• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Websites on iPad

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
+1 on the html 5 stuff. Flash will fade into the mists of time.

Maybe as far as webdesign, but given that you can make some really cool apps with the use of flash for the Android market, I don't know if it will totally fade away. Now if they do what Apple has done and not allowed apps based in flash period that will just hasten Flash's fading even more.
 

Joe Diaz

New Member
I find it funny how all apple ipad users have instantly become flash and html5 experts. Is flash a resource hog??? well that depends... compared to what? If you were to compare multimedia flash content with a static html website, then yeah it uses more resources. But developers are finding that when comparing similar flash and html5 multimedia, flash often times out performs html5. Of course this obviously depends on the multimedia and what it does (and how it was developed in flash). The point is, when it come to performance, html5 is not near as superior as Apple would lead you to believe. They are just trying to sell a product.

However, from a developers standpoint, here is the main difference: The authoring environment (what software developers develop the multimedia in). In that regard, html5 seems to be where flash was 10 years ago. Flash has a much better set of GUI development tools for designers, artists and even coders. Adobe is great at this.

So how does that effect you the user? Well, what that means is there is a larger more experienced community of flash developers right now. You also can't simply switch some sites over from flash to html5. It's not a click of a button type of thing, and in some cases there are things you can do with flash that you simply cannot do with html5 right now. So it will take time for flash to "die out" if it comes close to dying out at all.

In the past when a new technology or language was developed, developers would switch over when that technology was proven to be a better replacement. and even in that case it takes years for everyone else to get caught up. Case in point: Some websites still are not being built with css. Yet in that case, our browsers don't simply stop viewing that content.

Apple users seem to think the developer community will or can quit cold turkey and instantly learn a new technology and somehow seek out and destroy flash throughout the internet for ipad users. That simply will not happen, and hasn't, and that is why you see posts like this. It would take years for developers (even if they were instantly granted with the knowledge of html5) to go back to there old clients (even if they were all in the position to invest in the "upgrade") and swap out flash for html5.

Now that isn't to say html5 won't surpass flash in every way, but it isn't there now. In the meantime (however long that will be) most iPad users can't view this content and therefor are not able to view the web in it's entirety. And similar tablet devices seem to not be having this kind of difficulty with flash. In fact, they are using their ability to display flash as a selling point. So we know it can be done. How come these manufactures can develop devices that display flash, but such a great product like the ipad won't?

I honestly wouldn't be supprised if a future version of the ipad also include flash playback and sells it as a new feature. I remember when apple used to bash Intel, until they started using their chips, Then they sold it as a great new update to apple products. It's all business and propaganda.
 

ucmj22

New Member
I think its funny how some people think that a company should produce a product to cater to developers rather than the end user. No matter what you think of apple, they are leaders in their field and you can't argue with their numbers. They have the largest cash reserves of any company they have acquired 3rd place in us pc market share behind only HP and Dell, they are the fastest growing US retailer and are currently ranked at 21, they had over 5 million of their iPhones activated in the 3rd quarter alone and are shipping well over a million iPad 2s a month. You can hold on to your flash if you want to, but you will be lef behind, because regardless of your feelings on the topic, when a customer goes to the flash website you just made them for $5000 on their iPhone and it doesn't work I hope they understand.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
I think its funny how some people think that a company should produce a product to cater to developers rather than the end user.

I could argue either way on that one. It really depends. Ideally it should be for both, but it doesn't always work out that way.



You can hold on to your flash if you want to, but you will be lef behind, because regardless of your feelings on the topic, when a customer goes to the flash website you just made them for $5000 on their iPhone and it doesn't work I hope they understand.


Really, it's too soon to tell on that part. I'm not saying that it won't happen or that it isn't even possible for it to happen. We just aren't at a point in time where we can be that definitive about it. Despite what some seem to think.
 

Joe Diaz

New Member
I think its funny how some people think that a company should produce a product to cater to developers rather than the end user. No matter what you think of apple, they are leaders in their field and you can't argue with their numbers. They have the largest cash reserves of any company they have acquired 3rd place in us pc market share behind only HP and Dell, they are the fastest growing US retailer and are currently ranked at 21, they had over 5 million of their iPhones activated in the 3rd quarter alone and are shipping well over a million iPad 2s a month. You can hold on to your flash if you want to, but you will be lef behind, because regardless of your feelings on the topic, when a customer goes to the flash website you just made them for $5000 on their iPhone and it doesn't work I hope they understand.

Why not cater to both? I agree, they should make a product to cater to end users, so why not include flash playback on their devices? It's not like it can't be done. And being stubborn and holding on to flash, has nothing to do with it. most developers are attempting to learn html5. It will take time for html5 to be where flash is today. (If it ever happens) The reality is that even if the entire community of web developers switch every site that has flash over to html5, it won't happen today, tomorrow or even next year. If the end user bought a devices that seems to be made with web browsing in mind, is the manufacturer really "catering to the end user" by failing to include a feature that would allow them to view all of the web?

And phones are something entirely different. If a company really wants there content to be easily accessed on a phone, they should really invest in an alternate phone friendly version of their website. In my opinion 99.9% of websites that were designed primarily to look and work great on things with larger displays like laptops and desktops (flash or not), make for a horrible user experience on a smart phone. That is why larger companies have alternate mobile versions of their sites. So the phone thing is kind of a moot point. Besides this is a thread about the ipad.
 

ucmj22

New Member
People were pissed when apple stopped supporting 3.5 floppy discs for CDs, then they were mad when they dropped support for serial connections for USB, next they were mad that apple doesn't support bluray which IMHO will be gone in 5-10 years in favor of HD streaming cloud technology, now people are mad that apple is dropping support for flash. We must realize that nearly everything in this world will be obsolete at some point, apple simply has a propensity for identifying those things and moving on before anyone else, this leaves them open for criticism but they usually come out on top. As for the iPad, after tryining many different tablets I believe the iPad is by far the best even without flash.
And as for apple vs developers, like it or not the ball is in the developers court. There are 2 types of products out there, both with large market shares. One supports flash the other doesn't but they both support html5. A developer can continue either creating for one, or adapt and create for both. Personally, I dumped our flash site the day the original iPad came out.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Along with that adapting line of thought. If flash adapts to where it's easy to export html5 from a product developed in flash, that would also keep flash from disappearing as quickly.

I agree adaptation is necessary though.
 

Joe Diaz

New Member
Also, here's an Adobe guy's tool to convert Flash to html5. Pretty slick....

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html

Yeah I've been hearing about wallaby. This is definitely a step in the right direction for html5, as this would be a more realistic option for someone like me and others who appreciate the GUI developer tools that is adobe flash professorial. To date, nothing comes close to what adobe has to offer in this department. Simply converting it to html5 is slick.

Unfortunately right now, html5 can't support some of the features you are able to publish in flash professional. and we don't know when that will happen. Some say a few years, some say 5-10. Still, it is a step in the right direction and in my opinion the only way html5 could or would be able to kill flash as a plugin. (but just as a plugin) The GUI is where it is at, and right now I don't see anyone being able to match flash as a developer tool. They have a huge head start. But who knows. Things change.

In the mean time, no flash on the ipad. It's users will simply have to wait for the developers and content creators to catch up with apple's vision. Even if they are right, who knows how long that will be. Until then, ipad users are just going to have to get comfortable with the fact that they can't actually see everything the internet has to offer.
 

SqueeGee

New Member
Great discussion and insights.

Regarding jailbreaking - I bought my iPad on woot.com as a refurbished model so there is no moral delimma for me to do this as there is no warranty. My problem is that I'm just not confident/technical enough to do it. My guess is that there are quite a few other folks who are unwilling to jailbreak for one reason or another.

