5 ms·

i disagree. they ignored all the main points in apple's argument. a "This is why Flash is worthwhile" response is better than a "Well, at least we'll be on andr

i disagree. they ignored all the main points in apple's argument. a "This is why Flash is worthwhile" response is better than a "Well, at least we'll be on android."

mberning 16y ago
Agreed. If I'm coding a mobile version of my website and I can do it in flash and support 50% of smartphones or do it in HTML5, CSS, and Javascript and support 100% of smartphones which one am I going to pick... It's a pretty weak retort by Adobe.
- alex_c 16y ago
  If you're coding any version of your website, I would hope Flash wouldn't be your first choice. I think it's safe to generalize that most people (as in "end users") only care about Flash in the context of video and games.
  - netcan 16y ago
    Empirically, it often is, in many cases.
jheriko 16y ago
I disagree... Apple's argument is really poor and arguing against it would be difficult for this reason, any thorough response would probably look defamatory. Its a lot easier to just treat it with the contempt it deserves. For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. The h.264/battery life argument is similarly weak in that it can be turned against almost any video codec, suggesting that h.264 is some kind of silver bullet "optimal" solution, which it most certainly is not. It also closes the doors to open solutions and user choices of codec - what if I want to host video myself and don't want to waste resources and money on h.264? The layers argument is good, but unfortunately in this context it is extremely weak - Apple love adding their own layers. Look how many layers there are in OS X... should Cocoa be ditched just because its an extra layer? It provides similar functionality to Flash of "making something hard, easier". The open argument is pretty irrelevant to whether Flash is useful or not, but I actually like it... my traditional reason for disliking Adobe has been PDF and Flash and the way they have degraded the internet, although that has as much to do with bad use as it does with being proprietary formats. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... The security argument is great but I'd be careful of making too much of it - iPhone is secure by obscurity and I suspect Flash is such a "security problem" because it is so heavily used. You can compare Safari and IE in the same way, IE is much, much, MUCH, more secure - but to a pretty good approximation, nobody uses Safari - still IE gets a worse image for security because so many people are using it that its 1) a worthwhile target 2) got a large enough user base that complaints come in significant volumes. Did any of that sound remotely good?
- rogermugs 16y ago
  For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. Apple's argument is if you have to re-write all of flash to handle touch then why not write HTML 5? When people say "We need flash because we want to play flash games" They're thinking of http://www.defendyourcastle.org/ http://www.defendyourcastle.org/ among other things. Which would simply not work on a touch screen unless it was completely re-done. So arguing that a mobile device should support flash so it can support those games is just wrong. As for your other arguments I dont have the energy to get into. h.264 IS a silver bullet because of the existing support for it already. Apple CAN choose it because they have a good foothold in the mobile market. I'm not saying its the the best thing for the customer but it definitely IS for apple. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... thats not an empty statement. He did the numbers. you dont make too much of security. security matters. The 2 most significant points is still what you haven't addressed. Adobe is slow. Their promises to be on mobile devices in 09, then early this year... I dont blame apple for "not holding their breath" and taking adobe 10 years to catch up with OSX is absolutely true. The biggest thing happening here and no one seems to get it. FLASH IS NOT AVAILABLE ON ANY PHONE. ANY PHONE. ANYWHERE. NONE. Not just the iphone. Apple has gone and adopted standards like HTML5 which can achieve the same things, why aren't people praising them for embracing something that works like flash but is usable now?! and has been for a while?
- X-Istence 16y ago
  I was talking to one of my professors that teaches Flash/ActionScript at the University I just graduated from yesterday, and the main issue at hand is that Adobe in Flash still does not have a good way to handle touch events, nor is there any way to use ActionScript to add any touch events. Flash is dropping the ball in that regard.
jraines 16y ago
I would call it "taking the high road". Just my opinion, of course, but I think it's better than a point by point rebuttal when that would obviously make no difference.

i disagree. they ignored all the main points in apple's argument. a "This is why Flash is worthwhile" response is better than a "Well, at least we'll be on android."

mberning 16y ago

Agreed. If I'm coding a mobile version of my website and I can do it in flash and support 50% of smartphones or do it in HTML5, CSS, and Javascript and support 100% of smartphones which one am I going to pick... It's a pretty weak retort by Adobe.

alex_c 16y ago
If you're coding any version of your website, I would hope Flash wouldn't be your first choice. I think it's safe to generalize that most people (as in "end users") only care about Flash in the context of video and games.
- netcan 16y ago
  Empirically, it often is, in many cases.

jheriko 16y ago

I disagree... Apple's argument is really poor and arguing against it would be difficult for this reason, any thorough response would probably look defamatory. Its a lot easier to just treat it with the contempt it deserves. For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. The h.264/battery life argument is similarly weak in that it can be turned against almost any video codec, suggesting that h.264 is some kind of silver bullet "optimal" solution, which it most certainly is not. It also closes the doors to open solutions and user choices of codec - what if I want to host video myself and don't want to waste resources and money on h.264? The layers argument is good, but unfortunately in this context it is extremely weak - Apple love adding their own layers. Look how many layers there are in OS X... should Cocoa be ditched just because its an extra layer? It provides similar functionality to Flash of "making something hard, easier". The open argument is pretty irrelevant to whether Flash is useful or not, but I actually like it... my traditional reason for disliking Adobe has been PDF and Flash and the way they have degraded the internet, although that has as much to do with bad use as it does with being proprietary formats. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... The security argument is great but I'd be careful of making too much of it - iPhone is secure by obscurity and I suspect Flash is such a "security problem" because it is so heavily used. You can compare Safari and IE in the same way, IE is much, much, MUCH, more secure - but to a pretty good approximation, nobody uses Safari - still IE gets a worse image for security because so many people are using it that its 1) a worthwhile target 2) got a large enough user base that complaints come in significant volumes. Did any of that sound remotely good?

rogermugs 16y ago
For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical. Apple's argument is if you have to re-write all of flash to handle touch then why not write HTML 5? When people say "We need flash because we want to play flash games" They're thinking of http://www.defendyourcastle.org/ http://www.defendyourcastle.org/ among other things. Which would simply not work on a touch screen unless it was completely re-done. So arguing that a mobile device should support flash so it can support those games is just wrong. As for your other arguments I dont have the energy to get into. h.264 IS a silver bullet because of the existing support for it already. Apple CAN choose it because they have a good foothold in the mobile market. I'm not saying its the the best thing for the customer but it definitely IS for apple. The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable... thats not an empty statement. He did the numbers. you dont make too much of security. security matters. The 2 most significant points is still what you haven't addressed. Adobe is slow. Their promises to be on mobile devices in 09, then early this year... I dont blame apple for "not holding their breath" and taking adobe 10 years to catch up with OSX is absolutely true. The biggest thing happening here and no one seems to get it. FLASH IS NOT AVAILABLE ON ANY PHONE. ANY PHONE. ANYWHERE. NONE. Not just the iphone. Apple has gone and adopted standards like HTML5 which can achieve the same things, why aren't people praising them for embracing something that works like flash but is usable now?! and has been for a while?
X-Istence 16y ago
I was talking to one of my professors that teaches Flash/ActionScript at the University I just graduated from yesterday, and the main issue at hand is that Adobe in Flash still does not have a good way to handle touch events, nor is there any way to use ActionScript to add any touch events. Flash is dropping the ball in that regard.

jraines 16y ago

I would call it "taking the high road". Just my opinion, of course, but I think it's better than a point by point rebuttal when that would obviously make no difference.