[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:32:00 -0400
At 10:28 AM -0700 4/20/10, Kon Wilms wrote:
Your entire argument is *irrelevant* due to the simple fact that the
W3C when publishing HTML5 with the video tag has to do so to ensure
*cross platform* compatibility. It's not a standard if only one device
can play it.
It is relevant on practically every device using HTML5 except for Apple.
I simply pointed out that there are was to work around the licensing
issue with h.264. QuickTime is NOT just for Apple products - in fact
it is used more on PCs than Macs because there are so many PCs
running iTunes.
> Support for h.264 on PCs is a bit more chaotic, since Microsoft chose to
promote its own codec technologies via the Windows Media player (.WMV and
VC-1). IT is a bit ironic that in Apple versus Adobe flame wars, Microsoft
They have seen the light and are pushing H264 now.
So in other words, All Microsoft has to do is spend a paltry $5
million per year for the h.264 license and they too can provide OS
level support...
Last time I looked, Microsoft was still pushing Windows media and
Silverlight...
Firefox for example is an open source project. They charge *nothing*.
They are non-profit. They have larger market share than Safari (even
Chrome has larger market share than Safari). You expect them to fork
out money for licensing a codec when they could use a free
alternative?
If there is a free alternative. But Firefox and Chrome "could" use
QuickTime to get around this issue.
HTML as a standard should *not* be tied to technologies that charge
money, period!
In general I agree. But there is no reason why an open source
standard cannot also support other non-open source technologies. As
we have been discussing, FLASH is not open source, yet it is
considered to be vital to the web today. Thus it is being called from
HTML browsers.
As I already mentioned, Apple pays these license fees for QuickTime for both
the Mac and PC platforms. Thus a browser manufacturer could avoid any
liability by simply using QuickTime to support dynamic media playback.
The world doesn't revolve around Apple. Quicktime doesn't do
directshow. Quicktime doesn't do Gstreamer. Should I go on? Long and
short it isn't a solution on any platform except Apple's.
We disagree.
> Please explain why this is incorrect. Flash emulates (replaces)
QuickTime by
supporting multiple codecs. Flash now supports h.264. It could just as
easily use QuickTime to play h.264, but Adobe chose to compete with Apple
and include codec support in the Flash plug-in.
No they didn't. That is an outright lie. Flash developers develop on
Flash because they know their code will work on any Flash player.
Adobe relies on QuickTime support for MANY of its applications. Adobe
chose to develop the Flash plug-in as an alternative to QuickTime for
dynamic media authoring and play out. I have no argument that
developers like the ability to author FLASH and run it on multiple
platforms.
You want them to hook into 3rd parties for each platform? To applease
Apple?
Not to appease Apple; I was simply pointing out that it is possible.
I must ask, however, how this any different than everyone hooking to Adobe?
Can you imagine the support nightmare? Are you aware that Flash
is pushing run-anywhere where all platforms including mobiles and
handhelds will support the same featureset for Flash 10.1 (i.e. I can
run my desktop 10.1 app on a mobile device without changing code
(logic to deal with screen aspect/CPU is a different issue)).
Yes I am aware of this.
And this is precisely the reason that Apple rejected their cross
compiler. It means that Apple would be at the mercy of Adobe to
provide support for new features in each iOS upgrade; and the risk
that many new features might not be supported at all. It would limit
platform differentiation. Thus Apple prefers to promote its own tools
and the use of standards based technologies.
We don't disagree. You're saying HTML5 playing H264 is easy. It is, if
you don't care about costs, performance or bandwidth consumption,
period. I say that is the amateur hour approach to authoring for the
web.
We've discussed costs and I think this is a non-issue. I'm not sure
what you are getting at with respect to performance, and I don;t
think there is much difference in bandwidth consumption for h.264
versus VP8.
> Correct. Apple has allowed/encouraged Adobe to provide the tools for this
market, in part because Adobe applications play such an important role in
the Mac content authoring community. But to be fair, the tools provided for
building iPhone OS apps do include many if not most of the frameworks needed
for dynamic media content.
... without the development environment to match it.
????
Where did 150,000 apps come from?
From what I have seen, it has been relatively easy to move code
developed for other platforms into the iPhone OS environment. This
has been especially true for game developers.
Or are you seriously thinking you can put a Flash developer in front
of XCode and go 'have at it!' ? Ridiculous.
Two different animals.
In the end, however, this debate is not about apps, it is about
developing dynamic content for web sites. I don't think Apple has any
problem with web sites developed using HTML5.
> You are trying to mislead here. There is nothing to prevent Adobe from
developing the ability to output HTML5 files from their existing tools
including Flash. Nothing except that they want to control dynamic media
content on the web and collect the licensing fees.
No Craig, you are the one constantly attempting to mislead.
There is nothing to prevent Apple from allowing Adobe to use their
cross-compiler. In fact, it exists! How ridiculous an argument you
make here.
What is ridiculous?
If Adobe can create a cross compiler that takes Flash content and
turns it into a compiled iPhone/Pad app, they can certainly create a
compiler to turn this stuff into an HTML5 compatible file.
The issue of allowing or not allowing apps that are cross compiled
from Flash is a different discussion.
Apple has no problem with using its iDevices to access standards
based content via the web. They have stated the reasons they do not
want to support FLASH on these devices (bugginess, memory hogs,
crashes and battery life).
They DO have a problem with allowing apps developed using FLASH to be
sold or given away via the Apps store. As I stated above, this is
because they do not want lowest common denominator apps that put
competitors on an equal footing. They want developers to innovate on
their platform to make it better than competitors; and they do not
want Adobe, or any other competitor, to become a bottleneck to
support for new features.
You love for Apple has blinded you from making any form of objective
comment, as per below:
You still need the Adobe tool suite to build the elements of any Flash app.
No, you don't. Ignorance is bliss!
Flash alone is useless, except perhaps for animating type. You need
Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and other apps to build the
elements that are incorporated into a FLASH website or app. Yes
there are alternatives to these apps, but the point is that Adobe is
currently the dominant player in content creation apps for both the
Mac and PC platforms.
My objectivity about Apple is misunderstood as fanboy love. Fact is
that Apple has played a MAJOR role in getting us to where we are
today. And more important, apparently consumers are beginning to
believe that Apple is on to something...
Making technology work without a ton of hassles...
The quarterly sales figures released yesterday tell the real story.
90% increase in year over year profits with significant gains for the
iPod Touch, iPhone and Macs. Next quarter the iPad will be
contributing as well.
As you say, ignorance is bliss!
;-)
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: