I think Wired doesn't like Flash because it's not the next big thing.
Their mission is ultimately to promote technical innovations (and to
lesser extend openness), and Flash is perceived as entrenched.
If the iPad is broadly adopted, content providers like the NYT will move
away from Flash content. Another possibility is that Adobe will respond
to criticism by fixing the cited problems with Flash.
Working for a small, concept-driven software company with limited
resources, I've long appreciated platforms that let me code narrowly and
deliver broadly. In the early days this platform was Director and today
it's Flash. I'd love to be able to explore what the next decade will
bring, but I'm too busy working....
artur wrote:
/i was wondering what the communities thoughts were about this:/*
*
*
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/ten-things-missing-from-the-ipad/
*
*Flash*
Many people will bemoan the lack of Flash in the iPad. It wasn't
mentioned, but eagle-eyed viewers would have seen the missing plugin
icon on the New York Times site during yesterday's demo, and given
that Apple clearly hates Flash as both a non-open web "standard" and
as a buggy, CPU-hungry piece of code, it's unlikely it will ever be
added, unless Apple decides it wants to cut the battery life down to
two hours.
Who needs Flash, anyway? YouTube and Vimeo have both switched to H.264
for video streaming (in Chrome and Safari, at least -- Firefox doesn't
support it), and the rest of the world of Flash is painful to use.
In fact, we think the lack of Flash in the iPad will be the thing that
finally kills Flash itself. If the iPad is as popular as the iPhone
and iPod Touch, Flash-capable browsers will eventually be in the
minority.
go.
-artur
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
[email protected]
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
[email protected]
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
