Typophile
Yes, we all need Safari, iPads, -Pods, -Phones ...
Care to elaborate on this? I think I understand, but I'd like to hear some greater justification.
Apple put up some demos on their site showing of HTML 5 features. Alas, they also restricted the demos to the Safari Browser.
Yea, kind of dumb.
Okay, that's what I thought. Yes, that is kind of dumb.
It’s called marketing…
It’s called marketing…
It's also called attempting to monopolize a market. Such strong-arming tactics, along with Apple's challenge to Microsoft as the highest cap software corporation, are likely to prompt malicious hackers to turn their attentions to the Mac OS...
I had the link to the image from the German blog blog.fefe.de.
He also explains (in German), that a Safari demo video shall exclude Chrome. It is not only advertizing for Safari, but also for Quicktime.
It’s a bit complicate. If I understand him correctly, the video is manipulated and contains a redirect to this file. Well, I don’t understand the rest, but he says, that the only reason for the redirect is, to exclude Chrome. He says, that Chrome would play this.
By the way, the links should have another color here. They are hardly to recognize without the strong-tag.
"It's also called attempting to monopolize a market."
Well, in this case, they are advocating for HTML 5, which isn't really a market that can be owned.
There was no reason to limit it to Safari other than a few of Safari's fancy CSS transitions.
"are likely to prompt malicious hackers to turn their attentions to the Mac OS"
Uh...OSX has been around for a while now. This is not new news.
Uh...OSX has been around for a while now. This is not new news.
True, but it hasn't been under constant attack, as Windows has been for a long time, primarily because the number of Windows users far exceeded the number of Mac users. The Mac OS hasn't been--and isn't immune to attack: there simply haven't been enough targets to justify the effort...
"there simply haven't been enough targets to justify the effort"
That and it's Unix, so quite a bit more secure than an unpatched Windows 2000 box running IE.
Again, as he mentioned, "hackers" and exploiters were pretty much dedicating all their time to finding flaws in Windows, since (at one time) it owned pretty much all of the OS market. It's not that MacOS/Unix is unhackable, it's that most "hackers" are both working on Unix/Linux and are focusing all their efforts on Windows.
Lately, Apple has been bothering me so much. This is just another thing to add to the list.
"It's not that MacOS/Unix is unhackable"
Right. It's that UNIX based operating systems are typically much harder to exploit than older versions of Windows were.
But this is a tired, old, silly debate.
If and when the day comes that a magic hole is found in OSX requiring us all to fork over $40 to Mr. Norton, so be it, but it's hardly a valid point to be dwelling on while writing one's anti-apple manifesto.
To get the discussion back on track, I like where Apple is going in shying away from Flash. I'm not going to miss it.
However, I'd like them to also realize that as they push for open web standards, they really shouldn't be doing silly things like requiring Safari. Granted, I'm sure they know what they're doing and it's that their main demographic really just doesn't care. They are mainly focusing on the iOS these days and I can sort of concede that WebKit and Safari will be the primary presentation layer technologies being used.
Given that HP/Palm's WebOS is also heading down that path, that might be the one to keep an eye on.
I feel like all the people (not specifically you, but possibly) who say HTML5 is better than Flash and that it's a good thing that they're moving away from flash don't really realize the capabilities of what Flash can actually do. It excels in so many categories that HTML5 can't even begin to touch right now. Hulu put it well:
We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs. Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user.
And Apple knows that 90% of MacOS users don't know all this, and they so easily brainwash tons of people to think that HTML5 is the savior (again, not specifically you... just a lot of people I've talked to on the subject.) Granted, it will be an excellent addition to web standards, but there's no reason to say it's completely better than Flash.
And as for paying $40 for Norton... nobody I know who owns a PC has anything like that on their computer. Only moms who don't know what they're doing pay for that useless, memory-hogging program :)
I like where Apple is going in shying away from Flash. I'm not going to miss it.
Perhaps you won't; however, to us lesser mortals who paid to have Flash templates developed for our websites, we have Mr Jobs and Co. to thank--yet again--for turning our investments into crap...
I can appreciate that particular frustration. However, building a web site that requires 3rd party plugins to be usable has always been a risk. Lots of browser plugin technologies have come and gone.
Lots of browser plugin technologies have come and gone.
Flash is pretty mature, and has aged well, at 14 years old and counting...
I hate Flash. But it is presumptuous from Mr Jobs, that he wants to change the web according to his values.
I am really contented with Windows since XP. I never had a problem with malware on Windows. And the software available for Windows fills almost all of my needs.
However, building a web site that requires 3rd party plugins to be usable has always been a risk. Lots of browser plugin technologies have come and gone.
Lol, "Flash Player penetration"!
It’s porn. And therefore Steve Jobs don’t want to support it. That must be the explanation.
"But it is presumptuous from Mr Jobs, that he wants to change the web according to his values."
And it is presumptuous for Adobe to want to change the web according to their values.
Adobe wants the web to remain heavily Flash based. Steve wants it to move on towards HTML 5 technologies. Both are being arrogant about it. But I'm going to side with the team going the standards route vs. the 3rd party plugin route. (And will gladly criticize Apple for making their demos require Safari)
Adobe wants the web to remain heavily Flash based.
This may be, but does Adobe suppress technologies, that were not developed by Adobe? It’s the decision of the user, if he installs Flash.
Steve wants it to move on towards HTML 5 technologies.
He wants to make money. He does not think different.
And it is presumptuous for Adobe to want to change the web according to their values.
Last time I checked, you didn't need to buy an overpriced Adobe computer to run Adobe apps...
"This may be, but does Adobe suppress technologies, that were not developed by Adobe?"
I'm still waiting for them to release Freehand 12. ;)
In this debate there seems to be an attempt to label one the good guy, the other the bad guy. Both companies are looking out for their best interests. Unfortunately for Flash, it never was a built in web standard, so they've always been at the mercy of the plugin model. That's a risk.
Ironically, prior to the Macradobe merger, Adobe was pushing for things like SVG. They were actually on path towards embracing the more open standards.
"Last time I checked, you didn't need to buy an overpriced Adobe computer to run Adobe apps..."
No, but you'd buy overpriced Adobe software to develop Adobe flash apps.
People like vilifying Apple while embracing Adobe. There really isn't much of a dichotomy there. Both are aiming to do the same thing: control a chunk of the web.
No, but you'd buy overpriced Adobe software to develop Adobe flash apps.
Actually, you don't: there are a number of inexpensive programs available--like Swish MiniMax 3 for $69.95, upgrades for $14.95--that will produce Flash movies. I don't need Flash at all for the template I purchased (although I have it because it came with the CS3 package I bought). I can make all the changes I need by editing two XML files in a simple test editor.
And, FWIW, I'm mot a big fan of Adobe because of their misinformation campaign, several years back, to discredit TrueType as a professional font format. However, Adobe has a LOOOONG way to go to achieve the arrogance of Apple...
I'm still waiting for them to release Freehand 12. ;)
That’s not comparable. If this is anybody’s fault, than it’s Macromedia’s.
By the way, they also stopped LiveMotion, which I had purchased (2nd hand) and which was much more intuitive than Flash. (I purchased it, when I already did know, that they were going to stop the development. But I directly felt home in LiveMotion.) Discontinuing the development of their own software is more in the responsibility of Adobe. I don’t know, if you are right with the price. It’s not only dependent from the costs of the development, but also from the number of sold licenses. And with regard to the protection of the software, Adobe is generous. I assume, that Photoshop is illegally used on 90% of all computers, on which it is installed. Maybe that’s Adobe’s way, to make people addicted and to get their monopoly position. (Microsoft follows the same politics: Let the Chinese use Windows illegally and in ten years they have no alternative anymore.) But at least Adobe does not tell dishonest shit about moral values.
ImageReady also was great. Adobe should not have stopped the development.
Adobe wants the web to remain heavily Flash based.
As someone who works at Adobe (but is not an official representative) I don't really see it that way. It just so happens that for a long time Flash was a better way to do certain things that were not possible with HTML. HTML5 will likely do a great many of those same things and some of them it will do better. But some of them it will do worse. And it is likely that there are some things that HTML5 + CSS3 will not do that Flash can do without loads of additional work. (hyphenation anyone?) It's Apple's choice what to support with their products, but I am of the opinion that their customers would be better served if they had the option of running Flash content if they choose. My only regret is that Android is not as mature and fully intuitive as iOS or I would fully be on that bandwagon. *sigh*
There's also this: A Flash player written completely in JavaScript that can play Flash animations without the Flash plug-in (including on iPhones and iPads).
also, if you want to see how well your browser handles the demos, surf over to the safari developer site:
http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/
"But at least Adobe does not tell dishonest shit about moral values."
Huh?
oh, and
Safari will be the next IE6.
I read that last article but just can't agree with the conclusion. The claim that Safari is going to become a proprietary walled garden for Apple is counter to what they are actually doing with Safari...using an open source rendering engine that is adhering to more and more modern web standards.
Apple has always had control over their user experience in a way that others haven't. They've decided that's a distinguishing selling point and seem to have done OK with it. There are things I like about it and things I don't like about it but the arguments that the iOS should be more like Android is rather silly, as we already have Android that is like Android. And if we're lucky WebOS will survive, Windows7 Mobile won't suck and maybe even one of the linux attempts like Bada will gain some traction too.
I'm just thrilled that so many of these devices are supporting relatively modern and open web technologies.
I'm just hoping that Apple will be better than Microsoft.
After some ten years Microsoft started listening to typographic community. See where it brought it. Let us see how Apple does this. It has a bad start with iBooks with rather nasty justification.
Captured from web.archive.org on 13 Jun 2010. view this capture