I apologize for the appalling quality of my earlier post. Cripes. I should proofread more.
At any rate, yeah, that's mostly what I was getting at, with the addendum that the simplest flash widgets that will most likely run just as well on a phone as anywhere else, should (and can easily) be written in HTML(5) instead. I assume that saying "flash is part of the web" is trying to say that such big, all/mostly flash, very interactive websites are on the web, and that any device that claims it lets you browse the web is remiss in not supporting such websites. I would say this entire line of reasoning is clearly silly. While that'd be fantastic, it's just never going to happen. Even with a flash runtime on an iPhone, you can't hover on one, and if the app presumes more than 400x300 (or whatever the iPhone screen size is), then dragging or moving the 'mouse' is completely impossible - that would have to be interpreted as scrolling the viewport. On Sep 3, 2:44 pm, James Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > You seem to be saying that there are different levels of use of Flash (from > widget / ad, up to large app). And that the larger / more complex stuff > won't work well on a phone. For instance, will a large web enterprise app > built with Flex work on a phone? Or will games with a high degree of > cursor-based interactivity work on a phone? In my experience they can work, > but just like HTML / HTML5, these experiences may not be optimized for the > screen profile, user tasks, and input mechanisms of smart phones. > > Is that what you are getting at? > > -James > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Reinier Zwitserloot > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 3:03 AM > To: The Java Posse > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: flash on android > > I never claimed that flash, the runtime, cannot run on a phone. > > I do, however, claim that the idea that a phone will give you access to the > existing flash content out there, is never going to run on a phone. You can't > fake a mouse pointer. > > There are 3 completely different discussions here, and people are mixing them > up. This is a bad thing. > > A) Flash is a development platform. For the sake of ensuring that developers > have choice in platform, and just for those who are familiar with this > platform, it would be nice if one could make apps > *specifically* written for phones, in flash. Furthermore, the common > denominator between flagship android devices and iPhones is sufficiently > beefy and capable that you could build some nice stuff and get portability > out of it. > > Note that this particular discussion is IRRELEVANT to all existing flash > content because what we're talking about here, pretty much complete apps > built in flash, won't run on a 400x300 device using direct touch for input > with no keyboard. > > Answer to this issue: I'm with Joe on this. If apple doesn't feel like doing, > what possible legal ground can one have against that? Even if we go the > principled route, adobe owns flash. There is absolutely no reason I can see > to get worked up about your freedoms as a programmer being trampled on here. > > B) Flash is part of the web, in that there's lots of simple little widgets on > websites that are written in flash. > > These widgets can more or less run on phones, though plenty of even the > simplest already use hover and the like. Also, the model of grey- > rectangle-in-a-browser is rather outdated, and at this point unnecessary. It > also gives control of a significant portion of "the web" to a private > company, which a staunch defender of the open web like myself cannot stand, > and from a security perspective this is bad news too. > > There's just no reason for this. I wish someone would create the right > incentives for people to stop doing this. No flash on phones was (and still > is) that incentive. > > C) Flash is part of the web, in that there's lots of huge flash apps on it. > Such as games on kongregate and such. > > These aren't EVER going to work on a phone. Period. The interface primitives > just aren't there. They might be _ported_ to a phone, and that porting will > be a lot simpler if phones have flash runtimes on them, but then we're in A > territory, not C territory. > > Folks are using justifications from one of these 3 completely separate areas > to push for other parts, or doing the inverse of that. That's why this > discussion appears to be going in circles, as far as you ask me. > > On Sep 2, 6:20 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Reinier, > > > Some fair points, but I really don't understand why you are so > > categorical that Flash can't work on a phone. > > > We have some pretty impressive games that are running on phones today, > > why not Flash? > > > Admittedly, the current implementations are pretty lackluster and > > buggy but they're less than a year old. I don't think we'll have to > > wait long until we can see smooth graphics and videos rendered in Flash on > > phones. > > > As for interaction (no mouse, no hover, etc...), of course, mobile > > Flash applications will have to be adjusted to phones, but again, it's > > not rocket science and more than 200,000 applications on Android and > > the iPhone combined show that developers have pretty much solved this > > problem. > > > I'm glad that Steve Jobs is questioning Adobe's dominance and I'm sure > > that some good will come of it, but I'm betting that it will be a > > while before > > HTML5 matches Flash's presence on the web. > > > -- > > Cédric > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Why does everyone continue to insist that the whole > > > grey-rectangle-in- a-browser-window approach is feasible for the future > > > of the web? > > > > Flash, *AND* crazy HTML5-powered experiments all aren't going to > > > ever run right on a phone. The notion that it ever will is a total > > > pipe dream. Adding flash support isn't going to help one iota, > > > because, as has been said, these apps are so interactive they almost > > > invariably HAVE TO make assumptions about the user interface; it has > > > to assume there's such a thing as hover (which you can do as well in > > > HTML5 and that would break your HTML5 no-flash web page just as > > > effectively on an iPhone or android phone as using flash will), it > > > has to assume there's a certain (minimum) size. It has to assume > > > there's a certain amount of processing power. > > > > In just about every case, writing such an app and presuming the > > > shared minimum amongst all platforms that the web is viewed on these > > > days is a pathetic platform that no one can write a nice app for. > > > The screen is no bigger than 400x300, there's only left click and > > > absolutely nothing else, not even a keyboard, you should be stingy > > > with processor intensive anything, and you can't assume there'll be > > > good latency or a big bandwidth pipe. > > > > Flash doesn't work for shit on android. DUH! Who was expecting > > > different? > > > > The few things where you can imagine a flash app that would work > > > quite nicely whether it runs on a phone or on a big iron desktop > > > machine are the kinds of apps that are just as easily written in > > > HTML5, and for these kinds of apps, flash just definitely just die > > > off, because HTML5 is not controlled by a single company, and > > > integrating flash + HTML5 is always going to be more difficult than > > > doing something in all-flash or all-HTML5. If the choice is between > > > only flash and only HTML5, I bet I'm not the only one that believes > > > that HTML5 is a far nicer environment than flash. So, if we must choose, > > > we choose HTML5. > > > Conclusion: Flash has no place on a phone. Yes, it sucks you can't > > > see flash sites, but that is not fixed by adding flash support to phones. > > > > The only app > > > > On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, James Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “Can be done” is different than “done”. :) There is a lot of > > > > Flash > > > content out there and it’s nice to have a phone that can render it. > > > > > In my experience more of the Flash content that is out there works > > > > on my > > > Nexus One with Flash Player 10.1 than the HTML5 content and > > > galleries. Many of the demos on the HTML5Rocks and apple.com/html5 > > > sites just don’t work on my Nexus One. > > > > > As a developer and a consumer I like to have choices and the > > > > ability to > > > pick the technology that is right for the problem. Sometimes that > > > will be HTML / HTML5. Sometimes Flash. > > > > > -James > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of work only > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:35 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Re: flash on android > > > > > Hi > > > > > Nice sites :) > > > > > But when Google says HTML5 they really means (HTML5 + CSS + JS) > > > > > Actionscript is based on JavaScript ( ECMAScript )! > > > > > From that list of 10 sites - don't see anything that can't be done > > > > with > > > HTML5 + CSS + JS :) > > > > > Paul > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Steven Herod > > > > <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Have a look at these and get back to me. > > > > >http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/best-flash-sites > > > > > On Sep 1, 2:19 pm, work only <[email protected]<mailto: > > > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > It will be a while before HTML 5 comes remotely close to what > > > > > > can be > > > done > > > > > > easily with Flash today. > > > > > > Plus that was just video (not really flash no) HTML5 can do > > > > > that easy > > > :) > > > > > > Plus what can flash do more then HTML5? > > > > > > 2010/8/31 Cédric Beust ♔ > > > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:59 PM, work only > > > > > > <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > >> thats suck - Flash is not for mobile, just does not fit, we > > > > > >> should > > > all use > > > > > >> HTML5 :) > > > > > > > It will be a while before HTML 5 comes remotely close to what > > > > > > can be > > > done > > > > > > easily with Flash today. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cédric > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > > > > Google > > > Groups > > > > > > "The Java Posse" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]<javaposse%2Bunsubscribe > > > > > > javapos...@googlegroups .com> > > > <mailto:javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googl > > > <javaposse%252bunsubscr...@googl> > > > egroups.com><javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
