[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:06:22 -0400
At 8:29 AM -0700 4/23/10, Kon Wilms wrote:
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!
So if I understand you, it IS possible to use resources such as
QuickTime for the decoder support needed to support HTML5 video tags.
But FLASH provides these resources as well, so it does not need to
use QuickTime.
It sounds like you are advocating that browser developers should
emulate FLASH and provide all the codec resources directly within
their apps, rather than using resources that might be available on a
Mac or PC. Or that there is no need for HTML5 and we should all just
use FLASH.
Am I getting warm?
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.
Yes I understand what Adobe is trying to accomplish. Write once, run
everywhere Rich Internet Applications. So this still boils down to
whether we (developers and consumers) should continue our dependence
on Adobe and its vision of this platform, or move toward an open
industry standard with HTML5.
I have great respect for Adobe, although that respect is waning as
they attempt to use their market power to control the direction that
content creation tools are evolving. In realty Adobe has been a big
tent with a bunch of acquired companies loosely working together.
Some tools work together well, some have been acquired then killed (I
was using Go Live until they decided to stop supporting it).
Their tool business is not likely to suffer whether FLASH remains
dominant or it is replaced by HTML5. They will continue to dominate
desktop publishing, image processing and to a lesser extent desktop
video tools. And they are well positioned to develop the tools needed
to support HTML5.
So I am still a bit confused where you are coming from in all of
this. On one hand you sound like you want to see things move to
industry standards with open source support, on the other hand you
sound like an Adobe Fan Boy and that there is no need for HTML5.
Can you help us understand where you are coming from?
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!
So your real concern here seems to be that Apple is locking
developers into their platform specific development tools for the
iOS. AND that Apple is locking out support for FLASH in this OS and
in their iOS devices.
I understand your dislike for Apple's control over the tools used to
develop Apps. But they are not controlling the evolution of HTML5 or
the tools that may be needed to author for it. They are just telling
the world that they should migrate to HTML5 rather than using FLASH.
I expect that there will be multiple ways to author for HTML5, and
that Adobe will be in the thick of the battle.
Apple didn't invent multi-touch. They can't (and shouldn't be able to)
clutch onto that straw for very long.
They didn't invent the graphical user interface either. But patents
are not always based on the original invention; there must also be an
effort by the company to actually commercialize the patented
technology. And while BIG CONCEPTS like a GUI or Multi-touch
interface may be obvious and should be open to the commons, there
will be many bits and pieces created to support the larger concept
and these can and are being patented.
This gets us back to the original intent of patents. To proliferate
technology rather than keeping it locked up as Xerox tried to do with
copiers.
Ultimately this may all boil down to whether Apple decides to license
the multi-touch technologies to other companies, or even open up the
entire platform and license the OS.
Sculley blew it with the GUI and let Microsoft win that battle. Both
Jobs and Gates saw the GUI at Xerox PARC (and Alan Kays Dynabook
tablet), but it was Apple that actually made the investments to
commercialize it.
It is unclear whether Jobs might eventually open up the iOS. I
suspect we are going to need to see how successful they are in
defending their IP in the several litigations that are now in
process. The Nokia battle may be the most important to watch, as I
expect this to end in some form of cross licensing that may include
access to Apple's multi-touch patents.
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.
Thanks. IT only took about a half dozen interchanges to get to this point.
;-)
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.
Sorry, I don't understand. The lemming type behavior still exists in
the PC world; especially at the corporate IT level. Microsoft still
has a stranglehold on enterprise productivity applications, although
their grip is beginning to loosen as Google, Apple and others are
developing alternatives, some of which will be Internet applications
(cloud based apps).
If anything, it is the folks who are growing tired of being PC
lemmings that are responsible for Apple's recent success. As people
are exposed to the iDevices they are also exposed to the rest that
Apple offers, and a significant percentage are now switching. This is
not the behavior of lemmings, but rather satisfied customers.
Amusingly, Adobe provides most of those applications. Hand that
feeds it, etc. !
Exactly. Apple and Adobe are bound at the hip. The Mac OS uses the
PDF imaging model. The success of the Mac as a professional content
creation platform is heavily dependent on Adobe, at least on the
print and Internet side. Apple is competing with video editing,
special effects and tools for professional photographers; and their
iLife suite may be the best set of content authoring tools for
consumers.
Clearly Steve does not want Adobe to exert the same level of control
over RIAs that it now has with print publishing. OF course, he could
easily solve this problem by buying Adobe...
;-)
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
Sorry Kon but this is little more than a stunt. There is great cache'
in being able to exploit the platform that is thought to be the most
secure. More important, there was a pile of cash and a new MacBook
Pro as an incentive.
This exploit did not take 10 seconds. It took weeks, perhaps months
of work in advance.
Apple has less attacks because it is not the dominant platform in the
desktop world. It really is as simple as that.
Sorry, but it is NOT that simple. Apple has plenty of "enemies" who
would be happy to attack the platform. The more important fact here
is not that the PC platform is dominant and thus a bigger target, but
rather there are MANY people who hate Microsoft and their tactics
over the years, AND there are many PC lemmings who are easy targets...
There is a huge industry just trying to protect PCs from attacks.
Coincidence, or just a profitable business model?
And your response only addressed the security issue. I take it you
agree that Macs are easier to use and to maintain.
As for stability, my iPhone 2G upped and died on me one day simply
being removed from my pocket. Quality.
And mine fell off the back of my truck at 55 mph and is still
working. On the other hand my daughter managed to break two iPhones.
Apple gets a premium for its products based on quality.
Go figure.
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.
There are no work arounds to do that? Macs have been running on the
same Intel processors for years now and they run Windows and Linux
just fine. Didn't Psystar come up with an easy hack to run OSX?
Obviously Apple shut that down because they were SELLING machines to
compete with Apple, but there must be easy ways to get PC hardware to
run OSX.
Obviously some of these apps compete with RIAs that can run on other
Every app on the app store is a RIA.
Please define Rich Internet Application for me. This may be part of
the confusion.
SOME of the apps on my iPhone I would classify as such, as they use
the Internet to support the application. The Google Maps app is a
good example. But MANY of the apps are simply local resources, no
different than an you would run on a Mac or a PC.
Is a flashlight app an RIA?
Is iHandy carpenter (level, plum bob, etc) an RIA?
Are most games RIAs? (Apple did just add new APIs for multi-player
networked games in iOS 4).
I think of RIAs primarily as what we see today in media rich websites
(often FLASH) and perhaps as runtimes that reach out to the Internet
to access data or processing capabilities.
I did see a video produced by someone at Adobe (you may have posted
the link) showing a very simple game that could be cross compiled to
run on multiple platforms.
This is where things get murky. You could create these games using
traditional development tools or you can build them in Flash, then
turn them into apps. If this is an RIA, the shouldn't every app be
called an RIA?
Yes for profit purposes. This is not about giving consumers any choice.
Yes for profit purposes, both for Apple AND their developers. But I
do not see this limiting choice for Apple customers. In most cases
the apps are being written for the iPhone OS FIRST, then ported to
Android or other platforms.
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.
There is no question that there is a large and growing market for
RIAs and other applications that are now being satisfied with FLASH.
But market is evolve and tools change. The developers that are using
FLASH today do not need to start over if HTML5 becomes the new
standard. In fact, I'm certain Adobe will support HTML5 output if the
market moves in that direction.
This all boils down to the fact that Apple is not allowing iOS
devices to support FLASH.
Adobe has done much the same to Apple, placing most of their
development resources on PC versions of their apps at times, AND
taking years to move to Cocoa and 64 bit support on the Mac platform.
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).
Agreed. Clearly FLASH has evolved beyond that. I was just pointing to
the lineage.
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.
Not sure what we are arguing about here. In the past the cost to
develop apps for the Mac and PC was so large that you had little
choice but to upgrade those apps as the underlying platforms evolved.
Now, it is relatively easy to build these small apps and in many
cases they can simply be thrown away new apps come out that offer
improved functionality. And as you say, some apps do not need
updating...e.g. flashlights.
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!).
These are tradeoffs. True multi-tasking can significantly reduce
battery life and impact performance. There is much more in the new
APIs than just playing music while another app is open.
So? You're making an argument that if API feature X becomes available,
instantly all apps will require it. Total nonsense.
No. I am making the argument that someone who is developing with
FLASH and using the cross compiler might want to make use of a new
API, but they cannot until Adobe supports that new API. Clearly not
all apps use every API. Not all Apps are RIAs, at least as I
understand the term.
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.
At last something we can totally agree about. This is not much
different than the Apple Microsoft wars of another decade, except
that Apple appears to have the upper hand this time.
Ha. It's a mobile platform. Of COURSE they should be cheaper!
What about games?
Nintendo and Sony offer mobile game platforms; and the apps for these
devices have not been much cheaper than their console equivalents. As
a result, Apple has been "eating their lunch."
http://mashable.com/2010/03/23/ipad-psp-ds-games/
You must not use it very much then.
I use it a lot, but on Macs. I cannot make any assessment about how
it runs on PCs.
> 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?
Fact is that there IS USB and SD support, at least for cameras to
support the iPhoto application.
Apple could have included a real USB port, or Ethernet port, or a
card bus port, or...
But they chose not to for business and design reasons. pKeep in mind
also that all of these iDevices must be tethered to a Mac or PC. The
hooks are all there to get stuff onto the iDevices. You mentioned you
DSLR. I can easily use iPhoto to get my photos onto the Mac, process
them in iPhoto or Photoshop, and export them to the iPhone/iPad. Now
with the iPad you can import directly with the dongle.
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).
Cuiously familiar to my comments about QuickTime and iTunes.
As I said before, NOTHING IS FREE anymore.
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: