Apple's "dirty little secret" re: Flash

[bobob]

I'll be honest. I didn't read the linked articles.

I read the article a few days back. So what?

Honest?

 

[EssentialParado]

Flash isn't irrelevant today. I know it's a hard concept for those that want to sweep Flash under the rug like it never existed. And I'm not arguing for the use or continued use of Flash.

Keep ringing the death knell for Flash though. I would buy some aspirin though because you'll be hearing those bells for several months if not years.

I understand your argument, and I do agree that Flash is going to stick around for a while until more people upgrade to HTML5 browsers, which is going to take a while. But in terms of those using an iPad, Flash is officially irrelevant; the vast majority of services either have, or will have, HTML5 support or a dedicated app to work.

 

[samcraig]

Honest?

Your attempt to "discredit" my comments is laughable. There was time before my first post and the second post in which I read the article linked.

Your comment also adds nothing to the conversation. But clearly you needed to feel superior. Good for you.

 

[mikethebigo]

Sorry if this has already been talked about, but have you guys realized that apple took away that little blue missing plugin box from ipad's safari? When i load a page with flash, the missing plugin box isn't there and the area occupied by flash is just blank. It's kinda weird!

 

[dagomike]

Content.
That huge xx% of the web is full of free flash games, video, music etc that apple is happy to sell you one app/download at a time.

I find it surprising that the anti apple crowd don't latch onto that to fuel their bitterness.

They do, but there is already tons of free stuff out there, including from the iTunes Store.

Apple doesn't care about content. It's just a commodity to sell boxes.

 

[bobob]

Your attempt to "discredit" my comments is laughable. There was time before my first post and the second post in which I read the article linked.

Let's examine this new claim of samcraig: "There was time before my first post and the second post in which I read the article linked."


This is the first post samcraig logged at April 14th at 8:27am:

I'll be honest. I didn't read the linked articles.

Later that same day samcraig reiterated his statement at 4:27pm:

I "called out" myself as I said I didn't read the article.

Then the very next morning, just over 17 hours later, on April 15th at 9:56am samcraig made this final conflicting statement:

I read the article a few days back. So what?

Even if you count the time from samcraig's first post directly to his claim that he "read the article a few days back", there was only a time gap of 25 hours and 29 minutes. I don't think anyone among us would describe 17 - 25 hours as "a few days".

Further, all of these claims of not reading the article were merely a failed attempt to derail GamecockMac who was running circles around samcraig throughout the debate on the previous two pages of this thread.

There's no need for anyone to discredit samcraig, he has done a perfectly fine job of that himself.

 

[Slip Jigs]

Let's examine this new claim of samcraig: "There was time before my first post and the second post in which I read the article linked."


This is the first post samcraig logged at April 14th at 8:27am:



Later that same day samcraig reiterated his statement at 4:27pm:



Then the very next morning, just over 17 hours later, on April 15th at 9:56am samcraig made this final conflicting statement:



Even if you count the time from samcraig's first post directly to his claim that he "read the article a few days back", there was only a time gap of 25 hours and 29 minutes. I don't think anyone among us would describe 17 - 25 hours as "a few days".

Further, all of these claims of not reading the article were merely a failed attempt to derail GamecockMac who was running circles around samcraig throughout the debate on the previous two pages of this thread.

There's no need for anyone to discredit samcraig, he has done a perfectly fine job of that himself.

You've spent a lot of time researching and indexing his posts. Is there some sort of man-crush going on?

 

[GamecockMac]

Further, all of these claims of not reading the article were merely a failed attempt to derail GamecockMac who was running circles around samcraig throughout the debate on the previous two pages of this thread.

*takes a bow*

 

[Grimace]

Nehalem Mac Pro + 16GB RAM and a great video card. Flash taxes even my setup.

If it weren't so resource intensive, Flash would be okay. But, that isn't the case - and that is what Steve is forcing us to recognize. We whined about Flash performance for years, and now there is finally a competitor for video playback.

Long live HTML5.

 

[samcraig]

Let's examine this new claim of samcraig: "There was time before my first post and the second post in which I read the article linked."


This is the first post samcraig logged at April 14th at 8:27am:



Later that same day samcraig reiterated his statement at 4:27pm:



Then the very next morning, just over 17 hours later, on April 15th at 9:56am samcraig made this final conflicting statement:



Even if you count the time from samcraig's first post directly to his claim that he "read the article a few days back", there was only a time gap of 25 hours and 29 minutes. I don't think anyone among us would describe 17 - 25 hours as "a few days".

Further, all of these claims of not reading the article were merely a failed attempt to derail GamecockMac who was running circles around samcraig throughout the debate on the previous two pages of this thread.

There's no need for anyone to discredit samcraig, he has done a perfectly fine job of that himself.

Too much time on your hands. I mistyped - nothing afoul. If I'm guilty of anything it's poor multitasking. I clearly meant to post a few hours back.

But again - whatever makes you (and gamecockmac) happy - feel free. You've both shown your arrogance and petty behavior here. Your posts speak volumes about your character.

 

[samcraig]

You've spent a lot of time researching and indexing his posts. Is there some sort of man-crush going on?

I don't think the crush is on me - I think he's defending gamecockmac's "good name" - the crush might be on him LOL

 

[GamecockMac]

Your posts speak volumes about your character.

As do yours...they show someone who consistently speaks without being in possession of the facts (colloquially known as "talking out of one's ass), and when called out on it, cannot man up and admit to being wrong. Not exactly character traits to be proud of.

