Opera joins in Jobs v Flash argument
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Why html5/proprietary H.264 will fail (was) Scribd "scrappingFlash and betting the company on HTML5"
Next: Airport turns off on reboot
From: BreadWithSpam on 6 May 2010 12:08 Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > So, no stinging rebuke from Opera �� but it is clear that the web giants are > not rushing to defend Adobe from the might of Apple, and that in itself > speaks volumes. That's because, like Apple, nobody out there actually likes Flash. They've just accepted it until now because it became so pervasive and because there was, until now, little in the way of reasonable alternatives. Nobody wanted to be beholden to Adobe. The nice thing about the HTML5 standard, from the point of view of non-Apple folks, is basically the same thing which makes Apple so fond of it - it's not under a single vendor's control. No surprise that everyone who can is working on transitioning away from it. Some vendors are trying to keep support for Flash in place during this time while so many content providers are making the transition (ie. Android). Some are not (Apple). We should all be grateful that Apple, even if it was for their own selfish business reasons, are willing to take the risk that there is some short-term angst during the transition. I have no doubt that had they not used their market power to lean on various content providers, the transition away from Flash would take a lot longer. But now there are all these content providers who see the huge market for their content amongst folks who do not have Flash on their devices and that's really gotten the fire burning under them. The first biggest to join the movement, of course, was YouTube with their H.264 transition and their iPhone app. Since the introduction of the iPad, the trickle of content providers making the switch has become, well, a torrent. (sorry). -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: BreadWithSpam on 6 May 2010 12:13 BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net writes: [Dunno how, but my post got mangled, at least it looked that way on my server. Trying only once more, and my apologies if this doesn't fix it] > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > > > So, no stinging rebuke from Opera but it is clear that the web giants are > > not rushing to defend Adobe from the might of Apple, and that in itself > > speaks volumes. > > That's because, like Apple, nobody out there actually likes > Flash. They've just accepted it until now because it became > so pervasive and because there was, until now, little in the > way of reasonable alternatives. > > Nobody wanted to be beholden to Adobe. The nice thing about > the HTML5 standard, from the point of view of non-Apple folks, > is basically the same thing which makes Apple so fond of it - > it's not under a single vendor's control. > > No surprise that everyone who can is working on transitioning > away from it. Some vendors are trying to keep support for > Flash in place during this time while so many content providers > are making the transition (ie. Android). Some are not (Apple). > We should all be grateful that Apple, even if it was for their > own selfish business reasons, are willing to take the risk that > there is some short-term angst during the transition. I have > no doubt that had they not used their market power to lean on > various content providers, the transition away from Flash would > take a lot longer. > > But now there are all these content providers who see the > huge market for their content amongst folks who do not have > Flash on their devices and that's really gotten the fire > burning under them. The first biggest to join the movement, > of course, was YouTube with their H.264 transition and their > iPhone app. Since the introduction of the iPad, the > trickle of content providers making the switch has become, > well, a torrent. (sorry). -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: Jolly Roger on 6 May 2010 12:42 In article <yob8w7xrosf.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net writes: > > [Dunno how, but my post got mangled, at least it looked that > way on my server. Trying only once more, and my apologies if > this doesn't fix it] It looked fine both times here, though the initial post was in a different font on my screen, because you sent it with 8-bit UTF 16 encoding. I probably have MT-NewsWatcher set to use a different font for such posts. Your first post had these headers: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-16be Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3686/33072957.png> Your second post had this header: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii <http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4348/64405948.png> -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: BreadWithSpam on 6 May 2010 13:41 Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> writes: > In article <yob8w7xrosf.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > > > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net writes: > > > > [Dunno how, but my post got mangled, at least it looked that > > way on my server. Trying only once more, and my apologies if > > this doesn't fix it] > > It looked fine both times here, though the initial post was in a > different font on my screen, because you sent it with 8-bit UTF 16 > encoding. I probably have MT-NewsWatcher set to use a different font for > such posts. I realized afterwards that it was because of the quoted included material from Michelle's post. There were a couple of 8-bit characters in there and my newsreader detected them and went and encoded the whole message as 8bit. Then, in a bit of extra weirdness, when I went and re-read it, it didn't display any of the 8-bit text. On my repost, I removed the offending characters. (They were right after the word "Opera" in the first line of quoted material). Thanks for looking into it! > Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. Gnus! -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: Larry on 6 May 2010 13:42
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-6367C2.08010806052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi: > but that the > company needs to start embracing web standards if it doesn't want to > come under constant attack. > html5 support isn't the problem. It's the PROPRIETARY H.264 being allowed to infect the net with html5 that's the problem. H.264 will, at some point, be calling in the LICENSE FEES, or else. Or else will mean, suddenly, an awful lot of the web content Steve Jobs' iTunes wants to get rid of....their competition. I think H.264 will be the tool to accomplish that for the big elephants in the room...Apple, Micro$oft, Google, etc. If they can get rid of the freebie content providers, the RENT-A-WEB of their dreams can come out from behind the curtain, out of the basement, and slap us all in the face with fees after fees after fees. -- Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics. Larry |