[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Kon Wilms <konfoo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:32:04 -0700
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When you say HTML5 video tags exactly what are we talking about:
>
> Is this an HTML tag that identifies the source and calls the decoder?
>
> Is it expected that the necessary decoders are embedded in every HTML5
> compatible browser?
>
> Will the codec architecture be open and extensible? (i.e the ability to add
> approved codecs via some form of upgrade or plug-in architecture?
Here's the simplest HTML5 video player:
<div>
<video controls>
<source type="video/ogg" src="/test.ogv"/>
<source type="video/mp4" src="/test.m4v"/>
Cannot decode video.
</video>
</div>
Notice the mime type. And the use of multiple files (for rollover when
a browser does not support OGG (or any).
>> And no app developer in their right minds would tie their application
>> to a 3rd party application as a prerequisite for installation.
>
> It happens all the time.
>
> Didn't you mention Direct Show?
Firefox is not tied to directshow in windows. And here's the other
kicker - modern browsers run sandboxed. When you start exposing
operating system resources like video decoding frameworks to them,
well, this opens a huge security hole and renders your sandbox
useless.
> QuickTime is an essential resource for many, if not most digital content
> authoring applications on the Mac, and offers most of the same facilities on
> the PC. I am not talking about runtime applications; I AM talking about an
> architecture that supports digital media content with the ability to plug-in
> resources that are critical to content producers. For example, Panasonic has
> developed a range of QuickTime codecs to support its P2 product line.
That's fine. You don't need HTML5 for that. Just embed quicktime
player in the page like has always been done.
>> Actually a lot being done these days by Adobe for Flash *is* open source.
>>
>> But I still don't get your argument. You may as well argue that Java
>> is not open source.
>
> This is a battle over who has control over the look and feel of the next
> generation of computing devices. Adobe applications play a major role in the
Lol now it's about look and feel? I'll give you credit, you are
inventive. Apple has HIG for iPhone apps. There is no reason why a
cross-platform toolkit could not be HIG-compliant for all platforms.
Look at what Java, QT etc do. No problems there. This complaint of
yours has zero merit.
> Internet, but via download and runtime apps as well. They are not doing this
> in the spirit of Open Source; they are doing this to sell apps and to
> collect licensing fees for their technology.
http://www.opensourcemediaframework.com/
I must be missing something!
> There is, of course, noting wrong with this, but it does make one question
> why you are so staunchly defending them even as you espouse the benefits of
> open source.
Because you're making stuff up. Here, let me copy/paste from one such
effort (Adobe's media player framework):
Q. Under which open source license is OSMF offered?
A. MPL Version 1.1 will govern the use of the OSMF code. This license
is used by many open source projects that need to balance the needs of
the open source community and commercial software vendors. MPL and its
derivatives (Eclipse Public License and Common Public License) are
used by many well-known open source projects, including the Flex® SDK,
with both thriving open source communities and significant commercial
users.
> Apple is heavily committed to the multi-touch interface and the ways in
> which it is already transforming the way we interact with devices and
> applications. They are enhancing the OS and APIs on a continuous basis in
> order to maintain their leadership position.
Ok so you're saying they are expanding their vendor lock-in. Gotcha.
> Why would Steve WANT to support a technology that makes apps look and feel
> the same across every competing platform?
Maybe I'm missing your point, but he does.
> To me, Open Source is really more about a commitment by those who have a
> vested interest to maintain and improve on the resource that is being put
> into the public domain.
You understand little about Open Source then. But that's fine, most
people don't. I have to deal with people on a daily basis who think
OSS is just 'free to do with as I please'.
> The SwampHead website is built on Joomla, an Open Source CMS. I appreciate
> the power of the tools and the efforts of everyone who has contributed to
> the project. But I also recognize that this is a different world in terms of
> product support. And I would also note that there are many Jooml plug-ins
> for proprietary technologies.
That's why they are plugins.
> I believe that we are experiencing the same kind of foot dragging backlash
> in the PC market that we have seen with broadcasters trying to hold onto
> "their legacy" during the transition to Digital TV. Dominant standards can
> hang around for a long time, but eventually they are replaced by the next
> big thing.
Which is why I left the broadcast space entirely. No sense flogging a
dead horse for rich video applications.
> Could it be that some people find the degree of control Apple exerts over
> its platforms to be a benefit?
Just because lemmings follow each other over the cliff, doesn't mean
it is right.
> Sorry, but this is reality. I understand the mindset. But the reality is
> that there is not a parallel open source universe where one can live without
> dealing with proprietary stuff.
You don't. You confuse OSS with FSF type mentality.
> How did this discussion suddenly change to Rich Internet Applications?
It always was. *You* tried to make the point that Apple tools (XCode)
could easily be a replacement for developers using Flash. XCode has no
RIA tools that even come close to what Flash has.
> Clearly RIAs are not what QuickTime is about. See above.
Yeah um thanks for making my point.
> And it is equally clear that FLASH and AIR are competing with Silverlight
> and Java for market share in RIAs.
Silverlight is doomed (HTML5 video tags will eliminate it). Java has
its share for servlet applications and Android and that's about it.
Neither of these development environments have the same RIA toolset
Flash does.
All I can say is in terms of media playback on our CDN we get 0
requests for Java (actually we have had 1 in the entire life of the
CDN), maybe 1% for silverlight, and 99% for Flash. Just calling it as
I see it.
> Before Future Splach, Director et al begat FLASH Apple WAS trying to develop
> similar capabilties in QuickTime. I worked with the QuickTime group in 1997
...
> that can be shared by applications, but killed the media layer idea. I guess
> you could say he opened the door for Flash...
To go back in time? Since Macromind Director was @ 1987.
>> Nice try. If that were the case then (as I stated before) every
>> application developer would be required to recompile their code. What
>> you are attempting to assert is that Apple can at any time change
>> their API and SDK, and more importantly function calls may randomly
>> change. That's complete nonsense. Unless they wanted to destroy their
>> own market, that is.
>
> Sorry Kon but you are the one grasping at straws here. Perhaps this will
> make more sense to you:
Oh good, finally some facts?
> http://www.stevenwei.com/2010/04/11/jobs-makes-a-valid-point-intermediate-layers-hinder-the-progress-of-the-platform/
>
> There are two arguments here:
> 1. Intermediate layers produce sub-standard apps.
XCode is an intermediate layer. It has to cross-compile to the target
platform. There is no native development environment. You have to
emulate for local platform development. So #1 is false.
> 2.Intermediate layers hinder the progress of the platform.
> Imagine a scenario where Apple releases a bunch of new features in their
> iPhone SDK. Developers using the native platform have access to the new APIs
> immediately, and can begin incorporating those features into their
> applications.
But they won't, since their applications are already released on the app store.
Never mind the fact that Apple does *not* churn on their SDKs!!
The devices are cooked - they can't be expanded. You're the one always
touting this.
> Developers on an intermediary platform have to wait for the intermediary
> platform vendor to implement the new features and expose it in their APIs.
> The best case scenario is that the intermediary platform vendor figures out
> how to implement the new features in a timely fashion, allowing their
> developers to take advantage of them quickly.
You assume that a 3rd party would not be able to build a parser for
the SDK to handle most new features without a massive software point
release.
> Vendors with slow release cycles (I'm looking at you Adobe) end up creating
> an additional delay before developers on their platform can take advantage
> of the latest and greatest features from Apple. This is no good if Apple
> wants to be on the cutting edge.
So now all their development is limited by Flash? Come off it.
> And of course, the worst case scenario is that the intermediary platform
> vendors never get around to implementing the new features, preventing all of
> the developers on their platform using those features.
That doesn't even make sense.
> It is absurd to think that Apple is going to shoot themselves in the foot.
> But they ARE going to keep improving the iOS and they want developers to
> take full advantage of these improvements without having to wait for third
> party developers to update their tools.
Heh, like 'hey new OS, not only did we add copy, but we also added paste!'.
>> > Where did 150,000 apps come from?
>>
>> 90% of which look the same.
>
> I would use the term "work the same."
Exactly.
> What is important here is that developers ARE supporting the platforms Apple
> has created. Some are more innovative than others. What is really important
> is that there is real innovation going on here and its not just from Apple.
>
>> Don't play games, you know exactly what I mean. XCode is not a RIA
>> environment the same way Flash is.
>
> And you point is?
>
> Clearly Apple does not want to offer apps that look and work the same on all
> platforms; if Google is willing to do that with Android, then the
> marketplace will decide. Apple wants developers to keep pushing the edges
> of the ITS platforms as the company adds new APIs.
Well not exactly. Every mobile platform out there utilizes Flash. They
realize that many sites are useless without ability to decode flash.
They realize that consumers want Flash support.
They don't base their business model on excluding one technology in
order to ensure that people pay more for theirs.
>>> From what I have seen, it has been relatively easy to move code
>>> developed
>>> for other platforms into the iPhone OS environment. This has been
>>> especially
>>> true for game developers.
>>
>> Game developers use engines.
>>
>>> Apple has no problem with using its iDevices to access standards based
>>> content via the web. They have stated the reasons they do not want to
>>> support FLASH on these devices (bugginess, memory hogs, crashes and
>>> battery
>>> life).
>>
>> Heh. Standards based. Like iTunes, right?
>
> Nice try to avoid the subject. iTunes uses industry standard formats for
> virtually all media files. The DRM system is proprietary, but even here
> Apple has been trying to get content owners to stop requiring it.
iTunes doesn't interoperate with anything except Apple. That is my point.
You bring up bugs, memory consumption, and crashes, and then you try
to say that iTunes is none of those? Please.
> And is this worse than what the telcos were doing when they controlled the
> apps on phones?
You said it. But you are quite happy to accept it this time around.
>>
>>> Flash alone is useless, except perhaps for animating type. You need
>>
>> More proof you know absolutely nothing about Flash.
>
> I own FLASH and have used it. IT is useless without other Apps to feed it.
I rest my case.
>> ... like an iPad without a USB or SD port. Gotcha.
>
> Have you played with an iPad?
>
> Have you watched people interact with one?
Actually yes to all of the above.
> AND MOST IMPORTANT...must every new innovation carry baggage from the past?
>
> the iPad does not have a floppy drive either...
Nor an elegant way for me to connect my DSLR to it in order to GET
photos INTO it. What use is display without acquisition.
Cheers
Kon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
