Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe Flash Player 10.1 Arrives For Android

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the look-what-we-got dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Adobe announced that it has released the final version of Flash Player 10.1 for Google's mobile operating system. The app will be available for download via the Android Market for those users who have Android 2.2 (Froyo) installed on their phones. Devices expected to offer the Android update include the Dell Streak, Google Nexus One, HTC Evo, HTC Desire, HTC Incredible, Droid by Motorola, Motorola Milestone, and Samsung Galaxy S. Flash Player 10.1 was also released to support devices based on Android, BlackBerry, webOS, future versions of Windows Phone, LiMo, MeeGo and Symbian OS, and is expected to be made available via over-the-air downloads and to be pre-installed on smart phones, tablets and other devices in the coming months."

37 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Calling it now by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Calling it now by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Apple sees that this increases Android usage, they'll reverse policy on the Flash block, and users everywhere will praise Steve for his insight and timing.

      And right after that, Apple fans will complain that Android phones are copying Apple's iPhone.

    2. Re:Calling it now by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 4, Funny

      This assumes that Adobe then don't tell Steve to go f**k himself.

    3. Re:Calling it now by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think their position on Flash is a strategic one. Even if Flash does start performing well some time in the future, the Flash content out there isn't very well adapted to small screens, and it's probably much more difficult to do so with Flash than with normal web standards. Apple wants a good experienec, and they may not be convinced that Flash will give users a good experience even if the performance is reasonably good.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:Calling it now by jaymz666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But porn is banned from the iPhone...

    5. Re:Calling it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I'm sure if Adobe gets their ass in gear and releases a version of Flash that actually works on a mobile device, Apple will include it."

      Uhhhh... Even the title of the summary says this. Unless your definition of "work[ing]" means "perfect". So, we should expect a press release from Apple any minute, right?

    6. Re:Calling it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, how terrible of Adobe to not support 10 year old obsolete computer systems! I mean come on, Apple supports them! Oh wait...

    7. Re:Calling it now by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really doubt that would happen. These are big corporations, not kids on a playground. Adobe wants flash on every device imaginable, and the iPhone/iPod/iPad represents a significant number of those devices. If Apple reverses itself and says Flash is welcome, then Adobe will jump to have it on their devices. I'm sure the execs at Adobe are and will continue to call Jobs lots of nasty names in the privacy of their offices, but they're not about to give up marketshare if it's offered to them.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    8. Re:Calling it now by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anonymous Karma Coward wrote:
      Good thing that macs have been using intel chips for years now.

      So Mac users should throw-away their PPC machines, even if they are still like new and working perfectly? How un-green of you. Filling-up landfills with perfectly good hardware.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Calling it now by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      So Steve's iFilter should filter the fucking email out...

    10. Re:Calling it now by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt it's a valid point - Adobe would do pretty much anything to have Flash on the iDevices. Note the tone of the ads they took out were more in the vein of "work with us" rather than "screw you guys". I wouldn't say Adobe are running scared just because Apple won't play ball, but if they're ignoring the possibility that their technology will become redundant then they're blind indeed. It would take more than just Apple being against them (or else it would take a massive shift in the uptake of Apple products), but if a few more big players scent blood in the air, it could well be their undoing, so it's in their interests to ensure they remain as entrenched as possible on as many platforms as they can right now, even if it did mean ignoring the mean things Apple said about them in the past.

    11. Re:Calling it now by Trufagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your still accepting the company line on Flash?

      If it is about the tiny screens of phones then why is there no Flash on the iPad.

      No, there are a variety of strategic reasons why Apple doesn't want Flash on their products. For example, Apple wants to force as much materials as possible (games, video, news, etc) into the app store or iTunes. This allows them to take a cut of any revenue and block it if they don't like it.

      Flash goes against that strategy. For example, it allows DRM'ed media and lots of cross-platform games to be delivered via the web, independent of Apple.

      Now, I'm not suggesting that Flash is as efficient as native code, but then again, neither is JavaScript. Sometimes we need to make trade-offs.

    12. Re:Calling it now by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about Adobe not supporting non-obsolete computer systems like AMD 64?

      • "Yeah, how terrible of Adobe to not support 10 year old obsolete computer systems! I mean come on, Apple supports them! Oh wait..."
    13. Re:Calling it now by mini+me · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple's suggested alternative to Flash? Javascript and SVG!

      http://smokescreen.us/

    14. Re:Calling it now by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I watched the D8 interview with Jobs. Basically, he pointed out that they have been cutting off technology before the rest of the market many times in the past. Floppy disks, various external ports, etc. He argued that Flash was just another technology they didn't see a future for.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    15. Re:Calling it now by Sancho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are several reasons Apple doesn't want flash on their phones. Part of it is exactly what you describe. Part of it is the user experience, like the GP described. Part of it is that they don't want to be held hostage by Adobe when iOS 5 comes out and breaks compatibility with Flash so that they are reliant on Adobe to make things work "like they used to" (from the perspective of Apple users.)

