I'd say the question is, which came first? Did BofA deliberately implement Flash and thus prevent access from iOS devices, or did Apple say 'NO' to Flash knowing fine well it would cut out a lot of website functionality? I'd say it were the latter since Flash was already well established before the first iOS device came out.
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.
Will iPad ever allow Flash and Quicktime???
- Thread starter Kingnitro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say the question is, which came first? Did BofA deliberately implement Flash and thus prevent access from iOS devices, or did Apple say 'NO' to Flash knowing fine well it would cut out a lot of website functionality? I'd say it were the latter since Flash was already well established before the first iOS device came out.
Flash can suck it. It barely works on Android. Half of the web's Flash usage is ads and most people aren't exactly in love with ads. Adobe can blame Apple but at the end of the day, Flash is a horrible experience and should not be extended to our mobile devices.
What will you think when all our internet ads are HTML5? Will you still be rooting for it then or will you be dead against it too?
Flash is just as pointless on Android. Even with an overclocked Galaxy S, which is noticeably faster than the iPhone4, it still bogs down sites and makes scrolling jittery. Adobe has yet to deliver on its promise of a smooth mobile Flash experience. It's garbage.
The coding is still poor, and the hardware power needed to run it destroys your battery life. I don't even like flash anywhere near my Windows computers, let alone my mobile devices.
ALL non-Flash ads today are HTML and/or images. Ever seen a Google AdSense ad? Seriously, do you even know what HTML is?
Of course but what about when the annoying Flash ads become annoying HTML5 ads? Will HTML5 be so great then, or will you be wanting something else again?
I think the point is that at least the annoying HTML5 ads won't slow our browsing to a snail's pace and put extra drain on our batteries.
Is there any rationale (note the correct spelling) for an Apple-hater to spend so much of their free time on a forum dedicated to Apple products and news?
I don't really hate ads, I just hate that loading them bogs down my entire device. HTML5 ads won't be as resource hungry than Flash. If it doesn't slow down my device, I'm fine with it. Flash kills battery, slows my device and gives me something that I don't exactly welcome with open arms (ads). If it is unobtrusive and not battery draining, ads are bearable.
Flash on my droid for a day was long enough for me to realize that "the walled garden" was at least right on this one. It was horrible and slowed my phone down way too much and that was using their mobile version. HTML5 or nothing....
But how can you prove steve jobs wrong when he's right??
And yes there are lots of personal rational reasons. It's slow, buggy, resource hogging, battery draining, not meant for touch screens, and generally inferior in every way, shape and form. need anymore rational reasons? show me flash running nice and pleasantly on a mobile device? i challenge you to that because i know you cant. why dont you just suck it up and get over it? flash is trash.
I didn't realize when purchasing my iPad just how much you CAN'T do on one of these!
The tide is turning regarding html5 taking over flash duties online. My guess is that html5 and/or QT (which is all ready supported on all Apple products) will become the new standard for online video and it will happen sooner than later.
For some perspective see this Apple article: Thoughts on Flash.
What fanboys dont seem to understand is...
What fanboys (and s jobs) dont seem to understand is that when a consumer is paying for every pennies worth of the hardware of their device (and in apples case, well more than double or triple the hardwares worth), it should be their prerogative to decide what functions are appropriate or necessary for it to perform according to their needs and their desires.
If flash is a buggy $#!y codec that drains battery power and heats up the device, etc etc. than so be it. I personally hate it and can live without it my self, but that doesnt change the fact that morally speaking a developer of a device meant for a consumer (who after paying a minimum of 500 or so + dollars becomes the rightful owner), has no right to have a say in, oversee, or dictate what codecs the user (i.e OWNER!) decides to play if the hardware that they paid for is able to support it. If I was an owner of a device and I was lending it to someone, then I would have a right to have a say in how they used it, even to the extent of deciding what video codecs they could run. But that is not the case when a person pays top dollar for a device and becomes the rightful owner them self. This is common sense.
Apple unfortunately is very perverse, brazen, and delusional in this regard. Instead of making software/OS to facilitate the range of functionality of the hardware to suit the volition of the user / OWNER, they go out of their way to make software that restricts even the most basic range of functionality of the hardware to control, limit, and dictate the usage of the owner. This is not the conduct of sane and decent people. It is the conduct of a narcissistic perverse self-infatuated sadistic cult.
If there was a quicktime app for iPad, (Apples own Goddamn software for @#$%s sake!!!), then there could be a perian.app. Or if apple would just simply approve VLC's submitted iPad.app (which they wont!!) then users could begin to assume and exercise their rightful freedom as the actual owners of the device, the most basic justifiable purpose for buying a thing in the first place. But can we expect this minimal expression of fair and common sense decency from Apple you can bet not! There is a principle here, not a question of codecs.
I am sorry people but this is pathetic. I hate windows and refuse to use it, but only having the alternative of being subjected to s jobs ever increasing tyrannical 'software-cum-functionality extinction' nazi agenda is really f#©ked up. (And what to speak of being exposed to the pathetic phenomenon of insufficient human discretion that are apple fanboys. )
These are just some thoughts that I had to get out there for people to hear. Thank you for listening.
And for all the wannabe-valiant apple fanboys who will feel compelled to try to assert the correct Apple-branded understanding of the world on me after reading this, you could save me the awkward experience of feeling puzzled, sorry, and embarrassed for you by simply pondering the prospect of growing a pair before trying to devotedly proclaim "your" opinion to the world over the internet.
What fanboys (and s jobs) dont seem to understand is that when a consumer is paying for every pennies worth of the hardware of their device (and in apples case, well more than double or triple the hardwares worth), it should be their prerogative to decide what functions are appropriate or necessary for it to perform according to their needs and their desires.
If flash is a buggy $#!y codec that drains battery power and heats up the device, etc etc. than so be it. I personally hate it and can live without it my self, but that doesnt change the fact that morally speaking a developer of a device meant for a consumer (who after paying a minimum of 500 or so + dollars becomes the rightful owner), has no right to have a say in, oversee, or dictate what codecs the user (i.e OWNER!) decides to play if the hardware that they paid for is able to support it. If I was an owner of a device and I was lending it to someone, then I would have a right to have a say in how they used it, even to the extent of deciding what video codecs they could run. But that is not the case when a person pays top dollar for a device and becomes the rightful owner them self. This is common sense.
Apple unfortunately is very perverse, brazen, and delusional in this regard. Instead of making software/OS to facilitate the range of functionality of the hardware to suit the volition of the user / OWNER, they go out of their way to make software that restricts even the most basic range of functionality of the hardware to control, limit, and dictate the usage of the owner. This is not the conduct of sane and decent people. It is the conduct of a narcissistic perverse self-infatuated sadistic cult.
If there was a quicktime app for iPad, (Apples own Goddamn software for @#$%s sake!!!), then there could be a perian.app. Or if apple would just simply approve VLC's submitted iPad.app (which they wont!!) then users could begin to assume and exercise their rightful freedom as the actual owners of the device, the most basic justifiable purpose for buying a thing in the first place. But can we expect this minimal expression of fair and common sense decency from Apple you can bet not! There is a principle here, not a question of codecs.
I am sorry people but this is pathetic. I hate windows and refuse to use it, but only having the alternative of being subjected to s jobs ever increasing tyrannical 'software-cum-functionality extinction' nazi agenda is really f#©ked up. (And what to speak of being exposed to the pathetic phenomenon of insufficient human discretion that are apple fanboys.
)These are just some thoughts that I had to get out there for people to hear. Thank you for listening.
And for all the wannabe-valiant apple fanboys who will feel compelled to try to assert the correct Apple-branded understanding of the world on me after reading this, you could save me the awkward experience of feeling puzzled, sorry, and embarrassed for you by simply pondering the prospect of growing a pair before trying to devotedly proclaim "your" opinion to the world over the internet.
What do you mean? How can a consumer have input on a device not yet made? I don't entire understand you here, care to clarify? It is a consumers prerogative to decide what they want from a device, and if said device doesn't meet their conditions, or what they want from it, they don't have to buy it.
I don't know which products you're saying Apple charges 2 or 3 times the price of what the hardware is worth, but no company sells their products for cost.
I could go into thorough detail how Macs are similar priced to their PC equiv. and in some cases, like with the iMac, thrashes the competition in both price AND performance.
However, I will keep it to the iPad since this is the title of the thread. The 16GB iPad costs about $270 just for the hardware, excluding marketing and other factors which can be very expensive, that's less than a 50% markup on the low end model.
No other slates will come out that will offer the same components the iPad does while offering a significantly lower price purely because companies sell these products to make money, and the parts in the iPad cost plenty. Although, it is true, Apple does make more on the higher end iPad models.
This is wrong. The consumer doesn't dictate to the producer what the product can do. The producer advertises what the product CAN DO and the consumer decides if they want it or not. Apple doesn't support flash, if you buy the device you can't complain that Apple is being unfair by not supporting flash, YOU BOUGHT IT anyway. It isn't like they tricked you into believing it had flash support and then told you it didn't; that, would be wrong.
No, they aren't, they provide you with a great product. If you don't see it as a great product, DON'T BUY IT. They don't restrict things that they don't think won't be a problem for the consumer.
Apple doesn't give you a complex mess of an OS and say you can figure it out, they make it as easy to use and as simple as possible. If you have a problem with that, again, DON'T BUY IT.
As has been said before, QuickTime IS SUPPORTED. VLCs app may or may not be approved, but regardless, it can be distributed on Cydia. You haven't actually given it much time either, if VLCs app abides by EVERY rule that Apple has, it'd be wrong to reject it.
You keep going on like a consumer has the right to tell the producer of a product what functionality they have to give it (now, after they've bought it), they don't. YOU BOUGHT IT AS IS.
I'm not a wannabe-valiant apple fanboy, and I have a pair. You can have your opinion, but if you post on a forum, expect replies challenging your opinion. You're already insulting people who are going to reply to you, which is very wrong and weird. It's basically like saying, "this is my opinion" and anyone who replies with a different view is, well, what you said, which is wrong.
TLDR; I see throughout your posts constant reference to Apple not having the right to tell you what you can do with your device, but what you don't seem to see, is that the consumer of this device, bought it, as is. They have no right to demand that Apple adds to it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Apple doesn't support Flash because it is buggy, and it will crash sometimes, and it won't always work as Flash isn't designed for touch input and mobile devices, and Apple doesn't want Flash associated with iOS. HTML5 can and will replace Flash in the video playback area.
Here's an analogy, let's say you sold a chair to someone. This person bought the chair as is, however, they come to you later and say, this chair needs something else added to it, and you are to do it for free because the chair should have had this to start with.
Is that fair? Well, no, it isn't. That person bought the chair as is, and has no right to tell you to make any modifications to it because they think it should have come differently. And, to add to that, they are asking you to add, or change something, that might make the chair unstable and potentially collapse or break, or not work as intended, would you do that work and let your name be associated with this chair that might break, and potentially have your name damaged by his word of mouth? Well, I don't think you would. It'd give you a bad name, even though it was he who wanted it.
Your points are well taken and appreciated, at least to the extents that I can agree with them. But my point is that, even putting the individual issue of flash aside (which wasnt really my point of interest), Apple designs things to perform at less than what is well within their capacity (hardware speaking) and for reasons that can only seem to me to be opportunistic marketing tactics. And for the loyalty and expenses that their customers afford them, it is extremely distasteful and pathetic.
For instance, what do you think the chances are of future iPads (and most likely the next update) having a front facing camera for "face time" if not both (front and back)? 100%. The camera in my opinion is a small (and inexpensive) thing, but it is most certainly an advertisable selling point. Why not just simply release your iPad well equipped with whatever your existing state of technology is to truly facilitate the "apple experience", instead of distastefully trying to find ways to rerelease your whole product every six months by adding on your pre-existing line-up of technological bells, whistles, and novelty items?
Take for example the first generation of 13" unibody MBs. It was nothing more than a cosmetic fluff job over either equivalent or downgraded hardware from the previous model. Firewire, a very practical, very functional, and very useful piece of technology was arbitrarily taken off only to be re-added in the next update to recycle and unnecessarily boost sales.
Its one thing to say that companies have a right to determine and design the range of functionality of their own products to maximize the reliability or performance or longevity or what have you, but this kind of strategic marketing diplomacy to maximize on sales of petty "upgrades" which are nothing more than the inclusion (or re-inclsuion) of your existing technology, is not that. I am sorry.
And the same sort of unnecessary manipulation goes on in the realm of software, through the the arbitrary mandatory imposition of bottle-necked software.
The iPads dont just "not support flash" (which again is not my specific point, but just a point of reference), they dont support a wide variety of common codecs that can be expected to be encountered in the ordinary and casual use of basically everybody. Mind you these are common codecs which dont have the same dirty record and complaints leveled against them as flash does. And its not that the hardware physically cant support them, its that apple, even though being fully aware of the state of user convenience/necessity, chose not to support them. And again its not that they chose to just merely not support them natively on the factory shipped software, but they chose to write software that precludes the possibility of other software even accessing these perfectly functional and commonly used abilities of the hardware, which the user paid for. To get that you have to Jailbreak your iPad and possibly void your warranty.
Regarding the consumer dictating to the producer what the product can do. Business is naturally driven by and dependent upon the principle of "supply and demand". 'Demand' having the final say and upper hand in matters which are not essential to human existence (like like food, water, shelter, etc. and "
"s dont count in this context). So I disagree with you in thinking that the user/buyer doesnt have the right to expect/demand/ or "dictate" the functionality or product of a company. It may essentially be a correlative relationship but the buyer still has the power and a responsibility to be discerning and demanding of their products companies. They should see that the product is satisfying and meets their needs, if physically possible. In situations where such a thing is perfectly possible, there is no reason for a buyer to become an ineffectual fanboy.
