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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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!
You're getting less both ways, the only difference is who's being honest about it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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?