Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash

Daniel Eran Dilger

Here’s segment two in my series taking on iPad myths: no the iPad doesn’t need to supply Adobe’s Flash runtime.

Also read the article: AppleInsider | Inside Apple’s iPad: Adobe Flash

Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch
Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 10. It needs Mac OS X

Dear Adobe: 2. It’s a myth that the iPad needs Flash.

Well, obviously Adobe would like to have Flash on The Tablet, given how the iPhone made it clear that Flash was clearly unnecessary on a cell phone. How will we visit the websites of German discos or play really awful games targeted at children and neanderthals? Never mind that Adobe can’t manage to create a Flash client that actually works on anything but the 1990s Windows desktop, or that Flash itself is nothing but a crutch for Photoshop artists who can’t be bothered to learn how to create real web content.

The most shocking thing isn’t that Adobe is weeping over its clearly lost fortunes, but rather that so many tech writers are still shamelessly trying to push the idea that Flash is important, a full three years after the iPhone very successfully debuted without it. You’ll recall I was The First Person to point out that Apple wasn’t “working” to get Flash on the iPhone, but rather and very clearly striving to move developers away from Flash, despite the vague things Jobs said about Flash being too big and Flash Light being too small. Jobs wasn’t working out how to get Flash ‘just right’ on the iPhone, he was actively weaning users off Flash off entirely.

The iPhone Threat to Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, Real, BREW, Symbian
Gone in a Flash: More on Apple’s iPhone Web Plans

While prominent pundits kept insisting that a version of Flash for iPhone was imminent, I repeated over and over–citing more and more damning evidence each time–that Apple was only working very hard to kill Flash, starting on the smartphone. Flash is the primary reason Safari crashes, and even accounts for the vast majority of Apple’s Mac OS X crash reports. Anyone who knows how to run Activity Monitor can observe that even the most trivial use of Flash within in a webpage eats up extraordinary resources.

Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash
HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash

If Greenpeace were anything other than a greenwashing bunch of donation collectors, it would target Flash as a bigger environmental threat than PVC and BFRs combined, just by the composite amount of energy it consumes to do absolutely nothing of value. Anyone who cheerleads for Flash is either deeply indebted to a third-rate art school, a stockholder of Adobe, or a delusional moron. And all you sock puppets posting about how your children desperately want to play Flash games but can’t on the iPhone: go to a pet store and get a gnaw bone for your kid at and let them play with that instead. It will be more fun for them and less catastrophic for our earth.

The fact that a variety of websites standardized on Flash as a lowest-common denominator for serving video is not proof Flash needs to stay in existence. We’re three years closer to the obsolescence of Flash as a runtime. That’s why several big sites are moving away from Flash in imitation of Apple, which was among the first to scour its video-heavy website from Flash dependence. The lack of Flash on the iPhone and iPod touch and now the iPad is creating a market for open, non-Flash HTML5 web content. Google is also pushing for an end to Flash, although less aggressively. Few companies are as ballsy as Apple.

Why Apple is betting on HTML 5: a web history

If you’ve been paying attention for the last few decades, you’ll recall that the same kind of people criticized the Mac for not running DOS apps, because they simply didn’t get it. Flash is much less important today than DOS was back then.

Yes, I see the irony of my video segment being delivered via Flash because I hosted it on YouTube, but note that the iPhone (and the iPad, if you’re Steve Colbert or somebody else with the good fortune to have gotten one) has no problem playing it because Google delivers YouTube videos as H.264 on devices that don’t support Flash.

  • Maniac

    Excellent writing again Daniel. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thrown up just a little while watching some gaudy Flash animation some web site. Frantically searching for that all-important Skip Intro button.

    And J0hN: I had the same MacBook Pro overheating + short battery life problem until I set Safari to launch in 32-bit mode. Apparently the Flash plug-in runs much better in 32-bit mode. (Navigate to Safari, do Get Info on it, and make sure the “Open in 32-bit mode” check box is checked.

    And better yet, you could also install ClickToFlash, which blocks Flash content from loading. A subtle gray gradient box appears instead, until you explicitly click on it to play the Flash video. Just google ClickToFlash to find it.

  • http://www.zanjero.de zanjero

    One major point of not including Flash on a touch-device might be the following. On PC you have point and click. On touch (ipod, iphone, ipad) you have only click/touch. There is no way of just pointing without releasing a click. Since flash distinguishes between pointing and clicking (remember all this awfull scrollbars where you just put the pointer above an arrow, and without clicking the scrolling begins) there is no easy way to use flash on a touch device. How could you emulate the difference between pointing and clicking on a touch interface in a consistent manner? Users get confused by inconsistent behaviour of web-elements. And since they would hardly know that flash is to blame, they would blame Safari/Apple. Apple does not – understandably – like being blamed. So they put one (flash’s hunger for resources, lame usability, lack of real usefulness) and one (no reasonable usage via touch) together and came to the conclusion: zero flash is the best sum.

  • WebManWalking

    To frankeee on Greasemonkey:

    I assume because of Greasemonkey that you’re talking about Firefox on the Mac, not about Safari on the iPxxs. It’s my understanding that Greasemonkey runs user scripts on a URL-criterion basis. You might want to read my earlier post about IFrame and a bookmarklet, which is very similar.

    I don’t know if Greasemonkey lets you load jQuery in the user space, but if it does, this command installs an onclick handler into every hotlink on a [presumably YouTube] page:

    $(document).ready(function(){$(“a[href]“).click(function(){ ((your script goes here)) })});

    Then, in your script, you can examine this.href to see if it’s a hotlink to a YouTube URL that doesn’t already contain “&fmt=18″ and append it to this.href before returning true. I’d imagine the script would have to get a bit more elaborate to limit it to only video hotlinks, but you get the idea.

  • sprockkets

    niqin, all versions of safari support HTML5, including mobile since OS 3.0. Even if a site didn’t use HTML5 tags, they still can use the traditional quicktime tag to load a video in any apple product.
    Try it yourself:http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody/test.html

    Works as expected on an 32GB itouch.

  • WebManWalking

    sprockkets: Not all of HTML5, sad to say.

    I’m pretty sure that Safari doesn’t support custom data attributes (data-customname=”value”, referenced from within the element as this.dataset.customname) nor Web Forms 2.0 yet.

    Boy, would I be an ecstatic Web Developer if anybody besides Opera 10 supported Web Forms 2.0.

  • ShabbaRanks

    Can someone tell me why certain people hate Safari so much?

  • sprockkets

    ok well that makes sense about FULL HTML5 compat, but at least when it comes to video tags vs. the whole Flash video debate, Apple has you covered.

  • bartb

    For people who think they need Flash to do cool animations, check out these demo’s:

    http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/snowleopard/snowstack.html (keep pressing the right arrowkey)

    (you’ll need Safari, Chrome, or Opera)

    The only thing we need is some good CSS3 authoring software (Adobe?).

  • miloh

    @ShabbaRanks — Probably for the same reason that I observe many people to hate Apple products in general. It works, just not for them. It’s this qualifier that really gets under their skin. They see potential value but dislike not being in the targeted audience. It makes them feel left out and ignored, which is really just a symptom of entitlement since there’s no rule anywhere that says they have to be included in the first place.

  • ShabbaRanks

    I’ve always liked Safari. It’s quicker than every other browser I’ve tried. Renders pages excellently too. It’s never baulked at any websites. Security seems adequate, not Chrome or Firefox levels but good enough.
    Chrome still stinks of Beta. Firefox is significantly slower and I have no interest in add-ons.
    For me it’s Safari 99% of the time. If I’m online banking it’s Firefox or Chrome, just because Safari once got locked in a loop on a maliciously crafted website and when tested on the same site, it was handled easily by both Chrome and Firefox.

  • http://macsmarticles.blogspot.com Derek Currie

    After Flash is dead, next on my hit list: JavaScript. Well, and of course that walking and talking security threat called ActiveX. But fortunately on Mac, we don’t give a rat’s about ActiveX.

    The problem with JavaScript is that it is invasive into your computer. It allows hackers to crack your Mac, as has been witnessed at the PWN-2-OWN contests. Sucker a LUSER onto your infection website and you are able to take advantages of security holes in Internet browsers and operating systems to take over, or at the very least access your files.

    Why does JavaScript SUCK BAD?

    We have to point one finger at Netscape, who invented LiveScript, the original name for JavaScript before the marketing morons took charge. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Java programming language. The LiveScript scripting language was supposed to be safe and non-invasive. Oops.

    But what really destroyed JavaScript was Microsoft’s usual need to pretend they have better ideas about anything, which they rarely do. Therefore, Microsoft perpetrated the catastrophe called JScript, an elaboration on JavaScript. And of course initially only Internet Explorer could read it. This was in the days when MS wanted to win the browser warz and kill all contenders, probably in an attempt to hide their terrible self-esteem resulting from the fact that they were the very last major computer company to catch up with the Internet.

    A similar catastrophe could have happened to Java itself if Microsoft’s mutant clone called J++ had been allowed to live. Instead Sun Microsystems had it destroyed buy lawsuit injection.

    There are plenty of superior and safe scripting languages that are compatible with the Internet. We are required to move to them and dump JavaScript entirely. Or so I dream…

  • miloh

    @Derek Currie — I wish more people in the world stated their position as you just have. You were clear that it was your personal view and nothing more. I think many don’t understand just how hostile and negative they come across with their absolute, universal statements. Well written. :)

  • http://www.lowededwookie.com lowededwookie

    That bit about giving the kids a chew toy was so freaking funny.

    Man I wish you came up with more relentless comments like that.

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • FreeRange

    Another great post on why Apple should avoid Flash is one of Daniel’s previous articles related to Flash and MSFT… Lets hope for a quick death to the Flash pig.


  • WebManWalking

    Almost all non-MSIE JavaScript malware vector problems would go away if browsers accepted a list (in the HTML) of trusted sites from which JavaScript may be loaded, and of course made that list unalterable by JavaScript. (It probably wouldn’t be sufficient protection for that petri dish called Microsoft Internet Explorer, but I don’t use it, so I don’t care.) There’s already a proposal on the table as to the format of that list.

    That’s what you do to problems. You fix them. You don’t throw everything away because it’s too much effort. You have to fight entropy. Running away from it doesn’t work.

  • http://macsmarticles.blogspot.com Derek Currie

    WebManWalking sez: “Almost all non-MSIE JavaScript malware vector problems would go away if browsers accepted a list (in the HTML) of trusted sites…”

    There are such things. Of course, as with any SPAM white list or black list, they change daily and have a lag time. Google provide such a list. I believe that is the one Safari uses in its site verification. McAfee also have one which can be used via their FireFox extension (which oddly you have to get yourself from the McAfee site. FireFox does NOT list it, a real shame). It would be great for there to be a collective public list, which is I believe what WMW is referring to.

    As for ‘running away’, um huh? Health in anything requires eradication of disease vectors. JavaScript qualifies as a disease of the Internet. Flash qualifies as a disease of the Internet. ActiveX, Internet Explorer, Trojan horses, tracker cookies, software and hardware security holes, viruses, worms, adware, spyware…. These are all diseases. They create a lack of ease across the Internet. Running away means letting them exist while you go hide somewhere and pretend they aren’t out there, ready to end your ease.

    My POV: I have three degrees in the field of biology. One of my specialties in that field is pathology. I also study flaws in human perception and their consequences.

  • Pingback: Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • http://home.comcast.net/~daguy daGUY

    To anyone who thinks the iPad will fail because it doesn’t support Flash, I offer a very simple proof:

    Three years ago, the original iPhone cost $499 – with a *contract* – and was a success despite lacking Flash support. Since then, mobile device support for Flash has gone DOWN due to the millions of iPhones (and iPod Touches) sold since – and now today, the iPad is being sold for the same price *without* a contract.

    So, there is LESS of a case to be made for Flash support today, not more of one. And since the iPhone was already a success without it, it stands to reason that the iPad will be too.

  • FM

    Flash wil NEVER be on iPhone OS, bet on that.

    The matter is an old corporate unresolved “issue” between Apple and Adobe.

    The advanced operating system Apple conceived after Mac OS 9 (Rhapsody) based on NeXT technologies was planned to be delivered on 1998.

    Because of some BIG Application Developers (Adobe, Microsoft, others) who boycotted this original plan, Apple was FORCED to make another software strategy (Mac OS X) which involved porting and renewing lots of old technologies (all Carbon stuff) and make them work seamlessly with the NeXT technologies.

    This change of strategy costed Apple about 5 years and 5 major system releases to seamlessly integrate this older technologies (Carbon, a.k.a. “cleaned” Mac OS 9 API) in the advanced NeXT foundations.

    In the making of iPhone OS the original Rhapsody plan was finally executed, lots of older technologies were left behind, including those made for backwards compatibility (all Carbon frameworks) and new technologies were developed like Core Animation. iPhone OS is conceptually closer to NeXT’s OPENSTEP than Mac OS 9.

    1. First reason for NO Flash is Simplicity. Why should Apple support a technology which is really not required? Steve Jobs has been quoted to say something like “Design is NOT about how things LOOK, but instead is about how things WORK.”

    Other two reasons are the cost of the partnership, Adobe is simply too heavy for Apple…
    2. Why should Apple help a company who didn’t help them… in the most critical moment??

    3. Why should Apple help a company who supported a competitor and discontinued some of its software for the Apple platform… in the most critical moment??

    4. Why should Apple help a company (Adobe) who made them WASTE 5 full years of technological advancement??

    There’s no reason for Apple to do anything to help Adobe. None at all. No technological, nor standards-support, nor market need, and above all the cost of the partnership.

    Again, loud and clear, Adobe Flash will NEVER be on iPhone OS! BET ON THAT!

    @Dan, What’s your hosting provider? Your site e-mails travel lightspeed!!

  • WebManWalking

    No, you misunderstand. Perhaps I should explain:

    The white list that’s currently in the works is controlled by the Web Developer, not by Google or McAfee. Suppose you’re serving up your own page, which contains your own JavaScript, but you’d like to use code.jquery.com to serve up jQuery because they have a content delivery network that actually loads faster than your own server. You could specify “I want the browser to trust this site’s JavaScripts and code.jquery.com, and THAT’S IT. Don’t load JavaScripts from ANYWHERE ELSE.” Tight as a drum.

    Malicious JavaScript (often introduced onto your page by cross-site scripting attack) is able to load malware by creating a new HTMLElement of type script, with src attribute pointing off to the malware server, and attaching the HTMLElement to the DOM. But that malware server isn’t on your list (your own server or code.jquery.com). So the browser doesn’t honor the request to load the rest of the malware package.

    You don’t need a master list of every trustable server imaginable. In fact, you can, if you wish, disallow all servers except your own. Then, even if a cross-site scripting attack succeeds at getting served up by your server, it can’t infect your users.

    This new HTML and browser feature blocks 1/2 of script replication, so that the script can’t go browser to server to browser to server.

    That said, if you’re using a Mac anyway, I see no reason to turn off JavaScript and deny yourself the richness that it adds to the Web experience. Why be so scared of malware? What are we, Windows users? Instead, read some of Daniel’s articles on anti-virus vendors’ scaremongering.

  • http://ObamaPacman.com ObamaPacman
  • geolight

    Okay, so for some reason everybody thinks that flash is only used for little games, port for for profit businesses. Regardless flash is great or not, rubbish or not, the reality it serves a purpose and it is very helpful in educational institutions and Libraries for demonstrations and skills improvements. There are non-for profits. it is fascinating that he elects to ignore the education sector completely! just because he might only use Facebook games or similar thing and porn, thus know nothing else, does not mean that the rest of us just use flash for those things too! most kids sites that have educational and teaching themes are flash based too, so yes, some of them might look like games for kids, but they are really educational too. oooh and His video! wow… ever heard of editing mate! amazing quality…

    this post has nothing to do with the fact if Flash is great or not as a software, I don’t really care, I am talking about it is used.

    [I understand that Flash is widely used, just as horse drawn carriages were once the primary means of getting around. I'm envisioning a world where we don't have to trudge through all the crap just to cross the road. - Dan]

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Daniel Eran Dilger Here’s segment five in my series taking on iPad myths: no the iPad isn’t just a Microsoft Tablet PC or Amazon Kindle copycat. Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. I()

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • United States of Generica

    Dan, I hate Flash as much as the next person — run flash-blocker on my Macs and PCs — and I agree with almost everything you said, but…

    You made a comment that is wrong, but you said you might not know because you don’t have kids. My kids are under 10 years old, and their internet experience is completely managed by Flash.

    All the games they play are delivered via Flash, just go to any of the GirlsGoGames sites and you’ll see hundreds of games, there are dozens of such sites; similarly in the UK the BBC’s kids site has hundreds of Flash based games and activities (as does Disney, Nickelodeon, et al) … and you’ll be surprise how sophisticated some of these are (even using pretty good 3D stuff, like games consoles). My kids and all their friends use these sites, my business partners and work colleagues kids all use Flash games sites too.

    Moreover, they watch television on the laptop and not on the HDTV; again, it’s streamed through Flash.

    Now, here in the UK the BBC delivers iPlayer to iPhone via H.264 streams and I am sure they will do the same with iPad; but the other broadcasters do not, and I haven’t heard of Hulu (which my American friends kids watch) doing this.

    It’s going to be a long time before all that content is recreated in HTML5; so as much as I want to give my kids iPads, they are not interested and want to keep using their parents laptops and their desktops, purely because of Flash support.

    That’s not to say that even if there was Flash support there wouldn’t be issues, as most of these games rely on keyboard and mouse support (e.g. hover over function) rather than finger input.

  • bonze


  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • http://ObamaPacman.com ObamaPacman

    In other news, Microsoft’s new iphone wannabe DOES NOT HAVE FLASH. It’s doomed to failure because of it lacks flash!

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • http://blog.planet5d.com planetMitch

    Your statements are interesting tho clearly misguided. Our company does a bunch of business application development (ever hear of Rich Internet Applications (RIA)?) in Adobe’s Flex (which deploys as flash) because it is cross browser agnostic and delivers great UI. I’ve yet to see that done with HTML 5 — maybe it will, but it isn’t there yet.

    [Heard of MobileMe? How about Google Docs? Saying HTML5 features aren't here yet any you have to use Flash is like Microsoft saying Mac features aren't on PCs yet and so you need to use Windows. - Dan]

    Plus, you really don’t have kids because (as other commenters have pointed out) there’s a huge number of kids sites that are done totally in flash and they’re quite appealing. My daughter complains constantly because she can’t get to her sites on the iPhone while we’re away from the house. Maybe eventually since Steve hates Flash so much those sites will migrate to something else, but for now, she’s disappointed in Apple and Steve because of this issue.

    [For every moronic Flash game you can dig up, I can give you a very good and much more appealing iPhone app. Again, you seem to be digging through turds to find kernels of corn. I'd suggest looking for your vegetables at a farmer's market or grocery store. - Dan]

    So, there are lots of people who are interested in flash that aren’t making a living selling flash or ads. You’ve missed the whole point because you’re not using flash the same way millions of others are who enjoy it.

    [I addressed who the existing users of Flash are in the piece - Dan]

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 2. It needs Flash, segment 2 — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • http://www.hd1080i.com hd1080i

    from my weblogs – iphone traffic is .01% – not a mission critical impact , not going to cause change yet anyhow. You got the rest of the points right, excellent work, i know it takes some effort so i donated, and i hope you keep your voice of reason going on this. Only 1 thing, the multitouch is in cs5 and is not in html5.

    I would love to see a spec for html5 that had multitouch carefully defined. Maybe we can help do that, since the forum there will accept some input at this time, and it should be a unified js call supported by mobile browsers in a unified way. I think its important, since from what i have learned in using flash cs5 multitouch on my hp touchsmart, it really is a new world of cool that awaits us, and the toolin out there like appcellerator is just as clunky as flash is.

  • http://crownmultimediaagency.com/ crownmultimedia

    Thanks for compiling such an informative blog. I am curious as to how I should approach the task of developing a magazine reader app. I have a client that is interested in transitioning their publication to the iPad in digital format, but I am undecided on what I should use to build such an app. Any suggestions?

    Best Regards,

  • mohrt

    Another important aspect why Flash should not be on the iPhone or iPad: Flash is not friendly with touch-based user interaction. The moment you allow Flash on the device, you just took ten steps backwards in the user experience.

  • Pingback: Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 10. It needs Mac OS X — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • beenyweenies

    I think you’re missing the big picture on Flash entirely.

    Yes, serving video on web sites with something standards-based (like HTML5) sounds great. The argument seems to be two fold – we need something open source and more resource-efficient than Flash. But before everyone plows over the anti-Flash cliff, just look at the facts. The only way HTML5 will provide truly open source video is if it relies on the decade-old, ridiculously outdated Ogg Theora codec. This codec is so inefficient that your Macbook will be screaming just as loud when trying to play web videos, they will look awful and the file size of those videos will be far higher. I should also add that its inefficiency makes it a total bust for mobile video. In terms of efficiency gain versus Flash, it solves nothing.

    [Video on the Web doesn't have to be Open Source to be based on open standards. Ogg is a fringe left wing pipe dream that doesn't work on mobiles. - Dan]

    The other option is h.264, which is every bit as proprietary as Flash, only Apple wins since the Quicktime Player is the primary delivery device for h.264 and always will be. See the connection? Apple wants to replace Flash’s massive dominance in video playback with their own dominance in the form of Quicktime, which will provide zero benefit to users or developers. Nothing will change in terms of the primary complaints mac people have about Flash.

    [H.265 is not proprietary like Flash because it is not owned by a commercial entity. It's part of the ISO spec. So while IP is involved, it's openly licensed under nondiscriminatory terms. Which is nothing like Flash, a proprietary binary alternative to Web standards. QuickTime includes an implementation of H.264, but that has no relevance. Anyone can implement H.264, and there are open source implementations (x264). ]

    As for general Flash content, ads are the top reason people like you seem to hate Flash. Ultimately you’re just cheering the death of the messenger for no good reason. If Flash goes away (which isn’t going to happen) then those ads will still be there, they’ll just be animated GIFs or something similar. What then, declare war on GIFs and JPGs? The problem is that people can and will use technologies in annoying or less than secure ways. That is the responsibility of content developers, not the providers of the tool set.

    [Very sophisticated ads can be presented using JavaScript, which is an open standard (ECMAScript). There's no reason to use Flash for ads apart from convention.]

    In terms of resource hogging, several unbiased comparisons I’ve seen show that HTML5 video consumes around the same amount (7%+/-) of resources as Flash on virtually all system/browser configurations, except OSX. You can dislike Flash for this inefficiency, but Adobe claims they don’t have the access they need to optimize Flash for the mac. It is well documented that Microsoft backed Flash in the early days in an attempt to slow the advance of Quicktime, creating a bitter situation between Apple and the Flash product. Additionally, many argue that Apple wants to kill Flash because it could provide a viable alternative to 80% of the apps on the app store, apps that Apple currently makes money from. Flash-based RIAs delivered via browser would open a LOT of doors for a lot of developers, Apple just wouldn’t be able to extract a profit from every transaction or tell developers what types of apps are “worthy.”

    [The "resource comparison" of Flash and H.264 was wildly flawed. Existing Flash video is not at all optimized for anything. Poor quality Flash (at the pinnacle of its lifecycle) on YouTube consumes less resources than Google's shoddy beta implementation of H.264, but only when vendors don't optimize for H.264 playback like Apple did in Safari.

    There is nothing "well-documented" of Microsoft's propagation of Flash outside of what I've written on the subject. Also, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that Apple makes money from App Store titles that Flash would eat into, because Flash hasn't created any sort of legitimate, significant marketplace of useful software for any other mobile platform (and isn't used for anything on mobiles outside of a bunch of simplistic games) AND Apple doesn't make big money on the App Store; it exists to add value to the iPhone/iPod touch.

    You spew conspiracy theories about Appel trying to extract profits from App Store titles, but ignore the fact that additional replacement of the Web with Flash/Flex/AIR would make the web subservient to Adobe, a far more incompetent and clueless enterprise than Apple, and at least equally as enraptured with DRM and proprietary control of everything. So everything you've said is absurd to a nauseating degree.

    Isn't it time for you to head back to your Flash console to resume cranking out terrible anti-Web binaries? - Dan]

  • macmaniac

    way to go DAN…
    people you must understand ipad is not a business touched where you sit in airport lobby, putting your power glass on try to show people you are a busy professional and trying to show you are working very hard on your notebook or touched
    THIS IS A gadget to enjoy your multimedia, your photos, your ebook,window shopping OR blogging while sitting on your family room watching TV while eating drinking or may be sitting on airport lobby waiting to catch your flight.
    not doing your business work or your office work on ipad.
    if you think you are a busy person and needs lots of computing while on the go, just put your ipad in your bag and take out your business/ company notebook for which you did not even pay for it.
    right ????
    I can assure you guys, you will be blown away when you see it, I have seen it in as my bro works in bay area ( you know where he works, I just don’t wanna cause him any trouble)
    I am an user of mac and own from powerbook to macbook pro to 27 inch i7, but I still use my 2001 series HP presario and also have sony Vaio also, But I never complained about windows.
    it’s not bad, it’s just not FAST or powerful enough for me.
    as for as flash thing goes who really wants flash oven in their computers, NOT ME !!! Stay Off it and use a free program call BASH FLASH, it was develop by Techspansion who made Visual Hub.
    link here
    save your battery please and get rid of oven in your system.
    as for as camera goes I have heard from some good sources that a big group of developers is already working on a hack where they can use iphone camera as a source camera with bluetooth hack.
    so trust our Great Iphone hackers and be positive

    this is what i think ………

  • beenyweenies

    Daniel, I respect your opinion and think you’re right on when it comes to many issues, but several of your responses to my post above resort to some pretty circular logic that you’ve used to defend other aspects of the iPad in a fairly unconvincing way.

