including ports of Flash apps.  The company writes:

We are continually trying to make the App Store even better. We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year.
In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code. This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need.
In addition, for the first time we are publishing the App Store Review Guidelines to help developers understand how we review submitted apps. We hope it will make us more transparent and help our developers create even more successful apps for the App Store.

That announcement seems particularly amazing given that in April Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded to one disgruntled developer's accusations that he was playing Scrooge, commenting, "We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform."

This about-face comes after news hit that Google's Android had passed the iPhone in U.S. market share.  Other recent studies have also confirmed that Apple's smartphone market share is in a downward slide while Android is surging upwards.  Apple has denied that this is happening.

We are awaiting comment from Adobe about whether this means that the converter to port Flash apps to Objective C code will now be restored to the Creative Suite.

Even though Apple is once again being generous with the tools developers use, it's unlikely that opens its tightly closed gates to Flash itself.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You know what always made me scratch my head?
By quiksilvr on 9/9/2010 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 3
How come on my old Pentium 4 with an ancient integrated intel video card, I was able to download a 720p clip from YouTube and play it on Media Player Classic with the K-Lite Codec Pack and use around 30% of my CPU but then my computer literally died when it tries to do so with Flash 10.1?

And yes, I understand its actually an .mp4 clip not .flv, but I have seen similar results with .flv videos as well. Why can't Adobe simply use the codecs available and give us a decent online video player?

I was able to watch a 360p clip using an online Divx player and use ~20% cpu whereas on youtube its close to 50-60%. It doesn't make sense. It's not because its .flv, its because their player sucks.

By amanojaku on 9/9/2010 11:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
Flash is container format like any other and supports a variety of CODECS, although not as many as MPC or VLC. You may be looking at an FLV with one of the older, sub-optimal CODECs. And, yes, Flash is still bloated.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Lerianis on 9/10/2010 10:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
Considering Flash is ONLY 10MB's installed on the computer.... I don't call that bloated.

The real problem is that Flash has only had INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS! It needs a total rewrite, while still trying to keep backwards compatibility with older applications, in order to see any real speed increases.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:24:58 AM , Rating: 3
All you people above that say stuff like this have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, do you ever read into this stuff, just assume this nonsense, or say it because others do?

Flash is completely different now to what it was when it was released around the mid 90's. It's had massive updates to the developer software and the player, soon it will also be getting true 3D capabilities and tools.
It's also on it's 3rd version of it's programming language (Action Script).

Since Flash began it's gone from software that could only do very basic animation and limited coding, to something that supports surround audio, multiple image formats, advanced coding and game development, application creation, new languages, XML, CMS, PHP, HTML, and TXT file interaction support aswell as many other web languages, support for multiple video formats and the ability to play multiple video file types - not just FLV/F4V (like .MP4 / .M4V / .3GP), advanced video streaming capabilities, it can display a full HTML page inside of the Flash Player itself, professional tools and drawing tools that rival Adobe's best graphics software, many server side technologies, hardware acceleration... all this in one single piece of software. Theres nothing else remotely as powerful for a web dev like myself. And for the user the latest 10.1 Player is only a 2.66MB download, which is very impressive for what they've packed into there.

Now you wonna see real slow improvements? Look no futher than HTML. It's been around for decades, i think it's also loosely based on a language from the 70's. Yet Even the 5th version (HTML5) is not complete until 2012. Which still wont be 10% as capable as Flash. Yet i've seen people say "flash is old tech" ... what a joke.
Flash will always be miles ahead as it gets updated each year.

As for video playing worse in Flash Player than in a dedicated video software, thats because the Flash Player is way more than just a video player, it can support animated vector graphics, menu's, and other sounds on top of the video itself. Then theres the other stuff running in the Flash Player for the vast amount of other stuff it supports. It will always use more CPU because of this.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 11:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
And I am telling you as a web user: keep Flash away from my web browser. I hate flash infested sites. Yes it is an old tech. It is not necessary to deliver appropriate web experience. The users don't need the fancy animations that flash allows, the users need fast load times and low power consumption, low CPU usage - with three words: speed and efficiency.
I thin that the standard web technologies give enough options to deliver great web experience, even if they are just 10% of what is possible with Flash. Keep it simple, please!
We all hate bloated web sites. Many users already use low power tablets, netbooks etc whose performance is killed by flash!

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Lerianis on 9/11/2010 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 1
Only in your mind is it 'not necessary to deliver an appropriate web experience'. Personally, I like those fancy animations, so do my friends and family.

In fact, the only ones who have come out AGAINST flash are the people who are still using P2's !

Seriously, the only people who whine about Flash are people who cannot see how it is useful and/or are battery nuts!

No, netbooks and low power tablets do NOT have their performance killed by Flash, nor do they have their batteries killed by Flash.

I can use my notebook JUST AS MUCH that has an integrated graphics solution that is nearly 5 years old now using flash on certain websites or having it disabled in my browsers (yes, I have checked this).

If you are having your battery life killed by Flash? Look elsewhere, because you are taking the easy way out and not finding the underlying problem.

By Azure Sky on 9/13/2010 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 3
funny, I run a hexa core(6core) system and I dont like flash, I find that a well made page using html/css/php and even silverlight and java are better then flash.

silverlight videos play smoother even on my old athlonXP box then flash videos do.

flash sucks, get over it, flash has sucked since its inception in the 90's, How do it know? I started learning to design webpages back then, and honestly, flash is crap, even java is better, and thats sad since java has never been known for its speedyness.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By nafhan on 9/9/2010 11:35:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and a motorcycle is going to be more fuel efficient than an SUV.
Adobe could certainly stand to optimize Flash, but streaming video into a general purpose web browser plugin is a much more intensive process than playing a local file in a dedicated media app. You'd really need to test vs. HTML5 or Silverlight or something to have a somewhat meaningful comparison.

By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Silverlight would be the only meaningful comparison. HTML5 video should use about as much CPU as a video stored on your own computer, as it just loads the codec required to play it. With Flash and Silverlight they are advanced plugins that support a ton of things, so have many extra layers and other capabilities that require a lot of other code to be running at the same time. You can also have animations, graphics, menu's and whatever displayed on top of the video itself with these plugins.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Flunk on 9/9/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Interpreted code is slow, there is no way to get around that. Plus MPC supports the hardware accleration supported by older systems and Flash 10.1 only supports hardware AVC decoding by newer video cards.

If you understand how this stuff works it's not surprising. There is indeed a good reason Apple doesn't want flash on the iPhone. It runs slowly and makes the iPhone look slow.

By jimbojimbo on 9/9/2010 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
It runs slowly and makes the iPhone look slow.
Funny, Froyo doesn't look slow.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
Froyo/Android 2.2 runs Flash exceptionally well. Theres some very demanding Flash stuff that can make it come to a crawl but for atleast 95% of content it's great. Theres no reason not to have Flash on a phone. Yes it can drain the battery faster, but so does playing a video or a game, yet they are still allowed. It would be so easy to just have a one touch menu button to disable the Flash plugin if you want to save battery while browsing. You already have this option on some Android browsers. Whats so hard for Apple about giving people this option to choose?

Besides, HTML5 runs vastly slower than Flash on an iPad/iPhone when it comes to anything remotely interactive or animated:

Now that will be draining the battery, 100% CPU load for sure.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
If HTML5 is slow on iPad then ask Apple - why :D

By Lerianis on 9/11/2010 5:05:02 PM , Rating: 3
It shouldn't be slow on iPad, unless the built-in browser isn't 'written' correctly for HTML5. In fact, a browser that runs an HTML5 website should run it FASTER than a website written in old HTML when it comes down to it.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki