Slashdot Mirror
Flash On Android Fails To Impress
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister test-drives Flash Player 10.2 for Android 3.0 and finds its shortcomings too sweeping to be chalked up to beta status. 'The worst part is the player's inconsistent behavior. This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random,' McAllister writes. 'As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully. On the stock Android browser, Flash content is invisible, so you don't notice Flash-based advertising. With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray — some achievement.'"
.... it's just not flashy enough.
Or is that too Flash-y?
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray
Oh so that's what everyone means when they say flash lets you see "the whole web".
Air and Flex are really where these are useful. Certainly video sites, but most will just have native apps...so yes for the average consumer flash isn't much a bonus over native apps that will of course perform better.
Remote desktop sharing may or may not use native apps, but there could be some usefulness for some of the "share my desktop" sites out there.
Gaming has some bonus. Most of the facebook games are Flash based. So all those Facebook games that this guy probably doesn't play will work....many of them of course will port to natives...I guess it just gives Android a bigger app number.
Ever wonder why Apple didn't want to put Flash support on the iPhone? It would appear to have been a shrewd move.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Flash is occasionally useful - some sites won't even show you any content without it, or like Strongbad have their content primarily in flash. But why on earth would anyone run flash without a flashblock extension in the browser? That's just idiotic!
Seriously, maybe i'm just an old fart, but whatever happened to the user being the one in control of his or her own computer? Why do more people not insist on having control over their machines? Why would you trust any random flash content *by bloody default*?
SOME flash is useful. SOME flash is malicious. SOME flash is merely advertising. The only thing that makes sense is to run that flash which is useful. Arbitrarily running any flash at all - sheesh, would you let anyone in the world borrow your car? Your house? Or would you only permit that of people you trusted? Why should your computer be any different?
As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully
Actually there seems to be two things. Besides getting advertisements working again it seems to also suggest that Apple may have had a point that Flash performance was disappointing.
Just set plugins to be disabled, or on request.. Job done...
Who need's speling and grammar?
By setting the browser to enable plug-ins on demand, unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.
Since nobody is likely to rewrite the whole internet to exclude flash (espeically since there are old browsers that practically require flash) it's really nice to be able to have flash when you need it.
I've used flash many times on my phone, and my only complaint is that the phone can be a bit wonky about registering clicks. But this happens with 'clever' html too.
Pro-tip: if your web browser is acting weird (not registering clicks etc..), tip your phone into landscape mode and then back again. You'd be surprised how reliably that fixes weird flash and html problems.
"The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random."
So what he's saying is that Flash is working as designed.
I don't see the problem here.
That's kind of like saying that Flash is too heavy for a yesterdays Mac.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...
Who need's speling and grammar?
But then again, I use the equivalent of "adblock" on my android phone so I never see those ads he speaks of.
But it's true about the moments of conflict between flash and browser. Guess what? There is no "hover" in a touch screen environment. That makes flash and even a lot of HTML/CSS/JavaScript pretty unsuitable for mobile/tablet browsing. Should we be shocked or should web developers need to take this into a little more consideration? I think they should -- after all, flash will be eventually replaced with HTML5's functionalities and the problems will remain the same with or without flash.
I'm a little surprised this topic hasn't been raised sooner and more often.
(On a side note, I am actually grateful that advertisers don't trust content providers to report accurate click rates and/or that content providers can't or won't host advertising content themselves. If there were honor among those thieves, it would be a lot harder for me us to block ads. Let's all thank their greed and mistrust to making it possible and even trivial to block their ads.)
By actually showing content.
Thing is, Flash stuff is made by artists, and artists are commanded by marketeers, and marketeers exist to annoy the shit out of you, and we all know what Flash ads do... Flash let adverts become the new embedded midi. I browse with flashblock on, with a small whitelist for things like YouTube, but generally it stops my browser doing annoying things like lock up, play sounds I really don't want to hear or throw shit across the site whilst I'm browsing. Like frames, flash will eventually be dropped for the sake of everyone's sanity. Unfortunately JavaScript is allowing web designers to do some more annoying shit again, but it takes longer to appear as it's nowhere near as draggy and droppy as Flash is.
Obviously, the developers didn't give a rat's ass about focus. I have the same problem with Opera web browser - a flash application will "take focus", even though it is not in the active window. I do something like "mouse gesture close current window" and a background window closes. Why? Because the flash app had focus. Why does this happen? Because developers are just racing to implement a raft of features from a bullet point list in a powerpoint presentation somewhere. Who the hell cares if it actually works for users out in the wild? That's not the metric by which developers' work is measured. Nobody ever got a bonus or promotion by attending to nitpicky user-experience details.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I own a 2007 MBP. Flash is too heavy for that. If I fancy emptying my battery in 30 minutes, I allow flash. It's permabanned from the machine for the sake of usability, and it's not a particulary underpowered machine either.
Well, yeah. I have an 8 year old Mac Powerbook that gets killed by modern Flash objects. You can watch the battery % charge meter count down when a heavy Flash page is being displayed.
Settings > Enable plug-ins > "On demand"
Problem solved.
Hey, great! Could you please forward that to the appropriate higgajillion users out there using Flash on Androids?
Get back to us when that's done. Thanks.
I've been using Flash on my Nexus one for a while now and yeah it had bugs and issues and crashes a lot but there are certain situations that it was either
A. Use a buggy flash implementation
B. Don't view the content at all
I know that I'd choose the buggy Flash 99% of the time. Also, I have flash setup to only display on demand which means that I don't see the flash content unless I want to.
What content did you need that you couldn't get without Flash ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
The issues brought up are mostly true for me as well (Dell Streak, Android 2.2) but the nice part is being able to watch embedded video and navigate websites with Flash front pages. Both seem to work properly (including DLink's annoying selector app). Video websites other than Youtube and Ustream which don't have their own apps are actually visible as well because Flash video is supported.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Can't people finally start admitting that maybe Apple was doing the right thing -- for users' long term experience -- in trying to get rid of Flash for mobile devices? It's so bizarre how hatred of Apple and Steve Jobs drives some tech people to irrationally support a lousy and proprietary plugin that we CAN move beyond. Flash was a great thing earlier in the history of the web, but it's time to leave it behind. The only reason the Android crowd loves it is because Apple was the first to admit that it was time to leave it behind. It's become a badge of honor to be able to check that box as a feature -- even if we would be better off (long term for sure) without it.
Flash is dead. As is the parallel port. The floppy disk. The CRT. And many more archaic technological inventions that have come and gone over the years. We have HTML 5. It is standards-based. It is fast. It eases development. Can we finally get over ourselves and accept that Apple have been dismissing Flash because it is simply not useful for low-powered, touch-controlled devices?
Hand in your geek card. Its not about flash being heavy, it's about every single flash-ready web site being designed to be navigated with a mouse, and being designed to appear as annoying as possible to boost ad clicks. That is the problem plaguing flash on handhelds, you dont have a mouse and you dont have screen real estate to waste on ads. Was apple right in saying that flash adds little to nothing to the overall handheld browsing experience? Yes. Then again, no one is making you use flash on your phone. Were there to be mobile-oriented flash apps out there, they would probably work great (oh, wait, there are.)
My big gripe with flash is that not a single content provider has turned to it to deliver mobile media in an effective way. Hulu? Sorry, locked out. CNN, FOX, and the rest of the news? Big fat bomb. Netflix? Oh, right, flash is "insecure". There's no killer app for flash, probably because it took so darn long to have a working client on mobiles. Everyone with a genuine interest went off and made their own app long before flash 10 mobile came around.
No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...
I'm kinda like you -- I prefer to have choices.
The general public, however, does not think that way at all. They aren't interested in choices and certainly don't want to fucking think about it. Please don't bother them.
Apple is a profanely profitable company because that nail that kinda stuff.
Not that this was not already known. Flash basically is a way-out (that works badly) for people that do not get the web and force the old concepts both of paper (where you have absolute positioning) and of movies into the web. That is a bad idea to start with. To make it worse, this particular failed technology suffers from vendor lock-in, bad implementation, bad specification and an atrocious security record. Why anybody competent would want to use Flash is beyond me. Of course, it is possible that nobody competent uses Flash and that the users of Flash are just as incompetent as its designers and implementers. Would not be the first time that something badly broken by design sees widespread adoption.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If it manages to make useful annoying sites that insist on implementing basic functionality in Flash, then it will impress quite well enough..
Instead, it takes useful sites and converts them into slow, annoying ads. Not exactly progress, IMHO.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
which is why anyone would want it on their phone anyway. works very nicely on my HTC Inspire
Also remember that we're coming up on 4 years since the iPhone came out and was ridiculed for not supporting Flash. 4 years of vastly increasing mobile computing power and memory. 4 years for Adobe to get its act together. 4 years to see why HTML5 video and animation is important.
4 years. If this is what we're seeing now, just imagine what Jobs was shown way back when the decision was made.
Flash can be created/written to do all sorts of things. I have had my flash code call javascript functions to change the z-index of the div it lives in and a lot more. There are certainly ways to control every aspect of a flash object's behavior to make it behave properly in the web page's environment.
Do I make use of Flash on my phone a lot? Not really.. Am I glad that for the few times I need it that it's there? Yup.
Since I'm sure the comparisons will be made:
iPhone - Flash uses up 0% of CPU, works on 0% of Flash based sites - for some people this is ideal.
Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.
I guess I'm in the camp that prefers to have the tools, even if they're far from perfect, then to not be allowed the choice. Each to their own really.
Yes, having flash render by default is stupid. It's primarily used by ads - which bring no benefit to the user.
Having it *available* is useful, and there Apple is wrong.
Pron
Windows user. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
... how long has it been since the last 0-day exploit?
0 days. Sometimes if you ask that question at 12:01 AM the answer is "1 day".
This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random
Ah, so they've faithfully reproduced the Flash experience.
sic transit gloria mundi
If Linux users copped this kind of attitude for Flash, they would be portrayed as RMS worshiping hippies with little grip on reality by the same exact Apple fanboys that get their hate-on for Flash.
It's like Linux users advocating that Microsoft port IE6 to Linux to be able to view websites that need it rather than to demand that webmasters code to standards.
Android users are so desperate for something to differentiate themselves from iOS they are fighting on the wrong side here.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Reading the story, that guy appears to have an agenda. I can't take him as a credible source.
Flash isn't ideal? Sounds like a good reason to convince content creators to use or develop alternative platforms. How do you do that? A big player or players (like Apple and Microsoft) fail to support the platform.
Why should anyone be surprised by this? Flash usually fails to impress on any platform. In fact, it usually epic fails to impress.
That is all.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Where the adds coming from the infoworld website?
Either way like it or hate it, it is still infinitely better than flash on iOS...
Stable Channel release 10.0.648.205 is out. Thanks Google for the incredibly swift response.
There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app.
Did you actually try those sites on an iPhone? Because just about any site now simply gives that content directly to the iPhone instead of forcing you to use a Flash wrapper to play it. That way media doesn't have fiddly controls, I can control it easily.
The reality is that if you are browsing media almost everything will work on an iPhone or iPad these days.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No-one has made a pron site with a HTML5 player yet ? Sounds like an opportunity for some enterprising young entrepreneur.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
What isn't pointed out is that, on some sites, the absense of Flash support means there is NO user experience - just a box indicating a missing plug-in. Some might say that the inability to have the experience at all is worse than the poor experience. I won't argue that Flash is a wonderful platform, but it is a platform through which useful content is delivered. I prefer to have the choice to see that content.
To put it more simply, I had an iphone for 2 years. I frequently wished for Flash support. I know have a phone that supports Flash. I've never once wished it did not.
Where the adds coming from...
What I want to know is, where the subtracts coming from? ;)
There are and endless number of sites on the internet that feed Pron out in h.264 to iPhones and iPads. Saying that need Flash to get Pron from the internet is like saying that you can't get any water unless you have a specific faucet when it's raining outside and a fleet of Deep Rock trucks are stuck just outside your door with flat tires.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can choose to eat shit or not. For most people that's not a valid choice.
When every browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate? Android users just want what's always been available to them in every other environment they use.
Personally, I think Flash is lame. Webmasters and designers use it WAY too much. I appreciate video players, but even that should be phased out as html5 gets more traction. When I'm building sites, I avoid flash like the plague. I'll use flash only if there is NO OTHER WAY to accomplish my goal. I can't control other developers though.
If I want to use the web, I need flash on my browser. It's everywhere, including Apple products....except iOS devices.
"Lame" - Galaxar
In the same way that shit on a shoe is infinately better than shit on a shoe that has no shit?
Uhhh your aware of the fact that Android's built in browser is treated as a "mobile browser" too right? There's nothing preventing me from viewing a mobile friendly version of a page if it exists - this isn't a special feature of the iPhone. In fact sometimes it's annoying in that as a mobile browser I can't see the full website.
I'm kinda like you -- I prefer to have choices.
Keep in mind, these problems are often solved in their own way. Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, these all work on the iPhone.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
So apparently, the author argues that websites NOT designed for mobile SUCK. And I agree... but is this a gripe of Flash or not?
How many HTML sites royally suck on my iPhone. TONS. Especially ones with multiple cascading menus, huge link lists, etc, etc. To exclaim that Flash apps made a few years back don't work well nor handle certain motion behaviors is a pretty lame argument. A site not made for mobile use is usually going to be a poor mobile experience. It doesn't matter if it's HTML or not.
Yes, the iPhone taunted the whole internet. But to be honest, I consider it an article reader browser for most sites. It's great for popping open a site, zooming in, and reading an article. But for actual use of many websites, it's just a PITA. This is not a fault of Apple, rather it's a fault of a screen not much bigger than a finger length.
A great example is going to a video player and complaining the menu controls aren't very usable. Well gee, you think. Does it matter whether such was made in HTML/Flash/HTML5 - nope. If the web app is NOT designed for mobile, the experience will suck. You will have to zoom in, use a control, zoom back out. LAME.
But as more apps are designed to recognize and deliver a mobile based experience. This will be come less of an issue. Does Flash lack the touch? Or does a 2 yr old desktop focused Flash app lack a touch experience. There is a difference.
So the police should stop trying to catch robbers because people should have locks on their doors so the robbers can't get in? Seriously, why should the onus be on you to have to sidestep annoying, resource hogging, sometimes malicious advertising and other crap? When such a problematic tool has such widespread use as a great annoyance to people you might consider reevaluating its use at all. I use the "Click to Flash" plugin in Safari on my Mac. It's nice, it shows you where the flash content would be, it will look for MP4 playback alternatives on video sites. Even so, it's annoying when I visit some web site and have to play guess-which-flash-box-is-the-thing-you-want or puzzle on why something is working before I think to go to the menu and tell it to enable all the "invisible" flash on the page. Advertisements will probably never go away, but I'm sick of either having my CPU fan rev up because of some stupid flashy rectangles or having to bang my head against gmail wondering why it's file attacher isn't working and then on a hunch tell Safari to load all invisible flash and have it magically work.
I am this close to switching from my ipad to another tablet with another operating system that allows Flash. It comes down to this simple fact: There is a lot of content I am unable to see on the web because Steve Jobs wants site developers to switch to another standard and build websites that do not use flash. But...a lot of content I want to see is already in Flash. For example, there is a great Thai recipe site that has a lot of videos of people in Thailand making food using traditional Thai recipes. These videos were all simply imported into Flash and then spat out with a player skin and uploaded. Hundreds of them. They are great. So use my ipad/iphone to go to the site. But I can't view the videos because I am using a machine that does not allow flash. It's this simple. Should the owner of the Thai recipes site re-encode his hundreds of videos so that people using an ipad can play them? The maker of the device should include software that allows me to view this content, easily, as part of the browsing experience, if I want to see it. Usability 101. Millions of website ownsers should not have to change their websites to fit Steve Job's inability to add a flash player that plays flash video content when I want it. If android can do it, so can the iOS - based devices.
http://www.youtube.com/html5
Youtube supports HTML5.
Which is good, until the ads start supporting HTML5 too...
I have a little bit of flash functionality on my Galaxy S. For the most part, it's just obnoxious. The flash stuff that I've wanted to use isn't properly developed to function well on a phone. It doesn't resize well, it's interaction with tapping is mixed. Missing flash on my phone is a non-issue. I'm comfortable leaving flash to my desktop thanks.
Where the adds coming from the infoworld website?
Adds will spawn in the late 3d phase of the website, off-tank needs to kite them until DPS can take down the boss.
-- Linux user #369862
The iPad doesn't. I hope that ESPN releases the "ESPN3" app for the iPad, but until then, I can get my sports fix on my Android device. As for the ads, set flash to only turn on when you activate it. Flash is not forced on you, it's an option.
The AS language and IDE itself is not crappy by itself-- blame sh**ty flash developers for sh**ty performance. For instance, go ahead and ask your average flash monkey what a memory leak is.
I think he means those sites with "if browser supports flash, show XXX, else show YYY". Even with flash block (on demand), your browser will report that flash is supported and thus get the flash version of the site.
I was thrilled to get flash on my android phone and still am. I don't give a crap about flash video or games, what I DO care about is that menus and navigation finally work on sites that I had to give up reading on my iPhone. yes, i still used my desktop for them, but it was inconvenient.
Expecting a flash app or game to run well on a mobile is just delusional. I'm sitting here on a quad core pc w/ 6 gb of RAM and a nice video card and my wife can slow things to a crawl loading farmville/cityville/cafeworld in tabs on facebook.
When every desktop browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate?
Fixed that for you. Maybe the problem is more complex than just "Apple sux". Flash for Android has shown to be lacking. While Adobe announced Flash for Blackberry in 2009, they haven't released it yet for the general public. Maybe Apple doesn't want to release a buggy beta platform on their devices?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I also like to have choices. Currently I have an iPhone4, and love it, but sometimes I still miss functionality on certain sites. Most interesting video sites now support alternate formats, but there is still the occasional one that doesn't. Not the end of the world, but definitely a downside to using Apple products.
However, I do hate the idea of flash, and if Apple's refusal to allow it is what it takes to finally drive the web to never rely on it as the only way to deliver functionality, then that is a good thing. So I'm willing to put up with the inconvenience if it pushes the web towards that goal.
Hmm can you point out a site that I'm missing out on? I've yet to experience what your describing. Closest example I can think of would be something Flash heavy like Gizmodo or Kotaku - both of which give me a mobile site.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't most "browser detection" happen in the browser agent ID? Never heard of detecting your browser based on flash capability before. Not a web developer tho so would suprise me if I'm wrong on this.
I suppose some sites might do "if it does flash display video in flash, if not use h.whatever" however in this case I could just as easily say I can still browse those video sites with Flash, AND sites that only display video in flash without the option. So I'd still consider that a bonus.
You should re-read that.
I don't see them working on cross-platform alternatives.
Apple was "right" in removing choice?
Yes, that was right. Because letting users make a choice you know is bad, is a bad idea. It is "removing choice" that they don't offer a "crash browser now" in Safari button too, yet that is not bad...
Technical users that REALLY REALLY want Flash can still get it via jailbreaking. But I wouldn't even bother because Flash on mobile is a totally senseless thing that doesn't help me at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even Google said that Flash isn't going anywhere. But maybe if a thousand more Slashdotters claim it to be dead the 97% install base will magically disappear.
Indeed. I remember an interview where Apple was willing to put Flash on the iPhone but it didn't work very well. So Apple told Adobe that when Adobe got it working right, Apple would re-evaluate. Adobe only now is getting Flash semi-functional on mobile. Maybe Adobe just never thought mobile was a priority and is playing catchup.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Of course Flash on Android sucks. Flash on PC sucks too. Flash just sucks!
First, if this guy had ads dancing around on his pages he definitely did it wrong. Flash on Android has an option where Flash content is replaced by a static box. Nothing actually runs unless you touch the box then it gets replaced with the Flash content. This is IMHO the only way to run Flash on an embedded device. Just letting all Flash content pop up at will is really asking for trouble on a low powered machine with a small screen.
Still, UNFORTUNATELY there is still content out there that is inaccessible without flash. Yes, if your favorite video site has it's own app that is much better. Run that instead. But... if it doesn't then having Flash on the device lets you at least give it a try. You can run it the way a underpowered device with a small touchscreen can. Which is often if not always better than not at all.
Personally I dream of a day when nobody uses Flash anymore. Everything is html v.X and Java/ECMA script vY, as a result all content is available for all platforms with a browser and runs as well as the browser allows it to. (Even so, dedicated apps for the most popular video sites would still be nice). Until that day having Flash does add value to a platform over not having it, even if it still sucks.
So android still can't do flash right... My good old nokia N95 can do it just right and it's a 5 year old phone... why is this taking so long for android?
The Flash debate wasn't just about Flash. For many of us, it was simply an example of Apple's needless lock-down.
The thing is, it wasn't needless. As this article shows Apple made the call that users normal users not technically astute enough to make good choices, would use try to use Flash and it just wouldn't work for them.
So Apple removed it and tried (and succeeded) in convincing many sites to support the iPhone/iPad without Flash.
Users are better off because they get sites that actually work on mobile devices. Website designers are better off because they have fewer Flash components to maintain.
The only people complaining are the technical elite here on Slashdot, who are ignoring the real benefits for users this choice resulted in. Lots of people here just want to have a choice because it exists, without thinking about what is better for 90% of the people who use the device.
Lets abandon the past of abusing users and really design systems that real people can use. The rest of us technical people can easily override these simplistic defaults and do what we like. But let us not pollute the base platform with choices that hurt people who don't understand how to stop the pain.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Flash works very well on my android phone.
Given the evidence to the contrary, I'm beginning to wonder who the real fanboy is...
Flash has a 97% install base and the security record hasn't reduced it. For Flash to die there has to be a better alternative and HTML5 is merely a planned alternative with a smaller install base. Silverlight is the best available alternative but also has the install base problem.
Current peace of living without Flash ads will be replaced by "living with unblockable HTML5 ads."
Don't trust me? Javascript floaters and nags already show that flash isn't the only one marketting force we're fighting. Smartphone presence awareness is growing, and just like HTML5 video exploded thanks to Youtube converting all vids to the mobile world, we'll have HTML5 culture (adverts) slowly creep beyond smartphones. That's FF/opera/Chrome/Safari and more noticeably IE9's eventual wedging into the corporate world looking to leave IE6. Marketters and PHBs will notice the growth trend and then it will be the end of ad-less peace.
I really doubt browsers will give real HTML5 control to the average slashdotter looking for it: architectures less and less able to protect us from rogue plugins than they are from Javascript. Look at what happened with Flash becoming "enable OR disable" instead of "disable blinking, popups, scrolling text, background pictures" and so on. All across the board not one person is posting angry comments in the whole decade of Flash dominance about how EVEN our trusted browsers care not about customizing flash. Sandboxing it isn't the same, Google!
The only current HTML5 features our browsers allow us to control is ONE setting that says that of database allowance size for cookie-like storage. So I don't believe in plugin writers, but I trust even less browsers' standard practices of looking the other way to willingly allow those plugins to run amok and do things like report my entire font list to advertisers.
Have you ever used Flash on a non windows computer?
It makes sucking donkey balls down the intertubes with one cup providing lubricant taste good.
Flash(yes even the supposedly hardware accelerated version) takes my mac book from 6 hours of surfing off the battery to 2 hours. I watch a whole core on my core dou system grind at 70% usage over and over again.
Flash on android is just that bad too. Not only do you not get full flash api(lots of things aren't there at all just the most common for video and websites) but you can watch your phone drop like AT&T drops calls.
Steve jobs may be a control freak, but it is one stance that I agree with. Flash must DIE!!!!!
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Memory leak...that's that thing that happens on my PC about three to four times a day when Task Manger tells me Outlook is using 800,000k memory, right?
No need. Any illogicality is inherited from the post which was mocked.
Even though the iPhone omits flash for Apple's own selfish reasons (app store competition), not including flash is one of the nicest things that Apple ever did for iPhone users. I don't miss it a bit.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
So apparently, the author argues that websites NOT designed for mobile SUCK. And I agree... but is this a gripe of Flash or not?
No, he is not saying that. He is saying Flash sucks on mobile.
The truth is that I HATE mobile websites. The full-sized sites are perfectly usable, even if feature rich with many tiny controls.
A great example is going to a video player and complaining the menu controls aren't very usable. Well gee, you think. Does it matter whether such was made in HTML/Flash/HTML5 - nope.
Actually it does. Because the Flash controls are going to be unresponsive things that are expecting to work with mice. Meanwhile if you've used HTML5 and h.264, you get a native player with native controls that are full sized and perfectly responsive - and that is true on a mobile device OR a desktop.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Browser detection though is the wrong way to do it. Detecting capabilities is the right way. This has been true since I did web development as a job, and this was back when "DHTML" and "Push" were the popular buzzwords.
Doing browser detection leads to failures like Engadget.com. They feed HTML5 video just fine to an iPad or iPhone, but not to Safari on a Mac lacking Flash. Automatic fail on proper web design there.
So, my choices are ads for free news sites, or, The Daily? I'll go with option #3 - AdFree, which blocks all ad content on an Android (rooted) device.
I swear, you'd think people like InfoWorld's Neil McAllister were as smart as they sound. Oh, but wait, he wants the "default" experience. M'kay, then he shouldn't run "beta" products.
You're a pretty clever guy, I guess. So how do you figure a mainstream tech publication is going to run a review of a user experience that you can only get if you root your tablet? How many Xooms do you think Motorola has sold, how many of those are going to be rooted, and how many of those rooted Xooms are going to have a good user experience running Flash? (Read the review for a hint.)
And yes, I am InfoWorld's Neil McAllister.
Breakfast served all day!
I'm sorry, but the apostrophes in your post really got in the way of a successfully implemented attitude of intellectual superiority.
The spelling errors were all yours, however.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
No. A memory leak is when you click on a button, the hourglass shows up, and after waiting like an idiot for a few minutes, it just fizzles away and nothing happens, because the computer forgot what you asked it to do.
When your computer keeps forgetting stuff like that, it may eventually end up doing something completely stupid or even questionable, and then you end up with an "Illegal Operation" error. Those are scary!
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
So does constantly compiling stuff using both cores on my laptop. Yet Ubuntu doesn't seem to be about to stop shipping GCC, just because it can suck battery life.
I want to be able to compile, or run flash when I need to, battery life be damned.
None of what you just said has anything to do with reviewing a beta product. (For the record: I hate Flash and have it blocked everywhere)
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The entire reason I wanted flash on my phone was to be able to watch Hulu at the gym while on the treadmill. But surprise! They enabled Hulu to selectively choose which Flash clients to allow... and they chose not to allow phones. Typical ass hat maneuver. Why should it matter if it's my PC or my phone? I already had a Youtube app... so without Hulu, what's the point?