      Adobe has treated Apple as a second-class citizen for a while, and Apple doesn't want to be a 2nd-class citizen in the mobile device market. There's no way that they're going to let their devices lose features unless it's on their terms, and if they have a third-party runtime in their OS, that's exactly what could happen.

    16. Re:Calling it now by not+already+in+use · · Score: 2, Informative

      And right after that, Apple fans will complain that Android phones are copying Apple's iPhone.

      Probably because Steve's announcement would go something like this:

      "And now I want to show you something really special... revolutionary. Something never before seen on a mobile device. Today I'm here to announce that Adobe Flash will run on the iPhone and iPad."

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    17. Re:Calling it now by hazydave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they won't about-face. This is Jobs, and it's not tech, it's religion. Steve didn't fix his issues back in the early 80s, and while he got ousted, it caused long-term harm in the Mac market. He's making money now, so don't expect him to change it, even if his fortunes start to fail a little. Jobs only functions with it's 100% his way. Sometimes that works, but it's in all our best interest to see this fail. This isn't just the re-invention of 70's-style proprietary platforms (Apple, Commodore, Tandy, Atari, etc), it's that idea taken to the next level. I mean, for christsake, they're dictating the development tools you can use. This is the polar opposite of everything that's open. And if Apple keeps doing well at this, you can expect others to follow, and open development put at risk.

      The battle against Flash was never about the performance of Flash on the Mac or iPhone. Rather, it's all about protected content distribution. Which is just another aspect of Jobs' desire for full, game-console-like control of everything on the iPhone.

      If you support Flash, you take it all. This would allow free games on the iPhone that don't go through iTunes (and thus, might detract from iTunes sales). And video... if I can watch protected Flash video, particularly popular and free TV, I won't pay to get that same program from the iTunes store, for a buck or two. Apple wants to own DRMed content distribution on the iPhone, and Flash is the only major competitor.

      Apple's been playing games to make people think Flash is a Bad Thing. It's not tech, it's a PR campaign. Apple's claiming to be the champion of "open", promoting HTML5, claiming Flash underperforms and crashes, and leading the entire story to being about video... just tossing the whole "Flash Games" thing under the rug. And that of being a first-class web client, rather than the compromise that the iPhone is today.

      If Apple can hurt Flash significantly this way, that means fewer will use it, and as it becomes less important, the iPhone becomes more capable online. But Apple's been really, really stupid about this... just not quite as stupid as the Flash people. If you really wanted to get Flash replaced by HTML5, you'd "pull a Google" and make a content creation tool that's as good as Adobe's Flash authoring suite, but based on HTML5, and you'd make it free. The small reason people use Flash is "only standard for video". The large reason... the tools enable web content people to do in a week what you'd need programmers for a month to do in Javascript or other "standard" technologies.

      Google is doing what a Web company should do with their client OS... ensuring the best possible web experience. Android users already benefit from Google's viewpoint. Apple, Palm, and Microsoft (to name a few) moved from the PDA/PMP prespective -- devices that orbit the personal computer. Google wants devices that orbit the web.. so Android devices don't care about PCs. Sure, you can add tools on your PC to do local sync, but most everything happens via the web. And since you have an always-connected device, it happens automatically and incrementally. Thus, dramatically better than was done in past environments.

      Between these two factors, Apple's in a bad, bad place on technology. Not yet on market.. they have many fanboys. But really... they're selling the iPad as, essentially, a Netbook/Laptop replacement, but you can't use it without docking to a PC (Windows or Mac, not even Linux). How insanely stupid is that? Because its artificial... zero reason for a PC to be involved. But they're clinging to the old and restrictive, while Google's embracing the here, now, and in particular, the customer feedback. Apple is trying to hold on to something between the old Apple ][ / Commodore 64 computer sales model and the modern videogame console model for their iOS devices. This NEEDs to fail. All these things, like their war on Flash, are manifestations of their archaic notion of making a completely proprietary system. Even Microsoft has yet to try and lock things down to this degree. This NEEDs to fail, and given the popularity of the iPhone, things like Android are perhaps the only way to see this happen.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    18. Re:Calling it now by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

      Apple got tired of Adobe screwing around with poorly performing Flash plugins for the Mac for so many years, not to mention screwing them over with 64-bit CS. When it came time for Apple to decide whether they wanted to let Adobe control one of the primary components of their new mobile OS they decided against it.

      I'm sure the profit motive from the app store helps, but Apple decided to not support Flash long before there was an app store.

    19. Re:Calling it now by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple makes money if customers like their products. A better experience means more sales, means more $$$$. Come on, this is basic stuff.

      har har har

      By better experience, you mean can't visit many very popular websites? Can't play many popular flash games? Many complaints about lack of Flash from iDevice owners? Is that the better experience that you are talking about?

      You are stretching. You so want to believe that the lack of Flash has something to do with Apple Quality, when really it has to do with maximizing App Store profits. Flash would replace a very large chunk of whats in the App Store, with no profit on those app sales for Apple. That, you dimwit, is what its all about and always has been. Everyone but Apple fanboys know this.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. Suck by paimin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let the suck begin.

    --
    Facebook is the new AOL
    1. Re:Suck by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least I have the choice whether I want to run Flash on my phone or not - rather than have some guy in a black turtleneck decide for me.

    2. Re:Suck by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the one thing Android and IOS users can both definitely agree on is that Flash entirely does suck. The difference is in how you deal with that suck (either letting your users have the option to use something that everyone acknowledges sucks but might be needed in some instances, or not).

  3. First, we need froyo... by knavel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's great and all, Adobe, but we're all still waiting for Froyo to be released...as an official OTA, or as an official source release :(

  4. Re:Is that all? by ElForesto · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, and no Moment, G1, Cliq, Backflip, etc. You need a minimum of a Cortex A8-family processor to run Flash and many lower-end and older Android phones just don't pack the horsepower to pull it off.

    --
    There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
  5. Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawed. by Timmmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I've tried it on my Nexus One. It seems to play videos ok, but that's about it. You can't really interact with the flash because no flash videos are designed for touch input.

    On the BBC news video players you can't control playback because the clickable area on the time-line is far too narrow to hit. You also can't drag anything because this just scrolls the website.

    Conclusion: Steve Jobs was right; flash doesn't belong on phones and I'm glad he is killing it, even if he is still an annoying control freak.

  6. Re:I do not want this by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you dont want it, you dont need to use it. I do want it, and your lack of want should not effect my ability to get it.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  7. Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe by Kegetys · · Score: 3, Informative

    > You also can't drag anything because this just scrolls the website.

    The N900 has a special "cursor mode" that, when enabled, changes the dragging from scrolling to moving a virtual cursor that allows sending drag events to the browser (flash or javascript). I'd guess android could have something similar added if it doesn't have it already.

  8. Re:But what about performance? by ma3382 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have Flash on my Nexus One running FroYo...honestly, its not that bad. Youtube videos run very smoothly for me (much more so than the actual Youtube app, that thing is garbage IMHO). It's only when you see pages with lots of crap (ads) on them that performance becomes an issue. You can set the plug-in to On Demand, but when you select one flash object to load, I've noticed every flash objects loads and then performance suffers.

  9. Re:I do not want this by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This all boils down to choice.

    People in general tend to make VERY BAD choices. However,that's a necessary thing to tolerate about liberty.

    If people I look down on aren't able to make choices I disagree with, then I will likely not be able to make the choices that I want.

    What I install on my computing device should be my choice and not something dictated by either Jobs or RMS.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe by Timmmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm actually using Beta 3 (the final version doesn't seem to be in the market despite what the article says). It is much better than the first beta and generally isn't too bad.

    You *can* zoom in using pinch-to-zoom but it doesn't really help. Even with the controls filling the screen you can't drag, and many controls are just too damn small.

    You can also double-tap on the flash to make it fill the screen, which works pretty nicely, but even then you can't drag! (wtf?)

    All in all, I don't think anyone could have done a much better job, but the fact is no current flash movies were designed for use on phones, and it shows badly.

  11. Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe by sjonke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pretty crappy when you have to switch to "virtual cursor" mode in order to interact with a site. That's really going to win users over. Perhaps not such a smart business decision to go with Flash and a write-once-deploy-everywhere strategy?

    --
    --- What?
  12. Re:Back to Linux dev please? by nickull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am lighting fires under the PM's for this every day (I work for Adobe). There are many of us here that want support for 64 bit linux. You guys have every right to be whiny about this. I bitch about it myself. THere are Duane Nickull dartboards on more than one Flash Player engineers door. Keep up the pressure. - DN

    --
    "Question everything, including this!" - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
  13. Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe by LordVader717 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh for fucks sake! How is this Flash's fault? The BBC designed and implemented the player. Flash can handle multitouch fine, and it's up to web designers to make their sites accessible for mobile devices.

    The only reason we have Flash Video is because Quicktime sucked so hard. I say the more competition the better.

  14. Re:Quite impressive, but still fundamentally flawe by droopycom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But you see, the whole point of having flash on phones was so that you could really get the "full" web, and that developers dont have to redo all their work.

    Now, most of the flash content is not designed for touch input and phones screens, so you still cant really access that content on a phone in a meaningful way. (I tried to use the FIFA World Cup Matchcast flash app on a droid, not really usable). Developers will have to redesign their flash sites for phones anyway.

    They might as well spend their time writing an apps, or an HTML5 site.

    Some existing flash apps might work well enough on android tablets, but where are these now?

    Given that Google, MSFT, Opera, Mozilla and Apple are all behind HTML5, if you were a developer, which way would you go? As an individual developer what skills are you more likely to want to develop at this point to differentiate yourself?

    Now I'm just waiting for Netcraft to confirm that Flash is dying...

  15. That's ominous... by jamrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have Flash on my Nexus One running FroYo...honestly, its not that bad.

    Hmmm... Adobe should be worried if that's the best thing anyone can say about it.

  16. Re:Is that all? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You also need more memory than the G1 has to run Froyo. Seriously, what good does Flash support do on a machine without enough memory to run flash apps anyway?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.