71–80 of 522 posts
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…
"Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."
Adobe can just as easily say: "Though Flash products are proprietary, we strongly believe that standards pertaining to what software is allowed to run on your computer should be open."
It's doublespeak either way, and it's crazy to think that either of those two viewpoints is good for the industry.
edit: Also: "If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?"
Flash can handle touch events just fine. Rewriting all that flash code in H/C/J is a monumental task compared to just updating a few flash events.
Basically, this is a lot of corporate spin and not a lot of sound arguments.
The fact that the repeats the rollover crap makes it sound as if they're really trying hard on rationalizing. Just say it's a business decision, Apple. Stop pretending you have the consumer in mind.
What’s wrong about this argument? Would all Flash content that uses rollover just work on mobile touch devices or would some kind of modification be necessary? I’m really curious about that.
There is also HTML+JS content, that uses onmouseover.
So what was the argument again? In both, Flash and HTML+JS, you can use onmouseover. You don't have to, it is option. So what makes the difference?
Apple already provides some amazing documentation and tutorials for making offline-capable mobile web apps, but they're still treated by Apple as the bastard cousins of "real" iPhone apps. They should buy or provide an officially-supported analogue to a tool like PhoneGap[1] or Titanium[2], allowing HTML5 apps to appear in the App Store, and perhaps provide an Apple-supported framework such as their mysterious PastryKit[3] or contribute to SproutCore[4], giving HTML5 developers better tools to conform to Apple's HIG.
HTML5 apps built on open standards should be on an equal footing with apps built in Cocoa Touch. That would be walking the walk.
[2] http://www.appcelerator.com/
[3] http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/pastrykit
[4] http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/531215199/introducing-sprout...
EDIT: "officially-supported analogue"
EDIT: footnotes
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…
Well 3.3.1 is worded poorly then, you'd think their legal team could do better if they just wanted to stop Adobe. Its pretty explicit about banning other languages.
If they were intent on getting rid of everything under the sun that isn't straight C, Obj-C or C++, there would already be an App-ocalypse underway.
(I was going to say "App Holocaust" first, but that seemed even less tasteful.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* 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…
* "Objective+C++ is not open." Yeah? http://gcc.gnu.org/ * "Adobe only wants cross-platform apps, not good apps; generic subjective bullshit." Alright, so point to a single Adobe Air app, for example, that looks & behaves natively. * "Comparing video decompression versus hardware decompression battery gains and claiming that's an advantage over Flash: bullshit, since Flash uses video decompression in most cases." Did…
* We're talking about mobile applications like games being good enough, not desktop applications using native components. Please don't stray the conversation. Otherwise it's as dumb as me coming and saying iTunes should not be running on Windows.
* "Comparing video decompression" - The article (wishfully) ignores the fact that 'older' (flv) video formats are transcoded on the fly to a format that can be played by hardware. This technology has been present in the player for a while - ever since Flash Lite. Requires more CPU, but it is not the same as full software playback. Also, asking for mobile phones with battery life benchmarks is bogus, since it's still not officially released, so no proof can exist. It's like saying the next OS X is inherently shit just because you haven't seen it yet.
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.
in other words: it's vaporware, still.
I don't care if iAnything supports flash or not. They can ignore Flash, Silverlight, any other third party component other than the pure HTML. Steve might be right and has all the moral rights not to support them. But banning anything originally written in Flash, MonoTouch or any other rapid or not rapid external "to Object-C compiler platform" should be out of reach of Mr. Jobs' jurisdiction. As long as it runs on t…
Honestly, it's like telling a convenience store owner that he has no business refusing to sell M&M's in his establishment and that it furthermore makes him a big, old, bad guy(TM).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.