3 ms·

Ehh...I'd say that, if anything, web developers don't want apple dictating how they design their websites. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of peo

by blhack 17y ago

Ehh...I'd say that, if anything, web developers don't want apple dictating how they design their websites. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people aren't HN readers and really don't care that adobe has changed their CS5 pre-order app to flash. They like going to smugmug and having it just work.

MWinther 17y ago
But apparently, having Adobe dictating the very same thing is fine, then?
- blhack 17y ago
  Assume adobe released a hardware platform and it didn't support javascript. If somebody were to suggest that the entire web development community was going to abandon javascript in order to allow adobe's platform to reach the saturation required to make it the "standard", then your argument might make sense. As it stands, the iPad exists in a state that makes it almost unusable for the overwhelming majority of web users (at least as anything more than a novelty, much like web browsing on the iPhone)
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    Perhaps unusable as their only machine. That by no means makes it merely a novelty.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      But it makes it useless as "the computer for mom".
      - glhaynes 17y ago
        I was responding to a claim that the iPad is "almost unusable for the overwhelming majority of web users (at least as anything more than a novelty [...])". If mom's savvy enough to use a computer aside from her iPad then she can use that computer to get to the sites she wants to go to that her iPad doesn't support. If she's only savvy enough for an iPad, then she's still better off being able to get to the non-Flash parts of the web than nothing.
  - sesqu 17y ago
    Graceful degradation. People would absolutely suggest that, and charge dearly for implementing it. Companies would pay for some of it, and in 5 years, it would either die out or there would be some sort of "cgi on rails"-framework that automates some minimal version of that, that looks horrendous and sorta-kinda works. Probably ASP.net. Then we'd have hobbyists and ux professionals hand-crafting everything on a lamp-like stack, and everyone else would get along with upgrading backends. ECMAScript may be google's horse in the race, but it's still just an add-on.
buster 17y ago
Also people tend to forget that Adobe pretty much owns the whole creativity/content creation chain. Magazines, Books, Websites, Images, HTML, CSS, JS, Flash, whatnot. All those things are currently done pretty well with Adobes products alone. Granted, i'm no magazine editor and i don't do flash. I wouldn't use Dreamweaver for writing websites, but i can understand quite well when designers like to use Adobes tools as they provide them with pretty much everything they need.
- blhack 17y ago
  And this is something that I cannot believe apple seems to have overlooked. They haven't just pissed on some little obscure software company, they've pissed on the software company that the people they need to win over (content creators, designers) use for everything.
qeorge 17y ago
Definitely true. We've all been barking up the "don't use Flash unless you need it" tree for years, but it hasn't really made a difference. Bottom line seems to be that people love the way Flash sites look. If we can achieve that differently, bully for us, but most people probably won't notice.

by blhack 17y ago

MWinther 17y ago

But apparently, having Adobe dictating the very same thing is fine, then?

blhack 17y ago
Assume adobe released a hardware platform and it didn't support javascript. If somebody were to suggest that the entire web development community was going to abandon javascript in order to allow adobe's platform to reach the saturation required to make it the "standard", then your argument might make sense. As it stands, the iPad exists in a state that makes it almost unusable for the overwhelming majority of web users (at least as anything more than a novelty, much like web browsing on the iPhone)
- glhaynes 17y ago
  Perhaps unusable as their only machine. That by no means makes it merely a novelty.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    But it makes it useless as "the computer for mom".
    - glhaynes 17y ago
      I was responding to a claim that the iPad is "almost unusable for the overwhelming majority of web users (at least as anything more than a novelty [...])". If mom's savvy enough to use a computer aside from her iPad then she can use that computer to get to the sites she wants to go to that her iPad doesn't support. If she's only savvy enough for an iPad, then she's still better off being able to get to the non-Flash parts of the web than nothing.
- sesqu 17y ago
  Graceful degradation. People would absolutely suggest that, and charge dearly for implementing it. Companies would pay for some of it, and in 5 years, it would either die out or there would be some sort of "cgi on rails"-framework that automates some minimal version of that, that looks horrendous and sorta-kinda works. Probably ASP.net. Then we'd have hobbyists and ux professionals hand-crafting everything on a lamp-like stack, and everyone else would get along with upgrading backends. ECMAScript may be google's horse in the race, but it's still just an add-on.

buster 17y ago

Also people tend to forget that Adobe pretty much owns the whole creativity/content creation chain. Magazines, Books, Websites, Images, HTML, CSS, JS, Flash, whatnot. All those things are currently done pretty well with Adobes products alone. Granted, i'm no magazine editor and i don't do flash. I wouldn't use Dreamweaver for writing websites, but i can understand quite well when designers like to use Adobes tools as they provide them with pretty much everything they need.

blhack 17y ago
And this is something that I cannot believe apple seems to have overlooked. They haven't just pissed on some little obscure software company, they've pissed on the software company that the people they need to win over (content creators, designers) use for everything.

qeorge 17y ago

Definitely true. We've all been barking up the "don't use Flash unless you need it" tree for years, but it hasn't really made a difference. Bottom line seems to be that people love the way Flash sites look. If we can achieve that differently, bully for us, but most people probably won't notice.