Hacker News Reader

Comment by phase_9 | Hacker News Reader

Yet another HTML5 "Game Changer" which has already been available as part of the Adobe Flash Platform[1] for the best part of three years.

Just saying :)

For those down-voting me; I find this attitude very strange. If the tools were present in another widely deployed runtime, but were heavily under utilised then why are people getting so excited about them this time around?

I guess some people just love to hate Flash.

[1] http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/

View on HN

Well, stop saying. This is like arguing about the features of a lake when everyone else is playing in the ocean. Flash is proprietary and it doesn't run on mobile. These are both near show-stoppers in, and of, themselves. Combine the two and well, it doesn't matter what else it does.

Until flash runs on mobile and/or is an open standard, it won't be relevant to the future of the web most developers (myself included) want to build.

Exactly this, the fact that its available in open standards is a game changer for me.

The fact that it has been possible with various other technologies for years is not news (for me)

About that ; You can code ActionScript Flash/Flex and run the compiled applications on Google Android, Apple iOS and on BlackBerry Tablet OS.

This is possible through the use of the Flex SDK that is under the open source Mozilla Public License, for some time now.

As for the lake/ocean analogy attempt, not so much.

I guess some people just love to hate Flash.

Yes. Flash has performance and implementation issues. And developers can't do anything to improve the situation.

"issues"

That is being far too polite for what in all likelihood is the most insecure piece of software in history. Not joking. The frequency of security updates over the last decade is a disgrace. And that is without even talking about the appalling state of affairs on the Mac platform where it is still ridiculously buggy. I mean why has it taken this long to be self-updating ?

> The frequency of security updates over the last decade is a disgrace.

Would you have preferred they only released security updates once a year?

I'm guessing he would have preferred it if Flash didn't have more bugs than an entomology lab.

It's important that rapid, even numerous, security updates are never seen as a bad thing, because that would provide incentive to choose the obvious alternative for the sake of appearance, despite the actual reduction in security.

I completely agree with you. However, the updates are the symptom, and the OP was remarking upon the disease.

I merely intended to point out that if he intends to remark upon the disease, he should do so.

Ah, then I find that a wise and valid admonition.

Reliability, security, performance. Don't take my word for it http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

That is the sort of PR that doesn't get held back by facts. Also, to pretend that Steve Jobs was some sort of unilateral source of fair reasoning on the matter is either disingenuous or very short sighted. I hope it isn't both.

But please, do not take my word for it: http://truegryc.blogspot.pt/2010/05/response-to-thoughts-on-...

Look I'm not claiming Steve Jobs is exactly unbiased :) But the "real" reason given in that article can't be right: Apple's stance appears driven by their business need to protect the iPhone platform against the threat of a cross-platform competitor.

Remember the first iPhone didn't have an app store! It had a full(ish)-featured web browser that people were expected to write "apps" for. Apple continues to encourage developers to write web apps for the iPhone. They can hardly be threatened by a feature they actively promote and enable.

I see your point but when the text was produced, the app store was already going at full steam. The app store locks in the consumer when there isn't another clear path to that sort of content. The sort of content they pushed out of the plat by referencing the lack of capacity to use "touch"... give me a break, stuff like that was repeated ad infinitum. That and the other stuff on there doesn't qualify as "real" either, does it.

To the downvoter, you are a pitiful fanboy.

Well, it's usually very hard to copy other people's flash code that you might see somewhere. With webRTC/javascript, all you really need to do is "view source". This, plus mashups with other web APIs, makes webRTC a much more powerful platform than flash.

Less space than a Nomad. No Wireless. Lame.

Cool. Will help with polyfill-ing :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com