Thoughts on Flash
-
Well though he's right on some points (mostly where he says it's a piece of crap), his comments on 'Openness' (is that a word, or geek speak?) strike me as some pot and kettle talk. I'd started porting some C# I'd done years ago for the Windows Mobile years ago to MonoTouch, and now suddenly MonoTouch is banned from running on the IPhone/Icrap. Although the mono guys were very careful to make a compiler, not an interpreter? Thanks Mr. Jobs. I bought an expensive Mac a while ago in order to test this. Now it's a piece of furniture (well, I've programmed a batch on it to record TV shows). At least I hadn't bought the SDK, or the Mono SDK, i used trial versions. -1 for Openness.
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
I couldn't agree more. I *hate* Adobe products. They crash, crash, crash. And Flash crashes **all the time**.
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
Flash? Arrrgghhhhhh!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I fully agree with what Steve says about how openness and standards are important, if not critical. I've said similar myself before and I'm fully in support of not-supporting flash. Unfortunately with Apple's decision only a few weeks ago to change their AppStore licensing agreement to require the use of Apple's propriety toolset (and forbidding anything 3rd party like MonoTouch) they are just as bad, if not worse than Adobe. What a hypocrite. Shut up Steve, fix your own company's business practises before you criticize others. Personally I will never buy an apple product until they change their practises and treat developers with respect.
Simon
That move was done to stop Adobe's attempt to get Flash on the iPad. If Adobe had gotten it on, a lot of lazy programmers would have ported every flash based app they could and even browser plug ins would have been submitted. That would have ruined their attempt to push the standards. The point was to have developers not be subject to 3rd party adoption of new stuff. If Monotouch failed to update something for months after Apple did, the people depending on it would be stuck. What about when they make an update that takes advantage of some new tech and that 3rd party toolset no longer works because they haven't coded for it? This same update could break your App and you would be unable to respond. How many customers would that cost you? What about if a 3rd party stops supporting the toolset altogether and you now have to redo the entire thing if you want to put out an update? How much development time is lost? So which is looking out for developers more? Allowing some other company to drag their heels and cause your product to suck because of it, or having you always have the stuff you need when the implement it? The model is not perfect. But they seem to have the developer in mind as well as their own interests.
-
Simon P Stevens wrote:
Personally I will never buy an apple product until they change their practises and treat developers with respect.
Like Microsoft?
Yes, like Microsoft. Large parts of the .net framework are provided open source. the CLR and C# are covered by ECMA standards. There is even an open source sample implementation of large parts of the CLR called Rotor. There is a competing Mono framework based on the same set of standards. There are open source compilers and IDEs that include C# and target the .Net runtime. Microsoft doesn't block any of these activities, in fact some of them are actively run by Microsoft. But even if you don't like the restrictions of .net, you are free to use C++, python, C, Java, in fact, you can use whatever tools or languages you want. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the tools you are allowed to use to build for their platforms. If you can build it, they will let you. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the types of applications you are allowed to write. If you want to write a competing media player, a competing office product, or a competing language/framework/IDE you are free to do so. You can also use whatever distribution channel you want for your apps On the other hand, lets look at Apple. To build for the IPhone you have to use a Mac, and thanks to the 3.3.1 changes you now have to use their toolset. You also have to get approval from Apple that your app doesn't compete with any of theirs, and meets their (sometimes secretive) requirements for inclusion in the AppStore.
Simon
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
Meh - reminds me of Karl Marx: the critique part is pretty much OK, but the solution (HTML+JS+CSS) is flaky at best. I wish there was something like Open XAML...
-
Michel Godfroid wrote:
I bought an expensive Mac a while ago
As did I and it runs wonderfully. I use it extensively every day. Why don't you use yours?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why don't you use yours?
It's stopping my rubbish bin from lifing off the ground & flying away!!! :-D
-
That move was done to stop Adobe's attempt to get Flash on the iPad. If Adobe had gotten it on, a lot of lazy programmers would have ported every flash based app they could and even browser plug ins would have been submitted. That would have ruined their attempt to push the standards. The point was to have developers not be subject to 3rd party adoption of new stuff. If Monotouch failed to update something for months after Apple did, the people depending on it would be stuck. What about when they make an update that takes advantage of some new tech and that 3rd party toolset no longer works because they haven't coded for it? This same update could break your App and you would be unable to respond. How many customers would that cost you? What about if a 3rd party stops supporting the toolset altogether and you now have to redo the entire thing if you want to put out an update? How much development time is lost? So which is looking out for developers more? Allowing some other company to drag their heels and cause your product to suck because of it, or having you always have the stuff you need when the implement it? The model is not perfect. But they seem to have the developer in mind as well as their own interests.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The point was to have developers not be subject to 3rd party adoption of new stuff.
I sorry, but this argument that SteveJ keeps putting across is complete garbage. Not every developer wants to take advantage of every cutting edge platform feature. Sometimes I'm more interested in cross platform development. If I'm making an application I might want it to run in several different places. The point is that the choice should be up to me as a developer, not Apple or Steve. If I want to use a framework that is cross platform, that caters to the "lowest common denominator" then that is my choice. What Apple have done is removed the choice and made the only option to write my application multiple times. Yes, some developers will choose to code against the raw APIs, because they want cutting edge features. It's the same in Windows. If you want access to the latest APIs for the latest platform you will probably have to go to C++ and COM API's. .Net tends to lag behind. The fact is that what Apple should have done was put out a statement encouraging developers to developer directly for the IPhone without a framework and list all their reasons why. If developers agreed they would have done what Apple asked, purely for the right reasons. Some wouldn't have, but some might have had very good reasons for using a framework. Instead, they haven't even tried to put their argument across in a open and frank manor, they've just thrown their toys out the pram and demanded that everyone do it their way or no way. Steve's argument that they want to protect the platform and developers is rubbish, they just want to encourage lock in to their platform. They want to discourage cross platform apps.
Simon
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
Personally, I prefer HTML5 because as I am familiar with HTML/JS/CSS. I have never developed anything with Flash. If the argument was about SilverLight (which already supports multi-touch), then my thoughts would have been a little different :). In the ideal world, I will prefer all browsers: desktop and mobile to have support for HTML5/CSS3. The bottom line is that things like Flash and SilverLight only exist because all browsers do not support certain advanced features. If HTML5 is supported by all browsers, then there will be no need for Flash or SilverLight. Actually, even now lot of things that these plugins do, can be accomplished by pure JavaScript though it is painful. The bigger question here is how far do you want to support backward compatible technologies. I am pretty sure that most people will argue about his use of word "Open". I also found it pretty funny that he starts with "open" even though he clearly says that for web he thinks technologies should be "open". He should not have ventured into that. He is correct on the battery life and performance. Having developed multi-platform software, I have to agree with him that least common denominator technologies suck. More closer to the native API/Framework for the application you are, the better applications you can write for that platform. It just requires a different approach and planning.
-
Well though he's right on some points (mostly where he says it's a piece of crap), his comments on 'Openness' (is that a word, or geek speak?) strike me as some pot and kettle talk. I'd started porting some C# I'd done years ago for the Windows Mobile years ago to MonoTouch, and now suddenly MonoTouch is banned from running on the IPhone/Icrap. Although the mono guys were very careful to make a compiler, not an interpreter? Thanks Mr. Jobs. I bought an expensive Mac a while ago in order to test this. Now it's a piece of furniture (well, I've programmed a batch on it to record TV shows). At least I hadn't bought the SDK, or the Mono SDK, i used trial versions. -1 for Openness.
Michel Godfroid wrote:
MonoTouch is banned from running on the IPhone
That's not true. I think MonoTouch is compliant with the section 3.3.1 of iPhone developer agreement. Did you check what MonoTouch site says on that? Not that I need to use MonoTouch because I am perfectly OK with using Objective-C/C/C++.
-
Meh - reminds me of Karl Marx: the critique part is pretty much OK, but the solution (HTML+JS+CSS) is flaky at best. I wish there was something like Open XAML...
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
XAML
Is that meant to be sarcastic?
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
, but the solution (HTML+JS+CSS) is flaky at best. I wish there was something like Open XAML...
That's lame. HTML5 + CSS + JS gives you much more than XAML can give you (except probably natively compiled code when backed by C#/VB.NET and a runtime), but JS in both Chrome and Safari gets compiled to native code. The only issue with HTML + CSS+ JS is cross browser compatibility, but if you are targeting for specific devices/browsers you do not have that issue.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
XAML
Is that meant to be sarcastic?
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
, but the solution (HTML+JS+CSS) is flaky at best. I wish there was something like Open XAML...
That's lame. HTML5 + CSS + JS gives you much more than XAML can give you (except probably natively compiled code when backed by C#/VB.NET and a runtime), but JS in both Chrome and Safari gets compiled to native code. The only issue with HTML + CSS+ JS is cross browser compatibility, but if you are targeting for specific devices/browsers you do not have that issue.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
That's lame
Thanks :)
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
HTML5 + CSS + JS gives you much more than XAML can give you
Headaches? Especially CSS for layout.
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
Words like that would have sounded a lot less hollow if Apple was still pushing HTML+JS+CSS as the primary dev platform for iPhone apps. But they aren't. So all this talk of Apple's openness vs. Adobe's "100% proprietary" dev stack is bullshit: the non-proprietary bits of Apple's dev stack only matter if you intend to eschew all the "platform enhancements", which flies in the face of "the most important reason" for excluding Flash.
-
Michel Godfroid wrote:
MonoTouch is banned from running on the IPhone
That's not true. I think MonoTouch is compliant with the section 3.3.1 of iPhone developer agreement. Did you check what MonoTouch site says on that? Not that I need to use MonoTouch because I am perfectly OK with using Objective-C/C/C++.
That's changed then. (I just looked). When all hell broke loose over the flash development tools, Mono posted an announcement, that it was all unsure, and they were working diligently with apple to resolve the situation. (the usual marketing crap). Now from my reading of the developer license (which I can't get officially before buying the bloody thing), the new license version precluded the use of any cross-compilers. (which to my mind, was the official reason why they banned the flash kit). So it's even worse: Flash is banned from the IPhone, not because they breach any (restrictive) license agreements. But because Steve Jobs does not like their face. So much for honest business practices. Adobe should sue the pants off them for crimes against IT.
-
Personally, I prefer HTML5 because as I am familiar with HTML/JS/CSS. I have never developed anything with Flash. If the argument was about SilverLight (which already supports multi-touch), then my thoughts would have been a little different :). In the ideal world, I will prefer all browsers: desktop and mobile to have support for HTML5/CSS3. The bottom line is that things like Flash and SilverLight only exist because all browsers do not support certain advanced features. If HTML5 is supported by all browsers, then there will be no need for Flash or SilverLight. Actually, even now lot of things that these plugins do, can be accomplished by pure JavaScript though it is painful. The bigger question here is how far do you want to support backward compatible technologies. I am pretty sure that most people will argue about his use of word "Open". I also found it pretty funny that he starts with "open" even though he clearly says that for web he thinks technologies should be "open". He should not have ventured into that. He is correct on the battery life and performance. Having developed multi-platform software, I have to agree with him that least common denominator technologies suck. More closer to the native API/Framework for the application you are, the better applications you can write for that platform. It just requires a different approach and planning.
How many times has Apple been the loser in a "least common denominator technologies " situation? Creative Studio spending 10 years being slower than on a PC because they refused to go to Cocoa... Office being 2-3 years behind the Windows version... Explorer being dead because they couldn't bother with it. (this is a good one I think) I wouldn't want to open myself up to that again.
