7 ms·

I have trouble swallowing some of this. A few of these theories have been debunked successfully. I have a small problem with this "don't look at the man behind

by tomlin 16y ago

I have trouble swallowing some of this. A few of these theories have been debunked successfully. I have a small problem with this "don't look at the man behind the curtain" routine. Proprietary is proprietary. Don't try and swing it. Battery Life: http://vimeo.com/9705969 http://vimeo.com/9705969, http://vimeo.com/9724682 http://vimeo.com/9724682 Delays: http://www.neowin.net/news/adobe-quotapple-hurts-customers-flash-101-delayed-beta-for-android-announced http://www.neowin.net/news/adobe-quotapple-hurts-customers-f... Touch/Scroll: http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/02/22/flash-player-content-mouse-events-and-touch-input http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/02/22/flash-player-con..., http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/02/23/scrolling-html-with-flash-content-on-touch-devices http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/02/23/scrolling-html-w... Speed: http://jobemakar.blogspot.com/2010/04/flash-is-speedy-on-android.html http://jobemakar.blogspot.com/2010/04/flash-is-speedy-on-and...

gaius 16y ago
Apples position is that proprietary implementations of open standards is the way to go (tho' of course WebKit is completely open).
- tomlin 16y ago
  Thought: Proprietary isn't bad. Open isn't great. Proprietary vs. open is bad. Proprietary + open is great. Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations. Save the "VS." narrative for Street Fighter II.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    > "Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations." True, but Flash is a closed standard with a closed implementation. Adobe likes to claim it is open - but the fact remains that not only is it impossible to write an open implementation of their incomplete spec, but Adobe has actively sought to keep core components proprietary even in spec and prevent competing implementations. That's the part that irks me about Adobe's role in this issue - they're playing themselves and Flash off as this open savior of the web when they've actively been evil in that regard. If you're closed, great, do your thing; if you're open, then actually open your spec - don't open part of it and then go after the other half with lawyers.
    - tomlin 16y ago
      So Adobe gets tossed aside in favor of HTML5/canvas. Or an open version of the SWF format with no licensing issues emerges. I am fine with that. If Adobe wants to be stupid, they are more than welcome to. Apple is calling the kettle black with the proprietary argument. We can drill down to specific layers but the effects are the same to the developer coding on that layer.
  - telemachos 16y ago
    I'm not flaming, trolling or baiting, but I am curious: under what circumstances do you think proprietary implementations are necessary?
    - gaius 16y ago
      If your implementation relies on technology that you have licensed from a third party.
    - tomlin 16y ago
      OS has contributed to advancements in design, but proprietary initiatives employ a fleet of people to research, design and case study a technology. They do it all day and not as a side project after work. Again, it isn't a case of one vs. another. I wish we didn't need to take a side and finally come to a conclusion that both are good in their own ways. Evolution is key.
      - pyre 16y ago
        There are plenty of people that are employed full-time to work on Open Source software. Don't perpetuate the myth that all Open Source software is created by people 'in their free time.'
        tomlin 16y ago
        Most aren't. That is why the myth exists. Plenty < Majority.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - iron_ball 16y ago
    To be fair... Zangief vs. Sagat is an abomination, but Zangief PLUS Sagat would cure world hunger.
Zev 16y ago
Delays Your link makes it seem like an evangelist is playing loosely with words; "available for download" could simply mean beta/RC status, not ready for release everywhere. Battery Life From your link: The results are amazing: I can watch a 4 hours and a half flash movie, without interruption, with a bright screen (no sleep mode) and sound !!! From Steve Jobs post: 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. They seem to agree with each other? And only helps Apple's point. Touch/Scroll How about hover?
- tomlin 16y ago
  It is true that some of these links are from evangelists. But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we? Battery Life: It's a bit of hyperbole. We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours. Would it matter if Flash could play videos for 11 hours? It is a misdirection or a sidestep of an original claim that Flash would kill the iPhone inside of 2 hours. Touch/Scroll: Another sidestep. A Flash issue? With that I answer: a:hover {} I just don't get this argument from Apple. Steve Jobs pioneered high usability mobile UI because Apple took the reigns. Now we have Android UI taking a cue from Apple and "unlocking the mobile market" Flash and HTML5 have a similar relationship. HTML5 opens it up a bit. That's great. But what about HTML6? Flash is Area51 for implementation study. We don't need to implement a marquee tag and then take it away once we realize it sucks. How could we market test video conf. or canvas-based visuals if we had no way to benchmark them? Flash is good. The VS. argument is a misnomer.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    > "We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours." We do other things on the iPhone. I don't want to make the choice between watching a video and then restricting my own usage just so my phone has enough juice to make a call. I'd rather watch videos and use my phone, and the more power efficient everything is, the more the user can do this. To put it in perspective, if Apple's numbers are to be believed, running Flash alone doubles the power consumption of the device. That's insane. > "With that I answer: a:hover {}" a:hover is no longer (it certainly used to be) a common tool used for site navigation. Which is to say, rollover dropdown menus are out like parachute pants - it's a non-issue on the web today. Just about every site works with "clicks", which is Apple's primary form of interaction with websites on touch devices. The most compelling argument made though we've already been aware of for some time: cross-platform toolkits encourage lowest common denominator design. In Apple's world of pixel-perfect mockups and obsessive attention to detail this is abhorrent - and I'm inclined to agree. The iPhone's chief strength is its remarkably polished user interface - which for the most part remains true across its 3rd party app sphere, thanks in no small part to Apple's obsessive HID enforcement. A Flash-compiled-to-iPhone app destroys this in the same way that a Linux Qt app hastily ported to Windows is the same.
tvon 16y ago
Proprietary on the web affects everyone, proprietary on the iPhone affects only the iPhone.
- tomlin 16y ago
  And the iPad, then other mainstream consumption devices. This argument doesn't live in 2010.
  - zweben 16y ago
    The point is it will only ever directly effect products made by the same company. A device from HP or Microsoft will never be hurt by an issue with a closed Apple platform. If there are issues with Flash, it will hurt every company using Flash, and there is nothing those companies can do about it other than bug Adobe to fix it or drop Flash support.
    - tomlin 16y ago
      I don't disagree that Flash has the potential to create issues. The argument just suffers from the fallacy of composition. The standoff motif is getting old. We're talking about software, not cold war against another country. Apple doesn't want you to notice Steve behind the curtain. With Adobe we tend to pick and choose what we agree with and ignore the points that don't support our bias.
      - chc 16y ago
        In what way is saying "Flash has problems, therefore putting Flash on your platform will expose it to those problems" a fallacy of composition? I don't see it at all. It's not wrongly attributing an attribute of one small part of Flash to the whole. Or are you saying the fallacy is somewhere else?
        tomlin 16y ago
        In this respect, I am not arguing for or against Flash on any device. Just that the argument against it is just as flawed as the argument for it.

by tomlin 16y ago

gaius 16y ago

Apples position is that proprietary implementations of open standards is the way to go (tho' of course WebKit is completely open).

tomlin 16y ago
Thought: Proprietary isn't bad. Open isn't great. Proprietary vs. open is bad. Proprietary + open is great. Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations. Save the "VS." narrative for Street Fighter II.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations." True, but Flash is a closed standard with a closed implementation. Adobe likes to claim it is open - but the fact remains that not only is it impossible to write an open implementation of their incomplete spec, but Adobe has actively sought to keep core components proprietary even in spec and prevent competing implementations. That's the part that irks me about Adobe's role in this issue - they're playing themselves and Flash off as this open savior of the web when they've actively been evil in that regard. If you're closed, great, do your thing; if you're open, then actually open your spec - don't open part of it and then go after the other half with lawyers.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    So Adobe gets tossed aside in favor of HTML5/canvas. Or an open version of the SWF format with no licensing issues emerges. I am fine with that. If Adobe wants to be stupid, they are more than welcome to. Apple is calling the kettle black with the proprietary argument. We can drill down to specific layers but the effects are the same to the developer coding on that layer.
- telemachos 16y ago
  I'm not flaming, trolling or baiting, but I am curious: under what circumstances do you think proprietary implementations are necessary?
  - gaius 16y ago
    If your implementation relies on technology that you have licensed from a third party.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    OS has contributed to advancements in design, but proprietary initiatives employ a fleet of people to research, design and case study a technology. They do it all day and not as a side project after work. Again, it isn't a case of one vs. another. I wish we didn't need to take a side and finally come to a conclusion that both are good in their own ways. Evolution is key.
    - pyre 16y ago
      There are plenty of people that are employed full-time to work on Open Source software. Don't perpetuate the myth that all Open Source software is created by people 'in their free time.'
      - tomlin 16y ago
        Most aren't. That is why the myth exists. Plenty < Majority.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
- iron_ball 16y ago
  To be fair... Zangief vs. Sagat is an abomination, but Zangief PLUS Sagat would cure world hunger.

Zev 16y ago

Delays Your link makes it seem like an evangelist is playing loosely with words; "available for download" could simply mean beta/RC status, not ready for release everywhere. Battery Life From your link: The results are amazing: I can watch a 4 hours and a half flash movie, without interruption, with a bright screen (no sleep mode) and sound !!! From Steve Jobs post: 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. They seem to agree with each other? And only helps Apple's point. Touch/Scroll How about hover?

tomlin 16y ago
It is true that some of these links are from evangelists. But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we? Battery Life: It's a bit of hyperbole. We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours. Would it matter if Flash could play videos for 11 hours? It is a misdirection or a sidestep of an original claim that Flash would kill the iPhone inside of 2 hours. Touch/Scroll: Another sidestep. A Flash issue? With that I answer: a:hover {} I just don't get this argument from Apple. Steve Jobs pioneered high usability mobile UI because Apple took the reigns. Now we have Android UI taking a cue from Apple and "unlocking the mobile market" Flash and HTML5 have a similar relationship. HTML5 opens it up a bit. That's great. But what about HTML6? Flash is Area51 for implementation study. We don't need to implement a marquee tag and then take it away once we realize it sucks. How could we market test video conf. or canvas-based visuals if we had no way to benchmark them? Flash is good. The VS. argument is a misnomer.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "We don't watch videos on the iPhone for 10 hours." We do other things on the iPhone. I don't want to make the choice between watching a video and then restricting my own usage just so my phone has enough juice to make a call. I'd rather watch videos and use my phone, and the more power efficient everything is, the more the user can do this. To put it in perspective, if Apple's numbers are to be believed, running Flash alone doubles the power consumption of the device. That's insane. > "With that I answer: a:hover {}" a:hover is no longer (it certainly used to be) a common tool used for site navigation. Which is to say, rollover dropdown menus are out like parachute pants - it's a non-issue on the web today. Just about every site works with "clicks", which is Apple's primary form of interaction with websites on touch devices. The most compelling argument made though we've already been aware of for some time: cross-platform toolkits encourage lowest common denominator design. In Apple's world of pixel-perfect mockups and obsessive attention to detail this is abhorrent - and I'm inclined to agree. The iPhone's chief strength is its remarkably polished user interface - which for the most part remains true across its 3rd party app sphere, thanks in no small part to Apple's obsessive HID enforcement. A Flash-compiled-to-iPhone app destroys this in the same way that a Linux Qt app hastily ported to Windows is the same.

tvon 16y ago

Proprietary on the web affects everyone, proprietary on the iPhone affects only the iPhone.

tomlin 16y ago
And the iPad, then other mainstream consumption devices. This argument doesn't live in 2010.
- zweben 16y ago
  The point is it will only ever directly effect products made by the same company. A device from HP or Microsoft will never be hurt by an issue with a closed Apple platform. If there are issues with Flash, it will hurt every company using Flash, and there is nothing those companies can do about it other than bug Adobe to fix it or drop Flash support.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    I don't disagree that Flash has the potential to create issues. The argument just suffers from the fallacy of composition. The standoff motif is getting old. We're talking about software, not cold war against another country. Apple doesn't want you to notice Steve behind the curtain. With Adobe we tend to pick and choose what we agree with and ignore the points that don't support our bias.
    - chc 16y ago
      In what way is saying "Flash has problems, therefore putting Flash on your platform will expose it to those problems" a fallacy of composition? I don't see it at all. It's not wrongly attributing an attribute of one small part of Flash to the whole. Or are you saying the fallacy is somewhere else?
      - tomlin 16y ago
        In this respect, I am not arguing for or against Flash on any device. Just that the argument against it is just as flawed as the argument for it.