As some people have noticed, Apple has eliminated the blue lego icon that indicates a missing plugin on the iPad. I believe that this is a not so subtle way of shifting users from believing that the iPad browser is lacking something, to believing that the site they are viewing is broken.
In response to this, I've created the blueLego edition of SWFObject 2.2. It works exactly the same as regular SWFObject, except it will display the blue lego icon, with a link to Adobe's get Flash Player page on iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
As of April 13, this page correctly displays content explaining to iPad users why Flash is unavailable on their device. This is the same content shown on the iPhone, which is described here. You're obviously free to modify the iDevice alternate content or the code itself to suit your own needs.
It is released under the MIT license, and you can download it by clicking here. Whether it is useful for production or not, I leave to you. It was created more as a statement than anything.
The blueLego art was created from scratch and I've included the source FLA so you can modify it as you like.
It looks like this in use:
You can test it by pointing your iDevice browser to this url:
http://gskinner.com/playpen/bluelego/
Thanks to Rob Hall and others for helping spark the idea.
Edit: Copying my comment from below here, to clarify the purpose of this post:
This post was *not* a Flash pro/con, or Flash vs HTML5 statement.
Apple made a conscious decision to move from fairly and correctly showing users that they were unable to display a certain type of content (whether you like that content / technology or not), to making it look like the site itself is broken. It places the apparent blame not on Adobe or Apple, but on content providers. Regardless of your position on Flash or plugins, this is wrong, and it's a dirty play by Apple.
This post, and the blueLego SWFObject library were intended as a light way to point out the issue and to help rectify it for site owners by letting them accurately convey why their content does not work on an iPad. It was not intended as some weak form of "revenge" at Apple.
Comments (90)
Nice job Grant. ;)
Posted by: Robert M. Hall at April 9, 2010 11:03 AMURL: http://www.impossibilities.com/
That's hilarious - \m/
Posted by: John Grden at April 9, 2010 11:10 AMURL:
You are awesome.
Posted by: Vera Fleischer at April 9, 2010 11:10 AMURL: http://www.mediasparkles.com
Well played! :D
Posted by: Stan at April 9, 2010 11:12 AMURL:
Haha, great job :)
Posted by: Joa Ebert at April 9, 2010 11:15 AMURL: http://blog.joa-ebert.com/2010/04/09/what-apple-just-did/
Clever. Very clever.
Posted by: David Buhler at April 9, 2010 11:15 AMURL: http://davidbuhler.org
Can we replace it with the old "bomb" icon? That will make sure Apple user's notice it
Posted by: Rob at April 9, 2010 11:16 AMURL: http://agileui.blogspot.com
I've also modified the FlashBlock script. It replaces Flash content by the blue lego...
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/67828
Posted by: Andy Li at April 9, 2010 11:17 AMURL: http://www.onthewings.net/
This is great! But I need to get an IPad to see if it works and... well I'm a little miffed right now.
Posted by: james gauthier at April 9, 2010 11:18 AMURL:
hahaha, so cute :)))
Posted by: blah at April 9, 2010 11:19 AMURL:
Man, for being on a sinking ship, you Flash guys sure have a great attitude & sense of humor!
Posted by: Carlos at April 9, 2010 11:20 AMURL: http://www.carlos.com
Isn't it possible just to modify your site using HTML5 and no longer require this? We just finished doing that and it is a major multimedia site with interactive features.
Posted by: Joe at April 9, 2010 11:28 AMURL:
I love it! Maybe it could use some message like "your browser does not support the html standard tag, please upgrade to a better one " ;)
Posted by: arpit at April 9, 2010 11:29 AMURL: http://arpitonline.com/blog
Oops. The comment parser parsed out my tag reference from my comment. It was supposed to say "your browser doesnt support the html standard embed tag ..."
Posted by: arpit at April 9, 2010 11:31 AMURL: http://arpitonline.com/blog
I appreciate the geek factor, but instead of poking fun at Apple, perhaps we (aka the Flash community) should do something more positive and constructive ... especially given the recent message from Apple.
Posted by: Scott Janousek at April 9, 2010 11:35 AMURL: http://flashmobile.scottjanousek.com/
Posted by: DH at April 9, 2010 11:48 AMAdding humor to skill to make a point like this is an excellent approach. If you pitch it right it can develop a knock on effect. Let 100 flowers bloom...
URL:
Wonderful. @Scott: I believe this is constructive. It's reminding users that apple refuses to support a defacto web standard. Those of you offended by my use of the word standard...please climb down from your high horse.
Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2010 11:49 AMURL:
I'm offended by your use of 'standard' and 'defacto', and I'm not on any hires at all.
Flash developers, I've been annoyed with Flash and its limitations and frustrations for well on a decade now. And THIS is how you choose to move forward?
Posted by: jcburns at April 9, 2010 12:01 PMURL:
Wow, some people are completely missing the point of this. This post was *not* a Flash pro/con, or Flash vs HTML5 statement.
Apple made a conscious decision to move from fairly and correctly showing users that they were unable to display a certain type of content (whether you like that content / technology or not), to making it look like the site itself is broken. It places the apparent blame not on Adobe or Apple, but on content providers. Regardless of your position on Flash or plugins, this is wrong, and it's a dirty play by Apple.
This post, and the blueLego SWFObject library were intended as a light way to point out the issue and to help rectify it for site owners by letting them accurately convey why their content does not work on an iPad. It was not intended as some weak form of "revenge" at Apple.
Posted by: Grant Skinner at April 9, 2010 12:08 PMURL: http://gskinner.com/blog/
Nice one Grant! You're not just a techological mastermind, you're also a satirical genius! :D
Posted by: randygland at April 9, 2010 12:09 PMURL: http://www.andy-hayes.com
Ahaha this is hilarious :D You made my day.
Posted by: wonderwhy-er at April 9, 2010 12:17 PMURL:
kudos!
Posted by: iknite at April 9, 2010 12:22 PMURL:
What did Apple replace the lego icon with?
Posted by: felix at April 9, 2010 12:25 PMURL:
And now that I finished being enraged(again) by yet another shady move of Apple and laughing on this funny thing to the actual comment.
It is very important thing for Flash community to embrace single way to convey the message to iPad/iPod/iPhone users in miss important part of the web. It was always possible to choose your own HTML content to show when Flash is not installed and may be Apples move was smart in that developers will be showing their own message or alternative content(where HTML can actually show alternative). This way message will be not unified and indeed will look as if sites are broken even when they show something. When thousands of sites show same message it becomes clear that it is not about sites at all but about technology that is widely used missing on your device for whatever the reasons.
Posted by: wonderwhy-er at April 9, 2010 12:25 PMURL:
Hilarious... and couldn't have come out at a better time!
Posted by: Ryan at April 9, 2010 12:36 PMURL: http://www.3ee.com
I am loving this war. The only thing I can predict about it for sure is that it will be VERY profitable for smart developers.
Posted by: Pablo Cabana at April 9, 2010 01:31 PMURL: http://www.cabanacriacao.com
I will definitely be using this. Thanks!
Posted by: Mike Keesey at April 9, 2010 01:43 PMURL: http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/
Sweet! .-)
Posted by: Kai at April 9, 2010 01:48 PMURL:
Wouldn't it be better to display an explantion or a link to an explanation to the end user?
Posted by: Iceline at April 9, 2010 01:48 PMAfter all the blue lego itself is confusing for the people that are the target market for the ipad. That way they get educated about the disadvantages of their device in a civil manner.
URL:
Nice!!!!
Posted by: Ryan D'Agostino at April 9, 2010 02:13 PMURL:
+1 on the post
will be using
Posted by: mga at April 9, 2010 02:18 PMURL: http://www.mauriciogiraldo.com/blog
I'm in!
Posted by: Mathieu Gosselin at April 9, 2010 02:54 PMURL: http://www.psykopaint.com
Nice. Backatcha: http://www.flickr.com/photos/raminf/4505686549/in/photostream/
Posted by: Ramin at April 9, 2010 03:12 PMURL: http://ramin.firoozye.com
"... to making it look like the site itself is broken."
Actually, if your site does not work on my device then your site IS broken as far as I'm concerned. Flash is not HTML. It is not in the HTML (or any World Wide Web Consortium) spec. If a HTML compliant browser does not display your site regardless of plug-ins, then your SITE is broken not the browser because it requires a non-web-standard plug-in (ubiquity of Flash on desktops notwithstanding). The more widespread this becomes, the more broken your site is.
Get over it.
Posted by: Patrick at April 9, 2010 03:42 PMURL:
I friggin love this!
Posted by: Rod O'Neill at April 9, 2010 03:57 PMURL:
@Patrick
99% of internet connected computers have Flash Player installed... sounds like a pretty "standard" part of the internet which most users expect when browsing.
Posted by: Rod O'Neill at April 9, 2010 04:07 PMURL:
Patrick - the plugin model and object tag is a standard part of the w3c spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html
The spec does indicate that the browser "must try to render [the object tag's] contents" in the case that the plugin is missing. Apple is choosing to not render anything, as opposed to utilizing the defacto industry standard (unrelated to Flash) of over 10 years of displaying a missing plugin icon. This standard provides much more information to the user than simply ignoring the content altogether.
Posted by: Grant Skinner at April 9, 2010 04:23 PMURL: http://gskinner.com/blog/
No, re-adding the blue lego is passive-aggressive and ineffective. It's also dishonest, using Apple's icon to pretend it's Apple that put that icon there. The icon represents a missing plug-in--a remediable situation in the context of desktops. You see a lego, it means you might be able to go out a find one and install it on your computer. But we know there are no plug-ins for iPads, so what the point? Feigning innocence? Have users search for plug-ins that don't exist? We're not in the business of confusing users, so why use a vague icon that's not even yours?
If you want honesty and the intended effect, then a big red X with "You need Flash Player to view this; no Flash Player is available on the iPad due to decisions by Apple." is much, much better. Of course, there'll always be blowback from any strongly statement, so get your flamesuits on gentlemen.
Posted by: Kevin at April 9, 2010 04:35 PMURL:
Haha, nice one. Keep up the good work. You're a champion.
Posted by: Daniel Carvalho at April 9, 2010 05:31 PMURL: http://danielcarvalho.com/
Come on Grant, you´re better than this, no?
Posted by: Infamous Ugur at April 9, 2010 11:24 PMI most times appreciated what you wrote on your blog but this post just seems childish and way too Adobe-ish on that end.
Some other commenters already mentioned it and its true:
When you as someone running a site don´t have propper alternative content for your flash content than of course that is your responsibility and your site is broken to the user if he doesn´t have the plugin.
And i´ve created flash content for a very long timespan myself, but one has to accept the reality: flash is in fact not even a "defacto" standard for the web anymore.
Because it only is when looking at desktops and clearly a larger and larger percentage of users are not just using their desktops or higher end notebooks to browse the web anymore.
And for most lower end or more portable devices than those either flash is not available at all or it runs at very poor not enjoyable at all performance.
I´ve used flash for many years but i find any moves Adobe makes in the recent past heavily wrong and regarding their arguing in HTML5 and Apple debates it often seems to totally miss the point and is reactionary and childish.
Adobe, if you want to have a propper argument make flash run at comptetitive performance and stability on every platform its available on.
If flash still makes the cpu fan get loud on machines that can handle Crysis just fine, well, noone else than Adobe is to blame for Flash´s worse getting reputation.
URL:
@Kevin
Very fair point man.
Posted by: funkpatrol at April 10, 2010 05:09 AMURL:
"New iPhone OS 4 feature - Instead of a blue lego, you'll now see a banner that says "YOU COULD VIEW THIS IF IT WAS IN HTML5". " WOOT live
Posted by: Joe Mong at April 10, 2010 06:35 AMURL:
...I just registered flashboyslim.com
is this win?
Posted by: sonicoliver at April 10, 2010 07:52 AMURL: http://flashboyslim.com/
But the other thing I continually forget is... apple are not the majority! the reason they avoid antitrust is because they don't move enough units, it just wouldn't stick.
I was at the library the other day for public access. There were only 2 macbooks out of the 50 laptop users in there... I don't think the girl who saved up all year to buy her $299 netbook really minds what is going on in the BMW segment of the hardware world... all she cares about is if she can play farmville or not... and she can.
So we flash devs get all uptight because we are not in the club, meanwhile forgetting that we have a much larger audience than apple already.
Posted by: sonicoliver at April 10, 2010 07:55 AMURL: http://jibjub.com.com/
What we need to do, is commit this update back to the main swfobject package, and then maybe Adobe can integrate it into their new swfobject-based publisher in FlashBuilder... ;)
This would effectively block Apple's attempt at hiding the fact they are not supporting the most popular plugin on the web, in the span of about a week? Probably too late at this point, but man it would be funny...
About the debate itself, I don't see how you can argue this isn't a shady move. They are literally trying to hide the true nature of the problem... Apple is stooping pretty low imo, very deceptive tactic mainly aimed at fooling their own users.
Posted by: Shawn at April 10, 2010 09:20 AMURL:
The irony is that in the past most flash developers left the noflash area blank. Now, that lack of concern for people without flash is coming back to haunt you.
Posted by: Jason at April 10, 2010 10:02 AMURL:
Very nice. In the end I think this is just a little stand against adobe and flash for the ipad will be around soon enough
Posted by: steve at April 10, 2010 10:34 AMURL: http://www.mynext.co.uk
I love it! You make everything all better
Posted by: Jacob at April 10, 2010 12:51 PMURL:
Classic man, I love it. For all the people saying we should be educating, we ARE. Apple obviously forgot about User Experience so even though it may seem deceptive, I think we're just reminding people what SHOULD have shown up. I'd love to be working for Apple Customer Service when a user calls up to ask what the blue lego is (As you're put on hold and they scurry around asking, "Didn't we kill the blue lego guys? - why is it still showing up?"). Great work brother.
Posted by: Chris at April 10, 2010 12:59 PMURL:
I wouldn't of had as big of issue with Apple's move if they would have informed developers before the release of the iPad. In my case I have been building an iPad app in flash for a few months and last week purchased an iPad for the purpose of testing the app. So today I called Apple and told them I would be returning this worthless pos and I want my refund. I feel for all the flash developers that got suckered into this dirty trick by Apple. There's no other way explanation for this sudden change other then to steal the money from all the flash developers who they knew were going to buy it on day 1, then get it home and open it and refuse a refund. Go screw yourself Apple!! This was a highly targeted form of bait and switch, Apple should be sued for this!
Posted by: Tony at April 10, 2010 02:24 PMURL:
Haha, i would replace the lego-logo with a "Sry, dude, u r a looser." ^_^
Posted by: jloa at April 10, 2010 04:52 PMURL: http://chargedweb.com/labs/
apple is doing some bad choices, nice job
Posted by: andre venancio at April 11, 2010 06:05 PMURL: http://www.andrevenancio.com
this is nice humor!
Posted by: Felix Sanchez at April 12, 2010 07:55 AMURL: http://www.felix-sanchez.dk
omg, this is so lame, Apple i mean. Also this kind of stuff brings problem to our lives at work.
i´m IN! dont hide your lak of support apple!
Posted by: P48l0 at April 12, 2010 08:42 AMURL: http://tracehello.wordpress.com
That's a very troubling move and i think your stop-gap solution is great. Unlike many commentors, however, i don't think of this as funny in the slightest. What if Firefox decided to quietly stop rendering the <span> tag. Do you think that would be amusing for site owners? Do you think Firefox users would think that's funny? Is it fair to tell site owners and web developers with limited time and budgets to "just rebuild it dude"? (OK, you could easily replace <span> with CSS but you get my point.)
Posted by: Roger at April 12, 2010 10:59 AMURL:
Nice work Grant. I like how your statement against Apple is in the form of a very useful piece of flash software.
I liked Kevin's idea to use this code to inform users with a polite and meaningful explanation for why the content is not available. Or you could say whatever you want and bash Apple for being a big meany. Either way, what you decide to display will be displayed in the context of _your_ content. You can't make all sites hosted from all servers display the message or logo you want. So what you say or show will be a reflection of your content.
Posted by: Jason R. at April 12, 2010 12:15 PMURL: http://www.lostvectors.com
I think this is great. Clearly, Apple is the trouble-maker and it stinks that we have to go back and update our sites to show that Apple is hiding the deficiency of their web browser experience.
At what point did the concept of a browser plug-in become this new risky thing that Apple had to thwart to protect it's users? First, it was a performance issue. Now it is Flash vs. HTML5 and the "evils of redundant options" for how we can build stuff for the web? On what planet does that begin to make sense?
I have an idea... what if VW suddenly started removing the spare tire from their cars? What if airplanes suddenly decided to only put one engine on a passenger plane? Are seats in restaurants unnecessary because everybody already has access to sitting on the floor and chairs can be wobbly (buggy)? Wait, is it true that Microsoft now demands that everyone write Windows applications only in Visual Studio (it's not true... don't start that rumor!)? Are phone companies now going to demand that we all alter our voices to talk at a certain frequency to help manage the bandwidth?
But wait... spare tires are last season, and airplanes that crash on one engine never should have flown anyway, and chairs have always been wobbly and I've always hated chairs, and if Microsoft wants to force everyone to use Visual Studio then, well, Microsoft knows best, right? And I've already been talking in a high squeaky voice ever since Chairman Jobs told us about the iPad (I am excited like a little school girl!) so... wait, at what point do these ridiculous arguments seems like a waste of everyone's time?
If ever there was a lack of "forward thinking" it was the dude who said "well... (scratches fat tummy) ... do we really have to figure out how to implement plugins in safari for the iPhone? Naaah! Just tell Chairman Jobs that we are focusing on standards... yeah that's it, we are focus on a standard that hasn't yet been nailed down while abandoning other standards that everyone has been living by for nearly 2 decades!"
Posted by: steve mcdonald at April 12, 2010 01:42 PMURL: http://enginpost.com
hey guys, wake up!
Posted by: Infamous Ugur at April 12, 2010 02:16 PMYes, we can all use Adobe products for what they are good for, but come on, don´t let yourselves get played around with like that.
Haven´t you seen the latest crazy stunt Adobe pulled off today? They present CS5 and with it the iPhone packager and explicitly say it allows to create apps for the iPhone and deploy them to the app store which is clearly very likely not the case and therefore a lie and false advertising.
So Adobe is playing cat and mouse with Apple trying to put pressure on Apple and that on the back of us developers.
They don´t care at all if now many get Flash CS5 and create iPhone apps but then can´t deploy them, that´s how much Adobe cares about the userbase. They talk nicely to us trying to fool peole into bitching about Apple as if Apple is all evil and Adobe oh so friendly but look at what they are doing.
Yeah, we can all keep on listening to their marketing spin, i think it makes more sense to reconsider what´s actually going on there.
URL:
@infamous
Sorry man. Evil is when a great product simplifies a workflow and you successfully submit a solid product to the iTunes App Store and Apple rejects it. That is evil!
At this point Adobe is holding up their end of the deal. They let us compile natively for iPhone and create no barriers for you choosing to submit those apps to Apple. It will be up to Apple to reject our investment in their iPhone OS platform.
Specifically, that requirement 3.3.1 is still in beta. I think it is a smart move on the part of Adobe to go ahead with the message. Adobes efforts are in no way changed by a poor decision by Apple.
Said another way (and more directly) Adobe claims that we can successfully build apps for the iPhone OS. Apple is the only thing that *might* get in the way of excellent Flash developed products making it onto peoples iPhones.
All I can tell you is, if I build something for Android and I am a few clicks from porting that to the iPhone, I would be willing to take a chance submitting it to the iTunes app store.
side note: I think I had a small revelation at the end of the work day today. When a plugin runs inside a browser, doesn't it basically run in it's own memory thread? And multithreading is basically part of what it takes to multitask on a device. So, is the whole "plugins are evil" position really just an excuse for the fact that the iPhone can't multitask inevitably? PS- I have watched the whole iPhone OS 4 multithreading talk and it seems more akin to the DOS TSR approach than real multitasking. It seems to me that this whole issue is an effort to blame shift and create excuses for a number of poor decisions built into the iPhone OS?
Posted by: steve at April 12, 2010 04:59 PMURL: http://enginpost.com
@infamous:
It is also worth noting. To date Adobe hasn't published a single "Apple is lazy" statement. So far it has been specifically Steve Jobs who is investing in marketing attitudes about Adobe. I would love it if Adobe would set the record straight about a few things, but I am also quite glad they are remaining professional.
Most of the people commenting and providing their analysis on the topic are every day programmers like me who have been writing code professionally for the last 10 years.
I started in 32bit windows development and was writing OOP before ActionScript was called ActionScript and did "dot-notation." I've lived through N-Tier development and have endured plenty of technology "evil" over the years... I think I know evil when I see it and Apple... and I own an iMac and a Macbook Pro and an iPhone... Apple is being pretty evil right now, in my humble but deadly accurate opinion.
I love what Apple can do, but at the moment, this move makes me want to reconsider Windows 7. Let's just say that, at the moment, my iTunes account is on pause and I am shopping for android devices.
Posted by: steve at April 12, 2010 05:12 PMURL: http://enginpost.com
This is a great opportunity to include an actionable image/link. No Flash on the iPlatform? Tell the world Apple does not support Flash. Then take them to a link where they can contact apple to request the feature. With SWFObject being the standard and the Flash loyalists behind it, a movement with a very loud voice can quickly be created.
Posted by: Ivan at April 13, 2010 05:45 AMURL: http://www.blitzagency.com
@steve:
Adobe is acting just as wrong as Apple in this situation if not worse meanwhile. If i´d develop an app for the iPhone using flash and deploy it to the app store and it gets rejected i dunno, doesn´t make sense to me to be mad at Apple THEN, one can dislike that rule now but it makes no sense to get angry when one knows they have that rules and still tries to submit something purely playing on luck because Adobe indirectly suggested doing that by still promoting their packager as fit for App Store deploy.
I´m angry at Adobe because they sell this thing knowing many will probably try it, get rejected and then be mad at Apple even if it makes no sense.
So yeah, Adobe is playing with the fate of many developers knowingly.
For me then deploying a rejected flash made mobile app to another platform is also no good alternative because the other mobile devices have way more issues than those people moan about with the iPhone.
Like for example for Android there are in my opinion way too many device types and soon also different store outlets what with verizon probably wanting to bypass the android store and enforce that etc.
All that is a developer nightmare in my opinion.
All those things have potential to become better over time, but yeah, not an equally up to it alternative right now in my opinion.
Regarding the iPhone not being able to handle real multitasking, well that depends on how you look at it, in theory, yes, of course technically one could do it just like on any other similar device, but at the same time of course it would lead to considerably worse performance and stability overall, so personally i´m happier with the solution Apple is implementing now than wohoo full real multitasking that runs at sucky performance.
And overall, yes, of course there are surely other reasonings involved, too why Apple is not allowing Flash onto their devices, but just regarding it was said flash lacks performance and stability and Adobe is lazy on that end i totally agree with Apple.
Posted by: Infamous Ugur at April 13, 2010 11:45 AMAs i said before, my machine can run Crysis just fine, so if flash content makes my machine´s fans get louder as it struggles handling basic 2D content of course Adobe has failed to deliver.
No, not a developer of content, Adobe.
When one can make kickass 3d stuff in basic javascript and gets automatic propper garbage collection with other technologies, then of course its Adobe´s fault if one has to code in AS3 with its lousy garbage collector and it still doesn´t run anywhere close as well as many other technologies.
Me and many other longtime flash developers have been complaining about this to Adobe for many years and meanwhile more and more of the seasoned ones are using unity and other technologies for more and more things flash is not performing well enough for.
I´ve also tried all the flash made iPhone apps released so far and yes, most had lousy performance on a pre- 3gs device, so yeah, again, Adobe is to blame for that.
Adobe has to finally bite the bullet and do propper hardware acceleration for all graphical operations so all content gets the performance boost it needs; they are refusing to do that for all these years because they don´t want to do too much custom work per platform and well, now they are stepwise paying the price for that.
URL:
Awesome idea Grant. Thanks
Posted by: scottrockers at April 13, 2010 02:06 PMURL: http://www.scottrockers.com
I hope all iPads crack.
Posted by: James Pint at April 13, 2010 04:40 PMURL:
This just looks like another excuse not to have alternative content. Nice.
Posted by: Andrew Rossi at April 13, 2010 04:48 PMURL:
Hehe, hilarious.
Posted by: Tim Knip at April 13, 2010 05:04 PMHowever. Why can't CS5 simply output a XCode project? Open it. Compile. Deploy. Can't see section 3.3.1 apply to such construct?
Or: why can't CS5 output html5 (hampered as it may be, use as IFallback)? We all know html5 is *in theory* the way the web should go. Adobe should simply do what its good at: content creation. So... Adobe: get to #$% work, instead of wining on non-support on some highly elite devices. I say this as a full-time Flash / SWF dev.
URL: http://techblog.floorplanner.com
This is iClassic!
Posted by: Eric Fickes at April 13, 2010 05:18 PMURL: http://ericfickes.com
Way to go Grant - I love it. Apple clearly doesn't give a crap about developers...here's hoping Android can become a viable alternative.
Posted by: Michele at April 13, 2010 06:07 PMURL:
In my opinion both Apple and Adobe are wrong. Apple, because it is not supporting enough (like the other companies who joined the Open Screen Project) and Adobe, for being asleep all this time without making any *serious* performance improvement to Flash. I know Adobe has put heaps of effort in the last period of time to bring the Flash Player to this level, but apparently, that wasn't enough, in an era where performance and usability speak louder then problem solving. HTML5 has been tested on different platforms and on different browsers. I have to say that there is no much difference performance wise, especially considering the things Flash can do and HTML5 can't. So I don't think Steve Jobs's concern was just about performance, on the contrary, I believe HTML5 isn't yet mature enough to rely on it by replacing what I think it is essential for users. And come on, Apple products ain't that perfect... Not enough to *criticize* others yet. Let's replace this blue lego, to something that will have some serious impact. I agree with Ivan. Instead of leaving the blue lego – that will just confuse most of the users making them thinking that there is something wrong with Flash and not the platform – let's put the truth. The truth is that the expected flash content can't be rendered because Apple decided that, because iPad *can't* view that. Of course before doing this, Adobe should do improvements... To keep THEIR mouth shut for God's sake!
Posted by: Omar Fouad at April 13, 2010 06:30 PMURL: http://omarfouad.net
Nice one! Let's spread it quickly
Posted by: Oliver at April 14, 2010 03:19 AMURL: http://htp://www.flashontherocks.com
Great idea! Thank you grant. People spread the word!
Posted by: mpc at April 14, 2010 09:05 AMURL: http://www.blog.mpcreation.pl/last-few-weeks/
genious
Posted by: antonio brandao at April 22, 2010 08:05 AMURL: http://blog.antoniobrandao.com/
I am confused... When I visit any site through my iPhone, I get the missing plugin image placed by the developers of the site.
BTW G you are a genius.
Posted by: Giorgos at April 27, 2010 09:46 AMAll the flash haters make me laugh. Reminds me of school children. What's wrong with you people?
And anyway if you think that HTML5 will replace Flash & Flex (what about AIR) you are very WRONG.
URL:
well played, my friend. well played.
Posted by: TheDarkIn1978 at April 28, 2010 01:18 AMURL:
Nice, Grant. This makes me thing that perhaps, you'd be able to create a Flash Player for the iPad.
Keep on ActionScripting!
Posted by: WindsorFarmer at April 28, 2010 09:42 AMURL:
#SWFObject redux FTW! Thanks.
Posted by: Edward Hotchkiss at April 29, 2010 01:10 PMURL: http://www.edwardhotchkiss.com
" Apple obviously forgot about User Experience "
Posted by: Ggg at May 2, 2010 04:50 PMwrong, adobe forgot about user experience, every product of thiers has gone down hill
URL:
Well, that's great and I wish everyone will use it just to piss Apple off. I can't stand anymore their choices and their ways to lock things/dev.
Posted by: zeflasher at May 2, 2010 05:35 PMAs a lot of developer now, I'm switching to other mobile devices. The device is nothing if there is no software on it...
RIP Apple.
URL: http://dev.webbymx.ent
Most good browsers display sites with non-standard/broken HTML as they're written. They don't add "broken HTML" icons. It's on the onus of the site developer to write to the standards. Why should plugins be considered different?
Posted by: Chris at May 3, 2010 02:49 AMURL:
I am more and more concerned by Apple Inc... and by Steve Jobs reaction to golden age... it is scary that with the same attitude they are going to select books!
Posted by: Filippo Gregoretti at May 3, 2010 08:17 AMThanks Grant for this pearl.
Love
Pippo
URL: http://www.pippoflash.com
Personally... I'd prefer markup over compiled SWF if:
1. The markup took equivalent effort.
2. The markup worked the same on all platforms (IE6 is still a significant threat in some corporate dreg standards)
What the HTML5-love-Flash-hate crowd fails to realize is that modern browser adoption rates are terrible. Until that fact changes- it's not an either / or proposition depending on the customer and visitors expectations. I love HTML5, but this garbage about it killing other older or competing technologies that are fairly well distributed isn't reasonable. These folks also fail to realize that the labor investment to build an equivalent (assuming media is used right in the first place) experience will be much higher for some stuff hand jammed for HTML as it would be in Flash. The tools aren't there...
History shows that people will install a plug-in before they update their browser... Flash haters - put that in your pipe and smoke it. Smell that? It's reality:)
Wish I was wrong, cause I really love the conceptual utility and elegance of HTML5. Flash has a place in the future of the Web, it should be a different place than it has been - but a place nonetheless.
Posted by: Steve at May 4, 2010 04:59 PMURL:
I think that is a very good idea, Grant. I'm starting to use it in my own Flash components ASAP.
There has been so much recent confusion between the pros and cons of Flash, and the future of the web. That's why I recently gathered as much data as possible about the topic and presented it as a clean infographic so everybody can understand it from a quite objective point of view.
Yes, we all love those wonderful gadgets. But true reasons are much better than sales propelling smoke screens.
In a nutshell:
- The recent critique of Flash by Apple is rather inaccurate, as some of its stated limitations just don't exist.
- Adobe has done several Open Source efforts related to the Flash technology, which is more than Apple has done so far.
- Flash has a huge success nowadays as the most used online video player (75% of all Internet video), but the potential of Flash goes far beyond that as an interactive content creation tool.
- Flash Player cannot be open source because it contains some proprietary elements - including the patented H.264 codec which Adobe needs to pay. And Apple is part of the patenting group. So there's no open video standard for HTML 5 because Apple is blocking Theora.
- Flash CS5 could be used to deploy iPhone apps with no technical problem... till Apple changed the license terms just before the last Flash release.
- And nevertheless, iPhone sales are skyrocketing. If all sold iPhones till date were put in a row, they would join the West and the East coast of the United States.
If they want to keep selling cool gadgets and blocking people from using other great technologies, at least, they should stick to the facts.
Posted by: E. Serrano at May 4, 2010 06:10 PMURL: http://trebleclick.blogspot.com/2010/05/apple-and-adobe-infographics.html
Guys a few things : Firstly Apple OWNS the canvas tag - OWNS IT. That is perverse. There is no way that it can ever be implemented as a standard according to W3c guides. Secondly I came across a post regarding the ownership of MPEG-LA - which owns the licensing to record video (off almost all digital cameras), which translates right through to viewing them - no matter what the encoding - so for you to record a video you owe license fees, and to watch on youtube you also owe license fees....
As far as Adobe packaging to Android and iPhone - I feel they will simply BUY Corona - they are already a corporate sponsor of Lua - and will not be far off the acquisition i Suspect -
I hate apple - before all this happened - the development community is full of disaffected, introverted, social misfits with inferiority complexes and the retail therapy of buying Apple products has always played strongly on this feeling of inadequacy amongst apple FANBOISE - if your an apple fan - you are generally pretty sad kind of person. Its plastic a case with a logo on it .....WTF !!!!
Posted by: aristophrenia at May 4, 2010 07:14 PMURL:
Forgot to add some links....
Canvas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element
MPEG
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
Adobe -Lua
http://www.lua.org/
Corona
Posted by: aristophrenia at May 4, 2010 07:17 PMhttp://anscamobile.com/
URL:
There is something wrong with the swfobject file.
Posted by: Sebastian at May 5, 2010 11:21 PMI replaced the existing js file with one from the bluelogo zip and now every single page shows NO PLUGIN and link to adobe regardless. Saying I need Flash 9 player to view the site...
All my flash sites are working great with the original js file. Any idea what is happening?
URL:
There is something wrong with the swfobject file.
Posted by: Sebastian at May 5, 2010 11:26 PMI replaced the existing js file with one from the bluelogo zip and now every single page shows NO PLUGIN and link to adobe regardless. Saying I need Flash 9 player to view the site...
All my flash sites are working great with the original js file. Any idea what is happening?
URL:
How did Apple get the rights to use a Lego symbol?
Posted by: Kim at May 13, 2010 03:01 PMURL: http://creativezazz.com
I don't get why the iDevice doesn't just show the Alternative content. Shouldn't it?
Posted by: OP at June 4, 2010 01:36 AMURL:
could i have smackdown vs raw on playstaion 3
Posted by: Andy at June 30, 2010 04:16 PMURL: http://19120
please join me in adding this to your email signature if you use an iPhone. This is what iPad/iPhone users should
see when they try to load flash content:
Note: Apple restricts use of technologies required by products like Adobe® Flash® Player. Until Apple eliminates these restrictions, Adobe cannot provide Flash Player for the iPhone, iPad or iPod touch.
Posted by: Mike Lawrence at August 29, 2010 09:49 AMURL: