Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorola Xoom Won't Have Flash Support At Launch

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-finished-when-it's-almost-finished dept.

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."

36 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. I think... by wiggles · · Score: 2, Funny

    the Xoom is going to Xuck. I'll keep my Nook.

    1. Re:I think... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Xoom, Flash, all these 'fast' names ... I'd like something slower please. Can I have a nice product called 'Savor'?

    2. Re:I think... by wiggles · · Score: 2

      Honeycomb isn't worth the extra $1000+cellular plan the Xoom will cost, and my nook performs just fine.

    3. Re:I think... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The claim so far has been that you need to sign up for 1 month of Verizon service, and can terminate it afterwards. It's still annoying, but it's not a "$1k plan".

    4. Re:I think... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      this is like an alternative historical fiction... we get to see what the personal computer revolution would have looked like if telecoms drove it, rather than computer makers, hobbiests, small pc building companies, and end users.

      sad that consumers are getting so used to the carriers driving what computers they buy know.

      --
      THL phish sticks
  2. But that's good right? by Desler · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:But that's good right? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:But that's good right? by dclozier · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told?

      That's incorrect - Flash is very efficient at draining batteries. ;)

    3. Re:But that's good right? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      The correct slashdot memo is:

      Choice = good
      No choice = bad

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  3. Wow, that was close... by dtmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    I need to get out more.

  4. So what? by yog · · Score: 2

    Honestly, Flash is nice to have but not the be-all end-all that some have made it out to be. On my Android handheld, flash is almost all advertisements. On my iPad, I've been able to stream Netflix, Yahoo clips, YouTube, and WSJ videos with no problem. Somehow they've worked around the no-Flash limitation.

    As a side note, I love my new iPad but some spouse or daughter is going to inherit it as soon as one of these awesome Honeycomb tablets comes down to my price range. iPad is great, but a bit too closed for my tastes. I'll just have to suffer a few months longer...

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:So what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I think that, in large part(aside from specific niche/legacy stuff that is simply "flash or nothing", which is comparatively rare but very important to certain buyers) Flash is more of an issue for runners-up.

      Because Apple has a fairly impressive chunk of the desirable customers demographic and a strong no-flash position on their iDevices, many outfits who were previously content to use flash have had to adjust. However, many of them have just churned out an iDevice-specific app that wraps their web content, rather than re-tool their web presence. For non-Apple devices, this isn't all that helpful. It is quite likely that many of them will eventually do the same for Android; but, in the meantime, there is a problem. Adobe, while dubiously competent, is the party capable of providing a general-purpose solution to viewing flash-dependent web properties.

      I can only assume that neither Adobe nor Motorola are happy about this. Motorola needs all the advantages they can get in competing against the incumbent tablet device, and the longer Flash on mobile devices remains a joke, the more Flash users will come up with alternatives that will reduce Flash's value to embedded device developers and likely trickle back to the PC side sooner or later(and I'm pretty sure that there isn't an IT department on earth who wouldn't love to stop supporting the Flash plugin...).

    2. Re:So what? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      That's great for Apple, which gets to implement their 30% tax and block stuff for whatever strategic, political, or moral reason they like, but that is bad for:

      Let's be clear here. Apple keeps 30% of revenue for apps sold. This pays for the payment processing (including the credit card processing fee) as well as all the infrastructure involved. If the developer does not charge for his/her app (and many of the ones above do not), the Apple gets nothing. As for subscriptions, the new model is this: Apple gets 30% of subscriptions if Apple is the one that originates the subscription. If the subscription already exists or was initiated through the content provider (ie. WSJ website), Apple gets nothing. So if you sign up for Netflix through Netflix, Apple doesn't get anything. If you sign up for Netflix through Apple, Apple gets 30%.

      No you may argue that 30% is too high but before Apple's store, some stores charged as much as 40% and the credit card processing fees. You have the choice of not developing for Apple should you choose. There are choices.

      - for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more

      Only if the content provider decides to charge two different tiers based on where the subscription originated.

      for developers who have to write an app for every platform

      This was a complaint long before Apple and will be one long after unless you can name a universal platform that works well on all hardware. Java could have come close but there were still enough differences in hardware to make it troublesome. Remember Symbian apps didn't work on Blackberries which didn't work on WinMobile which didn't work on Palm, etc.

      for less popular platforms that don't have as many apps.

      Developers who code for a living will develop for platforms that make them money. This translates to developing for the most popular platforms. Sure there are some that will do it for altruistic reasons but it is hardly Apple's fault that people need to eat. It would be the same situation if WebOS was the number #1 platform for apps.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Re:Is Youtube still content dependent on flash? by Desler · · Score: 2

    What are you talking about? Phones and tablets use the youtube app to stream video. There is no flash required at all.

  6. Re:They won't miss it. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

    “Anecdotal evidence isn't valid!”

    “Yes it is! I once used an anecdote as evidence, and later it turned out I was right!”

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  7. Check the track record first... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Motorola has been quite bad about promising updates and not delivering. See here for a list of broken promises. Especially glaring was the failure on the Cliq XT. A year of "we're testing it" followed by "we just couldn't do it". Never mind that the phone ships in Korea running 2.1, never mind that custom 2.1 firmwares work flawlessly, they just wanted to sell new phones. I know Moto is just another big corp doing what big corps do, but eff them, I (and all the non-techies that ask my advice) won't be buying Moto anything again.

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
    1. Re:Check the track record first... by wiredog · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you can buy LG! Because they're so much better! Or Apple! Or..

      Actually, I hear HTC and Samsung are pretty good.

      --

      Best Slashdot Co
    2. Re:Check the track record first... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      I would not say Samsung is pretty good. The Moment has several software issues that have never been resolved by Samsung but can be fixed by rooting and updating to "enthusiast" builds.
      I was so soured on my Moment that when I could I updated to the HTC Evo. While I wished it have a stock build it is a very nice device and is running 2.2. 2.3 is supposed to come in March but until I see it I don't believe it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Check the track record first... by elsurexiste · · Score: 2

      Motorola has been quite bad about promising updates and not delivering.

      Au contraire, they are quite good at promising updates and not delivering. They do it all the time.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    4. Re:Check the track record first... by seifried · · Score: 3, Informative

      Say what you will about Apple but they do support their devices properly for a good ~3 years or more in most cases. The only way I'd buy an Android device is if it was fully unlocked so I can update it myself using stock Android firmware and still have 100% functionality, otherwise you know you're going to get screwed (not if, but when).

  8. Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what you're saying is that from your first hand experience, Flash on Android sucks. From my perspective, it's been about 8 months since Flash on Android has been released and they still haven't gotten the kinks out yet enough for it to be usable. I remember when Jobs made the argument nine months ago that Flash for mobile just was not suitable. A lot of people here on slashdot responded that that Flash for Android would prove him wrong. In your opinion, do you think that today Jobs was more right or the Flash supporters?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. Re:Silly Motorolla! by rrossman2 · · Score: 2

    Haven't had an issue with flash on android yet. The only issue is I loaded up kitty cannon but couldn't play since it uses keys and doesn't work with a touch screen

  10. xda developers to the rescue by Tr3vin · · Score: 2

    http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11520394#post11520394

    While not as good as official support at launch, this may help those who need flash.

  11. Re:They won't miss it. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Split Personality? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Split Personality? by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Split Personality? by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  13. Still no resolution to touch on Flash by Arkham · · Score: 2

    I have a couple of mobile devices with purported Flash support (Nokia N900 and N8), and while they play video and handle "click" ok, they don't do mouseover, dragging, and other things that makes anything besides video viable. The one device that I saw that supported these advanced features did so by creating a virtual cursor that you moved via arrow keys -- terrible. When Apple decided not to support Flash, this was one of the justifications, and in my mind, the only truly legitimate one. Until Adobe redesigns flash with some sort of drag or gesture support, it's always going to be a poor experience on mobile devices.

    --
    - Vincit qui patitur.
  14. Not at launch = never (for Motorola, at least) by elsurexiste · · Score: 2

    To be honest, I've never heard of a firmware update coming from Motorola. All I hear is excuses. My L6 and Quench (aka Cliq xt) never got their update, so I'm basically a sitting duck for malware in Android. The L6 was trusty, but the Quench is full of bugs I'll never get fixed. I'm just waiting for Cyanogen Mod to add support to the MIB501 to erase the crap out of that phone.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  15. Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you keep your iPad (or buy a new one), don't count on keeping your Netflix or Kindle apps. Apple is demanding that they sell their movies and books through Apple, and hand over 30% of the revenue.

    If you read details of the new subscription model, Apple clearly says: " . . . when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing. " So if you currently have a Netflix account, Apple gets nothing. If you sign up for a new account through Netflix, Apple gets nothing. If you sign up for Netflix through Apple, Apple keeps 30%. Will Netflix go for that? It remains to be seen, but details matter.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  16. Re:They won't miss it. by evilviper · · Score: 2

    . 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.

    Yes, we know how very well that strategy played out for Apple in the past, when they were the leaders and competing with cheaper but open and standard alternatives...

    But hey, it's not like they're in imminent danger of Steve Jobs leaving the company... oh.

    It certainly sounds an awful lot like history repeating.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. Re:Flash is a dog on tablets by ravenscar · · Score: 2

    That's inconsistent with my experience. I run flash on my Galaxy S and find it to be just fine for animations and video. There are no problems with the load time. I do notice that activities like scrolling and zooming become 'choppy', but that hasn't killed my experience. I expect my mobile device to be a little less snappy when viewing video. To compensate, I just set Dolphin to display Flash content only when I want to see it. I then have the choice to view the content or not. I appreciate that.

    I've not used Flash on Android for navigation, but I would imagine that the experience there is poor.

  18. Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by Sancho · · Score: 2

    Details do matter. Here are a couple more.

    The Apple price has to be equal or less than the outside price.

    The developer isn't allowed to include a link to purchase outside of Apple within the app.

    For Netflix, right this moment, I suspect that this won't matter. Netflix almost certainly gets most of their revenue from people signing up first.

    For Amazon, this is a huge deal[*]. People will buy things after having installed the Kindle app, and will probably be pretty likely to do so from within the app where Apple gets their 30%. Frankly, I hope that Apple gets slapped down by the FTC over this. Taking a cut is one thing, but requiring equal or lower prices is quite another and is obviously and blatantly anticompetitive.

    [*] That said, I haven't seen a clarification on whether one-time purchases like e-books actually fall under the new terms, which everyone calls the "subscription model."

  19. Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    And so does Amazon.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  20. Re:Silly Motorolla! by biovoid · · Score: 2

    Flash can't handle scroll wheels yet. how long do you think it will take them to get touch screen support?

    About 18 months ago:

    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/TouchEvent.html
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/GestureEvent.html
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/AccelerometerEvent.html

    And about 8 years ago:

    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/events/MouseEvent.html#MOUSE_WHEEL

  21. Re:Netflix (and Kindle) on iPad are in danger by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

    Right. However, Apple also runs the platform.

    My analogy: Imagine a mall. Apple has a cute litte bookstore. Amazon has this giant multi-level warehouse-like bookstore. Sony has this tiny little kiosk.

    Amazon makes a ton of money selling lots of books through their store. They have the market clout to get great prices and they keep their overhead low with their warehouse-like store. Apple has a nicer store where people will suggest books and be friendly and they make a little money. Sony makes a little money with their little-tiny kiosk.

    Apple would love to make more money. Apple is also in the enviable position of owning the mall. So they tell Amazon and Sony, "Hey! You want to sell books in our mall? You have to let us sell your books in our stores at your prices and give us 30%. Don't like it? Then you can't be in our mall." If Amazon and Sony say, "Screw you," and leave the mall, Apple is now the only bookstore and if anyone in the mall wants to buy a book, Apple makes the sale. That means Apple makes more money. If Amazon and Sony say, "Okay," Apple gets 30% of Amazon's sales. It's win-win for Apple.

    An effect of this: Let's say the newest Twilight/Harry Potter/whatever book comes out. Amazon manages to get exclusive rights to the book. So they advertise that they are the exclusive place to get the book. Apple then comes along and says, "Well, except for us! And we're selling it at the same price they are! Come buy it from our bookstore instead!"

    Y'know, I laugh about all the Apple Fanbois who talk about companies getting "Zuned." Here's Amazon and Sony getting Zuned right there. It starts out with "We love our developers!" Then when their developers start making money, Apple says, "Oh! We'll do that, too! But we'd never use our position to compete unfairly..." And when they can't compete fairly, they play the pity card: "Oh, poor us! Amazon is making a lot of money selling content! It's not fair that we don't get any of it because we came up with the platform!" The fact that they made money selling the device seems to go right past everyone.