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.'"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Dick Jones: "I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
Where the adds coming from...
What I want to know is, where the subtracts coming from? ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
So the solution to fixing an infestation of proprietary software into what is supposed to be an open web is to just keep using the proprietary software? And the reason is because some web developer picked a proprietary method of embedding videos, and shouldn't be bothered to change them? Do you feel the same for all the web developers who picked the proprietary Real Video solution a while back?
Apple blocking Flash is one of the best things to happen to try and get a proper open way of doing video on the web. Real, Quicktime, and Windows Media were all past attempts we are glad failed now. Flash took over for a while, but it's time to go join it's proprietary buddies of the past.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
They were promised a working MicroSD slot too. Have they enabled that yet?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
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).