Hi Roger ,
I think you are right in almost every words .
Yet you say .."....In the short term, yes, it sucks being someone somewhat
locked up with Flash ..."
We are locked in Flash ..imagine if we where locked in Quicktime ...imagine
Flash didn't develop enough to allow us to publish ( and develop ) our
work.. how would be the scenario ?dark...?Apple ?
Apple is an amazing company , but sometimes they simply seem to want to rule
the world ...alone..and that is frightening to say the least. That already
almost destroy them once ..and now (with mobiles) seems that they are
running again to the same kind of suicide game. "Proudly alone" or " Can
Ipad stop the Train ? "
Everything very well closed vs very much open.
Guess who will win?
If because of this kind of decisions they lose now the advantage in the
mobile market , and they will , how would you classify it ? Clever ?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Fernando Costa Pinto <
> fcp.fernando@... <fcp.fernando%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > The question is ..do we see any serious flash competitor in the horizon ?
> > In the other hand , Google OS is almost here.. Google phone ..with open
> > code
> > .( with flash of course)
> There are so many issues conflated, emotions combined. Apple continues to
> exactly what they do, and some express outrage and surprise, some got
> exactly what they were hoping for, and some are cautiously optimistic that
> Apple continues to push change. Some - many - here have only just recently
> gotten over feeling burned because of QTVR, and have finally warmed up to
> the idea of Flash as a platform for our content, and now feel Apple's heavy
> hand impacting panoramic work again - despite the fact that we're obviously
> of zero consequence to this issue and certainly our needs have zero role in
> determining how this drama plays out.
> Google and Apple have a good tension between them - both have been riding
> high on one success after another, and so we're seeing a bit of clash as
> they both gain footing outside of their comfort zones of 10 years ago. But
> this, I think, is great for the industry - as is the clash with Adobe.
> players could be content to carve up the market into fiefdoms, each tacitly
> agreeing to stick to their own land in exchange for unchallenged primary -
> that's how we ended up with a decade of Microsoft stagnation. Even
> is now rapidly developing new ideas, thanks to this competition. I think,
> despite the upheavals competition and change bring, it's a net benefit for
> us. There is nothing remotely ideal or finished about the Internet, so I'm
> glad to see renewed momentum behind people who want to keep refining it.
> As for Google and Flash - Google has made only the sparest use of Flash
> the years (much like any other major Web property - I can't think of a
> single, large-scale site aside from YouTube that made strategic use of
> Flash, and even they no longer need it). They will support Flash on their
> platforms because it makes sense as a strategic counter to Apple, but not
> because they are heavily invested in it, or even seem to think it's the
> right way for the Web to go - they've been as active as Apple in their
> campaign to push standards-based approaches to Web applications.
> > Seems that Apple is fighting again to keep proudly alone. It is their
> > .They almost disappear once against Microsoft . Will they survive this
> > against Google/Adobe ?They are supported entirely by mobile devices. If
> > they
> > keep this direction they will lose this one too. This is obvious. And
> > very
> > very fast.
> > It's amazing how they are so clever to produce great products , and then
> > make such stupid options.
> We'll all have to see things play out, but I think it's hubris to call a
> radically successful company with an obviously clear vision of their
> development process, stupid. It's calculated.
> > Flash is the soul of Web2 ..and the path is irreversible..we are not
> > back to boring static net. That is for sure. Sites are not made to be
> > in Ipads. Ipad has and will have a 0,00000000000000000001 ( my optimistic
> > prevision ;-) ) penetration in the global sites visits. And one (not a
> > fanboy) that buys it ..and when find that he can't have web2 will say
> > ..shit.. more garbage...shit..why did I bought this shit ..que porcaria (
> > what a shit )..
> iPhone OS has huge penetration in the mobile Web world, or we wouldn't
> remotely be discussing this. iPhones/iPads are owned by people who are
> already comfortable purchasing content and applications online; they are
> folks with disposable income; the users of this platform are, in a
> the prime demographic for anyone wanting to make money online. If you think
> that's something worthy of being ignored I commend you for your
> > Seems that the ipad does not use flash because of energy consumption . It
> > will be far easier to achieve a longer lasting battery than a Flash
> > substitute .
> It's far, far more than that. Daring Fireball, and others, have excellent
> analysis on the thinking behind this decision, so I won't bother repeating
> it all here. You may disagree with the result, or with the very strategy
> itself, but don't for a moment think that Apple doesn't have a consistent,
> steady, and largely successful strategy they are following. Whether it
> out for the best for users, for content creators, or for some other group
> really the question.
> In the short term, yes, it sucks being someone somewhat locked up with
> - I'll give you that.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]