Lots of ipad fans in this forum!
Lol no I mean physical fans, ya know, to cool it *rolls eyes*.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is it possible that the iPad just can't physically handle flash due to overheating?
- Thread starter johnmoorejohn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol no I mean physical fans, ya know, to cool it *rolls eyes*.
It is generally believed, I think, that the iPad relies on its large metal back to silently radiate away any waste heat.
really? mine does it al the time when I'm playing demanding games such as need for speed, or GPS apps
I don't think it's a problem of hardware because other mobile devices support flash
My iPod Touch definitely gets warm after I've been playing a game for a while. However I've never had it overheat to such an extent that I get random errors, crashes or the device shutting down. If your's is doing that then it might be faulty.
The reason that Flash causes Mac's and Linux computers to heat up during usage has less to do with the hardware than with the OS.
Adobe would like to have Flash bypass an operating systems API's and directly access hardware for hardware acceleration of graphics. Neither Mac OS X nor Linux permit this to occur as a matter of design principles. The result is that Flash directs most graphics processing to the computers CPU rather then to the GPU, resulting in the computer heating up and the system resources diminishing drastically.
This isn't the case with Windows which does permit Flash to bypass the OS and access hardware directly.
How this relates to the iPad and other devices is unclear. If the device's OS doesn't permit software to directly access any existing graphics hardware then it is likely that all the processing for those tasks will channel through the CPU, reduce battery life, and heat the device up.
One of the neat things about Apple's OS choice for the iPad, which is a variant of OS X, is that it is probably a lot more secure then Mac OS X or Windows. Permitting a plug in like Flash to undermine that security, particularly by allowing it and thus Adobe to bypass the OS in order to achieve hardware acceleration and performance gains is probably not in anyone's interests.
Do users really care about Flash more than the content that it delivers to the degree that they would like to see virus software become a staple of mobile operating systems in addition to reduced battery life and poor performance?
The obvious solution to the Flash performance issue doesn't rest with Apple, despite the number of uninformed internet users who are arguing in favor of Flash against their own self interests, but rather with Adobe. Adobe should make Flash an open source technology and relinquish their patents, thus allowing all manufacturers and developers to optimize this technology in a secure fashion. So long as internet users are dependent on Flash to deliver their content they are at the mercy of Adobe's whims to either support their devices or not and to deliver timely updates whenever they choose, a situation no internet user should have tolerance for in the open web.
Adobe would like to have Flash bypass an operating systems API's and directly access hardware for hardware acceleration of graphics. Neither Mac OS X nor Linux permit this to occur as a matter of design principles. The result is that Flash directs most graphics processing to the computers CPU rather then to the GPU, resulting in the computer heating up and the system resources diminishing drastically.
This isn't the case with Windows which does permit Flash to bypass the OS and access hardware directly.
How this relates to the iPad and other devices is unclear. If the device's OS doesn't permit software to directly access any existing graphics hardware then it is likely that all the processing for those tasks will channel through the CPU, reduce battery life, and heat the device up.
One of the neat things about Apple's OS choice for the iPad, which is a variant of OS X, is that it is probably a lot more secure then Mac OS X or Windows. Permitting a plug in like Flash to undermine that security, particularly by allowing it and thus Adobe to bypass the OS in order to achieve hardware acceleration and performance gains is probably not in anyone's interests.
Do users really care about Flash more than the content that it delivers to the degree that they would like to see virus software become a staple of mobile operating systems in addition to reduced battery life and poor performance?
The obvious solution to the Flash performance issue doesn't rest with Apple, despite the number of uninformed internet users who are arguing in favor of Flash against their own self interests, but rather with Adobe. Adobe should make Flash an open source technology and relinquish their patents, thus allowing all manufacturers and developers to optimize this technology in a secure fashion. So long as internet users are dependent on Flash to deliver their content they are at the mercy of Adobe's whims to either support their devices or not and to deliver timely updates whenever they choose, a situation no internet user should have tolerance for in the open web.
Really? I mean I agree with some of what you say - but are you sincerely advocating that Flash relinquish their patents? I think they can license and work deals without having to give up their patents.
If YOU owned the patents - would you give up your rights as the developer? I didn't think so.
And from the OS side of things, do you really want to open a HUGE hole in your OS to allow one company do something that you don't let anyone else do and potentially exposing yourself to other threats?
I didn't think so.
The problem is both companies have egos. And neither company wants to compromise - or at least that's how it appears. Adobe can give Apple access without giving up patents.
It's possible Apple doesn't want to work like that nor do they want to pay any royalties/fees to Adobe and would rather dismiss them.
It's possible Adobe is not willing to license or allow Apple to dictate how their company/technology works.
What is definite - is that the consumer is paying the price for the lack of harmonized cooperation.
I'm not arguing as a developer. I'm arguing as an internet user. Why should I argue Adobe's interests for them, particularly when those interests conflict with my own? On the contrary, Adobe should be defending to us why it is that they insist on maintaining control over a conduit for content in the open web and obstructing efforts to create open source alternatives.
It's truly bizarre that internet users are making this sort of argument. It's as if back in the 80's users were making this argument about BASIC, insisting that all programs be coded in only BASIC while Microsoft prevented the development of more advanced programming tools. It makes as much sense that someone should insist that a program be written in BASIC as an internet user arguing that their content be delivered in Flash, which is none at all.
In case there is any confusion what my interests are, I'll list them here. I want a secure device in which software is fully optimized and which isn't reliant on yet another manufacturer to release updates in order to have it function correctly. I also want access to my content from any device and for the software that provides that content to be optimized to that device so that I can have the best possible experience on it.
The best thing for all internet users is if Adobe did exactly that, which is to make Flash open source. This has happened with numerous technologies, including PDF which became an open standard in 2008.
That this happens to coincide with Apple's interests in not having to wait around on Adobe to release Flash upgrades or have to figure out clever workarounds, as it did with 64-bit Safari is just that, a coincidence. This is a case where the interests of internet users and Apple coincide.
1. Do you know or only suspect this is what Adobe is doing/has done? Do you know for a fact they are unwilling? That they are, as you say, obstructing efforts?
2. Good luck. Sincerely and not sarcastically. Why aren't there universal printer ink cartridges? Why does Apple have it's own proprietary video out port?
And since technology is constantly changing - software will always have to be updated/changed to support OS changes. And sometimes the software relies on 3rd party vendors.
Talk about wanting to live in a world of monopolies.
There's considerable evidence that suggests Adobe has been obstructing the development of HTML 5, as has been reported in various sites and directly through the HTML 5's group correspondence. No need to rehash it.
In response to your second point, as a consumer are you arguing, sarcastically or not, that I shouldn't have standards for the products I purchase? It's partially due to consumer pressure that companies add features to their products, a recent example being Apple's apparent moves to incorporate HDMI in some of its products. Another similar example is Apple's adoption of Microsoft Exchange on the iPhone and its Mac OS X products. Having these features is a direct response to consumer needs. Were it not at least partially for this pressure Microsoft would be shipping DOS Vista.
I also fail to see how demanding that content being delivered through an open source conduit has anything to do with preferring to live in a world of monopolies. If anything the reverse holds true as it permits all companies to compete on an equal footing without having to go through one companies gateway.
And finally, it still remains unclear why any internet user should care about Flash more than they care about the content it delivers, particularly if the content can be delivered through open source methods that perform better on any given device and regardless of whether Adobe has optimized its software for it or not.
Transitions can be difficult, but the faster they occur the better off everyone is. Why argue for Apple to include a detrimental technology in its products rather than argue that Adobe make a beneficial move by releasing Flash as open source, as fruitless in the scheme of things as both arguments may be? This is particularly true since the benefits of having Flash exist as an open source technology far exceed any benefit Apple may have to allowing it to work on the iPhone or iPad.
Well right now (notice I say now - and probably for awhile) HTML5 is no substitute for Flash. You can't securely transmit video, and there is plenty HTML5 doesn't do that Flash can. Plus - very few browsers and sites parse HTML5.
So wouldn't the "logical" thing for Apple to do is to support BOTH if they could. By the time HTML5 becomes more available on the web and supported by more browsers, Apple could easily be into Gen 3 of the iPad. THEN drop Flash support.
You mentioned Adobe's possible efforts to thwart HTML5 - but that's not really what I was "arguing." You originally said (paraphrasing) that Adobe was unwilling to bend regarding THEIR technologies/patents/code. I don't believe there's evidence of that. We only know that Apple and Adobe aren't playing nice with each other.
ETA: So I reiterate - that as of Today - the real "loser" is the iPad customer. As some/most/all will not be able to access flash-enabled sites. Whether you like flash or not - it persists on the web. And HTML5, better or not in comparison does not.
So wouldn't the "logical" thing for Apple to do is to support BOTH if they could. By the time HTML5 becomes more available on the web and supported by more browsers, Apple could easily be into Gen 3 of the iPad. THEN drop Flash support.
You mentioned Adobe's possible efforts to thwart HTML5 - but that's not really what I was "arguing." You originally said (paraphrasing) that Adobe was unwilling to bend regarding THEIR technologies/patents/code. I don't believe there's evidence of that. We only know that Apple and Adobe aren't playing nice with each other.
ETA: So I reiterate - that as of Today - the real "loser" is the iPad customer. As some/most/all will not be able to access flash-enabled sites. Whether you like flash or not - it persists on the web. And HTML5, better or not in comparison does not.
If Apple put Flash into the iPad, what incentive would there be for Flash developers to finally get around to moving websites forward into HTML 5? Especially large sites such as NYT, Disney, etc.
The only reason there is, all of a sudden, such a shake up in the internet to move to HTML 5 is because of the efforts of Google to show off HTML 5 technologies, and for Apple to leave Flash behind.
Do you really believe that if Apple put Flash into the iPad that HTML 5 would continue at its current momentum?
It's incredibly more difficult to take something away than it would be to never put it in there in the first place.
While that's technically true "right now", keep in mind the iPad isn't even out "right now" either. I am seeing many websites very quickly, in fact, move forward into HTML 5 development in preparation for the iPad and modern browsers, and I wouldn't be surprised if, by the end of this year, the majority of popular websites worked on the iPad, either directly through HTML 5 support, or indirectly through an app.
Any customer who buys the iPad at launch will probably be at a disadvantage, true, but in the long run, consumers will be better off and that's not just iPad owners either, it relates to all internet users.
You mean the thread where you effectively tries to justify Flash's existence by comparing it to RealVideo?
Look unless any single one of you is an employ of Adobe or Apple it is pretty safe to say none of you have any idea what you are saying and everything on this forum is an opinion.
I also highly doubt "most websites are rapidly moving to HTML5" Outside of the Apple world and a few forums I know very few people that even know what it is yet. In the corporate world which markets and targets to 90% of the computer users in the world they could care less about HTML5 vs. Flash. All they know is that currently their biggest market are people that cannot currently view HTML5 or CSS3 content. No company I know of will want to use an open source technology before it is proven and they see cold hard statistics that show the world has switched over. It is going to take a lot more then an Ipad to push HTML5 unless all of you think it will outsell Windows based computers.
I love the argument about basic vs C++ and HTML5 vs Flash. Only problem is that the argument is kind of in reverse. Using HTML5 is more like using Basic and the web community wants the world to only use it and have no choice in using Flash or Silverlight or any other future technology. I am all for open standards and someday I hope Flash is open source but I also don't like to be told what to use when I have already been using something that works for many years. So myself and tens of thousands of Flash designers/developers should change our workflow just because of the Ipad? We have no problem changing but many of us will only do so when the time is right and when it makes sense to. You cannot force the world to change overnight. HTML5 isn't even finished yet. Just to be clear when I say HTML5 I mean HTML5, CSS3 or any of the newer open web technologies.
As for Adobe trying to limit HTML5. Have any of you heard of FXG and the upcoming versions of Flash and Dreamweaver that will support HTML5 and exporting FXG based animation for HTML5 pages? Oh wait FXG isn't open source. That is true but it is an XML file almost exactly the same as SVG so in a way it is open source. Dreamweaver is a HTML tool. Why they heck would Adobe limit their flagship HTML editing tool to not support everything in HTML. This just makes no sense at all. This is an opinion however just like anybody else. A giant company like Adobe is not going to support a format until it is ready and they know there is a market for it. When HTML5 is 100% ready and IE is ready to adopt it then I'm sure Adobe will support it with open arms.
Everybody thinks Flash is a huge cash cow for Adobe. That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Adobe doesn't make any money on Flash other then Flash development software. At the time the world needed Flash because there was no alternative at all. In fact I would say supporting Flash bleeds money out of the company because they don't make any money at all on the player or the content unlike the Iphone OS which makes money on both. The only people that pay a single penny are developers. I'm sure Adobe would love for somebody to make an open source alternative for their design software to publish to. Then Flash could make as much money for them as Dreamweaver does. It could just be a GUI frontend and they wouldn't have to spend the money on RD to create a programming language and media player. Again this is an opinion although it is a cold hard fact that Adobe only makes money on Flash with the development software. Opps sorry I lied. They also make money on the Flash Media Server which only a handful of Flash developers use. To the end user it is still free unless the company hosting the streaming video wants to charge for it.
Finally everybody talks about making Flash open source because everything on the Web should be open source but did anybody ever criticize Apple for not making Quicktime open source or Microsoft for not making Windows Media open source? Both those formats have even more support issues then Flash currently does. If Apple likes HTML5 based video so much why isn't the quicktime movie trailers website using it yet? I don't ever see any criticism of Apple for making people download and install the quicktime player in order to watch free movie trailers. This isn't just a plugin but a whole application. Then again we in the Apple world already have it but that is not true at all for Windows users who again make up 90% of the market for advertisers. Maybe some of you should be criticizing Apple for not making Movie Trailers accessible to non Quicktime users. If Apple really wants a true open web then they also need to put their money where their mouth is. Open source isn't the end all solution to perfect software either. If it was then Gimp would have killed Photoshop a long time ago.
I also highly doubt "most websites are rapidly moving to HTML5" Outside of the Apple world and a few forums I know very few people that even know what it is yet. In the corporate world which markets and targets to 90% of the computer users in the world they could care less about HTML5 vs. Flash. All they know is that currently their biggest market are people that cannot currently view HTML5 or CSS3 content. No company I know of will want to use an open source technology before it is proven and they see cold hard statistics that show the world has switched over. It is going to take a lot more then an Ipad to push HTML5 unless all of you think it will outsell Windows based computers.
I love the argument about basic vs C++ and HTML5 vs Flash. Only problem is that the argument is kind of in reverse. Using HTML5 is more like using Basic and the web community wants the world to only use it and have no choice in using Flash or Silverlight or any other future technology. I am all for open standards and someday I hope Flash is open source but I also don't like to be told what to use when I have already been using something that works for many years. So myself and tens of thousands of Flash designers/developers should change our workflow just because of the Ipad? We have no problem changing but many of us will only do so when the time is right and when it makes sense to. You cannot force the world to change overnight. HTML5 isn't even finished yet. Just to be clear when I say HTML5 I mean HTML5, CSS3 or any of the newer open web technologies.
As for Adobe trying to limit HTML5. Have any of you heard of FXG and the upcoming versions of Flash and Dreamweaver that will support HTML5 and exporting FXG based animation for HTML5 pages? Oh wait FXG isn't open source. That is true but it is an XML file almost exactly the same as SVG so in a way it is open source. Dreamweaver is a HTML tool. Why they heck would Adobe limit their flagship HTML editing tool to not support everything in HTML. This just makes no sense at all. This is an opinion however just like anybody else. A giant company like Adobe is not going to support a format until it is ready and they know there is a market for it. When HTML5 is 100% ready and IE is ready to adopt it then I'm sure Adobe will support it with open arms.
Everybody thinks Flash is a huge cash cow for Adobe. That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Adobe doesn't make any money on Flash other then Flash development software. At the time the world needed Flash because there was no alternative at all. In fact I would say supporting Flash bleeds money out of the company because they don't make any money at all on the player or the content unlike the Iphone OS which makes money on both. The only people that pay a single penny are developers. I'm sure Adobe would love for somebody to make an open source alternative for their design software to publish to. Then Flash could make as much money for them as Dreamweaver does. It could just be a GUI frontend and they wouldn't have to spend the money on RD to create a programming language and media player. Again this is an opinion although it is a cold hard fact that Adobe only makes money on Flash with the development software. Opps sorry I lied. They also make money on the Flash Media Server which only a handful of Flash developers use. To the end user it is still free unless the company hosting the streaming video wants to charge for it.
Finally everybody talks about making Flash open source because everything on the Web should be open source but did anybody ever criticize Apple for not making Quicktime open source or Microsoft for not making Windows Media open source? Both those formats have even more support issues then Flash currently does. If Apple likes HTML5 based video so much why isn't the quicktime movie trailers website using it yet? I don't ever see any criticism of Apple for making people download and install the quicktime player in order to watch free movie trailers. This isn't just a plugin but a whole application. Then again we in the Apple world already have it but that is not true at all for Windows users who again make up 90% of the market for advertisers. Maybe some of you should be criticizing Apple for not making Movie Trailers accessible to non Quicktime users. If Apple really wants a true open web then they also need to put their money where their mouth is. Open source isn't the end all solution to perfect software either. If it was then Gimp would have killed Photoshop a long time ago.
I have to agree with this. Given the strange history that Apple and Adobe have had over the years with the advent of the Intel processor in Macs and the distinctive lack of flash development on the iPhone/iPod Touch (I mean, if it's technical, it would have been worked out by now), I don't see it on the iPad anytime soon.
Adobe charges a TON of money for their products. I'm guessing flash is no different. Apple is frugal (face it, they're CHEAP) and likely unwilling to pay whatever fee Adobe wants to integrate flash into their devices.
The main reasons we won't see Flash on the iPad/iPhone have more to do with Apple not wanting to allow unapproved code that doesn't use their APIs to run on their App Store devices. Java isn't supported either. Some people don't like Apple taking their control to that level, but it makes sense.
Why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe, fix all the problems, and focus on making Adobe software stellar on the Mac platform. Or better yet, swallow Adobe whole and just re-write and re-brand Adobe apps as Apple? Can you imagine the tremendous marketing you would get? Every time a PDF opens anywhere on the internet, it will need Apple Reader. Then Apple can start crippling the PC versions of Adobe programs to lure more buyers to the Mac platform. It's what other software developers have done for years, so why not Apple?
Flash integration doesn't cost anything. Where do people get this stuff from. It is a web plugin not a piece of software. Flash 10.1 is going to be on every smartphone except the Iphone and it didn't cost any of those companies anything to do it. In fact Adobe has a working version of the Flash player for the Iphone but they cannot do anything with it because Apple will not let them. This comes directly from information from some of the engineers at Adobe. This is why Adobe is making Flash CS5 publish native Iphone apps. Adobe has wanted in on the Iphone from day one but Apple would not let them. So adobe did the next best thing and figure out how to convert Flash applications into raw Objective C code and publish native Iphone apps. Adobe would not have pumped so much money and RD time into this feature if they did not care or they were lazy. I think Adobe is pretty retarded for a lot of things and I hate a lot of things they have done with Flash since they bought it from Macromedia but it just is not true that they have not been trying to get Flash support on the Iphone. I have yet to see a single technical document from Apple that states any performance specs or if they even tried it. If Apple will not let Flash on the Iphone then at least Adobe is trying the back door method to play Apple's way.