Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Surprising Statistics Behind Flash and Apple

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the math-is-hard dept.

Barence writes "PC Pro's Tom Arah has dug up some statistics that cast severe doubt over Steve Jobs' assertion that Flash is the technology of the past, and Apple's iOS is the platform of the future. He quibbles with Net Applications' assertion that iOS growth is 'massive,' considering that mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%. By comparison, Silverlight penetration now stands at 51% while 97% of web surfers have Flash installed, according to Stat Owl. 'At least when Bill Gates held the web to ransom he had the decency to first establish a dominant position,' Arah claims. 'In Steve Jobs' case, with only 1.1% market share, the would-be emperor isn't even wearing any clothes.'"

60 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Oh dear... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Oh dear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?

      I don't know, I suppose the same way we mark you as -1, Fanboy

    2. Re:Oh dear... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Change the Posted editor from CmdrTaco to kdawson.

    3. Re:Oh dear... by evil9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree.

      Jobs' position is one where key technologies, such as playing video, should be done by the web browser and not held for randsom by 3rd party plugin developers who'se best interest is to put their app on every device out there. Posting articles like this only pushes the debate back afew steps.

      Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost
      HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all

    4. Re:Oh dear... by blair1q · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't matter.

      They aren't the real kdawson and CmdrTaco any more.

      They've been replaced by a Python script.

      The script cruises the firehose every 25 minutes and takes the top-scoring article no matter how stupid, stale, or binspam it is.

      Every few hours it to the next name in the Poster-bot list, to give the impression that management is keeping the staff levels up.

    5. Re:Oh dear... by WeatherGod · · Score: 4, Funny

      ah, but we all know that python doesn't exist in the land of slashdot. No, they have been replaced by perl scripts. And nobody can figure out how to make it stop!

    6. Re:Oh dear... by wealthychef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know, I suppose the same way we mark you as -1, Fanboy

      Thus you make his point for him nicely. There is no way to express an opinion on this subject without pissing people off, and it's mostly due to the tone of this article.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    7. Re:Oh dear... by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all

      Exactly.

      What point was missed in the stats was that while 97% of people may have flash installed and 51% have silverlight 100% of "web surfers" (hate that term) have a web browser installed.

      Rather than 3rd party extensions to get the functionality needed for media doesn't it make a lot more sense to have open standards so that all browsers can display the media by implementing the standard? It becomes platform agnostic when you don't have to rely on a single vendor to release a binary for your particular platform (in this case platform being OS and browser combination).

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:Oh dear... by kikito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HTML5 video playback is limited compared to what flash can do.

      Not only on the implementation; on the (yet to be implemented completely on any browser) standard. Youtube flash player allows you to go to a specific part of a video, even if you have not pre-downloaded it. HTML 5 (the standard) lacks such mechanism.

      Maybe in 5-7 years we'll have something worth it on the HTML5 field.

      The HTML5 vs Flash, at least in the video section, is to me a "existing technology that works" vs "possible technology that might work in the future. Stress on 'might'". For now, I'll stick with what works.

  2. If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by Brannon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?

    1. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?

      He isn't, SJ is just trying to make it sound like he is able to hold the web ransom and making the same BS claims about Flash in an effort to hold it ransom to his whims. SJ hopes to spout enough lies about Flash so everyone will adopt his version of HTML5 (not the so far agreed upon version since nothing is completely official), and if he can make his version of HTML5 the standard it will give him a lot of power on the web that he wants to use to leverage things like the iOS to his standards to keep more competition out of the game (similar to how IE was the 'standard' in the late 90's and helped lock out others like Netscape with sites "recommending IE only").

    2. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's not holding the web at ransom, he's holding iPhone and iPad users at ransom, because they are the only people this really hurts (or helps).

      Except it's Stevie, so he's not making any compromises.

      There is some merit to his position, by the way, but it may be at Apple's expense (depending on how much $$$ Adobe wants to license Flash)

      It's not a question of how great cool or widespread the Flash technology is in general.... its a question more of cost and how suitable the implementations are available for the iOS devices.

      If most Flash apps won't work anyways, there's no point in allowing a broken framework, instead of pushing the next greatest standard.

      It's risky, but if Flash is not suitable for mobile platforms it WILL be a thing of the past.

      The question I would have is --- why is the article presenting skewed numbers, and including PC and Netbook users?

      Netbook users may be more comparable to iPad users; but it's totally ridiculous to pit PC users against iOS users, and say a technology used on the web for PC users is suitable for mobile browsing

    3. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flash is dog, dog slow on OS X right now, even with a lot of CPU grunt, and it has nothing to do with Apple "blocking access to necessary APIs" or the lack of hardware accelerated h.264 that Adobe (or others) will try to claim. It really is woeful at all animation, even when H.264 video is not involved at all. An iPhone version would just be even worse, since there just isn't the CPU grunt to cover up how poor it is. You can get away with it on a desktop machine - you have a 2GHz cpu mostly idle that can help you out with your simple flash page, but on a mobile device you actually have to make the code decent.

      The biggest reason there is no Flash on iOS is performance. The HTML5 and open web are secondary concerns.

      The 10.1 release of flash is much better on OS X, but it is still a terrible resource hog for no good reason. Even the Mac Silverlight player is much better. I assume MS has the same "access" to the core of OS X as Adobe do.

    4. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the statistic is highly misleading anyway. Saying that 97% of computers can run Flash doesn't tell the whole story.

      First, a lot of us use tools like click2flash that report themselves AS Flash, but are NOT Flash. Why do we do this? Because we got fed up with all the idiotic Flash-based adds that make buzzing sounds at random in background windows and make us jump straight out of our chairs. These people have Flash and put up with it when necessary, but generally avoid it. Those folks are difficult to distinguish from actual Flash "users", yet they suffer a degraded experience on Flash-heavy sites, and are less likely to come back.

      Second, people have Flash largely because it came preinstalled. I don't know of anyone who has actually gone out of their way to install Flash. This means that those statistics could change on a dime.

      Third, it assumes that all people use the web equally. For some sites, iOS-based devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) make up as much as 11% of their traffic by volume. When it comes to ad revenue, the ratings don't matter. The share matters. It doesn't matter if they make up only 1% of the total number of Internet-equipped devices. What matters is their percentage of the traffic.

      Fourth, it ignores the assumption that people buying iPads and iPhones are more likely to have disposable income than people buying a random Windows PC. Thus, for many advertisers, one iPhone user is equivalent to several netbook users. Once you understand that, suddenly even a 1% share becomes much more significant, and a 10% share becomes a showstopper.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by socsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.

    6. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by ukyoCE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      /facepalm

      Are you serious?

      They made a tech demo of pre-release HTML5 and you consider that "trying to take over the interwebs with proprietary Apple-only tech"?

      That is seriously reaching.

    7. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no content that I'm missing out on

      Well, *of course* there is. You may not value that content, and that's fine.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by chaboud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The irony is that most people that complain about the lack of Flash in the iPhone are people that either don't have an iOS device (and will never get one even if there was flash) or work for Adobe.

      Now there's a blind assertion. I have two iOS devices and two Android devices, and I've bitched about the closed-off nature of things in iOS, Flash included (and I think Flash sucks). Count me as one chink in your pulled-from-thin-air armor.

    9. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I, another iOS user, did make that decision. I decided to buy an iOS device (multiple in fact,) knowing full well that it didn't support flash, because I decided I didn't need or want it. Steve Jobs didn't choose it for me, he just made a device (both hardware and software) that suited my needs, just as HTC made a device that suits yours.

      Steve Jobs doesn't decide things for me. As an informed buyer, I've found that our ideas of what make a good user experience are pretty well in line.

    10. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by chaboud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So there are people who do. Don't fall prey to the single-minority-myth. We're all part of some minority (or minorities, more likely), and it's fair to want options.

      It's as easy as can be to selectively use Flash in Android.

      First it was precision pointer support vs. touch, then it was performance, then it was stability, then it was "Flash sucks," then it was "why would anyone want it?"

      When the arguments keep changing, the arguments just sucked.

    11. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm guessing you missed that whole "HTML5 webpage showcase" that only worked on Safari and many of the functions weren't part of the normal sections of HTML5, and in fact needed OSX parts. These weren't the real HTML5 standards being discussed, but Apples version, right down to the fact it needed OSX to run properly (which happened to be proprietary)

      You mean the HTML5 showcase that I just ran in Google Chrome and worked perfectly fine for the exception of the VR, however this same VR demo runs perfectly fine in the Chrome Canary build, meaning it's something that is indeed in the HTML5 definition.

      Also, you may want to read this from the showcase: The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.

