Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
WATCH: Shredding On The Google Guitar!
Adobe fires back at Apple again: your users DO want Flash, and we can prove it
Flashgate just won't go away. Adobe shouts "you're killing the open web" and Apple fires back with "your code is crappy and your plugin is responsible for half of Mac crashes." Adobe responds to potential iPad users, "enjoy your blue Legos." Apple replies under their breath, "Agreed. Enjoy your blue Legos."But it looks like our own Jay Hathaway may have been just a tad off base when he said "Here's the thing, though: Apple's customers DON'T WANT FLASH."
As it turns out, there are multiple millions of people out there who want Flash on their iPhone or iPod touch according to an article from the San Francisco Chronicle. That figure is the number of Flash plugin download attempts by iPhone OS users in December.
Adobe also reported that number was up -- way up -- from June 2009's 3 million attempts.
So it seems as the mobile web becomes more heavily browsed by the average Joe, Joe expects to see Flash on it (for better or worse).
It's still a bloody good bet Apple isn't going to cave, because Flash delivers tons of free gaming content -- something Apple would probably prefer you shell out a few bucks for in the App Store.
Comments
26
Subscribe to commentsjsmorleyFeb 10th 2010 9:02AM
I'm generally not one to easily jump on the conspiracy bandwagons. I just sigh when folks start up with how Google is tracking everything you do or how Microsoft is in league with the devil.
However, Apple fans need to open their eyes a bit. Be sure that this is really what you want, where one vendor is going to just control everything in your online world and decide for you what you can and can't run. I know there is a good argument to be made for the stabilty and security of a "nanny device", but I'm betting folks are going to look back wistfully on the openness and freedom we are going to give up by going with the Apple model.
Joram@od.euFeb 10th 2010 9:16AM
As long as we have a choice in what device we're using, there's not too much wrong with a developer (in this case Apple) to lock their device if they believe that (in this case) Flash would be a bad thing for their device. We're free to choose wether or not we feel the same way or can live with this limit :)
lobotomies4freeFeb 10th 2010 12:07PM
actually I wish flash would just work better on my PC, Mac, and at all on my iPhone. It may not be better in the end, but I just feel like Adobe has had plenty of chance, and between HTML5 abilities and stuff like Microsoft Silverlight, I hope it's over
JoramFeb 10th 2010 9:11AM
Visiting a website that has Flash in it is not the same as actually wanting Flash imho.
Flash will, for the next couple of years, probably have a good chunk of the web in its hands and there are (imho) absolutely plenty of websites/webgames that make very good use of Flash.
But if your plugin crashes, even if it's rarely, it won't do good on an embedded OS. On most Macs I work with (as a developer/designer) Flash crashes about 5-10 times as much as any other plugin. Even if it's once a day at maximum, a crash for a plugin is never a good thing.
On top of that, the Mac version asks for too many CPU-resources. And that's not because Apple won't allow Adobe to use certain API's to give them acces to hardware acceleration. Flash on the Mac has álways used way more resources (and has been slower) than it's PC counterpart.
I personally think that Apple blocks Flash because of those 2 very reasons. It's too slow and resource-hogging compared to the PC version.
I would love to see Flash on the iPod/iPhone/iPad though, but I can definately relate to the problems Flash has on the Mac OS system at this moment... if they can deliver an absolutely killer v1.10 they might actually get some leverage on getting Flash on the mobile devices of Apple. If they fail to deliver something good with Flash v1.10, it's their own fault for doing so.
sodapopFeb 10th 2010 3:04PM
"Visiting a website that has Flash in it is not the same as actually wanting Flash imho."
I totally agree. Adobe needs to launch a campaign aimed at iPhone users (and smart phone) users to visit a specific web address with their smart device. By visiting your site you are using your ip and device to say, "yes, I want flash" Apple has told us they have sold X million iPhones. It would be pretty easy to determine who wants Flash
Or they could have a poll - because I am sure there are people who would want to vote no...
Mark BFeb 10th 2010 9:16AM
Hey Adobe - Perhaps if Flash worked well in the first place maybe we wouldn't be at this point.
If all it takes Apple saying "we won't support Flash on our device" to make people start to question the usefulness of Flash, then perhaps this is all for the best.
kevjohnFeb 10th 2010 10:50AM
Or maybe they will start to question the capabilities of Apple.
FrancisFeb 12th 2010 8:10PM
Well, the thing is right now Apple looks bad not supporting Flash. Some people don't understand why their iPhone doesn't support it. If Apple did support it, and Flash keeps crashing the iPhone, then Adobe would be the one who looks bad.
I personally don't really care who looks bad though, since I don't have an iPhone anyway...
penguin.balancesFeb 10th 2010 9:24AM
the argument Steve Jobs gave about not putting Flash on the portable Apple products is ludicrous.
he cites that it's unstable, is responsible for most desktop/Laptop Mac crashes and doesn't want to compromise people's experience on their portables.
there's one logical problem with his response:
* if Flash is too unreliable and too dangerous for people's mobiles, why is Apple allowing it on the desktop where people do REAL productivity with REAL sensitive data? *
the very product that has the customer's important data where stability is paramount, is the only place Apple allows an apparent buggy Flash?
people use their mobiles mainly for less important tasks than what they use their home machines for. if the portable device crashes, at worst you miss a call, lose a browser session or game,etc.
as much as mobile computing on portable devices is taking off, with smartphones and tablets, currently consumers have nowhere near the amount of important data on their portables compared to the home machine.
yet Apple puts the buggy Flash only on the very machine consumers actually DO anything productive?
An irresponsible and cowardly move Steve.
Mark ProvanFeb 10th 2010 1:25PM
If Apple could decide, then there would be no Flash on the Mac. The problem is that the Mac is an open platform (from a software development point-of-view) and Apple cannot control all the software installed on them.
penguin.balancesFeb 10th 2010 10:26PM
Apple have as much control on the Mac as they want.
they already dictate the hardware, limiting the CPU, GRFX, motherboard, etc options consumers have. they also have complete control of the Operating System.
these two facts are the same for their portable devices. the only difference is that they haven't exercised as much restriction on the Mac, they can anytime they want.
they can restrict any API's, drivers, software they want either because they own it, or they have the choice to include another company's code (other drivers, API's,etc).
Apple is like a restrictive parent. you say they can't control the Mac because it is an "open platform", when the truth is closer to Apple being able to restrict the options their free-willed child has.
you may think that the Mac is more open,, but it's only as open as Apple allows. just like Microsoft tried to control things with Vista and it's restrictions attempts for OpenGL, audio drivers, admin accounts, WGA....hell MS even attained their monolithic position by restricting what retail stores could sell.
in the early days the company dictated that any store wishing to sell a computer with Windows pre-installed, can't sell any other operating systems the same way!
Apple has the same options for restricting anything they want on the Mac platform. they permit your Mac to have the same Adobe Flash that they tell you isn't safe for portables.
gmaleFeb 10th 2010 10:19AM
I can't understand why people can't see the smoke and mirrors that Apple and Steve Jobs are using! It's like everyone takes what they say, at face value, without applying any thought.
"Flash crashes about 5-10 times as much as any other plugin."
Consider the math:
Flash has 95%+ penetration. According to Adobe CTO, Kevin Lynch, it is used on 85% of Top internet sites.
If flash is installed and used 5-10 times MORE than any other plugin... then, all things being equal, ANY STAT will be 5-10 times higher for flash than any other plugin. Including crashes! Steve Jobs used the same kind of broken logic to claim that Apple is a bigger mobile device than Nokia. That is laughable.
"I personally think that Apple blocks Flash because . . . It's too slow and resource-hogging compared to the PC version."
Just think for a second...
Since when has anything EVER been better/faster on Windows than just about ANYPLACE else? It's slower on a Mac FOR A REASON. Ideally, Flash (like many other graphics apps, video games, etc) requires hardware-level decoding to run fast. Apple doesn't provide this (that's similarly why your favorite video games don't always work with Macs) and they aren't cooperating with Adobe, intentionally.
So the Flash folks have taken the time to create a software work-around for the problem! That's why it uses more resources. Steve makes all Apple customers believe it's because Adobe is lazy or flawed.
Smoke. Mirrors.
Flash is a threat to the iTunes store and mobile app business model. Period. If you can access the web and you can run flash, then why do you need to get your games from iTunes? You don't. You can pay another site, like games.yahoo.com (or Hulu.com) all the money you used to pay Apple! Or worse... you could get it for free! **gasp**
If there's one thing Apple hates . . . it's NOT taking your money.
kaslingsFeb 10th 2010 11:14AM
I'm not a Cocoa programming, but I'm pretty sure Apple does have APIs to hardware level stuff in the form of H.264
Mark ProvanFeb 10th 2010 1:31PM
It isn't Apple's fault that most games will not run. Microsoft try to get developers for Windows to, and make developers for XBOX 360 use the closed-source and proprietary DirectX 3D graphics system. Every other platform, from the Mac & iPhone to Linux & Android to the PS3 to the Wii (and even Windows) all use OpenGL, which is completely open-source. Windows games that use OpenGL are also the ones you can run in CrossOver, not surprisingly.
suznickFeb 10th 2010 10:36AM
Sites that want to be viewed have been modified or dedicated apps have been written. Move on. Adobe is worried about losing the money that Flash developers pay for their software. It is a huge part of their profit.
NeuroFeb 10th 2010 10:36AM
I don't think pointing on the instability is necessary a smoke screen, but it's certainly very convinient. I don't think Apple wants flash on its mobile devices for business reasons (and mobile Safari probably doesn't support plugins?) but they're in luck and can mention the stability and get away with it.
Adobe will have to do perfect 10.1 version AND spend some marketing effort on changing the image Flash has right now.
SlappyFeb 10th 2010 10:59AM
Wait, Flash is "the open web"? How is Flash "open" exactly?
Peace is War
Love is Hate
???
PonTelonFeb 10th 2010 11:46AM
I never understood this either. Last I checked you had to pay to produce Flash legally.
If only Microsoft would get Linux Silverlight working(DRM that is. I know about Moonlight), or more places would use html5, I'd be happy.
NeuroFeb 10th 2010 1:44PM
@Slappy: that's as open as supporting only H.264 in the html5 video tag is promotion of free open video standards :)
emmzeeFeb 10th 2010 11:26AM
I have an iPhone and I want Flash. :(