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

381–390 of 522 posts

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#381

Post by danudey »

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 churns through the objects in memory looking for free-able objects. On the desktop, this might not be as much of a performance hit, but on a mobile platform I can see this being an issue.

Likewise, the GC can only do so much. If a developer creates an array and starts stuffing objects into it, but never releases/unreferences the array, those objects will likewise never be deallocated. The onus is still on the developer to write proper code, but now they've voluntarily given up control of memory to a separate process that may not understand the code as well as they do.

Besides all of that, I haven't found iPhone apps to be unreliable at all. The apps I use are generally polished and work fantastically, and crashes are extremely rare (and most of those are due to OOM conditions directly attributed to WebViews).

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#382

Post by dcurtis »

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.

Carbon = OS X + OS 9 native code. It has nothing to do with the PC version (well, it does a little bit, but that is irrelevant to this discussion).

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#383

Post by pyre »

barrkel wrote: post #343
thought_alarm wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't lose sight of the issue. 3.3.1 is the issue, not "Flash on the iPhone". By reframing the argument as "Flash on the iPhone", you are succumbing to misdirection.

True enough. And Cocoa Touch is not an 'open standard.'

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#384

Post by ThomPete »

wfarr wrote: post #335
ThomPete wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover." Flash don't care. You are not forced to use rollovers in flash you can but you are not forced to…

No — they don't have to use rollover. But the fact of the matter is, particularly with games but also to some extent websites (navigation), that many (perhaps the majority) do. Apple is speaking about the state of things as they are , not how they could possibly be if people so chose for them to be that way.

But that is true for so many HTML/js sites too and nothing absolutely nothing prohibits people from playing flash games with a touch interface. Most flash games are point and click

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#385

Post by watty »

gkefalas wrote: post #311
watty wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong; Flash is still needed for DRM video (Hulu, Netflix, etc.)

Wrong, unless you mean on computers; Netflix released an iPad app that streams video on day 1, and Hulu is rumored to have one in the works as well.

Why the down votes? Of course a native iPhone app can stream DRM video, what does this have to do w/ Flash or HTML5? Flash is still needed for DRM video on the web. Hulu can create a native Windows, iPhone, Mac, etc. app but how does that cure streaming video in the browser?

Quote from Hulu:

"We're keeping a close watch on video support in HTML5. While as developers we are always excited about cool new technology, we always analyze it from the perspective of the needs of our customers: our end users, advertisers, and content partners. To serve these customers well, we'd love to see further support in HTML5 for features including the following:

- Quality of service monitoring (e.g. detecting playback glitches)

- Advertisement playback and reporting

- Secure content delivery"

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#386

Post by glhaynes »

anatoly wrote: post #236
astrange wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't care about open standards - that they would is, on the face of it, absurd. They really do care about open standards. There is no reason why WebKit and several other projects have to be run in the open, after they stopped releasing several parts of Darwin, but they are. At worst, this is because there is more than one person at Apple, and the people who want things to be proprietary don't care about this…

Webkit has to be run in the open; it's originally based on KHTML and inherits its LGPL.

And this fact was known when they picked KHTML to build on.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#387

Post by danudey »

ryandvm wrote: post #246

The web without Flash would be a better place, but the fact is that there isn't any viable open replacement. Yes, HTML5 can replace Flash for video. That's great and all, but it's probably the least interesting thing that Flash does. Want to use Google Analytics? Sorry. Need Flash. Want to see StreetView? Need Flash. Hulu? Need Flash. Aviary? Need Flash. Games? Need Flash. Apple's answer to everything but video is to…

Google analytics: http://analyticsapp.com/

Street view: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/11/google-maps-for-iph... (since 2008)

Hulu: coming as a native app (http://gizmodo.com/5506892/hulu-app-coming-to-ipad)

Aviary: neat app; there are image editors on the iPhone, but I'm not familiar enough with Aviary to find something comparable. Maybe there isn't anything.

Games: There are tons of games on the iPhone and iPad that don't need Flash. Command and Conquer is one of them, and Final Fantasy I and II are some of my favourites. There are also tons of independent games, like Implode, Tiki Totems, and MotionX Poker, as well as pseudo-indie games like Plants vs. Zombies and Peggle.

So, are you really so averse to paying someone for their time? Nothing comes for nothing, and if you're so broke that you can't shell out a few bucks for an app that makes your life easier, you probably can't afford an iPhone either.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#388

Post by danudey »

watty wrote: post #262
ROFISH wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; for video-only uses, Flash is no longer needed. No doubt the avalanche is because a popular smartphone/tablet does not allow Flash, but Steve's point is that Flash is no longer needed because similar functionality can be performed in the more open HTML5.

Wrong; Flash is still needed for DRM video (Hulu, Netflix, etc.)

Netflix has a native app, and Hulu is working on one.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#389

Post by Luyt »

gritzko wrote: post #328
wtallis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products." He only failed to mention KHTML by name. He most certainly did not claim that they made WebKit on their own.

It is a very good example of putting spin on history. They don't lie, they just put the "right" emphasis. Depending on how much you know, you understand the text differently. But failing to mention KHTML by name is an act, indeed. Reminds me another masterpiece by Microsoft: "Java is a programming language proposed by the JavaSoft company", or something like that.

That's what I thought when I saw Webkit mentioned without KHTML. When you're standing on the shoulders of giants, it's only prudent to mention that.

Re: Thoughts on Flash

#390

Post by Psyonic »

Terretta wrote: post #332
Psyonic wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all remember, but they changed their minds and now fully embrace the app store, and even use it as a major marketing point. Suggesting we go back to it now is a bit pre-mature, I think. JS simply doesn't run comparably to native apps, so if they want to talk battery life, they should discuss it there as well.

He did. In the very next sentence: > Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. Not too many words there between 'JavaScript' and 'low power'.

They may be low power compared to other implementations of the same, but I'd be very surprised to hear that the same program written in html5 and JS didn't consume more power than an app equivalent. Ever use Meebo? Ever look at how resource intensive it is, vs Adium or a similar program?
Post reply on HN