161
What DID Apple innovate?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
161 points (81.6% liked)
Technology
59298 readers
1818 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Full browser might be an overstatement. It was still a web full of Flash at that time. And it caused a pretty major limitation on the browser. If there wasn't an app available, you were often SOL. I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.
That's unironically an innovation right there
Why? It was a decent technology.
No, it absolutely wasn't, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/
https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/
Well, I'm in favor of that approach and I'm not in favor of Microsoft, Google and even sadly Mozilla. Even if used not for Flash but for something else.
That quote alone emotionally moves me personally in the direction opposite of what the author apparently intended.
Then there is, of course, a quote attributed to "famed usability expert", who meant something completely irrelevant to the point the author is making, judging by that quote being from year 2000.
I'm not sure he'd consider HTML5 better, and judging by his article on Java applets linked and statements made there, the closest thing to his perfect Web would be today's Geminispace, with which I can even agree in many contexts and which would be the opposite kind of Web from what the author of the article apparently wants to say.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I like the idea of the generally static (maybe just a bit scriptable) hypertext pages with embedded applets executed with plugins. It makes sense if you need an accessible standard. It doesn't if you need a monopoly which formally isn't one.
Not really. To have fresh dynamic content having to install a third party plugin is a bad take. Web development was stagnating due to IE's market dominance.
It was the public opinion in the 00s, yes. And I think I even thought the same back then (being a kid, so my opinion doesn't matter much ; but I did have that "afraid to catch a virus" feeling which was amplified by a page containing something in Flash).
But I disagree now, looking at all that transpired. It was a good thing that HTML (as in hypertext markup language) and JS weren't responsible for such things. And it's fine to serve applications for various interpreters over HTTP as part of webpages.
I also think that Java applets were a good idea, not just Flash, for the same reason.
Also the browser developer and the Flash developer were not the same party. Which means that Flash was more or less egalitarian between browsers.
Sure, a browser minus Flash, but it was still a real browser. Most of the web functioned without Flash. And none of the competition even had anything close. It was such a revolutionary product that the iPhone didn't even HAVE competition until Android got its shit together, which took a couple years.
This. Being able to actually open all those sites that used Flash was a big advantage of Android back then.
Yeah, Android had that advantage LATER, when they got their shit together. But when the iPhone initially released, it changed the game.