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
That's lame
Thanks :)
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
HTML5 + CSS + JS gives you much more than XAML can give you
Headaches? Especially CSS for layout.
I am biased here because I love CSS (because I spent lot of time learning/understanding it in detail).
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Especially CSS for layout.
To some extent yes, the headaches have more to do with IE's poor support for CSS. Open XAML (if at all there will be one) is not going to solve the problem. CSS is extremely flexible, and if implemented right by all browsers (well one specific browser) it can lead to amazing things which is not always possible via XAML.
-
Words like that would have sounded a lot less hollow if Apple was still pushing HTML+JS+CSS as the primary dev platform for iPhone apps. But they aren't. So all this talk of Apple's openness vs. Adobe's "100% proprietary" dev stack is bullshit: the non-proprietary bits of Apple's dev stack only matter if you intend to eschew all the "platform enhancements", which flies in the face of "the most important reason" for excluding Flash.
Shog9 wrote:
HTML+JS+CSS
They were pushing it in the version 1.0 of iPhone till everyone complained and they caved in and exposed the native SDK. BTW: HTML5 and CSS3 animations and rendering are all hardware accelerated on the iPhone.
-
Yes, like Microsoft. Large parts of the .net framework are provided open source. the CLR and C# are covered by ECMA standards. There is even an open source sample implementation of large parts of the CLR called Rotor. There is a competing Mono framework based on the same set of standards. There are open source compilers and IDEs that include C# and target the .Net runtime. Microsoft doesn't block any of these activities, in fact some of them are actively run by Microsoft. But even if you don't like the restrictions of .net, you are free to use C++, python, C, Java, in fact, you can use whatever tools or languages you want. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the tools you are allowed to use to build for their platforms. If you can build it, they will let you. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the types of applications you are allowed to write. If you want to write a competing media player, a competing office product, or a competing language/framework/IDE you are free to do so. You can also use whatever distribution channel you want for your apps On the other hand, lets look at Apple. To build for the IPhone you have to use a Mac, and thanks to the 3.3.1 changes you now have to use their toolset. You also have to get approval from Apple that your app doesn't compete with any of theirs, and meets their (sometimes secretive) requirements for inclusion in the AppStore.
Simon
Well said, and I agree completely. However, it looks like for the Windows Phone 7, we may see the same business model as for IPhone...
-
Yes, like Microsoft. Large parts of the .net framework are provided open source. the CLR and C# are covered by ECMA standards. There is even an open source sample implementation of large parts of the CLR called Rotor. There is a competing Mono framework based on the same set of standards. There are open source compilers and IDEs that include C# and target the .Net runtime. Microsoft doesn't block any of these activities, in fact some of them are actively run by Microsoft. But even if you don't like the restrictions of .net, you are free to use C++, python, C, Java, in fact, you can use whatever tools or languages you want. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the tools you are allowed to use to build for their platforms. If you can build it, they will let you. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the types of applications you are allowed to write. If you want to write a competing media player, a competing office product, or a competing language/framework/IDE you are free to do so. You can also use whatever distribution channel you want for your apps On the other hand, lets look at Apple. To build for the IPhone you have to use a Mac, and thanks to the 3.3.1 changes you now have to use their toolset. You also have to get approval from Apple that your app doesn't compete with any of theirs, and meets their (sometimes secretive) requirements for inclusion in the AppStore.
Simon
Having developed under the chaos of the Microsoft model for the last 20 years and seen the long list of development models and technologies first evangelized then all too quickly abandoned by Microsoft I've grown pessimistic. The simplicity and order of Mac OS X and iPhone OS development appeals to me these days. Just wish I had the time to actually do it. :doh:
-
I am biased here because I love CSS (because I spent lot of time learning/understanding it in detail).
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Especially CSS for layout.
To some extent yes, the headaches have more to do with IE's poor support for CSS. Open XAML (if at all there will be one) is not going to solve the problem. CSS is extremely flexible, and if implemented right by all browsers (well one specific browser) it can lead to amazing things which is not always possible via XAML.