Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on Flash

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 522 posts

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#51

Post by ThomPete »

marknutter wrote: post #39
ThomPete wrote: post #21

There are so many things wrong with Jobs explanation I don't know where to begin. But two claims really pisses me off. Battery Life If I activate push notification it sure isn't nice to my battery. So I switch it off. The same thing could be done with flash. Or even better, make flash an opt in. What's the problem. Yes I know apple can claim that it will affect peoples impression of their products, but so do not havi…

Making flash opt-in wouldn't solve the problem. The VAST majority of non-technical users will not know about or use that setting and will blame Apple for the poor battery life, not Adobe. It's a lot about saving face here. Apple wants to be in control of their own success, which becomes hard to do when you're allowing proprietary technologies to run on their hardware. Jobs points out his frustration with Adobe taking…

I am speaking for myself, who else do you think I am speaking for?

Regarding making flash an opt in being a problem. It's a pure interaction problem. By no metrics is it harder than to turn push notification on and off or setting your time.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#52

Post by oldgregg »

gfunk911 wrote: post #6

I love this. Apple clearly laid out their reasoning, using facts and persuasive argument. The world needs more of this. Obviously, there is some spin in the post, and I don't completely agree with 100% of it, but I love the level of discourse.

I agree, but it's really sad that we're at a place where we praise Apple for communicating... like normal human beings.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#54

Post by yan »

ThomPete wrote: post #46
yan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you reacted so strongly to the roll over argument. Jobs didn't state roll overs as the raison d'etre for not including Flash, he simply used it as yet another example why the tools and, more importantly, thinking of the previous generation of web developers will not advance the platform forward. (As an example, I have been frustrated at some sites reliance of roll overs when using my iPhone). T…

The touch argument just isn't valid. What exactly is it that can't be done with flash just because it's a touch environment. Flash don't care about what the input is. It will listen for what you ask it to listen to. Regarding battery life And why couldn't the phone warn you off reduced battery life if you turn on flash? You simply make it an opt in, the first time someone is running flash you overlay a warning saying…

These are all problems that could be solved, this isn't the argument. The argument here is solving them is not in everyone's best interest and is artificially keeping the platform in the past.

edit: why are you so angry? Apple are providing a beautiful product at a great price to the public. If it doesn't have a feature you want, buy another product that supports it. I never understood being angry at a company because of not putting effort into what you think they should be putting effort into.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#55

Post by jws »

plinkplonk wrote: post #41
tumult wrote: post #11

More good news about 3.3.1 "must write in C, Objective-C or C++" clause: it's made even more obvious here that Apple only cares about commercial middleware UI-driven applications. Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax. Though, I wish they would still change the wording. I dislike having to wait for my friend's cat to click the "I Agree" button, since I cannot actuall…

"Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax." Which part of the submitted article supports this? (genuine question not snark). I see a lot of flash bashing but nothing indicating you don't have to " write in C, Objective-C or C++"

The rationale that Apple doesn't want developers shackled by third party development tools of which they have no control suggests that if you have control (e.g. you embed a Lua interpreter in an otherwise native app) or you still have full access to all the goodies (e.g. You use some sort of game engine for the guts of your 3D game) then the clause is not intended for you.

Still, it would be better for them to spell it out more clearly or have a mechanism for you to get a preliminary ruling before you embark on development.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#57

Post by NickPollard »

tumult wrote: post #11

More good news about 3.3.1 "must write in C, Objective-C or C++" clause: it's made even more obvious here that Apple only cares about commercial middleware UI-driven applications. Those of us with custom toolkits and compilers (and games developers) can probably relax. Though, I wish they would still change the wording. I dislike having to wait for my friend's cat to click the "I Agree" button, since I cannot actuall…

Unfortunately in legal situations, it's often the letter of the law not the spirit of the law that carries weight. It's been pretty obvious from the beginning that Apple wanted to block Flash, but not, say, Unity. I think they'll find it hard to only enforce it against certain infringers though.

Imagine if a government introduced a law that said no-one was allowed out on the streets after dark, but then only actually enforced it against Hispanics.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#58

Post by sadiq »

There's a distinct irony that they're talking about openness, while at the same time explaining why they're preventing their own users from running software on their purchased devices.

If their arguments are correct, let Adobe port Flash and let users decide rather than telling them what they can and can't do with their own devices.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#59

Post by marcusbooster »

And here we can find the real locus of the dispute:

"...although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5."

If Adobe didn't drag their feet for so long on the CS products, I think the other reasons wouldn't have mattered as much.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#60

Post by rrhyne »

oldgregg wrote: post #52
gfunk911 wrote: post #6

I love this. Apple clearly laid out their reasoning, using facts and persuasive argument. The world needs more of this. Obviously, there is some spin in the post, and I don't completely agree with 100% of it, but I love the level of discourse.

I agree, but it's really sad that we're at a place where we praise Apple for communicating... like normal human beings.

Apple is a corporation, not a human being.
Post reply on HN