Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

12325272829

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    That's nice Steve, but most people aren't using all those new standards yet and I want all the websites to open up on my iPhone, dammit.
    Disclaimer: I understand what you're saying, and I don't want this post to come off as "tough shit."

    When that happens, you should email the company or the site's webmaster and let them know that you can't see the content on their site, and that you'd appreciate it if they would move away from proprietary plugins, and switch to open standards so that everyone can see their site and it's information.

    I know that doesn't help you see the content RIGHTNOW, but if people actually start expressing that they want to be able to view shit without having to have the buggiest plugin of all time then perhaps we'll see sites move away from Flash.

    ...or Apple could stop expecting the world to revolve around them and allow Flash, like the increasing numbers of its smartphone competitors.

    Like they explained, this isn't about just Apple. It's also about the user experience, and the future of the Web. From this move, everyone benefits. They may not benefit right now, but in some situations it is better to think long-term.
    Besides, people don't want to have to jump through hoops to try to get individual websites to switch over to new video/animation formats that haven't even been finalized yet, they just want their damn page to load right now.

    Are you suggesting that you are expecting the world to revolve around you, after you incorrectly criticized Apple for expecting the world to revolve around them?

    Because that's so :lol: .

    People want options.

    The fact that defense of Apple always goes back to "it's for your own good" is very telling.

    Evander on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    No, I'm expecting the world to revolve around the millions of customers that want their websites to work NOW, rather than at some undetermined point four or five years in the future.

    I don't know about "millions".

    I'd say that the number of people who would be seriously bothered by not being able to view the content on the extreme niche sites they visit is relatively small. After all, like Steve said, all the major video-hosting websites already work on iPhones/iPads.
    And what Steve said is so utterly, utterly expecting the world to revolve around them. That's pretty much the entire point of ItunesisEvil and your posts: Web sites must change to accommodate Apple.

    Web sites must not change to accommodate Apple. They must change to accommodate open standards, by dropping Flash. Big difference. You are getting confused here because Apple only happens to be the champion of the open standards cause at the moment, and unlike, say, 15 years ago, they now have enough market dominance to make a positive impact, so people pay attention.
    Besides, now that multitasking is coming and the camera is much beefier, lack of Flash is now the iPhone's sole glaring weakness. And just like every smartphone maker put on a better camera in the past, you can bet the other guys will hype the fuck out of the fact that their phones open more sites than the iPhone.

    I'm sure that, for Apple, that is a calculated risk. And I am not entirely certain that, like I said above, the "our phone opens more pages than Apple's!" is going to be a major selling point.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...
    The fact that defense of Apple always goes back to "it's for your own good" is very telling.

    It's for the good of everyone involved.

    Contary to what you're implying, Apple isn't babysitting its customers here.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thoughts on Flash
    Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

    Well good to see that Steve starts with a a fairly disingenuous statement. Flash is closed in only the most literal minded interpretation of close. The format is open, there are dozens upon dozens of free Flash authoring tools - allowing you to develop in a pelethora of languages, Adobe even provides free Flash player targeting tools (in the form of the Flex SDK). Adobe have produced free, open source servers, the on wire protocol (AMF) is open. It's all (with one exception) open.

    The only thing that isn't 'open' is the plugin itself, and that's because it makes both technological and business sense to avoid the runtime being forked. Sure that leads to problems due to Adobe being laggards and kanves when it comes to bug fixes but for Steve "you can only develop for the IPhone in these languages" Jobs to accuses Adobe of closedness reminds me of one cooking implements making derogatory comments on the colour of another cooknig implement.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    No, the format is not open

    Otherwise gnash would actually be usable

    FyreWulff on
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    No, the format is not open

    Otherwise gnash would actually be usable

    Genuine interest, what is missing from http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/ that stops gnash being viable?

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    no-charge patent licensing?

    FyreWulff on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    No, I'm expecting the world to revolve around the millions of customers that want their websites to work NOW, rather than at some undetermined point four or five years in the future.

    I don't know about "millions".

    There are millions of iPhone owners. If you sat down and asked each of them, "would you rather your iPhone opened up websites with big chunks missing, or would you rather them run all the information," I'm sure nearly all of them would pick the latter.

    Trust me, it's a weakness.
    And what Steve said is so utterly, utterly expecting the world to revolve around them. That's pretty much the entire point of ItunesisEvil and your posts: Web sites must change to accommodate Apple.

    Web sites must not change to accommodate Apple. They must change to accommodate open standards, by dropping Flash. Big difference. You are getting confused here because Apple only happens to be the champion of the open standards cause at the moment, and unlike, say, 15 years ago, they now have enough market dominance to make a positive impact, so people pay attention.

    Which doesn't change the fact that Apple is using open standards as an excuse to not provide Flash. And if the world "must" change to accommodate open standards, we'd all be using Linux by now.
    Besides, now that multitasking is coming and the camera is much beefier, lack of Flash is now the iPhone's sole glaring weakness. And just like every smartphone maker put on a better camera in the past, you can bet the other guys will hype the fuck out of the fact that their phones open more sites than the iPhone.

    I'm sure that, for Apple, that is a calculated risk. And I am not entirely certain that, like I said above, the "our phone opens more pages than Apple's!" is going to be a major selling point.

    You'd be surprised. "Our camera has loads more megapixels than the iPhone's piece of shit!" has worked pretty well to draw in a fair number of people, even though the current model's camera is serviceable.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Also our phone is for a cell carrier with better 3G coverage.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    There are millions of iPhone owners. If you sat down and asked each of them, "would you rather your iPhone opened up websites with big chunks missing, or would you rather them run all the information," I'm sure nearly all of them would pick the latter.

    Trust me, it's a weakness.

    I agree that it's a weakness.

    However, most people visit only a select number of websites on their mobile devices everyday. They check their favorite newspapers, their favorite blogs, their favorite forums, check their email, etc. So if you asked them that question, it would be a loaded question because it doesn't apply to a lot of people. Like I said previously, the only websites that would have large chunks missing would be small providers, or those with alternatives.
    Which doesn't change the fact that Apple is using open standards as an excuse to not provide Flash. And if the world "must" change to accommodate open standards, we'd all be using Linux by now.

    Not the world. The WEB. Big difference.
    You'd be surprised. "Our camera has loads more megapixels than the iPhone's piece of shit!" has worked pretty well to draw in a fair number of people, even though the current model's camera is serviceable.

    A fair number of fucking idiots, you mean. Because anyone with the smallest bit of knowledge about how cameras work and what "megapixels" mean know that they won't see the difference between a 3.2 megapixel vs. a 4.0 megapixel camera (for example) unless they print those pictures or do photo editing. In which case, they would probably go with an actual digital camera, or a DSLR.

    I have no problem with ignorant fools picking other mobile devices because their cameras have "bigger megapicksuls lolz". I'm sure neither does Apple.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    There are millions of iPhone owners. If you sat down and asked each of them, "would you rather your iPhone opened up websites with big chunks missing, or would you rather them run all the information," I'm sure nearly all of them would pick the latter.

    Trust me, it's a weakness.

    I agree that it's a weakness.

    However, most people visit only a select number of websites on their mobile devices everyday. They check their favorite newspapers, their favorite blogs, their favorite forums, check their email, etc. So if you asked them that question, it would be a loaded question because it doesn't apply to a lot of people. Like I said previously, the only websites that would have large chunks missing would be small providers, or those with alternatives.

    I think you underestimate just how many sites use Flash. Even if you just visit a select few, the chances that one or more of them have chunks missing due to Flash are fairly high. Not to mention the staggeringly huge number of people who like playing Flash games on Facebook. It's a very commonly used tool, hence the problem with Apple excluding it.
    Which doesn't change the fact that Apple is using open standards as an excuse to not provide Flash. And if the world "must" change to accommodate open standards, we'd all be using Linux by now.

    Not the world. The WEB. Big difference.

    ...which IS the world nowadays. The World Wide Web, in fact. :P
    You'd be surprised. "Our camera has loads more megapixels than the iPhone's piece of shit!" has worked pretty well to draw in a fair number of people, even though the current model's camera is serviceable.

    A fair number of fucking idiots, you mean. Because anyone with the smallest bit of knowledge about how cameras work and what "megapixels" mean know that they won't see the difference between a 3.2 megapixel vs. a 4.0 megapixel camera (for example) unless they print those pictures or do photo editing. In which case, they would probably go with an actual digital camera, or a DSLR.

    I have no problem with ignorant fools picking other mobile devices because their cameras have "bigger megapicksuls lolz". I'm sure neither does Apple.

    I think you underestimate just how many "ignorant fools" there are out there that are still swayed by megapixel numbers. We still have around half of all HDTV owners hooking up their sets with SD cables. And it's certainly enough of a factor to encourage every single other smartphone out there to make sure they have a more impressive camera than the iPhone.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I think you underestimate just how many sites use Flash. Even if you just visit a select few, the chances that one or more of them have chunks missing due to Flash are fairly high. Not to mention the staggeringly huge number of people who like playing Flash games on Facebook. It's a very commonly used tool, hence the problem with Apple excluding it.

    Jobs already covered the games aspect. Even if people could play Flash games on their devices, the experience would be shitty due to the fact that Flash does not support touch interfaces. So that point is completely irrelevant.

    As for websites, I guess we'll see as time goes by.
    ...which IS the world nowadays. The World Wide Web, in fact. :P

    Well no. Linux is an operating system that works locally on the computer itself. The web is a distributed network of servers and the content they provide. So they are completely different realms.
    I think you underestimate just how many "ignorant fools" there are out there that are still swayed by megapixel numbers. We still have around half of all HDTV owners hooking up their sets with SD cables. And it's certainly enough of a factor to encourage every single other smartphone out there to make sure they have a more impressive camera than the iPhone.

    *shrug*

    It may be part of Apple's overall strategy. By intentionally keeping their camera lower quality, they are baiting other phone manufacturers to focus on that (minor) aspect of the phone at the expense of other, more important features.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I would just like to step in a moment and say: "AAAAAAAAAAA FLASH D:"

    Because that damn plug-in repeatedly crashes in Chrome (within the past week the damn thing went down twice in two days) and I'm fairly certain is what keeps bogging down my entire computer

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I think you underestimate just how many sites use Flash. Even if you just visit a select few, the chances that one or more of them have chunks missing due to Flash are fairly high. Not to mention the staggeringly huge number of people who like playing Flash games on Facebook. It's a very commonly used tool, hence the problem with Apple excluding it.

    Jobs already covered the games aspect. Even if people could play Flash games on their devices, the experience would be shitty due to the fact that Flash does not support touch interfaces. So that point is completely irrelevant.

    As for websites, I guess we'll see as time goes by.

    I'm not the most technical-minded person in the world, but I really wonder how Flash "not supporting touch interfaces" would really affect most uses of Flash. After all, the Web wasn't originally designed for touch interfaces, and it works fine. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have Flash working in 90% of cases rather than non-working in 100% of cases.
    ...which IS the world nowadays. The World Wide Web, in fact. :P

    Well no. Linux is an operating system that works locally on the computer itself. The web is a distributed network of servers and the content they provide. So they are completely different realms.

    True, but the fact remains that the fact that being open-source didn't cause Linux to set the world on fire. And the web was doing just fine with the allegedly "closed" Flash for well over a decade before the iPhone came along.
    I think you underestimate just how many "ignorant fools" there are out there that are still swayed by megapixel numbers. We still have around half of all HDTV owners hooking up their sets with SD cables. And it's certainly enough of a factor to encourage every single other smartphone out there to make sure they have a more impressive camera than the iPhone.

    *shrug*

    It may be part of Apple's overall strategy. By intentionally keeping their camera lower quality, they are baiting other phone manufacturers to focus on that (minor) aspect of the phone at the expense of other, more important features.

    Actually, I'd bet most manufacturers figured it would be the easiest way to one-up the competition rather than take the time to truly think things out and come up with something unexpected yet revolutionary.

    That kind of laziness/haste is exactly why I'd bet all the competitors will bend over backwards to incorporate/tout Flash over the next year.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    I would just like to step in a moment and say: "AAAAAAAAAAA FLASH D:"

    Because that damn plug-in repeatedly crashes in Chrome (within the past week the damn thing went down twice in two days) and I'm fairly certain is what keeps bogging down my entire computer

    Almost every time I open a website with a lot of flash it makes my fans go "VROOOOOOOIT'SGETTINGHOTINHEREOHSHIIIIIIIIIIIIII"

    KalTorak on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    It is one thing to say customers can choose whether or not they want an iPhone. It's another thing entirely when the existence of the iPhone eliminates options for the rest of the market, whether they've bought in or not.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thoughts on Flash
    Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

    Well good to see that Steve starts with a a fairly disingenuous statement. Flash is closed in only the most literal minded interpretation of close. The format is open, there are dozens upon dozens of free Flash authoring tools - allowing you to develop in a pelethora of languages, Adobe even provides free Flash player targeting tools (in the form of the Flex SDK). Adobe have produced free, open source servers, the on wire protocol (AMF) is open. It's all (with one exception) open.

    The only thing that isn't 'open' is the plugin itself, and that's because it makes both technological and business sense to avoid the runtime being forked. Sure that leads to problems due to Adobe being laggards and kanves when it comes to bug fixes but for Steve "you can only develop for the IPhone in these languages" Jobs to accuses Adobe of closedness reminds me of one cooking implements making derogatory comments on the colour of another cooknig implement.

    Considering just how closed and proprietary Apple is with their products, it is kind of absurd for him to be pointing it all out.

    Evander on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    "Less options" is completely fine since the option that is being pushed towards extinction is one that is unstable and insecure. These are very real problems on the World Wide Web. And it's not like Flash is dying and being replaced with nothing else. There are multiple standards under development - this move by Apple will just accelerate that, which is great.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    True, but the fact remains that the fact that being open-source didn't cause Linux to set the world on fire.
    It's enough to make Microsoft throw a fit and try to prevent interoperability, as well as fighting with the EU to try and prevent the release of specifications as they were ordered to (and the first round of them were so poorly written they were all but useless). Linux and OpenDocument (among other open standards) are gaining acceptance with governments, companies, and other organizations world-wide.

    x264 is the best H.264 encoder available, and it is also open source. Google/Youtube uses the ffmpeg libraries for converting video.
    And the web was doing just fine with the allegedly "closed" Flash for well over a decade before the iPhone came along.
    For various definitions of "well". Generally speaking Flash is an unstable CPU hungry monstrosity.
    Lanz wrote: »
    I would just like to step in a moment and say: "AAAAAAAAAAA FLASH D:"

    Because that damn plug-in repeatedly crashes in Chrome (within the past week the damn thing went down twice in two days) and I'm fairly certain is what keeps bogging down my entire computer

    Shockingly enough, I've never had the 64-bit version of Flash for Linux crash Chrome. That's a big step up from every other version I've used for Linux :P

    That's to say nothing of the period of time where they didn't release an entire major version of Flash for Linux and several websites were broken since they decided to use the most recent version for which there was no plugin.

    Barrakketh on
    Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    "Less options" is completely fine since the option that is being pushed towards extinction is one that is unstable and insecure. These are very real problems on the World Wide Web. And it's not like Flash is dying and being replaced with nothing else. There are multiple standards under development - this move by Apple will just accelerate that, which is great.

    Again, your argument is "Apple knows what is good for you, so shut up and take it."

    If a format is as bad as you and Steve claim flash is, then it will die out naturally. There is no need to force it.

    My understanding was that the prevalance of flash had a lot to do with the ease of making things for it. If this is the case, then that would be a good reason WHY it would be popular, and you know what? Allowing it to live out its natural life would mean that it would encourage whatever format that comes along to replace it to be just as easy, or easier, because it would have to compete directly (I may be wrong about the ease thing, but in that case, substitute in whatever other benefit flash does carry.)

    By killing flash off prematurely, just because steve holds a grudge, you prevent the competative marketplace from doing its job, and shaping the product that consumers WANT, rather than just the product that Steve Jobs wants to sell consumers on.

    Evander on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't own an iPhone (or any smartphone), but if it ends up killing Flash, I will be one happy camper. In fact, it would make the iPhone the gadget that had the most positive influence on my digital life in 2010, without me even owning one!

    enc0re on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    It is one thing to say customers can choose whether or not they want an iPhone. It's another thing entirely when the existence of the iPhone eliminates options for the rest of the market, whether they've bought in or not.

    Isn't your argument somewhat neutered by the fact that the only way the iPhone eliminates widespread use of Flash on the web would be if a not-insignificant percentage of users wind up using the web from their iPhone and iPhone OS devices?

    Also where is my option right now to browse sites without flash bogging down my system with ads, videos and whatnot, while still viewing that content? It's not like the current ecosystem is any more "open" in this regard.*

    If the iPhone can get sites to offer flash-less alternatives, perhaps using HTML5, I'm happy with that. If it winds up sending Flash the way of the floppy disk, well, I'm fine with that too. I just want a stable browsing experience that doesn't make my hardware chug like a fratboy at a kegger.


    EDIT: *Outside of Youtube's HTML5 viewer, where even then it still feels like that is taking a backburner to updating their Flash interface.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    "Less options" is completely fine since the option that is being pushed towards extinction is one that is unstable and insecure. These are very real problems on the World Wide Web. And it's not like Flash is dying and being replaced with nothing else. There are multiple standards under development - this move by Apple will just accelerate that, which is great.

    Again, your argument is "Apple knows what is good for you, so shut up and take it."

    If a format is as bad as you and Steve claim flash is, then it will die out naturally. There is no need to force it.

    My understanding was that the prevalance of flash had a lot to do with the ease of making things for it. If this is the case, then that would be a good reason WHY it would be popular, and you know what? Allowing it to live out its natural life would mean that it would encourage whatever format that comes along to replace it to be just as easy, or easier, because it would have to compete directly (I may be wrong about the ease thing, but in that case, substitute in whatever other benefit flash does carry.)

    By killing flash off prematurely, just because steve holds a grudge, you prevent the competative marketplace from doing its job, and shaping the product that consumers WANT, rather than just the product that Steve Jobs wants to sell consumers on.

    No, his argument is actually "Actually, yeah, I agree with Apple here, Flash kinda sucks."

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Fun Note!

    I paused a video just now because I got a phone call while trying to watch the Daily Show's extended interview with Ken Blackwell. I then hit the play button after getting off the phone.

    What happens?

    The tab seizes up, and Chrome presents me with
    Plug-in Unresponsive

    The following plug-in is unresponsive: Uknown
    Would you like to stop it?

    Yes No

    Hitting yes disabled every flash object on the page, and presented me the error bar message "The following plug-in has crashed: Shockwave Flash"

    And then the entire browser crashed.


    Screw. Flash.


    EDIT: And now it is running again after a browser restart, and is only giving me sound and no video.

    FLASH! AH AAAAAAAH!

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Jesus. Nobody understands what anti-trust/competition policy is supposed to do. It's not about preventing big monopolies or just cracking down on whatever practices you consider "shady". It's about applying the government to foster competition in the free market. If Apple is taking steps to increase the app lockin on the iPhone: making it more difficult to port to other platforms, that's a valid concern for competition policy. And you don't have to make switching over completely impossible to start to see negative effects; simply increasing the cost of switching away can stifle competition. Lifting those barriers means the cost of making a cross-platform app goes down, you see more cross platform apps, and you get a more competitive smartphone market.

    The whole idea that a company can "earn" the right to operate without or suppress competition is just squirrely.
    The iPhone hardware, the iPhone OS, the app store, and the apps on the app store are all a single product as far as Apple is concerned. The app store is not a free market. It is a private retail outlet that Apple exclusively operates. The "free market" is different platforms competing with one another, and in the iPhone's case the hardware, software and app store collectively comprise one of those platforms. Note that the "free" market also includes people using third-party tools to allow them to run whatever code they like on their iPhones. I just don't see how it is anticompetitive for apple to change the rules of their own store, their own platform. Especially given that there are legitimate technical reasons for hindering cross-platform app development.

    Besides, the smartphone market is already quite competitive, and in no way comparable to the market for desktop operating systems circa 1998.

    The only "technical reason" why they are stopping cross platform development is that one particular cross-platform technology is a pile of crap. Good cross platform implementations can create perfectly functional and performant apps. Which is why I think that disallowing all cross-platform technologies is Kind Of A Dick Move™. Now I hate Flash as much as the next guy and I love seeing them get punched in the gut by Apple, but I think the broad restrictions are a bit much. They're deliberately increasing the cost of cross-platform development, which means that more apps are going to be iPhone-only just because they're the biggest guys on the block. Which in turn hampers competition from other platforms: if they don't have the apps, there's really nothing they can do in that area to be attractive to consumers. And just because it's "their" platform or that they think their whole ecosystem should be treated as a single product doesn't mean Apple should have magical immunity to competition policy. That's not how this works. You make rules to foster competition. I think preventing Apple from shutting down all cross-platform tools would be a perfectly reasonable way of doing it.

    And it's quite a stretch to say that the availability of cross platform tools is going to make apps worse. Developers aren't stupid. They can pick the platform that best suits what their application is trying to do. If what they're building is simple and doesn't need any specialized abilities of one platform, they can use the cross platform tools. If they could make a lot cooler app by writing two different versions natively, they'll do that instead.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I thought Chrome was supposed to keep the crash confined to one tab so it doesn't kill the browser?

    KalTorak on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I thought Chrome was supposed to keep the crash confined to one tab so it doesn't kill the browser?

    It's supposed to!

    Sometimes, when it's bad enough, it does not actually do this.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I thought Chrome was supposed to keep the crash confined to one tab so it doesn't kill the browser?

    I don't think you're giving Flash enough credit dude.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Either I misunderestimated Flash...OR

    Google is teaming up with Apple to make Flash look bad!

    KalTorak on
  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Either I misunderestimated Flash...OR

    Google is teaming up with Apple to make Flash look bad!

    But....Google is supposed to be teaming up with Adobe to make Flash play nicer with Chrome ohdear.png

    Barrakketh on
    Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Flash fucking up opera is about the only thing that can hard crash it, so not playing nice with chrome, built to never crash the whole thing, isn't surprising at the least.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Barrakketh wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Either I misunderestimated Flash...OR

    Google is teaming up with Apple to make Flash look bad!

    But....Google is supposed to be teaming up with Adobe to make Flash play nicer with Chrome ohdear.png

    I guess you could say that Flash is getting

    8-)

    double-teamed

    KalTorak on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    The faster the web adopts HTML5, the faster Microsoft has to actually add HTML support to IE9.

    FyreWulff on
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    It tends to eat a ton more ram when you have a lot of tabs open. So, i'm not ready to switch to it.... plus no Ad-Block?

    DanHibiki on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    It tends to eat a ton more ram when you have a lot of tabs open. So, i'm not ready to switch to it.... plus no Ad-Block?

    AdThwart (1620) - 175,621 users
    Blocks ads using the Firefox AdBlock Plus filter engine. Kiss ads goodbye and browse in peace!
    AdBlock by gundlach
    (3790) - 792,135 users
    AdBlock for Chrome! Blocks ads all over the web. Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars by our users!

    https://chrome.google.com/extensions/search?itemlang=&q=Ad+Block

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People want options.

    They do have options, if they really want them. Android, Win7 phone, palm, etc...

    Steve Jobs is attempting to influence the entire industry to move away from Flash. You are defending that.

    If he succeeds, THAT is what i mean but less options.

    "Less options" is completely fine since the option that is being pushed towards extinction is one that is unstable and insecure. These are very real problems on the World Wide Web. And it's not like Flash is dying and being replaced with nothing else. There are multiple standards under development - this move by Apple will just accelerate that, which is great.

    Again, your argument is "Apple knows what is good for you, so shut up and take it."

    If a format is as bad as you and Steve claim flash is, then it will die out naturally. There is no need to force it.

    It wouldn't die out without central plannign like apple is doing! Because enabling flash adverts are not a choice (easily) given to consumers and because the native language of applications is not somethign that customers are privy to!

    Cellphones and (soon) tablets are a dynamic market. Apple is giving consumers the choice of a centrally-vetted experience with their products, but with restrictions. Google and Palm are giving consumers the option of unvetted unrestricted experiences where they can manage their own "systems".

    What you are asking for is for apple (and all companies, really) to offer only the products that you want. If all companies complied with your ridiculous "ideals" for consumer-oriented capitalism, there really wouldn't be any real product differentiation - just metric advances and price cuts.

    A commodity market is not the only form of healthy market, and is in fact an unhealthy market for all products except interchangeable commodities!

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Will, I have no issue with apple not offering Flash.

    My issue is with the idea that because apple doesn't offer flash, everyone should harken to the word of Jobs, and follow suit.

    Evander on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You're mad that Jobs is trying to get people to buy his phones?

    KalTorak on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Will, I have no issue with apple not offering Flash.

    My issue is with the idea that because apple doesn't offer flash, everyone should harken to the word of Jobs, and follow suit.

    I mean I think that Flash sucks, and as such would prefer that people not use it. However, I'm all for market diversity.

    If I were coding up a website these days though I would avoid flash for market reasons, among others.

    But people certainly have the option to build websites that won't work on iPods, just as they have the option to refuse MS's internet standards and make their pages nonfunctional in IE.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
Sign In or Register to comment.