Flash Support Confirmed For Android 2.2

farble1670 writes "In an interview with the New York Times, Google's Andy Rubin confirmed that Android 2.2 will have support for Flash 10.1. Quoting: '[Rubin] promised that full support for Adobe’s Flash standard was coming in the next version of Android, code-named Froyo, for frozen yogurt (previous Android releases were called Cupcake, Donut, and Eclair, and are represented outside Building 44 on the Google campus with giant sculptures of the desserts). Sometimes being open "means not being militant about the things consumers are actually enjoying," he said.'"

Comments

Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy Apple, but do take out the trash.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[ThePhilips]

I wouldn't call Flash a trash - thanks to FlashBlock/AdBlock I have little of the problem others are complaining about.

Though it seems that in my future Android phone I would have one more thing to disable right away.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[darkpixel2k]

I wouldn't call Flash a trash - thanks to FlashBlock/AdBlock I have little of the problem others are complaining about.

Though it seems that in my future Android phone I would have one more thing to disable right away.

Screw flash.
I'd settle for an e-mail client that can move messages between folders.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[LBt1st]

As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved.
Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... it seems Flash is indeed trash then.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[RobertM1968]

As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved. Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.

Seems like what you are asking for is Firefox for Android (already in testing for v2+ Android releases), NoScript for Firefox (already exists) and Flash.

So, it looks like you will get your wish. Assuming Firefox and Flash are both finished (out of alpha/beta and at GA) at about the same time.

Re:Flash is trash that needs to be taken out

[centuren]

As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved.
Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.

If you don't want Flash on your system, why install it? You can enjoy a lack of Flash on ALL your computers, you know, and NoScript is not required.

thats nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

until the OEM's push it out, it will not be taken up for existing handset owners. We are in the hands of the OEM not Google.

Re:thats nice but

[binarylarry]

This isn't the iPhone. There are other options available.

Re:thats nice but

[aliquis]

But can you install them on any Android phone? Which I think is what he was after.

To me it seems like Android is mostly open-source for the phone manufacturer to modify and do whatever they want to as long as Google get control over the users data and platform.

That's good and all for them.

But personally I would had wanted something which was open for me as user, with upgradeable and tweakable installations.

I don't know if drivers are an issue at all but if they are I would had wanted the phone manufacturer to send their patches back to Google which would had added them to their source.

Beyond that I just want a phone not controlled by the vendor with an easy to replace firmware so that I can just build the latest android version and put it on the phone, eventually with any hacks or tweaks I want.

AFAIK this isn't the current situation and hence as far as being a user goes the openness doesn't have much of a benefit at all.

I don't own an Android phone so I may have understood things wrong, when it comes to replacing "firmwares" on the phone I assume in some cases that may make you lose vendor-specific software (highly likely), be hard or worked against by the phone manufacturer (no vendor supplied solution, lack of drivers/phone knowledge, signed and eventually encrypted firmware.)

Re:thats nice but

[aliquis]

.. oh, and regarding flash:

Yeah, flash _is_ trash. And I thank Apple for helping us getting rid of flash dependency but as long as it's needed to access all the web I don't wanna be without it.

One man uninstalling flash won't stop websites from using it.

Re:thats nice but

[binarylarry]

Flash doesn't things you just can't do with the web using any other technology.

Once HTML5 has matured enough to compete, it'll be an option. But for now, HTML5 is practically vaporware.

Re:thats nice but

[binarylarry]

haha, Flash doesn't things

I think that was Freudian.

Re:thats nice but

[Bigjeff5]

But can you install them on any Android phone? Which I think is what he was after.

If you can flash the device, then yes, you can install them on any phone. It's a replacement of the OS.

There are websites that tell you how to get in to the various rom-flash modes for each phone.

A lot of the stuff they are doing, though, can be done with apps (including tethering for almost all devices and carriers), so I'm not sure what the point is, really. They do have kernel tweaks, but I'm not sure they're worth it.

Re:thats nice but

[Bigjeff5]

There are a lot of things Flash does that HTML5 will never do.

What Jobs really wants is to replace Flash with Cocoa (since he knows HTML5 and JavaScript will never be good enough) so he can sell you all the dev tools and get royalties on any third party tools.

What's the motto that is so selectively applied? Follow the Money?

Re:thats nice but

[tepples]

for now, HTML5 is practically vaporware.

What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.

Re:thats nice but

[LBt1st]

My G1 is still stuck at 1.6! Why should I get excited about 2.2?
Yeah I know there are 3rd party OS's but I kinda like the vanilla UI.

Re:thats nice but

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

So before you can put flash on your flash, you have to flash your flash? Or is flash not put on the flash?

Re:thats nice but

[catmistake]

It's a little bit intellectually dishonest that those that have disdain for Apple and iPhone must always refer to Apple or iPhone when anything cell related makes the news. If Apple and iPhone really really sucked... no one would bother comparing everything to it constantly. The iPhone haters have turned the iPhone into the Gold Standard for smart phones. Nice work there... but it's so tragic. The more people that bash iPhone, the more free advertising it gets, and the more iPhones get sold. Android will forever be the alternative to iPhone, even if it becomes vastly more popular; when talked about, iPhone will always be mentioned. I'm gonna call it the Android bump. iPhone owes some of it's success to the Android bump.

Re:thats nice but

[RobertM1968]

for now, HTML5 is practically vaporware.

What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.

Sadly, what you just said is that the major web browser does NOT support it. Which is sadly, Internet Explorer.

You forget that 80-90% of Internet users are not the "generally tech savvy" bunch of people that Slashdot readers tend to be. That means (a) still a big IE user base, or (b) most are not willing or unaware of or incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin under IE. Coupled with the fact that IE9, (which is not yet released), as you already admitted does not properly support HTML5 (and may never).

"The smart thing to do" is rarely what the "unwashed masses" choose. Thus the major web browser is not the answer and once again (as always) part of the problem), and thus as a replacement for anything, HTML5 is still largely useless. The term vaporware used by the previous poster may not be the most technically accurate one - but his intended meaning is still correct (sadly).

Re:thats nice but

[aliquis]

Flash doesn't things you just can't do with the web using any other technology.

That doesn't matter shit for the user, only for the developer.

Either you can view the content or you can't.

Without flash you can't.

Simple as that and rather inconvenient. Shit or not.

Re:thats nice but

[aliquis]

If you can flash the device, then yes, you can install them on any phone. It's a replacement of the OS.

No shit, but:
1) Can I flash it with my custom firmware or are they signed somehow?
2) Will it work?

If one of 1 or 2 isn't true then it fails ..

I just want an upgradeable phone. Retarded to trash the complete phone just to get a software update when the hardware is fine as is.

Re:thats nice but

[ceoyoyo]

You can get Flash on an iPhone if you jailbreak it too.

Re:thats nice but

[oakgrove]

A lot of the stuff they are doing, though, can be done with apps (including tethering for almost all devices and carriers), so I'm not sure what the point is, really. They do have kernel tweaks, but I'm not sure they're worth it.

My G1 is rooted. Here's what it gets me:

1) An additional amount of RAM as I can set it to not set aside as much for the GPU.
2) I can use a swap file or partition for even more "memory".
3) I'm not limited to the meager amount of internal flash to store my applications. I just install them to the 16 GB sdcard.
4) USB, wi-fi, or bluetooth tethering. With the wi-fi tethering, I'm my own little hotspot and any wireless device in range can just hop on.
5) CPU overclocking which really helps and doesn't drain my battery.
6) SSH server and client so I can wirelessly transfer files to and from the phone easily.
7) Full Debian Linux installation in a chroot environment so I have full access to 99 percent of commandline linux apps. This is really great because I have a custom business app that requires php-curl and python to be able to run seamlessly together something I haven't been able to accomplish with the android scripting environment.
8) Updates from the 2.0+ android series that T-Mobile can't or won't deliver.
9) Not having to reload all of my applications should I desire to wipe my phone as they are all still on the sdcard and the phone finds them when it reloads.
10) The ability to completely backup the entire firmware so that if something happens, I can roll everything back to my backup.

There's more. That's just off of the top of my head.

Re:thats nice but

[centuren]

What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.

So people say, but that doesn't guarantee it's true or consistent. As recently as a few weeks ago, I wrote a page using HTML5 functionality for a drag and drop multi-image uploader. Lo and behold, what worked fine in Firefox 3.6 didn't work at all in Chrome (current version on OSX). I understand HTML5 has a lot of people focusing on the video tag, but I don't do video, and everything I have explored in HTML5 brings me back to the days of new functionality only working in Firefox.

So in answer to your question, Chrome, at least on Mac, does NOT support HTML5, at least to the extent that I can count on something to work just because it's in the W3C HTML5 API Spec. Perhaps officially Mac Chrome supports everything, but I've spent the time looking longingly at the documentation telling me a certain bit of code should be recognized that isn't.

Re:thats nice but

[ZenJabba1]

and let me add one thing that us "tech savvy" people forget, 400 million people use hotmail a day, which in my eyes is mindblowing in itself, but 84% of those people are using IE!

Re:thats nice but

[halltk1983]

Did you submit a bug?

Re:thats nice but

[tk77]

There are a lot of things Flash does that HTML5 will never do.

Everyone always says this. Can you please name a few of these things?

HTML5 video tag can host browser-native video. There are many complex game examples showing that HTML5 can be used for games. Many of the full-flash-crap-pages currently only use flash to do some fancy (annoying) fades and transitions. I would love to lose that, but I believe HTML5 or CSS3 animations or whatever can do that.

What else is there?

Re:thats nice but

[AHuxley]

Be nice to share video streaming up from any device to the world.
Flash lets you do that with most webcams on most OS's.

Re:thats nice but

[gmhowell]

Did you submit a bug?

Bitching on /. doesn't count?

Re:thats nice but

[bigstrat2003]

Web developers don't give a fuck about the users, unfortunately: see their insistence that default to "standards mode", rather than defaulting to the more compatible mode, and allowing developers to make only a small deviation to cause IE to work with their standardized code. Microsoft's original plan would've resulted in a much smoother upgrade experience for users, but hey, it would've made life slightly more difficult for web developers... so fuck the users!

No, this isn't all web developers, but it was a significant enough number to get Microsoft to break IE8 for their sake, and because of their disregard for the user of their sites I lost all respect for them.

Re:thats nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

cue iPhone fags foaming their mouths in denial!

Re:thats nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't play farmville on the iPad"
for the average user, how is this good advertising for the giant iPod Touch again?

"You can't develop for the iPhone with your own tools"
for the developer, how is this good advertising for the platform again?

>> iPhone owes some of it's success to the Android bump.

Oh you're just trolling, carry on.

Re:thats nice but

[BlackCreek]

Cyanogen already has a beta release of Android 2.1 for the G1.

Re:thats nice but

[John Betonschaar]

cue iPhone fags foaming their mouths in denial!

Which would be surprising, because... ?

Of the 10 things he listed four are only to make the hardware limitations of his device more bearable (1, 2, 3 and 5), one is to work around carriers/phone manufacterer limitations (8), three are also possible on iPhone (4, 6, 10), and one sounds like a really far fetched argument for rooting your phone, 'I can wipe my phone, which I'll hopefully never have to do, but if I do so, I can save myself 5 minutes not having to re-sync my apps'. Incredible! :-S

Which leaves: 'I have a full debian install on my phone OMGWTF!1!'...Yay!... I guess...

I have an ssh + X windows tunnel to my full Ubuntu server at homem so I have full access to 99.99% of command-line and x-windows apps. On my fag-phone... And I didn't even have to root it, so I'm still under warranty.

Re:thats nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu're so cool. Can we buttfuck now?

Re:thats nice but

[oakgrove]

Wow, the GP poster wasn't joking about the foaming at the mouth iphone people. Bigieff5 said he didn't know any good reasons why people were rooting their phones so I gave mine. Whether any other phone including the iphone can do the things I listed is irrelevant, my phone couldn't. Now it can. The G1 was the very first Android phone to come out. It sucked in a lot of ways hardware wise, memory in particular. However, if you wanted Android, it's what you got. If you don't think it's good enough, I'll direct you to the paypal account you can donate to so that I can get a Nexus or whatever.

As far as tethering is concerned, why should I sift through several apps that may or may not do tethering how I want when iptables is built right into Linux (Android) so I can set up the rules however I want.

three are also possible on iPhone (4, 6, 10)

All of that unrooted? Didn't think so. Thanks for supporting my point.

'I can wipe my phone, which I'll hopefully never have to do, but if I do so, I can save myself 5 minutes not having to re-sync my apps'. Incredible! :-S

5 minutes is time I could be doing something more productive when my phone can just take care of that for me.

Which leaves: 'I have a full debian install on my phone OMGWTF!1!'...Yay!... I guess...

Did you read the part where I mentioned I was running a business app with it that required php-curl and python? I can't just run that through ssh as it requires access to local data and the barcode scanner. The ASE can't be used as you can't use the various languages in tandem. In your zeal to denigrate, I just assume you overlooked all of that.

I'm still under warranty.

So am I. Takes about 10 minutes to roll the phone back to the carrier's ROM.

Incredible! :-S

OMGWTF!1!'...Yay!... I guess...

my fag-phone...

Grow up.

Re:thats nice but

[CarpetShark]

Hmm. Do these work with the Android's marketplace? If so, what are the chances of this working on an N900 (which apparently has very similar hardware to some android phones)?

Re:thats nice but

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:0, Flamebait)

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Clearly moderated by Steve Jobs groupies chanting their new mantra trying to shut out the rest of the world while convincing themselves they don't really need flash on the iPad, heck, it's even better without it!

Take that.

[arcelios]

Take that, Jobs.

Re:Take that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs loses this, we all lose.

Don't buy Apple if you wish, but stick a fork in Flash.

Re:Take that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. If this was Google or Ubuntu rallying against Flash all you slashdotters wouldn't care that Flash was not supported by whatever platform.

Stick Apple into the mix and you would rather see Flash succeed even when Apple is promoting the standards you guys would rather have.

Hilarious. The lengths you will go to just to be anti-Apple.

Re:Take that.

[BrokenHalo]

Jobs loses this, we all lose.
Don't buy Apple if you wish, but stick a fork in Flash.

I won't deny that Flash is not everything we would want it to be, but Jobs obviously envisions a platform that is patented and locked down to the exclusion of all competitors. At least Flash has the merit of being multi-platform. On that basis alone, Jobs can go get fucked.

Disclaimer: typed on a second-hand MacBook. Some of Apple's ideas and hardware are great, but Steve Jobs is a nasty piece of work, and whoever donated his liver should have been retrospectively aborted.

Re:Take that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with Mr Jobs about most things, but not on this. Flash should be taken out into the back alley and put out of our misery.

Re:Take that.

[ThePhilips]

[...] Jobs obviously envisions a platform that is patented and locked down to the exclusion of all competitors.

Game console companies do precisely that and few complain. In fact they are even worse because they require involvement of large publishers and indies are often intentionally excluded.

At least Flash has the merit of being multi-platform.

Java also has a merit of being multi-platform and look at its advances (or lack of them) on desktop.

As soon as efficiency becomes a requirement (and mobile phones are quite demanding in e.g. battery life department) all generic multi-platform toolkits become a burden.

They make life of software developers easy (who are few) by negatively affective experience of users (who are many). I love that as software developer, but hate as a user. And more often I find myself on the "user" side.

Jobs can go get fucked.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think that he should retire from the top Apple position and become more of in-house visionary, concentrating on design and accessibility issues, where he also excels.

Re:Take that.

[binarylarry]

Game consoles are not a general purpose information/work/entertainment device.

Then play games, some of them have very basic communication systems but to compare a game console to a smartphone is ridiculous.

That said, I'm all for more open game consoles but they're not a good comparison.

Re:Take that.

[tepples]

Game consoles are not a general purpose information/work/entertainment device.

Then play games

Game consoles play major label games, not games in general. The only console that comes remotely close to the iPhone App Store model is the XNA environment on Xbox 360.

Re:Take that.

[ThePhilips]

Game consoles are not a general purpose information/work/entertainment device.

B.S.

Consoles now are more or less general purpose home entertainment systems - often featuring web browsers, many dedicated Internet services and even business applications.

I'd say phone much much less of a general purpose. It has a primary task - making calls. Also in part it exists because unlike playing games to make calls one also has to have the access to the mobile network. (Poorly made console - your personal problem. Poorly made phone - might make everybody in vicinity unable to make calls.)

In the end, simply do the reality check. With phones (thanks to Android, Symbian) you have the choice. With game consoles, whatever you pick you are 100% at the mercy of its proprietor.

Re:Take that.

[ThePhilips]

IIRC for XNA one also has to have a publisher. Though sometimes MS itself takes over and does the publishing itself.

Re:Take that.

[catmistake]

I'm sure Jobs and Apple are quaking. Everything Google does turns to gold, even if they don't have the market experience to develop and successfully bring to market ... um... anything. What does Google sell, again? Oh yeah... advertising. No one sells web ads better. And this is going to make Android sweet.

Re:Take that.

[JackAxe]

But console manufactures don't care which middleware tool you use to build games for their platform. This is the clear distinction. A developer can use something like Gamebryo to build a 360, PS3, and Wii game as an example, where as with Apple this is not allowed.

If Apple were actually consistent in which apps are excluded, that would be one thing, but they are not, so it's really hard to gauge what they'll allow one week from the next, especially when they change the language in their TOS.

Anyways, I agree on the efficiency no matter what toolset is used. Let the customer decide if they like or dislike something and crap will always get flushed out. I certainly learned to not trust most content from the App Store as it's battery-hogging-crap, much of which was coded with Objective C.

Re:Take that.

[tepples]

IIRC for XNA one also has to have a publisher. Though sometimes MS itself takes over and does the publishing itself.

"Sometimes"? As I understand the Xbox Live Indie Games program, Microsoft will publish almost any XNA game that passes peer review, as long as it doesn't use 1. text or speech in a constructed language, 2. procedural audio, or 3. a programming language that requires support classes that aren't part of the .NET Compact Framework.

ObFlash: XNA competes with Flash as a platform for indie video games, especially as Windows Phone 7 Series grows in popularity.

Re:Take that.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Jobs was wrong when he argued that 64K was enough

Re:Take that.

[binarylarry]

Wow, you're way out of touch with reality.

Have you ever thought about checking into a hospital or something?

Re:Take that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Jobs will be happy to take Google making itself look even more evil than Apple. "Yay, a proprietary web, controlled entirely by Adobe! Almost as awesome as if Microsoft had succeeded!"

Or wait, was that not what you meant?

Re:Take that.

[centuren]

Game consoles play major label games, not games in general.

That's much too general a statement to be true.

Re:Take that.

[tepples]

You're right. There exist a few consoles that the U.S. gaming public doesn't know exist, must be mail-ordered from overseas, and just don't have enough installed base for a self-publishing indie developer to sell enough copies to recoup the investment of time into video game development. So please allow me to amend my statement: Game consoles promoted in the United States play major label games, not games in general.

Re:Take that.

[hkmwbz]

Everything Google does turns to gold

Eh. No.

Re:Take that.

[hazydave]

Apple is consistent... it's right there in the developer's contract. Apple can reject your app for any reason, and they don't have to tell you why. Always the same!

Maybe good... maybe bad

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I hope it doesn't turn out that Flash is the x86 code of the Internet age.

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web. This will be interesting to see what happens with Flash, given the growing gap between devices that support it and those that don't.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[ThoughtMonster]

...and how is .h264 an open standard, again?

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[AnonymousClown]

This will be interesting to see what happens with Flash, given the growing gap between devices that support it and those that don't.

Most porn sites use it for their videos (so, I hear), so I don't think Flash will be going anywhere.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web.

Like only supporting H.264? I guess that's "open" to licensees... I don't get it. Why can't they just allow the browser to use whatever codecs are installed on the computer? I guess I'll be sticking to HTML4 and the good ol' object tag.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[sonicmerlin]

I recommend you read arstechnica's rebuttal of Steve Jobs's claims. Pot, meet kettle indeed. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Junta]

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web.

The problem I have is while they dress it up as sticking to their guns on open standards, their true motive is they want people to write to the proprietary technology of iPhone apps instead of flash apps. They make legitimate criticisms of Adobe as tying up the web in a proprietary technology while at the same time clearly moving to punish any developers that would want to target iPhone+others using cross-platform tools rather than limited and proprietary iPhone only apps.

I can't get excited over the concept of rooting for either Adobe or Apple in their little pissing contest. I dislike what both want the industry to look like.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

H.264 is open ... open to anyone willing to pay Steve for a license.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[ray_mccrae]

because it's made available under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, see Open Standard, as opposed to Open Source.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[That's Unpossible!]

That wasn't a rebuttal from ars, it was written by the operations manager of the Free Software Foundation. It helps to frame it properly, since that guy has a definite desire to see a proprietary platform like iPhone fail.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[toriver]

You have a terrible misspelling of Qualcomm there.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[That's Unpossible!]

You clearly did not read the letter from jobs. He does discuss the proprietary nature of iPhone OS. But he also covers why it would be bad for apple users to have middleware design tools become popular -- based on their past experience.

It's also worth noting that you can create amazing, open mobile web apps that work great on iPhones and iPads and many other devices. You can thank apple's open source work on WebKit for a big part of that.

Combined with the performance issues, crashing issues, and lack of a good touch interface for Flash, what argument can really be made in favor of it on mobile devices?

Write it in HTML5, JavaScript and CSS and move on with your life.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

reasonable and non-discriminatory being very subject to debate, of course.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weak, because the rebuttal talks about H.264 not being open, but Steve Jobs didn't claim it was, he called it an industry standard, not an open standard. The letter from Steve Jobs is actually really clear, it does not state that iPhone OS is open, or that Xcode, the iPhone SDK or the built-in apps are open. It talks about the technologies you can use in Mobile Safari being open (literally HTML5, CSS and JavaScript). He also calls H.264 an industry standard, not an open standard.

Reading the letter as it is, I don't think there is much for the FSF to rebute (is that a word?). Of course there is enough to argue (about the iPhone OS being closed, or H.264 having patents), but as a response to the letter the FSF just brings up new arguments.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The only Apple products that don't support Flash are the iPhone and the iPad. The only reason that those things don't support Flash is because they are underpowered, but Apple doesn't want to admit that so they lie and claim that not supporting Flash was part of their plan all along.

It's so transparent that you'd have to be brain damaged to not see it.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[davester666]

It's a published, documented format, which anyone can implement. There already is an open-source implementation of an encoder and decoder [I believe].

However, some people confuse 'open' with 'free'. The h.264 is covered by certain patents, the owners of which have joined together into a patent pool and have decided on charging for use of h.264 in certain specific circumstances.

To say another format is more open just because nobody has asserted any patent claims against it, seems kind of bizarre to me.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[catmistake]

...and how is .h264 an open standard, again?

In every way that matters.

Don't confuse [patents vs OSS vs Free Software vs Software that costs nothing] with [open standards vs proprietary closed standards, or no standards].

Flash is a closed standard. But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth). H.264 delivers video quality superior to Flash and with less bandwidth. Also, you can't develop an application in H.264... it's just a video codec and not an entire bulging, proprietary, and closed platform.

Ask yourself this: if you were shopping for a keyboard, would you prefer a product that was designed to be a keyboard, and does nothing else but serve as a keyboard, or would you be looking for it to do a bunch of other things to, like have a built in calculator, fan, cassette deck, radio, toothbrush, magnifying glass, tiny circular saw and oil filter wrench? Maybe the metaphor isn't spot on, but the point is Flash not only isn't suited for video delivery (any more), it was designed for another purpose, as a development platform. And as brilliant as it seems to saturate the web with a video plug in that is a door for the whole platform, and Adobe, as wrong headed as they were with this, did a fantastic job of shoehorning Flash into nearly every video delivery site, the problem is there were ulterior motives. Adobe used subterfuge to distribute a platform no one wanted nor do most realize they have (most think it's just for video). This kind of pisses me off, especially because Flash, for the most part, is so painful to behold (FUCK, there's something happening here... and I CAN"T STOP IT.... AH MAKE IT STOP... it's that kind of angst, something inserted before my eyes and I'm powerless to stop it).

But beyond Flash video, which is anathema to anybody that isn't blind, there isn't any issue with Flash. It is, it turns out, a neat little platform. However, there's no good reason to use it for video delivery. NONE. If Adobe would cease their video crusade, and just let Flash spread by it's own merits, maybe even open the standard, Flash would find it's true niche, and would eventually get rolled into htm6 or whatever. Unfortunately, Adobe is going to let Flash go down with video (and to some extent, the iPhone, iTouch and iPad).

If flash had not been used as a video delivery system, I have no doubt it would be supported by the Apple devices. But since it's only used for video (99.99% of the time), there's no reason to have it there, and plenty of reason not to.

sorry if I got off the subject a little there... now I get off my soap box, with a "good luck" to flash devs, and a word of advice: "run from video delivery... run as fast as you can... it's going to kill your platform."

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[sourcerror]

The main reason that you have an app for everything in the Apple ecosystem, and the appliance status of Ipad is because that way content creators can better control consumption of content: no save page for offline viewing, everything is harder to pirate etc. That way they can lure in big publishers. On the other hand the amount of available content will lure in more users. And they're all locked to the Ipad. So Android is catering to a completely different market. (Traditional hackers/geeks.) And that's why they will coexist just fine. And that's why Apple's main competitor is the Kindle.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[sourcerror]

So what Apple is doing is practically soft DRM. That way they can avoid bad publicity and remain Slashdot compatible.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's weak, because the rebuttal talks about H.264 not being open, but Steve Jobs didn't claim it was, he called it an industry standard, not an open standard.

And Flash isn't an industry standard? When all the industry leaders - and nearly all the industry followers - support it, it seems to me to be a de-facto industry standard.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Bigjeff5]

You know .mp3 was made available under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms - at first. Once it was popular the IP owners started putting on the squeeze. At the very beginning .mp3 licenses were pretty much free. Not so any more.

According to Wikipedia, only the IETF and ITU-T refer to their standards as "open standards". Everybody else just calls them standards, even though they all require the reasonable and non-discriminatory terms of these so-called "open" standards, because that's what they are - standards. The only reason they are open is because you have to lay them out when you apply for the patents. Pretty much all definitions of the word "standard" require reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Else they can't be a standard, by definition.

Hey guess who owns the rights to the h.264 standards? Why, it's the ITU-T! This "Open Standard" stuff is just smokescreen to trick the Open Source proponents into feeling like they aren't getting screwed over by these corporations. An "Open Standard" is absolutely no different than any other official industry standard. It's not really that much different than de-facto standards either, their openness and wide-use is what tends to make them standards in the first place.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Arguendo]

I recommend you read arstechnica's rebuttal of Steve Jobs's claims.

I want my five minutes back. This editorial is terrible. Jobs made a distinction between proprietary standards for content on the web and proprietary tools to access that content. This editorial completely glosses over that distinction and argues that all proprietary software is bad. Seriously? I'm all for touting the benefits of open source and free software but there's a place for proprietary software as well. If you don't like the iphone's proprietary software, buy another phone. It's not like there aren't plenty of options.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Brannon]

When the iPhone was released it only supported 3rd party apps via Web applications. You probably complained about that.

Now you are complaining that they allow Native apps.

Possibly you just like to complain.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[paimin]

Keep up, it's not Flash vs h.264, it's Flash vs Javascript and HTML5. Video format is not at question here. You're looking for the h.264 vs Theora war, that's in a different article.

Apple being douchey about video formats doesn't change the fact that they are fully supporting open web scripting standards.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Bigjeff5]

However, some people confuse 'open' with 'free'. The h.264 is covered by certain patents, the owners of which have joined together into a patent pool and have decided on charging for use of h.264 in certain specific circumstances.

I'm confused about what makes the ITU-T's standards open in the first place, they are absolutely no different than any other official standard in any other industry. Even de-facto standards tend to have the same aspects as these "open" standards.

It's like if the Open Source community just called themselves the Software Community, and some guy came along and had the bright idea to say "Yeah, that stuff's great, but you should use my software because it's 'open'." Everybody else's software in the community is open too, but somehow he's the only guy who gets to call it that.

Seriously, I'd like to know what makes the IETF and ITU-T's Open Standards (they are, after all, the only organizations who use the term) different from any other industrial standard. I honestly can't tell, it must be a hell of a lot more subtle than the difference between closed source and open source, because I don't see it at all.

I personally think it's just another marketing gimmick, and I'm surprised they've gotten away with it for so long.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Junta]

all standards pertaining to the web should be open

Note that qualification in Steve's message. There has been noise about flash as an 'app' platform beyond 'just' web, and that is something Apple has a *lot* to lose on. Longer term, perhaps HTML5/WebGL/CSS/Javascript poses a long-term threat to their 'apps', but Flash represents a more clear and imminent threat.

Apple is in some ways worse than Microsoft (perhaps because Apple is allowed to get away with it) when it comes to standards. It would be wise to keep in mind the motivations of the players as they present their rhetoric to the world.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Just cheer for the pissing contest. Maybe it will cost them both a lot of money. A happy thought!

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Bigjeff5]

For follow up, and because the licensing terms are not publicly available, here is the FSF's collection of information about the h.264 patent license:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/h264-patent-license

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[nurb432]

I hope it doesn't turn out that Flash is the x86 code of the Internet age.

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web. This will be interesting to see what happens with Flash, given the growing gap between devices that support it and those that don't.

Sure looks like it, and as far as im concerned, its a good thing, long over due. It promoted sloppy bloated webpages that slow every computer i have.. Its insecure.. I could go on and on..

AND as sites like Youtube and Facebook moves away from it, there really is no point in seeing it surviving. This is 2010.. We can do better.

Now, if we can get something done with PDF and clean it up...

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Junta]

You probably complained about that.

Way to presuppose something about my stance that conveniently demonizes me.

I really didn't have much to say on the matter. When it released, I tried it out, thought it was a harbinger of good things to come, but it lacked some features that made me wait until a less button-averse set of manufacturers really got into the game. I actually had to wait longer than I thought before I got a WebOS device that pretty much fit my requirements, which is a testament of how far ahead of the game Apple was in technology. iPhone was a disruptive (in a good way) technology in a cell-phone industry focused on milking the status quo.

However, my complaint is not that they 'allow' native apps, it's that they game the industry to give developers little choice in the matter in a fairly anti-competitive way. Not only do they force third parties to use native apis by shooting down and forbidding cross-platform toolkits, they also restrict feature-set and approval processes to protect first-party software efforts from third-party efforts on their platform (i.e. no IM background capability in their new 'multitasking', which seems to be reserved for upcoming iChat enhancements). I have no idea why they would give such a crippled multitasking experience after so long a delay, but it seems clear they still don't want third parties to have capability they use themselves.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash is a closed standard.

Flash is partially open - Adobe has provided the .swf spec for everything but the proprietary video codecs, which are not technically "Flash."

But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth).

See above - video codecs are not the same thing as Flash. This is essentially the same situation as QuickTime being an "open" standard supporting closed codecs.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Bigjeff5]

It is a rebuttal from Ars, because they requested that he be a guest writer. The article itself also frames it pretty clearly for you, so there is no need to frame it again.

While he is absolutely on the extreme end of the open source argument (he thinks just the software being open isn't good enough, but that everything supporting that software should be open as well), he nails the hypocrisy of Jobs's letter.

First, despite what the ITU-T calls it, h.264 is not an open standard, there is nothing about them that is different than any other proprietary industrial standard. It has very restrictive licensing terms that are not publicly available. They can and will sue you if they catch you implementing h.264 without paying them for the privilege.

Second, every time Jobs uses "Adobe" in his letter, you can replace it with "Apple", and every time he uses "Flash" you can replace it with "Cocoa" or "iPhone OS" or "App Store". Thy are completely interchangeable in the complaint, so Jobs very plainly is not at all interested in maintaining free and open standards on the web. Apple is no different than Adobe in this regard, they are both struggling for control over their users.

Contrast that with Google, who is saying "Yeah, you can use that if you want, we don't mind, but look here's something even better and it's free!" Obviously event he great Google isn't perfect, but they at least don't share the pot-kettle relationship of Apple and Adobe.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Drakino]

Underpowered? Yep, and thats the point. Underpowered enough to have great battery life and be useable all day, while still being powerful enough to do what people need. Requiring some general purpose power hungry x86 chip to run Flash well is a bad idea for a cell phone or small tablet. Instead, they use low power ARM chips and hardware decoders.

I guess that also means the Nexus One, and every other Android phone is underpowered. Along with every Blackberry, Palm, and other mobile device. Can't wait for all the people who are getting Flash soon to start whining about their phones not lasting long enough to use as a phone after some basic web browsing on flash ad heavy sites.

And I still find it funny that the whole "open" Android crowd is cheering that they get a closed plugin.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/ -- now stop the bullshitting

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[jo42]

Come back in a few weeks (months?) when Android 2.2 with Flash 10.1 is in the wild -- and note how much it really, really sucks on a mobile device. Heck, I'd even venture to wager a monetary quantity (100,000 quatloos) on the amount of Flash on mobile device suckage (100%).

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Azureflare]

It's weak, because the rebuttal talks about H.264 not being open, but Steve Jobs didn't claim it was, he called it an industry standard, not an open standard.

And Flash isn't an industry standard? When all the industry leaders - and nearly all the industry followers - support it, it seems to me to be a de-facto industry standard.

That doesn't mean it's a GOOD industry standard. Flash should be abolished.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Mr2001]

And I still find it funny that the whole "open" Android crowd is cheering that they get a closed plugin.

An open platform means anyone can develop for it, even proprietary software. Contrast it to Apple's closed platform, where you can't get that closed plugin because Steve has a chip on his shoulder. There are open source Flash players that could, theoretically, be ported to Android just as Adobe is doing (if anyone felt strongly enough about "closed plugins" that they were willing to port an open one). Again, that's something Steve won't let you do on the iPhone.

Also, most Android phones already ship with closed applications from Google. That's what the scuffle with Cyanogen was about, which is why installing CyanogenMod now involves backing up those closed apps and then restoring them after flashing the new OS.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely. but it's also garbage and therefore should be taken to the trash.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The spec is fully provided by a governing body, which is comprised of multiple entities. You're confusing open with free. Open != Free.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[catmistake]

Flash is a closed standard.

Flash is partially open - Adobe has provided the .swf spec for everything but the proprietary video codecs, which are not technically "Flash."

interesting, but doesn't help Adobe's position.

But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth).

See above - video codecs are not the same thing as Flash. This is essentially the same situation as QuickTime being an "open" standard supporting closed codecs.

I understand its not a codec, and in fact Flash can deliver H.264 video, but your point is irrelevant as Flash and H.264 are competing as video delivery methods for the spot in HTML5 (H.264 already won, btw). So it is understood we are comparing Flash (not a codec), to H.264 (a video codec) in regards to what their function is in this case: web video delivery. Flash CAN duplicate exactly the quality of H.264 because it can deliver H.264... but it will necessarily take up more bandwidth to do it, because it is a superfluous wrapper to a codec that could operate without Flash.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't get it do you? you see its apple that should be abolished - i like to see them humiliate it daft followers and steal their cash but when they try to control something like the web they need to be put down, and that is what is happening here :)

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

learn something about what makes a computer worth having and then ditch apple.
just move on with your life.
the bonus is that you won't appear to have more cash than sense!

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[BitZtream]

Perhaps you should realize that your definition of 'open standard' isn't one that anyone outside of the OSS community subscribes to.

It is available to anyone to implement anyway they care to without any discrimination in who gets to buy it for what purpose.

You can fully examine the standard.

Just because it costs money does not mean it isn't open.

OSS people have just gotten retarded and confuse 'open' and 'free' as if they are interchangable, and then have several different definitions of free that are used in various situations to promote the OSS agenda.

You really need to get some perspective if you want OSS to continue to be meaningful, the more you act like irrational jackasses by making retarded statements like you just made, the more every sane person in the world realizes they don't want listen to some fundimentalist nutjob such as yourself.

h264 meets pretty much everyones definition of an open standard outside of the minor collection of GPL zealots out there. Just because you have your own retarded/warped definition of open standard doesn't mean anyone else gives a shit.

Learn the difference between open standard, open source, and free because you clearly don't know the difference which is pretty much standard operating procedure for GPL zealots.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Bigjeff5]

You can thank apple's open source work on WebKit for a big part of that.

It's worth noting that since it was made open-source, Apple has been more of a hindrance than a help to the development of WebKit, with their constant attempts to force control of it in spite of the community's desires.

You clearly did not read the letter from jobs. He does discuss the proprietary nature of iPhone OS.

Clearly, neither did you. He touts h.264 as an open web standard, which despite what the ITU-T group likes to label it, it is not. At the same time, they are making veiled threats at Ogg Theora, which is an open web standard. That's some great promotion of "openness on the web" there.

Basically, you can exchange "Apple" and "Cocoa" or "App Store" for every single instance of "Adobe" and "Flash" in Jobs's letter. Open standards proponent my ass!

Combined with the performance issues, crashing issues

What crashing and performance issues? I haven't experienced any on my Android. I personally like flash, it would be nice if something less proprietary were better, but it does a lot of things that simply cannot be done in HTML5 (even with h.264), JavaScript, and CSS. Adobe will fix any touch issues eventually, they have a very strong incentive to make it work well, so that's really only a "for now" issue. HTML5+h.264 isn't even widely adopted yet, so how is that any different than the "touch" issue for Flash?

Saying we should be using h.264 instead of Flash because Flash isn't an open standard is like saying we should buy Lamborghini's instead of Ferrari's because Ferrari's are too expensive. Lamborghini's are just as expensive for all the same reasons as Ferrari's. It doesn't wash.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused.

When all the industry leaders ... support it

What industry leaders actively support Flash? Adobe is the only one with a full implementation of Flash, and they choose to support it on the market leading platforms to varying degrees. But the choice is entirely up to them on any platform with an API that would allow them to implement Flash.

Unless we have a public spec and multiple full-featured implementations of Flash, there is nothing "standard" about it.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[centuren]

That doesn't mean it's a GOOD industry standard. Flash should be abolished.

To be completely fair, Flash doesn't *have* to be abolished. Instead it could be improved, a lot. If Flash was rewritten to consume a reasonable amount of CPU during video playback, along with all the other technical shortcomings it has, then it might be a good standard to have around. Some developers seem to like it for specific things (non-video related). Maybe the line we should all be pushing is "Flash should be improved."

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Once it was popular the IP owners started putting on the squeeze. At the very beginning .mp3 licenses were pretty much free. Not so any more.

"pretty much free" as in MP3 implementers just didn't pay, and "the squeeze" as in the licensors decided to start asking them to?
I guess I would have more sympathy if a bigger audience actually paid for licenses...