The point of my original post was to try to understand what factors where influencing designers decisions to include or not include content that will be impossible to view by an increasing portion of their users. From what I gather, some hope that this will all blow over and feel that it is unnecessary to change what they are doing in the meantime.

It seems to me that this approach is a risky and unnecessary gamble for anyone designing a new website today. As a business, I want to communicate with my clients in their language and on their terms. If I don't, then they will find someone else who will. If I want to sell signs in France, then I better have a website that's in French, otherwise I don't exist to them.

I don't know about you all, but I get an awful lot of emails that say "Sent from my iPhone." or "Sent from my iPad." (I got one the other day from a 77 year old man.) And that's just the ones who haven't changed the signature - I personally see no reason to advertise what device I'm using, but hey, to each his own.

So I know my clients use iPhones/iPads. My goal is to sell to these clients. I should design a site that helps do that by making it as universal as possible.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a decision to use Flash is a decision to ignore the needs of these users?
 

Joe Diaz

New Member
Squeegee, To address your original point: You make it sound as though using flash was an irresponsible "gamble" on the part of developers, as if Apple sent out a newsletter years in advance warning people that they would be developing hardware that wouldn't support an already popular format, "be prepared".

What you have to keep in mind is this:
  • Multimedia in the form of flash (or html5) or any other future format has its place on the internet. It's not going anyway in the foreseeable future.
  • These things take time to evolve.
  • The ipad is fairly new.
  • Much of the flash that is online now, was developed before the ipad was released. You can't blame those designers for something they couldn't foresee.
  • Before the ipad was release, not everyone could predict that it wouldn't support flash, most predicted that it would.
  • Html5 is fairly new. Not everyone has had the time or is comfortable with using it as an alternative.
  • Html5 is not yet capable of doing everything that flash can do, so it isn't yet a complete alternative.
  • Html5 currently has nothing close to the developer tools available to flash, making it harder to develop for.
  • No one is really certain if html5 will replace flash or not. It is too early to tell.
  • No one is really certain if apple will decided to later support flash. They have changed their minds on such things in the past.

The thing that upsets me about Apples role in all this. They have a legitimate criticism about their devices and they point the blame elsewhere.

They basically throw adobe under the bus. It is no secret that apple has had the reputation in the past of creating good machines for graphic design. And in my opinion Adobe plays a major part in that being one of the primary design suites for mac. So now they blame their shortcomings on that valuable partner?

And now developers are somehow the bad guys because of apples shortcomings?

I don't get it. One day everyone is expecting about the ipad thinking it will easily display flash, the next day it's "well it doesn't have flash but that is because adobe sucks" ....Well I mean I get it. I know that certain people are going to defend apple no matter what they decide, but still its a bit silly is you ask me.
 

CES020

New Member
Wouldn't it be fair to say that a decision to use Flash is a decision to ignore the needs of these users?

I think that's a very fair question for anyone developing a website.

I don't know where all this "Flash that drives the web that I can't live without" exists on the internet, but apparently it's out there somewhere.

Adobe can resolve this as well Joe. It's not all on Apple. Apple has said what needs to be done to resolve the issues and Adobe won't go that route. Seems shortsighted to me. A company that makes products that your products could run on tells you that you need to make a "lite" version of your software, and instead, you say "Screw you Apple" and move on. So right now, just as SqueeGee said, you've got software that 50 million iphone users and 20 million IPad users can't use. Yeah, that's a wonderful strategy too!

I'd be calling for a meeting with my people telling them "Get a Apple iOS approved Flash player on the market ASAP on everyone in this room is going to be looking for a job. I don't care if you have to start from scratch, just get it done and have it working by the end of ___________."
 

SqueeGee

New Member
Joe,

I apologize for oversimplifying. I don't have the technical expertise or investment in said expertise that you possess. I can appreciate how frustrating this must be and did not intend to paint Flash designers as unscrupulous in any way.

My point of view on this is only of a company who needs a new(or much improved) website that's trying to make the most impact possible. I believe I've gotten the answers that I need to do that in regard to this issue.

Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to share an "insider's" view to a complex problem.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Adobe can resolve this as well Joe. It's not all on Apple.

I can agree with this.

Apple has said what needs to be done to resolve the issues and Adobe won't go that route.

Here, I have to wonder if it's really more "politics" that apple has the stance over a real need to improve a certain piece of tech.

That could just be the conspiracy theorist in me though.

Now ucmj22 mentioned about dropping 3.5 floppys for CDs and serials being dropped from USBs, the biggest difference between those two is that they are more hardware and in my mind have more limitations with regard to adaptation versus software. I don't think Flash has quite the death knell like floppys did or serial ports. I think Flash could easily survive with either a plugin or just having an export or even save as function for html5, if it turns out that it is that dire as a lot are predicting. It might be, but it's still relatively too early to tell.

Now with blu ray being dropped for HD cloud streaming, I can see that as a possibility, however, I would still like the ability to get the special features or the audio commentary etc with that streaming. As of yet, they don't have that available on any cloud streaming that I'm aware of. Now I'm more of a movie buff then the average joe, so I'm sure that won't bother a lot of people, but if it's a movie that I really enjoy and want to know the nitty gritty about it, those are options I like having with the disc format. However, in general I don't have an issue with cloud movie streaming as much as I do with general cloud computing when it comes to my business. Although I digress on that.
 

CES020

New Member
Here's Job's open letter on Flash. I think if you read it, there are many things that have a lot of merit and show real issues. A lot more real issues than politics. Granted, this was written a year ago, so you'll have to keep that in mind. I think Jobs tends to be right more than wrong in his letter.....

"Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

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.

First, there’s “Open”.

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.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

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.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010"
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Technically speaking that still isn't the full web. However, that to me isn't much of an issue either way. I'm not much on that particular form of browsing anyway, so even if I went totally iPhone and/or iPad I probably wouldn't miss it either.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

I thought that you could write for iPod games, but it's the fact that iTunes doesn't allow for their admission in the App store?



Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

I never really liked their security software. In fact, I had more trouble with their software on store bought PCs then any other software out there.



In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

That one I could see being a real issue. However, performance could also be indictive of the person that does the programming, not exactly the software itself. That also might have changed since the writting of that article.

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

That is a true issue there, however, I don't think that is an issue with flash, but an issue with with an older website. If I'm reading that correctly, he says Flash does have support for the new decoder, but some of the websites need an older decoder.

Also, battery life sucks on almost all portable devices. I've personally used 2 iTouches, 1 iPad, Droid Eris, and Droid X and not one of them had a battery life worth writting home about.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

I'm pretty sure in Flash CS5 and Flash Builder 4 you can write directly for touch based devices.


Sixth, the most important reason.


We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.



I can see some politics that might creep into this one. It does have merit to it, but I can also see a way to hide some politics in there as well.

I know you said take note of it being written a year ago. That is true and think about it, atleast 1 drawback I know has been dealt with and that's touch support. You can develope apps that use touch support. Also I'm pretty sure you can develope apps for the iPhone and will work on the iPhone, it just won't be able to be submitted to the app store for the general public to get.

So really what else could have been eliminated since that letter was written and if it has been is it enough to stave off Flash's dire future?
 

Custom_Grafx

New Member
When the iphone first came out in australia, we couldnt send MMS/photos to each other (old tech on a nokia). We also couldn't forward SMS.

Didn't take them that long....
 

Joe Diaz

New Member
The other bottom line is that out of the top 1 million sites (according to alexa) that were counted over 27% of all websites use flash in some form or another. http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cp-flash/all/all

Developers are getting with the program but this won't be an overnight switch. Perhaps Apple customers should also do the math because in the meantime, those 200 million devices can't access all the content available to a much much larger number of devices that can.

Another important statistic to note: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp "mobile" amounts to only .9% of OS usage.
 
Last edited:
Top