homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.167.69
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / The Macintosh Webmaster
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: travelin cat

The Macintosh Webmaster Forum

This 75 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 75 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Steve Jobs: Thoughts On Flash
engine




msg:4124339
 1:38 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

Steve Jobs: Thoughts On Flash [apple.com]
I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.


 

whoisgregg




msg:4124663
 9:37 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

Once I buy the phone I have the right to do with it as I please. They are blocking me from this.

You can do what you want, it would just void the warranty. Since the costs of technical support are factored into the purchase price of most products, I think it's reasonable for manufacturers to try to limit the circumstances in which they are obligated to provide support.

No one from Apple will bother you if you pop open that case and try to solder in a new RAM chip or if you overwrite the OS with Android. They just won't devote support hours to getting those mods to work.

Demaestro




msg:4124671
 10:07 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

You can do what you want, it would just void the warranty.

....

They just won't devote support hours to getting those mods to work.


I accept voiding the warranty, I accept losing behaviors, but I don't accept the attempts to block me, and they do attempt to block me from installing things that I want.

Another example, If I don't want to use iTunes to transfer music that is my business but they don't just void my warranty and not offer support they make efforts to block me from using other software from transferring music to my iPhone. How is that ok?

I make an effort to install a plugin to make flash work, they make an effort to block me. This isn't code that has a side effect of blocking a browser plugin or from using something other than iTunes, this is code written for the sole purpose of stopping me from using it. That is my complaint, not the loss of a warranty or support but the active attempts to stop me.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4124672
 10:11 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

you can count here another never-to-be-future-Apple customer. Utter BS.

whoisgregg




msg:4124693
 10:53 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

I make an effort to install a plugin to make flash work, they make an effort to block me.

There's no such thing as plug-in support for Mobile Safari, so I'm a bit confused by this claim.

BillyS




msg:4124718
 11:53 pm on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

You can do what you want, it would just void the warranty. Since the costs of technical support are factored into the purchase price of most products, I think it's reasonable for manufacturers to try to limit the circumstances in which they are obligated to provide support.

Could you imaging what would happen if Microsoft, Dell or Gateway had a policy that stated downloading software voided their support?

travelin cat




msg:4124728
 12:05 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

BiilyS, you don't honestly think that Microsoft, Dell or Gateway would not void your warranty if you violated their TOS?

As an example, here is a quote from the warranty from my HP PC:

The Limited Warranty does not apply to... (c) by software, interfacing, parts, or supplies not supplied by HP.

Demaestro




msg:4124733
 12:16 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

There's no such thing as plug-in support for Mobile Safari, so I'm a bit confused by this claim.


Did I say Safari?

BillyS




msg:4124743
 1:10 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

BiilyS, you don't honestly think that Microsoft, Dell or Gateway would not void your warranty if you violated their TOS?


I'm not sure who is talking about violating a TOS - I'm not. I thought the topic was fairness of that TOS.

moTi




msg:4124754
 1:27 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

and I am very very happy he is not a politician, especially in the mid 20th century.

i had a similar thought. jobs really shows his ugly face here. if you had difficulties in grasping the influence of personality and propaganda on human beings, take this example.

concerning the fanboys, don't be angry with them, they can't help it. i recommend a reading about "cognitive dissonance" if you haven't already.

the ceo of *apple* claiming that he has banned flash because it's proprietary, then recommending heavy patented h.264 as a new standard.
this is pure irony, really.

steve jobs:
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

replace adobe/flash with apple/idevice

you can count here another never-to-be-future-Apple customer.

+1

incrediBILL




msg:4124779
 2:49 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

You think companies are going to sit on their hands while the entire iPad/iPhone base can't view their videos or site?


Nope.

We'll simply make the content area say "Please upgrade to Android to view Flash content [mashable.com]".

That's exactly how MSIE drove Netscape out of town by pointing out all the websites it wouldn't properly display.

If flash is important to customers Android 2.2 will prove the point and then Jobs will have to back peddle to regain those lost customers.

skipfactor




msg:4124806
 4:25 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

steve jobs:
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.


replace adobe/flash with apple/idevice


100% valid statement!

Gave the wife my iPhone after Droid swearing I could help her w/ knowing it, etc. Hate it after 10 seconds. Where's the freaking universal back button? Oh yea, phone 'home' steveo. She's on her own. Done.

Bought a mac mini to see what it's all about & chk out my sites. It's never been more than a browsing machine in the kitchen but requires daily reboot to avoid pinner wheel & all it ever runs is Safari. No BSOD though, cool!

Wake up fanboys. Jobs is worse than Gates; he's just a late bloomer.

IanKelley




msg:4124813
 4:41 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

We'll simply make the content area say "Please upgrade to Android to view Flash content [mashable.com]".


Don't forget flash on Blackberry: [crackberry.com ]

And there are rumors that while Windows Mobile 7 does not currently support flash, it may in the future. Would make sense as older versions of Windows Mobile supported flash.

Harry




msg:4124817
 4:45 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Adobe has previewed Flash on the Nexus and a Palm Pre. Flash for mobile is set to be released in the by the end of the second quarter by Adobe for webOS, Android, Symbian, BlackBerry and Maemo.

Flash will not just be available for Android but all main mobile platforms except for the iPhone.

lavazza




msg:4124826
 5:48 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

If 90% of websites have flash then it is hard to argue with a straight face that the reason for not having flash support is in the best interest of the consumer.


This is called an argument from popularity (aka a logical fallacy) that erroneously asserts that consumers know what's best, which is absurd

Although over eight years old, Scott Granneman's What's wrong with Macromedia Flash? is still relevant: [granneman.com...]

moTi




msg:4124830
 6:13 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

i can't keep back this literally translated statement from a popular german blog:

"it's a mystery to me why there are still people buying apple products. what has to happen? will steve job personally have to come over your house and p00p on your sofa? or would you argue that away as well?"

LOL

msantore




msg:4124849
 7:49 am on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

He raises some points I didn't consider.

The most common complaint I have heard... NO FARMVILLE ON the iPhone, iPad or iTouch! lol

Personally, I don't play farmville, but it is the perfect example of an application not available on the iPhone.

HTML 5 and H.264 is a suitable replacement for video, but there are a lot of interactive applications and design concepts not possible with out the use of flash.

He argues against flash since its not "Open" but neither is the iPhone since you HAVE to use their dev kit and distribute your software through their store.

As far as his 6th Point in the article - I don't understand what the significant difference is between a mobile device and a desktop computer, where developers do rely on 3rd party library's

and tools for development. Working I.T. for many years I have never heard one mac complaint where the cause was flash.

I do understand his point where he says there would be a issue with mouse-over events.

He should publicize what it would take for apple to allow flash on his devices.

If he is really trying to be fair to the platform, he should allow people to install software with out use of iTunes.

Otherwise, the android will gain market share, and apple can suffer the fate of Sony's Betamax.

My opinion! ;-)

StoutFiles




msg:4124901
 12:07 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Looks like Microsoft is jumping on the Apple bandwagon.

[engadget.com...]

Like I've said before...Apple doesn't need Adobe, Adobe needs Apple. The future of Flash is bleak indeed.

ByronM




msg:4124922
 1:55 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

I thought this was a pretty pathetic jab myself. Everything he hates about Flash is *STILL* a concern of HTML5. HTML5 isn't battery aware, HTML5 isn't security aware, HTML5 isn't "Touch aware" either. So of all the downfalls of flash, none of the ones Jobs spoke of are really any concern since Job's could have embraced flashed and opened up some of their patent portfolio or technologies to allow the the flash platform on the i*.*

ByronM




msg:4124925
 1:57 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

And there are rumors that while Windows Mobile 7 does not currently support flash, it may in the future. Would make sense as older versions of Windows Mobile supported flash.


Dell already announced their WP7 is shipping with flash 4Q10

kapow




msg:4124949
 2:29 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Name 1 other non-Apple product where the manufacturer blocks you from customizing your purchase as you see fit
Probably every product where a.) it's technically possible and b.) there is an advantage to the provider. e.g. some desk top printers and ink. I'm not saying their ink-blocking methods are effective, I'm saying they try.

Battle tip for Adobe: Release your Creative Suite products for Linux ;-)
A proportion of Mac users will move, thats one bite out of the apple.

whoisgregg




msg:4124955
 2:31 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

There's no such thing as plug-in support for Mobile Safari, so I'm a bit confused by this claim.

Did I say Safari?

I apologize for my confusion. What application where you referring to?

kapow




msg:4124956
 2:32 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

This has nothing to do with right and wrong, Apple can do what they want WHILE they lead. Blocking flash is a maggot in the apple; its a stupid big neon sign saying "Hey competitors! kill me by providing flash"

engine




msg:4124969
 2:46 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Adobe confirms plans to move away from Apple [news.bbc.co.uk]
Adobe has posted a short response to the letter Apple boss Steve Jobs has written about Flash technology.

In it, Adobe said the legal terms Apple imposed on software developers had led it to shift its focus away from Apple.

Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, wrote in a blog posting: "We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch."


IanKelley




msg:4125021
 4:08 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Looks like Microsoft is jumping on the Apple bandwagon.


On the contray, while he agress with some of Jobs' points, he also says:

Flash as an important part of "a good consumer experience on today's web"


Or in other words, while he conceeds that Jobs makes some points, he takes a sane view on the internet where flash is concerned. :-)

glitterball




msg:4125023
 4:10 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Let's be honest about it - if Adobe stopped making products for the Mac, then the Mac would be finished.

Apple has always enjoyed generous press because of its presence in the media, from DTP and Graphics to Video and Sound production. If Graphic Designers had to move to another platform (and they would if there was no Photoshop for the Mac), then it would be a very serious PR blow to Apple.

lavazza




msg:4125147
 7:41 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Flash as an important part of "a good consumer experience on today's web"
Yep... today's web

[pcworld.com...]
Dean Hachamovitch, Microsoft's General Manager of Internet Explorer, cut to the chase rather quickly, by stating "the future of the Web is HTML5."

IanKelley




msg:4125149
 7:54 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

So like Mr. Jobs himself you're under the impression that users are not interested in using the web that currently exists, but instead want to surf a web that may or may not exist at some undefined time in the future.

I suppose I should just be glad I never bought an iPhone and leave it at that. :-)

StoutFiles




msg:4125151
 8:04 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

So like Mr. Jobs himself you're under the impression that users are not interested in using the web that currently exists, but instead want to surf a web that may or may not exist at some undefined time in the future.


Mr. Jobs knows people are interested in today's web, but by doing this he will speed up the number of sites using HTML5. In this sense, Jobs is right: Flash is holding back "the future of the Web". Like I've said before, major players on the web will NOT keep using Flash as long as iPhones, Ipads, and iTouch users keep increasing.

lavazza




msg:4125176
 8:35 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

So like Mr. Jobs himself you're under the impression that users are not interested in using the web that currently exists, but instead want to surf a web that may or may not exist at some undefined time in the future.
Please, do explain where (how) you get the impression that:
  1. Steve Jobs is under the impression that users are not interested in using the web that currently exists
  2. Users (in general) have ANY idea about the architecture of the web that currently exists
TYIA :)
IanKelley




msg:4125185
 8:54 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Like I've said before, major players on the web will NOT keep using Flash as long as iPhones, Ipads, and iTouch users keep increasing.


Apple has a share of the market, but it's not dominant enough to force the web development world to change so dramatically in anything approaching a short period of time.

We're talking about, what, 20 or 30% of the smartphone market, which represents a small percentage of the overall web market.

And that market share is decreasing and will continue to decrease.

The general populace follows the geeks where where tech is concerned, always has, and Apple isn't going to be able to get away with kicking the tech crowd many more times.

Please, do explain where (how) you get the impression that:
Steve Jobs is under the impression that users are not interested in using the web that currently exists
Users (in general) have ANY idea about the architecture of the web that currently exists


Are you kidding? He's not implementing flash even on full sized tablets despite the fact that an absolutely huge amount of the content on the web (that currently exists) is delivered via Flash.

Users (in general) are a lot more capable of understanding their technology experience than you seem to think. For instance, when they see a large hole in a web page (or an an entire missing site, or a video they can't watch, or etc..) that they know works fine on their home PC, they're going to figure it out. Doesn't have anything to do with architecture.

And have you seen any numbers lately on how fast casual gaming is growing? Your grandmother probably visits a casual gaming site... And the majority of those sites deliver games in Flash.

HTML5 will make a dent in Flash, definitely, but most WWers have watched new web standards evolve and know that, even if HTML5 moves unusually quickly, it's going to be a long time before it really takes hold, and longer still before it will even begin to replace something as entrenched as Flash.

lavazza




msg:4125199
 9:16 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

an absolutely huge amount of the content on the web (that currently exists) is delivered via Flash.
You say this like it's a good thing...

If so, why?

This 75 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 75 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / The Macintosh Webmaster
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved