[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:17:57 -0400
This thread is starting to become productive. Let's try to keep it positive!
No they couldn't. You don't understand how HTML5 works. Quicktime
would be a fallback decoder if HTML5 video tags could not decode the
content, via page embed.
There are many things yet to be understood about HTML5 as it is still
being developed.
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?
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?
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.
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 creation of all kinds of content; many elements created
with Adobe apps are re-purposed for multiple output formats. In this
they will continue to play a critical role supporting content
creators. In recent years, however, the company has been moving in
the direction of using its core tools to help it dominate the
delivery of content in digital form, primarily via the 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.
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.
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.
Why would Steve WANT to support a technology that makes apps look and
feel the same across every competing platform?
Didn't Steve tell Microsoft where to stick it when he came back and
decided to leverage what he had created at NEXT and build OS-X
rather than adopting Windows, which also had 90% market share?
We will always have a mix of proprietary, open source, and
international standards in use at any time. Because of IP
considerations, NOTHING is really free. Because of business
decisions, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Adobe or Google may pick up the
tab if it enhances their business.
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.
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.
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.
Could it be that some people find the degree of control Apple exerts
over its platforms to be a benefit?
And regardless, saying that open source should support closed source,
well, I'm dumbfounded. You just don't get the mindset behind open
source.
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.
> Adobe relies on QuickTime support for MANY of its applications. Adobe chose
to develop the Flash plug-in as an alternative to QuickTime for dynamic
media authoring and play out. I have no argument that developers like the
ability to author FLASH and run it on multiple platforms.
This paragraph is complete nonsense - one can't develop any sort of
RIA with Quicktime. Clutching at straws.
How did this discussion suddenly change to Rich Internet Applications?
Clearly RIAs are not what QuickTime is about. See above.
And it is equally clear that FLASH and AIR are competing with
Silverlight and Java for market share in RIAs.
I would also note that QuickTime has evolved over the years...
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 when they were developing and promoting the QuickTime
Media Layer. One day while I was working in Cupertino I was invited
to a special announcement in the auditorium - turned out to be Gil
and Steve announcing that Apple was buying Next. Steve saw the value
in QuickTime as a digital media resource that can be shared by
applications, but killed the media layer idea. I guess you could say
he opened the door for Flash...
And this is precisely the reason that Apple rejected their cross compiler.
It means that Apple would be at the mercy of Adobe to provide support for
new features in each iOS upgrade; and the risk that many new features might
not be supported at all. It would limit platform differentiation. Thus
Apple prefers to promote its own tools and the use of standards based
technologies.
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:
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.
2.Intermediate layers hinder the progress of the platform.
Most people seem to be rebutting the first argument without
addressing the latter. I do think their rebuttal is valid: developing
an app in Objective-C doesn't provide any guarantee of quality, and
app quality should be vetted during the approval process regardless
of the language used. So the first argument does not hold water, but
what about the second?
I think Job's second argument is valid: 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.
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.
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.
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.
I can definitely see how that hinders the progress of Apple's
platform, and why they would want to take steps to prevent that from
happening.
---------------------
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.
> Where did 150,000 apps come from?
90% of which look the same.
I would use the term "work the same."
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.
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.
Apple is using an industry standard for iBooks.
All of this noise is about the APP store and the degree of control
that Apple exerts over it. Personally I have no problem with Apple
approving apps. And furthermore, I have not had any real problems
accessing information from the web WITHOUT FLASH.
Innovate? Lowest common denominator? Are you kidding me? Have you seen
the amount of shovelware available on the app store? Sorry Craig, you
can't win this argument.
There's shovelware everywhere. I exercise the control to decide what
I want to put on my iPhone. Are you saying that choice is a bad
thing? That developers are not making money working with Apple?
And is this worse than what the telcos were doing when they
controlled the apps on phones?
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.
Making technology work without a ton of hassles...
... like an iPad without a USB or SD port. Gotcha.
Have you played with an iPad?
Have you watched people interact with one?
AND MOST IMPORTANT...must every new innovation carry baggage from the past?
the iPad does not have a floppy drive either...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
