Motorola Xoom Won't Have Flash Support At Launch

Several readers have sent word that Motorola's Xoom tablet, marketed as the iPad's first significant competitor, won't ship with Flash support. Quoting: "Support for Adobe's Flash technology has been an argument for the Android operating system since Apple CEO Steve Jobs notoriously said that Flash is a dying technology and that it won't make it onto iOS devices for several reasons. Flash support appeared in Android with version 2.2 and Google even flaunted it as a killer feature for tablets running Honeycomb (3.0), like the Motorola Xoom. But it looks like Adobe and/or Google have yet to put the finishing touches on Flash's implementation in Android 3.0. An advertisement for the Xoom on Verizon's site says (in 6 point text at the bottom) that Adobe Flash support on the Xoom is expected in Spring 2011, meaning this functionality won't be available at the launch of the first Honeycomb tablet on February 24. Considering how slow carriers and manufacturers are when it comes to software updates, this Spring 2011 update could mean more like late Spring 2011 ETA."

Comments

Wow, that was close...

[dtmos]

From the headline I was concerned that Xoom wasn't going to have reprogrammable nonvolatile memory.

I need to get out more.

Re:They won't miss it.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How many(if any), native applications are you using that are iDevice-specific implementations of a web property or game that is otherwise flash based? If nonzero, how many of those also have an Android equivalent?

That is why Apple can spit on flash, while Google is getting cozy with Adobe... Apple knows that, for the present at any rate, they have the install base sufficient to drive people to develop platform specific applications for them. Android has fewer platform-specifics, which makes Adobe's ability to(imperfectly) make available the vast legacy base of Flash stuff all at once attractive...

In the long term, Flash is almost certainly fucked. Apple and Microsoft both have competing native environments and development tools in which they are strongly invested, and which are defaults on their platforms. Google is less overtly hostile; but their native environment also isn't flash based, and their web products are pretty aggressive about advancing native HTML/JS and using those where possible. Adobe has the advantage of well-entrenched design tools; but their flash runtime has no platform of its own, and the world isn't quite as friendly as it used to be... Short and mid term, though, there is a huge body of legacy and current stuff that they can offer to platforms with weaker native application bases.

Split Personality?

[Frosty Piss]

It's interesting that the majority of Slashdotters will froth at the mouth at the mere mention of the Evil Flash, and claim that *they* have it blocked anyway...

But mention a device that ships without it, and it's "crippled"...

Re:Split Personality?

[uniquename72]

I don't run MSOffice either, but if you wanted to sell me a computer specifically designed to disallow running it, I'd tell you to shove it.

Also, despite blocking Flash from running ads on websites, I could still allow it with a single click if I came across a useful use of it.

And finally, I also run NoScript, but that doesn't mean no scripts ever run on my machine -- I allow what I want to allow.

Re:Split Personality?

[DrXym]

Flash isn't evil, it's just abused. When you load a page and it has 3 or 4 flash ads and every tab in your browser is the same your computer is going to have a hernia. Some people pretend this is Flash's fault but the reality is that if pages were serving up the equivalent workload in HTML5 performance is bound to be even worse. At least the Flash plugin can spawn threads, do background rendering and so on. Everything in HTML5 on the same page will be competing on the same thread (web workers could potentially handle some load but nothing DOM related).

The remedy is to use an ad blocker so you can pick and choose what content to receive. In time I expect Ad Block will be used as much to curb the abuses of HTML5 as it is for Flash now. Assuming HTML5 ads aren't inlined and obfuscated which is a distinct possibility.

Re:But that's good right?

[XxtraLarGe]

But that's good right? Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told? If so, why is this bad news?

It's not bad news. You apparently didn't get the Slashdot memo:
No Flash on iPad = vice
No Flash on Android = virtue

Re:But that's good right?

[PitaBred]

Flash on Android is a choice. It's not on the iPad.

The correct slashdot memo is:

Choice = good
No choice = bad