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

61–70 of 522 posts

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#61

Post by revorad »

patio11 wrote: post #20
jz wrote: post #7

All his reasons are fairly obvious for the technical user and have been discussed in the blogosphere, but I think hearing it from the horse's mouth and at a very high level will benefit non technical users.

I think you overestimate the degree to which non-technical users await, with bated breath, a pronouncement about programming languages from high officials at Apple. I love non-technical users. I was trying to explain to one of them yesterday that they can still use my website even after their school wipes their hard disk, and separately, even though the email address (login) is their home email address and not their…

Patrick, you should totally write a book of quotes from your encounters with users. It will be really insightful and such a good laugh.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#62

Post by mbateman »

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.

Corporations typically don't appeal to reason on complex issues. In fact, most humans don't (though maybe "normal" ones do?).

What's sad is that it's a simple but important standard that isn't ordinarily upheld. It isn't sad to praise anyone for meeting that standard.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#63

Post by Spikefu »

endtime wrote: post #22
ThomPete wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called control over the experience something that really shouldn't be a surprise for Jobs. There are literally millions of experiences out there that can't be done with HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. if you want proof, go to theFWA.com and have a look around. For every bad flash solution out there, there are some quite fantastic ones. Flash gives you control of the experience in ways that by any metrics outcompete H…

Forgive me the simple question, but which part of theFWA.com couldn't be replicated in HTML5?

I don't think he means the site itself, rather the sites linked from there under the awards section.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#64

Post by pilif »

> For example, 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.

right. And the Finder - a piece of Software central to OSX was using Carbon until... when exactly? At most 6 months prior to when CS5 came out.

iTunes - a corner stone of the iPhone software world? Still on Carbon.

If I hate one thing, it's hypocrisy.

Aside of that, nice arguments and well-written. Also, from this perspective, MonoTouch and Unity might be in the clear too as they are not cross-platform toolkits reducing themselves to the least common denominator.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#65

Post by Zak »

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…

There's absolutely no need to specify languages for the purpose Apple is claiming they have in mind. They could simply say that you must not use an intermediate layer between your code and their API. There's no reason for them to not want you to write the application in Scheme (as an example).

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#66

Post by Qz »

NickPollard wrote: post #57
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…

That's really a terrible analogy.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#67

Post by [deleted] »

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++"

[deleted]

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#68

Post by mrduncan »

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 I remember correctly, iTunes isn't Cocoa based yet either.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#69

Post by naner »

not_an_alien wrote: post #33
ugh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which arguments are FUD?

* Flash websites will have to be rewritten because it relies on 'rollovers', which is not part of Apple's 'revolutionary' touch interface: overblown for two reasons - a) few stuff will have to be rewritten (many videos show desktop Flash content working on mobile phones without a problem); and b) this is not a problem with Flash, as any JS/HTML-based interface that relies on rollovers has the same issues. * Flash is…

> H264 is not open.

There are multiple implementations and Apple can tweak how it runs. It is open enough for their purposes.

> Objective+C++ is not open.

He never said it was. He said Apple has several proprietary products but believed the web should be open.

> Flash (SWF) has a fully published spec and anyone can write tools to create, or play, SWF content, without royalties, or without having to respond to any entity.

Yet Adobe has the only full implementation of Flash and if someone else were to try and implement it, it would always be behind the official release (just like Moonlight). And Adobe got lawyer-happy when open source guys reversed the streaming protocol in Flash so nobody is eager to try this anyways.

> Saying Adobe postponed the release dates of Flash 10.1 for smartphones: bullshit.

The fact is Adobe has been boasting about Flash on smartphones since Android first came out and there have been no working devices out except Maemo which totally sucked in every way Jobs described.

There was spin in this article just like his DRM article but I wouldn't qualify anything as FUD.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#70

Post by thmz »

All these facts also apply for desktop/latop PC's.

Remove Flash and notice you wont miss it. More and more websites are using HTML there day's. Removing Flash also improves browser speed and stability (just as removing Adobe Reader does).

I did a lot of Flex developing, but I think it's time to move on.

Post reply on HN