3 ms·

My head started to spin when trying to reconcile points 1 and 5. Point 1 states Adobe Flash has proprietary features and the standardized open feature sets of

by cninja 16y ago

My head started to spin when trying to reconcile points 1 and 5. Point 1 states Adobe Flash has proprietary features and the standardized open feature sets of HTML5, CSS, and JS should be used instead. Point 5 states 3rd party layers limits development to the standardized features and leaves out the proprietary features that makes Apple unique.

mbreese 16y ago
They are talking about two different scenarios that aren't really that related. Point 1 is in reference to the lack of Flash within Safari. Point 5 is in reference to banning applications originally written in Flash.
- smallblacksun 16y ago
  Or, more cynically, Point 1 is in reference to a non-Apple product Point 5 is in reference to an Apple product
  - Qz 16y ago
    Exactly. Apple vs non-Apple (or more generally, things a company controls vs things a company doesn't control) is the only relevant point here. Everything else about open standards and performance woes is just spin.
danudey 16y ago
Point 1 is talking about websites / web applications. Point 5 is talking about native apps. Two different domains entirely. With point 1, if developers are going to make a website, and they ditch flash, their work would work everywhere well (iPhone/iPad/iPod, Android, WebOS, Symbian, and Blackberry OS 6, as well as on the desktop). They wouldn't be limited to the platforms Adobe decides to support (or decides to support well). With point 2, if you're going to make a native app for the iPhone, make one for the iPhone. Don't make one with Flash, which may not get around to supporting things like GameCenter, or multitasking, or any of the other hundreds of things Apple adds in new releases. Choosing Flash for either one makes a substandard experience compared to the other options available.
- cninja 16y ago
  I do understand your point about using the right tool for the right job, however Apple is arguing both sides. Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. While web applications and native applications are different domains, they are not different enough to mean different reasoning can be used. An end user doesn't really care if something is built using HTML5, flash, or compiled natively. They just care that it looks cool and does cool things.
  - pohl 16y ago
    Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. This is the classic fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses of the 2nd order, a.k.a. "a false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle". There is a third possibilty: that both are good, and that which is better depends upon the nature of the app one wants to create. This third missing case also happens to be the reality of the situation — there are tradeoffs, and one selects which is better according to the upsides that one desires versus the downsides one is willing to abide. (Surely you're not claiming that there are no tradeoffs between the native API and web technologies! I can think of several, not the least of which is the limited rate at which innovation can be brought to the web API.)
  - btilly 16y ago
    Cross-platform standards are a good thing for Apple. Getting people to use Apple's platform specific features is a good thing for Apple. Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction. Remember, this is not an essay about why everyone else should support Apple's actions. It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it.
    - elblanco 16y ago
      > It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it. Hidden in that of course is the lack of concern for what's good for the consumer.
    - 16y ago
roc 16y ago
Point 1 states that ubiquitous Flash co-opts the rate of advancement of the web. E.g. You can't effectively differentiate, compete and move everything forward by supporting, say, h264 because Flash is already everywhere. Point 5 states that ubiquitous Flash co-opts the rate of advancement of the mobile platforms it runs on. E.g. you can't effectively differentiate your device by adding a new sensor, API or capability, because Flash won't bother to support it until the hardware is standard. It's the same basic argument: Flash becomes the platform, it's not a particularly good one and it's not a particularly good situation for developers. Would you rather Apple compete with Google, RIM, Microsoft and HP/Palm for developers, or have them compete with interchangeable Flash-playing-boxes, leaving developers to Adobe's whims?

by cninja 16y ago

mbreese 16y ago

They are talking about two different scenarios that aren't really that related. Point 1 is in reference to the lack of Flash within Safari. Point 5 is in reference to banning applications originally written in Flash.

smallblacksun 16y ago
Or, more cynically, Point 1 is in reference to a non-Apple product Point 5 is in reference to an Apple product
- Qz 16y ago
  Exactly. Apple vs non-Apple (or more generally, things a company controls vs things a company doesn't control) is the only relevant point here. Everything else about open standards and performance woes is just spin.

danudey 16y ago

Point 1 is talking about websites / web applications. Point 5 is talking about native apps. Two different domains entirely. With point 1, if developers are going to make a website, and they ditch flash, their work would work everywhere well (iPhone/iPad/iPod, Android, WebOS, Symbian, and Blackberry OS 6, as well as on the desktop). They wouldn't be limited to the platforms Adobe decides to support (or decides to support well). With point 2, if you're going to make a native app for the iPhone, make one for the iPhone. Don't make one with Flash, which may not get around to supporting things like GameCenter, or multitasking, or any of the other hundreds of things Apple adds in new releases. Choosing Flash for either one makes a substandard experience compared to the other options available.

cninja 16y ago
I do understand your point about using the right tool for the right job, however Apple is arguing both sides. Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. While web applications and native applications are different domains, they are not different enough to mean different reasoning can be used. An end user doesn't really care if something is built using HTML5, flash, or compiled natively. They just care that it looks cool and does cool things.
- pohl 16y ago
  Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. This is the classic fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses of the 2nd order, a.k.a. "a false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle". There is a third possibilty: that both are good, and that which is better depends upon the nature of the app one wants to create. This third missing case also happens to be the reality of the situation — there are tradeoffs, and one selects which is better according to the upsides that one desires versus the downsides one is willing to abide. (Surely you're not claiming that there are no tradeoffs between the native API and web technologies! I can think of several, not the least of which is the limited rate at which innovation can be brought to the web API.)
- btilly 16y ago
  Cross-platform standards are a good thing for Apple. Getting people to use Apple's platform specific features is a good thing for Apple. Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction. Remember, this is not an essay about why everyone else should support Apple's actions. It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    > It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it. Hidden in that of course is the lack of concern for what's good for the consumer.
  - 16y ago

roc 16y ago

Point 1 states that ubiquitous Flash co-opts the rate of advancement of the web. E.g. You can't effectively differentiate, compete and move everything forward by supporting, say, h264 because Flash is already everywhere. Point 5 states that ubiquitous Flash co-opts the rate of advancement of the mobile platforms it runs on. E.g. you can't effectively differentiate your device by adding a new sensor, API or capability, because Flash won't bother to support it until the hardware is standard. It's the same basic argument: Flash becomes the platform, it's not a particularly good one and it's not a particularly good situation for developers. Would you rather Apple compete with Google, RIM, Microsoft and HP/Palm for developers, or have them compete with interchangeable Flash-playing-boxes, leaving developers to Adobe's whims?