61–70 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does HTML+CSS+JS I still have a hard time seeing the point here
With Flash, the user or the developer has no choice if scroll and keyboard shortcuts break. With JS+HTML+CSS, the user has a choice to force the developer to fix their code (and a developer to not write code which breaks browser stuff).
Until then, HTML5 is still becoming more performant when building immersive environments in it, which Flash already kind of does in mobile. Guess we'll have a few years of toughing it out until then.
Flash is, or at least used to be, the easy way out. People used it because it was easier than HTML5. Hence, when a company asks for a quote on an interactive site they often went for the Flash-version because it was cheaper (and not fully knowing the drawbacks).
Apple forced a change in the market. All of the sudden, these people who ordered the new project in Flash realized that they couldn't view the content on their shiny new toy.
You might argue the ability of using Flash as an option. I see the fact that both Apple (and now Google) have actively taken a stance against Flash as something good for the society as a whole. It's a step towards better, and more open standards.
This isn't to say that Flash is completely useless. Not too long ago, it wasn't even possible to do interactive things with HTML. At that point, Flash was the only option. Luckily, those days are over.
I find it disappointing that Adobe has complete control over the Flash/mobile-media market in this regard. Flash is great in all, but leaving up the choice to Adobe seems counter-intuitive, especially when the browser will most likely be widely used.
Anyone can build their own flash player, even for mobile.
What folks are commenting on is Adobes not releasing an official player for the mobile. Desktop isn't going anywhere because it plays AIR/Flex apps which also have been open sourced.
Thank God.
Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?
That said, not wanting to use something is certainly a fine reason to not want it installed. For example, I don't want to use closed media formats. I also don't want others to use closed media formats because I believe it to be detrimental to long term archival and sharing.
Flash is the new Internet Explorer. I remember a point in time when it was painful to use browsers other than IE, because so many developers took the easy way out and only supported IE (and their managers didn't know/care). Those days are of course over (well, mostly at least). Flash is, or at least used to be, the easy way out. People used it because it was easier than HTML5. Hence, when a company asks for a quote o…
If only Apple took the same stance regarding video codecs, too, and embrace WebM. But the truth is they support what is convenient for them at the time. If it also happens to help the society in the long term - great. But it's not their main priority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Flash, the user or the developer has no choice if scroll and keyboard shortcuts break. With JS+HTML+CSS, the user has a choice to force the developer to fix their code (and a developer to not write code which breaks browser stuff).
How exactly does a user "force" a developer to fix their code when they use HS+HTML+CSS?
In Flash, browser shortcuts like ^L are always broken and you have no choice about that, because that's the way Flash is designed. If a similar thing happens in a non-Flash environment, it's because the developer designed it so.
If many users complain to the developer about stuff being broken, it has to count for something.
Hats off to Apple. They managed to take a technology that was entrenched as a standard and kill it simply by refusing to support it on their mobile platform. For years people have been complaining about the lack of IOS flash support, but the true impact has been to hasten the move to HTML5 and to kill a proprietary, bloated, bug-filled technology.
Had others not made such a big fuss about it, Apple's mobile devices would simply silently not support Flash. But everybody made such a big stink about it so they had to vocally explain their motivations for not supporting Flash specifically, making Apple some kind of Flash opponent.
Flash is the new Internet Explorer. I remember a point in time when it was painful to use browsers other than IE, because so many developers took the easy way out and only supported IE (and their managers didn't know/care). Those days are of course over (well, mostly at least). Flash is, or at least used to be, the easy way out. People used it because it was easier than HTML5. Hence, when a company asks for a quote o…
> You might argue the ability of using Flash as an option. I see the fact that both Apple (and now Google have) actively taken a stance against Flash as something good for the society as a whole. It's a step towards better, and more open standards. If only Apple took the same stance regarding video codecs, too, and embrace WebM. But the truth is they support what is convenient for them at the time. If it also happens…