The whole industry is projecting something like negative $200B for next years. They know it’s not worth the price.

Flash was a security nightmare all round, not counting the security flaws. It was just designed without any security features. It was also terribly inefficient at its core job, that was supposedly vector animation. It filled a gap in a time where browser and standards where not that advanced.

Over time, Flash issues where never resolved, but the bloatness of the software kept increasing. Along the way, HTML got better specs, JavaScript got vast improvement, especially in everyone adhering to roughly the same standard (thanks microsoft for finally caving in…), and so the flash interpreter was highly redundant with the browser itself.

For a while flash editors could export in HTML5 and you’d get roughly the same result, but with a fraction of the resources requirements, so naturally there was little incentive to keep the flash player around.

I’m not sure if “killing flash” could be attributed to their author, or to the loss of interest.

Also note that alternative flash players exists to still play older swf files, and some sites uses them alongside with plain video conversion for flash animations that weren’t dynamic.

Yes. But if you live in the future, you have to wait for dozens of dozens of intermediate to do so! Great!

Likely, you’ll see the first frame only on older software. Encoding animation in a dedicated animation chunk and using the base spec for the first keyframe sounds like the sane thing to do, so they likely did that.

I’m not going to look into it now, because I would then have to implement it. :D

The PNG format is made of chunks that have determined roles, and provides provisions for newer “standardized” chunks alongside the custom chunks it had supported until now. It is likely that PNG made with newer software that does not use new features, or uses only additional features, will remain readable by older software to some extent.

The same way with iOS. At some point, the third-party service have a way to link a push to a device. It does not mean that you can link an user to a device, or a specific request to a device. You get a unique ID for the notifications, yeah. And someone could tell that the app server have these ID. But that’s not particularly different with iOS. It not being exposed to the app dev directly does not mean that this info does not exist on the third-party server, that can still get asked about it.

Unless Apple found a way to magically send a message to a specific device, from a specific external server, without anyone, anywhere, having any idea where the notification should go. Which, fair, could be done by sending every messages to everyone after encrypting it for a specific recipient, but that would be a bit inefficient at this scale. The trace for push notifications exists, whether you’re using Apple or Google as the backend.

I’d rather these laws be against abusing and exploiting child, as well as against ruining their lives. Not only that would be more helpful, it would also work in this case, since actual likeness are involved.

Alas, whether there’s a law against that specific use case or not, it is somewhat difficult to police what people do in their home, without a third party whistleblower. Making more, impossible to apply laws for this specific case does not seem that useful.

…almost none of what is said about Android push notification is true. A lot of apps uses firebase, which does not require the creation of user accounts or whatever to send push notifications to a device.

Either they’re completely unfamiliar with it, or they don’t want to do it, but what they claim is dubious at best.