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

391–400 of 522 posts

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#391

Post by danudey »

imajes wrote: post #78
sadiq wrote: post #58

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.

The article/memo says that Apple are waiting for Adobe to present a ported version of flash that works. It says that they promised early 09, late 09, early 2010, late this year... in other words: it's vaporware, still.

I've met a lot of people who bought an Android phone because the iPhone 'doesn't support Flash', on the advice of friends or bloggers who complain endlessly about the issue, only to find that Android doesn't support Flash either.

When Flash is finally released and it turns out not to work on their pre-Droid devices, I wonder if they'll switch to the iPhone. I mean, either way, they won't have Flash to view MLB.com, but at least on the iPhone there are fantastic native apps to do things like that.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#392

Post by hboon »

crocowhile wrote: post #186
dcurtis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple purposefully wrote Finder in clean Carbon as an example to developers, to prove that it was possible to make good cross-platform software. iTunes was also written very carefully -- and very cleanly -- in Carbon to be cross-platform. Adobe, however, hacked Creative Suite into Carbon with buggy, inefficient code and then took 10 years -- ten years -- to schedule the time to fix it.

Have you ever used itunes on pc? It sucks. Almost as much as flash.

It almost serves as an example of how cross-platform targeting can deliver a poor product.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#393

Post by pyre »

kevinh wrote: post #338
danudey wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we?" I would argue that that's a reasonable point to make. Steve Jobs doesn't have a vested interest in seeing Flash die, he has a vested interest in seeing the iPhone platform succeed. If he saw any way Flash could help that, I'm sure he'd be all for it, but he's seen how Adobe's behaved in the past (late with PPC versions, late with OS X versions, late with Intel vers…

The very moment flash was not included in the iPhone, Steve Jobs had a vested interest in seeing Flash fail. If Flash expands, user satisfaction with the iPhone goes down. If Flash fails completely, one of the strongest negative components of the iPhone disappears.

Why does he have a vested interest in making it fail? Could he not change his mind and allow Adobe onto the platform? It's not like he's never changed his mind in the past (the Intel vs PPC 'Megahurtz Myth' comes to mind).

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#394

Post by j_baker »

danudey wrote: post #381
j_baker wrote: post #187

If 3.3.1 was just about Flash, I'd agree with Steve. But I think that clause solves a lot more than just Flash. For instance, iPhone apps seem to be horribly unreliable in my experience. And I think part of this has to do with Objective-C on the iPhone's lack of garbage collection. I think that there's a valid point that a system like MonoTouch (which supports garbage collection) would improve the quality of iPhone a…

Managing memory in Objective C is pretty simple once you learn the rules - namely, if you retain it, release it. People who write bad code won't stop writing bad code just because there's GC available. All that adding a GC would do is move the burden of releasing memory to the GC thread; what would result is that in low-memory conditions (or when the GC runs naturally), you'd have a sudden performance hit as the GC c…

I'd really rather not start this debate. Suffice it to say that there are effects that 3.3.1 has other than just blocking Flash.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#395

Post by pyre »

tomlin wrote: post #293
telemachos wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not flaming, trolling or baiting, but I am curious: under what circumstances do you think proprietary implementations are necessary?

OS has contributed to advancements in design, but proprietary initiatives employ a fleet of people to research, design and case study a technology. They do it all day and not as a side project after work. Again, it isn't a case of one vs. another. I wish we didn't need to take a side and finally come to a conclusion that both are good in their own ways. Evolution is key.

There are plenty of people that are employed full-time to work on Open Source software. Don't perpetuate the myth that all Open Source software is created by people 'in their free time.'

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#396

Post by danudey »

ck2 wrote: post #267

I love this paragraph, check their hypocrisy, switch Adobe/Apple: [Apple]'s products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from [Apple], and [Apple] has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While [Apple]'s products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by [Apple] and available only from [Apple]. By almost any definition, [Apple] is a…

Apple doesn't want to include Flash because Apple can't update Flash. Apple can't fix bugs in Flash, add new features to Flash, and so on. Apple has to rely on Adobe to fix these problems, and historically, on the Mac platform, Adobe has done a piss-poor job of it.

I'm not aware of any situation in which Apple has prevented Adobe from going about their day-to-day business with e.g. Photoshop or Illustrator, or has hindered their ability to fix bugs or add features to those products.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#397

Post by xsmasher »

What's really surprising here is such a long post with Job's name on it, in place of the one- or two-word emails we're used to. Is Steve going to start blogging now?

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#398

Post by danudey »

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…

Except that the M&Ms that were banned are slower, use more power, and crash more often than M&Ms written in Objective-C using the proper APIs.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#399

Post by teamonkey »

bradshaw1965 wrote: post #248
teamonkey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world." Clearly nonsense. I'm willing to bet that there are many, many more games and entertainment apps written in Flash alone than there are on the app store.

"I'm willing to bet that there are many, many more games and entertainment apps written in Flash alone than there are on the app store." Is that a position for or against keeping flash off the iPhone, iPod and iPad?

Neither. It's just pointing out one of many FUD items in Steve's memo.
Post reply on HN