• Your favorite








    , and
  • Adobe Sounds Off About Lack of iPad Flash Support

    There was one small hitch in Steve Jobs' polished presentation on Wednesday as he demoed the new iPad. When he used the device to load the New York Times website, he (apparently) inadvertently navigated to a page with Flash content. The large blue Lego icon projected on the big screen at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts was like an announcement of what had long been expected: the iPad will not support Flash.

    Adrian Ludwig, Flash Marketing Manager for Adobe expressed his dismay in a frustrated post - called "Apple's iPad -- a broken link?"
    - on the Flash Platform blog.

    It looks like Apple is continuing to impose restrictions on their devices that limit both content publishers and consumers. Unlike many other ebook readers using the ePub file format, consumers will not be able to access ePub content with Apple's DRM technology on devices made by other manufacturers. And without Flash support, iPad users will not be able to access the full range of web content, including over 70% of games and 75% of video on the web.

    If I want to use the iPad to connect to Disney, Hulu, Miniclip, Farmville, ESPN, Kongregate, or JibJab -- not to mention the millions of other sites on the web -- I'll be out of luck.
    Adobe has moved to get Flash content onto the iPhone despite Apple's lack of support by developing the forthcoming Packager for iPhone tool which will convert Flash content into apps that can run on the iPhone, and the company said that a future version of the tool will also work for the iPad's 1024 x 768 screen.

    "It is our intent to make it possible for Flash developers to build applications that can take advantage of the increased screen size and resolution of the iPad," Adobe AIR for Mobile Manager Michael Chou said on the blog. "We are looking for developers and designers who have a specific app in mind to be submitted to the iTunes App Store within the next two months."

    According to Adobe, 98 percent of desktop computers currently support Flash, and version 10.1, presently in beta, will run on Windows Mobile, webOS, Android, Symbian and BlackBerry. Apple has consistently blocked the software from running on the iPhone and iPod, most analysts believe, because it would take away business from its App Store, allowing consumers to play games and run other content from a browser. Clause 3.3.2 of the iPhone SDK agreement prohibits Flash or any other "self-executing" code from the iPhone:

    An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
    Packager for iPhone will be included with the upcoming release of Adobe Flash Professional CS5, with Packager for iPad to follow later in the year.

    image via Engadget
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Adobe Sounds Off About Lack of iPad Flash Support started by Paul Daniel Ash View original post
    Comments 47 Comments
    1. StealthBravo's Avatar
      StealthBravo -
      ^ I agree a blu-ray player is a must because the tablet will suck without 1080p.
    1. ddonuts4's Avatar
      ddonuts4 -
      OMFG!!! Is adobe just a bunch of idiots? dont they know that they can get a flash player out to 10% of iphone users through cydia? Why dont they just do it!!!! if flash became a jailbreak-only thing, soon we might have 50% of phones jailbroken
    1. rhekt's Avatar
      rhekt -
      haha..yup. i saw this. it was so quick if you werent paying attention or know what it means youd miss it. glad i wasnt the only one
    1. qgshadow's Avatar
      qgshadow -
      Apple goes too far - The Inquirer

      But apparently he did. The Ipad is a netbook without the usable keyboard. It is an Iphone without the phone. It is a games machine that can't do graphics well. It is an e-book reader without the e-ink to make the print easy to see. In short, it is the veritable chocolate teapot of hardware.

      Its competition really is the Amazon Kindle, which despite using e-ink is also overpriced and extremely limited.

      Initially the response from Apple's fans was the usual "Jobs is a genius" nonsense. However this morning more rational heads are saying "What the...?" and "Wait a minute. Is he just trying to flog us a car without a motor?"

      Enough said.
    1. DeathDude's Avatar
      DeathDude -
      Shame on Steve Jobs, he is on their board of directors.

      Really though I was expecting there to be flash. I am sure if not jailbreaking will bring it then Apple will be pressured to eventually run it.
    1. Nickaroni22's Avatar
      Nickaroni22 -
      You can't call it the best internet experiance, if it doesn't support flash!!! Kinda sad, maybe one day apple will wise up, but till then hopefully someone can hack this.
    1. adrian1480's Avatar
      adrian1480 -
      Quote Originally Posted by southfrisco View Post
      I might buy the $499 WiFi only device. Just wish it had 32GB instead of just 16GB. I would mainly use it for an eReader as I've been looking at them lately. I also can see a use for it at home when I want to read things away from a desk on a bigger screen.
      see, these are the people that concern me. people seem to think that this iPad = eReader just because Apple said so and are going to offer books.

      Has anyone actually tried to read whole books on an LCD screen? How'd that work out for you? Didn't like it much? Then why in the hell would you think it's going to be different on this product, which features *gasp* and LCD display!

      Clearly you haven't been looking too hard at eReaders, becuase if you had, you'd already know that e-Ink > > > > > > > > LCD and it's not even close. It's like night and day. Like "I want" vs. "do not want eye strain". for brief reading, sure. but 300-page novels? Hell to the no.

      It frustrates me because e-ink is such a superior technology, but people who don't know any better (not to pick on you, southfrisco) are going to blindly buy this product *primarily for reading*, pay more, and struggle to read when they could have bought a Nook or Kindle and had a much better experience (if their goal was reading).

      Again, for short reading, I'm sure it'll be as good as any LCD is. But we should all be familiar enough with backlit reading to know better for extended reading.