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!

A Peace Plan To End the Flash-On-iPhone Fight

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the why-can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Iphone 495

GMGruman writes "As the pro- and anti-Flash camps have hardened their positions, the editors at InfoWorld have come up with a four-point peace plan that would allow Flash on the iPhone while addressing Apple's very real concerns over performance, stability, and security. Readers can vote and comment on the peace plan, which InfoWorld hopes will result in serious talks between Apple and Adobe."

cancel ×

495 comments

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

Apple Plan (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154982)

I doubt it does much good. Apple has taken it stance, and they have a very clear reason to do so: Apple is building a replacement for Flash [theregister.co.uk] .

Throw away all that hypocrisy where Steve Jobs said H.264 is "open, free and non-proprietary", and their "humble" goal to open up the internet (while their devices are closed as hell), and welcome to the masterplan. It's not about open standards or supporting HTML5 (and funnily closed H.264), it's because Apple wants to compete with Adobe. Talk about backstabbing, at least I knew Mac's because artists always used a Mac with earlier Photoshops.

Obviously you can only develop software for this Flash-lookalike using Macs and if you want to develop for iPhone or iPad you are required to buy a pricy developers license. So much for hobbyist creating interesting programs and fun games? It makes perfect sense now why Apple doesn't want to allow even cross-compiled apps [daringfireball.net] .

Get ready for Apple fanbois coming in and commenting on this on why it's "innovative" and why suddenly "Apple shouldn't support HTML5".

Re:Apple Plan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155040)

Wow, you must really love Ballmer's cock for you to so constantly get the first post in every Apple thread so you can troll. Hope it was really worth all the incontinence you get later in life.

Re:Apple Plan (1, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155064)

I don't think anyone will be required to buy a pricy developers license - Apple doesn't require that for any of their development environments now, so I doubt they will require it in the future. So far, on OSX and iPhone/iPad, Apple have made their environments free to use and cheap to release for.

Re:Apple Plan (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155124)

It's $99 a year. Also you are required to buy Mac OSX which seriously brings up the price.

If I want to develop for Linux, I can write the full code in Windows and compile it too. If I want to develop for Windows, I can write the full code in Linux and compile it too. What about Mac OSX?

Re:Apple Plan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155372)

It's $99 a year. Also you are required to buy Mac OSX which seriously brings up the price.

If I want to develop for Linux, I can write the full code in Windows and compile it too. If I want to develop for Windows, I can write the full code in Linux and compile it too. What about Mac OSX?

Another clueless post for Ballmer's favorite cock jock. Hey fucktard, can you develop freely for PS3? Wii? XBox360? No. You have to pay for SDKs and you are limited in developing in the language and with the tools picked by the vendor. iPad is no different. I don't see you giving up on Ballmer's cock and bitching because you can't develop whatever the fuck you want for the XBox 360 in whatever the fuck language you want eh? Fucking christ, remove your mouth from Ballmer's cock for one second and actually use whatever grey matter left in your brain.

The iPad is not a fucking general purpose computer. It's a fucking device like consoles. Capich?

Fucktard.

Re:Apple Plan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155444)

Yes, because people who cite Windows-Linux interoperability are obviously MICROSOFT fanboys, and gaming-oriented machines are completely equivalent to general-purpose computers like PCs, Macs and the iPad. I'd suggest that you stop sodomizing yourself with that brand-new iPhone and learn to read before going out onto the big scary internets all by yourself, macfag.

Re:Apple Plan (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155540)

general-purpose computers like PCs, Macs and the iPad.

There's your problem. The iPad is not a general-purpose computer. It's an appliance.

Re:Apple Plan (3, Insightful)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155554)

Read carefully: the iPad/iPhone is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER. Why is this so hard to grasp for the vocal minority of Apple-complainers on Slashdot?

Re:Apple Plan (-1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155468)

Those are devices designed specifically for video games. Sure, there have been efforts to make them do other things, but 99% of their job is games.

The iPad is a multipurpose device, not designed for anything in particular. It's much more like a PC than a game console.

Shame on apple for fucking it's customers the way they do.

Re:Apple Plan (1)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155634)

The iPad is a multipurpose device, not designed for anything apart from looking utterly scruptious

Talking of things that look good, can I fix anything else for you, big boy? Hmmmmmm?

Re:Apple Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155502)

What about Android and Symbian-based devices? All free to develop for, and they're the same type of devices. They're not fucking general purpose computers. Your argument fails.

Nice try, fucktard.

Re:Apple Plan (4, Informative)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155440)

The counterpart to Flash development in the iPhone world is AJAX and HTML5. That's free and you don't need to use the app store. It's called a Rich Internet Application (RIA) or a "web app". The so-called Flash replacement is a Javascript library that makes it easier to write web apps that look like native apps. That will actually help developers who don't want to pay fee or go through the app store. You pay $99 in order to develop native apps for the iPhone - that's different.

Re:Apple Plan (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155568)

Yeah but the poor performance and portability between browsers at the moment makes Flash look really, really good.

I'm looking forward to HTML5 but we're not there yet... and people are buying iPads and co right now, i.e. in the present.

Re:Apple Plan (2, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155584)

Actually, you pay $99 to release native apps for the iPhone. You can sign up and download the dev environment for free. It's not immediately obvious, but I have it sitting here in my downloads folder after a bit of circular link-following on Apple's site.

Re:Apple Plan (4, Interesting)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155524)

No it's not. I have the full X-Code package for developing on desktop OSX and iPhone, I downloaded it from the developer's area of Apple's website after registering for free. You only pay if you wish to release software via the App Store for the iPhone/iPad. $99 seems very reasonable to me as a fee for use of the libraries and access to the App store. Many development environments (e.g. Flash) require you to pay up-front whether you release or not.

Surprisingly, you are required to run OSX to run Apple's development environment, just like you are required to run Windows to run Microsoft's development environments. Code can be written for OSX using freely available tools and libraries on the OS of your choice, which will run from the command line or graphically via one of the cross-platform UI libraries. If you want to link against Apple's libraries you will need to use their OS, which I think is true of the Windows APIs too.

Re:Apple Plan (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155636)

You only pay if you wish to release software via the App Store for the iPhone/iPad.

I think that is kinda the point. Sure if you're a teenager and code just for fun (man I loved those years!) it's ok, but Apple limiting it like this only gives a good stance for people trying to milk cash from Apple customers (and Apple taking their "fair" share too)

Re:Apple Plan (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155108)

There is no "flash lookalike", the only thing they have are javascript frameworks and we already knew about those.

Re:Apple Plan (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155496)

Apple has taken it stance

Feet crossed, head turned sideways, one hand on the hip and the other wrist bent?

Come on guys... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155010)

You could outline that plan in the summary. How many people here will RTFA?

Re:Come on guys... (4, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155028)

Here:
1. Create a Flash video player plug-in.
2. Put the core Flash technologies into the standards bodies.
3. Create an iPhone-certified SWF exporter for Creative Suite.
4. Explore a Flash app certification process.

Re:Come on guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155238)

And the article states this is necessary because HTML 5 is years away. As if these solutions wouldn't be.

Re:Come on guys... (4, Informative)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155464)

Say Apple releases new API's you want to use in your app. Here's what you do as an Xcode coder:

1) Download the new Xcode with new API's
2) Modify your code to use new API's
3) Recompile
4) Submit to store

Here's what you do if you want to use new capabilities from your Flash app:

1) Wait for Adobe to download new XCode
2) Wait for Adobe to use new hooks in code and expose them to you in new functions.
3) Buy new version of Flash development.
4) Modify your code
5) Export as iPhone app
6) Submit to store

I would rather have to code in Objective-C than wait for and have to buy a new version of Adobe Flash, just to get the capabilities made available by Apple's Xcode.

What, Is It snydeq's Day Off? (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155096)

...or does InfoWorld now employ an entire department to astroturf here?

Re:Come on guys... (0)

Moblaster (521614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155346)

This "peace plan" is not going to work. The two main points remain -- Flash IS unstable enough with frequent memory/CPU blowups that Apple DOES have a valid case about mobile suitability, and Apple also wants to OWN and CONTROL the market Flash addresses.

With Adobe repeatedly proving over the long term that it cannot seem to solve the stability issues, the only real solution to stable Flash on iPhone is AT&T building its network out well enough to view real-time Flash rendered from some remote virtual machine, using the network itself to exchange user input and Flash output.

The last straw... (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155044)

Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)

Re:The last straw... (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155166)

Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)

I can't decide between commenting on your preference for bananas or laughing at your disregard on news about gravity.

Re:The last straw... (-1, Offtopic)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155178)

Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)

It's lovely how, despite the tool being there for you to turn them off, you still feel obliged to let everyone else know about your intolerance for news that you could always had filtered out.

Re:The last straw... (1)

Engeekneer (1564917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155276)

Yes, i had the exact same thought. Reading real news one thing, but come on, this is getting ridiculous.

Re:The last straw... (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155278)

I had no idea you can filter out iphone spam. Thanks alot.

Re:The last straw... (5, Funny)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155316)

Bye. Can I have your gold?

Re:The last straw... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155516)

ladies & gentlemen I'm proud to present to you the great whisper jeff, the man with a huge apple shaped hole in his heart!

watch and wonder as this pitiful little creep demonstrates his devotion to apple by taking steve jobs' todger into his mouth, and going at it like there is absolutely no tomorrow!!!!

wow, look at him go!!!!!

on second thoughts you'd probably rather not =(

Re:The last straw... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155456)

Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)

And then welcome to the world of three posts a week on /. (two of which will probably be Apple-related idle stuff).

Not about Perf, Stability or Security (5, Insightful)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155052)

It's about Profit going down the drain if Flash apps make it to the iPhone!

Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (4, Interesting)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155116)

It's important to note that the loss of profit may not be from the App store, but from the fact that people will have little reason to buy an iPhone if every app is available on every platform; Apple makes the majority of it's profit off hardware not software.

Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155344)

Even if Apple makes the majority of profit on the hardware the software is still part of the business plan. It might not be very profitable today but several years from now it could be and they want as little threats to it as possible as it grows, and flash is a major threat.

Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (3, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155498)

This is exactly why Apple are trying to get a stranglehold on the Apps market right now. They need a hardware exit strategy - for now they have desirable hardware, but elsewhere prices are decreasing, specs are increasing, and beyond that there's going to come a saturation point for these devices. Apple realise this and they're trying to steal a march on the software side of things because they realise it might one day be their primary business. Of course, the fact that it sells iPhones/iPods/iPads in the meantime is a massive bonus, but that's not the end-game.

Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155600)

Even if Apple makes the majority of profit on the hardware the software is still part of the business plan. It might not be very profitable today but several years from now it could be and they want as little threats to it as possible as it grows, and flash is a major threat.

It's about both. Apple wants to protect its profits, and having a closed HW/SW ecosystem supports that. I'd be great if SW becomes more profitable, but as long as it creates vendor locking its done its job. If it were easy to migrate from an iPhone to another phone then Apple would not be as easily able to keep its customer base (or get folks to want an iPhone vs a competing phone with the same SW availability); making the iPhone less valuable to carriers and putting downward price pressure; something Apple really wants to avoid.

The technical term for that is monopolistic competition - while there are similar products available you have successfully differentiated yours to allow you some pricing power. Apple will do what they can to defend that position.

Best Solution (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155066)

Ban both of them?

(Apple fans will mod me troll - but fortunately, there are no Flash fans!)

Re:Best Solution (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155448)

but fortunately, there are no Flash fans!

You bet! [firstshowing.net]

Oh, you mean Adobe Flash, not camera flash (4, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155068)

Here I was thinking they were talking about the lack of a camera flash on the iPhone... I guess Adobe Flash is important too. Whatever makes you happy!

Re:Oh, you mean Adobe Flash, not camera flash (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155394)

I thought they meant the lack of a micro SD slot.

Missing options on the poll... (5, Insightful)

Roogna (9643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155070)

Where's the option for "I support Apple not because I agree with their acceptance policies but because I honestly don't want Adobe's crapware anywhere near my phone!"
After all, unlike my desktop where I can easily -remove- Flash or block it with browser plugins, if Flash is on my phone then they better make sure I can remove it!

Re:Missing options on the poll... (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155192)

Where's the option for "I support Apple not because I agree with their acceptance policies but because I honestly don't want Adobe's crapware anywhere near my phone!" After all, unlike my desktop where I can easily -remove- Flash or block it with browser plugins, if Flash is on my phone then they better make sure I can remove it!

This. Although hopefully more web sites will be built without flash thanks to the iPad's popularity so I have to worry less about stupid flash in the desktop.

Re:Missing options on the poll... (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155260)

Very true! I purposely go to lengths to avoid flash when I can, and can honestly say I haven't had a browser crash in so long I can't remember.

of course I don't watch much online video, so ....

Only one thing will fix Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155078)

Someones going to have to go in there and remove the dildo that was lost in Steve Jobs' anus over 30 years ago.

It's not going to be an easy job. At this point, the dildo has more control over Apple's actions than the once mighty Steve Jobs ever had.

The issue isn't just /Flash/ (1, Insightful)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155082)

It's /anything/ on iPhone. Someday, there will be another widely used application that people want on an iPhone, that Apple won't approve. This won't be resolved until Apple pulls their collective heads out of their arses and gets rid of the insane requirement that they approve all applications on these platforms.

For me, this application would be Ogg Vorbis and Theora support, hence I won't be buying an iPhone or iPad any time soon.

Re:The issue isn't just /Flash/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155466)

Someday, there will be another widely used application that people want on an iPhone, that Apple won't approve. This won't be resolved until Apple pulls their collective heads out of their arses and gets rid of the insane requirement that they approve all applications on these platforms.

Someday, jackasses like yourself will realize that people are buying the iPhone specifically for the walled-garden, not in spite of it.
Someday, jackasses like yourself will realize just how big a hypocrite you are because you bash Apple for the same exact business practice you support with your ownership of any gaming console.

For me, this application would be Ogg Vorbis and Theora support, hence I won't be buying an iPhone or iPad any time soon.

And, yet, Apple will somehow survive the loss of 3 unit sales from that community.

Re:The issue isn't just /Flash/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155566)

pr0n

Again with this? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

jacks smirking reven (909048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155090)

The Apple/Adobe fight is about money and control. Apple wants to wall people into their garden and Flash is an impedance to that. Apples banking on their customer loyalty (accept that owning an iPhone/iPad == no Flash) and that HTML5 will replace Flash for video.

If this was only about technological/security hurdles it'd be done and done already. Apple and Adobe have the resources to get this working in short order. The issue is money. No amount of standards and compatibility will get past that.

Re:Again with this? Seriously? (2, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155508)

HTML5 poses as much threat to Apple as Flash does. I don't see Apple blocking it, but encouraging it instead. I don't think it's about control only, but about, for once, Apple using its power to bully a good standard into the web, for a change.

Waste of time (4, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155102)

The decision is Apple's and Apple's alone. Apple has all the cards and has no need to cut any deals. InfoWorld's suggestions fail to take that into account.

Re:Waste of time (3, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155196)

Exactly. It's completely stupid to think Steve Jobs will read such an article and rethink his position on Flash. He doesn't want it. So it won't be happening. Period. I don't understand why all the tech sites are still so busy with this subject. Want Flash on your phone? Don't buy an iPhone. It's really that simple.

There's one slight flaw with this plan. (4, Funny)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155126)

it's complete bollocks.

Steve HATES Adobe.
You're more likely to get Steve Jobs to prove at the next Apple Keynote that he really can shit rainbows. "One more thing....."

Re:There's one slight flaw with this plan. (2)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155246)

Steve HATES Adobe.

And I keep wondering what the fuck he is thinking. Adobe and Photoshop and their other products are what made Macs popular in graphics/video editing departments. Jobs must have lost his mind.

Re:There's one slight flaw with this plan. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155404)

I think Steve Jobs knows way more about running a successful company than you do. Go back to riding Ballmer's cock. That's all your good for anyway.

Re:There's one slight flaw with this plan. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155598)

Another stellar post by Ballmer's cock strap. Hey fucktard, unless you have been living under a rock, you would like to know maybe that the iPhone part of Apple's business alone is 40% of their revenues. Add to it the iPod part and soon you'll realize that Macs make up a small percentage of Apple's revenues. Jobs doesn't give a flying fuck about Macs. Wonder why on this year's Apple dev conference there are no awards given for Mac apps? Only iPhone OS based apps?

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Ballmer cock sucking! Oh and try not to gag ...

Fucktard.

Re:There's one slight flaw with this plan. (1)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155612)

You're more likely to get him to shit rainbows AND announce that the next generation Macs will ship with Windows 7 instead of OS X.

Re:There's one slight flaw with this plan. (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155618)

There's only a flaw in their plan if you assume their plan is to find a resolution to the Flash issue as opposed to, say, getting more eyes on their publication by posting preposterous nonsense that people will read more out of incredulity than interest. And here they are with a /. write up, so I'd say their plan is working pretty well.

It's all about (5, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155134)

It's all about not allowing unapproved apps to play on the iProduct. Everything else is mostly an excuse to hide the blatant fact. If it was truly about stability and performance, then iTunes among others wouldn't suck so bad.

Re:It's all about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155368)

Yes, SonicStage is much better.

Re:It's all about (0, Troll)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155590)

I read about iTunes complaints all the time in online fora and blogs, but I rarely see any specific grievances. I'm not saying it is not true, but I am very curious to know what specifically makes iTunes "suck so bad"? I ask because I use iTunes all the time as my primary music library manager and player, and find it easy to use and very powerful.

It's an honest question, I'm not trying to start a flamewar.

    -dZ.

Wait, You Think Apple Is Relevant? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155146)

Apple has:
3 percent worldwide desktop marketshare
An aging cellphone OS that has just been dumped into 3rd place by Google's Android.
And the laughing stock of the computing world with their completely useless iPad

The rest of the 97 percent of computing world will go right on using Flash.

There. That's your 'peace plan'.

So, Apple fans, keep spamming social media site with garbage about Adobe and Flash. Keep posting stories about how Flash raped your grandmother and her poodle.

The non-Hipster Douchebag 97 percent of the computing world doesn't give a damn.

Re:Wait, You Think Apple Is Relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155348)

However it's the "Hipster Douchebag" that influences something like 30% of those 97% because those 30% ask the 3% for advice on all things tech. So it's a leading edge bit. Yes, current market share is around 3% for iPhones, but what will that be in the next five years? Let the wave catch up to the leading edge, and you might be surprised.

However, since you're trolling, I'm going to stop feeding the troll ... now.

Wow, Butthurt Apple Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155426)

Apple's phone market-share has dropped down to 21 percent. Android is all the way up to 28 percent. While RIM has 36 percent.

If you are going to troll, you had better have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Save yourself in the future from making yourself look like such a complete idiot like you just did.

Missing the point (2, Insightful)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155156)

Apple wants total control over the tools used to create applications on their devices. They can't do that with Adobe Flash. Peace is not possible.

Having flash in the locked down iPhone/iPad environment would be akin to having a dynamic programming environment on the iPhone/iPad. It would open up so many vectors for screwing with the security on the devices. I imagine it would be a great vector for hacks as well, especially given how homogenous the iPhone/iPad environment is.

Competitors advancing STANDARDS (3, Insightful)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155158)

Why make them "at peace". This competition has been driving standards forward like nothing else has. The byproduct has been great for all, and I'm not interested in seeing this end.

Real plan to fix the Flash on iPhone dev concerns (4, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155164)

1) Forget about it, it's their device and they'll do what they want with it, no matter if you like it or not.

2) Learn another language. WTH is wrong with developers these days? It's not that hard to learn another language! Makes me ponder if most the flash developers are actually programmers or just script kiddies.

3) Web authors: start using HTML5 video standards and quit the stupid flash video player already!!!

Finally: I actually hopes flash dies, I hate the tech on my browsers and hate feeling forced to install it on every computer I have. Flash should die and Adobe should turn all their Flash authoring tools into HTML5 authoring tools instead. Heck, that would get them into the iphone too!!!

Re:Real plan to fix the Flash on iPhone dev concer (0, Troll)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155572)

Which codec should we use for HTML5 video? The one that doesn't work in Opera/Firefox or the one that doesn't work in Safari/(future)IE9?

Also, give me Farmville, badgersbadgersbadgers and Chatroulette in HTML and I'll buy what you say. But since you can't, I feel compelled to say you are wrong.

inb4: I don't want simple games!
I don't have autism!
Why would you talk to strangers?

Flash Video Player plug-in (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155168)

Actually it's not a bad idea, but not as a "plug-in". The iPhone OS should simply load the .swf, analyze if it references an MPEG-4/H.264 file, and access that video file directly (i.e. replace the Flash video player with its built-in player on the fly).

Anyone know if it's easy to parse a Flash Video Player file to check for an external video file reference?

That way, they at least force people to switch to H.264/AAC if they haven't done so already.

Screw Apple (2, Insightful)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155170)

Really.
If they want to control what users do in their walled garden, let them.
Flash sucks... hell acrobat reader sucks too.

I don't care for either Apple or Adobe personally.
But neither should control what I have on my phone.

Flash is horrible please give me something else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155176)

Why would they want flash, it is horrible. Just try to get an hp driver onto a server through RDP. Their webpage is so flash heavy that it is almost impossible to get past the first page. Any flash on RDP is horrible even static images saved as flash. Makes my job a nightmare as I work using RDP all day supporting servers. Give me something that works instead of bandaiding a horrible product into 80% effectiveness.

next: OSX in vmware (0, Offtopic)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155180)

What I don't get is why Microsoft doesn't disallow to run windows on a mac (inside vmware or otherwise natively).
I mean, a big argument in favor of buying a mac is that it can always run windows anyway. That argument
would then disappear. Less people would be inclined to buy apple, and as a nice side-benefit, Jobs would get to
swallow some of his own tricks.

Re:next: OSX in vmware (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155242)

Why on earth would Microsoft care what hardware people are using to run their operating system on? It's not like they have their own competing hardware platform or something.

In fact, I think Microsoft like people running Windows on a Mac a lot. Better than people not running Windows at all.

Re:next: OSX in vmware (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155596)

What I don't get is why Microsoft doesn't disallow to run windows on a mac (inside vmware or otherwise natively). I mean, a big argument in favor of buying a mac is that it can always run windows anyway. That argument would then disappear. Less people would be inclined to buy apple, and as a nice side-benefit, Jobs would get to swallow some of his own tricks.

Not sure what this has to do with the iPhone and flash BUT: Windows does not make computers. They dont care where you run their OS as long as you do. Mac users buying Windows is just more money for them, nothing else, no loss.

That being told I have a mac, so do many friends. None of us would ever put windows on it. We have PCs for that, and Remote Desktop into them (I only sit on them to play the games that are not for mac.)

Make Flash an Open Standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155214)

Point #2: "Put the core Flash technologies into the standards bodies." Um, you mean like HTML5 video, SVG, WebGL, and JavaScript? Sure, these combined aren't quite yet a replacement for Flash, but I have faith that the competition between Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera will eventually produce superior implementations. Making Flash an "open" standard would just entrench Adobe's product further in the market and not lead to innovation.

One good idea (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155220)

The article has one good idea, create a flash standard, which I believe would allow others to write browsers with native flash support. This would be the same thing Adobe did when they let others write applications to display PDF.

This has to be more than just allowing flash movies to play. Adobe would have to allow people to write applications that supports all that is flash. This would clearly get rid of the major worry about Flash, that it is controlled by a single firm that could wipe our it's competitors simply by no longer supporting Flash on their products. Of couse, as Adobe is finding out, it works both ways. Apple is doing it's best to destroy Flash by not supporting it on the mobile products.

Why will Adobe not allow flash players? Well, because then we might get functionality that would be a detriment to major players like google. Users might have in browser control of browser cookies. Users might get the control the do with images, like automatically blocking any flash object below a certain size. Or, heaven forbid, user might get an off switch.

Lock-in (2, Insightful)

Enuratique (993250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155222)

The author misses the real point here: vendor lock-in... Why would people even bother to buy an iPhone if any of the Google offerings allow them the same apps? If there's a really hot app that can only be had on the iPhone, then people will buy iPhones... Plain and simple.

Slave to 3rd party (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155272)

How do so many people seem to miss the rather glaring issue that Apple has no desire to be a slave to a third party development tool. They've stated as much and it is a very real and serious concern. They offer features to their customers but, if a third party provides developer tools (such as Adobe with Flash) and that third party decides to take their time offering support for those new features or to outright not offer it at all then those features do not make it to the customer. That is a serious concern. In an environment where manufacturers need to provide every advantage possible to stand out from the other offerings on the market, Apple would be hamstringing themselves if they allowed Adobe, rather than themselves, to dictate what features do and do not make it to their customers. Anyone who thinks, even for a second, that this is a trivial part of the equation is not thinking clearly about things.

I'm surprised that InfoWorld completely overlooked this very real and very significant concern. Ah, who'm I kidding?... I'm not surprised at all... sigh...

Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155290)

...people could stop whining every damned day about it and vote with their wallets.

There is no mobile Flash ready for the market. So for now, this is a fight over nothing. At the current rate, by the time Adobe actually delivers something usable for consumers (how long has it been delayed now?), it will be irrelevant.

Please stop spreading FUD (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155300)

"performance, stability, and security" is a factor no matter what. You can't be against Flash for those reasons but be supportive of HTML5. HTML5 has the very same "performance, stability, and security" issues as flash. HTML5 can kill a battery, kill stability and is only as secure as the person who is using it. (IE, easily socially engineered to be stupid in most cases)

Re:Please stop spreading FUD (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155530)

You can debate stability and security, but Flash is a performance hog, HTML5 isn't.

How about apple just make their own implementation (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155302)

How about Apple just make their own implementation of flash? I mean flash is a public and published standard and anyone are allowed to create an implementation.

So if Apple don't like the current Adobe implementation(And I can understand that) they can just make their own.

Re:How about apple just make their own implementat (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155594)

Why bother? 80% of flash is simply video, and the iPhone supports sites like YouTube already without supporting Flash. The 20% that's simple animation can be done just as easily in HTML5/CSS3.

I keep missing what great Flash applications people need ported to their iPhones.

