Linked by David Adams on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 08:37 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless While it's been a low-level grumbling for years, the issue of Flash on mobile devices (and particularly the iPhone/Touch/iPad ecosystem) has reached fever pitch over the past few weeks, with Steve Jobs as self-appointed Flash basher-in-Chief. The OSNews crowd, that is, dyed-in-the-wool technologists have, by and large, not been big fans of Flash, with its spotty availability and performance on alternative platforms, resource hogging, and instability. And though it's quite useful for web video and other specialized interfaces, it drives the tech savvy crazy when it's used for utterly superfluous multimedia bling. So we've had a lively discussion of the pros and cons of Flash, and whether device users should be free to make their own decision about whether it's worthy to install on their iPads. But we're leaving out an important detail. As Daniel Eran Dilger, a Flash developer, points out, almost all the important existing Flash infrastructure won't work anyway. Update: A worthwhile rebuttal to this point of view.
Order by: Score:
Sorry, but roughlydrafted???
by kragil on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:11 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

roughlydrafted is most idiotic Mac fanboy site in existence. _Everything_ they write has bias written all over it and the people that comment on that site are no better.

And anyways, for most people Flash is video. Moving all the news site etc to HTML5 is a lot of work. Having no mouse pointer doesn't really matter.
Sure there are lots of Farmville etc. players, but compared to Flashvideo users that number is tiny.

As usual, RD blows up pointless things to make Apple look good. That is what they always do. Just look at their video about multitasking.

Edit: I hate the current Flash implementation (probably more than most geeks) but pointless points are still pointless.

Edited 2010-02-22 09:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sorry, but roughlydrafted???
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:35 UTC in reply to "Sorry, but roughlydrafted???"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're right about RoughlyDrafted. Everything appears very well-researched, and it usually is, but it's totally unreliable. They will go to extreme lengths to twist and turn any fact just to make Apple look good. You never know what's real and what isn't.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sorry, but roughlydrafted???
by darknexus on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:40 UTC in reply to "Sorry, but roughlydrafted???"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

RD doesn't come off nearly as foolish as you do with that comment. I could say the same about Slashdot, and yet occasionally good and well-thought articles pop up their too. Read the content without letting your hate get in the way. Even the worst sites can have a gem in them.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Sorry, but roughlydrafted???
by kragil on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry, but roughlydrafted???"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Sorry, but part of being human is learning from past mistakes and reading RD was one of mine.

I will wait for Ars or some other proper site to tackle the issue if it really is one. RDs spindoctoring and biased nonsense does not deserve to be taken seriously even if they are right once every decade.

On topic: 99% of the flash content on the web people want is video and there is no reason why Flash for mobile shouldn't be able to play almost all of it.

Reply Score: 1

Nice thought but...
by dgoemans on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:21 UTC
dgoemans
Member since:
2008-08-23

While i hate flash as much as the next developer ( and i really do ), the author of that post may not have used a mobile device with flash on it. It works, and it works well. The HTC android phones like the Hero and Tattoo have flash already in browser, and it's barely noticeable. Fair enough, you're not going to be flash gaming much with them, but thats a game design issue or a flash app design issue, not an issue with the platform. It just means that flash developers are going to need to make better apps that work for touch screens. The platform works great, now it's the devs' turns. The ads are fully functional, galleries are fine and the movies work perfectly, so clearly flash is far from flawed on a touch screen device.

Furthermore, the iPad doesn't suffer from the same issue that mobiles have with flash, which is hardware specs. Small screen and slow processor could be a problem, but that's not really on a iPad.

My biggest worry is whether Apple will give Safari mobile and have you rendering crappy mobile pages at 1024x768 or have you using an in between version, which renders full size pages, which more often than not ( sadly ) use flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice thought but...
by darknexus on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:44 UTC in reply to "Nice thought but..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Wasn't that the point? Flash itself may work but a lot of the UIs will need updating. I'm on the "let's get rid of Flash while we've got the chance" side of this whole thing for other reasons, namely that it's an accessibility nightmare largely for the same reason most Flash UIs are not ready for touch devices. The UIs are so mouse oriented that they're useless from the keyboard when, and it's very rare, you can actually get to the bloody controls with the keyboard in the first place.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice thought but...
by daveak on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:22 UTC in reply to "Nice thought but..."
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

My biggest worry is whether Apple will give Safari mobile and have you rendering crappy mobile pages at 1024x768 or have you using an in between version, which renders full size pages, which more often than not ( sadly ) use flash.


Drifting a little off topic, but if you get served up mobile pages when you don't want them then it is the site (not Apple) that is at fault for taking notice of the user agent string and playing games. I usually hate being redirected to mobile sites on my iPhone. I want the normal standard site thank you very much.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice thought but...
by WorknMan on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 18:13 UTC in reply to "Nice thought but..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The ads are fully functional, galleries are fine and the movies work perfectly, so clearly flash is far from flawed on a touch screen device.


Ahhh, glad the ads are fully functional. Wouldn't want to go without seeing those ;)

Reply Score: 3

I call bull!
by fatjoe on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 09:53 UTC
fatjoe
Member since:
2010-01-12

As mentioned on other corners of the interwebs, roughlydrafted is nothing but a big pile of mac fanboy. His Reality Distortion Field is almost as large as Steves...

Anyway, this whole discussion is pointless. There are many other cellphones that can do Flash very well. There are even some "cheap" phones that do Flash (although some can only do Flash Lite). The mouse hover "problem" is actually present in plain HTML pages too. You dont see Steve kicking out Safari for that, do you?
Steve Jobs have no business dictating "good" technologies on me, period. If Flash is bad, it will die out. If the HTML5 vaporware ever gets here and its better, it will eventually kill Flash.



One tiny correction to the article: Apple excluding floppies did not promote USB. At that point, computers already included USB ports, Apple excluded floppies to save money. Crediting Apple for random events in history just makes you look like a typical fanyboy, please don't do it.

EDIT: I am not a big fan of Flash, but things have gotten much better in the recent years. It is by no means the mess that apple apologist claim it is.

Edited 2010-02-22 10:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Mouse over and Safari Mobile
by wargum on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 10:18 UTC
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

All I say is this: The exact same problem exists for all Browser based apps that only use HTML+CSS+JavaScript. But somehow Apple managed to make a lot of these mouse over navigation menues work on the iPhone OS. I absolutely don't see why Adobe can't come up with a similar approach to tackle the mouse over problem.

Left wondering...

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Mouse over and Safari Mobile
by darknexus on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 10:52 UTC in reply to "Mouse over and Safari Mobile"
RE[2]: Mouse over and Safari Mobile
by wargum on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Mouse over and Safari Mobile"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Now I am really confused! :-)

I said that the mouseover problem exists on touch devices in general but mentioned that Apple found a solution to that. Which you agreed to, right? And then I asked, why Adobe can't do similar things. Did I miss something?

Reply Score: 3

only a problem for ipad/iphone
by minidev on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 10:21 UTC
minidev
Member since:
2010-02-22

As said before, flash is comming to the android platform. I don't see where the mouse over thing can be a serious problem on these devices : they all have a clickable trackball (even optical for some htc models). These should certainly be able to emulate a mouse with little efforts.
The RD article states that touchscreens are the problem. Is it just apple's design (a single button to help the touchscreen) the real problem here?

They just forgot to say that it is not realy a flash-on-mobile but just a flash-apple-mobile-devices question...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 12:27 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Woah, what is going on with the crazy hate on RD and ignoring the article’s own merit. This article was totally reasonable, better than anything I could write about Flash.

1. He admits to being a Flash developer
2. He admits that he believes that Flash on the iPad is a bad thing, despite point.1
3. Existing Flash content is not compatible with touch interfaces and this would give a bad user experience that would be blamed on Apple and the like and not where the blame should be placed
4. Flash on mobile devices doesn’t solve Flash’s problems
5. He updates his own site to use CSS animation instead of Flash.

WHAT FREAKIN’ GIVES? The site might have a bad history, but lets RTFA first please.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Kroc
by kragil on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 12:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

All your points besides 3. don't really matter. Knowing RD and the internet the guy could be a dog. And "existing flash content" people care about is mostly web video and that seems to work fine on other touch based mobile devices.

I agree that open and free standards are way better than flash and that Flash has to die and before that improve, but I don't like it when people with an agenda disguise some twisted biased world view as some kind of objective reporting and that is what RD does.

Edited 2010-02-22 12:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

WHAT FREAKIN’ GIVES?


What gives is that if Apple included Flash on the iPhone, and if Jobs would've ragged on HTML5, this article would tell us how HTML5 is not good for the user experience.

That's what "freakin' gives".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes, but then that’s a different article to this one. Let’s focus on reality.

He didn’t claim to be an HTML5 developer. HTML5 is mentioned just once:

Fortunately, those unique Flash applications are 1) in the minority, 2) may be largely duplicable with HTML5 canvas, 3) ported to iPad using Adobe’s Packager for iPhone, or 4) rewritten from the ground up as native apps. The most common uses of Flash on the web—video, ads, and relatively simple menus—can be done in JavaScript and H.264 video.


I don’t see an ounce of bias there. Opinion, maybe, but that’s not unexpected.

Honestly, I’ve written far worse. I don’t admit to being unbiased. I code HTML5, HTML5 is the future in my opinion and one day Flash may be irrelevant and unnecessary as RealPlayer is now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What I meant was that RD will adapt its opinions, arguments, and everything else to bring it in line with Apple's. If Apple were to add Flash to the iPhone tomorrow, and remove all HTML5 stuff from Safari, we'd see an article the day after tomorrow by the exact same writer, explaining in great detail why the move is a good one, and why Apple is right.

That's why RD is simply not a source I link to in any way. Of course, others are free to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

What an idiot! That quote is from one of the comments! *headdesk* Apologies people. HTML5 wasn’t mentioned at all in the article.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by fatjoe on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Thom, that was my thoughts exactly!


Remember way back when iPhone did not have a SDK and relied on web content? When the same Apple apologists tried to convince everyone that the web was the future and a native programs were the root of all evil?

Anyone else remembers those days?

Reply Score: 3

Idiotic
by joshv on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:27 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Flash won't work because of the lack of tool tips and mouse over effects? B.S.

I write Flash based RIAs for a living. The lack of mouse move/mouse over/mouse out would change my development a little bit, but I could certainly create very usable applications without it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Idiotic
by kittynipples on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:45 UTC in reply to "Idiotic"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

He never said you couldn't; he said that most existing flash sites don't. The entire point is if things need to be reimplemented anyway to take into account the lack of a mouse pointer, then why not reimplement in HTML+CSS+JavaScript?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Idiotic
by wargum on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Idiotic"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Being a programmer myself for years, I highly doubt it's that difficult to make existing apps compatible with both traditional mouse input and new touch devices. It's centainly WAY easier and faster to just modify the existing Flash apps than reimplementing everything with totally different technology that isn't even ready yet and lacks good tools to create.

What I have seen so far from the early versions of Flash Player for Android and webOS looks pretty solid. Sure, there will be things that don't work. But an awful lot of stuff will work and work with Flash only. I've got an iPod touch and missed Flash several times, already.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Idiotic
by Zifre on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:59 UTC in reply to "Idiotic"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I write Flash based RIAs for a living. The lack of mouse move/mouse over/mouse out would change my development a little bit, but I could certainly create very usable applications without it.

Of course. New Flash applications could easily be designed to work on touch screens. But do you really expect all the zillions of Flash applications out there already to be rewritten?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Idiotic
by CaptainN- on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Idiotic"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Exactly, this kind of mouse based animation should be banned from iphone! http://tinyurl.com/nsfqd4 #canvas

Reply Score: 3

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 13:36 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

If mobile device manufacturers could be bothered to include proper d-pads or trackballs on their devices, not only they'd make one-hand navigation much easier, but mouse emulation for Flash content would be possible.

Reply Score: 0

Apple and floppies
by 3rdalbum on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 14:07 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

Apple didn't exclude a floppy drive from the iMac because they wanted to "save money".

Few Mac users were using floppy disks anymore. On the Mac, Zip disks were rapidly becoming the norm with their 100 meg capacity. Let's face it, when you've got a 100 meg pocket-sized disk, what use do you have for a 1.4 meg pocket-sized disk?

Apple didn't want to push USB anyway, they wanted Firewire; but they needed USB for interoperability so Mac-compatible peripherals were easier to buy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and floppies
by bnolsen on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:18 UTC in reply to "Apple and floppies"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

There is also the problem that floppy disks have horrible shelf life while surprisinly enough, zip disks were nearly indestructible. Thankfully, not long after bioses started having the ability to boot zip disks and usb boot soon after that.

The point here is that apple is not going to allow users to view flash content. They wont even let consumers decide whether or not to. The reasons stated seem pretty much like excuses and dont matter since apple has control of the platform and has decided for their users already. Just go deal with it and get a palm pre or android phone. People I know with a palm pre absolutely love the platform.

Reply Score: 5

I don't understand
by WereCatf on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:28 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I just don't understand all this ruckus. Yes, Flash is a horrible performance hog and should die a fiery death.

But claiming that it won't work on touchscreen devices? Pfft. Most Flash animations will work just fine as the system can just pass the point where the user tapped on as a mouse cursor vector and a button click. Sure, you won't be able to see tooltips or such, but for example video playback solutions like Youtube et al are clear enough that you won't need tooltips anyway. Then, you could also do a mouse emulation mode: you move the cursor on the screen by moving mouse on it, and double-tapping would simulate a key click: POOF, all your Flash applications will work just as they did before.

No, I do understand the wish to get away from Flash as fast as possible, but inventing artificial problems when they are completely solvable isn't the way to do it.

Reply Score: 6

opportunity to ditch flash?
by spiderman on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 15:33 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

It's a good opportunity for us to ditch Flash. We should seriously considering taking it.
I don't know what opportunity this article talks about. I agree Flash is a plague. It is not accessible, it is not secure and not free. And I've ditched it years ago (never used it actually), but what is the special opportunity? That Steve Jobs said it sucks? To be fair, the iPad and the iPhone suck to. Lack of multiprocessing, lack of accessibility and closeness. There I said it. Now there is a new opportunity to ditch the iThings too while we are at it.

Edited 2010-02-22 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Wow...
by rdoyle720 on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 16:04 UTC
rdoyle720
Member since:
2010-02-22

I thought OSNews readers would be smarter than this. Day 1 that the iPhone launched, Javascript had ZERO touch events. How would the millions of pages on the internet that relied on a mouse cursor work? Surely the whole internet would be non-functional and need to be rewritten!

Well of course not. Apple just translated touch events into existing mouse events.

http://www.quirksmode.org/m/touch.html (see Legacy Events section)

The internet continued to work, and the same would be true for Flash content. To claim that anything but a small minority of Flash content would need to be rewritten is just ignorant.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wow...
by kaelodest on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 01:32 UTC in reply to "Wow..."
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

agreed but hype is the land of (Cervantes) The Land of la Mancha and Windmills

Reply Score: 1

Touch screen + Flash
by robojerk on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 17:17 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm not sure about RD's claims.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/devices/articles/htchero.html
On the video he doesn't show the controls, but the video does play which in the end is all that matters. He then shows us the polar bear hitting the penguin game. Seems to work on the touch screen.

http://inflagrantedelicto.memoryspiral.com/2010/01/flash-player-10-...
On this demo the game also seems to work fine using the touch screen. When he goes to the National Geographic page I now wish he had actually navigated the site using the Flash menu that had the scrolling images.

http://htc-phones.net/flash-player-101-on-android-platform-demo-vid...
On this demo he actually does interact with the flash.

Reply Score: 3

This is BS
by CaptainN- on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 18:01 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

This really isn't what OSNews used to be about. When did osnews become open source zealots. Please do better research before basing your conclusions on silly rumors.

http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2010/02/22/flash-player-content-mo...

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is BS
by robojerk on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 18:29 UTC in reply to "This is BS"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

The site admins seem to hate Flash above everything else at the moment. I understand their push for HTML5, open standards makes life better for web users and developers.

The Steve Jobs rant was pointless though. A CEO bitching about a rival company's product. Steve was making the right arguments (I am still skeptical about Flash 10.1 draining battery life) for the wrong reasons. Steve Jobs wants the iPod/iPad base to buy video, games, and music from iTunes. It makes perfect sense for him to want that and I don't fault him for it, it's his job to make sure that Apple is profitable.

Flash should be phased out in my opinion, however I don't quite think HTML5 is quite ready to take over. One big hurdle is Internet Explorer. Love it or hate it and no matter how much a % share Firefox or WebKit has IE still has a very large user base. I don't see sites jumping on the HTML5 bandwagon yet until they're sure to still retain that market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This is BS
by kaiwai on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE: This is BS"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The site admins seem to hate Flash above everything else at the moment. I understand their push for HTML5, open standards makes life better for web users and developers.


There is a reason to hate Flash - because it doesn't perform. If Adobe actually fixed the bloody faults with the plugin - guess what, no one would give a crap about it, there would be next to no discussion apart from the Stallmanites sitting on the fringes of this forum. Does Flash perform well on Windows (Internet Explorer and ActiveX plugin)? sure, I've run it and it runs wonderfully but as soon as you start running it on non-Windows platforms then the quality nose dives. Flash on Mac OS X is a complete joke - Steve Jobs may resort to hyperbole when it comes to crashes but he is on the right rack. On Mac OS X, Flash is horribly unreliable and it has nothing to do with Adobe not having access to hardware and everything to do with the fact that they simply don't know what the hell they're doing.

Fix the damn plugin and you'll find the complaints about Flash would go away over night. That is the only reason I hate Flash; because of the crap performance, its ability to crash a browser and its memory, battery and CPU hogging qualities - nothing ideological, just a practical reality of having a technology that sucks and the software vendor who makes it (Adobe) refusing to even acknowledge the fault let alone taking it upon themselves to fix the damn problem.

Edited 2010-02-23 06:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: This is BS
by darknexus on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is BS"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And it's inaccessible and Adobe, like with everything else, doesn't give a damn. I've written to them before about it and have actually been derided openly for raising the issue, essentially being told that while Macromedia might have worked at it, Adobe doesn't give a f*** and won't ever give a f***. That's why I hate Flash and, even if the OS X performance issues were fixed, I'd still hate it because any web site that uses Flash for more than content playback is about as unusable for me as a page can get. Add to that an alternate Flash plugin can never be developed completely, given that some of the spec still isn't released, and I have plenty of reasons to find Flash the bane of my browsing experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is BS
by robojerk on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 19:34 UTC in reply to "This is BS"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

I think the the story here on OSNews should include an update with that rebuttal.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is BS
by CaptainN- on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 20:20 UTC in reply to "This is BS"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Thank you for appending the rebuttal piece to the article summary. I withdraw my charge of zealotry.

Reply Score: 1

n900
by vivainio on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 20:48 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

n900 has flash, and mouseovers work. You just activate the mouse cursor and use that with your finger. It's not perfect for usability, but not a showstopper either.

This is not at all about flash being evil, it's about there being lots of bad flash apps. Just like there are lots of bad websites for mobile use.

Reply Score: 3

Where do they get it from?
by josi on Mon 22nd Feb 2010 21:07 UTC
josi
Member since:
2009-03-11

This article is just a fairytale made up by the author.

To understand my point, go buy a Nokia N900. Flash, multitasking ++

Reply Score: 1

WHAT the FSCK do you multitaksk?
by kaelodest on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 01:35 UTC in reply to "Where do they get it from?"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Srsly what could you multitask in a phone interface while watching FLV?. I think that you might mistake content for interface and that is a reason to RTFA

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

What about taking notes on Xournal while reading an openoffice document? 64kb and monotask should be enough for everybody?

Reply Score: 3

kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

well it is fun to be out of context. Multitask on a laptop/desktop is a whole different world then trying to run linux apps on device that is not on the market yet.

It is not that I think you can't multitask. I prefer the getting things done effect of staying focused and finishing products. Multitask is such a buzz word of course the thing will multi task, but if you have a Video running in full screen I do not see the need or the interface or even the pixel space to run a spreadsheet. Multitask in this sense is an artifact(sic) of desktop thinking. It is the idea that i will be copying from one app to another or needing to do two and three layer inter application communication and multiple document editing. MOREOVER that artifact of though also implies a filesystem. And then a filesystem browser what level of this is exposed to the client apps? What level of (lower level) services will be exposed to these apps and what if an (backgrounded) app crashes while you are on an interface that has no mouse

The unit is a gadget or a appliance or a toy, I spent 2 hours (daily total)
on a train, and I do not think that I will buy one or use it. It would be silly for me to get it to take notes or write code. I would feel like a tool with all that power just idling while I dork out in vim, OTOH would I give it to my mother to stream movies and do light email? Do I expect that when I get one it will be not about what it can't do like flash and mouse dependent interfaces or will it be for what it CAN do. Or what it is designed to do.

Reply Score: 1

Flash and the mouse
by poundsmack on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 00:13 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

lots of embedded systems... ok, a few embedded systems, have flash and do not need a mouse. QNX supports flash as a touch screen option: "The new QNX Flash player has been optimized for low system overhead and optimal memory usage. It supports touch screens, mice, keypads, and other input models, as well as local font rendering for fast display generation." http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_2609_1.html

and that was in 2007, now they are on flash lite 3.1 with even better touch support.

http://www.qnx.com/news/web_seminars/embedded_flash.html
this was a good one as well.

Now Nokia and flash: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/devices/articles/s60_touch_games.html

and here is the icing on the cake: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/beta/reference/actionscri...

that last one is more of an in progress but you get the point. Flash has little holding it back aside from Jobs on the iPad, this coming from someone who who has been using flash on his various embeded OS's for the better part of 2 1/2 years.

Reply Score: 2

Games Anyone?
by HappyGod on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 00:35 UTC
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

I also hate Flash, and I've had the misfortune to try to develop stuff using it. Not cool.

I agree with the article that if Flash disappeared it wouldn't be that big a deal, but I would miss the games. There really isn't anything out there at the moment that could fill that void. I've seen some stuff using JQuery, but it's not really a substitue for Flash.

Until someone comes up with a replacement for the games niche, I think Flash will stick around. Damn.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Games Anyone?
by Kroc on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 10:24 UTC in reply to "Games Anyone?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think Flash is fine for games, what we need is just less use of Flash where it’s not needed and where other content delivery mechanisms suffice. It’s going to be another two years before HTML5’s video capability begins to pan out. Everything we’re discussing now is still very much the bleeding edge, since IE doesn’t yet support HTML5 well. When IE9 comes, then this debate will arise again.

Reply Score: 2

That was refreshing
by kaelodest on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 02:07 UTC
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

It is not because I am rabidly Mac ( I cut my teeth in Codewarrior andMPW) but because I spend a chunk of time in my debugger and also tutor youth in how to program. This is just a context, the real rub is when I explain that I am programmer people automatically assume *web* or Flash, and I _DO_ consider that to be real programming, just different. It is just that even the simplest task in C/ObjC/Cocoa can take days or seeks and in flash it might take a day. Think about a game like choplifter or lunar lander or asteroids. I wrote each of these in a week. I do not want to revisit ANY of my 2001/2002 code.
OTOH I like the idea of HTML5/CSS and

When I was young the web was different and you needed a plug in b/c windows could not handle a .mov/.mpg/.flv/.rp But now the OS can should we now invent NEW incompatibilities to patch when we have the chance to teach a new generation to get it right on the first build?

The world I _live_ in is vitally different than the world I work in And I sure as hell will not teach my kids hell (enterprise) when I can teach them heaven (userspace)

Almost all of the corporate apps that I bang on are fixinign the bugs that someone else offshore introduced to fix the other bugs of another offshore programmer. And this story speaks well to the facts that many of these flash programmers were 'double-Sub-Contractors' that are long gone and the APP still makes money And if you ask me and/or pay me in gold+strippers+vacation time I will not fix that spaghetti furball of code

Reply Score: 1

As a SDL programmer
by deathshadow on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 07:11 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Who targest both desktop and mobile - I have NEVER heard such a load of malarkey when it comes to handheld. I have ZERO issues with SDL's mouse input reading the touchscreen of an iPhone, or any other handheld; AND the tilt sensor usually recognizes as a joystick input. There's ZERO reason that a flash implementation targeting those devices could not be similarly implemented.

This recent glut of people running their mouths about **** they don't understand - and then having it end up as a article on a news site is getting a little tired...

Truthiness for the win? NOT.

Edited 2010-02-23 07:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Flash plugin isn't mondatory
by ddc_ on Tue 23rd Feb 2010 11:10 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

I live without flash player on all of my computers for a while now. And I can tell that I don't miss it much - the inconvenience of not having YouTube-like players working is compensated with a great choice of downloaders, while the overall experience of internet usage is uncomparatively better without flash strain.

Reply Score: 1