The only reason Apple can get away with flaunting such diplomatic marketing tactics or implementing such plainly restrictive inconsiderate policies is because Windows is so buggy and unstable that it poses no real role as competition or an alternative product. My hope is that Google/Android will bring a real element of competition and heat to apple so that they snap out of their fantasy world and realise that they cant carelessly misuse their customer base. If Apple outgrows its bad habits and becomes simply an amazingly innovative a reliable company, I will happily become an apple fanboy my self. But that is yet to be seen...
And as far as price go, I will bet you that Googles tablet or pad or whatever, will almost certainly out-spec the iPad (meaning camera, larger drive capacity/SD card slot, removable battery, USB - ability to support external drives and information transfer without the restrictive antics of proprietary software like iTunes, etc) and be similarly priced if not cheaper.
For instance, what do you think the chances are of future iPads (and most likely the next update) having a front facing camera for "face time" if not both (front and back)? 100%. The camera in my opinion is a small (and inexpensive) thing, but it is most certainly an advertisable selling point. Why not just simply release your iPad well equipped with whatever your existing state of technology is to truly facilitate the "apple experience", instead of distastefully trying to find ways to rerelease your whole product every six months by adding on your pre-existing line-up of technological bells, whistles, and novelty items?
Take for example the first generation of 13" unibody MBs. It was nothing more than a cosmetic fluff job over either equivalent or downgraded hardware from the previous model. Firewire, a very practical, very functional, and very useful piece of technology was arbitrarily taken off only to be re-added in the next update to recycle and unnecessarily boost sales.
Its one thing to say that companies have a right to determine and design the range of functionality of their own products to maximize the reliability or performance or longevity or what have you, but this kind of strategic marketing diplomacy to maximize on sales of petty "upgrades" which are nothing more than the inclusion (or re-inclsuion) of your existing technology, is not that. I am sorry.
And the same sort of unnecessary manipulation goes on in the realm of software, through the the arbitrary mandatory imposition of bottle-necked software.
The iPads dont just "not support flash" (which again is not my specific point, but just a point of reference), they dont support a wide variety of common codecs that can be expected to be encountered in the ordinary and casual use of basically everybody. Mind you these are common codecs which dont have the same dirty record and complaints leveled against them as flash does. And its not that the hardware physically cant support them, its that apple, even though being fully aware of the state of user convenience/necessity, chose not to support them. And again its not that they chose to just merely not support them natively on the factory shipped software, but they chose to write software that precludes the possibility of other software even accessing these perfectly functional and commonly used abilities of the hardware, which the user paid for. To get that you have to Jailbreak your iPad and possibly void your warranty.
Regarding the consumer dictating to the producer what the product can do. Business is naturally driven by and dependent upon the principle of "supply and demand". 'Demand' having the final say and upper hand in matters which are not essential to human existence (like like food, water, shelter, etc. and "
"s dont count in this context). So I disagree with you in thinking that the user/buyer doesnt have the right to expect/demand/ or "dictate" the functionality or product of a company. It may essentially be a correlative relationship but the buyer still has the power and a responsibility to be discerning and demanding of their products companies. They should see that the product is satisfying and meets their needs, if physically possible. In situations where such a thing is perfectly possible, there is no reason for a buyer to become an ineffectual fanboy. The only reason Apple can get away with flaunting such diplomatic marketing tactics or implementing such plainly restrictive inconsiderate policies is because Windows is so buggy and unstable that it poses no real role as competition or an alternative product. My hope is that Google/Android will bring a real element of competition and heat to apple so that they snap out of their fantasy world and realise that they cant carelessly misuse their customer base. If Apple outgrows its bad habits and becomes simply an amazingly innovative a reliable company, I will happily become an apple fanboy my self. But that is yet to be seen...
And as far as price go, I will bet you that Googles tablet or pad or whatever, will almost certainly out-spec the iPad (meaning camera, larger drive capacity/SD card slot, removable battery, USB - ability to support external drives and information transfer without the restrictive antics of proprietary software like iTunes, etc) and be similarly priced if not cheaper.
By this you mean leaving out a particular feature in order to add it to the next model to promote sales? I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I believe other companies do this too, and I don't always think that it is marketing, sometime it is purely what they are capable of at the time.
Take the previous generation iPod touch as an example, it was supposed to have a camera, according to some very strong rumours, but, it didn't -- something went wrong and they had to scrap it.
I wouldn't go as far to say that they design things to perform less than what is within their capacity, I think they just have different views on what consumers need. And, based on the success of the iDevices, the thriving App Store and other stores, I'd say they've been pretty spot on with introducing a device (hardware) and OS that are really simple and easy to use.
I believe that it'll absolutely have a camera. I don't necessarily think that Apple left it out so they could put it in the next model (to promote sales), not that that couldn't be the reason. It could be that Apple needed or wanted to announce FaceTime before they put the camera in it, or, the design of the device just didn't fit with a camera yet. Who knows? It could be a combination of the above, as well as costs and whatever else.
As I said, I don't necessarily have a problem with Apple (or any other company) holding out on specific additions to promote sales. I chose to buy an iPad even though I knew it was a first generation device because I wanted to enjoy it, even though I know, next year, there'll be a new one with more features that I'll want, it was my choice. Would I've liked having a front facing camera and rear facing camera on the iPad? Definitely, not that I'd ever have used it. However, with FaceTime announced, I can see that changing.
Here's some food for thought... what if Apple didn't want their third party developers (Skype, Fringe, etc.) having access to the camera, etc., on the iPad before FaceTime was ready. It would certainly give those companies time advantages and the push for FaceTime but not be as strong as it would otherwise.
Apple will sell millions of iPod touches and iPhone 4's with FaceTime, and then they'll announce the iPad with FaceTime, adding to those numbers.
Sure, I'm not sure I agree though, that it was re-added to boost sales. I think Apple would have realised that it needs it (perhaps due to many complaints?). Firewire doesn't appear to be such an important thing on a low end Mac laptop to boost sales significantly by re-adding it next update.
What would be an example of this?
Curious, in what situations would you encounter these codecs? I don't get the majority of my music from iTunes (in fact, barely any at all), and they work fine. Any videos I need can be converted via iTunes if they aren't in the necessary format.
This is just about Apple being in control, they think that it is simpler for your average consumer, to just have one (or few) supported codecs. Anything else can be converted to one of those, in iTunes.
I think that Apple's target market, which is rather huge, is mainly those who aren't techies, those who don't understand any of this. They have music, they want it to play. They don't care what codec it uses, or anything else. As long as iTunes can convert their music (if necessary) to work, they're happy. Same applies to videos, photos, and whatever else.
And how do they preclude such a thing? By not allowing it in the SDK? Also, jail breaking is legal, and afaik doesn't void your warranty -- in any case, restoring before taking it in for repairs or replacement wouldn't be a bad idea.
That is how business works, but, I don't think that is the case in your point. Supply and demand works something like this: a company releases a product, its bought by consumers, feed back is generated, the company takes on board what their consumers want and release another model later which has those features -- it doesn't (in most cases) update the existing model to support new features.
Although, we're talking of software, Apple chooses not to let Flash and other codecs in because it compromises their little bubble. Look at iOS 4, it included multi-tasking and folders, which were afaik, some of the most wanted features that it lacked, Apple was listening, in fact, its possible they'd planned multi-tasking (to be released at some point, I.E, in iOS 4) since the release of iOS 3 or even a little prior. It also included a universal inbox, a little thing, I know, but nonetheless it was what the community asked for. Apple never said, "You don't need this", they just did it, when they could, the way they thought best.
It already has. Android is a decent OS, and if it wasn't for the iPhone, or iOS, I'd have one -- although, to be fair, Android probably wouldn't be what it is today without the iPhone around (nothing would, really).
I don't consider myself to be a fan boy, I love Apple, I trust them, they are my company. I feel the same way towards them a bunch of guys might feel towards their home town foot ball team. However, I also don't hold hostility to other products, I do however, prefer Apple. I use OS X and Windows 7 (on my Mac
) everyday, etc.I think before any other slate has any chance to impact the market, iPad 2 will be out and flog it to death. I'm thinking a nice "retina" display with a 1920x1280 res (ability to play 1080p videos) on a 7" iPad, or (2048x1536 or higher) res on a 9.7" iPad will totally dominate, plus, FaceTime (front/rear camera), faster and newer A4 (maybe the A5..? based of ARM9), more RAM, better GPU, etc.
In terms of not having to use iTunes, having a removable battery, USB support, it all comes down to preference. I don't mind any of those things, although, from time to time, I'd have liked to use a USB.
iOS will likely gain some form of filesystem and that ability later on, iOS is a multi-touch based OS that is evolving from the ground up into something that can be as convenient as a computer, it'll just take time.
I must say, I am enjoying this discussion!
EDIT: Edit... wohh, long thread. Lack of flash might not be such a problem if Frash is released by comex in the feature with the full functionality of Flash because, well, jail breakers could have it