[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Kon Wilms <konfoo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:29:15 -0700
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, but we got off on a tangent here. I was not talking about QuickTime
> and HTML5. You misunderstood what I said about the importance of QuickTime
> when working with Adobe apps, and I was trying to explain...
Oh I realize the importance of it. I've done my fair share of
developing apps on OSX (not much beyond porting a datacasting
application I originally wrote to run on Linux/Windows and hacking on
the AppleTV, but enough to get well into the internals).
But in terms of the browser, unless Adobe hooks QT directly into
Safari for HTML5 video tags, all the features you want will not be
present.
Which begs the question then - what about other browsers? It may be
fine not to support them, but what about the user when they fire up a
browser like Chromium or Firefox and video does not play? In Firefox'
case, Apple may be able to convince the Mozilla Foundation via bounty
to put effort into adding decoder support, but that leaves us with the
same issue, namely:
A primary goal of HTML5 video tags is to eliminate cross-platform
codec stove piping!
>> http://www.opensourcemediaframework.com/
>>
>> I must be missing something!
>
> Yes. This particular piece of the pie is open source, but it all builds upon
> Adobe's proprietary IP as it relates to FLASH.
And open source for Apple in ObjC using Apple SDKs builds upon Apple's
proprietary IP. As does use of code on Windows. Your point is without
merit.
> I still don't get it. Adobe is not placing FLASH in open source, only the
> code to allow developers to build customized FLASH players. Adobe still
> benefits from Flash and the necessary licenses to use it.
>
> Am I missing something here?
You need to think of flash as a platform. As an environment where one
set of code can work across binary-incompatible systems. That's where
Adobe is pushing it.
> It's not like Microsoft (and many other vendors) ever used vendor lock-in to
> gain competitive advantage. Seems to me that Adobe is trying to lock-in
> developers with FLASH.
How can you get locked in if you have choice not to use it? I have no
choice on Apple products to use anything except Apple authoring tools.
Not the same thing!
> HUH? I think Apple is currently suing several vendors who are trying to copy
> various multi-touch fetures of the iPhone OS.
Apple didn't invent multi-touch. They can't (and shouldn't be able to)
clutch onto that straw for very long.
> Then I see no reason why HTML5 cannot also work WITH proprietary
> technologies like Windows Media, QuickTime and FLASH...
There's no reason it can't for video playback.
> Sorry, but Apple customers do not fit the lemmings mold. A very high
> percentage of digital media content creation takes place on Macs; these
> folks choose the best tools for their jobs and the Mac has consistently been
> the better environment for content creation. That being said, the situation
> on the PC is greatly improved over what it was a decade ago when it comes to
> working with content creation applications.
You know very well the customer demographic I am talking about. Don't
try to push it to the opposite side of the spectrum to make a point.
Amusingly, Adobe provides most of those applications. Hand that feeds it, etc. !
> Customers do appreciate the fact that Apple platforms experience less
> attacks, are easier to use and maintain, and are very stable. This is
Really?
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Pwn2Own-CanSecWest-2009,7322.html
Apple has less attacks because it is not the dominant platform in the
desktop world. It really is as simple as that.
As for stability, my iPhone 2G upped and died on me one day simply
being removed from my pocket. Quality.
> I'm not saying that your comfort with the PC is displaced. It is simply an
> alternative that you are comfortable with.
I run Linux on everything I have - I've been using it since 1992ish.
Doesn't mean I don't do development for Windows. Just that I find it
annoying in almost all aspects. If OSX ran on commodity hardware I
would probably be running that on half the systems I have.
> Obviously some of these apps compete with RIAs that can run on other
Every app on the app store is a RIA.
> platforms. Apple does not want developers to create applications that are
> the same as every other platform
Yes for profit purposes. This is not about giving consumers any choice.
>> Silverlight is doomed (HTML5 video tags will eliminate it). Java has
>> its share for servlet applications and Android and that's about it.
>> Neither of these development environments have the same RIA toolset
>> Flash does.
>
> So does this mean that FLASH wins and we should just forget about HTML5?
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I am always the first guy in the
room promoting HTML/Javascript/Ajax over any embedded Flash
application. But that doesn't mean I don't see the fact that there is
a large Flash development community and they deserve to have some
choice just like the other guy.
>> > you could say he opened the door for Flash...