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think Flash with multi-bit-rate codec support will use more bandwidth then the tag? Because a 50 KB SWF is used to load a 50 MB H264 file? The problem with the simplistic tag is it is not great for a wide variety of download speeds. You're little 3G phone wants a much different quality video (unless you want to stall like mad) than a cable modem user on a quad-core PC. Flash and Silverlight have that support. Do all browsers all have the identical tag implementation also to support this?

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"And Flash isn't an industry standard? When all the industry leaders - and nearly all the industry followers - support it, it seems to me to be a de-facto industry standard."

No, it's not a standard. First of all not all the industry leaders or followers use it. Neither Apple nor I support it. That's two of us. Microsoft just dinged Flash. That's three of us. You can keep on using Flash. Feel free. Isn't that wonderful? You can choose to use Flash. You can choose to only buy devices that will run your beloved Flash. And I'll choose to keep Flash turned off. Thanks.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Tumbleweed]

While I dislike Apple's my-way-or-the-highway approach, I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web.

You _really_ think Apple's position on Flash has anything to do with supporting open standards? Really?

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

And Flash isn't an industry standard? When all the industry leaders - and nearly all the industry followers - support it, it seems to me to be a de-facto industry standard.

Everybody depends on Adobe to provide Flash---nobody 'supports' it, per se.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't know? Maybe you should not post about things you are ignorant of.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[mad.frog]

H.264 delivers video quality superior to Flash and with less bandwidth.

Your statement makes no sense: Flash has included H.264 in its suite of codecs since 2007 (along with VP6 and H.263).

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is understood we are comparing Flash (not a codec), to H.264 (a video codec) in regards to what their function is in this case: web video delivery. Flash CAN duplicate exactly the quality of H.264 because it can deliver H.264... but it will necessarily take up more bandwidth to do it, because it is a superfluous wrapper to a codec that could operate without Flash.

WTF? I was replying to your point about open standards - why are you dragging bandwidth into it??

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Open standards are useless in situations where everybody else does not follow it. I am sick to death of being unable to use a web site on my iPhone due the no flash installed error. Steve Jobs is just a useless twit, and Apple will break out of its shell once he is finally gone for good.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[DrXym]

Keep up, it's not Flash vs h.264, it's Flash vs Javascript and HTML5. Video format is not at question here. You're looking for the h.264 vs Theora war, that's in a different article.

And HTML5 pretty much loses unless we're talking relatively sedentary content. That's not a slight on HTML5, it's just not built for timing critical stuff such as animation. I expect performance is all over the shop too from one browser to the next rather than the consistency Flash brings. Where it can hope to claw share from Flash is on the rich client side of things, but I expect games / anims are probably safe for a long time yet.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[Junta]

Adobe will fix any touch issues eventually, they have a very strong incentive to make it work well, so that's really only a "for now" issue.

While I agree that capability not provided via standards is provided, my confidence that Adobe will fix all the issues is low. The entire lifetime of flash has been pretty much about the bare-minimum they had to do, staying fairly flaky and bloated throughout its life.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[666999]

so Jobs very plainly is not at all interested in maintaining free and open standards on the web.

So HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are not free and open standards? Because that's all I see Jobs pushing. (ignoring the fact that both H264 and Flash video are not ideal nor free video solutions)

Cocoa and the App Store have nothing to do with developing web apps, and there are no Apple restrictions on web content for iPhone OS. If I want a porn HTML5 app with offline storage and a boob home screen icon, I can do it very simply. No SDK needed, no need for Apple's approval.

That said, I would like to have the option for Flash. I would keep it turned off unless needed, the same way I do on my laptop, but I agree that it should be my choice. However, most users aren't knowledgable enough to know that it should be left off unless needed, and will blame the resulting slowdowns and browser crashes on Apple and not Flash, which is what has been happening on OS X for some time now.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[indiechild]

Since when did Jobs say Flash wasn't an industry standard?

These arguments keep skirting around the real issues.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[indiechild]

So how do you feel about Flash playing back H264 video?

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[msgyrd]

Apple isn't being douchey about video formats, unless you consider "we don't want to suck" as being douchey. It's that a dedicated H.264 decoder chip exists in the iPhone (and most new smartphones) and provides significant performance gains in terms of framerate, video quality and battery life vs. other formats that are decoded on the CPU, at relatively low hardware cost. As far as I'm aware, a Theora decoder chip is not in popular use, if it exists at all.

H.264 provides a better experience for the user, which is why Apple chose it. It's their same reasoning for denying Flash on their mobile devices. Flash, in their browser, degrades the performance to a level they are unhappy with. Flash, as a common programming target, becomes a lowest common denominator and hands API control and release cycles over to a 3rd party. I don't like Apple making those decisions for me, so I don't own their devices, but there are millions of people who don't care about this and just want the best experience.

While I'm happy Google is giving me a choice to use Flash on my phone, I'm not overly excited about its arrival either, I've programmed in Flash before, and I agree with many of Jobs' criticisms. My hope is that Apple's scorn will force them to improve their product.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[paimin]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. The douchey part is waving the legal stick around, which is unbecoming of anyone. But as far as format goes, in 2010, h.264 is the only reasonable choice. I fully understand people's desire for an open format, but it's just not there right now, whereas h.264 has been in production use for five years.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[soppsa]

But but but Apple is evil!!!1

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[hazydave]

You have to love that Steve Jobs. His goals are pretty obvious here: he wants H.264, and only H.264, as the video standard for the web. That's what iPods and iPhones and iPads play, and have always played. They play it well, due to the hardware video acceleration designed specifically for H.264. He also wants to protect his iPhoneOS walled garden from any reasonable way of writing or distributing an app without Apple's explicit approval. Thus, no Flash in your browser, no Commodore 64 emulator, etc. And, in order to make it more work for a developer to support other device platforms, he just cut off the use of application frameworks... so no Flash, even hidding in an iPhoneOS binary.

But the thing you gotta love... he's managed to completely control the discussion about this. First, by framing it all as being about video.... Flash video "bad", H.264 video "good". And then by claiming it all in the name of standards! Of course he wants it to seem standard, after all, that's kind of the point -- get the world to rotate around the Apple axis and deliver H.264 as the only standard for web video. Thus, iPhones re-enter the world as eventually-first-class web clients, rather than the second-class state they occupy today. Well, except for that nasty other use of Flash.. building web sites. Thus his efforts to demonize Flash any way possible... performance (despite Flash being slow on Macs because of Apple, not Adobe) and security (only a PC issue, anyway).

While I'd love to not need Flash myself, I'd like it to be my choice, not anyone else's. And the real fast is, until web development tools for non-programmers work as easily as Adobe's Flash tools, people will still be using "way too much Flash" online.

The bottom line is, any company really worried about standards would be far happier with an open sourced VP8. Apple won't be... they'll fight this just like they fought Flash, if Google does open source it as expected at the Google I/O conference this month. And anyone really wanting to displace Flash would release a tool that works just as well as Flash for non-programmers, using standards. Apple doesn't particularly want that, either... games and apps based on HTML5 would offer the same problem Flash does today.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[hazydave]

Right.

Also, consider very carefully the concept of "open" versus "closed", because it's often based on just where you're standing. From the developer's point of view, yes, Flash is a proprietary product. You have to buy the tools from Adobe. And yet, they do.. .because content people using those tools means you don't have to hire a full fledged web programmer to do the same thing in HTML right now.

From the user's point of view, any additional option I have is moving toward "open", any decision made for me by someone else is moving toward "closed". So from my user's stance, the option to view Flash make a system more open than some restriction against it. Obviously, being forced to use flash would go even more proprietary, but that's not the situation here. If Flash is truly a proprietary evil, it will eventually be replaced by open standards, but that has to start at the tools, not the client end. And maybe it's just not that evil.

Why would I suggest that? Well, let's see... look at who's using Flash. Artists and Web designers, and they're just trying to deliver a good web site. Adobe's supporting the player everywhere... yeah, that makes the authoring tools more valuable. But it's not as if I pay less for Adobe tools based around open standards: both Photoshop and Premiere cost much more.

Now, look at who's actively opposing Flash, by cutting off the client and annoying users. Microsoft. Apple. Can you name any two more traditionally evil companies in the PC business? Certainly not any with that same mix of evil, power, and money. Evil alone? Ok sure... but if SCO were healthy, I'm sure they'd be totally on board with the "replace proprietary flash with proprietary H.264" mission.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[cheesybagel]

ITU-T standards are open standards per the traditionally applied definitions (which are not new). IMO we should not engage in revisionism, like the software patents people do, if we want to use an expression for it, call it free standards. At least it is different.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[cheesybagel]

Anyone can buy a copy of the standard by asking the ITU. Anyone can implement the standard by paying a royalty or whatever. The standard was defined by a standards body composed of several companies in the industry. This is what separates an open standard from a vendor pushed standard. The royalty structure means it is hard for free and open source software to implement such standards. However we should not, IMO, engage in revisionism and change the meanings commonly used definitions of what a standard is. Just call it a free standard, or a royalty-free standard, or whatever.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[cheesybagel]

Of course if you actually do another phone (like HTC) then they sue you.

Re:Maybe good... maybe bad

[cheesybagel]

Flash 10.1 is supposed to have GPU acceleration support for video. Perhaps you will reconsider eventually...

Besides if Google really, really wanted, they could just fund a Flash video alternative. But why bother when Adobe has a bone to pick after Steve Jobs all but declared a war on them?

Hackers have a new window

[philpalm]

If Jobs is right, then hackers will be able to hack a "droid" thru flash.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[arndawg]

Still largely dependent on a kernel exploit i guess..

Re:Hackers have a new window

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight! Let's hope he bans flash in OS X as well!

Re:Hackers have a new window

[dunkelfalke]

Yawn. The same mantra was repeated again and again when iPhone was introduced and disallowed you to install native applications while you could do that on Windows Mobile and Symbian. According to Jobs native applications were the tool of devil and could bring down the whole GSM network.

Guess what, there were no hackers to attack both systems then, there are none now. And the GSM networks somehow survived.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[TheKidWho]

That's because all applications for the iPhone are signed by apple.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[v1]

if that does happen, and it's somewhat likely, google will end up with some egg on their face.

And if they're feeling REALLY ballsy, they'll put an adobe PDF viewer on the 'droid too.

Flash, Adobe Reader, and Word/Excel have really been the document exploits of choice for quite some time. Anyone have any hard numbers on percent of document exploits? (Explorer needs an Honorable Mention here I think too)

Normally I'd say "sandbox it", but the flash VM just doesn't work that way. True, properly implemented, it can't get outside the VM's sandbox, but do you really want flash apps stealing data from each other? I think google is going to find there's too much opportunity for evil. Unless they can pull off a new instance for each applet, which is going to be all kinds of trouble.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're at all sane, they'll use Sumatra PDF, not adobe reader.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[trapnest]

thru isn't a word.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[Vexor]

Ah, but is "Do no Evil" the same as presenting "Opportunity for Evil"? We'll see how Google handles it.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[rtfa-troll]

What was that whoosh? Low flying ducks again?

Damnit; of course Apple's signing is the only thing protecting us from the void. That's why networks with Symbian phones (where the user can install just about anything they want) collapse almost every day of the week. Nothing at all to do with Apple being a bunch of control freaks.

Re:Hackers have a new window

[v1]

Well right now is the perfect opportunity to rag on the competition (Apple) for not including a feature that the public wants ("has been trained to believe they need"?) This may very well come to bite goggle on the butt the first time a worm winds its way through the droid market. They're just betting that they'll have gotten their money's worth out of the hype they're creating now by the time it comes full circle. I'd tend to think "not if, WHEN", but people have been saying that about Apple's worm and virus resiliance for quite some time now -- if you focus hard enough on it I guess it's possible to be reasonably bulletproof?

So it's quite possible that google is playing android development very cagey, planning it carefully to avoid security holes in the design itself. (sort of, you know, the opposite of microsoft's apparent development philosophy) If that is the case, they may have made a good gamble and come out a winner. (not necessarily overall, but at least they'll get a positive result)

Time will tell I guess. Either way, you have two somewhat competing philosophies that are both trying to make tough decisions that in the end will help the users. I'm all for that, regardless of who wins. They can squabble amongst themselves all they want as long as I come out a winner as a result.

Cr4zY

[Anonymous Coward]

good articla man tnks ;)

Cr4zY | nterAktif Web Günlüü

Suck On That Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

You massive tool.

Verizon

[RafaelAngel]

He should of asked about the refusal of Verizon to carry the g-phone.

Re:Verizon

[Frosty Piss]

He should of asked about the refusal of Verizon to carry the g-phone.

Verizon has contractual obligations and a considerable advertising investment in the Motorola Droid. *Every* service provider makes such deals, there's nothing nefarious going on other than standard business practices.

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

Re:Verizon

[bconway]

The HTC Incredible, release two days ago on Verizon, is almost identical in spec and function to the Nexus One. It's already sold out in many areas and their online store.

Re:Verizon

[Mr2001]

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

Besides their excellent 3G coverage, there's also the fact that the Droid is still the only top-tier Android phone with a physical keyboard. The Nexus One is nice, but only if you don't care about using SSH or emulators.

Re:Verizon

[Bigjeff5]

He should of asked about the refusal of Verizon to carry the g-phone.

They didn't refuse to carry it, they had plans to carry it and HTC out-maneuvered Google at the last minute. HTC released a better phone, so why would Verizon add two phones when one is clearly better in every way? That only adds to their support costs, it doesn't add any value to their lineup. There was some incentive to go with Google in the first place, give what Google wants to turn the handset market into, but Google's plans don't preclude packaging phones with carriers (obviously, or they wouldn't be making deals).

Google just mistimed the market and missed a big opportunity to move their plans forward. It's nothing malicious on Verizon's part, they had already been planning on releasing the Nexus, Google just got out-played by a handset veteran.

Re:Verizon

[Bigjeff5]

Verizon has contractual obligations and a considerable advertising investment in the Motorola Droid. *Every* service provider makes such deals, there's nothing nefarious going on other than standard business practices.

That's not the reason the Nexus was pulled, the phone was in their lineup to be released until the HTC Incredible came out, which is the new top dog in Android smartphones. It's better in every way, and apparently an HTC contract was easier and faster to set up than a Google contract. So one week the Nexus was scheduled to be released, the next it was pulled in favor of the Incredible.

Google, frankly, just took too long and missed their shot. I think they overestimated how long the Nexus would be at the top. It certainly has nothing to do with Motorola (the Verizon Incredible adds take a direct shot at the Motorola Droid adds, mimicking that red eye and everything).

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

Because they're better than everybody else? Seriously, half of my friends use Verizon, and Verizon doesn't sell service in my area. Their network and plans are that good. Though, my roommate is a little miffed that they sent her a new Incredible even though she can't activate it here. She had to send it to her parents so they could activate it for her, and they'll be sending it back. Other than that everything I've heard is positive. AT&T offers service here, and I do hear a lot of negative comments about them. There is no official Sprint coverage, but the local carriers are all Sprint partners (my Hero is a Sprint Hero).

Enjoying?

[nicolas.kassis]

More like forced to enjoy due to lack of suitable replacement currently. Flash sucks, programming flash sucks, Youtube and cie are awesome but require flash to work. I agree (for different reason as Jobs) that flash shouldn't be encouraged. I'm not too excited at the idea of having run on my phone. Now section 3.3.1 is a whole other ball game of dick move by Apple. A flash to native iPhone tool or any other language X to native iPhone app are useful is an stupid money grab by Apple. But that's their choice, I'll keep enjoying my android phone and try to avoid helping pollute the web by never developing with Flash. Yes my site looks like it was made in 1995 why do you ask?

Re:Enjoying?

[nicolas.kassis]

And yes I know HTML 5 is on the way (I'm working on projects that make use of it right now) but it's not their yet.

Re:Enjoying?

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's not their yet.

yeah, but is it there?

Re:Enjoying?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube does not require Flash to work; you can enable html5 mode here. It does require h.264 at the moment, but Google bought On2 which owns the VP8 codec, and there are strong rumors that they will release it openly.

Re:Enjoying?

[wishfulThinking]

I keep hearing all these crappy things about Flash (performance, security, etc.) without any data to back it up. Why exactly does programming Flash suck, and could somebody show me some hard facts on Flash's 'buggyness', and there security issues VS Html / Javascript. The only thing that I've seen comparing html vs flash on smart phones resulted in flash way outperforming html 5 ( http://phandroid.com/2010/04/01/speed-test-flash-vs-html5-on-the-nexus-one/ )

Adobe vs Apple

[FuckingNickName]

In the left corner we have Adobe, who demonstrates the power of the web enhanced with cross-platform plugins, but makes little effort to cooperate on forming the albeit openly published Flash VM spec and makes a fairly unstable reference implementation (not helped by the lack of process isolation in browsers).

In the right corner we have Apple, whose proposal of the extra-DOM canvas element to troll Adobe (rather than following the example of SVG) further complicated the monolithic monster that is W3C's HTML standard.

In the centre we have consumers, who get to enjoy that there are so many standards to choose from.

Why?

[ZipprHead]

I can understand from an operating system point of view why you would want to support Flash.

But damn, I have no interest in having Flash run on my cell phone.

Re:Why?

[Mr2001]

Free games. Access to web sites that use Flash heavily, like Midomi (for recording and playing back audio) or Newgrounds (vector animations).

Re:Why?

[Bigjeff5]

Use the web much?

WTF Are You Babbling About?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll give them credit for sticking to their guns about open standards for the web"

Tell us you're being sarcastic...

No one could possibly be stupid enough to take Steve Jobs' rambling tirades against 'teh Flash' as some sort of effort to support 'open standards'.

Flash allows developers and users to freely bypass Apple's tollbooth for content.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand on this, try and apply Steve's reasoning to another fairly standard technology that's used with a huge number of mobile devices: Java.

Oops. In that case, the argument completely fails.

And yet, he won't allow Java or Java-based apps on the iPhone either along with Flash. And Java has been on mobile devices for ages!

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[je ne sais quoi]

What I find particularly ironic about this thread is that Android's browser uses Webkit. That's right, the open phone that's the enemy of Apple's uber-evil closed system is running a fork of khtml created and supported by Apple. Without Apple, Android probably wouldn't be as good. It just goes to show, somebody modded +5 on slashdot doesn't need to actually need to know anything about technology, they just need to be able to denigrate whatever technology company is currently the market leader.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[wtmoose]

It is exactly about open standards for the web. What is this HTML5 content tollbooth you're talking about? Open standards give Apple control of the implementation not the content. Apple is perfectly happy to allow any web content on the device as long as they own the rendering engine. They do not want to be at the mercy of a third party - particularly Adobe - for the performance of their mobile devices, and rightly so.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[centuren]

What I find particularly ironic about this thread is that Android's browser uses Webkit. That's right, the open phone that's the enemy of Apple's uber-evil closed system is running a fork of khtml created and supported by Apple. Without Apple, Android probably wouldn't be as good. It just goes to show, somebody modded +5 on slashdot doesn't need to actually need to know anything about technology, they just need to be able to denigrate whatever technology company is currently the market leader.

You can make that connection if you like, but as you said, it's a khtml fork. It's silly to speculate about what Android would be without Apple's support of Webkit, as Google could have done lots of things for their browser engine, including supporting and developing a khtml fork.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could use the Mozilla engine, you know the one that Google helps pay for? (yes, from having their name on the search box)

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[indiechild]

So does HTML5, which Jobs points out repeatedly. If you don't want to distribute a native app, then write a web-based app.

So what's your point? Oh, you haven't got one.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[PintoPiman]

Flash allows developers and users to freely bypass Apple's tollbooth for content.

That would make sense... if HTML5+ Javascript webapps didn't also bypass Apple's tollbooth for content. Flash's problem is that they bypass Apple's hardcore user experience micromanagement.

Re:WTF Are You Babbling About?

[cheesybagel]

Why distribute native apps at all then? Try running everything using data access on your cellphone while traveling abroad, paying roaming fees, and then let's talk.

Flash standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Full support for Adobe’s Flash standard"? Hey dumbass, Flash isn't part of the Web it's a godamn plug-in.

Now get off my lawn!

Hey Google

[Qwavel]

I'm thrilled that I'm able to use whatever software I want on Android. The problem is, I don't actually want Flash - I just wanted the ability to decide for myself.

So, that's great that you will be supporting it, but please let me turn it off or uninstall it from my phone.

Thanks.

Re:Hey Google

[Tak_1]

I had been thinking of getting an Android Phone after my iPhone contract expires, but if they are going to force feed me flash, no thanks. I have been using not one, not two, but THREE Firefox plug ins to keep Flash from screwing up my laptop. I do NOT want this experience in my phone.

So unless the Android will have a simple way to remove flash, I'm going to have to stick with an iPhone. The dancing, talking, pop up, flash ad people who make our browsing lives hell will just have to find another way to choke my phone with unwanted content. Flash is a disease.

Re:Hey Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're a computing incompetent. I've never had a singe problem with flash on any of my machines. Your ignorance is the disease.

Re:Hey Google

[Joe Tie.]

I have been using not one, not two, but THREE Firefox plug ins to keep Flash from screwing up my laptop. I do NOT want this experience in my phone.

Why haven't you just uninstalled flash on it? Also, why is it taking anything more than flashblock?

Re:Hey Google

[Bigjeff5]

Do you have any experience using Android at all? Of course you'll be able to turn it off!

If not in an official setting (though I find it unlikely that there would not be one), then someone will write an app to do it. Just like everything else.

Seriously, what's the problem?

Re:Hey Google

[centuren]

Why haven't you just uninstalled flash on it?

Seriously, Flash is just a plug-in. If you don't like it, uninstall it completely from your system, like you would any other software you hated. Just because Android 2.2 will support the plug-in doesn't mean it's going to be required. I don't really get why someone would feel so strongly about not liking Flash -- it's only on your computer if you've chosen to a) install it or b) keep it. Whether you use an iPhone, a Windows, Mac, or Linux desktop, you can equally "not support" Flash by not installing it.

Re:Hey Google

[jomcty]

You're gonna love iAd then.

Choice is good

[gun26]

Unlike a certain dictatorial and litigious cellphone manufacturer, Google is giving their users a choice. Flash haters certainly have reason for their dislike, but I think the decision of whether to use it or not should be left in the hands of users and webmasters, where it belongs. Good move on this, Google.

I for one...

[greatgreygreengreasy]

...can't WAIT to play FARMVILLE on my PHONE!!! instead of click click click click click I'll get to tap tap tap tap tap tap!

My Thoughts

[sonicmerlin]

To be honest I'm rather surprised it's taken this long for Adobe to release a portable version of Flash for smartphones. I think this speaks to how cozy and lazy Adobe had become with their control of the market. Jobs's remarks were indeed hypocritical, but if he is to praised for anything it's for lighting a fire under Adobe's cushion.

I also think Jobs's "letter about Flash" was far from coincidental. Now that his competitors will have a defining feature that makes their smartphone experience significantly more enjoyable, Jobs either had to relent or push on with an self-inflicted platform deficiency. The letter was just him setting down the battle lines.

Competition is great, but Apple's use of their control of the iPhone hardware to control the iPhone software market is anti-competitive, and I for one am happy to see Google stick it to them.

Re:My Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

The N900 already has a version a flash.

Re:My Thoughts

[AndrewNeo]

Not only has Flash been available on other smartphones (Windows Mobile, N900, etc.) but it's also been available on Android phones with the HTC Sense UI. Now it'll be in every stock 2.2 phone, which will cover hopefully all newer Android-running phones (aka ones running 2.1 now)

Re:My Thoughts

[Invid72]

You are confusing Flash lite, a limited subset of Flash with "Full Flash" in Adobe parlance, which is coming with 10.1. No shipping smartphone save the Nokia N900 ships with a full featured Flash runtime.

The Maemo plugin is a sluggish performer from what I've heard too. Adobe really needs to hit the Flash 10.1 for Android release out of the park, or risk validating all of Jobs' criticisms.

Re:My Thoughts

[Bigjeff5]

I didn't realize how much the Sense UI added until I downloaded the Android emulator - it really is a pretty big difference. Nothing really structural, just lots of nice little things that other people have to patch together with various apps (mail apps, wireless switch widgets, etc).

Sense is nice. ^^

Re:My Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Flash Lite - which is basically an advertising delivery platform, and scant more.

Flash-Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the main reason flash is good on cellphones.

So sad

[roman_mir]

This was my comment on the previous /. story about Flash not going to be supported under iPhone, moded 'Troll' as you see. My current comment is the exact opposite of that one.

This is a disaster! Flash must be made into a pariah or maybe just a piranha of the Internet. It became a de-facto standard for playing video in a browser and supplanted development of an open standard, which was so late to arrive obviously, it only has appeared in html5. It is insane, if the rest of the Internet was based on similar technology, closed down, depending on a single company, there would have been no Internet, and now Android doing this (probably just to show itself as a more 'competitive' platform to iPhone).

I just had a tear I think, well somewhere on the inside of my mind... :(

Re:So sad

[Bigjeff5]

I just want to point out, that the only quality video standard that is actually open is Ogg Theora. Google's VP8 will probably be open as well, but we don't know that yet.

H.264, which is the "open standard" that Jobs is pushing, is a proprietary format created by the ITU-T and the MPEG (same guys who did the proprietary DVD standard) groups. It requires strict licensing terms and royalties (which are not made public, btw). I really don't understand why so many people let them get away with calling it "open" when it is about as closed as you can get. Even the Flash standard, while proprietary, is completely open and freely licensed. I certainly wouldn't call Flash "open", but it is much more open than H.264 is.

That's why this is complete hypocrisy. Jobs says "open standards" and lists H.264 as one of them. It's a complete lie. There is nothing about H.264 that makes it more open than Flash. Not one thing. There are actually quite a few that make it less open.

How about websockets?

[gorehog]

When will they start putting the current webkit builds with websocket support on these devices?

What about the little guy?

[sparkydevil]

It's extremely annoying to see Mr Jobs deny me access to customers based on his idea of perfection.

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site. Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

Re:What about the little guy?

[Sebilrazen]

Yes, or a well styled non-Flash using website.

Re:What about the little guy?

[larry bagina]

He's suggesting that you create an html5 standards-compliant website. I suggest you do so as well.

Re:What about the little guy?

[DragonWriter]

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site. Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

So, let me get this straight: instead of doing the rational thing to maximize the number of users who could benefit from the content of your site by first presenting the content with the most broadly supported subset of HTML before building a "premium" presentation of the content that would be accessible to a smaller set of users using a technology that is less universal like Flash, you excluded many potential customers by building a flash-only site that they could not use from the many web-enabled devices (including the iPhone) that don't have Flash, and you blame Steve Jobs for limiting the reach of your app by not correcting your decision by bringing Flash to the iPhone?

Maybe you need to consider that the problem here isn't with Steve Jobs.

Re:What about the little guy?

[poly_pusher]

Suggesting? No... Not if you want it to run on the Iphone or Ipad. The irony is that I agree with many of the statements made by Apple and Jobs about Flash. HTML 5 is much more efficient, particularly on mobile devices. What bothers me is that it is being forced. HTML 5 will win out. Sites that use Flash will steer away from it once they see a benefit, which in the case of web video will be a no brainer. Let the market decide who wins. If this kind of competition doesn't kill Flash it will force Adobe to get their act together. Apple has created a computing device that's in your pocket to help you in your day to day. They associated an app store and began censoring it. Then they come out with the Ipad. A computing device intended to fill a niche between smart phones and primary computers. This device has the same limitations and is attached to the same censored app store and they announce no cross-platform development for the apps in this store. I do not like this trend. Make my phone. Make my phone's OS. Don't tell me what I can and can't have on it.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Karlt1]

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site.

What makes you think Flash would be more appealing to people visiting your website? When I go to a restaurant's web site I want to see a menu, the hours of operations, and maybe a picture of some of their entrees.

Re:What about the little guy?

[dingen]

Especially the little guy shouldn't put hundreds of dollars into Adobe Flash Professional to create slow-loading, unsemantic binary blobs and call it a "website". Your customers will be much happier with a snappy search engine optimized standard-compliant HTML page, a good looking CSS stylesheet and maybe some fancy and gracefully degrading Javascript effects as icing on the cake. There are loads of freely available open source content managment systems out there with support for themes which will provide you with exactly this, for no money at all.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

using a technology that is less universal like Flash

Flash is available on something like 99% of all computers, and that final percentage is mostly people who are actively avoiding Flash or using browsers that don't support HTML5 in any case.

you blame Steve Jobs for limiting the reach of your app by not correcting your decision by bringing Flash to the iPhone?

Something like 75% of all mobile devices will support Flash. Yeah, it's really his problem that iPhone users are going to be left in the cold.

Steve Jobs needs to wake up and realize that there are just some things that can't be done without Flash. HTML5 is NOT a drop-in solution. In fact, in many ways, it's considerably worse than Flash.

Which means that there's a good chance that his website simply will never be able to work without the features that Flash brings to the table. And in that case, you're basically telling him that yes, he should code a custom iPhone application to get that final percent-of-a-percent of an audience that uses the iPhone to browse the web, since there's no other way to duplicate his existing, fully functional code.

Re:What about the little guy?

[PrimaryConsult]

Yup, there are many times in the past where I've wanted to order from http://wingsover.com/ but since the menu is behind flash, I end up ordering from somewhere else... Flash-only for a restaurant is a very bad idea, it really doesn't make business sense. Not only does it exclude smartphones but it also excludes any office where flash is blocked administratively, limiting lunch ordering options...

Re:What about the little guy?

[PenisLands]

You failed. A HTML site is infinitely more appealing than a horrible flash mess. Flash is good for nothing but silly animations and stuff like chatroulette.

Re:What about the little guy?

[swfranklin]

As a small eCommerce business owner, I spent a lot of time working on making my site appealing and functional - and as a result I chose NOT to use Flash. It's slow, cumbersome, does not work with all browsers (often due to users actively disabling it), does not play well with accessibility add-ons, and is arguably more difficult to maintain. I chose to use ASP due to my own experience with it but the back-end technology isn't important, the output presented to the browser is simply HTML with CSS. My site has ZERO specific enhancements for mobile users but as it happens the site renders quite acceptably on an iPhone.

Re:What about the little guy?

[ceoyoyo]

"I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site."

I think I found your problem. Like so many things, it can be traced back to a faulty assumption.

Re:What about the little guy?

[TooMuchToDo]

Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

No, he's suggesting you tailor your website to what your customers are using, not what you're expecting them to use.

Re:What about the little guy?

[npsimons]

Maybe you need to consider that the problem here isn't with Steve Jobs.

No, Steve Jobs isn't the problem, but he's certainly one of many. Of course, listening to Steve Jobs (or anyone at Apple) talk about openness would be like listening to Mussolini talk about democracy. OTOH, Steve Jobs would be a good source about companies that offer proprietary locked down platforms; after all, it takes one to know one.

But Apple's position of "we know better than you, and we're limiting your choices to support openness" is disingenuous at best. I'm no fan of Flash, but it is a very widely used standard that you can't really get by without today. I wish that would change, and I commend Apple for supporting HTML5. I'm not going to buy any Apple products anytime soon, because I believe that I know what is best for me. That includes leaving the choice of whether I can use Flash or not up to me, among many, many other choices.

Re:What about the little guy?

[DebianDog]

Exactly, I skip flash only sites

Re:What about the little guy?

[Bigjeff5]

Which he has absolutely no right to do.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Bigjeff5]

You do realize that 98% of web users have Flash, right? Going through all the trouble of an HTML only version of his site only adds 2% to his potential viewership, and it's much harder to make it look nice. He didn't exclude all that many customers by using Flash, or he would not have used it.

Where is the return on investment? HTML5 isn't even an option yet, what do you propose? Remember, if he has to spend more money to get his site looking the way he wants without Flash than the added 2% of potential users could generate, it's not worth the effort.

There really aren't a whole lot of cases where that kind of effort would be justified, when his site works fine right now and hits 98% of his customer base.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Bigjeff5]

Frankly, I hope Apple and Adobe both lose. It would be much better if the HTML5 standard included a true open standard, instead of the snake oil that is H.264. Don't get me wrong, fantastic technology, but calling it open is a joke. It's proprietary, restrictively licensed, and if you want to use it you owe royalties. Exactly what about that is "open" by any definition? It's just a normal industry standard, calling it "open" is just marketing bullshit. HTML5 should have a stipulation against non-free standards for the officially supported video formats. If browsers want to include h.264 support, that's fine, but they should also support something like Ogg Theora by default in the standard. Google's VP8 is almost certainly going to be free and open, so that would be a good choice as well.

Either way, H.264 support should not be part of the HTML5 standard, it should be separate. It will effectively hamstring free open-source browser standards compliance if it is included. That could be another reason Jobs is pushing it so hard - he can afford the costs, but some of his competitors may not.

Besides, Jobs is even more deceptive and disingenuous, because Flash actually uses H.264 already.

Make my phone. Make my phone's OS. Don't tell me what I can and can't have on it.

That's what Google is trying to do, though they miscalculated with Verizon and have had a setback. I definitely agree with you, I'll never own an iPhone for the very reasons you state. We'll see how Google pulls out of their recent failure.

Re:What about the little guy?

[larry bagina]

Something like 75% of all mobile devices will support Flash.

But not today. And his flash monstrosity designed for 1024x768 won't be very appealing on a 320x480, 4" touch screen.

Re:What about the little guy?

[tk77]

What you don't like to go to a website to only be presented with 30 seconds of intro animation?

Or in my case, a big empty page with a box in the middle that says "Flash".

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure he would be aiming at a clientele that included the likes of pizza-munching crap like you! just a guess?

if you ever get out of your parents basement you may discover there is a world of food outside of what you know sonny.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a small restaurant/club owner, I spent a lot of time creating a Flash-based website so that it would be more appealing to customers than an HTML site. Is Mr Jobs really suggesting that I should now create an app for my business instead?

I feel your time was misspent. I find nothing at all appealing about Flash-based websites. They're a nuisance, not an enticement.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

just like your fathers belief that giving your mum a seeing-to with his rotten old todger would be a fun way to spend 5 or so minutes!

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

And usually you want to link the menu, an item, the location, or some other page to a friend. Oops - it's flash, no linking, sorry. You may not even be able to scroll, because they had to reimplement basic features like "scroll bars", often making you click down one pixel at a time.

Flash needs to die as soon as possible. All it has been good for is demonstrating the weakness and slow pace of the HTML standards body. They never should have let Flash get this far in the first place.

Re:What about the little guy?

[sparkydevil]

97% of web users and all mobile phones EXCEPT for the iPhone can view Flash sites - it's a de facto web standard. Sorry, Steve Jobs is the odd one out (and the fact that his decision is "controversial" highlights that fact).

Re:What about the little guy?

[sparkydevil]

I am sure that you want the the places you are evaluating to put some effort into their presentation, the same way they put effort into their food or their decor.

Our customers want to see a place that is cool, exciting and fun - they want the wow factor. You simply cannot do the same level of animated menus, nice rollovers or other animation effects in HTML that you can do in Flash.

Almost all of our customers have commented on our site's design - first impressions do count.

How ironic that Apple would be the one to deny others the power to create custom web interfaces for their businesses.

Re:What about the little guy?

[rdnetto]

If you're going to have a Flash-based site, at least have a plain HTML version for those of us who won't or can't use Flash. Apart from technological (e.g. iPhone) or political reasons, it's worth noting that Flash is terrible for users with certain disabilities. Going a little out of your way to make it easier for the disabled to access your site will give you an edge over the competition, and it's also good PR.

Re:What about the little guy?

[gmhowell]

Of course, listening to Steve Jobs (or anyone at Apple) talk about openness would be like listening to Mussolini talk about democracy.

Judges, we need a ruling: has this Godwinned the thread, or do only leaders of German fascist cults count?

Re:What about the little guy?

[gmhowell]

Flashy (ha!) presentation makes up for shitty content, and you claim that this is not only "feature, not bug" but then go on to compare it to your restaurant?

Pass.

Re:What about the little guy?

[gmhowell]

just like your fathers belief that giving your mum a seeing-to with his rotten old todger would be a fun way to spend 5 or so minutes!

No bad assumptions there. His mom is quite the goer in the sack.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

and maybe a picture of some of their waitresses .

There, fixed that for me.

Re:What about the little guy?

[Karlt1]

How ironic that Apple would be the one to deny others the power to create custom web interfaces for their businesses.

Webkit based browsers that are used by Apple, Android, Palm, some Nokias, and soon BlackBerry's all allow you create custom web interfaces with HTML5, Canvas, and CSS. Flash is quickly becoming the HyperCard of the web (or for the young whippersnappers VB6). Today, no mobile phone does Flash well.

Don't you think it would be better to create a mobile optimized site with your menu, pictures of your entrees, and even a link to external reviews?

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like 90% of fashion and photography websites are flash websites... and I'm willing to bet 100% of fashion and photography "customers" can access them. So tell me how, then, does making a site more appealing using a de-facto standard loose customers?

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think people are like you? A large number of people are impressed by the iPhones' "user experience" so much that they ignore the loss of freedom and other things. (I'm fairly sure that PalmOS apps had the same UI all over back in the day even without an app police testing everything)

I think the same demographic would be wow-d by flashier (no pun intended) looking websites and would convince them to choose one thing over the other. Those people tend to believe everything a store clerk / customer service / etc. has to say instead of doing their own research. You know, the same ones that buy Monster Cables. =P

Re:What about the little guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Flash Only"? I'm fairly sure nobody before your post said anything about Flash ONLY, just that they said they spent time and effort on making a Flash version of the site. Also, most people still have Flash on a reasonably capable computer and do not block it. Heck, I don't block it either. I only visit reputable sites with this browser, and Flash has never been a vector for malware for me. I do use flashblock on a P3 and the virtual machine that I have installed due to performance concerns.

I agree with you, a Flash ONLY website is a bad idea. You try making some of the more glittery websites with HTML5, and watch your computer die. Then again, you also need to make sure that you have a fallback to basic HTML 3 or 4 to reach maximum audience. Using Flash for what WingsOver was using it for was absolutely horrible idea -- it added nothing to the menu that a static JPG / GIF couldn't do. (I suspect it's for easy-admin changing backend purposes).

You're also missing the target. Notice that "club" is in the description: wingsover is clearly not a club. Clubs survive on being glitzy.

Re:What about the little guy?

[natsacks]

Mostly using Flash for the whole site makes it shitty to use and leads customers and users to other, more user friendly sites.

another flash article?

[MadUndergrad]

This is great! Now whenever I need to find out what does or does not support flash, I can just come to flashdot! Seems to be all that's posted here nowadays.

Re:another flash article?

[mgblst]

I know, it is like when Windows 7 was coming out, there were all these articles about Windows 7.

Flash and Adobe is big news at the moment. Just skip the fucking article if you don't like it.

Some of you keep forgetting something...

[Spencerian]

Flash wasn't built for mobile devices.

If you want it to suck cycles on your desktop or most laptops, that's not a problem, for your PC or Mac has them and electrical power to spare, generally.

But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.

I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.

Flash is the Web standard of .NET. It's sloppy. It's developer hasn't made great inroads to optimize it or secure it. It is flexible, but some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen. And only Adobe makes it.-

If Adobe wants to side with another platform for Flash AND make it work, great. But apparently Apple doesn't want to be Adobe's guinea pig and it has every reason not to.

Apple has already dealt before with competitors both inside and out who change their business plan and as a result, leave Apple twisting in the wind. It's good business practice not to let your business become overly dependent on others. Hell, Adobe was in that situation when Apple began to flounder. So why would Apple emulate Adobe in that regard?

As for Flash on the Android? Let's see it, then. What doesn't kill your phone only makes it stronger.

Perhaps Apple will have Billy Dee Williams in for some endorsements, standing over a person with a locked, overheated phone.

" Problem with your Droid? "

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[DragonWriter]

Flash is the Web standard of .NET.

I'm pretty sure that Silverlight is the Web standard of .NET.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[gaspyy]

Flash 10.1 uses hardware acceleration for video, so presumably battery life will be longer.
Also, on Adroid, Flash delivers better performance than HTML5/Canvas (http://visualrinse.com/2010/04/15/benchmarking-html5-vs-flash-player-10-1-on-mobile-devices/).

Regarding "some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen" -- nothing springs to mind, care to elaborate? It does have rollover support but that doesn't mean that you have to use it. It has multi-touch support too...

As for security... I can only recall 3 major flaws in the last 5 years; maybe there are more but it's still not more insecure than Java or IE.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this version of flash specifically was designed for mobile devices, so your entire argument is pointless.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[F-3582]

Cool. But as long as the rest of the rendering is still done by the CPU (vector graphics, for Christ's sake), it will still drain battery like crazy. Just look at this video (in full-screen, please)!

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[jpop32]

But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.

Yeah, those flash videos really do eat at the battery. What with their h.264 encoded content and all. Things will be so much better once we switch to HTML5 and its h.264 encoded content. So much better. Down with Flash, the electricity vampire!

BTW, the major advancement with the flash 10.1 for mobiles (which is what the article is about) is that it will use native hardvare for decoding video and drawing primitives with GPU.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[Bigjeff5]

I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.

I dunno, 1ghz+ dual core processors, like the new Tegra 2 based phones coming out soon, don't seem all that limited to me. The new processors use less battery power than the old too, as they are complete SOC setups. Flash is wasteful, but it isn't that processor heavy.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[tk77]

Regarding "some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen" -- nothing springs to mind, care to elaborate? It does have rollover support but that doesn't mean that you have to use it.

But everyone seems to think all the current flash apps out there will already run perfectly on their multi-touch device. I don't have any numbers or specifics since I try to avoid any of the social media games, but how many of them will work perfectly on a mobile device touch screen? Its a serious question. I've never played any of them.

As Jobs pointed out, if any of these games or apps would have to be rewritten with touch in mind, why not write them in a more open format (html5) rather then keeping them bound to a closed plugin?

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[Anonymous Coward]

"only 3 major flaws"?

Ignoring flash being the primary cause of browser crashes BY FAR - it is also the primary cause of keylogging exploits that result in accounts getting hacked. I've never heard of someone getting rooted by flash, but account stealing is where its at, and Flash is the easy way to do it.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[JackAxe]

Flash Mobile 10.1 offloads vector graphics to the GPU. Just look around instead of assuming the worst.

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[cybrthng]

Yeah, i was thinking the same thing. Also, having jumped into the Windows Phone 7 development fire Silverlight seems like a godsend to develop in compared to Apple's sdk

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[F-3582]

Okay, I've seen it. Still, I don't get why they disable this feature on PC. And why there is a special argument to activate this. Imagine Flash animations running fluidly again on six-year-old PCs. Or Flash not draining battery because some site forgot to tick the "wmode=gpu" argument...

Re:Some of you keep forgetting something...

[cheesybagel]

JavaScript has the "onMouseOver" event. Perhaps the iPhone OS platforms should not have JavaScript support then, because iPhone OS does not support a mouse pointer right? Oops.

Android 1 iPhone 0

[Schnoogs]

I'm looking to buy a new phone this summer to replace my old and slow iPhone 3G. This is one point in Android's favor. Slow, buggy and insecure it may be but at least the consumer has a choice where as Apple is giving us none.

Can It Be Turned Off?

[Taliesan999]

I don't care if they include it with the OS.... but...

The big question is can it be turned off (or uninstalled), or will users be forced to download flash objects while browsing on their mobile, consuming both bandwidth and CPU (and by extension, battery power).

I have a Flash blocker installed in my browser, simply because MOST flash content doesn't interest me. Before I installed a Flash blocker, Flash was often the single biggest user of CPU and resources while browsing some websites.

Also will they expose the mechanism by which they're allowing Flash into the browser, so additional browser extensions/plugins can be created that can block the Flash content like existing desktop plugins.

Re:Can It Be Turned Off?

[Bigjeff5]

With Android, you can pretty much guarantee that you'll be able to turn it off. If not via an official widget, then someone will write an app for it.

I have flash on my HTC, and while I can't disable it, I can certainly uninstall it if I wanted to.

You're A Fucking Moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking great. Now we have to listen to idiots like you running around the Net parroting Jobs stupid talking points.

Go away loser.

Woo-hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Having Flash makes it easier to enjoy porn! ;-)

CAPTCHA cruddy --that describes Slashdot's new captcha system.

H.264 badgers?

[tepples]

Flash is a closed standard. But even if it was and open standard, H.264 would still beat it quite handily in video quality and file size (bandwidth).

Would a vector animation like Badgers really be smaller as H.264? The closest contender here involves scripting a <canvas>.

Re:H.264 badgers?

[catmistake]

Explain to me how vector animation is video. What percentage of users are downloading vector animations? Were vector animations even discussed for HTML5?

You have helped make my point. The discussion is concerning which wrapper or delivery method for video HTML5 should employ. It is irrellivant to say "Flash does vector animations, but H.264 does not," because vector animations aren't video.

But I'll bet my shorts there's a better vector animation solution out there...one that is purposed soley for delivering vector animations.

Using Flash, a whole platform, for video, or vector animations, is akin to buying a car just so you can listen to the radio.

Re:H.264 badgers?

[tepples]

What percentage of users are downloading vector animations?

Every single Homestar Runner fan. Every single Weebl and Bob fan. Every single visitor to Newgrounds.

It is irrellivant to say "Flash does vector animations, but H.264 does not," because vector animations aren't video.

Other Slashdot users disagree with you. They seem to think that one should create a vector animation and then render it to video before publishing it. But I know that's horribly bandwidth-inefficient.

Using Flash, a whole platform, for video, or vector animations, is akin to buying a car just so you can listen to the radio.

Then what just-a-radio technology do you recommend for delivering vector animations with synchronized sound? Consider that before ActionScript matured and Flash added FLV, Flash was primarily a vehicle for vector animation.

Re:H.264 badgers?

[catmistake]

What percentage of users are downloading vector animations?

Every single Homestar Runner fan. Every single Weebl and Bob fan. Every single visitor to Newgrounds.

ok, I like that stuff too, but not a fanatic

It is irrellivant to say "Flash does vector animations, but H.264 does not," because vector animations aren't video.

Other Slashdot users disagree with you. They seem to think that one should create a vector animation and then render it to video before publishing it. But I know that's horribly bandwidth-inefficient.

Sounds like that's just a workaround. But you've reminded me of the cool things that came out of Adobe. On the top of my list is PostScript, which was adapted for display and used by NeXT and OS X, and everything else until it was basically cloned. But PostScript wasn't open or free. Then Adobe, on a roll, did another awesome thing... they gave away PDF. Apple switched to DisplayPDF. The idea of using vectors to render what we're viewing intrigues me.

The technology is promising, and for a time it exceeded our expectations, and relatively speaking, didn't suck at all for video, but video has exploded and surpassed Flash's ability to complete (imho).

I remember the very first thing I saw in flash was Strong Bad... and I was pretty amazed; the episodes loaded far too quickly for it to be video. I figured out it was vectors just by enjoying the show, and I figured it'd get popular for vector animation distribution, basically a whole new industry.

Using Flash, a whole platform, for video, or vector animations, is akin to buying a car just so you can listen to the radio.

Then what just-a-radio technology do you recommend for delivering vector animations with synchronized sound? Consider that before ActionScript matured and Flash added FLV, Flash was primarily a vehicle for vector animation.

I think, of course, the answer is Flash. What would stop the original users of the original intended purpose of this particular implementation of this vector animation technology (Flash) from continuing to use and love and flourish using and loving it?

I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying... that ... some vector animation fanatic, and not Adobe, had some evil master plan to ensure that s/he could always have quality vector animations available on the trickle bandwidth we used to have, so he scooped all the actual video technologies that were minding their own business, and put flash everywhere.... blue pilled web video, as it were.

Or, more likely, vector animation fans are innocent bystanders of the change in personality that overcame Adobe just after Flash created the vector animation scene, and just before Adobe decided to abandon the very platform that created them (I refer, of course, to Adobe ignoring Macs and failing to release in reasonable time native rewrites of their flagship applications, for PPC, and they failed again for x86 on repeated "upgrades" that offered no needed functionality, esp while not optimized for the platform... and that's when I started calling them the new Microsoft).

Seriously, it isn't at all the fault of vector animation shorts that vector animation itself was so abused by the world at large, so much so that many have reached a threshold and want it gone for good. But even they realize it's never really going away. Adobe will always have a plugin handy that you can install in your HTML5 browser.

Re:H.264 badgers?

[MacDork]

Then what just-a-radio technology do you recommend for delivering vector animations with synchronized sound?

Other than Flash? SVG + SMIL could do it. Both are just XML and could be combined into a compound document format pretty easily. Finding browser support OTOH might be a bit more difficult...

There's a map for that

[tepples]

Besides, Verizon sucks, why would you want to sign up with them anyway?

A carrier is useless if you get zero bars. Some people find that Verizon Wireless has better 3G coverage than AT&T and T-Mobile.

What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[CODiNE]

Something that's often missed is that "Flash" is a set of various versions and video formats. As I understand it, mobile Flash 10.1 will not support Actionscript 1.0 and 2.0, only giving you Actionscript 3.0. How many websites and games were made in the older format and continue to be?

Not only that... this is weird but according to this chart it won't support H.264 but instead have On2 video format. That would be the guys that Google just bought. Perhaps this is another part of why they're supporting flash.

Re:What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[JackAxe]

Holy crap man, that's FUD you're spreading. It's nothing but lies from a pro-apple site.

You need ActionScript 3 in order to access new APIs like mult-touch for mobile devices. 10.1 mobile will playback all AS1/2 content, but to state the obvious, any developer that's concerned about their content working on a mobile platform should update it accordingly, which is true for any platform.

No, 10.1 mobile fully supports H.264 video and it's fully GPU accelerated. Flash adopted this format back in 2008 and it's here to stay.

But seriously, that chart is absolute BULLSHIT!

Re:What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[CODiNE]

Alright man, I'd mod you up but I've posted obviously. Won't post anything on that til I find a better reference for flash compatibility. Do you have a cite for the full AS 1/2 compatibility?

Re:What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[mad.frog]

I work on the Flash Player team at Adobe, so I know what I'm saying when I say: you're completely mistaken.

Flash Player 10.1 supports *all* legacy content on *all* platforms -- content created all the way back to version 1.0 will continue to work.

It also continues to support H.264 better than it did for, due to additional support for hardware acceleration.

Re:What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, that's a really confusing to read chart... I think the Red Arrows indicate that the features that the butt-end of the arrow has is also included in the pointy end? I almost thought it was "this is the version of Flash that the "fork" is comparable to, but then the "Non-Flash Mobile" is what then? This is where I come to the conclusion that the Red Arrows indicate feature inclusion.

Also, references?

Re:What is this "Flash" Google is talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus man, Adobe has kept backwards compatibility for every Flash version. Why do you think they are so stupid to get to the point they would release a new Flash version without some sort of backwards compatibility. Even Apple isn't that stupid.

flash causes global warming

[goombah99]

when my computer is "idle" the flash plug in on my mac usually consumes 15% of the CPU. One has to wonder if that translates to the wall plug at all. It certainly shows up in how long my laptop lasts and how often my laptop fans cycle on. This happens all all 5 of my computers varying from about 8 to 15% depending on the machine. Even when I use flash block, the plugin still is the dominant CPU hog on an idle machine.

Re:flash causes global warming

[ThePhilips]

Totally off-topic. Recently IT spent two weeks investigating why the brand new, totally green servers behave not as expected and even in off hours when they should be idle consume more power than specified. Well, after two weeks of monitoring they have found that one of the services is written in Java and *never* idles. Even if it doesn't have any client connections and no requests to process it still takes 0.3-0.6% of CPU cycles.

So somehow I can easily believe that not-necessarily-poorly-coded Flash applet might also cause such problems - if run-time is buggy.

Even on Windows, people embrace Chrome browser solely for the stability. If Flash so unstable as it is, I easily believe that some of the bugs might also cause performance issues. I tried once year ago the Chrome and since it doesn't have FlashBlock/AdBlock I have seen it all in the beauty: close to every 10th page from my bookmarks showed the Chrome's placeholder for the crashed plug-in and every time it was a Flash ad.

My prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

as with any other Adobe stuff. It will suck the performance/battery life out of your device. Mark my words.
It is nice if I can decide for myself whether I want to run Flash or not but I'm almost certain that the experience will leave a lot to be desired.

Oh the hypocrisy...

[cjjjer]

Based on comments so far...

People who like Andrioid hate the idea of mobile flash...
...
Andrioid now includes flash...
...
Apple does not include flash...
...
People hate the idea of Apple's locked down platform...
...
Either platform you choose, the people who are bitching about it are all hypocrites...

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash sucks.
Apple dictating that we should not even have the option of using Flash, sucks even more.

A pox on both their houses.

You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5....

[GameGod0]

I'm thrilled that I'm able to use whatever software I want on Android. The problem is, I don't actually want Flash - I just wanted the ability to decide for myself.

So, that's great that you will be supporting it, but please let me turn it off or uninstall it from my phone.

Thanks.

I'm not sure why this keeps coming up, since nobody that ever replies clearly has ever owned an Android phone. My HTC Hero, which supports Flash 7 out-of-the-box, has an option in its browser to disable plugins.

You have the option to disable Flash on your Android phone right now, and it's FUD to keep suggesting that you won't be able to disable it again in the future.

this just gets better and better.

[Anonymous Coward]

its great to see the tide really turning against apple on this!
the internet has a habit of making people or businesses who try to control it look rather silly - and that was always going to happen here.

Re:this just gets better and better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't throw out the baby out with the bathwater. Trash Flash!

Installing Chrome Frame vs. Flash Player

[tepples]

most are not willing or unaware of

From the Chrome Frame page: "If Google Chrome Frame is not installed, you can direct your users to an installation page." Flash Player works the same way.

or incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin under IE.

People are capable of installing Flash Player in order to watch YouTube in IE 6 through 8. The only way I can see that one is "incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin" is if one does not have a machine's administrator password. And in that case, you're probably at work, not at home.

Re:Installing Chrome Frame vs. Flash Player

[RobertM1968]

most are not willing or unaware of

From the Chrome Frame page: "If Google Chrome Frame is not installed, you can direct your users to an installation page." Flash Player works the same way.

or incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin under IE.

People are capable of installing Flash Player in order to watch YouTube in IE 6 through 8. The only way I can see that one is "incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin" is if one does not have a machine's administrator password. And in that case, you're probably at work, not at home.

Again, us slashdotters need to remove our tech savvy mentality from the equation.

Almost everyone knows what Flash is. It's pre-installed on lots of computers anyway... all a user ever has to do is upgrade it.

Now... ask a "regular computer user" to download some new plugin - even one with Google's name attached to it (since it's not something they have ever heard of (the plugin - not Google)) and see what happens.

Add to that, with the exception of for watching some video, most people simply leave a site that requires some special plugin to view correctly. Hence the reason most web designers worth their salt still make sure their sites work with IE6/IE7/IE8 even though it would be child's play to suggest people install Firefox or Chrome or Opera. I gave up on that mentality ("site best viewed with... download here") after noticing large drop-offs in views from a big chunk of the IE users who came to our sites. Same applies to convincing a user to install a plug-in to view a site.

No, because most of us look around for the facts..

[JackAxe]

Flash wasn't built for mobile devices.

If you want it to suck cycles on your desktop or most laptops, that's not a problem, for your PC or Mac has them and electrical power to spare, generally.

But Flash sucks the electrical life out of mobile devices. This isn't theory, it's fact. Take your laptop off AC power and see it die after a few YouTube videos or Flash games.

Flash 10.1 is built for mobile devices, as was Flash Lite -- which was just a bit limited, but it's been around for about 9 years,. 10.1 takes full advantage of GPU acceleration for both video playback and drawing vectors, which helps out for both performance and battery life.

All the devices that are supporting 10.1 allow full access to the GPU, so battery life is no more an issue for Flash on them, than any other platform, it will come down to the competence of the developer, not the toolkit itself.

On this note, Apple deliberately held back the APIs that Flash needed to access the GPU on the Mac, so video playback could never be as efficient as Apple's Quicktime. So for Apple to call Flash a battery/CPU hog, is them speaking out of both sides as they're the ones that prevented my Macs from being as efficient as my PC for any video playback via Flash.

I'm not against Flash. I'm against it on devices that must be reliable and are built with limited processor and electrical power.

If that's true and you're not against Flash, then at least educate yourself, because the last half of your sentence is either ignorance of FUD; http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/mobile_demos_fp10.1.html

Flash is the Web standard of .NET. It's sloppy. It's developer hasn't made great inroads to optimize it or secure it. It is flexible, but some of its features make little sense on a multi-touch screen. And only Adobe makes it.-

Thanks for assuming all developers are the same. I'm going to apply your logic to the App Store. Because I've encountered more than a few crap apps, so according to you, all developers including my self that have worked in XCode via OBjective c are sloppy. Thanks for the assumption... What shall I assume about you?

On the touch-screen, like Apple's toolkit, Flash has evolved to support multi-touch, which is why 10.1 is a big deal for mobile devices. This whole point has been moot from the get go and only really an issue because most are really quite ignorant and don't care to look for the facts.

If Adobe wants to side with another platform for Flash AND make it work, great. But apparently Apple doesn't want to be Adobe's guinea pig and it has every reason not to.

Nice, do you always throw out passive aggressive insults?

Apple has already dealt before with competitors both inside and out who change their business plan and as a result, leave Apple twisting in the wind. It's good business practice not to let your business become overly dependent on others. Hell, Adobe was in that situation when Apple began to flounder. So why would Apple emulate Adobe in that regard?

To all their own... You know what bothers me about Apple's business model, it's that with their closed and limited devices, they're trying to dictate what should or not be allowed on the web in general. They don't want Flash, so they're taking the stance that no one should have it.

As for Flash on the Android? Let's see it, then. What doesn't kill your phone only makes it stronger.

Perhaps Apple will have Billy Dee Williams in for some endorsements, standing over a person with a locked, overheated phone.

" Problem with your Droid? "

Now you're just being a troll.

Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, Flash is essential for the web:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gruber/4564503719/

Right? Right??

Trash your Flash cookies, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearing your browser cookies isn't enough.
Be sure to go here to trash your Flash cookies, too:
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager06.html

Militant

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes being open "means not being militant about the things consumers are actually enjoying," he said.'"

Sometimes being the third biggest market cap company in the U.S. with beautiful, slick, and massively popular products means being militant about keeping s**tty software out of the loop.

Flash on Android? :-]

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, now android will really be for porn

Slashdot herd

[SideshowBob]

It's funny that just a short year ago the Slashdot herd was unanimous in its rabid hatred of Flash.

As soon as Apple, one of Slashdot's great Satans, adopts a similar stance the Slashdot herd suddenly is against Apple position and therefore by necessity defending Flash.

If Slashdot had any principles the herd's position wouldn't have changed. But Slashdot has no principles, what it has is cheerleading for underdogs. Flash is perceived in this fight as the underdog. But here's the thing, Adobe is no friend of Slashdot, quite the opposite in fact. Adobe wants nothing less than control of interactive media on the web. Does that sound like it aligns with any of the Slashdot herd's so-called principles?

No company is any more or less moral or opportunistic than any other. Not Microsoft, not Apple, not Adobe. They're all driven by the profit motive. Not even Google, the much beloved of the Slashdot herd, is above this. Google thanks you for your support and then datamines you on behalf of its true customers: advertisers.

And then there's the FSF on Ars Technica calling Apple the pot to Adobe's kettle. Here's the thing, if Apple wins and HTML5 becomes the standard for interactive media on the web, a wild-eyed true believer in the FSF cause would be way, way better off than if Flash ends up winning. Just ask anyone that uses something not quite mainstream enough for Adobe to bother supporting them, like BSD or Linux on PPC.

Re:Slashdot herd

[Billly Gates]

Most of us hate flash.

However most slashdotters love h.264 but a vocal minority (myself included) heavily oppose it and I hope the new lawsuit mixed with an injuction of Firefox will wake up the /. ers again. The same slashdot crowd loved Sun's solaris a decade ago before loathing it. Also .NET and C#/Mono was all the rage and anti-java fervor ran deep for years on slashdot until people realized Mono never did work as promised (7 years later). The crowd now is backing java again.

We hate both of Apple and Adobe if they are suing and the problem is not flash in itself more than their is no way to develop websites without adobe's $1200 suite. ... you could make it look html 2.0ish iwth a lame page but real development is all ajax mixed with flash. No longer can you learn how to make software without an expensive software suite. In many ways this reminds me of pre-internet computing but at least borland Pascal was affordable.

Flash is making the clock go backwards from open standards and html5 and more creation tools is the only thing we need to be free again. If google refused to support it with Apple and hopefully Microsoft you can bet html 5 or javaFX might be taken more seriously. With flash being supported why bother with JavaFX?

Re:Slashdot herd

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I have to like Flash in order to want a computer that allows it? I hope not. I may be Godwinning myself here, but as much as I hate Nazis, I would have even more to live in a place that doesn't allow them. So while I may hate Flash, I'm not going to buy a computer that isn't allowed to have it. Why do I care about being able to have something I hate? Because it's not just Flash that isn't allowed -- it's Silverlight, JavaFX, and so on.

dom

Re:You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5...

[Anonymous Coward]

Qwavel is an employee of Apple Computers Inc.

Disappointing

[Billly Gates]

In the PBS documentary Nerds 2.0 Apple was asleep at the wheel howling about evil big brother. After playing the 1984 mac ad the big brother with glasses looked like Bill Gates. Only then did they realize Microsoft was the enemy not IBM.

Right now Adobe is the new monopolist. They bought aldus photostyler and macromedia shockwave. Now they are the only player when it comes to UI design.

Flash is the defacto internet language for online games and applications. Javascript exists but its used to compliment flash. Try browsing the web without flash? You will get annoying install flash NOW.

Flash with h.264 is the enemy of the internet and all that is open. I can't do any serious programming or web design work without flash as clouds and intranets is where the market is heading. I can't afford adobe suite which is over $1,000.

If google refused flash alongside with Apple we could have seen html5 be seriously taken. We need more tools besides adobe suite.

Re:Disappointing

[CarpetShark]

Adobe...are the only player when it comes to UI design.

I try not to use this word much, but...

Whut?

Re:You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5...

[DrXym]

I'm not sure why this keeps coming up, since nobody that ever replies clearly has ever owned an Android phone. My HTC Hero, which supports Flash 7 out-of-the-box, has an option in its browser to disable plugins.

Besides that, it is not difficult to envisage a browser which puts placeholders where flash plugins live and allows the user to choose (or not choose) to launch then by touch on them. Such a browser could also have settings which puts same domain restrictions on plugins. Advertisers would soon get the message not to serve flash ads to mobile devices because no one would see them.

Re:You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5...

[mounthood]

I'm not sure why this keeps coming up... You have the option to disable Flash on your Android phone right now, and it's FUD to keep suggesting that you won't be able to disable it again in the future.

Maybe people keep saying because they want to disable Flash, and they are fearful, uncertain or doubtful that they'll be able to. What does that say about Google and Android? This is exactly the sort of thing that "Don't be Evil" was meant to be guidance for: a technical issue where the end-user gets put behind industry partners. Guess Google has some work to do to convince developers that they really mean "don't be evil."

Re:You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5...

[Fnkmaster]

Um, Android is open source. If you don't like it as is, you can run any number of community-developed ROMs. These often have custom-rolled browsers in them, UI improvements, etc. CyanogenMod is far superior to stock Android on the older G1 and other first generation Android phones that still don't have official 2.1 support.

The only stuff that isn't open source are the "Google branded" apps, like Google Maps, Google Latitude and the Gmail app. But you can easily pull those out from the official ROMs and install them on your phone, as you do in the current CyanogenMod install.

So yeah, there really is no legitimate concern about Google locking down the browser and forcing Flash on you. Google can't force your hand in that way, because unlike iPhone OS, Android is an open platform. You can install apps from anywhere you please, not just the official Market, so take your pick of browsers.

Re:You can already disable Flash on Android 1.5...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get a browser that doesn't support Flash, so you don't have to disable Flash whatsoever? You do have that option running Android.

A step in the right direction, but not enough.

[bgenzoli]

It's about bloody time. Now if only they could release a fix to allow Hands-Free Bluetooth features such as being able to answer a phone, dial a phone number or you know, mundane things like that...To dream.

frozen yogurt

[j00r0m4nc3r]

code-named Froyo, for frozen yogurt

Amateurs. Everyone knows it's called Frogurt. And that it contains potassium benzoate...