HTML5 at 46% (We need flash)

Leiva

Seems Apple are now ready to demo HTML5 on Safari

http://www.apple.com/html5/?aosid=p204&siteid=1503186&program_id=2554&cid=OAS-EMEA-AFF&tduid=46089a18e04b6fa2613f3a703a9ac84d







FLASH is dead baby !

Inquitus

Android has now won the decisive battle of the phone OS war, apple is first to market in the tablet war, but give it 2 years and android will have won that war too.

Closed systems, and trying to bend over your customers only works for so long. Give me one good reason, bar extra revenue and deals with mobile phone companies, that you can't use an iphone to tether an ipad to the net without jailbreaking the phone?

I can use my phone as a wifi access point to allow my wifi iPad to be connected on the go, I can use it to view flash, I can use it to buy apps from anyone who sees fit to make them, **** you Steve Jobs.......I like your ipad, but you will always be a dick.

cornbb

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Different apps will have different UIs, and you can't say that your interpretation, or mine will work for everything 100% of the time.

The multitouch paradigm requires a new set of human interface habits, and it is essential to the user experience that these are consistent across a platform. iPhone OS users, whether they are using apps or browsing the web, expect that a pinch will zoom, a swipe will pan, etc. Regardless of how an app's UI looks, if it is a good app than it will conform to these standards or conventions. So someone interacting with Flash on the iPhone would expect that dragging their finger across the UI would pan the view, not function as an awkward workaround to compensate for an input method that Flash assumes exists (a mouse pointer) but doesn't exist on a multitouch platform.

"Traditional" GUI features a mouse, which can roll-over, context-click etc. iPhone multitouch can't do these things but can do things like receive input at several points on the view at once. Flash has been designed for the former. Trying to make it work for the latter is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

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.

Judging from any reviews I've heard + face time with the iPad myself, the browsing experience is anything but bland. And I honestly can't ever recall missing Flash on the iPhone.

Let's look at the most common usages of Flash that I've seen.

1) Ads. Intrusive pieces of sh*t that can take over a page if your mouse cursor happens to float over one. The worst-designed ones can't even be dismissed. I tried reading this article this morning but couldn't as one of the Flash ads was blocking the text and I couldn't get rid of the damn thing.

2) Video. As others have pointed out, there's already a shift towards HTML5 and other open codecs underway.

3) Online games. Basically ways to kill 10 minutes during your lunchbreak. The app store is filled with thousands of these anyway, the majority of which will work better on the iPhone/iPad than Flash games would, given that they have been explicitly written for the platform, can use multi-touch, accelerometers etc.

4) "Rich" content. Websites that welcome you with a jarring Flash animation and start playing sound without being prompted, these have me hunting for the "Skip Intro" button. Beloved of marketing companies.

Admittedly there are a handful of Flash sites that I've seen that are pretty cool and would be missed (I love Ishkur's Guide). But these are the exceptions, the examples I listed above are the rule. I honestly believe that the net effect of Flash on the quality of the web is a negative one.

cornbb

Inquitus wrote: »

Android has now won the decisive battle of the phone OS war, apple is first to market in the tablet war, but give it 2 years and android will have won that war too.

Android has been coming along in leaps in bounds, but nothing is decisive at this point surely. The era of smartphones is still young. You sound like the guy who though the war would be over by Christmas in 1939.

Even if the iPhone is relegated to second place for the long-term, it's something that Apple have been comfortable with for decades anyway - the Mac may only have a small portion of the market share but Apple have been happily selling it to a loyal and happy userbase while all the generic PC manufacturers have been at each other's throats fighting over tiny profit margins. If Mac vs. PC history repeats itself, it will end up being the same with vendors selling hardware that runs Android.

Inquitus

cornbb wrote: »

Android has been coming along in leaps in bounds, but nothing is decisive at this point surely. The era of smartphones is still young. You sound like the guy who though the war would be over by Christmas in 1939.

Even if the iPhone is relegated to second place for the long-term, it's something that Apple have been comfortable with for decades anyway - the Mac may only have a small portion of the market share but Apple have been happily selling it to a loyal and happy userbase while all the generic PC manufacturers have been at each other's throats fighting over tiny profit margins. If Mac vs. PC history repeats itself, it will end up being the same with vendors selling hardware that runs Android.

iPhone makes up 35% odd of Apples Revenues, ipods another more than 30%, without sustaining this level of sales in those areas, Apple will go back to the irrelevant company it was not that long ago.

Steve Jobs is ****ting on his customers, and he was able to get away with it for a long time as his products in alot of cases were clear market leaders, like the iphone used to be, but now its a closed, limited, less functional and poorer version of the android handsets, and he is in no position to continue ****ting on his customers as he is at the moment, the no tethering of an ipad to an iphone for no good reason being a clear example.....

cornbb

Inquitus wrote: »

iPhone makes up 35% odd of Apples Revenues, ipods another more than 30%, without sustaining this level of sales in those areas, Apple will go back to the irrelevant company it was not that long ago.

Steve Jobs is ****ting on his customers, and he was able to get away with it for a long time as his products in alot of cases were clear market leaders, like the iphone used to be, but now its a closed, limited, less functional and poorer version of the android handsets, and he is in no position to continue ****ting on his customers as he is at the moment, the no tethering of an ipad to an iphone for no good reason being a clear example.....

He must be doing something right, if even critics who call him a piece of **** still profess to love their new ipads...

Inquitus

cornbb wrote: »

He must be doing something right, if even critics who call him a piece of **** still profess to love their new ipads...

I just ditched my iPhone for an Android phone, no fear of me ever going back tbh, and quite simply because of the ridiculous restrictions he places on what I can do with my phone.

Creamy Goodness

mixednuts wrote: »

Seems Apple are now ready to demo HTML5 on Safari

http://www.apple.com/html5/?aosid=p204&siteid=1503186&program_id=2554&cid=OAS-EMEA-AFF&tduid=46089a18e04b6fa2613f3a703a9ac84d







FLASH is dead baby !

yup and apple push "open-ness"

why the hell are they using safari specific hacks?

Owen

cornbb wrote: »

The multitouch paradigm requires a new set of human interface habits, and it is essential to the user experience that these are consistent across a platform.

There's no requirement for consistency. Each app I've used has their own little nuances and quirks. The SMS app requires you to hold and drag your finger to move to a location within a word correct spelling mistakes. Then when we got copy and paste, there was a new function added, double tapping to select.

There is no reason why a new set of controls can be implemented for flash just like double tap was implemented for copy and paste. And honestly, saying that we can't implement flash because the controls haven't been worked out is the most watered down excuse I've ever heard.

Flash is on the web, I have web access on my iPhone, but I don't have access to flash. It's retarded. More so now that Android is on the ball with their rollout of it. That's like buying a car which has everything a normal car has, except headlights. But sure drive it in the daytime and it'll be grand.

Graham

Inquitus wrote: »

I just ditched my iPhone for an Android phone, no fear of me ever going back tbh, and quite simply because of the ridiculous restrictions he places on what I can do with my phone.

Yet that didn't prevent you laying out several hundred euro for an iPad with the same ridiculous restrictions?

Inquitus

Graham wrote: »

Yet that didn't prevent you laying out several hundred euro for an iPad with the same ridiculous restrictions?

No alternatives available right now, superior android tablets will be out next year,and my ipad will be sold and replaced.

Leiva

PaintDoctor wrote: »

There's no requirement for consistency. .

Very True but Apple are making sure that it won't be (finger swipes etc) consistant across different handsets :

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-s-latest-patent-outlines-the-future-of-multitouch-686284

They have only gone and applied patent to certain finger movements :rolleyes:

Owen

Am I the only person who thinks Apple refusing to put flash on their devices is like Eircom and O2 restricting access to sites online?

Graham

Please note, the following post is a snippet from a Nielsen survey and does not necessarily represent my personal opinion:

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-android/

A new survey of U.S. smartphone owners found that 28 percent use a device running the iPhone OS, compared with just 9 percent on Google's Android mobile operating system.

The study found that both Android and iPhone users are mostly male, but those on Android are typically younger, less wealthy and less educated. The survey discovered that 28 percent of Android users earned more than $100,000 a year, while 40 percent of iPhone users were in that income bracket. The average for all smartphones has 34 percent of users earning six-figure salaries.

Inquitus

Graham wrote: »

Please note, the following post is a snippet from a Nielsen survey and does not necessarily represent my personal opinion:

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-android/

A new survey of U.S. smartphone owners found that 28 percent use a device running the iPhone OS, compared with just 9 percent on Google's Android mobile operating system.

The study found that both Android and iPhone users are mostly male, but those on Android are typically younger, less wealthy and less educated. The survey discovered that 28 percent of Android users earned more than $100,000 a year, while 40 percent of iPhone users were in that income bracket. The average for all smartphones has 34 percent of users earning six-figure salaries.

lol, love how you spun that.

Original Article wrote:

Although Android and iPhone users both skew male (Android users show a 54/46 gender split compared to iPhone’s 55/45), there are some striking differences. Android users tend to be slightly younger than their iPhone peers- 55% of Android users are under the age of 34 — while just 47% of iPhone users fall within the same demographic. As is usually the case, age is also a prime determinant of income and education, with Android users slightly less wealthy and less educated.

Android users are slightly younger, therefore slightly less well educated and less well renumerated.......

Obviously, despite being an iphone user, you buck the trend.........

Anyways apples target market is the technotard, so its not very surprising their demographic is older and less capable on the technology front.....

Leiva

So to summarise ...

If your a <34yr old male fu*ktard you like to call the social welfare office from your HTC Android .

If your a >34yr old male/female you like to call your broker from your iPhone which you purchased with your 6 figure salary .

What a complete load of TOSH !

True what they say ..8/10 people use statistics to win a debate :rolleyes:

Creamy Goodness

"people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that".

Graham

What an odd response.

My post contained no spin, just direct quotes from a Nielsen survey that I played absolutely no part in.

As a self professed early iPad (technotard) owner yourself are you professing to be older or less capable????

Inquitus

Graham wrote: »

What an odd response.

My post contained no spin, just direct quotes from a Nielsen survey that I played absolutely no part in.

As a self professed early iPad (technotard) owner yourself are you professing to be older or less capable????

The study above is of smartphone owners, iPhone buyers are generally more technologically challenged than Android owners, Apple after all has always targeted the Technotard.

I own an iPad, as there are no viable alternatives to the iPad in the tablet market at the moment. It is currently the best option in that space. The iPhone however is streets behind android these days, and given a choice of an iPhone or a more capable and similarly specced Android phone, it's no contest. My wife however, who is a technotard, is only capable of using an iPhone, and owns a 3GS.........

Red Alert

Why are you complaining? Just don't buy an iPhone if Flash is that important to you. I haven't missed it so far.

Graham

Inquitus wrote: »

The study above is of smartphone owners, iPhone buyers are generally more technologically challenged than Android owners, Apple after all has always targeted the Technotard.

I own an iPad, as there are no viable alternatives to the iPad in the tablet market at the moment. It is currently the best option in that space. The iPhone however is streets behind android these days, and given a choice of an iPhone or a more capable and similarly specced Android phone, it's no contest. My wife however, who is a technotard, is only capable of using an iPhone, and owns a 3GS.........

I think your post summarises the position quite eloquently but it also raises the question; if you have to be a tech-expert to operate a 'more capable' Android mobile phone, does that make it a better phone? It's a mobile phone, how much technical knowledge should one really be expected to possess to operate a phone?

I have a Sky digibox at home, it doesn't run Windows 7, OS X or Linux, all of which have much more 'capability' than my sky box. Strangely I don't think of my Sky box as being TV viewing for my technotard wife, it's been designed quite well for a specific task. In short, it's fit for purpose. If it required a tech-expert to operate my TV, I would suggest that there's something amiss with the design of my TV.

Inquitus

Graham wrote: »

I think your post summarises the position quite eloquently but it also raises the question; if you have to be a tech-expert to operate a 'more capable' Android mobile phone, does that make it a better phone? It's a mobile phone, how much technical knowledge should one really be expected to possess to operate a phone?

I have a Sky digibox at home, it doesn't run Windows 7, OS X or Linux, all of which have much more 'capability' than my sky box. Strangely I don't think of my Sky box as being TV viewing for my technotard wife, it's been designed quite well for a specific task. In short, it's fit for purpose. If it required a tech-expert to operate my TV, I would suggest that there's something amiss with the design of my TV.

Your Sky box however will play whatever channels you subscribe too, it doesnt force you to convert to a proprietary format before you can watch something.

Your Sky box gives you your interactive content on the red button, your iPhone doesnt do flash so it wont do the interactive content off the BBC news site, or indeed most news and sports sites.

Your Sky box doesn't restrict you in the way your iPad or iPhone does.

Do you not find it annoying that you must needlessly convert everything to MP4 before you can play it?

Do you not find it irritating that you cant view most of the interactive news and sports content on the web as it is Flash based?

Do you not find it unacceptable that you cant tether your iPad to your iPhone for no reason other than Jobs simply wishes to leverage further profits from 3G sales?

iPhone was a clear market leader and jobs could **** on his customers, now Android is as easy to use, has better features, allows access to the full web, allows you to use your phone as a wifi access point, negating the need for a 3G iPad, its not surprising it outsold iPhone in Q1 in the US and its not surprising it will surpass iPhone in marketshare globally this year.......you can only dictate to your customers when you enjoy a clear edge in the marketplace, something Jobs no longer does, thanks to Google.

Graham

My Sky Box doesn't play flash, doesn't play MP4's.

Inquitus

Graham wrote: »

My Sky Box doesn't play flash, doesn't play MP4's.

Indeed but it doesn't purport to be a media player, nor does it purport to allow you access to the web, so those limitaions are acceptable.

Your SkyBox does whats expected of it, your iPhone claims to be a mediaplayer, but only plays one type of media, claims to be for browsing, but denies you access to huge tract of the web.

I'll take your refusal to address the iPhones limitations as a tacit acceptance that you agree with my points, and you have just instead decided instead to be facetious.

Graham

Do you not find it annoying that you must needlessly convert everything to MP4 before you can play it?

No, in the same way I do not find it annoying that my MP3 player can only play MP3's.

Do you not find it irritating that you cant view most of the interactive news and sports content on the web as it is Flash based?

No, in fact I find it's actually a bonus that I'm not force fed flash ads.

Do you not find it unacceptable that you cant tether your iPad to your iPhone for no reason other than Jobs simply wishes to leverage further profits from 3G sales?

No, I did my research before buying, understood that wasn't an option and purchased an iPad. If I felt as strongly as you do about flash/tethering I certainly wouldn't have bought an iPad.

I find the iPad does exactly what I expected of it, most of the time in a way much better than I expected. It obviously came as a surprise to you that the iPad doesn't support flash.

Dont be at yourself

Inquitus wrote: »

Your Sky box however will play whatever channels you subscribe too, it doesnt force you to convert to a proprietary format before you can watch something.

Most video captured via digital camcorders, supplied as digital copies packed in with DVDs or bought legitimately online is instantly playable on Apple devices. You'll have trouble if you source all of your videos illegally - but then, you get what you pay for.

Your Sky box gives you your interactive content on the red button, your iPhone doesnt do flash so it wont do the interactive content off the BBC news site, or indeed most news and sports sites.

What about the BBC app? Or that from the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Times of London, RTE, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Eurosport? All specifically designed and formatted for your device, all interactive, all much more pleasurable to use than browsing their website, reading their paper copy or using their TV interactive services.

Tom Dunne

A a reminder to keep things civil please, guys.

Inquitus

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

What about the BBC app? Or that from the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Times of London, RTE, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Eurosport? All specifically designed and formatted for your device, all interactive, all much more pleasurable to use than browsing their website, reading their paper copy or using their TV interactive services.

All of those ipad apps mentioned are very limited pale facsimiles of the content available on their full (flash enabled) websites. Only an idiot wouldn't realise that......

Graham

Inquitus wrote: »

All of those ipad apps mentioned are very limited pale facsimiles of the content available on their full (flash enabled) websites. Only an idiot wouldn't realise that......

Gosh, I must be an absolute fool then Inquitius. I've had my iPad since April 3rd and I've missed flash a grand total of 0 times, where will I get my daily fix of Ads now flash doesn't work? How I miss those pop-overs from Sun that cover my screen with a full page advert the second you hover over their banner.

Increasingly I think you will find the term 'flash enabled' will begin to read 'parts of the (really insignificant/annoying)web disabled'.

Stuxnet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwtQefApuHQ