General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Runding
 
Runding's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
I assume your phone just makes calls now right? People ARE replacing computers with cell phones.

Look at the phones coming out right now. Both the Incredible and EVO are getting to the point that they can become PC replacements. Tack on 4g network, and you have speeds comparable or faster than your standard cable broadband.

On phones now, you can Open, edit, and save Office documents, browse the web, send and receive emails, play games, listen to music, take pictures, take video,

On phones just out or coming out very soon (within the next month) you can video conference

Other than your specialized items, why can't you use a cell phone as a straight up computer?
My point is not that phones are becoming very similar -- it's that they AREN'T computers. It's standard to browse the web. It's also standard to text. It's standard to talk on the phone. It's not standard to view flash. Tell me sir, how many phones do you know of that support flash?

Quote:
Adobe announced at the GSMA Mobile World Congress here Monday that Flash Player 10, which is the full version of Flash that runs on PCs, will be available on smartphones running Windows Mobile, Google's Android, Nokia S60/Symbian, and the new Palm operating systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
You were saying?

When they first announced that it was to be released in 2009. They've been promising for quite a while, but hasn't happened. As I said, it's not a standard, therefore not a viable "no flash I hate it blah blah blah".

Now, on the iPad, I think its stupid they don't support flash, but I could care less if the iPod/iPhone supports it.

now stfu
__________________
aa1ce3c1c9744c586fa4d28e62ff485b
Old 05-18-2010, 08:35 AM Runding is offline  
Reply With Quote
#166  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runding View Post
My point is not that phones are becoming very similar -- it's that they AREN'T computers. It's standard to browse the web. It's also standard to text. It's standard to talk on the phone. It's not standard to view flash. Tell me sir, how many phones do you know of that support flash?




When they first announced that it was to be released in 2009. They've been promising for quite a while, but hasn't happened. As I said, it's not a standard, therefore not a viable "no flash I hate it blah blah blah".

Now, on the iPad, I think its stupid they don't support flash, but I could care less if the iPod/iPhone supports it.

now stfu


All Android phones currently support flash through flash lite. What I posted earlier was full blown flash for functionality in games, etc. That will be released with 2.2
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-18-2010, 08:38 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#167  

Runding
 
Runding's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
All Android phones currently support flash through flash lite. What I posted earlier was full blown flash for functionality in games, etc. That will be released with 2.2

Great. So because one company does it(I know Nokia has had it for a little bit on a few phones) it's standard?
__________________
aa1ce3c1c9744c586fa4d28e62ff485b
Old 05-18-2010, 08:54 AM Runding is offline  
Reply With Quote
#168  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runding View Post
Great. So because one company does it(I know Nokia has had it for a little bit on a few phones) it's standard?

No. But because every other OS but Apple will do it, it should be a standard.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-18-2010, 09:05 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#169  

Runding
 
Runding's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
No. But because every other OS but Apple will do it, it should be a standard.

Key word: will. It's currently not necessary.

Edit: In 2 years we'll see if Apple lost it's game by not using Flash. Who knows, they might have something else up their sleeve?
__________________
aa1ce3c1c9744c586fa4d28e62ff485b
Old 05-18-2010, 09:21 AM Runding is offline  
Reply With Quote
#170  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runding View Post
Key word: will. It's currently not necessary.

Edit: In 2 years we'll see if Apple lost it's game by not using Flash. Who knows, they might have something else up their sleeve?

HTML 5 is what they're banking on. However, that's not expected to be standardized until 2022.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-18-2010, 11:15 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#171  

gee
MY TITLE ISNT LONG ENOUGH
 
gee's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixomatosys View Post
it's not about the bandwidth, it's about how much of a CPU hog flash is.
This. Java runs fast on ARM processors - ARM9's have Jazelle, Cortex-A8's have ThumbEE. Every upgrade to java just adds new functions to the base libraries, but the java bytecode instruction set is strictly defined so hardware's designed to accelerate it.

Meanwhile, Actionscript (underpinning Flash) needs to be interpreted, it can't be bytecode-executed in a lean virtual machine like Java can. Which is slow, and needs an interpreter to be in place which hogs quite a bit of RAM. Not the most elegant thing for running on embedded systems like cellphones. Adobe claims they're working on a JIT compiler for Actionscript that will go in the next version of flash, but that'll just mean that the execution environment on cellphones will require even *more* RAM.

And don't expect Adobe to have the most efficient interpreter/compiler design out there - this is from the same company that brought you Acrobat Reader, which is probably a 50+ meg download now.
Old 05-18-2010, 04:31 PM gee is offline  
Reply With Quote
#172  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gee View Post
This. Java runs fast on ARM processors - ARM9's have Jazelle, Cortex-A8's have ThumbEE. Every upgrade to java just adds new functions to the base libraries, but the java bytecode instruction set is strictly defined so hardware's designed to accelerate it.

Meanwhile, Actionscript (underpinning Flash) needs to be interpreted, it can't be bytecode-executed in a lean virtual machine like Java can. Which is slow, and needs an interpreter to be in place which hogs quite a bit of RAM. Not the most elegant thing for running on embedded systems like cellphones. Adobe claims they're working on a JIT compiler for Actionscript that will go in the next version of flash, but that'll just mean that the execution environment on cellphones will require even *more* RAM.

And don't expect Adobe to have the most efficient interpreter/compiler design out there - this is from the same company that brought you Acrobat Reader, which is probably a 50+ meg download now.


But groups will continue to publish on flash because it's one of the most widely supported platforms.
I make something in flex, I can reasonably expect it to run anywhere the user properly installs flash.
So the mobile market is the challenge, but I don't suspect it will be for long.
__________________
09 F9
Old 05-18-2010, 11:14 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#173  

gee
MY TITLE ISNT LONG ENOUGH
 
gee's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
But groups will continue to publish on flash because it's one of the most widely supported platforms.
I make something in flex, I can reasonably expect it to run anywhere the user properly installs flash.
So the mobile market is the challenge, but I don't suspect it will be for long.
Win32 is probably the most "supported" platform out there, but you can't expect mobile phone vendors to make their phones start running EXE files. Flash and Flex were originally designed to run on PCs, not within the CPU/memory limitations of cellphones.

There's really no reason why Adobe can't make Flex Builder output compiled Java bytecode instead of Actionscript. JavaFX can play VP6 video. From the perspective of the software writer, they're still writing the same code in the same IDE - they just select a different compile target, and upload a different set of files to the mobile section of their website. Adobe still gets to sell their IDE so they're happy.

More realistically, Adobe should release a lighter Flash/Flex runtime specifically for cellphones.
Old 05-19-2010, 04:25 AM gee is offline  
Reply With Quote
#174  

iBran
 
iBran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
HTML 5 is what they're banking on. However, that's not expected to be standardized until 2022.

What are you smoking? HTML5 is already in use. Tried YouTube or Vimeo lately? Google Voice on a non-Android phone? Wanna play Pac-Man without a stupid plugin?

It's quite often that technology gets adopted before waiting for rules to be established. Did Cisco, D-Link, Dell, HP, etc wait around for 802.11n to get fully certified and standardized before implementing it?

Also, you're wrong about Android and Flash Lite. You say "every device" supports it; I guess the HTC engineers were having a lazy day because my G1 certainly doesn't have it. Didn't come with it from the factory, you can't download it from Android Market, and it's not even included in Cyanogen's ROM. Flash Lite is a browser component only on select phones; I've seen it in use on a Cliq XT... although I question its usefulness. It's not powerful enough for games, rich interactive content, etc... but it sure is great for Flash ads!

In any case, Flash Lite isn't the point. Flash doesn't belong on the mobile web. Not when it requires a $529 phone to jump into. It's a small step for the tech elite, but that's a gigantic leap for anybody else.

I really hope the big Android 2.2/Flash announcement is about native support for Flash apps. THAT would be something remarkable--a cross-platform resource of apps and developers--and, for me, that would be worth investing in a new Android phone. But if Google's idea of "freedom" and "openness" is enabling support for proprietary components on the mobile web, they can fuck off because that's not the vision of an open, free, and usable mobile web that I have. The days of "Sorry, this page requires RealPlayer! Click here to download!" should be long gone.
__________________
Two scoops of :cool:
Old 05-19-2010, 08:55 AM iBran is offline  
Reply With Quote
#175  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBran View Post
What are you smoking? HTML5 is already in use. Tried YouTube or Vimeo lately? Google Voice on a non-Android phone? Wanna play Pac-Man without a stupid plugin?

