Apple on Flash

CarlJung · **#21**

kirkmc wrote:

Actually, it's wms who doesn't want KGS on the iPad, because he wants to keep his protocol closed...

I suspect that wms is relying on the default xml serialization of java objects (I'm speculating, I don't know java or kgs well). This means that the protocol, if documented would be a complete nightmare to work with in any other language than java. Even in another java client it would be a mess since you would have to implement a whole bunch of objects that you don't know how they are supposed to interact with each other in order to get the serialization to work. I believe anyone could reverse the protocol today if they wanted, it's just a matter of sniffing the network traffic. Like they do on igs. But it will be a lot harder because it's not designed to be a human readable protocol. Once again, I'd like to point out that I'm speculating. But it makes sense in my head at least.

But this technical aspect is not the main reason for no open kgs protocol and does not factor in when Steve Jobs decide to not support widely used technology such as java and flash.

kirkmc · **#22**

fwiffo wrote:

Quote:

Flash, when you include things like actionscript 3 and flex, is an extremely mature and widely supported development and deployment platform.

Your extremely mature development platform just crashed my browser for the third time today. :mrgreen:

It's the only thing that ever causes my browser to crash as well. I recently installed ClickToFlash because of that; too many sites use Flash in insidious ways, as elements that aren't important, or for ads.

CarlJung · **#23**

This just in: Google’s Andy Rubin on Everything Android

Quote:

Mr. Rubin also addressed many other topics — like whether consumers actually care if their mobile phone software is “open” or not. He insisted that they would, comparing closed computing platforms to totalitarian governments that deprived their citizens of choice. “When they can’t have something, people do care. Look at the way politics work. I just don’t want to live in North Korea,” he said.
...
He also promised that full support for Adobe’s Flash standard was coming in the next version of Android
...
Sometimes being open “means not being militant about the things consumer are actually enjoying,” he said.

fwiffo · **#24**

CarlJung wrote:

He also promised that full support for Adobe’s Flash standard was coming in the next version of Android

Bummer!

CarlJung · **#25**

You are given the choice.
You don't have to use it!

But with Apple, you are not trusted to make your own decisions.

fwiffo · **#26**

I trust myself, but I don't trust other people. Other people will use it, which means web sites will continue to use it, which means I'll eventually be forced to use it. :evil:

flOvermind · **#27**

fwiffo wrote:

I trust myself, but I don't trust other people. Other people will use it, which means web sites will continue to use it, which means I'll eventually be forced to use it. :evil:

No, you're not. You only have to use it if you want to use the applications written in it. You could still decide to use alternatives that don't use flash. And if those alternatives don't exist, you can decide to not use it at all. Or you can decide that the service is more important to you than your dislike of flash.

The key point here is that you can *decide*. Right now, your only alternative is to not use it at all, so you're missing out on features when there is no alternative available. Yes, in a perfect world we would have everything available using open standards. But we're not living in a perfect world, and some applications just need Flash or Java or whatever, and there are no alternatives available (most prominent example: KGS).

A badly implemented feature is better than not having the feature at all.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of open: Java is an open standard. The iPhone API is not.

kirkmc · **#28**

flOvermind wrote:

A badly implemented feature is better than not having the feature at all.

Oh, I strongly disagree with that...

flOvermind · **#29**

Ok, let's say you have a device. Let's call it xPad.

On this device, there are native apps, written in an obscure language called Objective-X. Nobody really knows what this language is about, but you are able to produce apps with a really great user experience. And there is also the possibility to write apps in a cross-platform language called Xava. Programmers really like Xava, but the programs written in it don't integrate so well with the rest of the xPad.

Now let's say there is a go server, called XGS. You really like to play on that go server. But unfortunately, it is written in Xava. XMS, the writer of the go server, doesn't have enough time to port it to Objective-X. After all, that's just XMS's hobby project.

Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

I'm aware that you would rather use the Objective-X implementation of XGS. But when that option is not available, which one would you prefer?

ChradH · **#30**

Nice one

Of course I'd like to have XGS on my xPod touch (which I really like, UI-wise). Some time ago I even considered buying an xPhone but now it's definitely going to be an xdroid device.

fwiffo · **#31**

The XGS client actually integrates beautifully with the xdroid device. Better than the Xesktop client integrates with the Xesktop OS anyhow.

kirkmc · **#32**

flOvermind wrote:

Ok, let's say you have a device. Let's call it xPad.

On this device, there are native apps, written in an obscure language called Objective-X. Nobody really knows what this language is about, but you are able to produce apps with a really great user experience. And there is also the possibility to write apps in a cross-platform language called Xava. Programmers really like Xava, but the programs written in it don't integrate so well with the rest of the xPad.

Now let's say there is a go server, called XGS. You really like to play on that go server. But unfortunately, it is written in Xava. XMS, the writer of the go server, doesn't have enough time to port it to Objective-X. After all, that's just XMS's hobby project.

Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

I'm aware that you would rather use the Objective-X implementation of XGS. But when that option is not available, which one would you prefer?

I'd rather the format to the XGS server be open, so others can write clients.

And you say:

Quote:

Nobody really knows what this language is about...

That's quite a bold statement, considering how many developers write applications with it. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean others don't.

CarlJung · **#33**

flOvermind wrote:

Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer. Which goes really well with the kind of customers Apple wants. They make super nice looking hardware and software. But they are limited in what they can do. If you can live with the limitations, Apple is for you.

If not, then Apple is the wrong choice. It's really that simple. What I'm so annoyed at is Apple's habit of trying to justify their lock in strategies with technical arguments that doesn't really hold water. It's misleading and they know it.

fwiffo · **#34**

I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

flOvermind · **#35**

kirkmc wrote:

Quote:

Nobody really knows what this language is about...

That's quite a bold statement, considering how many developers write applications with it. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean others don't.

Compare that to the number of developers writing applications in Java. Objective C developers are just a tiny minority.

kirkmc wrote:

I'd rather the format to the XGS server be open, so others can write clients.

Yes, me too. But that option is not available. What would be your second choice?

CarlJung wrote:

Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer.

That's what I'd like to know. So far he's been dodging the question

flOvermind · **#36**

fwiffo wrote:

I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

I agree with that. I would actually be happy to get rid of Flash. But in order to get rid of Flash, we need something better. HTML 5 + JavaScript is headed in the right direction, but it's not quite there yet.

As soon as a good alternative is available, developers will start using it. If it's really better, developers will make better applications using it. Users will get used to the better applications, pressuring more developers to use it. Eventually, no developer will use Flash because the users won't like the crappy Flash applications. And when developers won't use it anymore, it's safe to remove it from the platforms.

That's of course only *if* the alternatives are really better. And it's also a useful benchmark to find out whether the alternatives are better. That's called competition. The best technologies will be used, bad technologies die out. If Apple had a better alternative to Flash, where would be the harm in allowing Flash on the devices? Nobody would use it anyway, if something better were available.

Sadly, the reality is different: Java and Flash have a big advantage over native apps: They are cross-platform. You can make one application that runs on multiple devices. With some care, it's even possible to write one application that runs on the desktop and on mobile devices. Turn that around to the point of view of the user, and you have more applications that run on your device. That advantage may turn out to be more important to users than the disadvantages.

And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

CarlJung · **#37**

flOvermind wrote:

And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

One could still write apps in these cross platform languages. But I suppose you mean they will get less native apps?

flOvermind · **#38**

CarlJung wrote:

flOvermind wrote:

And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

One could still write apps in these cross platform languages. But I suppose you mean they will get less native apps?

Yes, the Apple devices would get more apps. But the competition would also get these apps. Allowing cross-platform technologies allows the competition to catch up. That's why Apple allows Java and Flash on their desktop devices. In theory, the same "official" arguments would apply there, so why do they allow Java and Flash there? Simple: In that market Apple is the one needing to catch up

kirkmc · **#39**

CarlJung wrote:

flOvermind wrote:

Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer. Which goes really well with the kind of customers Apple wants. They make super nice looking hardware and software. But they are limited in what they can do. If you can live with the limitations, Apple is for you.

If not, then Apple is the wrong choice. It's really that simple. What I'm so annoyed at is Apple's habit of trying to justify their lock in strategies with technical arguments that doesn't really hold water. It's misleading and they know it.

Actually the reason I don't care too much about Java on the iPad is because I know what it's like to have bloated operating systems that try and cater to everything. I've used Windows, even though now I work on Macs. The technical arguments are totally valid; the iPad is not a computer, and there is a consistency required in the way apps look.

As for Flash, I truly couldn't care less. I don't watch many online videos, and don't use Flash for anything else. At best, it's a nuisance, because of Flash ads on web sites; though I use ClickToFlash to hide them.

kirkmc · **#40**

fwiffo wrote:

I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

Apple has done something quite amazing with battery life on the iPad: it really gets more than ten hours on a charge. If people used Flash apps and that went down to five hours, it would be a problem. In part because the use of the iPad as an ebook reader, while not trumpeted by Apple, is one reason people are buying it. So if you use too much battery with a Flash app, you'll find that you won't be able to read much. And, Apple's battery estimates will be invalid.

I've yet to find an app that really uses up the battery more quickly than others on the iPad, which is not the case with the iPhone.

Apple on Flash

Who is online