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

211–220 of 522 posts

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#211

Post by sankara »

rjurney wrote: post #118
qeorge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little tired of the "IE6 is holding back the web" meme. Lots of hand-waving, no examples.

You've obviously never engaged in web development. IE6 support is often the most costly part of a project.

Rightly said. If we (can) budget out the development cycle a huge chunk goes into ulterior CSS hacks (JS is handled indirectly by jQuery/ fmwk) and an unnecessary manual test cycle dedicated to IE6. It's not without a reason Microsoft sent a bouquet to IE6's funeral!

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#212

Post by doron »

waxman wrote: post #150

I love how he didn't sugarcoat Apple's core motivations: Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform. Yeah there's a business interest. But it's also good for developers, and it's also good for end-users. And they're all interconnected. M…

I would dare say that other ways to get apps on the phone without the app store is even better for developers.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#213

Post by astrange »

vetinari wrote: post #117
marcusbooster wrote: post #59

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.

Reminds me, how long it took Apple to move Finder and iTunes to Cocoa? (Answers for those that don't keep score: 10.6 and not yet). You have to remember, that Apple tried multiple rewrites of MacOS in 90' and OSX was yet another 'this time it will work out, I promise' project. If you were Adobe, would you bank your company on yet another promise? I know I wouldn't.

What promise do you mean? Cocoa has existed for 10 years now. It was never going to go away at any point.

Finder was kept in Carbon as a demonstration that large codebases ported from OS 9 would still be supported (it would take quite some time to rewrite them, after all).

iTunes's lack of a rewrite is probably due to having to run on Windows without having to immediately do the extra work needed to port Safari, but at this point it doesn't really have an excuse. At least it supports background scrolling, so it's still beating Word...

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#214

Post by thought_alarm »

tjogin wrote: post #49
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.

John Gruber has been making these exact points. This could basically be ghost written by Gruber and we wouldn't know the difference.

Because they're obvious points to make.

Apple's competitors have been clamoring to put Flash on their mobile devices because it's one more bullet point they can use in their marketing against the iPhone.

Yet it's 2010 and mobile Flash is still nowhere to be found. How is that not Adobe's fault?

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#215

Post by bruceboughton »

gokhan wrote: post #133
wfarr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, he owns the platform (the App Store) and therefore it is very much his business. If you have beef with his policy for his platform, then you can jailbreak — otherwise, feel free to dislike his policies all you want, but you cannot disregard the fact that he's well within his right to enforce them. Honestly, it's like telling a convenience store owner that he has no business refusing to sell M&M's in his est…

Anyone can supply him M&M's as long as they are in predefined colors and size, he refuses some of them by their taste. He is selling all the rest without any concern over the quality of M&M's. He was an ignorant middle-man for all other facts except taste. Now, he starts banning some specific M&M's based on the production methods of them. No M&M consumer can tell the difference, all taste more or less the same way. P…

He can still refuse to sell them. It's his store...

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#216

Post by qeorge »

richbradshaw wrote: post #210
qeorge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little tired of the "IE6 is holding back the web" meme. Lots of hand-waving, no examples.

Ever website I've ever made has had to avoid new features due to IE incompatibilities. CSS transitions and canvas are obvious examples.

Side point: why is supporting IE6 mandatory? Its been retired since 2005.

We support IE6 wherever reasonable, but if you're building something that needs , I'd just do it. What was the feature in this case?

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#217

Post by poppysan »

Until there is an authoring tool as strong as Flash for Html + Javascript + css (with regard to animation and design, and the ability to integrate these animations and designs with code) - then flash is still the best game in town for games, animation, and more...

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the answer to animation. Sprites are heavy, but are the only other option I can see. Even still, there is no authoring tool better than flash for animation on casual games or the web.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#218

Post by zweben »

tomlin wrote: post #204
tvon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proprietary on the web affects everyone, proprietary on the iPhone affects only the iPhone.

And the iPad, then other mainstream consumption devices. This argument doesn't live in 2010.

The point is it will only ever directly effect products made by the same company. A device from HP or Microsoft will never be hurt by an issue with a closed Apple platform.

If there are issues with Flash, it will hurt every company using Flash, and there is nothing those companies can do about it other than bug Adobe to fix it or drop Flash support.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#219

Post by nailer »

wfarr wrote: post #101
gecko wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether Objective-C is open is a weird discussion. The Objective-C compiler is fully GPL'd, so that's definitely open. Objective-C, though, depends on a runtime, and Apple's runtime is proprietary. While the GNU project has their Objective-C runtime, it performs markedly worse, and misses a lot of features that are available in Apple's version, including blocks, GCD-style multithreading, garbage collection, fast iter…

Mono implements a good bit of .NET, but not all of it. That doesn't make it any less of an open platform.

Really? I consider .net a closed platform, as it is controlled by a single vendor, there is no patent guarantee (as Miguel has mentioned) and the alternative implementations (like GNash does with Flash) always lag behind.

(I happen to like .net, by the way, I just think it's closed.)

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#220

Post by tman »

1. Open -- We're the freetards now. Booyah.

2. Full Web -- You don't really want Flash.

3. R,S,P -- Flash is some buggy shit.

4. Battery -- Forcing you not to use Flash saves your batteries! Aren't we nice?

5. Touch -- Multi-touch fail. We can't hover like a mouse.

6. We're saving the developers from themselves. The morons.

Post reply on HN