411–420 of 522 posts
These reasons are true enough, but I still believe what has been clear to me ever since the argument started: Apple won't allow Flash on iP* because it would defeat the purpose of App Store. With Flash support, you could make responsive, native-looking online apps specifically for Apple devices without having to go through the approval process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true that some of these links are from evangelists. But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we? Battery Life: It's a bit of hyperbole. We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours. Would it matter if Flash could play videos for 11 hours? It is a misdirection or a sidestep of an original claim that Flash would kill the iPhone inside of 2 hours. Touch/Scroll: Another sidestep. A Flash issue? With that…
> "We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours." We do other things on the iPhone. I don't want to make the choice between watching a video and then restricting my own usage just so my phone has enough juice to make a call. I'd rather watch videos and use my phone, and the more power efficient everything is, the more the user can do this. To put it in perspective, if Apple's numbers are to be believed, running F…
What's your battery life playing an intensive game or using a processor intensive app?
"Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit." Oh, so Presto (Opera) and Gecko (Mozilla) are chopped liver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's being a bit generous in favor of Adobe - the majority of the Flash development sphere is practically what one would consider "miscreant use". The vast majority of websites in general are poor. It would be no surprise to see that the majority of Flash sites would also be poor. Both sides have exceptions, though. > Videos/Audio: Easily replaced by HTML5, and better too. More readily hardware accelerated, behav…
It's not the cheese I object to - but that the Cheese breaks the internet in fundamental ways. Example: We just wrapped up Restaurant Week here in Seattle where a bunch of local establishments offered up prix-fixe specials for a couple of weeks. The website for this event was done up all in Flash, and made it impossible to crawl for a search engine, or even to link or bookmark a particular restaurant for later retrie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [Jobs:] "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open." Consider Python. Is it a standard? Yes, because there's an open source reference implementation. Does it pertain to the web? Yes it does, because http clients and servers can be, and often are, written in this language, and its standard library and 3rd-party open source libraries support http and other web protocols such as HTML.…
The sad thing is Steve, along with many others, totally, entirely believes that selling sugar-coated digital handcuffs is changing the world for the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this respect, I am not arguing for or against Flash on any device. Just that the argument against it is just as flawed as the argument for it.
But you don't appear to have pointed out any specific flaws in the argument against it. So you're not making an argument, just an unsupported assertion.
To say Flash is proprietary, possibly poorly executed format is a fair thing to say. To say it is completely without merit and has no place is a fallacy. HTML5 video is widely supported today. Flash might be a delivery vehicle for another unrealized idea tomorrow.
And the "death to the plugin arch" circle-jerk logic is almost intolerable. Only create within the confines of the parent layer's imaginative capacity? Sounds more closed than SWF.
kevinh said it best: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1305322
Support to my assertions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1304353
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait a minute, how is comparing H.264 hardware support for decoding (I think you meant decoding, not decompression) vs. software bullshit? Shipping versions of Flash still use software for video decoding. The only versions that use hardware are unreleased beta versions of 10.1. Your post sounds like an Adobe apologist making stuff up.
Your post makes it sound like said beta version will never see the light of day.
Running a beta of a Flash Plugin that kinda supports hardware decoding but still crashes occasionally on a Windows PC is much different than running a production quality release of a hardware accelerated Flash plugin on a mobile device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do understand your point about using the right tool for the right job, however Apple is arguing both sides. Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. While web applications and native applications are different domains, they are not different enough to mean different reasoning can be used. An end user doesn't really care if something is built using HTML5, flas…
Cross-platform standards are a good thing for Apple. Getting people to use Apple's platform specific features is a good thing for Apple. Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction. Remember, this is not an essay about why everyone else should support Apple's actions. It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it.
Hidden in that of course is the lack of concern for what's good for the consumer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the native-exported apps are mentioned by Jobs in point 6. Of note: these apps were slower than native apps, consumed far more power than native apps, used more memory than native apps, and had little to no integration with the underlying platform, other than running in the first place. Jobs' point talks about this; the issue is that if Flash CS5 supported what the iPhone can do today, who's to say when it…
I don't see Jobs addressing the performance of CS5-exported apps in point 5 ("Fifth, there’s Touch.") or elsewhere. The only place he says anything that could refer to Flash native apps is point 6, in which he argues against cross-platform development systems. I think this is a red herring, though. Apple doesn't reject apps for not taking full advantage of the system. People can and will make Objective C apps that do…
All Apple's stubbornness does is leave more doors open for Android et all to get more penetration. Each thing you refuse to do becomes a selling point for your competitors. For example, Flash support upcoming for android. http://www.edge-online.com/news/full-adobe-flash-support-for... It doesn't matter if you do not like flash Steve, it is used on a significant portion of the internet. Either you work with them and f…
Still vaporware... I'm just saying, it would be nice if Adobe can show a reference implementation of Flash on a mobile device, and prove that it actually works well at a decent framerate without sucking battery life. This would at least give Adobe some ammunition to use against Apple, and may make Apple rethink the "no Flash" rule.