    “Very sophisticated ads can be presented using JavaScript, which is an open standard (ECMAScript). There’s no reason to use Flash for ads apart from convention.”

    First of all, Flash (actionscript) is also based entirely on the open ECMA standard. Secondly, your original argument was that Flash enabled ad networks to spy on you with cookies etc. Can they not do the same thing with Javascript?

    “(h.264) So while IP is involved, it’s openly licensed under nondiscriminatory terms. Which is nothing like Flash, a proprietary binary alternative to Web standards.”

    Huh? You admit h.264 is NOT an open standard, and in the same sentence bash Flash for not being open standard. Both h.264 and Flash are protected under IP law and require some form of paid license to roll out. What’s the difference again, in terms of consumer/vendor benefit? If Flash is an “alternative to web standards” then what is h.264, given its paid licensing scheme?

    “The “resource comparison” of Flash and H.264 was wildly flawed. Existing Flash video is not at all optimized for anything.”

    Flash utilizes GPU acceleration quite well, and on the OS/browsers where it can properly do so, CPU utilization is the same OR BETTER than HTML5 video. Look, I own dozens of apple products, I’m typing this on my Mac Pro, and I love me some Apple. But some Apple fans are allowing themselves to be blinded to what is really going on here. Apple wants Flash dead (we can argue the reasons separately), and they are artificially creating the conditions under which average users THINK Flash is a resource hog. If Apple is actively preventing Adobe from optimizing Flash for the mac platform, how can you blame Adobe for that?

    “Also, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that Apple makes money from App Store titles that Flash would eat into, because Flash hasn’t created any sort of legitimate, significant marketplace of useful software for any other mobile platform (and isn’t used for anything on mobiles outside of a bunch of simplistic games)”

    This is a fairly disingenuous argument. OF COURSE there is no established, proven marketplace for mobile Flash apps, it wasn’t until the advent of the iPhone that Flash even made sense as a mobile platform. This argument is akin to saying “before the iPhone there was no proven marketplace for iPhone apps.”
    You’re essentially arguing that Apple has no reason to fear Flash as a potential app store competitor because, well, Flash isn’t on the iPhone – good point! So let’s get it on the iPhone, with the option for users to disable it if they choose, and see what happens.
    Let’s just get to the meat of the issue. If Flash had been on the iPhone from day one, do you really think there would be no successful, useful, iPhone specific, Flash-based apps? I understand there are complex security issues involved and I would be the first to suggest that all non-native apps to meet the same security requirements that “official” apps do. But having a fully closed system completely under Apple’s control where you pay the vig, learn a proprietary coding language (Cocoa Touch) and develop using proprietary tools is absolutely no different than the “closed binary” that you keep trashing Flash for being. In fact it’s far worse – Actionscript is based on the open ECMA standard, and Adobe does not sit on high like Caesar, deciding which apps using its product are acceptable or useful, preventing the ones that they don’t like from even coming to market. Talk about draconian!

    “You spew conspiracy theories about Appel trying to extract profits from App Store titles, but ignore the fact that additional replacement of the Web with Flash/Flex/AIR would make the web subservient to Adobe, a far more incompetent and clueless enterprise than Apple, and at least equally as enraptured with DRM and proprietary control of everything.”

    I really don’t know what you mean about making the web subservient to Adobe. I am talking about allowing Flash on the iPhone and iPad. If you support Apple’s closed system for putting content on those devices, it’s laughable to then argue against other closed platforms as though they are going to eat the internet.

    As I said in the beginning, I fully respect your opinion and think there’s room for compromise on this issue. Why shouldn’t Apple just enable Flash on these devices and give users the option to disable it? If their core argument is that it’s a resource hog, let the users decide if that’s true and if they are willing to live with that in return for being able to access the entire internet.