4 ms·

The fact that the repeats the rollover crap makes it sound as if they're really trying hard on rationalizing. Just say it's a business decision, Apple. Stop pr

The fact that the repeats the rollover crap makes it sound as if they're really trying hard on rationalizing. Just say it's a business decision, Apple. Stop pretending you have the consumer in mind.

ugh 16y ago
What’s wrong about this argument? Would all Flash content that uses rollover just work on mobile touch devices or would some kind of modification be necessary? I’m really curious about that.
- not_an_alien 16y ago
  If they're based on rollovers only, no. But again -- the argument is bogus because it makes it sound as if EVERY Flash content relies on rollovers alone (they don't - click or dragging is the norm) and that it's a Flash only problem (it's not, as I know plenty of websites that rely on rollovers for menus and as such just don't work on a mobile, touch-based browser).
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    I think you're reading too much into this. Many flash experiences do rely on rollovers for discovery. Obviously, not all of them do. Some of them do, but have sort-of-workarounds that are not so great. I mean, check out some of the most popular uses of flash, and note that they DO use pointer rollovers (say high to the newest youtube player). He's making a very reasonable point: Lots of web UI decisions have to be re-evaluated within the scope of touch-based interfaces. Since we're rewriting, why use flash when open standards exist? I feel like this is the #1 argument that flash-defenders dance around. What justification does Flash, as it stands currently, have to exist on the web in the face of HTML5? What does it bring to the table that HTML5 isn't busy providing a more compatible and open implementation for?
- vetinari 16y ago
  There is Flash content, that uses onmouseover. There is also HTML+JS content, that uses onmouseover. So what was the argument again? In both, Flash and HTML+JS, you can use onmouseover. You don't have to, it is option. So what makes the difference?
  - ugh 16y ago
    I think you misread Jobs. He thinks of this as a transition of the web from desktop to mobile. He thinks HTML+JS is the future and the gains of supporting “legacy” stuff like Flash are diminutive because it wouldn’t “just run”. That’s the argument.
- rmc 16y ago
  The other problem with this argument is that Jobs is saying that it's just as easy to rewrite the flash app in javascript as it to remove the reliance on rollovers. Whereas for the vast majority of the flash apps, removing rollovers is much easier than a complete rewrite.
marknutter 16y ago
Straw man. The rollover isn't the most compelling argument, but it's a good point.
robryan 16y ago
Well they are listing every problem that factors into the decision. I think it is about control more than just the bottom line, Apple don't have control of design decisions that are made in Flash, its much more in their interests to push people towards the app store and to a lesser extent open web technologies where they get to set direction.

The fact that the repeats the rollover crap makes it sound as if they're really trying hard on rationalizing. Just say it's a business decision, Apple. Stop pretending you have the consumer in mind.

ugh 16y ago

What’s wrong about this argument? Would all Flash content that uses rollover just work on mobile touch devices or would some kind of modification be necessary? I’m really curious about that.

not_an_alien 16y ago
If they're based on rollovers only, no. But again -- the argument is bogus because it makes it sound as if EVERY Flash content relies on rollovers alone (they don't - click or dragging is the norm) and that it's a Flash only problem (it's not, as I know plenty of websites that rely on rollovers for menus and as such just don't work on a mobile, touch-based browser).
- KirinDave 16y ago
  I think you're reading too much into this. Many flash experiences do rely on rollovers for discovery. Obviously, not all of them do. Some of them do, but have sort-of-workarounds that are not so great. I mean, check out some of the most popular uses of flash, and note that they DO use pointer rollovers (say high to the newest youtube player). He's making a very reasonable point: Lots of web UI decisions have to be re-evaluated within the scope of touch-based interfaces. Since we're rewriting, why use flash when open standards exist? I feel like this is the #1 argument that flash-defenders dance around. What justification does Flash, as it stands currently, have to exist on the web in the face of HTML5? What does it bring to the table that HTML5 isn't busy providing a more compatible and open implementation for?
vetinari 16y ago
There is Flash content, that uses onmouseover. There is also HTML+JS content, that uses onmouseover. So what was the argument again? In both, Flash and HTML+JS, you can use onmouseover. You don't have to, it is option. So what makes the difference?
- ugh 16y ago
  I think you misread Jobs. He thinks of this as a transition of the web from desktop to mobile. He thinks HTML+JS is the future and the gains of supporting “legacy” stuff like Flash are diminutive because it wouldn’t “just run”. That’s the argument.
rmc 16y ago
The other problem with this argument is that Jobs is saying that it's just as easy to rewrite the flash app in javascript as it to remove the reliance on rollovers. Whereas for the vast majority of the flash apps, removing rollovers is much easier than a complete rewrite.

marknutter 16y ago

Straw man. The rollover isn't the most compelling argument, but it's a good point.

robryan 16y ago

Well they are listing every problem that factors into the decision. I think it is about control more than just the bottom line, Apple don't have control of design decisions that are made in Flash, its much more in their interests to push people towards the app store and to a lesser extent open web technologies where they get to set direction.