Where did I say that HTML5 wasn't in use? Am I wrong in saying that Apple is banking everything on HTML5?
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-19-2010, 09:05 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#176  

Mixomatosys
Cool Kid
 
Mixomatosys's Avatar
 
what websites do you visit on a regular basis that actually uses flash?

i know that's not the argument here, and it's the principle of the matter: letting the user choose what they want to use. but seriously.. you guys are acting like flash is the END ALL BE ALL OF THE INTERNET. which.. it's not. i can't think of one site that i visit daily that utilizes flash. youtube is the only site i can think of.. and my ipad runs that anyway.

flash used to be a great.. 5-10 years ago. it's less prominent and doesn't have much function anymore. it's not meant to be used for web video players, and everyone is realizing this. flash will be replaced for video VERY SOON, and then all that's left is newgrounds and flash games. which isn't really my thing.
__________________
red wire: right temple
black wire: left temple
Old 05-19-2010, 10:13 AM Mixomatosys is offline  
Reply With Quote
#177  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixomatosys View Post
what websites do you visit on a regular basis that actually uses flash?

I'm disabling flash to see what happens and going to common webpages

www.genmay.com (not for the ads)
www.youtube.com (including videos embedded into webpages like yahoo)
gmail.google.com
www.cnn.com
www.nytimes.com
msnbc.com

All require flash for at least one aspect.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-19-2010, 11:42 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#178  

iBran
 
iBran's Avatar
 
Wow. I don't know if you're just a troll or you're just completely clueless. Flash is not an essential part of the web. The sites you mentioned use Flash merely for embedded video, which is/was a lousy development choice. Why should I buy a new phone in order to render MSNBC's website properly? No, MSNBC should fix their damn mistake and make their content more open.

Haven't you been following Google's I/O keynote? HTML5 is here, and it's going to replace all of this Flash --especially for embedded video, but not just limited to that. And Apple's not the only one banking on it--Google's Chrome OS *IS* HTML5.

It blows my mind that those upset with Apple--claiming that the App Store is "closed", a "walled garden", and so on--are backing Adobe, of all corporations. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Flash® is not open, and Flash® is not the internet.

Flash does have its place--it's a solid, easy-to-learn platform for animation, interactive graphics, and games. But that's Newgrounds, not the internet, and certainly not the mobile internet.
__________________
Two scoops of :cool:
Old 05-19-2010, 12:06 PM iBran is offline  
Reply With Quote
#179  

Mixomatosys
Cool Kid
 
Mixomatosys's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
I'm disabling flash to see what happens and going to common webpages

www.genmay.com (not for the ads)
www.youtube.com (including videos embedded into webpages like yahoo)
gmail.google.com
www.cnn.com
www.nytimes.com
msnbc.com

All require flash for at least one aspect.

genmay is actually the only website that embedded youtube videos don't work for me. every other website with embedded youtube videos works fine for me. not sure what we have setup on VB here that is causing the problem..

not sure what you're saying is flash on cnn.com, but the entire website loads on my ipad as it does on my desktop. videos work too.

same with nytimes.. loads exactly as it does on my dekstop. embedded videos work fine. and if that's not enough, they also have apps specifically for the iphone and ipad.

yeah.. gmail requires flash for attachments i believe. however.. i have a built in mail client that does all that. why would i care?

msnbc does require flash for it's videos and stuff. however i don't read blatant left-wing agenda news. i like my news a little less bias.

flash is not an essential part of the internet. it was great for having streaming videos, but that has changed with HTML5 and everyone is realizing this.
__________________
red wire: right temple
black wire: left temple

Last edited by Mixomatosys; 05-19-2010 at 12:21 PM..
Old 05-19-2010, 12:16 PM Mixomatosys is offline  
Reply With Quote
#180  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.