Slashdot Mirror
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."
From the headline I was concerned that Xoom wasn't going to have reprogrammable nonvolatile memory.
I need to get out more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't Flash an inefficient battery drainer like we are constantly told?
That's incorrect - Flash is very efficient at draining batteries. ;)
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.
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.