Blogs Does Flash Really Sap Your iPhone Battery?

The fact is they tried to disguise their anti-competitive practices in a shroud of lies regarding Flash, and the vocal Apple faithful lapped it up.... but it was just a smokescreen to further their own financial agenda.

Yes a lot of (the big) sites have had to adjust their sites and duplicate content to accommodate iPhones, but likewise a lot haven't. Apple's plan to push to html5 would increase the use of h.264 (and the licensing revenue the MPEGLA receives of which Apple is a major player). Of course Google have just scuppered that future increased revenue stream by giving away the VP8 codec and excluding h.264 from their browser (which has over double the users of Safari).

Apple have been working furiously to sign up magazine content, comics, television programming, films, music and software into exclusive deals for their devices. Every piece of entertainment you consume in the future will come with at least a 30% tax for them. They blocked all cross-platform development software from their platform (until anti-trust legislators started investigating), to ensure they were the exclusive suppliers of content. Their devices will only let you get content through their paywall.

In recent days, reports have emerged that they are heavily pushing retailers across the States to install near field payment systems for their new iPhones, how much of a cut will they take from your coffee and bun purchases then?

I fear a future where Apple play a dominant role, because they don't play nicely with others and they grab a cut of everything that touches their electronic devices (or where they are held nearby!), I will continue to actively discourage anyone from purchasing their goods, because they will ruin the freedoms the internet and competition have given us....

Oh and I also enjoy thousands of free apps and games through Android, safe in the knowledge I also get the FULL internet, past, present and future (Flash, html5 and all), and I can get them direct from the developer should I wish bypassing Google altogether.

 

Just to make it clear I'm not an "apple faithful". I've had andriod phones but felt the overall experience was lacking something special. And my next phone which is coming soon is running windows phone 7 (going to give it a chance). But like nexxo said, without the products apple has released the mobile phone market would still be stuck in the dark ages. There has never been so much innovation from other manufacturers in the past 3 years. Which is win win for all of us!

It's also not just Apple that's "pushing" HTML5. It's being used widely all over the internet.

When the first andriod phones came out their flash support was appalling. I had an HTC handset and was promised flash support. I was waiting and waiting and waiting. Even when it came it was buggy as hell and didn't work half the time. I think this is what put me off and made me get an iphone...I wasn't missing much.

That may have changed and the flash experience may be good now, but it was enough to drive me away. Imagine if Apple had done the same thing at the start (seeing as they had never launched a mobile before) I'm sure it would have put many users off.

As for near field tech. Google has also been pushing the tech. They were the first to release it with the samsung galaxy s.

We could go round and round in circles discussing the pros and cons to each side. But it all comes down to choice. Make one and get on with it!

Peace out!

 

As soon as Apple is mentioned, lot's of people turn into Wilhelm Tell.

/thread

 

Apple are pushing retailers to put in their terminals (as far as the rumours go anyway). I would be amazed if they aren't going to take a cut for purchases made using their (ostensibly your) phones... how about iPay, the most appropriately named Apple product ever.

 

Hahaha iPay. Brilliant. I'd imagine they have already trademarked it

 

I don't know about any posturing between Apple and Adobe.

What I do know is that 90% of the time that I firefox crash reports, it's in the Flash sandbox. So either Flash is the problem (or at least badly coded Flash apps), or the Firefox sandbox is not what it's cracked-up to be.

I'm sure flash-enabled devices will have the most market share. But Apple aren't chasing majority market share, apart from with the iPod range.

Even then, I suspect if other manufacturers, and the record companies, had been more on the bounce iPods would be a premium, but niche product. And iTunes would not the the predominant music downlaod store.

 

Thank you VipersGratitude, I was beginning to lose faith in humanity amongst all the FUD

 

Who needs flashblock, just use a 64bit web browser. Everyone knows Adobe won't get that updated for years.

Which also brings up one of the few advantages to IE.

 

Actually they're looking at a 64-bit release of the player this year or next. google "flash player square"

 

Meh, with HTML5 on the horizon, the flash thing is becoming less and less relevant. Not a big deal, imo.

 

Its not about battery life or stability.
Apple wants H.264 as they own this with Microsoft and Sony.
This is why we se IE9 supporting this too.
Its free till 2016 and from this date Apple can name the price.
They have 5 years to push this, once everybody make switch it will not be free.
Apple do not give or support free stuff.
Its all about money. This is why Google its pooling plug on supporting H.264 and soon you tube may play only in flush or WebM (VP8).

 

OK, show me an HTML5 version of http://www.audiotool.com/

There are certainly plenty of similar paid apps in the app store: more power to the developers. Good luck finding similar things for Android though... not saying there isn't anything, but iOS devices seem to be doing this much better ATM. Actually, I wonder how that runs on something like a Desire HD that apparently runs Flash 'seamlessly'.

I've seen some Javascript sound synthesis and for now it's relatively basic, I'm sure it'll come along eventually.

Yes, it's everyone's choice whether to get an iPhone / whatever... but the fact of the matter is, there are good reasons for choosing iPhone over other devices (particularly as a developer with the current gold rush and also perhaps for technical reasons), and then the stupid politics which make it irritating in other ways. Ho hum. Just saying 'well, it's your choice' doesn't really cover it IMO. People need to make some noise about this, or Apple will turn into an anti-competitive monster with more control over a lot of consumers than MS ever had.

I've always been anti-Flash in the past, but in many ways people have learnt to use it more selectively, maintain accessibility etc... and for Apple it really is all about making people develop for the App Store, on their hardware, with their APIs etc etc. IMHO.

 

I don't even use flash on my PC - it's so annoying to have banners popping up all over some websites. I've installed the flash blocker utility on all my PCs. It really isn't an issue not having flash on the iPod/iPhone.

 

Most people don't care.

It took quite a while for it to run smoothly on said Android devices. You know, the ones notorious for a short battery life.

Why don't you let market forces decide. The consumer has a choice: you want flash? Don't buy an iPhone. After all, there's some really good Android devices out there which offer the same functionality, plus all the modability and open access that you desire. Simple as.

But what we are seeing is that the iPhone is the most successful smartphone on the market, for years now. I think it is pretty obvious by now, to people who care enough to know, what the limitations of the iPhone are. Still, it sells like hotcakes. So perhaps people simply aren't as fussed as you are.

Wait --Google is deliberately excluding content from their browser? The *******s! Consumers should have a choice!

Seriously: market forces.

Who the **** cares? If retailers and publishers find their conditions unacceptable they will simply not sign up or carry the price forward to the consumer. Again: market forces.

You are naive if you think that Microsoft and Google are not playing exactly the same game. In terms of the free internet being under threat you should worry about ISPs and telecomms providers, not Apple.

Apple just gives the consumers what they want, for a price they are prepared to pay. Welcome to free market capitalism: this is how it works. Everything else is state-controlled planned economy.

 

Google is not restricting ANY content on the internet, NO ONE is solely delivering h.264 video content, and Firefox (the second most popular browser) NEVER showed this content. By contrast MILLIONS of websites use Flash as integral components of their websites.

Please note: Just because people who own Apple stock are all over every forum on the internet., does not make their Draconian policies justifiable.

Your rhetoric is just plain stupid, (at best), this has nothing to do with economic systems, and everything to do with anti-competitive policies. Banning Flash has nothing to do with Capitalism or market forces, it has everything to do with restrictive practices by a hardware manufacturer. No one is saying they MUST bundle Flash with the iPhone, just that their customers should be ALLOWED to install it if they wish, how anyone can support a policy that does not let customers view content they choose to, is beyond me.

Purchasing devices where a manufacturer can control what their customers can and cannot see on the internet goes way beyond market forces, it goes directly towards censorship. The British advertising authority have BANNED Apple adverts from saying it provides the complete internet.

People are only making a choice if they are aware of the restrictions, while you and I may be aware of them, the average consumer is not. Pretending that people are choosing an iPhone because they don't want Flash content is stupid and naive (it remains the most requested feature of the devices, and led to the original spurious statement from Jobs).

 

Hang on. You are saying that Google excluded h.264 from their browser. How is that different from Apple excluding Flash from theirs? And it does not matter whether Firefox never showed this content. iOS never supported Flash.

Millions of people buying iPhones and iPads seem not to be too bothered. Neither am I; if people want Flash, there are some really capable Android --and now Windows Mobile 7-- devices that people can buy instead. That is where market forces come in: people have a choice through the purchasing decision they make. If Apple banning Flash is a bad, evil, unfair move, customers have a very easy way of making that known: just buy the competitor's device.

Not getting your anti-competitive argument either. Both Flash and H.264 have licencing royalties attached, and the cost of Adobe, Microsoft and other companies involved in supporting these standards far outstrips any revenue they generate from it. MPEG LA, who oversees the patent pool that makes up the H.264 codec has announced that they will never charge royalties for the codec, as long as they are freely broadcast on the Internet.

Censorship only applies if people do not have any other way of accessing the material. If I decide not to sell porn magazines in my newsagent's, that is not censorship. That is a sales decision. People can still go across the road to my competitor and buy them there. People can buy Flash-capable devices instead.

If the average consumer still does not know by now, despite all the furore, it is because they do not care.

 

The difference there is that google don't prevent you from running a plugin that enables support for that format.

 

@Nexxo

Flash has no licensing royalties attached at all, complete BS, no one pays for the Flash player, and the developers only pay Adobe if they use their tools to develop for it. There are many ways to develop Flash content for free, and consumption and delivery is always free...

h.264 charge royalties from the browser manufacturers to the tune of (currently) $6 million per year.... the free forever (to consume content) statement is not true, only until 2016.

How is it different that Google has removed h.264 support? I thought I answered that, NO content is being blocked, and they are supporting a licensing free internet.

Why did Apple remove the lego block showing the content was being blocked on their device and replace it with a black square, was it to hide the deficiency in their device? Hide the missing content and people won't even know it is there.

Millions of people have bought these devices, therefore they are happy not to be allowed access to Flash content? Is that your argument? Why did they so vocally request it then? and why did Steve Jobs feel the need to make a statement regarding Flash? and why have millions of them installed the Skyfire browser which lets them access (some) Flash videos (badly)? You are living in cloud cuckoo land, (or a shareholder)...

Yeah okay, porn magazines and newsagents, what has that got to do with Flash content? It is not blocked because the content is objectionable, it is censored because the device manufacturer has decided it doesn't like the way it is delivered. Plus if you have bought an iPhone and are on a two year contract, you cannot go down the road, its like being forced to use a single newsagent. Apple is not selling the internet, endorsing it's content, or even curating it. I have heard this exact argument before on other sites, newsagents and porn, is this part of some Apple counter-arguments pack given to loyal shareholders? It is a weak and obviously flawed argument.

Are people truly aware of the true nature of the control Apple exerts over how their phones are used? I don't think so, people would not buy them if they did...