      In other words: the whole point was bragging how they incorporated all that defined HTML5 goodness already. I doubt Google added the support to Chrome Canary just because Apple forced them to. Google is much more suborn than that.

    12. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the software is different, even if the hardware is the same.

      Flash runs ok on my iMac if I reboot it into Windows XP, running on literally identical hardware, but is a hog under OS X.

      The argument isn't at all silly.

      Adobe's Mac version of Flash is just really poor, although better with the 10.1 release. Given how much iOS and OS X have in common under the hood (at least as common as Android and Linux, for example), it is not hard to see why Flash on the iPhone is a non starter, even if Apple wanted it.

    13. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by Tharsman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.

      This is something I want to put emphasis on. IF Steve Jobs decides to allow the clumsy Flash to make it into iOS safari, or if Adobe comes up with a version of Flash that is accepted by Steve, I still want an option not to have it at all. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)

    14. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are there any major differences between Google's or Mozilla's HTML5 proposals and Apple's, besides video?

      No real major differences, but a load of minor proprietary webkit extensions to CSS.

      no webdev, even the very incompetent ones, will write HTML that only works for less than 10% of viewers.

      O rly? There's a ton of stuff which target the iPad and nothing but the iPad. It kinda feels like the good old days of IE6.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    15. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another angle to this... Apple is approving Flash translated and sold through them, where they take a cut of the profits, but is not approving Flash that exists out on the web for free or otherwise.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    16. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP was talking about downloads from one site, not all sites. I don't get what your point is anyway. People don't download Flash as if they are endorsing its quality, they just want to view the content. Likewise the majority of those who in the future download a new browser that supports HTML5 won't be doing it because they think that HTML5 is god's gift either.

    17. Re:If iOS is a tiny segment, then why do you care? by twidarkling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it requires things specific to OS X, yeah, there IS stuff nefarious about that. The things about standards are they're supposed to be a set of specs anyone can use and be compliant, so that anyone's able to access it. If, all of a sudden, that standard mandates technology that must, due to patents, be obtained from Apple, and only Apple, that gives them an unfair advantage far beyond even Microsoft's IE stranglehold, since Apple would actually be able to say "No, you're not allowed access to our stuff" and shut people out of the market completely.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  3. 100m facebook users are iPhone based by wilsonthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've read a recent statistic that has said that of the 500m Facebook users, 100m visit via the iPhone. So 2% of web views depends entirely on the sites you count, and whether those sites actually make money from their web presence.

    1. Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based by Conception · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably more correctly, iphone users use apps and not mobile safari for a lot of normal web tasks. Movies, News, Social Networking, Media, Navagation... these are all done by apps.

    2. Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I find that figure remarkable being as there have only been about 50 million iPhones (counting all generations) sold worldwide, according to Apple's quarterly reports.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:100m facebook users are iPhone based by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah, they recanted. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/facebook-actually-there-are-44-million-active-monthly-users-of/

      --
      This space for rent.
  4. Floppy drives anyone? by ThorGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back when Apple stopped shipping floppy drives with their computers just about 99% of 'manufactured' computers shipped with floppy drives. People said Apple was moving too fast. Now, a decade or so later, floppies have gone the way of the dinosaur.

    There's probably quite a lot to make that analogy faulty. But I think Apple isn't holding anything randsom. They're just knowingly not supporting (what they see to be) old software.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    1. Re:Floppy drives anyone? by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Informative

      The OS has always supported right click, since at least OS 8.6 - just plug in a 2 button mouse, or use control+click. The single button was all about lack of confusion, but it was not "enforced" if you wanted to be able to right click. So, they listened to the feedback way back when OS 8 was the new thing (in 1997) and provided right click for those that wanted it. The only way this could possibly affect Mac sales if if people didn't actually do any research before purchase and just assumed. Perhaps this is why, in 2010, people still think you cannot right click on a Mac (not that you do think that, but I have seen it on slashdot).

      All current Apple mice have right click. They haven't shipped a single button mouse for some time now. The wireless ones are multitouch too.

    2. Re:Floppy drives anyone? by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That Apple removed floppies and they disappeared in the end only means they were 10 years too early. If I remove my DVD drive from my computer now, am I a visionary or just stupid?

    3. Re:Floppy drives anyone? by PayPaI · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can see several fingers that are totally useless on top of an Apple mouse, which can be operated by a stump.

      Apple hasn't shipped a mouse with only a single button in 5 years. Troll harder next time.

    4. Re:Floppy drives anyone? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      USB is ubiqutous because intel put it on all their motherboards,

      Yep, Intel put it on their mobo's as standard, Micorosft built the driver into XP as standard. USB prevailed.

      In the late 90's Apple was pushing it's own proprietary Firewire, now days only the most expensive mainboards have firewire where as the cheapest have at least six USB (and still have one PS2 port). Firewire is dead in the water.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Floppy drives anyone? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Steve Jobs still clings to haptic studies done in the 80s that showed that Apple users are less confused when prevented with fewer ways to control things, while he's ignored a couple of decades' worth of feedback that Apple would sell more computers if they gave the user more control.

      Feedback is noisy, and uncontrolled. It does not usually do a good job at accurately representing a majority opinion. On the contrary, random feedback tends to exaggerate the extreme opinions, as those who are simply happy with how things are do not provide feedback until prompted.

      I've given a bundle of speeches and held trainings, one of the things you either learn by yourself over time or they tell you when you train for things like that is that feedback given afterwards while interesting and useful is never representative. You need to actually have people fill out a questionaire or something to get the majority opinion.

      So, unless you cite some actual studies done on that subject, I doubt your assertion that Apple would sell more. Heck, I switched to Mac at a time where I could not understand how people can work on windos without the 3rd mouse button. The mouse I currently have on this Mac has 7 buttons and two wheels. The fact that Apple packaged a multi-touch mouse with 1,5 buttons doesn't bother me.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  5. Adobe has its work cut out by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the other hand, Steve Jobs was right. This is a bigger problem for Adobe. Let them admit thet they need some help wit Flash...maybe Linus hackers can help out.

    Bottom line: Flash sucks on Android big time.

    1. Re:Adobe has its work cut out by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Flash on Android is interesting. I think that article really misses the fact that it does in fact work, but some sites are really not designed for touch. I found its pretty fun to watch videos on my phone on sites like escapist.com - you can't do that on IOS, but you can on Android and it does work and its not a battery drain.

      There are in fact examples of HTML 5 based sites that totally fail on the ipod/iphone/ipad/android as well.

    2. Re:Adobe has its work cut out by molnarcs · · Score: 3, Informative
      I don't think you have tried flash on Froyo - I don't care what random author says on the internet, most sites I have ran into work well with flash enabled on my Nexus One. That includes flashgames247, a site I just visited to try out how flash works. Played a game where you had to shoot arrows by dragging backwards and clicking with the mouse. Worked flawlessly with fingers. Then before I bought this phone, I was looking at reviews on youtube. Found a video comparing the Iphone 4 with the Nexus One. By the time the Iphone finished loading the page of one specific site*, the Nexus one has already finished and the flash video was already playing! The slowest site I managed to find was sonystyle, animation is as slow as a slideshow, but so far, the majority of flash heavy sites I visited work very well.

      *www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjhF1xZQRQk - browser test is between the 6th and 7th minute

    3. Re:Adobe has its work cut out by tknd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bottom line: Flash sucks on Android big time.

      I don't get it. I have a nexus one. I have flash installed and I have it set to load when I ask it to. So here's what happens:

      • Go to webpage with flash
      • See a flash box
      • Tap the flash box if I want to see the flash rendered

      Here's what happens on the ipod touch:

      • Go to webpage with flash
      • See the "you can't see this, no matter what you do, because Jobs-says-so icon"
      • Leave website.

      So how does this suck?

      If you're talking about the user experience, yes, many flash pages were not designed for a touch device because you can't completely emulate the mouse pointer with touch. But many javascript pages don't work well either when they assume a mouse pointer as well.

  6. Wrong number by funkatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This:

    mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%.

    is presumably measured over a single set time period and is not a rate of change. It says nothing about this:

    iOS growth is "massive"

    I have no idea what the ransom bit is on about tho. Troll?

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
  7. Re:Oh thank god by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Firefox users have no need for flash or Ad blockers do they.

    I presume you are implying that the reason people use Flash blocking tools is because all Flash content inherently needs to be blocked. This isn't true.

    The overly-prevalent mindset on Slashdot that "Flash is evil", "Flash needs to die", and "Flash is only used for bad things" is just plain wrong and broken. Flash is used in many places to greatly enhance things beyond what browsers are normally capable of. Games are an obvious example, but other applications such as Google Finance and Amazon's song previews are simple but effective examples. As is usually the case, the technology itself isn't really good or bad, but what people do with it can be. And people, as a rule, are decidedly good at making technology do bad things.

    This then leaves the question: Why do people block flash? Almost entirely it falls into two categories:

    - Flash is used in the most perverse and annoying advertisements that contain video and audio and which load the CPU unnecessarily
    - Flash has security concerns

    Consider these. People champion HTML5 as some kind of messiah which will bring the end to Flash's evil reign. Okay, what would that result in? I'll give you a hint: HTML5 blockers. Why? Because soon we'll transition to:

    - HTML5 is used in the most perverse and annoying advertisements that contain video and audio and which load the CPU unnecessarily
    - HTML5 has security concerns

    Personally, Flash doesn't really bother me, but that's largely because it can be controlled. I use NoScript, partially to block Flash, and that tamed beast can do useful work. I think most people who yearn for its demise either don't understand that the void Flash leaves behind will be filled with something (at least as "bad" as Flash, if not worse), or they're just mindless zealots regurgitating Jobs' claims.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  8. Lies, damned lies, and web statistics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm really curious how Silverlight got to 51% unless it's a default install for Windows 7 or something of the sort. So far I've only seen it in the wild three times: Photosynth, the Feynmann Lectures (posted by MS...), and some random video at MSNBC or similar news site. I don't even really know what it does, so how is it at 51%? I'm really not trolling; I'm genuinely curious.

    And to generalize a bit, what do statistics like this actually say? I promise you my parents don't know what Flash is, although they've probably seen plenty of irritating animated ads. The numbers they quote for Apple and Flash are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but based on their numbers for Silverlight versus the apparent usage of Silverlight, I'm having a tough time deciding what to take away from this article.

    1. Re:Lies, damned lies, and web statistics? by keytoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      So far I've only seen it in the wild three times: Photosynth, the Feynmann Lectures (posted by MS...), and some random video at MSNBC or similar news site.

      You need it for Netflix streaming. I know that's the only reason I have it installed on two of my computers, and that's the only thing it's used for.

      --

      Culture is more than commerce

  9. Never again by seanonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

    "In Steve Jobs' case, with only 1.1% market share, the would-be emperor isn't even wearing any clothes."

    Dear Slashdot,
    Please do not ever make me picture Steve Jobs naked again.

    Thank you.

  10. My numbers are different by zerosomething · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The university I work for has over 25 to 30 percent (5000 +) of it's staff using iOS devices. We gathered this info from our Exchange system. Students don't use Exchange so these are mostly well established professors and staff not a bunch of upstart kids. We have reason the believe the percentage of students using iOS is well over 30% if not closer to 50%. It's important to note that if you own an iOS device you also own a computer of some kind. People aren't using one device to access all content and iOS is by far the primary mobile platform if you are talking about small form factor or phones. You just can't produce stats that say otherwise. And yes Android is moving fast up the stats and they don't like Flash on it. Just think of all the Flash adds you are missing.

    --
    It all starts at 0
  11. Re:The Big Guns by FranTaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    strong market position.

    "strong" is not the criterion. "dominant" is more like it.

    You can hardly claim Apple has "dominant" market position.

  12. Silverlight : p by Beardydog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Silverlight would be dead if it weren't for Netflix. I really wish they'd use something else ( although, honestly, it seems to outperform every Flash-based video service on my lower end computers ).

    1. Re:Silverlight : p by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Silverlight may be a Microsoft product, but it is way better than Flash on my OS X machine. MS may be some sort of boogyman, but they managed to do with Silverlight what Adobe has failed or can't be bothered to do with Flash - make it work well on something other than Windows, which is amusing since I didn't think MS would care about making it work well on the Mac. Certainly less than Adobe should care about decent flash performance.

  13. Quite a lot of people use meth, too by scromp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flash sucks even on real computers, I don't get why people get so worked up about this. Flash can die in a fire. A *poo* fire.

  14. Re:Oh thank god by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, no. You have it all wrong.
    HTML5 is going to save the internet from bloat and security problems.

    Also, with HTML5, videos might play in webages if you have the appropriate codec the site's content was encoded with, and your browser can tap into it properly.

    It's just like the tag which worked decades ago, but it's new and therefore magically better.

  15. Re:Oh thank god by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

    Flash does have it's place. I use flash blocker to kill off most of the bad uses and just click the play button for the few good ones. Now if people would just avoid those tasteless flash pages for their websites. Usually I just hit the back button and try another site when I get one of those.

  16. would-be emporer by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the would-be emperor isn't even wearing any clothes.

    Maybe I'm being pedantic, but it seems like a failed attempt to be clever. "It's like the emperor's new clothes, except this time... HE ISN'T EVEN WEARING ANY CLOTHES!" He's not wearing clothes in the original story.

  17. Re:Oh thank god by ekhben · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not too worried about HTML5 'filling the void' myself. NoScript covers a large number of the potentially obnoxious uses already. The same techniques used for blocking Flash object/embed elements can be trivially extended to canvas, video and audio elements. CSS animations can be manipulated in the DOM (or at load time) to either strip them out completely, remove unconstrained animations, or toggle them on and off.

    Better yet, though, video and audio elements can just have autoplay disabled. The asset can begin to download, so you don't need to wait, but there's no way for some fuckface web designer to decide their choice about when the video plays trumps yours; no more videos starting up in two or three tabs at once. Very hard to do with Flash, very easy to do with a video element.

  18. More like (-1, Redundant) by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

    How to we mark an entire story as -1, Flamebait?

    Let's see, Steve Jobs says a technology is complete crap and nobody would ever want to use it. So, that means in a year and a half, Jobs will be having a Flash love-in on stage somewhere.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Re:Oh thank god by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The overly-prevalent mindset on Slashdot that "Flash is evil", "Flash needs to die", and "Flash is only used for bad things" is just plain wrong and broken. Flash is used in many places to greatly enhance things beyond what browsers are normally capable of

    Finally, the voice of reason.

    I use Flashblock because I want to use Flash services on the web.

    The problem isn't flash, it's how certain organisations use flash. This isn't the fault of flash but it is something I have to deal with (have dealt with). If Flash died tomorrow, I guarantee you by Friday (+8 GMT) all the punch the monkey ad's on the web would have been converted to HTML5. Apple and Apple fanboys are benefiting from the same thing that they've always benefited from, lack of negative interest. HTML 5 is better right now because there's no money in writing HTML 5 ad's at the moment, this does not scale. If HTML5 becomes dominant it will become just as unusable as an un-flashblocked browser because Flash is not the motivation for all the Flash annoyances on the web.

    Put simply, blame the ad producers, not the conduit they use to display ads.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  20. Re:Oh thank god by buzzn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, so a programmer who uses a polling loop instead of an event listener is blameless, but Flash is responsible for all of the CPU usage? Puhleez. Flash is just a tool, and can be very efficient when used properly.

    --
    Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
  21. LOL by MrCrassic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's super easy to have 97% installation base when the IT guys behind MOST of the Fortune 500 bundle them in their Windows desktop builds and some of the most highly-visited web sites out there (YouTube, a few news sites, a couple of amazing porn sites, etc) still require Flash. Same goes for Silverlight (though Microsoft bundled that in Windows Update, so its numbers should be higher).

    HTML5 video isn't there yet. For starters, Firefox doesn't support H.264, which is the de facto video streaming codec at the moment. Even if it wasn't, Theora doesn't hold a candle to it and seems to be in the middle of growing pains. VP8 is coming, but it isn't here yet. HTML5 YouTube doesn't work all the way yet. Worse still, differences in CPU performance with HTML5 when compared to Flash have been shown to be negligible. (In fact, some of the stats on that page show that Flash 10.1 is more efficient with its CPU utilization.) Worst, and most importantly, of all, tons upon tons of people are still on IE6, which doesn't support HTML5.

    I think we all agree that, on paper, HTML5 is a great idea and will do more to unite a powerful web experience with the convenience of mobile computing. In practice, however, it's still very nascent and will take a while before it supplants Flash, et. al. And I guarantee you that Adobe will be on top of that (unless they're stupid and become a numb bystander to their own death).

  22. No codecs in common by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Flash + silverlight = can play video = browser plugins = win for particular corporations with vested interests to win at any cost
    HTML5 (ie iOS, firefox 4) = can play video = html5 inside webbrowser = open standards = win for all

    The "particular corporations with vested interests" being the MPEG-LA members, I take it? There are two kinds of video codecs: those that work in Safari for iOS and don't work in Firefox 4, and those that work in Firefox 4 and don't work in Safari for iOS. Apple has chosen not to implement any permissively licensed audio or video codec in Safari for iOS, not Vorbis, not Theora, and not VP8. How is this any improvement over the QuickTime vs. Windows Media Player war that existed before FLV?