Apple teams up with Adobe for iPhone Flash

[Prenvo]

Uh...

1) Preloading? Browsers handle HTML/CSS/JS loading in a much saner manner than Flash.

2) "Data to be saved directly to the desktop" What do you mean? How is this different than serving a resource as 'Content-type: application/octet-stream' or offering a download link?

3) Dynamic rotation of objects can be done using JavaScript, as can drag and drop components.

4) Scalable content. Really?! Wow. Flash *sucks* when it comes to scalability. Properly written HTML/CSS/SVG is far more flexible in this regard.

5) Webcam/mic integration -- you've got me there. Of course if you're using a webcam/mic in your web app, I'd argue that you're doing it wrong anyways...

Hehe. All fair points but Flash allows you to create rich image content (yes it *could* be done server-side) which can then be saved directly to the desktop.

For point 3 I'm not sure how you could rotate an object without using the not-yet-fully-accepted HTML canvas component?

 

[iphoneappdemo]

the only thing i hate...

Please keep flash off my iPhone... Please. I hate it on the desktop too.

I don't hate it on my desktop but I would like to prevent it from retaining personal data on my usage (has to be removed manually) I hate the fact that I can't tell it to flush "flash cookies" after a session with the browser. I can't believe with all the issues over privacy that this hasn't become a bigger issue.

 

[ZOMG]

Will this work on ipod touches?

 

[flottenheimer]

Soooo looking forward to Flash on my Touch. I'm not a great fan of Flash and its messy code-base. But a lot of web-sites depend on it - and I depend on being able to view those sites.

 

[Fmon]

Just want to know, when does a reachable version of flash comes out on the iphone....

 

[kdarling]

Where the heck do you people surf anyway, where you claim to have so many popup ads?

As for my needs, right now every single major child's website uses Flash. My six year old would love to be able to use Nick Jr, Disney, and you-name-it.

You could sell a billion iPod touches just on that ability alone.

 

[ppc750fx]

My point exactly. Bad Flash experiences are created by bad Flash designers. Just because it takes extra work (exactly like making a standard HTML page compliant takes extra work) is no reason to lambast Flash.

As I said: it's telling that most applications of Flash are unnecessary. It's not that it's inherently a bad tool as much as it is an inferior, less efficient way to do something that you could do using open standards and technologies.

Just that: Flash gives the UI developer total control over everything right down to the typeface (try that with CSS & JavaScript!)

? You are aware that CSS does allow you to specify the typeface, right?

 

[kdarling]

As I said: it's telling that most applications of Flash are unnecessary. It's not that it's inherently a bad tool as much as it is an inferior, less efficient way to do something that you could do using open standards and technologies.

Some can do a lot with DHTML, yes. I draw 3D graphs on the fly with Javascript, for example, and can do some pretty good animation. But I'm coding it by hand. And I've been coding for the web since 1993.

Flash gives an IDE that game / demo / app / whatever artist-programmers can use. DHTML doesn't have such an IDE, AFAIK. (I know there are some Eclipse-based attempts.)

Flash is also on nearly every computer on the planet. That helps too. It's a lot harder to support a half dozen browsers, and you'd not get a consistent result.

Give handheld developers a fast handheld Flash with standalone apps on every device, and we'd all have a win-win situation. (I had hoped that Opera Platform was going to be that kind of thing, but they dropped the ball years ago.)

 

[goosnarrggh]

Out of curiosity, is there some reason that a Java applet's not suitable for this?

Well, that would have been trading one more or less single-company-directed development environment for another. However, that was a secondary concern for us.

At the time we started development, we actually had considered a Java applet. It seemed like we'd been able to put together our visual mock-ups more quickly using Flash, and more specifically the Flex IDE. By the time we'd gotten that far, it made sense to continue adding functionality through the same code base.

You're leaving out something: up until very recently, you couldn't use those specifications to develop a competing implementation. That pretty much blows the "open standard" argument out of the water. Yes, now it's different, but up until last year it was less of an "open standard" than OOXML -- and that's saying something.

No I'm not leaving that detail out - if you read two paragraphs down you would have seen me address that very point.

You had stated your argument about the problems with using a proprietary technology along three lines:
1) Depending on Adobe to create Flash content
2) Depending on Adobe to "modify" Flash
3) Depending on Adobe to playback Flash content

In responding to your argument, I chose to break it down along the same three lines. The inability to produce a competing player simply wasn't relevant to the response to the first point. And when it was relevant, specifically in response to your third point, I did address it.

 

[ppc750fx]

Well, that would have been trading one more or less single-company-directed development environment for another. However, that was a secondary concern for us.

No it wouldn't.

1) Java's open source. Not "open if you don't compete with us", but GPL open.

2) There are (and have been for several years) multiple implementations of Java.

3) Java support is far more widespread and on far more platforms than Flash is.

Flash gives an IDE that game / demo / app / whatever artist-programmers can use. DHTML doesn't have such an IDE, AFAIK. (I know there are some Eclipse-based attempts.)

That's more a criticism of the tools than of the language.

You're right that there's no single "official" IDE for DHTML. There are a whole bunch of different solutions that provide similar functionality -- but many people find that they don't need it. In some sense, at least with things like Firebug, the browser *is* the IDE.

Flash is also on nearly every computer on the planet. That helps too. It's a lot harder to support a half dozen browsers, and you'd not get a consistent result.

The "big" Javascript frameworks support more browsers than have Flash.

Give handheld developers a fast handheld Flash with standalone apps on every device, and we'd all have a win-win situation.

Well that seems to be the issue doesn't it? As wonderful as Flash is, it's CPU/RAM overhead is atrocious in comparison to the HTML/CSS/JS way of doing things. Yes, Flash is almost a perfect substitute for the conventional way of doing things -- except it's resource requirements mean that it can't be used on many of the devices that support HTML/CSS/JS. Seems like an argument in favor of the "inferior" DHTML, doesn't it? The fact that Adobe has had a couple years to figure this one out and still can't get Flash Lite working reasonably seems a little telling.

No I'm not leaving that detail out - if you read two paragraphs down you would have seen me address that very point.

You're right. Mea culpa.

 

[The Phazer]

Except, thanks to the internet, the <1% that can will write an easy-to-use point and click tool to help the 99% that can't.

The 1% will write a tool that'll be illegal and hidden away on various hacker sites (and indeed in the UK would be a criminal offense to distribute). It'll maybe go out to 3% of the population. Nowhere near the majority.

Yes, but that's because lockpicking still requires skill. If the lockpicks were point and click, I honestly wouldn't bother.

Most doorlocks require no more skill to pick than installing an application does. It can be taught in an hour.

No, it's a bad thing. It's legal to tape a show for personal use.

Not within the UK it isn't. You can record a *broadcast* show for the purposes of temporary timeshifting only within your own domestic premises only, and it is completely legal for a broadcaster to use any technical means they wish to stop you - some UK channels have broadcast with Macrovision on broadcasts since analogue days.

And legally that is entirely dependent on it being a live broadcast - you have no right to record any copyrighted material provided on demand at all, and never have done.

DRM, at least like Hulu et. al. use, prevents me from doing something that I would be legally allowed to do were it broadcast via conventional methods. Taking away user rights is never a good thing unless you're the content provider.

The availability of on demand services IS a new user right. And without stopping these streams being recorded, they simply won't be offered at all because the economics don't and can't add up. It's you who wants to take away user rights to choose, not the broadcasters.

Phazer

 

[ppc750fx]

The 1% will write a tool that'll be illegal and hidden away on various hacker sites (and indeed in the UK would be a criminal offense to distribute). It'll maybe go out to 3% of the population. Nowhere near the majority.

The US and UK concepts of fair use are quite different, that much I'll give you. In the US, such a tool would be in a legal gray area. Still, as for the "hidden away" argument... the popularity of sites such as GameCopyWorld and the innumerable YouTube/Flash stream rippers leads me to believe otherwise.

Most doorlocks require no more skill to pick than installing an application does. It can be taught in an hour.

It took me a little longer than that to get the hang of it, but yes, point taken. Still, I'd argue that the comparable difficulty of picking a lock is much greater than ripping a Flash stream, esp with the availability of various "one-click" sites/tools.

Not within the UK it isn't. You can record a *broadcast* show for the purposes of temporary timeshifting only within your own domestic premises only, and it is completely legal for a broadcaster to use any technical means they wish to stop you - some UK channels have broadcast with Macrovision on broadcasts since analogue days.

And legally that is entirely dependent on it being a live broadcast - you have no right to record any copyrighted material provided on demand at all, and never have done.

Fair enough -- that's another difference between US and UK laws, I think.

The availability of on demand services IS a new user right. And without stopping these streams being recorded, they simply won't be offered at all because the economics don't and can't add up. It's you who wants to take away user rights to choose, not the broadcasters.

Let's leave the personal accusations out of this, please. I don't want to "take away user rights to choose" at all.

If the shows were broadcast via terrestrial broadcast, I would, at least under the various fair use provisions in US copyright law, be allowed to record the show for personal use/viewing.

Since, however, they are "broadcast" using a DRM'd method, I cannot record the show for personal use/viewing. That is, by definition, a loss of my rights. By using DRM, Hulu et. al. have leveraged the DMCA to restrict something that, had it been done using more conventional means, I would be legally allowed to do.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I like the points that all of you have mentioned thus far, and I think they're good ones. There's one problem I see in the argument for using Java over Flash - the fact that, with Apple's developer agreement the way it is, neither Java nor Flash is likely to make it to iPhone-land, due to the strict no-frameworks/plugins rule.

That said, I've never used Flash for development of Web sites (mostly because I can't afford it, even at educational prices), so I know very little about the Flex IDE and similar tools - I can't speak for how well or poorly they do for building Flash content. However... you'd be surprised at what you can do with a modern browser, a JavaScript kit, and some CSS. In the old days, before stuff like SproutCore came on the scene, Flash was the only good solution for interactive web content. In this post-SproutCore era, though, these alternative standards-based solutions have gained a LOT of ground, and at least in some ways are on an equal footing with Flash.

 

[goosnarrggh]

No it wouldn't.

1) Java's open source. Not "open if you don't compete with us", but GPL open.

That is true now, but not in the past. Sun announced the process of open-sourcing Java on November 14, 2006, and released a buildable product in 2007.

2) There are (and have been for several years) multiple implementations of Java.

The initial 3rd-party versions of Java were reverse-engineered to avoid using Sun's (then) proprietary code. Now that everything is open, of course, the problem of keeping the code unencumbered legally is no longer a problem.

Attempts at building 3rd-party Flash players have been around since at least 2003. Of course, due to Macromedia/Adobe's boneheaded licensing terms for the Flash spec at the time, any such implementations had to be clean-room reverse engineered to keep things legal. They had reached compatibility with at least Flash version 7 even before Adobe started opened up its licensing terms.

3) Java support is far more widespread and on far more platforms than Flash is.

You're probably right. Unfortunately for me, neither are available for the iPhone at the moment.

(But if I read the documentation correctly, it seems that the Jazelle platform, included with some variants of the ARM11 core, would allow for a greatly simplified Java virtual machine because it can execute 90% of Java bytecode in hardware. It probably *would* be significantly more efficient on the iPhone than Flash.)

 

[fleshman03]

the issue there is that i want it as an opt-in. i don't care to have flash banners or videos loading. at least with a stand alone app, it can save my battery and resources (why flash sucks on the desktop).

VeryTrue. I wish I thought of that... Another icon seems like the best solution. Or maybe a setting to turn it on/off. Maybe an icon within safari?

 

[SleepyHead157]

hopefully it doesn't turn into a battery hog cuz I would love to watch Hulu or check my google analytics stats, which would really come in handy

 

[ppc750fx]

That is true now, but not in the past. Sun announced the process of open-sourcing Java on November 14, 2006, and released a buildable product in 2007.

Indeed. But GNU classpath was usable for pretty much everything except Swing for several years prior to that. (Your comment below still applies, of course.)

The initial 3rd-party versions of Java were reverse-engineered to avoid using Sun's (then) proprietary code. Now that everything is open, of course, the problem of keeping the code unencumbered legally is no longer a problem.

Some implementations of the class library were. Alternate JVMs (more akin to the Flash plugin in many respects) weren't always reverse engineered (Blackdown, for example.)

Obviously Java's JVM/class library divide makes it harder to compare to Flash...

 

[UTclassof89]

You are aware that CSS does allow you to specify the typeface, right?

And if the client machine doesn't have the typeface, what happens? It substitutes to something else.

Not with Flash.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

"Adobe and Apple Working on Flash for iPhone"

Why don't Adobe and Apple work on Flash for Macintosh? I mean, can they work on releasing a version that actually works properly, without causing the fans on laptops to start spinning like crazy?

This is absolute truth.