 

[bobob]

You've spent a lot of time researching and indexing his posts. Is there some sort of man-crush going on?

I'll be honest - - it was samcraig's desecration of the phrase "I'll be honest" which motivated my detective work (so unfortunately I'm unable to indulge your homoerotic fantasies ).

 

[samcraig]

As do yours...they show someone who consistently speaks without being in possession of the facts (colloquially known as "talking out of one's ass), and when called out on it, cannot man up and admit to being wrong. Not exactly character traits to be proud of.

Consistently? OOOOOOk there. Now you're speaking in hyperbole. What's to be wrong about here? Nothing. I posed questions and admitted up front that at first I didn't read the article. Then when I did, I said that I really don't see how the article answers my questions.

But if it makes you feel better, keep trying to come after me with insults because surely that's a productive use of your time and the true purpose of this thread and message board...

 

[bluehaze013]

The "Cheers mate!" is a nice touch, but you would have a more credible position in this discussion if you acknowledged that you were mistaken about the bailout. In a debate, admitting you are wrong when presented with incontrovertible facts is not a sign of weakness, but just the opposite. You demonstrate that you are willing to go forward on the basis of rational discourse, rather than endlessly trying to spin your error into some sort of moral victory. Further, as you said, it is merely a side point that you brought up as a diversion from the primary topic of this thread.

It's not hard bro just google Microsoft bails out Apple and you'll come up with pages of links to read about it, just because I choose not to argue about it does not mean I am wrong. The information is out there for anyone wanting to educate themselves.

Cheers!

 

[DesignerOnMac]

Yes - sensationalistic thread title - sorry about that. Sincerely.

There's obviously discussions going on about flash vs html5. And that flash is a resource hog. Debatable depending on who you talk to, of course based it's usage compared to html5.

But, and it's not REALLY a dirty little secret - but considering that the iPad "only" has 256megs of ram - the decision to not even try for flash becomes a little more obvious.

I'm not techy enough to know if 256megs is enough or not. I was always under the impression that it never hurt to have more.

Now I'm not bashing at all - but realistically - given the amount of RAM, Flash would have made the iPad stall as if it had no processing power at all. And Apple, justifiably or not, was NEVER going to let that happen. No matter how much Adobe wanted to try and fix it.

Put another way, politically - Put the focus on the "enemy." Instead of increasing specs and/or dealing with people's frustrations with your device over the specs, make the argument all about how Adobe is lazy. Flash is dead. Yadda Yadda. It's actually a great "move" - warranted or not.

Ultimately - it never hurts to use less memory/bandwidth/compression. The more you do in that arena, the more you free up resources to do other things.

So yes - Flash can be a resource hog. But if you have enough resources, it may go unnoticed. The "problem" is - with the iPad - there's just enough resources to do what Apple wants. No "extra."

Again - I'm not bashing. I have and love using my iPad. But being in marketing, the brain always looks at how products are marketed and the public relation campaigns associated with them...

I have 4 GB RAM on my iMac and flash is an issue with me EVERYDAY! Lose count of how many times it crashes....so 256 of RAM isn't the issue....

 

[ZZ Bottom]

I have 4 GB RAM on my iMac and flash is an issue with me EVERYDAY! Lose count of how many times it crashes....so 256 of RAM isn't the issue....

Don't use Safari. Firefox and Opera never crash on me running flash like Safari does. Course I still use Safari more often because I got used to the layout.

 

[Bytor65]

Does any phone actually run with a good performing fully functioning flash implementation yet? IMO the initial rejection of Flash for iPhone was entirely based terrible mobile implementations at the time.

But after success without flash was established for the iPhone, there was no going back. Now Apple doesn't need flash for it's mobile internet platform, so it surely won't use it.

Flash has been nothing but a thorn in the side of the Apple desktop. Adobe didn't value Apple desktop flash development (if the grapevine is correct, devoting only one junior employee to it's development).

Now Apples mobile platform doesn't have to support an alternate proprietary platform(Flash) and if anything, the market power of it's mobile platform is shifting the industry away from Flash (Win-Win).

Bottom line. I don't buy Sams argument that Apple is just trying to deflect weak hardware by attacking Adobe Flash. The HW is similar to other MIDs and smartphones, they will all have issues with flash.

Adobe is finally working to address in 10.1 mobile. But it won't matter. The window of opportunity where Apple might have counted flash as a platform benefit closed a long time ago. Flash will never be part of Apples mobile internet platform.

 

[GamecockMac]

It's not hard bro just google Microsoft bails out Apple and you'll come up with pages of links to read about it, just because I choose not to argue about it does not mean I am wrong. The information is out there for anyone wanting to educate themselves.

Yep, pages of links that tell the story and prove that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. But by all means, keep that head firmly stuck up your hindparts.

 

[Bytor65]

Still nothing for Apple to reject. Second half of the year perhaps?

Flash for mobile devices delayed yet again, Now coming in second half of the year:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/18/adobe-ceo-flash-coming-to-android-webos-and-blackberry-smartp/

Good thing Apple decided not to wait for flash with iPhone, or they would never have shipped. Notion Ink is waiting...

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/04/0...released-until-flash-is-fully-functional.html

It makes perfect sense that Apple, without a credible Flash offering from Adobe for years (and still not ready), went on to make iPhone a success without flash, will have no interest at all in watering down it's platform with flash when Adobe gets around to finishing the mobile version.