Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hey Gruber, what about the users?

scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#41

Post by beej71 »

schultzor wrote: post #30
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers don't support flash, the Flash plugin for a browser supports flash. It's not about the browser, it's about the platform or the operating system. A Flash SWF is not an executable binary blob. Many parts of the SWF spec are even open.

Does the openness of the spec even matter when effectively only one party can write and ship a usable plugin for it?

I think so. It's important because people theoretically can write plugins for it.

Writing a Flash player is a lot of work, and there's not much reason to do so if Adobe has most computers covered already.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#42

Post by astrodust »

apu wrote: post #40
avar wrote: post #12

I don't own an iPad but I think Apple's non-support of Flash is great. It's shipping the first major web browser in the last decade that's explicitly not supporting flash. So it's helping to make Flash more irrelevant every day, by forcing developers to finally consider that delivering their content in some executable binary blob isn't a reasonable thing to do on the web. Thanks, Apple!

And making custom binaries for Apple products only is better?

Making custom binaries for any device is better, Android, W7 or otherwise. A native application is always able to outperform a generic substitute.

Apple's non-support of Flash has forced content developers to put down their favorite hammer and explore other tools. It also forces content developers to port their applications and consider the format of the target device.

Microsoft has their XNA platform for Windows Phone 7, and I think that's a great thing, too, as it has been proven on the 360. You won't see direct ports from 360 to phone, it's too wildly different, but it makes developing easier. They're looking for high-quality native applications just like Apple.

If Windows Phone 7 supported Flash you'd just see thousands of trashy Flash games and most would barely work. The user experience would be terrible and people would get the impression that either the phone is slow or the apps are bad and not worth buying, either of which is a very bad outcome.

Like it or not, the walled garden approach is necessary to have some degree of control over the user experience. Other vendors will discover this if they care.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#43

Post by raganwald »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #29
raganwald wrote: post #6

I wish Dave would read and abide by "How to Disagree." The wisecrack about Gruber's minions takes a reasonable discussion and reduces it to Fox-Newsworthy labeling and ad hominem rhetoric. People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash.

"People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash." Can't say I understand your sentiment. They are ideologically incompatible and driven by polar interests.

In the wonderful Steve Jackson game "Illuminati," organizations have orientations like Conservative, Violent, &c. Conservative groups are aligned with other Conservative groups and opposed to Liberal groups, Peaceful groups are aligned with other Peaceful groups and opposed to Violent groups, and so forth.

There's also an orientation called "Fanatic." Fanatic is a special case because it is its own opposition. So Joggers, Trekkies, and White Supremacists are all opposed to each other by virtue of being fanatic groups.

Fnord.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#44

Post by drivebyacct2 »

raganwald wrote: post #43
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash." Can't say I understand your sentiment. They are ideologically incompatible and driven by polar interests.

In the wonderful Steve Jackson game "Illuminati," organizations have orientations like Conservative, Violent, &c. Conservative groups are aligned with other Conservative groups and opposed to Liberal groups, Peaceful groups are aligned with other Peaceful groups and opposed to Violent groups, and so forth. There's also an orientation called "Fanatic." Fanatic is a special case because it is its own opposition. So Jog…

How is wanting a choice being fanatical? Is the rhetoric really so poor that simply wanting the choice of using flash is considered fanatical?

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#45

Post by astrodust »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #27
avar wrote: post #12

I don't own an iPad but I think Apple's non-support of Flash is great. It's shipping the first major web browser in the last decade that's explicitly not supporting flash. So it's helping to make Flash more irrelevant every day, by forcing developers to finally consider that delivering their content in some executable binary blob isn't a reasonable thing to do on the web. Thanks, Apple!

Browsers don't support flash, the Flash plugin for a browser supports flash. It's not about the browser, it's about the platform or the operating system. A Flash SWF is not an executable binary blob. Many parts of the SWF spec are even open.

If by "open" you mean "approximately documented" then yes, it's open. There's a whole mountain of stuff you have to do to even meet part of the spec, and there's a lot left up to interpretation.

It's easier to write a fully HTML5 compliant web browser than it is to write a fully compliant Flash plugin.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#46

Post by drivebyacct2 »

schultzor wrote: post #30
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers don't support flash, the Flash plugin for a browser supports flash. It's not about the browser, it's about the platform or the operating system. A Flash SWF is not an executable binary blob. Many parts of the SWF spec are even open.

Does the openness of the spec even matter when effectively only one party can write and ship a usable plugin for it?

Gnash, swfdec, lightspark, scaleform, smokescreen and others that I'm forgetting are making progress. Most of them are highly compatible with the simple image and video use cases that dominate well over 95% (at least of my) use of flash.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#47

Post by astrodust »

borism wrote: post #35
pistoriusp wrote: post #2

We must be using different Internet or maybe the website I browse aren't flash heavy. I cannot recall a single instance where I thought... "Damn! If only I had flash on my iPad/ iPhone."

Google Finance?

Why not Wikinvest? They have an app: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/wikinvest-iphone/

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#48

Post by raganwald »

sprout wrote: post #36
raganwald wrote: post #6

I wish Dave would read and abide by "How to Disagree." The wisecrack about Gruber's minions takes a reasonable discussion and reduces it to Fox-Newsworthy labeling and ad hominem rhetoric. People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash.

It would be a great start if Gruber would read it.

I think I can hold my opinion and agree with yours simultaneously. Upmodded.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#49

Post by raganwald »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44
raganwald wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the wonderful Steve Jackson game "Illuminati," organizations have orientations like Conservative, Violent, &c. Conservative groups are aligned with other Conservative groups and opposed to Liberal groups, Peaceful groups are aligned with other Peaceful groups and opposed to Violent groups, and so forth. There's also an orientation called "Fanatic." Fanatic is a special case because it is its own opposition. So Jog…

How is wanting a choice being fanatical? Is the rhetoric really so poor that simply wanting the choice of using flash is considered fanatical?

Have we circled around to some kind of violent agreement? I suggested that calling people "Minons of Gruber" is poor rhetoric. You're saying that calling people "fanatical" is poor rhetoric. Our arguments appear to be twin children of different mothers.

But just to make a very small point, I am not calling anyone fanatical. I talked about a game where it was possible for fictional groups of people to have something in common yet be opposed to each other. In that game, this happens with groups the inventor describes as fanatical.

In this particular case, I am suggesting it is entirely possible for people who agree with Dave and people who agree with Gruber to have a lot in common yet appear to be opposed in the debate. You asked how this can be the case when they appear to have opposed interests, and I will now repeat what I said above without trying to be charming.

The fact that two people appear to be opposed on a single issue does not automatically exclude the possibility that they have a great deal in common with each other.

Re: Hey Gruber, what about the users?

#50

Post by protomyth »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #46
schultzor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the openness of the spec even matter when effectively only one party can write and ship a usable plugin for it?

Gnash, swfdec, lightspark, scaleform, smokescreen and others that I'm forgetting are making progress. Most of them are highly compatible with the simple image and video use cases that dominate well over 95% (at least of my) use of flash.

A third-party cannot ship a flash plugin that supports Hulu. Not working 5% of the time causes nasty support issues.
Post reply on HN