HTML5 at 46% (We need flash)

conolan

New York Times article / ReadWriteWeb
46% of Web Users Are Ready for HTML5.
Internet Explorer is responsible for most of the non-compatible machines. It's going to take a long time for HTML5 to get much beyond 60% because lots of corporate networks and lots of light users won't bother upgrading. With flash available on 96% of machines, Apple will one day bite the bullet, just like Sony, who eventually started selling VHS.

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/05/25/25readwriteweb-46-of-web-users-are-ready-for-html5-60106.html

Dont be at yourself

I don't think we should let the technological luddites dictate the technology that goes into our gadgets. A huge number of people are still using IE6, but it would be madness to suggest that IE6 dictate web standards.

banquo

^^That guy. What he said. That guy right there.

conolan

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I don't think we should let the technological luddites dictate the technology that goes into our gadgets. A huge number of people are still using IE6, but it would be madness to suggest that IE6 dictate web standards.

I suggest that the audience dictate the how the content is delivered, not the techies. Techies can offer goodies and try to entice the 'luddites' but shutting them out in large numbers is not good for business.

Dont be at yourself

conolan wrote: »

I suggest that the audience dictate the how the content is delivered, not the techies.

Indeed. And the audience have overwhelmingly dictated that they don't care about flash not being on the iphone and ipad - look at the sales figures for proof. It's only the techies that are moaning about lack of flash support.

Techies can offer goodies and try to entice the 'luddites' but shutting them out in large numbers is not good for business.

Depends what the business is, and what the target market is. Apple's forward thinking has probably won them more customers than it has lost them. They're ruthless in culling old technologies (floppy disc), and quick to adopt new ones. This doesn't sit well with those content with old tech, but then Apple isn't really concerned with them.

jesus_thats_gre

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I don't think we should let the technological luddites dictate the technology that goes into our gadgets. A huge number of people are still using IE6, but it would be madness to suggest that IE6 dictate web standards.

I don't think we should allow anyone to dictate what technologies go into our gadgets, including Apple.

Fat_Fingers

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Apple's forward thinking has probably won them more customers than it has lost them. They're ruthless in culling old technologies (floppy disc), and quick to adopt new ones. This doesn't sit well with those content with old tech, but then Apple isn't really concerned with them.

Tehehehe, Apple at the forefront of the new tech?!? Come on now. When comes to cutting edge , new features Apple is always lagging behind or Simple ignoring most common used features cos Steve said so.

Apple does come up with great thing every so often but they are hardly forward thinking all the time. They only "quickly " adopt stuff that they have 100% control over.

Zascar

Microsh1t should just decommission IE6 etc and force an upgrade to a higher version. Better still abandon it all together. IE is a horrible piece of software an anyone still using it just doesn't know any better...

Dont be at yourself

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I don't think we should allow anyone to dictate what technologies go into our gadgets, including Apple.

Yeah, but we don't. There will soon be plenty of tablets that support Flash on the market, and the customer can choose for themselves.

Tehehehe, Apple at the forefront of the new tech?!? Come on now. When comes to cutting edge , new features Apple is always lagging behind or Simple ignoring most common used features cos Steve said so.

Firewire, built-in webcams, backlit keyboards, multitouch mice, trackpads and touchscreens and LED screens were all adopted by Apple before most. They're also heavily behind LightPeak, which is as high tech as it gets at the moment in consumer electronics. On a more mundane level, they also seem to get first dibs on Intel chips, months before PC manufacturers.

Owen

Don't forget SCSI and the original Newton Message Pad!

The only thing that worries me is that Flash is more than just video. It's apps/games too. And for that reason I think Apple should be doing something to include it. Warn people it's a resource hog, but include it anyway.

Pixelcraft

Zascar wrote: »

Microsh1t should just decommission IE6 etc and force an upgrade to a higher version. Better still abandon it all together. IE is a horrible piece of software an anyone still using it just doesn't know any better...

They have abandoned ie6, but you can't force people to upgrade unless the provision for that was build into ie6/old windows in the first place.

Plenty of people use ie6 because they have to, they're in a corporation with an IT department who doesn't want the expense or hassle of upgrading, or they need to use an old web app that works in ie6 only.

PeakOutput

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I don't think we should allow anyone to dictate what technologies go into our gadgets, including Apple.

so the makers of the products shouldnt decide what they make.......interesting

blaz

PeakOutput wrote: »

so the makers of the products shouldnt decide what they make.......interesting

No, the makers of products shouldn't decide how users use their products.

Fat_Fingers

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Firewire, built-in webcams, backlit keyboards, multitouch mice, trackpads and touchscreens and LED screens were all adopted by Apple before most. They're also heavily behind LightPeak, which is as high tech as it gets at the moment in consumer electronics. On a more mundane level, they also seem to get first dibs on Intel chips, months before PC manufacturers.

Sure they get a few right, thats what i said anyway. They are also behind some spectacular flopps. Apple is rarely the pioneer, but they refine and perfect good ideas that are poorly implemented in other products.

Heavily behind LightPeak? What i heard is that Intel had simply asked Apple for feedback as part of its usual requests for outside input.

Dont be at yourself

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Sure they get a few right, thats what i said anyway. They are also behind some spectacular flopps. Apple is rarely the pioneer, but they refine and perfect good ideas that are poorly implemented in other products.

Heavily behind LightPeak? What i heard is that Intel had simply asked Apple for feedback as part of its usual requests for outside input.

"Engadget has learned -- thanks to an extremely reliable source -- that not only is Apple complicit in the development of Light Peak, but the company actually brought the concept to Intel and asked them to create it. More to the point, the new standard will play a hugely important role in upcoming products from Cupertino. "

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/

PaintDoctor wrote:

The only thing that worries me is that Flash is more than just video. It's apps/games too. And for that reason I think Apple should be doing something to include it. Warn people it's a resource hog, but include it anyway.

It's a fair point, but even if flash was supported, 90& of flash apps and games would need to be rebuilt anyway, because they're designed for a keyboard and mouse. They often have rollover animations or keyboard controls. If they have to be reprogrammed anyway, why not design them from the ground up for the iphone/ipad featureset and compile them so they'll manage the resources better.

jesus_thats_gre

PeakOutput wrote: »

so the makers of the products shouldnt decide what they make.......interesting

You know that isn't what was meant.

conolan

Here's a reason why we need flash on iPhone. Way back in 2003 I created a flash application. It's for Dublin Bay sailors, very niche. But it allows people see the complex course that is set for racing yachts, the course only being decided at last minute while boats are already on the water. It also works out on the fly the distance and direction between each mark. And it grabbed realtime wind data from a website, plus tides. I'd love to be able to modify it slightly for iPhone screen and publish it. But Steve won't let me.

banquo

conolan wrote: »

Here's a reason why we need flash on iPhone. Way back in 2003 I created a flash application. It's for Dublin Bay sailors, very niche. But it allows people see the complex course that is set for racing yachts, the course only being decided at last minute while boats are already on the water. It also works out on the fly the distance and direction between each mark. And it grabbed realtime wind data from a website, plus tides. I'd love to be able to modify it slightly for iPhone screen and publish it. But Steve won't let me.

1. Apple invented the friggin' thing, they can make whatever rules they like for it.

2. If you ran your app on the iPhone it would suck. Not because it's a bad app - sounds cool enough actually - but because it's a Flash based app running on mobile OSX. Om nom nom resources.

3. 'Steve' would happily have the app on in his App Store, but not in such a way that it performs badly. What happens if you open the doors to Flash in the App Store? You get thousands of apps that suck to use and people stop downloading apps.

Owen

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's a fair point, but even if flash was supported, 90& of flash apps and games would need to be rebuilt anyway, because they're designed for a keyboard and mouse. They often have rollover animations or keyboard controls.

They wouldn't have to be redesigned. The flash engine for mobile devices would just need to have a different interpreter for the mouseover event - ie, swiping your finger constantly and not lifting it, and then interpreting a tap as a click. Once the engine is changed, the existing swf files could then be run as normal. How do you think they're doing it with Android?

justsomebloke

banquo wrote: »

3. 'Steve' would happily have the app on in his App Store, but not in such a way that it performs badly. What happens if you open the doors to Flash in the App Store? You get thousands of apps that suck to use and people stop downloading apps.

Or just maybe you only allow people to use flash on the internet and not let developers use it to create apps.


At the moment there is no impedance for Apple to use Flash, cause well till now as none of their competitors products used it. No competing smart phone has it and eh well there is no actual competing slate for the ipad yet.

However with Froyo now released we will find out if the consumer market actually want it. Sony, Motorolla, Vodafone, Dell, HTC, Samsung and Acer have all produced Android phone and chances are that over the next year they will all bring out 2.2 handsets and maybe tablets that have flash. We should also be seeing a range of tablets from vendors based on this.

So over the next eyar consumer demand will dictate whether or not consumers want and need flash. In my honest opinion though for phones I can't see it being that much of a biggy however on Tablets I think it needs to be a nessecity as Flash isn't going anyway where over the next couple of years and we will probably be on 6G by there time the majority of the web has moved on


edit actually geingerbread man or what ever it is will probably handle flash better so will be a better indication especially as it may be released by year end and so well before 5G which we assume will be out this time next year

Fat_Fingers

banquo wrote: »

3. 'Steve' would happily have the app on in his App Store, but not in such a way that it performs badly. What happens if you open the doors to Flash in the App Store? You get thousands of apps that suck to use and people stop downloading apps.

Flash, no flash it doesn't really matter. Apple will not allow Flash as they can't control what users have access to. You say allowing flash would open door to thousands of crap apps. I think App store is doing quite a good job of providing thousands of crap apps already. Look at the crap like Talking Carl, I beer, ifart, ipoop... i mean seriously. Then tons of web sites packaged as apps.

vinnycoyne

Which means it'd only get worse...

Dont be at yourself

PaintDoctor wrote: »

They wouldn't have to be redesigned. The flash engine for mobile devices would just need to have a different interpreter for the mouseover event - ie, swiping your finger constantly and not lifting it, and then interpreting a tap as a click. Once the engine is changed, the existing swf files could then be run as normal. How do you think they're doing it with Android?

Nonetheless, they're not designed with a multi-touch screen in mind. Holding down and swiping your finger completely negates the whole point of a multi-touch interface. It's a botch job, a quick fix, and is completely anathema to the user experience expected from an Apple device.

Owen

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Nonetheless, they're not designed with a multi-touch screen in mind. Holding down and swiping your finger completely negates the whole point of a multi-touch interface. It's a botch job, a quick fix, and is completely anathema to the user experience expected from an Apple device.

How does holding down your finger and swiping negate a multi touch interface? You're just doing what you'd do with a mouse. Working through it in my imagination, it seems quite a natural thing to do.

As regards flash opening the floodgates for crap apps - it's not the apps we're interested in. We just want flash in our browsers so we can access the entire web.

Dont be at yourself

PaintDoctor wrote: »

How does holding down your finger and swiping negate a multi touch interface? You're just doing what you'd do with a mouse.

The answer is in your question. The mouse, as a pointing device, was a substitute for your own fingers and hands for when technology was unable to register these inputs directly. It was a virtual finger that you had to move across the screen to point and click at things you wanted to press.

With a touch-screen, there's no need for that virtual finger. I see what I want to press, and I just press it. I don't need to drag a virtual pointer over to click it. It defeats the whole purpose. It removes the whole entire reason for a touchscreen interface.

As regards flash opening the floodgates for crap apps - it's not the apps we're interested in. We just want flash in our browsers so we can access the entire web.

The web is moving to open standards. Googe, Youtube, Vimeo and virtually all of the big content providers offer their content in open, accessible ways. BBC announced just today that iPlayer will be iPad-accessilbe. Apple should be commended for driving forward the opening of the web.

If we have Flash, should we have Windows Media support too? Silverlight? Should we include every mickey-mouse codec and browser plug-in? Or should we instead push towards everyone adopting open standards. Apple are doing the latter. And it's working.

BrianD

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Indeed. And the audience have overwhelmingly dictated that they don't care about flash not being on the iphone and ipad - look at the sales figures for proof. It's only the techies that are moaning about lack of flash support.

I don't think that the majority of iPhone buyers (or other smartphones) know what Flash or HTML 5 is. They are just buying a phone that does stuff. Then the find out that it doesn't do some stuff after the fact.

Owen

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The answer is in your question. The mouse, as a pointing device, was a substitute for your own fingers and hands for when technology was unable to register these inputs directly. It was a virtual finger that you had to move across the screen to point and click at things you wanted to press. With a touch-screen, there's no need for that virtual finger. I see what I want to press, and I just press it. I don't need to drag a virtual pointer over to click it. It defeats the whole purpose. It removes the whole entire reason for a touchscreen interface.

I don't agree. Your saying that if you want to click something just click it. That's fine for an app that's designed for that. Take Simon the Sorcerer - the app. There are items in lets say the wizards room, and if you put your finger on the screen and drag it around it'll magnify items that can be used in the room. So the practise works quite well depending on what it's used for - it works brilliantly in the SMS app when you want to change a letter, press, hold, and the magnifying glass comes up, keep holding and dragging to the correct letter and then you can change it. Apple could have used any variation of method to achieve this, but they thought that putting your finger on the screen and dragging it around was the best method possible - so why shouldn't it be for flash also? Different apps will have different UIs, and you can't say that your interpretation, or mine will work for everything 100% of the time.

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

If we have Flash, should we have Windows Media support too? Silverlight? Should we include every mickey-mouse codec and browser plug-in? Or should we instead push towards everyone adopting open standards. Apple are doing the latter. And it's working.

Sorry, that's fanboy nonsense - Apple are correct in whatever they do? I'm an apple fan like anyone, but I do believe in accessibility for the web too. Silverlight probably should be included. It's going to be around for a few years, flash should for the same reason. They're dominant online media plugins. Windows Media and all the other ones, not so much these days. But Flash is what gives content rich sites their zing ... and without it the web will look dull. Sure, in a few years (And it will be a few years) we'll end up with HTML5 everywhere, but in the interim using an iPhone, or an iPad will be a bland experience to browse.

jesus_thats_gre

BrianD wrote: »

I don't think that the majority of iPhone buyers (or other smartphones) know what Flash or HTML 5 is. They are just buying a phone that does stuff. Then the find out that it doesn't do some stuff after the fact.

I would love to have seen what would have happeend if Youtube didn't make their content available in the h264 format. No youtube would have forced their hand I reckon.

Fat_Fingers

some people keep banging on how flash is irrelevant and how Apple will just plow on without it and everyone will move to HTML5. Lets be realistic here. No flash on Iphone and Ipod, not big deal. Those devices only access web as add on feature not main function. I would not be spending any significant time looking the web pages on tinny screen.
Now for the Ipad, main feature is web access (at least would be for me), screen is good size to properly enjoy web browsing experience. No flash here IMHO is a mistake. To deny access to 50% of the web content is not great. I want tablet but I will wait for other manufacture to release tablet that supports full web. Argument I hear all the time is that flash will be gone in 3-5 years. So what? I want tablet now that supports web now. This current Ipad generation will also be gone in 3-5 years. In 3-5 year I’ll just look what’s on the market then. I’m not spending lot of money on device now to be able to use it fully in 3-5 years when it will be obsolete anyway.

Blazer

conolan wrote: »

Here's a reason why we need flash on iPhone. Way back in 2003 I created a flash application. It's for Dublin Bay sailors, very niche. But it allows people see the complex course that is set for racing yachts, the course only being decided at last minute while boats are already on the water. It also works out on the fly the distance and direction between each mark. And it grabbed realtime wind data from a website, plus tides. I'd love to be able to modify it slightly for iPhone screen and publish it. But Steve won't let me.

fúck him..do it on Android.

Red Alert

The problem with flash is that it won't go away unless something like the iPad makes it. Its a dreadful resource hog, like everything else that Adobe make. It's also a big security risk by downloading and running bytecode on the otherwise locked down device. No thanks!