Doesn't just affect Flash (4, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155308)

Apple's new terms forbid applications written in any language that is not called C, C++ or Objective-C. For example, I work on the Free Pascal Compiler [freepascal.org] and added iPhone support a couple of years ago (it compiles straight to ARM assembler, no intermediate code or frameworks are involved). Most people that use it write their GUI in Objective-C and reuse Delphi or other existing Pascal code for their backend, just like other people would reuse C or C++ code.

But simply because FPC stands for Free Pascal Compiler rather than for Fast Progressive C, this way of working is no longer allowed. That just does not make any sense to me. Why on earth would the name of the programming language matter in any way? I could understand it if they would limit you to using their tool chain (although I'd still disagree with it), but limiting to a particular set of programming languages?

The fact that I can't even discuss this on the iPhone developer forums without first signing the new developer agreement (and thereby make it illegal for me to continue working on that project) only adds insult to the injury.

Re:Doesn't just affect Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155528)

If you're generating arm assembly, can't you just dump that to C file and wrap it using the GCC inline keyword?

It's still a valid C file via GCC isn't it? Unless Apple are about to ban make tools and macro processing, they're going to look like morons. I wonder about Vala (the compiler generates ANSI C) with the Posix profile, would that be disallowed too?

er... bit late for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155414)

yeah well, you can fuck right off with this - apple have made their bed and they're starting to realize that they made a big mistake. GOOD!!!!!!!

I hate apple and the pathetic scum who follow them - let them rot in their walled garden.

why do apple guys need the internet - you've got itunes and the appstore?

Lol (1)

ohzero (525786) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155432)

Infoworld story doesn't load on my iPhone. Guess it's a flash site. Classic.

Gordon (5, Informative)

david.given (6740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155452)

...is a Flash runtime written in Javascript [github.com] , using HTML5 to do the rendering. It runs purely in the web browser. It runs on the iPhone. It's still pretty basic, but looks promising. Running the demos [paulirish.com] in Chromium on Linux doesn't appear to show much difference in speed --- of course, those demos have been carefully chosen to work.

It claims to support SWF1 and a lot of SWF2. Right now I believe we're on SWF9, so there's a long way to go, but it does show that the approach works.

Flash implemented in JS/HTML5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155474)

I'm sure I heard recently that someone had implemented a flash player in Javascript / HTML5.

If that's for real (and I confess I never tried it out), then why can't iPhones/iPads use that? If nothing else, it would be a good stop-gap solution.

I'm sure it would be dog slow, but it may be good enough for some users/uses at least.

A better plan: (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155476)

1. Apple allows Flash on the iPhone / iPad, with one caveat - there's a huge fucking OFF switch in the settings. When this is turned off, no Flash code can execute.
2. If Adobe doesn't like that, too God damn bad. Get screwed with your pants on.

This way, the *user* gets to decide if Flash has all the problems that Apple claims it does, and if those problems aren't outweiged by the added functionality. If the problems are that bad, then very few people will use it, and Adobe looks like the goat for churning out terrible inefficient crapware.

other idea (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155478)

Here's another idea:

1) some bunch of technically skilled people with a lot of spare time put together a proposal for a linux based tablet system
2) those people ask for funding (for example on http://www.kickstarter.com/ [kickstarter.com]
3) slashdot crowd starts donating money
4) people start developing the device
5) profit!

All the best for the European Wetab ;-) (0)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155492)

The more they waste time, the better it'll be for the german Neofonie to negotiate most european publishers for hts rival Wetab tablet machine.
Which may not be so bad ( Linux based, yes sir).

http://wetab.mobi/en [wetab.mobi]
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/neofonies-wepad-tablet-shown-to-german-journalists-seems-legit/2#comments [engadget.com]
http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/03/29/europes-biggest-publisher-embraces-the-wepad/ [techcrunch.com]

If Flash is so good, why won't it run on my box? (1)

satch89450 (186046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155512)

For a number of reasons, I'm running Red Hat Enterprise 4 on my desktop. Yes, it's not Windows or Mac, so that makes me an outlier. On the other hand, Adobe advertises that Flash is available for "Linux". If I want Flash, I have to dump RHEL 4 and load RHEL 5. One of the reasons I use the Enterprise editions is to *not* have to update my primary system every six months or so -- indeed, I'm waiting for RHEL 6 before I go through the process.

And I do have a RHEL 5 system I use on occasion...and Flash will mysteriously die on that platform. The failure occurs most often when there are many Flash objects in a Web window. Everything just goes blank, and my CPU loading shoots to the moon. That includes ads.

RHEL 4? The lack of flash prevents all sorts of problems. Not to mention being free of obnoxious ads when browsing the World Wide Web.

Before InfoWorld's truce proposal can be seriously considered, I think Adobe has to clean house first. When Flash runs well where it says it runs, then they have a better position in the peace talks.

People don't understand the root problem (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155514)

People really don't understand what this is about.

Sure the crashing is an issue and flash does suck and sure the gesture support thing is a bit of a problem.

But this isn't really about flash. Apple wants applications to be developed for the iPhone, not for the lowest common denominator. If flash (or any technology) is available on all phones then everyone and their brother will release apps using that technology and the phone becomes a commodity. New applications don't use the cool new hardware feature that Apple put in because flash doesn't support it yet (and may never or at least not until its on every phone). Suddenly there is no way to differentiate your product.

Sure, right now you can write an app for the iPhone and port it to Android but you end up with, optimally, 2 applications that are both optimized for their particular application. When you have something in the middle you don't get that. Java was like this for the longest time. Apps were optimized for windows and sucked on the Mac. Its possible to make a good java based UI app on more than one platform but its difficult and developers are lazy.

This is why apple doesn't want flash on the iPhone or even apps that are compiled from flash. The fact that Adobe is likely to make these things worse by not fully supporting the iPhone or by not keeping up with new features makes it worse.

Flash from a developer's perspective (4, Interesting)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155538)

I've programmed in a lot of languages. I just learned Flash a few weeks ago because I needed to port an iPhone game to Flash. From a developer's perspective, programming in Flash is like programming with half a language that only has half a run-time library. That wouldn't be so bad if it was fun to program in like some of the more modern scripting languages, but it's not.

Regarding performance, I found that the only way to make Flash code perform well is to write spaghetti code. I had a collision detection routine running really slowly, and when I hacked together a profiler for it (which is not easy because the language has no high-precision timers), I discovered that the function call overhead in Flash is obscenely high. I had to get rid of all getter methods (i.e. make all my read-only member variables public), replace convenience functions like Math.abs() and Math.max() with if-then-else statements, and take my hit test function and copy+paste its contents everywhere I wanted to call it. (I didn't see any macro or inline features, and as much as I hate to copy+paste, the hit really was that bad.)

IMO, if Adobe can't fix the language, they should put a bullet in it. If they won't do either (and they've had years), then I have no problem with other companies attempting to put a bullet in it.

Flash Video performance issues do exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155548)

  1. The article claims that Flash video does not suffer from performance issues. This isn't true on OS X where a Core 2 Duo @ 3Ghz isn't fast enough to watch a flash video without stuttering.
  2. On Windows performance of Flash Video is better but it still consumes a lot of CPU cycles.
  3. Adobe/Macromedia had 10 years to make Flash not suck and they failed. Creating a Flash video plugin will slow the transitition to HTML5 and keep bad technology alive.

Security and Performance (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155556)

Google and Mozilla have been working with Adobe on a new plugin API to put Flash in a sandbox. The plugin API also auto-updates to the latest version of Flash at all times, to make sure people aren't running around with old versions that have known exploits.

Apple's hardware is getting faster with newer iterations. Assuming Adobe was willing to meet in the middle and work on performance and stability, I don't think this is an overtly complex issue.

I do not want flash on my device (0, Troll)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155560)

I own a iphone and have absolutely no need for flash in any form on my device. Flash would add nothing of value to the platform. I already have nearly a unlimited quantity of applications and games on it what value would it add?

Create a Flash video player plug-in. (1)

Redlemons (1313923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155570)

I think I read somewhere about h.264 hardware decoder chips for mobile devices being readily available. I guess a flash video plug in wouldn't support those. So it'd kill batteries.

This "war" has almost nothing to do with tech (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155624)

Steve is known to hold a grudge a really, really long time based on reports from those around him, and I think he has had Adobe in his sights for a while. Now that he finally has a weapon, the popularity of the iPhone OS, he is going to take every opportunity to wield it against Adobe.

It wasn't too long ago that Adobe used to love the Mac platform, they would release most of their tools on the mac either at the same time as the windows release or often before it. However, a couple of years back things started to change and the Mac platform was no longer Adobe's buddy. They released a 64 bit version of CS 4 for windows, but the mac version was 32 bit only(though largely thats because of a dick move on Apple's part, scrapping 64 bit Carbon GUIs right before Leopard was due to be released). After Apple released Aperture Adobe came out with Lightroom which only furthered Steve's ire.

Steve can come up with a billion supposedly technical reasons why they shouldn't use Flash on the iPhone, but it really all boils down to the fact that Steve hates Adobe and is trying to get back at them in any way he can.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?