Sean Reid Reviews the Fuji X100

Pelao, that's a reasonable viewpoint on the issue, but Apple clearly has two reasons for keeping Flash off of iOS: 1) Improve the user experience (your point); and 2) Make more money.

Regarding reason #1, as a sophisticated computer (phone/tablet) user I would like to have the choice. I don't have to install Flash on my Android devices but find the web experience better when I do.

Regarding reason #2, it isn't hard to see how limiting choice fits into Apple's plan. Currently, HTML5 cannot match what can be done with technologies like Flash and Sliverlight. By weakening the power of the web on its mobile devices, Apple gently encourages everyone into its app ecosystem where they pay a 30% Apple tax across the board. Once you get locked into that system and have bought a bunch of apps, it becomes harder to leave this system where everything costs a bit more for Apple to get their cut. In the long run, I believe in the free web and think that apps as we know them will eventually fail. By free web, I don't mean web where everything is free but rather web where people get to monetize the way they want to monetize - whether by subscription, ad revenue, or another model.
 
Don't want to encourage the fallout of this thread into a Flash debate, but... I agree with Pelao that Flash's day has come and gone. Such technologies will have specific purposes for which they are best put to use (think of Silverlight adaptive media streaming and trick play DVR), but for most other uses, such as Sean's web site, it is unnecessary today.

I use Flash blockers on my Macs.

BB, Sean's reviews are very insightful. He has his biases (for example, he strongly prefers OVFs to EVFs), but if you understand these you can get a real sense for what cameras and lenses are really like. He discusses technical aspects to them, but equally he discusses cameras and lenses in actual use, the theory and philosophy of camera design, and general photography topics.

The way I see it, it is like buying a very useful photography book every year that gets updated.
 
Interesting take on your point #2 Amin, but I don't think it holds true if followed all the way through.

Apple's 30% is hardly a tax. They have developed an ecosystem for developers and that is not cost-free. I would estimate too (but admit it's only an estimate) that Apple does not make a huge profit from Apps. It does make money from it's hardware, but it would make the same money from hardware and Apps if they worked with Flash. The fact is Flash for mobile cannot provide an adequate user experience from Apple's perspective, but if it could this would not negatively impact their cash flow or profits. I simply don't see a profit motive directly in excluding Flash, except from the perspective that they might sell fewer profitable devices because the user experience would be less acceptable.

We are seriously off-topic (but it's nice to Geek-out a bit) but I partially agree with you about apps. I think for some things (software, games) they work well for everyone, and in time those that are cross-platform will likely offer a cross-platform license for people who change from, for example, iOS to Android. But the Apps that seem odd to me are the ones for magazines and some video / TV viewing. I prefer to experience articles on a browser, quite simply because I will open several tabs and refer back and forth to various related articles, sites etc. trying to tie me to an App for my reading and viewing frustrates me, and from a TV perspective goes against decades of my training - which taught me that to switch channels I just had to press one button. Now I gotta switch Apps and search through a different interface? Methinks not.
 
The apps and hardware go hand in hand. It's an ecosystem, and it's an ecosystem which would be weakened if people were less reliant upon apps (which could happen if the web were more full featured).

Regardless of whether people think that Flash is an outdated technology, it is by definition current since there is a ton of Flash content on the web, including the content we're discussing right now on Sean's site.
 
Amin
To some extent I agree - but also would say that the ecosystem would work equally well with Flash if Flash were up to the game. It is not.

Yes, there is a ton of Flash content available, no question. But I find two things interesting:
1. Little new Flash stuff is being pushed except by those who are stuck with it, and they too will move.
2. Adobe is building in to it's creative applications the ability to easily output for HTML5. The old stuff will, in time, be converted - at least the stuff with anough views to warrant it. The web moves quickly.
 
The apps and hardware go hand in hand. It's an ecosystem, and it's an ecosystem which would be weakened if people were less reliant upon apps (which could happen if the web were more full featured).

App developers could stand to lose as well as "apps" become web apps (you can sell an app, but it is much hard or even impossible to sell a web app). But in some cases they will. It is very expensive for a company to keep a product native to multiple devices (iOS, Android, etc). Going forward many companies will be asking themselves native app or web app? We are already seeing it in our business. Each has pros and cons. You might say that a Flash could help solve this, but I'd bet money that keeping a Flash app up to date and consistent across multiple devices won't be that much easier.

This question also depends on what is for sale. The app itself as product or the app as enabler of content or service. Some claim that the Kindle will be free by next year and Amazon will make its money by selling the content.
 
I think that within 10 years, the concept of native app will be limited to niches where big time computing power or very short latency are required. Ie, there will be precious few years where Flash is totally gone and yet native apps have not been largely replaced by web apps. Right now, for enjoying today's web - whether it's watching Wimbledon matches or reading Sean's reviews, I want Flash.
 
I think that within 10 years, the concept of native app will be limited to niches where big time computing power or very short latency are required. Ie, there will be precious few years where Flash is totally gone and yet native apps have not been largely replaced by web apps. Right now, for enjoying today's web - whether it's watching Wimbledon matches or reading Sean's reviews, I want Flash.

And wanting or needing Flash is obviously OK. So let's ensure the pressure falls in the right place (Adobe) to produce software that keeps pace with the increasing use of mobile devices, without compromising the user experience, battery life etc.

Back to the original point: I do think Reid's reviews are worth the cash, though they are the only content for which I currently pay. For a similar viewpoint, though much, much less detailed, have a look at Michael Reichmann's report on the X100.
 
Also Disagree

So let's ensure the pressure falls in the right place (Adobe)

Just to point out that globally Apple only has around 20% of the smartphone market. 4 out of 5 smartphones run Os's that run flash. It is Apple that is out of step here.

And if pressure is needed to encourage Adobe to work on flash for mobile than the pressure can be applied by companies that use the product, not those that boycott it.
 
Just to point out that globally Apple only has around 20% of the smartphone market. 4 out of 5 smartphones run Os's that run flash. It is Apple that is out of step here.

And if pressure is needed to encourage Adobe to work on flash for mobile than the pressure can be applied by companies that use the product, not those that boycott it.

Yes, Apple only has a portion of the smartphone market. As a first answer, I would point out that many smartphones are capable of running Flash, but if you read thorough professional reviews, you will find that few run it well. That's up to the owner of Flash, Adobe, to fix. Flash is simply not mobile ready. To be fair, mobile Flash was not even a dream when Adobe bought Flash.

In any case, smartphone share is not how Apple, or industry and financial analysts, look at it. What they look at is the mobile OS share as a whole. In other words, they will look at the total number of devices running Apple's iOS: so this includes millions of iPods and iPads as well as the iPhone.

This article may be of interest:

A Look at iPad Users: Apple Still Trouncing Android - Digits - WSJ

I suppose it all depends on what you look for. Apple is obsessive about the user experience. They are far from perfect in their delivery, but it is their focus. The public is responding to that. I find it odd to call them out of step when they are standing their ground on software that performs below requirements. My preference is for less tolerance of poorly executed software thrust upon users, and advertised as being necessary. If this is being out of step, then being so is OK with me.
 
Adobe's made a lot of progress in improving Flash for Android, and the hardware improvement has helped quite a bit. My last two Android phones (HTC Incredible and Samsung Nexus S) have had no problems with the great majority of Flash content. Same for my tablet (Xoom).

Again, it is purely optional whether to install Flash on an Android device. One can leave Flash off and ignore all Flash on the web in Apple style. So why do almost all Android users install Flash if it's so bad for the mobile experience? Because it's not. The current web is better with the current mobile implementation of Flash than it is without.
 
Adobe's made a lot of progress in improving Flash for Android, and the hardware improvement has helped quite a bit. My last two Android phones (HTC Incredible and Samsung Nexus S) have had no problems with the great majority of Flash content. Same for my tablet (Xoom).

Again, it is purely optional whether to install Flash on an Android device. One can leave Flash off and ignore all Flash on the web in Apple style. So why do almost all Android users install Flash if it's so bad for the mobile experience? Because it's not. The current web is better with the current mobile implementation of Flash than it is without.

I actually don't disagree with some of your thoughts on this.

For me though, it misses the point. My personal observation is different in that the implementation of mobile Flash just being 'OK' is not OK - I think it has a negative impact on the web experience and the overall mobile device experience. In our testing Flash for mobile is variable in it's performance by a wide margin. This goes way beyond, for example, the variations in browser speed. Mobile Flash just cannot be relied upon to deliver a solid, reliable experience across a range of implementations. If you use it for certain limited categories it may be OK, but it makes way more sense to develop in a standard that will always work well.

But the much larger issue is the negativity of being tied to a proprietary technology (Flash) for any significant portion of the web experience. The dependence on the owner moving the technology forward restricts what mobile can do in the future. The industry has not had happy experiences with being limited and dependant.

I would also observe that it's a bit sad that most tablets and smartphones are being marketed against Apple's device with 'Flash capable' as a key marketing tool. really? That's the differentiating factor? Some of the other devices are perfectly good, but rely on this to sell. Pity.

Most of all, I desire choice for the consumer, and am glad that people are able to find what works for them.
 
Back
Top