The Flash Player in development for iPhone is not a port of existing standalone one. As they put it,the new player in development is something in between Flash Lite and Flash Player for desktop.
So this is going to be a watered down version of Flash Player. Chances are that Apple will approve a Flash player which is targeted only to render flash content on web pages as it will make the browsing experience on iPhone closer to that on desktop.
No, chances are (as John so eloquently argues) that Apple will do no such thing, as it would seriously water down the whole iPhone UI experience. Read the article!
There is a difference between running swfs on phone interface and rendering flash elements on webpages.
Allowing swfs to run directly on phone interface definitely interfere with iPhone UI experience,but rendering webpages along with flash elements in it only makes the browser experience closer to what is expected from the browser app. Its a good thing for Apple.
Unless you believe, as I do (and I think Steve Jobs does), that Flash is a business trojan horse, and is ultimately anti-open-standards and flies in the face of internet searchability, accessbility, etc.
Its possible to do bone marrow transplantation for approx. $10000 here in Kerala(South India). The service is world class. Can someone close to MySQL/SUN pass this information?
If the RIA you are developing solves a real problem efficiently in a way that appeals to end user, it will take off.
But the adoption rate of a RIA depends a lot on the platform you use for development.
Gmail is a succesful RIA and it uses JavaScript and Flash.
The advantage of sticking on to JavaScript/Flash over Sliverlight is that, they are already very popular. If efficiently done JavaScript and Flash can reside side by side delivering a great user experience.
So for the time being,because of Silverlight's low adoption rate,a SilverLight only product may not be a great idea.
Regarding Adobe Flex, Flex its nothing more than another development tool for churning out swf files.The end product is plain old Flash. Adobe Flex allows rapid flash development for those unfamiliar with Flash CS3 (CS3's timeline concept doesn't appeal to most developers). Thanks to Adobe's marketing efforts,most people mistakingly think Flex is something RIA exclusive,while its just a development environment that churns out Flash.
SilverLight does solve a lot of headache and reduce learning curve for the traditional .NET developer when it comes to building RIAs.But from a enduser's perspective, it doesn't really bring in any specific advantage. Anything that can be done in SilverLight can be done using Flash or a combination of Flash and JavaScript. I really dont see any enduser specific advantage for using SilverLight, as it is now. Why force users to install new plugins , when the existing infrastructure(JavaScript and flash) can deliver the same user experience?
Adobe AIR is a way to convert your existing Javascript/flash/html based RIA to a desktop app. But this will require the end user to install AIR runtime first(approx 11 MB download). Compared to Mozilla Prism, Adobe AIR is super advanced in the kind of desktop integration it can impart to your web based RIA.A js/flash RIA can leverage on AIR without any tweaks.
In short, use Javascript/HTML as much as possible. Flash when you need to integrate rich media (or functionalities that require realtime user interaction like Chat ) to your js .I wont recommend Silverlight .
This seems to question the whole purpose of karma.
When a user upvote a story, isn't he saying "Thanks for sharing this with the community.I want more people to see this" rather than "i agree with the content of this article"?
Karma encourages users to participate in the sharing activity.Its purpose is not to thank the content creator, but the person who took time to share it.
"This is good content. I'm glad you submitted it, I'm glad the writer wrote it, and I'm glad I read it."
Upvotes are NOT saying "I agree with this" (I don't think).
The current karma encourages scouring the web for good content for the community. It does not reward creating of good content for the community... I suppose a person could submit their own stuff if they cared that much.
Wow!
I studied at one of South India's finest Engineering Colleges [College Of Engineering,Trivandrum( Not even remotely comparable to MIT in facilities)].
My tuition fee was less than 50 $ a year !
[Accommodation :- 50 cents a month!!
Food from College: approx $20]
Entry to the college is 100% based on merit.
[FYI,here in Kerala a decent beef steak costs $7 , 320 gram pack of Top Ramen Noodles cost $1.1 and a litre of petrol @ $1.24 ]
The basic file size of an empty swf file is approximately 35 bytes.Apart from this 35 bytes, everything else is developer contribution. The file size depends on what kind of assets you want to embed in your flash widget. If you embed more images,mp3s etc., the file size will increase. One of the greatest strengths of flash is the speed at which the 'flash virtual machine' initializes. A swf file churned out by a good developer will perform well.
Having said that i would personally prefer to go with a javascript version, if the widget doesnt require video or hardcore visual effects.Why lock yourself in a closed piece of software unless its acutely necessary ?
A major disadvantage of using flash is that, flash by default will place itself on top of everything else in a webpage. A work around for this is to set wmode as "transparent". But this will drastically reduce performance of flash widget in Gecko browsers.And hence, as far as possible, use javascript.
It's true that the Flash VM is quite fast itself, at parsing, rendering, etc. But Flash feels much more sluggish for most things. Try any largish interface in Flash to see for yourself. Imagine Gmail in Flash, it would be much less snappy. Flash is an entirely different platform inside your browser with all its own facilities. Javascript can be used in a lightweight way on top of the native HTML/image/CSS stuff your browser is so good at.
Keep hearing the same 'closed software' regarding flash and I don't understand why. There are quite a few open source platforms that produce swfs (open laszlo, aptana, even flex is open source now). Regarding the flash player, it is not any more closed software than IE is.
Also isn't it nice not to have to write javascript code for each browser that exists out there?
You are right. One of the greatest advantages of Flash is that, you need to code only once, and you can deploy the swf wherever Adobe's flash player works.But thats the catch! The format's license do not allow the creation of software that could 'play' SWF files. The license only allows the creation of software that could 'create' swf files. Aptana, Openlaszlo are all development environments that could 'create' SWF.
In short, Adobe doesn't want anyone to mess up with the Flash Player.As you may already know, Gnash is an open source movement in this direction.
What if Netscape said only Netscape's browser could handle javascript although you could write the script in emacs or notepad or whatever .. ?
As a widget usually requires only very little coding, its worth coding it in Javascript ,if it isnt too Rich with animation,video or audio.When it comes to these rich factors, there is no question that flash is the best choice.
So this is going to be a watered down version of Flash Player. Chances are that Apple will approve a Flash player which is targeted only to render flash content on web pages as it will make the browsing experience on iPhone closer to that on desktop.