This sig intentionally left blank.
you choose to run GCC when and where you like. you don't always have that option with flash.
Also you can force GCC to use less CPU and take longer to compile.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
If that's truly the case, the battery % charge meter would count down running *any* CPU and/or GPU intensive application. To think that Flash somehow consumes more battery than any other CPU-pegging (not tough to do on an 8-year-old PC) process is to show a fundamental lack of understanding about how computers work.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I'm pretty sure RMS doesn't use Flash on his computers, on which he says he's dedicated to using only Free Software, from pretty much metal-on-up.
I suspect this is why the Linux users get lampooned over this issue - arguing in favor of Flash puts you squarely on the side of proprietary and closed systems. I've seen numerous Linux advocates suggest that people "simply shouldn't use" software that isn't Free; why is Flash suddenly exempt - simply because it has the market share? By that logic, you should all be arguing in favor of Microsoft's products, as well.
None of what you just said has anything to do with reviewing a beta product. (For the record: I hate Flash and have it blocked everywhere)
--Jeremy
And if you read the review you'll see that I address that, and that few if any of the problems I found could be attributed to the player still being in beta on the Xoom.
Breakfast served all day!
> Have you ever used Flash on a non windows computer?
Yes. I have even done "side by side" comparisons.
When you are a Linux Zealot that's gotten the over the whole "Mac Mini as an HTPC" thing, that's pretty easy.
Windows is nothing special when it comes to Flash. Flash sucks on all platforms pretty much equally.
That's not to say that I advocate or condone platform tyrants trying to keep it from me.
It is my right to be tasteless however RMS or Steve Jobs might want to define that.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Xoom promised Flash. it was arguably the main selling point. Certainly the only one that interested me. Will xoom owners demand a refund? it was widely advertised.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Where does he state or even infer that?
Just wondering. He doesn't talk about what other CPU and GPU intensive processes do, he only mentions flash.
It seems you are inferring something about his understanding without any actual evidence.
I can only imagine someone's disappointment in visiting a site looking for XXX, and instead getting some YYY.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yes. They all work by taking an 80s style proprietary approach to apps that present the content.
That's hardly progress.
Flash may be a proprietary standard but it is at least cross platform.
A proprietary PhoneOS binary is not.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
When every browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate? Android users just want what's always been available to them in every other environment they use.
iOS devices don't support it because it doesn't work properly, as TFA explains, and there's a better way (AND because frankly Adobe screwed Apple over with the terrible Flash on OSX for years.) For some reasons Android users prefer to use a technology that's broken for their platform rather than to seize on it as an opportunity to move on to better things. Maybe Adobe will get a decent version of Flash on mobile devices in a couple of months or a year but where's the famous push of open source enthusiasts for open standards in the face of proprietary technologies ? It's been jettisoned in the race to beat the new Great Enemy, Apple, the end justifying the means.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Sure you do, use flashblock. Then you click on the flash elements to activate them.
I'm starting to wonder if the lady doth protest too much.
You might want to start from the premise that not everyone who writes something critical about something you like is a fanboy or paid shill of the "opposition". That level of cynicism speaks volumes about the fragility of your own belief in the thing you are "protecting".
You're getting less both ways, the only difference is who's being honest about it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Right, then we bitch about bloat.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Care to explain why they need it, when a simple H.264 stream will deliver mobile media without it? (And, if we're to believe the speculation, hardware-accelerated WebM / VP8 video will also work just fine without flash in the near future?)
It sounds like you're saying, "I sure wish things came with more unnecessary and redundant packaging!"
"I want Flash on my device so that I can block it!"
I like what you did there.
You are confused.
It's usually the Free Software purists that get the grief as most people simply don't care and don't appreciate the "virtue".
Even in the early days, not all Linux users were Free Software evangelicals.
It's a useful means to an end, a way to get around the problems inherent in the market.
One key advantage of Unix users in general is that not everyone drinks the cool-aid (or swims in it).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm always curious when I see this "Buggy flash is better than no flash". I can't think of a single time where my only possible route to the information I need is through a flash web site.
Or given how Apple treats mobile app developers, maybe Adobe decided it wasn't worth the risk of investing in Flash on iPhone and then have it summarily dismissed if they weren't on the right side of Apple's business plan of the moment?
Adobe may have chose to wait for Android to be worth marketing to, and are now making the investments to bring Flash up to speed. Not that I like Flash one bit...
You, Sir, do not own a Mac. You cannot understand the very black hole suckitude of Flash on a Mac.
And the grammar mistake was yours.
So when an Android 3.0 user writes about how Flash sucks on Android 3.0, he's a "fanboy" of a totally different platform? You are not making sense, and believe that performance for 2.3.x (which I guess you have) indicates anything at all about performance under 3.0. When it does not, ref. all the writing about how Flash for Honeycomb and the Xoom was delayed at launch.
Does actual Flash applications - and not just the YouTube video player, or animated Flash ads - but for instance hover-dependent Facebook games, do they actually "work very well" there?
Both the Iphone and Andriod support it via webkit. THe IPhone already uses html 5 so it would make sense that Google could use that too. ... unless they are prohibited by a contract with Apple.
http://saveie6.com/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iphone+porn
Fandroids hate facts.
So it is not running Honeycomb. Which is the point here. And I see you avoided talking about how "great" it runs animation-heavy Facebook games...
Browser detection though is the wrong way to do it. Detecting capabilities is the right way.
True but the practical reality is most sites use browser detection.
Doing browser detection leads to failures like Engadget.com. They feed HTML5 video just fine to an iPad or iPhone, but not to Safari on a Mac lacking Flash. Automatic fail on proper web design there.
Yes but my point is that is currently the standard in web design, so you are better off having the browser they are looking to feed h.264 video if you prefer that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also remember that we're coming up on 4 years since the iPhone came out and was ridiculed for not supporting Flash. 4 years of vastly increasing mobile computing power and memory.
And if Apple had supported Flash from the start, it wouldn't have made it on the Phone until the 3 GS anyway, because that's how long it takes for Adobe to actually bring out something barely working. Android "supported" Flash from the start - look how long that took to actually appear.
Fandroids hate facts.
So 150k reviews are all wrong, just because this one guy's "opinion" was linked to Slash dot. I'm calling this for what it is, FUD.
Flash is growing at a faster rate than some would like. It's already on about 26 million smart phones, which is impressive considering it wasn't available until later last year.
Anyways, 10.2 update runs nicely on my Nexus One. Well enough that I leave Flash enabled now, where as earlier versions were versions were quirky, but still better than the so-called alternative on mobile devices. I know for a fact it would work well on my iPad, which has a better GPU and similar speced CPU, but I guess that will never happen, but I'd like the option, just like it would be nice if I could also run Java on it.
"Flash On Android Fails To Impress InfoWorld's Neil McAllister"
Tell us how it impressed you!
Though I cannot comment on how it performs on Android 3.0, I can comment on being generally happy with v10.1 on Android 2.2 (TMo/HTC G2). Of course there are going to be the "Flash shortfalls" introduced such as flash banner ads now appearing - but just like in the "PC/Mac Computer World", that's par for the course.
And just like in the "Computer World", there are options to alleviate such problems, such as the Froyo browser's "plugin on demand" feature ("To make Flash content load only after you click on it, go to the settings, tap Enable plug-ins and select On demand."). And of course, the same feature works in the much more powerful "Dolphin Browser", and there's also FlashBlock for Firefox.
So, the only "inconsistencies" I see that remain are the ones that one would expect from using a touch based tablet/cell phone to interact with anything that was designed for mouse based input - but those same inconsistencies apply from standard HTML/Javascript websites (for instance, our Computer Repair website, where the "mouse-over drop-down menus" (note, I said drop-down MENUS, and not drop-down form fields) are going to be "problematic" since there's no true mouseover for most touch devices - in our site's case, a long press on the dropdown will create the sub-menu). Even in that respect, it's something somewhat inconsistent - but that's due to site design, not the technologies behind it.
The same applies to flash content. If it's not designed for cell/tablet experiences, it's going to be "inconsistent" or broken on such devices. That's not a flash shortcoming - that's a web developer shortcoming. In our case, the default site view is a customized mobile view which is very very light (ie: none I'm aware of) on tablet/cell unsafe layout (yet allows one to switch to the full version if they so desire).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Argument aside...
Ouch.
==
@sibling: For the record, Chrome was "beta" for long after its release to the world at large, and my missus' FB games (Cityville, Farmville, etc) often sport a "beta" tag on them. Sort of ruined the whole designation for those of us who know what they once meant.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Look, I'm just glad they are trying. Kudos for trying to get flash to work on a phone!
Not really. You may notice no one's actually advocating the creation of more Flash content, and that's because we have HTML5 here, which even after Apple crippled it with its tantrums to the W3C it remains a much superior choice for interactive web content.
What tantrums are you referring to ? I know apple was part of the workgroup that originally created and pushed for HTML5, the WHATWG:
"The WHATWG was founded by individuals of Apple, the Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software in 2004, after a W3C workshop. Apple, Mozilla and Opera were becoming increasingly concerned about the W3C’s direction with XHTML, lack of interest in HTML and apparent disregard for the needs of real-world authors. So, in response, these organisations set out with a mission to address these concerns and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group was born."
So it seems likely they take an active role in guiding the process.
The thing with Flash however is just that, well, support for even outdated and inefficient formats like Flash is one of the advantages of an open ecosystem such as Android's over Steve Jobs' walled prison, and is an example popular and simple enough that it won't go over the layman's head (as would, for instance, the ability to develop in any language you choose).
Not just inefficient, broken. TFA states that he could hardly get a balloon-pop game, right out of a Flash beginners guide, to work right. I'll grant you that if they get it to work right and they can make it efficient enough to sip battery power instead of guzzling it, it would be a boon. If that were the case, however, would Apple keep it out ? The conspiracy theory says yes, I don't buy it though.
Well, that and the fact that what Apple's proposing in its stead (HTML5/h.264) is in many ways worse from a freedom standpoint than Flash itself so really, freedom advocates are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place in this Adobe vs Apple fight.
I don't buy that argument either but lets not go into the whole h.264 thing except to say that that race has been run and h.264 came out on top much like mp3 did. The difference with Flash is that where Flash is wholly closed at least in the combo with HTML5 you've got the choice of easily swapping out h.264 with WebM if you support it on the client.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I'm always curious when I see this "Buggy flash is better than no flash". I can't think of a single time where my only possible route to the information I need is through a flash web site.
I once tried to book a hotel room, but couldn't because I didn't have Flash installed. Actually, I had Flash installed on my Mac, and it wasn't disabled in any way, but for some reason the site checked whether Flash for Windows was installed on your machine. They also had a link that would allow me to install Flash for Windows on my Mac.
I did not book that hotel room.
Why should I settle for LESS when I leave the "desktop"?
This is all about Apple Fanboys trying to make lame excuses that they would laugh at themselves if they came from Linux users.
Why settle for less CPU power or less RAM ? It's the limitations of the platform. Flash is infamous for bringing desktops to its knees, why would you expect it to fare better on much more limited resources ? Hey I hope Adobe can somehow squeeze it down to size and maybe in the process vastly improve their desktop version. Based on past experience I'm not betting on it though. Maybe years of using Flash on OSX has made me bitter ;-)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Why should I settle for LESS when I leave the "desktop"?
Is that a serious question? You do realize when going to mobile there are tradeoffs of power, efficiency, and portability. My smartphone isn't very good at high computational scientific work or playing Crysis at 300fps. But it's fine for trying to figure where I am and how to map out my destination. There is always less when you leave the desktop. In this case you are getting less anyways as it appears Flash for Android isn't very usable yet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well given that Flash for Blackberry was announced in 2009 and hasn't been released yet, given that Flash for Android apparently sucks, given that Flash for WP7 hasn't been released yet, I would guess that the problem isn't with Apple necessarily. Maybe Apple may have dismissed Flash because they got tired of waiting among other things. Adobe may have chosen to wait for Android but that doesn't mesh with history. Adobe announced Flash was coming to Blackberry in 2009. That was over 2 years ago and no Flash yet. Also while Android has more phones overall than Apple, Apple has sold 89 million phones to date and 15 million iPads last year. That's a large market to ignore.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Unfortunately, this video is not available on your platform. We apologize for any inconvenience.
This, however, is probably Hulu's fault, and not Flash's. Hulu intentionally makes the video unavailable for the platform, either for DRM/money reasons or for simply not wanting to support/test that platform.
Reading your reviews is a painful exercise in frustration with jouralistic and technical incompetence. Perhaps you're intentionally being obtuse, Flash is a hotbutton issue and I'm sure you'll get the clicks for that paycheck. But man that article was terrible. It astonishes me you're even here defending it.
You get a tech fact wrong on the first page.
There's no stand-alone Flash app for Android.
And a simple Google search shows you're wrong: http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2011/02/adobe-air-2-6-for-android-is-now-available.html
Then you continue with the nonesense: RIAs that don't work on 4 inch screens? OMG switch to HTML! I'd love to see a comparable HTML RIA that works well on a 4in device. I could go on and on but what's the point? I'm sure you'll probably defend yourself as above the fray having given the overall picture or some other such hyperbolic BS. Respond if you want, I don't care -- but at the very least do some fucking research and stop doing us all a disservice with this hatchet-job sensationalist trolling "journalism". The world does NOT need sensationalist leach journalism. Just stop.
PS: Yeah I'm posting AC, yeah this is harsh language, and I bet unpleasant for you to hear, which will probably get modded to hell but try not to miss the point.
There is plenty of time to fix it given how slowly websites are moving away from Flash. Some of the bigger media websites have flat out stated that they have no interest in HTML5.
Android users don't have to run Flash, it's called choice.
fails to impress. It's a closed format, with no real development alternatives besides Adobe tools. I'd say let's drop the thing and move on. When silverlight came out I was disappointed because it offered nothing better. But HTML 5 may be just the bullet to finally kill it. I wonder why it was even allowed onto Android. Apple took a good decision (even if for ulterior motives) to keep it off. All I have to say to Flash is: Good Riddance.
I've noticed you don't seem to actually understand much about technology, or anything for that matter. Did you buy that low-id account on ebay?
You have a good point that Adobe has promised a lot, but delivered little. Though comments in this thread indicate Flash on Android is somewhere between acceptable given the constraints, to absolutely worthless. If you are denied access to the iOS platform, zero percent of 114 million devices is still a big fat goose egg. I can see them deciding it wasn't worth the investment risk. Android and Blackberry were the next 2 best candidates, I guess I'm not convinced Adobe had the foresight to pick the right one to target the most resources. It was probably serendipity.
In the same way that shit on a shoe is infinately better than shit on a shoe that has no shit?
No.
I like what you did there.
as apposed to "i don't want flash on my device because i like limiting my options." SWIDT?
.csv files into excel because it should have been done in a database". they are right, but why deliberately limit yourself when there is a demand?
everyone agrees that flash is not an ideal web add-on, especially in comparison to html5. but I'd much prefer to have the option to use flash when required than not. But i guess that's why I'm an android user not an iphone user. i like having the control and the responsibility, even if its at the expense of really nice design (which is what apple are really good at). everything (for me at least) doesn't need to "just work", as long as the trade off is flexibility.
to me, its the same as microsoft saying "we no longer support opening
the real reason why flash isn't on iOS though is because it doesn't conform to the apple design principles of "so easy any one can do it, and so smooth everyone will love it", everything is about having the best experience (which, imo, is a long overdue principal and works really well). the very nature of flash makes having it available on a touch based device question the experience (is it going to be usable, is it going to be slow etc.).
For Android, not having the problem of trying to sell a perfect experience but instead having a focus on flexibility, having flash is ideal.
For apple to impliment flash, they would have to make a sacrifice to the "high quality image" that they have worked so hard to create. Which, imo, probably isn't worth it for Apple. I won't listen to PR that say "you shouldn't have flash on websites anyway" though. that's just trying to push the blame of lack of compatibility onto the content providers (which were providing flash content well and truly before smart phones).
I did not book that hotel room.
And you can rest assured the hotel's head office noticed your attempt when they reviewed their user-agent statistics. Unless they're idiots, which they aren't, they will have told their IT people to ditch the Flash shit if they don't want their next job assignment to involve wearing a paper hat while 'configuring' a deep-fat fryer.
It's very safe to say that Flash will no longer be required by any major B2C websites within the next 6-12 months. It's dead, Jim, stick a fork in it.
me for one. Never thought it was that neat, seem to have more downfalls then anything useful.
Oh, i forgot, it made it so i could click on a monkey in ads fast. Neato
Anyways, whatever, no loss. Do NOT WANT. Stay away from my phone, thanks!!!!
Be seeing you...
I'd rather have a buggy Flash as an option than to have no choice at all.
It should get there eventually. Until then, use it when it works, disable it when it becomes a problem. Hardware inconsistency is one problem I'm sure, and it's really a shame that some vendors created slow, resource-starved Android phones.
He was "testing it out." That hardly makes him a user. I'd bet money that this guy is an iPhone and/or iPad user, even though statistics would be against me.
Yes, instead of my own experience I should just trust "evidence" given by an apple fanboy.
I formed that assumption based on the review itself. I've used Android, and I happen to love that I can view flash on websites. It doesn't get in the way. You can disable it. You can set it to only load when you tell it to (by tapping on a flash element). I've never met a non-apple fanboy who didn't love the fact that you have a choice to use flash on your phone, or who didn't care one way or the other because it's *simply an option* that you don't have to enable, and can uninstall.
It renders all of the videos on http://www.xhamster.com/ perfectly fine. Perhaps Neil McAllister was holding it wrong...
I'm trying to find the place where it is buggy and beta. Flash has been running great on my Android devices for as long as it has been available.
If that's truly the case, the battery % charge meter would count down running *any* CPU and/or GPU intensive application. To think that Flash somehow consumes more battery than any other CPU-pegging (not tough to do on an 8-year-old PC) process is to show a fundamental lack of understanding about how computers work.
--Jeremy
On any laptop I've used running the CPU at 100% reduces the battery life to less than a quarter of what it normally is. The issue is that there's no reason web browsing should be a CPU intensive task (besides poor programming). An iPad gets 10 hours of web browsing. It's completely inexcusable for my laptop which normally gets 8 hours of battery life to get only 2 hours of web browsing because flash is enabled.
Oh, btw, can you're iPad2 modify it's host file to adblock not only for itself
I'm iPad2? damn, i've been selling myself short at my job, clearly i'm worth much more!
(sorry dude, i feel a bit nitpicky today)
People, what a bunch of bastards
The stock Android browser in 2.2 has an option to show placeholders instead of loadnig the flash animation immediately. You then touch the placeholder and it loads. No root required, it is built-in functionality.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually, as a Linux user since 1996, my hatred for flash started LONG before i had anything to do with Apple gear. I spent years of dealing with sub-standard, buggy, unmaintained flash plug-ins for Linux. Nothing of value is implemented in flash anyhow.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Flash is so bad that it's worth inventing a phony god and prey to him that Flash disappears from the face of the Earth.
Flash is simply not as viable and attractive thing today as it was when it was introduced into the world of Web utterly desperate for realization of more and richer possibilities. Not enough people used laptops and cared for extra hours of battery life then (mind you I didn't say there weren't any) as now, and frankly the amount of Flash ads were about zero then as well. Web didn't take advantage of all those Intel Pentium and Athlon CPU cycles rendering HTML 4 pages and all heavy web app logic was done server-side.
Today it's a whole different world. Someone like Google, they willing, can almost invent, inject and install just about anything on the Web, and tomorrow everybody will be using it, courtesy of auto-update, preinstall-on-new-PC and tech savvy bloggers. Not to mention again, how Flash is out of place for a lot of function Web needs today.
Admittedly, the idea is not bad - bytecode, layer-based animation, compact binary (well, not THAT compact anymore, but still). But it's the implementation and a lot around it that are out of place. Sometimes you have to admit you've made a hell of a lot of money, and make life easier for MILLIONS of people for once. Adobe, how much is enough? You bought out Macromedia, you've given us the monstrocity that is Creative Suite (more like Creative Wardrobe Cabinet)... I am not an anti-capitalist, but Flash directly affects life of just about anybody on Internet, sooner or later, one way or another. If money is to be made, there are many other user-friendly ways to make it for a company the size of Adobe, yet they hold on to Flash with steel claws (and pink ribbons) like there is no tomorrow.
As numerous posts hee have shown, Flash on an Android 2.x device is fine. On my bog-standard 2.2 tablet, web browsing is surprisingly smooth and fast even using Flash. The problem is something to do with the Android 3.0 upgrade and/or the new version of Flash and/or someone messing around with the default settings.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It is the same suckitude on windows, just people are used to their computers being shit they don't notice.
Come one, be realistic. If you're looking to use Flash on Android as more than just a convenient method to watch videos here and there (that were previous unavailable to you), that's your own problem. McAllister sounds like a real douche. If you don't like it, don't use it..... And don't be such a User. Android doesn't want you.
> Is that a serious question?
Sure it is.
The web is a "platform" I surfed on a 40Mhz 486. Flash is a resource hog but it really isn't that much of a resource hog.
The Fanboys seem intent on fixating on how poorly Flash performs when streaming video and glossing over the fact that it is used for more than just video.
Banning Flash essentially locks your users out of a great deal of the web.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You are so funny. Fixating on ids. I remember when Slashdot didn't even have them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
One of Apple's great insights is that it is better not to have a feature at all than to have a feature that works badly. If you go to a web site and can't access it because it uses Flash, you might be momentarily annoyed, but then you either go on to a competing Flash-free web site, or else you wait until you can access it from a computer. On the other hand, if it seems at first to work, but doesn't work right, you keep struggling with it, wasting a lot of time, and getting madder and madder.
And as Apple realized early on, getting Flash to work well on portable touch-screen devices with limited processing and battery power wasn't simply a matter of getting Adobe to rewrite Flash to be more efficient and reliable. Most Flash web sites would still require a major redesign. So if they were going to have to be redesigned anyway, why not give them an incentive to avoid Flash, with all of its reliability, resource-hogging, and security issues?
Flash doesn't work on mobile. Period. No one at all says it's even halfway decent. It can't do anything that people actually want it for: it can't play games and it can't play video. I'm not sure what website you are going to that you so desperately need Flash
"I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
-Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
There is two way to do it :
Way A.
Apple's way : you just refuse to let flash on the iPhone and piss every developer and geek because you're anally retentive and want to control everything and prevent as much as possible non-AppStore applications (specially when they can't be Saint-Jobs-approved) from ever reaching the phone. By every possible mean, including forbidding every app to run remote or scripts.
Way B.
Everyone else's way : You know flash on portable sucks. You want people still want to have it. You find a way to mitigiate it. You provide an optional plug-in, which only launches in case of tap. Thus taxing less the resources, and not imposing flash crap ads. Result : most people will soon get tired of taping the "launch flash content" icon, only to find that said content suck on non-desktop non-windows machines. The few who really-really-really need flash will have the choice. You won't look like an asshole, the joke will be on Adobe who will have to publicly admit that, yeah, their flash technology just sucks on touch devices, make their webistes not portable, and that they are themselves unable to make Flash "right" on such platforms (not optimized enough and/or not power efficient).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Wha't's the evidence some random link bait from infoworld? Seriously I guess a person like you would never believe it but I have the OPTION to load flash content on my Nexus one and it works just fine. I don't have to load the content I get the choice you don't if you use an iDevice and wether you want to admit the truth or not that sucks.
Again, your own insecurities are biasing your position. You can inject your dislike of Jobs and Apple all you want, but that doesn't support your argument that Flash doesn't suck on Android because....wait for it....the two things are not related.
This "random link bait from infoworld" is just another testament in a long list of technical publications that concur Flash sucks on Android. Then a few slashdotters make the logical conclusion that perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to Steve Jobs' opposition to Flash than some sort of marketing conspiracy, in that it would also suck on iOS.
With that, I think you need to seriously rethink your definition of fanboy, because there seems to be a lot of reputable sources out there you are quickly dismissing into the fanboy category, which seriously diminishes your credibility.
Your comment shows a fundamental lack of reading and comprehension skills.
Wow LOL What?
Firstly reading comprehension fail.
Did I call you a Fanboy? No!
Where did I say I dislike Jobs? I am writing this from a 15" MacBook Pro of which I have two (one work and one personal) and an iPad2 shows what you know.
Did I say Flash sucked on my nexus one? No! (I wish my iPad2 had the option)
I said I liked Flash on my phone!
And as I pointed out does not matter to a person like you because no matter what anyone says you would not believe it because that would force to reevaluate your position which you have no interest in doing.
If you don't see that article as link bait then you are either really naive or being willfully ignorant so as to support your own opinion.
There's no stand-alone Flash app for Android.
And a simple Google search shows you're wrong: http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2011/02/adobe-air-2-6-for-android-is-now-available.html
What are you smoking? The full quote is: "There's no stand-alone Flash app for Android. The installer simply adds Flash support to the existing Android Web browser, much like the Flash plug-in does for desktop browsers." That's what it does. Your link is for Adobe AIR, which is a different product from Flash Player (which was what I was reviewing). But if you must know, there's no standalone Adobe AIR app either.
RIAs that don't work on 4 inch screens? OMG switch to HTML!
The Xoom has an eight-inch screen. And "switch to HTML" is my advice, because I've hardly found any HTML sites that suffer as badly on a tablet as Flash content does. You don't have to believe the review. If you don't, go ahead and buy a Motorola Xoom (or some other Android tablet) and enjoy Flash to your heart's content. People who have actually tried it already, on the other hand, know the review is accurate.
Breakfast served all day!
No I don't see it as link bait. And yes, I replied to the wrong person. I assumed your post was a response from the post I was commenting to from LABarrette.
Given your response, combined with his original post, it makes for quite the anti-apple rant. But since you and he are two different people, I take it back.
I don't know about you, but I've got flash on my android tablet and my android phone as well as my linux and (vm) windows systems, and both of my macs. Mine wasn't an "apple sux" rant, it was a "don't be an asshat, give me what I want" rant. The market has spoken, and apple said 'take a flying leap'.
Flash on my android devices is fine...I have no problems with it. I'll be buying an ipad for testing and development this weekend. If it had flash, I wouldn't be buying it because it would support the video solution my customer is using for every other platform. Instead, I'm burning their contracted support hours on development when I could otherwise mark them off while I read the automatically generated reports.
"Lame" - Galaxar
They are indeed related. The reason people feel the need to bash it so much is because Steve Jobs told them that they don't need flash. It's so obvious to anyone on the outside of iWorld. There are zero surprises about the functionality of flash on mobile devices. Yes, there are issues since the majority of content was produced to work with a mouse, but that's expected! The fact that people are still writing articles about how it's useless because of this issue (it isn't useless--I use it all the time) shows that they are all fanboys.