Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Steve Jobs speaks about Flash

It certainly would be complex that is for sure! I'd assume that the server would cache the HTML5 if local. But then, if you could convert to HTML5, some people might just use this product to get away from Flash altogether! :) Probably not in Adobe's best interest the more I thought about it.

And I DEFINITELY agree if Adobe wanted to cache in on both fronts, HTML5 might just be the way to do it. Like Apple though, they both want to control the core if you will, so that might be hard for them to give up.

Also, Adobe has the ability to build an HTML5 environment for Flash developers since they are the experts of Flash.
 
Derek Marcinyshyn said:
The Flash Player 10.1 which is in beta does support multi touch.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/multitouch_gestures.html
Demo of it on both Windows and Apple products
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1666
Click to expand...

I think the problem is about older applications that depend on mousein mouseout events. The iPhone/iPad don't support any sort of mousein or mouseout. They don't have a button or pointer per say. Things like the Android and even the blackberry have a button you can use. For this to work, someone would have to make an onscreen button as part of Flash that you could use to simulate a mouse press. It could certainly be done, but would require another layer in the message handling between a flash app and the OS on the phone.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
HTML5 is supported on current versions of Safari, Opera and Firefox. It's in the IE9 beta that is due to release within the next 60 days. It's new, and HTML5 actually hasn't even been finalized yet. However, all the main browsers are scrambling to have it implemented ASAP. There's still a few glitches and inconsistencies until it's finalized -- for example, YouTube HTML5 support doesn't get along with FireFox right now.
Click to expand...

HTML5 is supported but the decoding of h264 by the browser is not for FF and IE. See my post 5 LINK




J Davis said:
Sorry Mark but I have to disagree. The <video></video> tag in HTML5 places the onus of decoding the codec on the browser not on a proprietary plugin. You of all people know how many codecs are out there and how often they change. Before h264 it was on2 and h264 won't be the last. Do you really think the browsers are going to pay the licensing on each and every codec?
Firefox and explorer are not paying which is why html5 h264 will not play on those browsers.

IMO there is great power and flexibilty of browsers using proprietary plugins. Namely because technology changes so fast that it is impractle to expect the browser to handle the entirety of it and stay up to date.
Click to expand...


Thats what this war is about anyway. Apple doesn't want the flash player being the defacto standard for video to be played on the web (which it was a year ago)
 
A reply to Steve Job's letter by Google's Andy Rubin on the upcoming Android 2.2 from the NY Times
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/googles-andy-rubin-on-everything-android/

“We use the same tools we expect our third-party developers to,” Mr. Rubin said. “We have an SDK we give to developers. and when we write our Gmail app, we use the same SDK. A lot of guys have private APIs. We don’t. That’s on policy and on technology. If there’s a secret API to hook into billing system we open up that billing system to third parties. If there’s a secret API to allow application multitasking, we open it up. There are no secret APIs. That is important to highlight for Android sake. Open is open and we live by our own implementations.”
 
Derek Marcinyshyn said:
A reply to Steve Job's letter by Google's Andy Rubin on the upcoming Android 2.2 from the NY Times
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/googles-andy-rubin-on-everything-android/

“We use the same tools we expect our third-party developers to,” Mr. Rubin said. “We have an SDK we give to developers. and when we write our Gmail app, we use the same SDK. A lot of guys have private APIs. We don’t. That’s on policy and on technology. If there’s a secret API to hook into billing system we open up that billing system to third parties. If there’s a secret API to allow application multitasking, we open it up. There are no secret APIs. That is important to highlight for Android sake. Open is open and we live by our own implementations.”
Click to expand...

He lives in a different world than I do. Especially this comment "Open usually wins".

Open to me means forks. (That sounds funny by itself) But on a serious note, most open software ends up suffering from too many hands in the code. They get into a huge argument about something at the core of operation and then a fork gets created and now there are two products with slightly different names and multiple sets of problems. I'm not saying open is bad, but it usually never wins out. MP3, GIF, these were not open, yet they became standard.

And to push that one whole huge step further, I don't believe him. The Android is not totally open. There are things you can't do. There are things you SHOULDN'T do for security purposes. Giving developers too much power on the Android opens up the phone to potential risk in terms of hackers. This is a REAL problem. Want some coder getting all your contact information and making calls on your phone without your control. Remotely recording sounds and downloading to a server. Without protections, these things can AND WILL happen.

Totally open is not always good.
 
Honestly, if Flash goes the way of the Dodo, I say good riddance.

Flash video is a hassle to work with in my opinion, and I have never liked those Flash websites that need to load everything upfront.
 
chrislancaster said:
Adobe products are really amazing and they are keeping up if not surpassing apple in many ways


64 bit AE PS etc.. those are great tools
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone's debating that Adobe make some nice products. This though is about the Flash Player, which is a sluggish, proprietary piece of rubbish that doesn't perform anywhere near acceptably on any platform apart from Windows...

Rick Burnett said:
(2) I used a NexT at university as well. It wasn't visionary to me as well, but I will say this, I think Objective C is a lot better than C++ and I am glad it came along to the OSX world. It has its problems as well, but from an API standpoint, I find it superior. Having coded on Linux with a variety of toolkits (but mostly GTK), on windows with win32, and the MFC and OWL C++ windows libraries, and OSX with Cocoa and Carbon, I do prefer Cocoa the most with the Core Foundation classes which are well thought out.
Click to expand...

I agree that Objective-C is quite a nice language, but wouldn't say it's better than C++. I usually write most of my app in C++ (for portability) and then have a UI layer written in Objective C++ (basically just normal C++ but you can mix in Objective C). C++ is a little harder to write, I guess, but things like Boost and new features of the language (like smart pointers) make it a lot easier than it used to be.

Gtk is great too - have you used Gtkmm, the native C++ bindings to Gtk? It's a million times nicer to use than the C interface! I even use it for Windows programs because Win32 and MFC are horrible (I can't stand COM)...

J Davis said:
HTML5 is supported but the decoding of h264 by the browser is not for FF and IE. See my post 5 LINK
Click to expand...

So? It's dead easy to have a HTML5 player that will work in all browsers that support it, that falls back to a Flash player for anyone else. It can play the same H.264 video file too....

Paul Leeming said:
Apple is all about proprietary and locked in platform technology.... as long as it's Apple's platform.
Click to expand...

Yeah - like that propitiatory closed source Webkit framework that third parties can't use, or the Mac OS X kernel source which I definitely can't download at http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1063/ along with many drivers and libraries, or the open source LLVM framework and Clang compiler that Apple definitely isn't almost solely funding...

Oh, wait...
 
@Stephen
You didn't read my post. Please read carefully what I wrote about the licensing of the codec.
 
Adobe is amazing. Flash is dead. Its dead because its market justification has lost its relevance, not because of some nefarious conspiracy. Flash was an acquisition for Adobe, not a bootstrap creation from the in-house team. Jobs is calling it like it is. Adobe is not supporting this platform in-house with the sufficient resources it needs to compete, if they did, if they were truly betting on their own horse, Flash would have evolved to the required level to address Jobs' criticisms. Therefore I have to conclude that Flash is a loss-leader for them, a bit of web welfare to keep their developers inching their way forward. Anybody got an annual report handy? How much of their business is Flash?

This whole ridiculous drama is a lesson in three parts: 1. Technology Innovation must be constant, unrelenting and ignore the forecast memos from the sales and marketing division. 2. software and hardware are One, indivisible from each other and utterly symbiotic. 3. You don't decide where the company goes, your customers tell you. if you can listen to them, you have a chance to win.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Anybody got an annual report handy? How much of their business is Flash?....

You don't decide where the company goes, your customers tell you. if you can listen to them, you have a chance to win.
Click to expand...

Asking how much of Adobe's business Flash is would be like asking how much of RED's business RedCineX is. It's part of the whole strategy.

As to listening to customers I'm guessing a lot more customers are asking Apple for Flash than are asking for Adobe to stop supporting it.

It's almost like there's two different discussions here.
1) What should happen in the future.
2) How to support what's already been created.

I think the smart hardware vendor supports as much as they can. The smart software developer supports what works best going forward. So I think Apple's wrong to not support Flash and I bet Adobe develops killer software support for whatever the future wants to be. If either don't they risk market share.

But who's Adobe's competition? Sure as hell isn't Apple when it comes to software innovation lately.

I'm not sure where software originated matters. All the big guys bought major apps. Final Cut comes to mind. Macromedia developed Final Cut as KeyGrip but was contractually barred from using Quicktime in it. Later Apple bought it.
 
Apple has used its market power several times to drive a move forward, and it seems like it has been relatively good for computing overall and therefore, at least so far it has been a benevolent/responsible user of that power.

Apple essentially created the VIABILITY of the graphical UI with the Macintosh. Essentially created desktop publishing with the laserwriter and Adobe's postscript. It created firewire and enough computers with it on them to get it implemented on cameras.

USB wasn't an apple development but it was dying on the vine until the Imac created a large installed base that had no other option, so vendors knew they had a market for USB devices - and then it took off.

Same with FLASH, there seems to be some decent rationale that it is time to move on, but it wouldn't happen because of inertia. Now Apple is creating a situation where nobody is forced to go along, but if they want to tap into a huge, high quality demographic they will give serious consideration to making their sites HTML5 compatible - long before they would otherwise.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
snip...3. You don't decide where the company goes, your customers tell you. if you can listen to them, you have a chance to win.
Click to expand...

I would modify that a bit, since Jobs has been excellent at figuring out where we want to go even though we didn't know it - and producing the products to take us there - and I think that is part of what he is doing with HTML5/noFLASH
 
It's pretty simple.


What is one of iPad's purposes?

ipud.jpg




What is there *a lot of* on the web ?

flashe.jpg



Explanations don't fix the error in this logic.



If you about to buy a car, and it turns out it doesn't drive over wet road, do you:

a) listen to the car salesman explain how the roads are better off not being wet

b) nod and sign the cheque

c) exit the store
 
I enjoy reading reduser and my email and ibooks on my new ipad.

I find using my macbook and macpro quite productive and pretty painless - my compaq laptop and tower that I have to use for cad/cam - not so much.

I find almost none of the flash content on the web to be anything I need - it's mostly "flash". Not that there isn't some good flash content but nothing I can't live without until I get to one of my other computers. And I would appreciate not having to deal with the problems that flash often causes on both platforms.

Hrvoje, As far as the ipad: It's pretty simple - you are probably not a customer for one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top