>>
>> To go back in time? Since Macromind Director was @ 1987.
>
> I was just alluding to the evolutionary path that led to what is FLASH
> today. In 1997 things had not yet evolved to what we call FLASH today. The
> market was still wide open.
Macromind Director is the closest thing possible to what you seem to
think Flash is today, i.e. a timeline animator (which is erroneous,
but for this point totally relevant).
> Do you think they will not upgrade existing apps? Most of the apps I have on
> my iPhone have been upgraded at least twice between iOS releases. And MANY
> developers are constantly creating new apps. And new APIs enable new apps as
> well; this is especially true given the new APIs in iOS v4 that will allow
So what? If I create an app that doesn't need function X to work, what
benefit is you giving me function X at a later date? As a developer, I
would create a new application to take advantage of it. That's how to
make money.
> multitasking and new location based services.
Heh, multitasking. Come on Craig, it's not true multitasking. It's
glorified system-controlled sleep-wait state at best, with a few bells
(your app can play music in the background!).
>> The devices are cooked - they can't be expanded. You're the one always
>> touting this.
>
> Talk about rubbish!
>
> Apple often includes hardware capabilities that are not unlocked until a
> future OS release. I still have a 2G, but it does almost everything that
> later models do except for GPS services. This will change a bit now as some
> of the new OS features require more computational power and will not be
> backward compatible to the 2G and 3G phones. But this is expected in most
> computing devices - sooner or later the improved performance and resources
> are used by developers and older devices get replaced.
What does this have to do with SDK churn? Nothing. And yes, they are
still cooked.
> The cycle for phones has typically been two years - I'll get three out of my
> 2G iPhone, which is a very pleasant surprise.
Maybe cut/copy/paste as an improvement to copy/paste will require that
next CPU upgrade!
>> You assume that a 3rd party would not be able to build a parser for
>> the SDK to handle most new features without a massive software point
>> release.
>
> I'm not assuming anything. And there are potential issues with new features
> that may not be supported at all in the 3rd party applications.
So? You're making an argument that if API feature X becomes available,
instantly all apps will require it. Total nonsense.
>> So now all their development is limited by Flash? Come off it.
>
> Obviously not. Apple just does not want its developers to depend on what
> Adobe supports.
Exactly, but rather on what Apple supports for vendor and profit
lock-in. Nail meet head.
> It does to me. We are not talking about developers using Apples tools. We
> are talking about developers who buy into the Adobe tools so they can write
> once and run everywhere. Adobe has been guilty of dragging its feet with
> respect to products for Apple platforms many times in the past. And they are
> certainly responsible for the poor quality of the MacOS FLASH plug-in.
Then the market will decide. It's quite simple.
> And MANY consumers have FLASH, but turn it off because of the fact that much
> of what it does is irrelevant to the content they want at a web site. I
> certainly have not found it difficult to surf the web on my iPhone. The role
> that FLASH plays is greatly overstated.
I could care less about the role of Flash.
> Uhhhhh... Apps for the iOS are typically MUCH cheaper than PC apps. A very
> large percentage are FREE. Apparently real customers are not too concerned
> about the lack of FLASH support.
Ha. It's a mobile platform. Of COURSE they should be cheaper!
>> iTunes doesn't interoperate with anything except Apple. That is my point.
>
> And the point is?
Exactly the one I made. (go back and read the thread)
> iTunes is an e-commerce platform that Apple built. It runs quite nicely on
> PCs, in fact there are more PC users than Mac users. You must be talking
It runs like a pile of bloatware. But most users don't know any better.
> about the fact that it is designed to feed the iDevice ecosystem. Sounds
>> You bring up bugs, memory consumption, and crashes, and then you try
>> to say that iTunes is none of those? Please.
>
> Do tell. I have never had an iTunes crash.
You must not use it very much then.
>> Nor an elegant way for me to connect my DSLR to it in order to GET
>> photos INTO it. What use is display without acquisition.
>
> Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit
>
> http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC531?mco=MTc0MjU1ODU
>
> What were you saying about no USB or SD card reader?
I'm well aware of those.
Let's take this slim device, and hang dongles off it. What were you
saying about legacy hardware?
BTW you keep harping on the fact that the Flash runtime is closed
source. It should be, since it contains licensed decoders and most
importantly hooks for content protection (Flash Access).
Cheers
Kon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: