LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI haven't had a browser crash, flash or otherwise since Opera 10.
I haven't had a browser crash, flash or otherwise since Opera 10.
Flash manages to eat battery life, cpu cycles, and has been known to be rather un-stable on every OS and browser combo going.
The thing is the pro's still far out way the con's.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Singh400 (06-02-2010)
Surely the question is can the iPad succeed without flash support?
On iphones people are prepared to put up with not having flash, because they are using their phone... but the ipad is supposed to be a tool specifically designed for accessing the web. If it can't view flash and the like then it fundamentally fails, its a bit like building a car that can't drive over bridges.
Never had Flash crash on me. And I accidentally clicked thanks on your postOriginally Posted by TheAnimus
while trying to click reply.
Flash needs an update.
On mobile devices it's a poor experience. Lets be clear about this - mobile devices are where the net explosion is happening.
Networks cannot cope. They are selling us bandwidth they don't even have most likely. To be fair to Adobe - there are a lot of handsets to support.
Yes.
And ipod touch users are prepared to put up with no flash because?On iphones people are prepared to put up with not having flash, because they are using their phone...
Can't say I've never had issues with Flash, but without widespread support for an alternative, I don't think this was a good move from Apple. Well, it's in line with at least some other Apple products: 1st products tend to lack features deemed necessary/obvious by most. But if history repeats itself, the product may carve a decent niche (or more) by the 3rd generation.
Yes, because despite what Apple say, people are quite happy to have some little bits of the Internet misson on their phone because they are used to that.
The iPad is a different proposition entirely. Consomers will expect to see the same content they see on their laptops or desktops. The big content providers will get away with it because they have Apps to serve the videos, but I would expect people to have videos embeded in pages as well as animations and generally not have the Blue Lego Brick of FAIL.
Net explosion on mobile devices is happening with Twitter and Facebook. You aren't capable of downloading the internet on a mobile device. Not enough storage capacity I'm afraid.
I think Flash will do fine. I think it's the iPad that will fail.
I think there's two issues that seem to be overlooked in most discussions about HTML5 and Flash and it's a perception that seems to be perpetuated by Apple.
Many people (and it seems Apple included) have a 5 year plus out of date perception of Flash. It's not any more merely a video player or fancy animation tool for web browsers. It's an entire platform and programming/development paradigm now. Sure plenty of people use it just to have a fancy website. But it's also used for building entire applications. It's not perfect, far from it but it's more than just an extension to HTML. Where I work for example we build entire interactive SCORM compliant e-learning courses based on Flash (and Flex). Trying to do that with HTML (even with HTML5 features) wouldn't just be a nightmare and uneconomical but actually impossible if we were to try and recreate all the functionality, never mind being realistic about client browser takeup/updating.
This leads onto the second related issue. HTML5 is a good major step forward, but it's only a step. It will not replace the functionality you can already get with the likes of Flash. It will certainly save some (just some) of the development within Flash and Actionscript but it's not the Holy Grail of web languages that some (such as Apple) are making it out to be.
MS proposes a new standard or brings out software that directly attacks a large software competitor it gets slated on the forums and then sued in US and EU on anti-competitive grounds.
Apple gets into bed with google to do the same thing and nobody complains.
Make sense of that please.
I like flash it works on windows just fine, it works on the firefox browser I use. But if something better comes along that most websites use, then I will use that. If flash does not work well on apple machines then the user should complain long and hard to Adobe. If they do not support their users it will not be long before some other program comes along to replace them
In other words this has nothing to do with Apple. It is down to Adobe and the users
This is almost the reason why people buy Apple products in the first place, they want something that works and they're happy with the limitations (if they're even aware of them).
I don't like Apple stuff, they dumb down and limit their equipment and charge you extra for it, that's not really something I'm willing to do. However, I'm quite happy to tinker with something to make it work how I want it to, something that most Apple customers don't want to do.
PCs are not consumer devices and they really shouldn't be sold as such. Apple makes consumer devices that happen to resemble personal computers.
What's inaccurate ?
Does Apple stuff not actually work ? Does it have no limitations ? Do they not charge you extra for the Apple stamp ?
Am I lying and I actually love Apple gear and I'm fully willing to pay extra ? Am I not happy tinkering with things ? Are Apple customers more likely to be happy tinkering with their devices than me ?
Are PC consumer devices ? Are Apple products not consumer devices ?
Relevance is derived from other posts:-
One of the probable reasons that Apple isn't going with Flash (yet ?) is that it's buggy and not the type of user experience it wants to deliver to its customers. The PC world is quite happy to deliver buggy solutions to customers and then patch it later (most of the time).
That, to me, is the one of main differences between Apple and PC users.
You pay extra for Apple gear because it works out of the box.
Depends on the device, and that's where your statement is inaccurate. I'll focus on iPod because it does well to illustrate that, and I've not found the incentive as a gamer to move onto an OSX system.
-Every- devices have some sort of limitations, this is especially true when comes to portable device such as the iPod. To this date, I don't think there is one MP3 player that does -everything-, picking up an MP3 player mean having to put up with it's limitations, so you are correct in that sense, except you alluded that only Apple (and by that, iPod users) have to put up with limitations when you wouldn't with other manufacturers.
As for dumbing down their products, iRiver originally offered optical out - a dream for audiophile who can hook them up a portable DAC/Amp. Yet it didn't take very long before they dropped that feature. In fact, by the time of the 4G/5G iPod, it was one of very few major MP3 player maker with a line-out so that you can hook it up to your own amp. Creative didn't have it, iAudio messed up the implementation with the X5 series (competing with the 5G iPod at the time) and users found out they got better result hooking the amp through the headphone-out than via the line-out. I am not familiar with the Zune in it's current form, however I understand that the first release lacked features already present on the iPod. e.g. gapless playback - which Apple did admittedly take their sweet, sweet time to implement.. but it does suggest that if they get hassled enough over it, they'll take notice. Ironically, by the time they had implemented it (years after the defunct Rio Karma), most competing MP3 player didn't have it.
As for charging extra, yes they typically do charge a premium, yet how much depends on the device, it it's not necessarily more than other big brands. There were certainly more expensive devices in the Touch/Shuffle flash based segment. Some would argue they are better in some way. However, the same point can be made for devices cheaper than the iPod. If we take the nearest competing devices back then (iPod 5G, iAudio X5, Creative Zen Vision), they all had they were no clear winner, and pricing were pretty close too. Clearly Apple didn't see fit to slap a big premium for their names (over other respected names) in this very competitive industry where they want to keep their market share.
You may not be aware, but there are both hardware mods (including but not limited to the iMod), and software (Rockbox) for the iPod. There are technically minded, quality discerning audiophile who decides on an iPod because it does what they want best within that price range.
Well, I can't comment about Apple computers (as already stated, don't have the incentive to use one). But it's beneficial as an educated consumer not to make sweeping generalisation but to look at every device with their own merit.
Biscuit (09-02-2010)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote