Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Change of Heart On Flash

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the platform-with-a-capital-p dept.

Cellphones 409

Dotnaught writes "In a blog post, Walter Luh, co-founder of Ansca Mobile and a former employee of both Apple and Adobe, recounts how Apple once promoted Flash on the iPhone then changed its mind because Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience. 'I think that Apple came to the same conclusion I've come to — namely that Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences,' he writes. Luh's piece ends with a pitch for mobile development using the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash."

cancel ×

409 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Adobe Flash will die (3, Interesting)

xororand (860319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048240)

Adobe Flash will die rather sooner than later and it won't be missed. Now if only all browser vendors could agree on a video codec for HTML5.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048272)

Yep, it'll be dead and replaced by HTML5, SVG, h.264, VRML and a host of other hot new technologies!

Oh and on the same day, Windows will lose it's marketshare position, Linus will relicense Linux under commercial terms, Richard Stallman will buy an iPad and Steve Jobs will switch to Ubuntu.

Imagine the possibilities!

Re:Adobe Flash will die (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048588)

If anything, HTML5 is actually the cause that might allow pushing Linux and Firefox even further away.

Basically the situation is currently this;

Microsoft: H.264 for IE (and they are already licensing it in Windows 7). Will not support Theora.
Apple: H.264 for all OS X, iPhone and iPad. Will not support Theora.
Google: H.264 for Chrome (but not for the open source version!). May roll out their own video codec, to mix things even a little bit more.
Mozilla: Theora for Firefox. There is no way they can use H.264 because of countless amount of open source forks. Could only possible support it in main binary Firefox, other users left without.
Opera: Theora. Could support H.264, but wants Theora more.

Develop a plugin that plays H.264 video inside browser to circumvent that Firefox situation? Flash already does exactly that.

Either HTML5 Video will seriously fail and Flash will continue dominating, or the big players will use it to push Firefox and other open source browsers and Linux off the market.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048762)

If a plugin for Firefox appears, why will it be pushed off the market?

And if Mozilla stands by their position (which I support), there will be an extension for it very soon.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048808)

The H264 plugin for Firefox already exists ... you may have heard of it, it's called "Flash".

Re:Adobe Flash will die (4, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048766)

Neither *nix nor FF are threatened by H.264. All you need is this [sourceforge.net] . Pretty sure there's also a VLC plugin available that would do the trick as well.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048778)

Nah. This isn't the first time some non-free stuff hasn't mixed well with Linux. Oil and water man.

Let's see, there's libdvdcss, most wireless drivers until very recently, had to be fetched using some sketchy cutter tool. Flash gets fetched from gawd knows where by the flashplugin-nonfree package,
People who use firefox or linux will tolerate a little configuration pain, even if the codec has to come from a warez server in Russia.

I personally wish we didn't all walk into yet another propitiatory format though, because it's just history repeating itself.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (2, Informative)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048280)

Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?

Re:Adobe Flash will die (2, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048300)

What happens to open source browsers like FF who can't pay for the patents and licenses?

Maybe HTML5 in Firefox should mean that I can right click and "save as". Then it won't really matter.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048422)

Maybe HTML5 in Firefox should mean that I can right click and "save as". Then it won't really matter.

You don't need to do even that. Clicking on a video could just send the file to external video player (which always has all the warez codecs you need). Actually, that's the way I want to view my video anyway, I don't want them inside the browser, crashing and hanging all over the place.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048508)

So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model? That to get full use of it, people should lower to piracy? That's not how FOSS model works.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (5, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048654)

So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model? That to get full use of it, people should lower to piracy?

Do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048780)

So basically you are implying that free and open source itself isn't a sustainable model?

If the dominant data formats are patented, grandparent implies exactly this.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048800)

Why would I need "warez" codecs? Mplayer plays virtually everything [mplayerhq.hu] . The rare exception will usually play in VLC. Thanks to those two I can view more than 95% of all video I wish to see. The only major exception is silverlight (netflix streaming), for which I use a stripped-down windows in VirtualBox.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048310)

Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

ActionScript vs. JavaScript (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048402)

What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

ActionScript is ECMAScript with the Flash DOM. JavaScript is ECMAScript with the HTML DOM. One major point of HTML 5 is to make the HTML DOM as rich as that of Flash, in hopes that the next version of a web application will be written in JavaScript instead of ActionScript. YouTube is one of them; if you're running Safari, Chrome, or IE + Chrome Frame, you can switch it from Flash to HTML 5.

Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048596)

But will that ever happen? There are a -large- amount of web sites that aren't updated. A large amount of them use Flash. A large amount of them aren't going to give up Flash anytime soon. Look at how many sites haven't been updated since, say, 2007 or before. There are a lot of them. Now, all it takes is a few more keystrokes to update a site, its a lot harder to update an entire application.

Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript (3, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048632)

If you want an example, just look at ActiveX and IE6. I expect Flash to take the same route. A long, lingering, painful death.

Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048680)

There aren't many sites that can afford to dictate standards to their viewers. The ones that perhaps can, like Google's, support HTML5. Either convert to what your customers use or die. Even in intranets where you can theoretically dictate, all the companies that hardwired to IE6 and ActiveX are now regretting it. They'll learn to be more careful next time.

Re:ActionScript vs. JavaScript (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048650)

ActionScript is ECMAScript

Actually, I think they parted company when ECMAScript 4 was shelved: For one thing, Actionscript 2 and 3 include the extra "syntactic sugar" for a pseudo-class-based syntax, so anybody who learnt AS 2 or 3 first is going to have a nice culture shock switching to propotype-based ECMAScript.

(I feel a great disturbance in the slashdot, as if a billion advocates of prototype-based OOP cried out in anguish and... probably won't ever be silenced :-)

Point is though, as you say, they use a totally different DOM/application framework so the language similarities are partly irrelevant. Come to think about it, my main beef is that Adobe seem determined to introduce a completely new DOM with every release of Flash, not to mention Flex...

Re:Adobe Flash will die (5, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048412)

What about all the browser applications written in flash? Will we just not have them?

With any luck!

Re:Adobe Flash will die (2, Interesting)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048446)

What patents and licenses? From the W3C's patent policy [w3.org] :

The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.

Of course, anything hypothetically could be patented; but HTML5 is at least in the position that there are no known patent restrictions on implementing it.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048534)

Yes, HTML5 is, but it's up to browsers on what codec they will support.

Its the video codec, not the delivery system... (2, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048758)

Agreed that Flash needs to be replaced, but not with HTML 5.

For general "rich internet application" stuff, moving from proprietary Flash to standards-based HTML5 (+DOM/SVG/ECMAScript) should be good news for open source. The problem is not HTML 5 per se but that the only video codec that seems to be gaining widespread support in HTML 5 is the patent-encumbered H.264.

Newer versions of Flash look like shifting H.264 as the codec for video anyway (albeit with different packaging), so Flash vs. HTML5 is a non-issue on the video front.

Re:Adobe Flash will die (1, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048362)

Flash sucks. I for one am glad not to have it on my iPhone device. It drags down my PC whenever encountered and I don't want that hell on my iPhone.

You are an idiot but at least youre a happy idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048568)

You are happy that you cant get youtube and all the other sites that use Flash?
Wonderful.
Im sure some moron out there is happy that he cant view HTML pages too.

Not being to able to view a popular site is NOT a feature no matter how much you are told it is.

"I dont have copy and past and honestly, Im glad I dont. Its really useless."

Re:You are an idiot but at least youre a happy idi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048614)

You are happy that you cant get youtube and all the other sites that use Flash?

Um, what? [apple.com]

Re:You are an idiot but at least youre a happy idi (2, Insightful)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048700)

I would consider it a feature, especially since 99% of flash content I see is actually advertising (and it's literally plastered over sites. Countless flash adverts loading their own stupid videos etc. Good riddance)

Re:You are an idiot but at least youre a happy idi (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048710)

I'm glad youtube is now serving videos with the video tag instead of flash.

my dick is big (1)

Vaginal_flatulence (1153821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048244)

so very big. aah yeah.

Early Flash (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048288)

"the Corona SDK, a Lua-based programming environment that strives to recapture the simplicity of early versions of Flash"

Like... wait for it... VideoWorks?

All Right, Yeah!

Try streaming live video... (0, Troll)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048296)

... to a mobile device, without using Flash. Go on, try it. I'm waiting.

For this reason, my company doesn't support the iPhone.

Re:Try streaming live video... (2, Informative)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048332)

Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.

Re:Try streaming live video... (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048378)

Live streaming using H.264 seemed to work just dandy watching the State of the Union address on my iPhone while using the Whitehouse.gov iPhone app. Also seems to work great with MLB At-Bat on the iPhone as well. I watched many baseball games last season streaming live H.264 video to the iPhone.

But can you do it with a generic app which will connect to any server?

Re:Try streaming live video... (3, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048346)

... to a mobile device, without using Flash. Go on, try it. I'm waiting.

In that case I imagining the existence of solutions for the iPhone that do just that. France24, YouTube and StreamToMe being three examples. I can concede there is room for improvement, but there are solutions, if the installed customer base is of interest to you.

Re:Try streaming live video... (2, Informative)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048448)

This seems pretty true. In theory x264 can encode content with very low latency[1], and delivering MPEG-4 from previously encoded files is pretty easy, but my search-fu can't find any ready made solution for streaming using RTSP that doesn't involve paying through the nose for the software---although hacking something together with x264 seems very doable.

I don't know about how easy it is with Theora, but it doesn't really matter since it has had no impact on the mobile device market whatsoever.

[1]: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=249 [multimedia.cx]

All about money. (1)

cohensh (1358679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048298)

Interesting how Hulu (and others) provide free flash videos while the iTunes store provides videos for sale.

Re:All about money. (2, Insightful)

lisany (700361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048366)

Hulu sells advertising in their feeds, Apple does not.

It's all about money indeed.

Re:All about money. (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048432)

This.

Also, Flash is a programming language. Apple doesnt allow programming languages onto iPods, iPhones, or iPads.

Flash could replace a large majority of whats on the App Store.

Re:All about money. (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048528)

Interestingly too the next version of the Flash IDE will have the option to cross compile down to the native iPhone format.

Re:All about money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048484)

Interesting how Hulu (and others) provide free flash videos while the iTunes store provides videos for sale.

If this html5 thing takes off like apple wants it to then it will have the same end result of being able to bypass the app store

Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right. (1, Interesting)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048308)

There isn't any reason why Flash should require a dual core processor just to barely run on the Mac. I use both Macs and PCs and the performance on the Mac side is horrible. Surely a company as large and as resource rich as adobe could have figured out how to program a flash plugin that is quick and lightweight. Is there something that I'm missing?

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (2, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048498)

Is there something that I'm missing?

Knowledge of how large companies stagnate. It's all bureaucratic BS.

I'm sure there's a team at Adobe that wants to optimize flash - but they're probably being blocked by the higher ups that refuse to cut backwards compatibility.

Flash performance is horrible on any computer. Youtube used to be smooth on my old 2.2ghz Athlon XP, but now it barely plays. Even my 3.5ghz Athlon II has occasional stutters.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (2, Funny)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048502)

How old is your dual core? A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date. If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks. Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does. Good old Slashdot. The Flash hate continues unabated.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048630)

Flash -shouldn't- require anything above a Pentium III to play right. In the "dark days" of the internet Flash was about the only way that you could get anything other than -very- basic HTML to show up the same on all platforms. A lot of sites were (and are) using Flash to avoid the pitfalls of CSS and HTML. A site coded for Netscape would look like crap in IE and vice versa. As such Flash was more or less designed to provide A) Multimedia beyond an animated GIF B) Consistent layouts and C) Interactivity.

As such, Flash was/is used to provide access to things that shouldn't require more than the browser to run. With this in mind, Adobe should make sure that Flash runs nicely in all system configurations because it is now a vital part of the web (for good or ill)

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (0)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048676)

Why? Adobe is not allowed to progress? How many modern applications can you run on an old single core computer? How about a computer with 128 megs of RAM? Or how about a 1 GB hard drive? This idea is such nonsense.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (1)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048684)

It's not hate that drives my comment. I have a 3 year old Macbook Pro with 4GB of memory and 2.2ghz Dual Core processors. The machine also has a 128MB discreet video card. So at the very least, I'd expect flash videos to play smoothly and consistently without taxing my processors at 80 to 90 percent! Even a processor heavy task like encoding video doesn't tax my processors as much as watching a flash video. To be Fair, Adobe says they are working to make Flash up to 50 percent faster on the Mac when it releases version 10.2. It seems a bit too little too late as it will take significant improvements on Adobes part to win over Apple.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048736)

So you likely have a 4 year old processor. Apple (I think) always has about a year lag in putting the chips into production from when Intel releases them. How many modern applications run super smoothly on your MBP?

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048702)

There's a difference between "taking advantage of multiple cores" and "require a dual core." It's really telling when someone asks "How old is your dual core?" because a computer from 4 years ago shouldn't even have to struggle for the functionality Flash provides.

A single core Pentium 4 should be more than enough, yet Flash struggles on a multi-core processor.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048714)

With all widely accepted software technologies, the customer base demands "more, more, more," and the products get fat from all the features. Flash is just the most recent 'mature' technology -- e.g., DOS, Windows, Office, Adobe CS4, Adaptec/Sonic/Roxio CD/DVD/BluRay Creator, AutoCAD, and TurboTax (originally on the Commodore64). Even Linux is starting to look a little thick around the middle. As for those that don't grow, is anyone using Minix?

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (2, Informative)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048732)

While I agree with you, that is somewhat Apple's fault. On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. In Flash 10, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported on OS X because Apple does not expose access to the required APIs.

Re:Jobs once called Adobe lazy and he may be right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048734)

If you are talking about video, we know why it is slow.. because Apple will not let them use hardware acceleration. That level of GPU access is limited to the OS and QuickTime. Apple feels that only Quick Time should be used for video and they are enforcing it in the OS.

Silverlight (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048312)

Right now Flash has most of the market, but my prediction is that within 5 years Silverlight will start to supplant Flash for this purpose. XAML is gaining ground rapidly, Silverlight supports DRM content for applications such as streaming movies, it supports DeepZoom, a rich set of built in controls, runs on every major OS (Mac, Linux, Windows), supports multitouch out of the box, and is very developer friendly. It's moving much faster than Flash, and while it doesn't yet have the same market share, it has enough compelling advantages that it's just a matter of time before it will become the dominant standard.

Re:Silverlight (2, Insightful)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048370)

Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't. Weird isn't it, even though there is this moonlight thingy, the most important internet application somehow does not work right. So Silverlight is basically just working on Windows (and I presume, Windows mobile). Da Silva, I know you are reading, care to comment on that?

Re:Silverlight (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048468)

As I understand it, Silverlight video uses three separate components: core, video codecs, and digital restrictions management. Moonlight has reimplemented core, and Microsoft distributes video decoders for use with Moonlight [wikipedia.org] . This leaves DRM unimplemented in Moonlight, and DRM is fundamentally incompatible with free software because there is no way to stop the X server from performing analog-hole-like output redirection.

Da Silva, I know you are reading

Are you talking about Miguel de Icaza or someone else?

Re:Silverlight (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048510)

Eh,yeah, sorry I got confused there. My apologies to Da Silva, I mean de Icaza of course. Ugh! Good of you to spot it.

I haven't seen too many (== any) applications outside of video streaming of Silverlight anyway. But maybe I'm not looking hard enough, I'm not one for playing flash games and such.

Re:Silverlight (DRM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048530)

> Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't.

That's just a problem with your implementation. Get or write a better one.

Of course, if you don't implement DRM you won't be able to play DRM'ed content, but that's a problem with *any* system which doesn't implement the necessary DRM, not just with Silverlight. If you want to be locked out of an increasing amount of content, you are welcome to ignore the DRM subsystem. If you want to play that content, you are welcome to use an implementation that supports the DRM subsystem. It's your choice either way! You can make the choice that you deem to be appropriate for you, and I can make the choice I deem appropriate for me. That way we both have freedom to do as we wish. What a concept :).

Re:Silverlight (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048396)

Shill much?

Re:Silverlight (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048480)

Troll detected. [zdnet.com] No, even paying people off won't make them stick with Silverlight. I predict it'll die a slow, stinky death like the Zune and Bing will. Not that any of this really matters, people will keep buying Apple stuff regardless, because Papa Jobs knows best.

Re:Silverlight (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048516)

Making a Microsoft product a de-facto web standard is madness. Nobody is going to trust Microsoft with Silverlight, after their past track record.

Sure, right now they'll happily support Macs and Linux and offer complete parity between platforms while they're trying to get a toehold against Flash-- but once that happened, next thing you know some Windows-only improvements would be made, and oops, now you've got to be running Windows for a "premium web experience" on any site that hitches their wagon to Silverlight.

Fuck that shit. I'm not crazy about Flash, but I'll put up with Adobe before I ever trust Microsoft.

Re:Silverlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048562)

...is very developer friendly

I disagree. Many of the SL2 code doesn't even compile in SL3 - WebClient can no longer be used synchronously for example.

GIF just isn't supported. Sure it may be dieing, but unfortunately, there's a shit load of legacy code that creates only GIFs.

XAML has some really crazy issues with scope. As a matter of fact, some of MS' own example code doesn't compile on my VS 2010 B2 SL3 setup. I was doing a filter for input and the code wouldn't even compile - even though I copied and pasted from their site.

There's some nice things about SIlverlight, but I just think it's too bulky for a web application framework. I don't so much should be put upon the client, whether it's Silverlight, Flash, or Java applets - especially with the trend towards hand held devices.

Liars (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048314)

They want to fully control what you can do with an iPhone. They can't do that as well if they allow you to make arbitrary programs out of Flash.

Nothing new here, just standard operating procedure for Apple.

I would be happy with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048352)

just an 'OK' mobile experience. You know, my standards aren't really that great, so if you give me an OK experience I won't be pissed off just because it's not 'insanely great'. Rather than having no experience at all. Just sayin'.

Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (1, Interesting)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048356)

Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers. Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements. How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?

Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (4, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048450)

What a strange comment, you just make larger buttons for a finger to press them. The same way all interfaces work on a mobile platforms.

Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (1)

fat_mike (71855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048524)

You mean like on my Blackberry, oops I don't have a touch screen...maybe my flip phone...no touch screen. 90% of the world doesn't own an Android, iPhone, or Pre. Just like 90% of the world could care less about if you like Flash.

It works, it provides rich multimedia experiences for the 90% of the world that don't give a shit and actually buy stuff based off of a cool Flash video/ad. Unlike 90% of Slashdot that thinks everything should be their way and also free.

Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048550)

He's talking about how the mouse pointer can enter an element, exit an element, and hover over an element -- all of which are impossible on a touchscreen interface.

Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048582)

How large do the buttons have to be in order for drag and drop to work?

What depends on hover? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048506)

Touch screens support every mouse action except hover. Any action that does not depend on hover can be simulated by always moving the mouse under the touch location. What actions are you talking about that depend on hover?

Re:What depends on hover? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048644)

Surely you've seen those absolutely horrid web sites that have nothing but a bunch of useless-looking unlabeled buttons, where an obnoxiously animated label appears only on mouseover?

Answer: the title= attribute (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048752)

You bring up a good point: even some web sites that have perfectly usable, labeled buttons will show a long description of the button when the user hovers. This "balloon help" or "tooltip" behavior is by no means specific to Flash. It has also existed in HTML since at least the turn of the decade, as the title= attribute [w3.org] of <a>, <abbr>, <acronym>, <img>, and most other HTML elements. If a general-purpose web browser provides no way to access the title=, the web browser is broken. By this metric, Mobile Safari is broken.

Re:Flash is not designed with mobiles in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048540)

Flash can't work very well on a phone because it was designed for computers. Computers have an ever-present pointing device called a mouse that is used to activate many Flash elements. How do you replicate that with a pointer that only exists long enough to click on something?

On an iPhone/iPad it's called a finger. Also most flash apps aren't that CPU intensive. There's debate about encoded videos which Apple solved for Youtube by supplying hardware decoding. The resistance seems to be mostly from the Apple side and not Adobe not wishing to support the Apple mobile devices. There was a break somewhere along the way and there's lots of speculation but no one outside of Apple seems a 100% sure why they are so adamant about not supporting Flash. Steve Jobs appeared so upset by Flash it seemed like Adobe pissed in his corn flakes. It came off just as personal as it was a business decision. The problem is for some one that pushes their mobile devices as the ultimate mobile web surfing experience it's hard to claim that with a straight face when you don't support Flash.

If Apple Really Cared... (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048394)

If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them.

Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.

Re:If Apple Really Cared... (0, Troll)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048404)

There is a user experience when you use Flash? Who knew?

Re:If Apple Really Cared... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048626)

So such things as security, quality control, and the like don't mean squat on a consumer device, in your opinion? Note that the iPhone is not a computer - it just pretends to be one on occasion.

Tired of the Apple propaganda (1, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048638)

If Apple really cared about empowering the user in the style, manner, and spirit of their legendary 1984 commercial, they would make Flash available -- or rather allow Adobe to make it available -- on the iPhone, Touch, and iPad, and allow the user to decide which user experiences work best for them. Apple only cares about profits and control these days, having become the very thing they once railed against.

Just look at story. "Insanely great mobile experience"???? Give me a break. I am sick and tired of this company being hailed as god's gift to design and bug free products. It just isn't true. They are one of the least open, most overpriced, most marketing based companies on the planet. Their products don't "just work". What they do is force you to work in a limited way according to their rules and in Apple's interests. Yet otherwise intelligent people start foaming at the mouth about how great Apple is and repeating their marketing drivel verbatim. It's just plain disturbing. Apple's genius is the marketing, which seems to brainwash intelligent people.

Control freaks (5, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048418)

Why can't they let us decide?!

Re:Control freaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048440)

Exactly.

This is a perfect example of software freedoms. Let me shoot my own foot off, I'm enough of an expert to know what I'm doing.

Ready Aim Fire!

Corona (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048434)

Seems to me like the entire article was more geared for promoting the Corona SDK than to explain why Apple chose not to do flash.

Insanely Great Experiences? (5, Informative)

seanalltogether (1071602) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048454)

"Flash has its strengths, but not when it comes to creating insanely great mobile experiences" Nothing really creates insanely great mobile experiences, mobile is far more about functionality then experience because it is such a limiting platform. Most of our clients looking for iphone apps are trying to scale down the full experience to a limited set of core functionality that supports a sometimes connected, highly relevant, supplement to the richer web desktop/laptop experiences. As much as people want to say that HTML5 richness can keep up with Flash, I've already tried to start some benchmarks to see where the performance gaps are. http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/HTML5ChartingTest.html [craftymind.com] http://craftymind.com/factory/guimark2/FlashChartingTest.html [craftymind.com] To give some perspective, the iphone renders the HTML5 test at about 0.5 fps.

Re:Insanely Great Experiences? (0, Troll)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048572)

I would say that it's likely bullshit that the flash test would do significantly better, which you don't really know, as you can't run the flash test on an iPhone. Also, I'd like to say it's likely to run slower than the HTML5 test, as the HTML5 test is running approximately 2x faster on my computer. Also, flash is an additional layer for the processor to deal with beyond the browser engine itself, lending to extra exchanges of information between browser and flash plugin.

Re:Insanely Great Experiences? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048818)

Interesting. On my Ubuntu 9.10 dual core desktop, the flash version is running about twice as fast as the html5 version, in Firefox.

BS (0, Flamebait)

nnnnnnn (1611817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048456)

" Flash didn't provide the optimal mobile user experience."

I say bullshit. Flash is very optimal on my Nokia n900, and a whole range of other smartphones that support it.

Re:BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048492)

This is Apple we are talking about, they won't support anything until there is hardware decoding for it.

Shameless plug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048466)

This post has nothing to do with Apple, Adobe, Flash or iPhone. It is just a shameless plug for the author promoting an SDK that is nowhere near being usable.

It's a two-part problem (0, Troll)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048470)

The first problem is that it's hideously slow, and bloated beyond belief. A hideous, disfigured freak of a software abortion. The second problem is a tad bigger, and, strikingly, it seems that everyone belching their thoughts on this point appear to be complete, clueless jacka**es: there is no ARM version of Flash. Let's repeat that: there is no ARM version of Flash; it does not run on any ARM based system. There, someone had to break the news to the morons.

Re:It's a two-part problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048522)

arm said they would help out porting flash to some arm-arch for the v10 release, though, but truly as you imply, nothing really came out of that effort - at least there's still no sight of the arm-build today.

Re:It's a two-part problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048708)

Then what the hell I'm using on my Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (2005ish)? Silverlight? And what's the Nokia N900 using?

Oh please stop this crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048474)

Apple does not want a way to bypass the appstore-assrape, plain-and-simple.

One big fat reason that gets missed... (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048494)

...security.

Seriously - with all the active exploits out there that use Flash as a way into an operating system, I can very easily see a Flash bug being exploited to bust right through the iPhone's 'walled garden' setup (what with it's default root password and all...)

Re:One big fat reason that gets missed... (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048624)

How many exploits are there for Flash? I cant imagine it's any more than Webkit itself.

The optimal mobile experience for Apple (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048566)

Is one where everyone buys their content through Apple's store. That's it.

It's no wonder that Flash which acts as a gateway to a mass of free content from across the world might be considered "non optimal". After all, Apple has to think of the poor consumers who would be "confused" by all the choice that countless non-Apple alternatives would cause.

apple likes it lock down and free flash games as b (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048570)

apple likes it lock down and lock in app store and free flash games are bad for that.

Except flash works on other platforms, if barely (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048574)

I somewhat understand Apple's position, but if Skyfire can do flash on shitty windows mobile devices then it can be done on the iphone. I still can't believe after the mp3 patent fiasco that we don't have widely accepted open music and video codecs. I already don't run bloated Apple software on my computer I can't wait to file Adobe in the same cabinet I put Realplayer and Quicktime in.

Flex/Flash is the only option for some use cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048576)

Try building a Web App that allow the client to cache thousands of domain objects like we do at our company, and
you'll quickly find Flash is the only technology that works well. It's 1000 times faster than JavaScript (jQuery, GWT, etc),
Grails, Rails, JSF, etc. Believe me, I tried them all.

We can build a VERY robust web app in flex in a day that is blazingly fast for the
client, autocompletes every drop-down from massive result sets, and looks amazing (and I'm not a graphic artist).
It integrates easily with the Spring Framework, and BlazeDS removes all the old marshalling code you used to write by hand.

I totally understand why Jobs doesnt want Flash on the iPhone. It makes the app store worthless.
Who's going to pay for apps when you can get free flash ones that are just as good?
I'm just really sick that I have to learn ObjectC (something I gave up 7 years ago) to write iPhone apps.
But, the barrier to entry makes the apps I write, that much more valuable.

Senior Software Architect

Re:Flex/Flash is the only option for some use case (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048792)

Care to provide a link to your Flex app so we can check it out in a BlackBerry, Nokia, or Android phone?

Lua (1)

sohp (22984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048604)

So, Lua, hmm. Maybe all those hours I spent writing addons for World of Warcraft weren't entirely wasted. Just mostly.

Advertising under a different name (1)

fruitbane (454488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048730)

I like what little insight this article provides into the issue of flash on the iPhone, but it's really not substantive enough to warrant posting here on Slashdot. What does stand out, is how much of an advertising pitch this is for Corona. I'm sure it's fantastic, but the first part of the piece seemed, to me, to simply be an advertising lead-in.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?