PDA

View Full Version : Adobe to End New Installs of Flash on Android as of August 15




MacRumors
Jun 29, 2012, 08:53 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/adobe-to-end-new-installs-of-flash-on-android-as-of-august-15/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/flash_player_3d_icon.jpg

Last November, Adobe announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/adobe-discontinues-development-on-mobile-flash/) that it was ending development of Flash Player for mobile platforms, opting not to optimize the plug-in for new browser, operating system, and device configurations. Adobe's announcement came roughly a year and a half after Steve Jobs penned his "Thoughts on Flash" (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/29/steve-jobs-posts-thoughts-on-flash-open-letter/) open letter outlining why Apple had decided not to allow Flash to run on its iOS devices.

Now nearly eight months after Adobe's announcement, the company is officially pulling Flash (http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-update.html) from the Google Play marketplace for Android for new users. Those users who already have Flash installed on their Android devices will, however, be able to continue receiving updates.Beginning August 15th we will use the configuration settings in the Google Play Store to limit continued access to Flash Player updates to only those devices that have Flash Player already installed. Devices that do not have Flash Player already installed are increasingly likely to be incompatible with Flash Player and will no longer be able to install it from the Google Play Store after August 15th.Adobe also notes that Flash is officially not certified for use with the upcoming Android 4.1 "Jelly Bean" previewed (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/27/google-announces-199-nexus-7-tablet-299-nexus-q-media-streamer/) earlier this week, and users are encouraged to uninstall Flash if and when they update their Android devices to Jelly Bean.

Article Link: Adobe to End New Installs of Flash on Android as of August 15 (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/adobe-to-end-new-installs-of-flash-on-android-as-of-august-15/)



Apfeldirektsaft
Jun 29, 2012, 08:54 AM
Goodbye Flash, won't miss you.

mentaluproar
Jun 29, 2012, 08:55 AM
Wow, early birthday gift for me!

doobybiggs
Jun 29, 2012, 08:56 AM
hopefully this is the death of flash!!!

HarryKeogh
Jun 29, 2012, 08:56 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

newyorksole
Jun 29, 2012, 08:56 AM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

Ciclismo
Jun 29, 2012, 08:57 AM
Cool, maybe they can now use the resources they have freed up to fix Flash for desktops? The current version keeps crashing doing relatively simple tasks such as streaming radio.:mad:

nefan65
Jun 29, 2012, 08:58 AM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

They're in the "The SGIII is the best phone in the world, and Apple is doomed" forum.

Jayse
Jun 29, 2012, 08:59 AM
Good riddance...

macse30
Jun 29, 2012, 08:59 AM
Weird news

Ktulu
Jun 29, 2012, 09:02 AM
As a Flash Developer I can say this is good news. I have always disliked the flood of poor programming by sudo developers in Flash, this is one of the major reasons for issues with the Flash player, and welcome the hope that as Flash becomes an even smaller "niche" platform we begin to see fewer things developed in Flash, but much better quality for those things that are.

I for one will not miss it on mobile and have always thought it to be a bad idea in the first place.

Ryth
Jun 29, 2012, 09:02 AM
opting not to optimize the plug-in for new browser, operating system, and device configurations.

Translated to "we could not program or create a better version of our piece of sh-t program we bought off another company who bought off another company and didn't change for almost 14+ years"

Steve
Jobs
Was
Right

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 09:02 AM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

Over The Hill
Jun 29, 2012, 09:03 AM
If you observed things carefully it was on its way out for quite some time now. Just that Adobe was going through all 5 states a bit longer than anticipated.

jayducharme
Jun 29, 2012, 09:03 AM
There goes one of the main arguments I've kept hearing of why someone would choose Android over iOS. I guess arguments now will focus on "closed" versus "open."

Noteflight, an online-based music creation tool, since its inception had a Flash interface. The developers just announced they're recoding their entire site to HTML5. That's huge! But it will open up the entire mobile market to them.

In a way it's a shame. Flash had so much potential, but it seems Adobe just sort of let the software get bloated and irrelevant.

Aftershocker
Jun 29, 2012, 09:05 AM
Wont be sad to see it go completely, its a terrible resource and battery hog.

Hopefully it will mean everyone mores to html5 that much sooner.

miniroll32
Jun 29, 2012, 09:06 AM
......

HAHAHAHA!

Who's having the last laugh now, eh Adobe? This is even funnier than when Steve Jobs said "We opted for killer graphics" (aka. GeForce 320).

gnasher729
Jun 29, 2012, 09:07 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?"

We'll still hear it, but only from RIM fans (does Blackberry run Flash? I don't know. I don't care).

Kyrra
Jun 29, 2012, 09:08 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

I'm happy flash is dead, but Android still has advantages over iOS:
1) More choice in phones (which can lead to removable batteries, better cameras, various screen sizes, etc...)
2) A less locked down app store. There can be browsers other than safari wrappers on the Google Play store.
3) Being able to set default clients (email, browser, etc...)
4) Google Maps. (I hope apple can pull off their own mapping solution, but google maps look better right now).
Lots of other things I'm probably forgetting.

But at the same time, iOS has a lot of nice things about it that I would miss if I moved to android (iPhone owner here, trying to decide what phone to get next):
1) Better games (graphics support is more consistant on apple devices, so game devs have an easier time developing for these).
2) Will continue to get firmware updates for years (though, google makes most of the apps that Apple has baked into the OS be updatable from the Play store, so not getting a new OS on android isn't too big of a deal).
3) Nice consistent feeling. This has gotten better with Android ICS, but few people have that.
4) Good customer support. When **** breaks with apple devices, their customer service rocks.
5) Consistency. As much as people like the control android gives you, it tends to make troubleshooting these devices for computer illiterate people a lot more difficult.

Rogifan
Jun 29, 2012, 09:08 AM
I thought IE and Chrome had Flash build right into the browser i.e. not a plug in.

The Phazer
Jun 29, 2012, 09:09 AM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

I'd imagine they'll either switch to Silverlight or use AIR. Adobe isn't withdrawing AIR from Android, just the browser plugin.

A bad day for the web. HTML5 doesn't do nearly enough yet, the creation tools are still very poor, and more content will be pushed to proprietary apps.

Phazer

Saladinos
Jun 29, 2012, 09:09 AM
There goes one of the main arguments I've kept hearing of why someone would choose Android over iOS. I guess the main argument now will shift to "closed" versus "open."

Noteflight, an online-based music creation tool, since its inception had a Flash interface. The developers just announced they're recoding their entire site to HTML5. That's huge! But it will open up the entire mobile market to them.

In a way it's a shame. Flash had so much potential, but it seems Adobe just sort of let the software get bloated and irrelevant.

64-bit Linux users will attest to the fact that the software was always bloated. That's why it took them so long to port it - apparently lots of it only really worked on Windows, Intel 32-bit systems.

Anyway, good to hear it's dead. Now I want to see companies serving their HTML5-enabled sites to desktop users, too.

spazzcat
Jun 29, 2012, 09:10 AM
I thought IE and Chrome had Flash build right into the browser i.e. not a plug in.

No, it's a plug-in for all browsers.

Tones2
Jun 29, 2012, 09:11 AM
Wow, early birthday gift for me!

OK, so why does this MATTER so much to you? :rolleyes:

Tony

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 09:12 AM
I thought IE and Chrome had Flash build right into the browser i.e. not a plug in.

Chrome simply maintains its own version of the plugin, which is automatically downloaded and updated when Chrome is.

Internet Explorer doesn't include Flash Player.

linux2mac
Jun 29, 2012, 09:13 AM
That's funny considering it wasn't too long ago Android's "Full Web Experience" campaign was using iPhone's lack of Flash as a selling point. Sayonara Flash!

212rikanmofo
Jun 29, 2012, 09:14 AM
It's about time. So does this mean Flash will be completely dead for desktop computers as well? I can't stand Flash and hope it rots in hell where it belongs.

0815
Jun 29, 2012, 09:14 AM
Too bad Steve Jobs didn't not live long enough to get confirmation from Adobe that he was right about Flash - he got so much heat for it and now Adobe basically admits that he was right.

R.I.P. Steve

rosalindavenue
Jun 29, 2012, 09:15 AM
I am really going to miss the android proponents yapping about the "Full Web." Well, not really. (Have had both phones, not flaming).

sockatume
Jun 29, 2012, 09:16 AM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

The BBC isn't reliant on Flash for the iPlayer. It's only used on the web browser verison. The BBC could pull the plug on it tomorrow and just direct everyone to the Adobe AIR app.

Which they'll probably have to do when Windows 8 launches anyway.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 09:17 AM
The BBC isn't reliant on Flash for the iPlayer. It's only used on the web browser verison. The BBC could pull the plug on it tomorrow and just direct everyone to the Adobe AIR app.

The Android app uses Flash.

scottsjack
Jun 29, 2012, 09:19 AM
Wow, the Flash haters are out this morning. I guess it's cool to hate Flash, as in "I hate Flash. I must be a little like Steve Jobs!"

tann
Jun 29, 2012, 09:19 AM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.



The BBC really annoy me when I visit iplayer or go to their news videos and see that my flash blocker has blocked it. Just wish they'd use something better!

KieranDotW
Jun 29, 2012, 09:20 AM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I know my fanboy side is showing, but this is going to create soooo much ******** for fandroids.

jayden
Jun 29, 2012, 09:22 AM
It was inevitable I think, but a shame. Flash can do stuff like no other tech can. HTML5 is not even close.

The nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is a recent example of how beautiful Flash can be (scroll down a bit and turn down the Thermostat on Day 2). Not on an iOS device though... whoops. I wonder if the nest designer (ex designer of the iPod/iPhone) will like that? :)

SBlue1
Jun 29, 2012, 09:22 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

the motorolla razor has also a non-removable battery. :)

minderbinder106
Jun 29, 2012, 09:25 AM
the motorolla razor has also a non-removable battery. :)

There are other choices in Android besides the motorolla razor.

AbyssImpact
Jun 29, 2012, 09:27 AM
I bet everybody have flash on their laptops. Why not uninstall flash on your laptop if you hate it so much.

doctor-don
Jun 29, 2012, 09:29 AM
Adobe is more of a problem than with just Flash. My T-Mobile statement in PDF format cannot be viewed except using Adobe Reader - a recent change from the former bill presentment.

kerryb
Jun 29, 2012, 09:29 AM
has now jumped into the fire. Goodbye!

GenesisST
Jun 29, 2012, 09:30 AM
OK, so why does this MATTER so much to you? :rolleyes:

Tony

Just a guess: Because Steve said so?

Although, Steve is right IN THIS CASE, there are a lot of people that would jump off a bridge if he asked... Not here, though, noooooo... ;)

jbennardo
Jun 29, 2012, 09:30 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

They'll resort to the old standbys: open, customizable, widgets... oh and project butter lol.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 09:30 AM
Anyone that thinks THE major differentiation between Android and iOS is the ability to run flash is ignorant.

MacsRgr8
Jun 29, 2012, 09:30 AM
LOL.... just as I went to read this, the Flash updater appeared....

Thunderhawks
Jun 29, 2012, 09:32 AM
For ipad users who occasionally need flash for streaming websites there is Photon in the app store.

Works pretty well and you can switch on Flash only when you need it.

Makes me wonder though if they'll keep updating it.

tdream
Jun 29, 2012, 09:35 AM
Co-incidentally around the same time android actually gets phones out that run flash no problem, ie HTC One X and the SGSIII.

Flash is not going away for desktops so I don't understand the argument that it is good it's leaving phones/tablets. Actually I do, it's to promote 99c apps when you can play the flash version for free. It's to watch video from a variety of sites on flash for free when corporations can actually charge you for free content. And judging by the number of fools celebrating this, the majority, once again unknowing ignorant buffoons who don't know what's good for them, it's one step closer to 1984.

batchtaster
Jun 29, 2012, 09:36 AM
Schadenfreude Friday.

Flash is not going away for desktops so I don't understand the argument that it is good it's leaving phones/tablets.

You're right. You don't understand.

shartypants
Jun 29, 2012, 09:38 AM
Nice to see Adobe being honest with themselves. Flash is too big and buggy for mobile devices. The sooner they bury it altogether the better.

Spanky Deluxe
Jun 29, 2012, 09:38 AM
It was inevitable I think, but a shame. Flash can do stuff like no other tech can. HTML5 is not even close.

The nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is a recent example of how beautiful Flash can be (scroll down a bit and turn down the Thermostat on Day 2). Not on an iOS device though... whoops. I wonder if the nest designer (ex designer of the iPod/iPhone) will like that? :)

I agree, the nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is very nice but it's not an example of how beautiful Flash can be. It's an example of how beautiful HTML5 can be. There's no Flash on the website. Sorry.

Rocketman
Jun 29, 2012, 09:39 AM
Wow! Only a year and a half for a wide scale "I told you so" moment.

What's interesting is Steve publicly led the way to alternative methods that made Flash obsolete to the degree even its creator has "gotten on board".

They might even be thanking him secretly for this transition in a way unadmitted pain is being avoided going forward!

Rocketman

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

"Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform."

G51989
Jun 29, 2012, 09:39 AM
Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

Depends on the needs of the user, if I'm out on a site all day away fron the office, then no removeable battery is a deal breaker.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 29, 2012, 09:41 AM
Ooops!!! :eek:
Adobe is apparently committing suicide with Flash.

Apple had a good reason for refusing it; Google (Android) accepted it, and now is being taken away.

I can see phones catching fire while playing Flash content.

In some sense, Adobe is admitting their failure with Flash for the mobile environment. On the desktop environment, Flash is being avoided as much as possible by many, by using plugins or proxies to filter it.

Flash was great until it's use got abused.

Next in line: Javascript.

manu chao
Jun 29, 2012, 09:42 AM
There are other choices in Android besides the motorolla razor.
Maybe knowing the percentage of Android phones sold that have a removable battery would give us an idea how relevant that feature is as a competitive advantage.

efrank772
Jun 29, 2012, 09:42 AM
About time Flash gets off of Android!!!! Us iPhone users have been stuck without flash since the beginning of time!!! I hope this pushes website makers to update their websites so they don't require flash!!!!

Abazigal
Jun 29, 2012, 09:42 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

Heck, even google is dropping flash support for their nexus tablet.

I find it ironic because one of the main selling points of android was exactly that it supported flash. :p

Steve was right, had always been right, and had the balls to go through with his convictions by not having his IOS devices support flash. While people were complaining of not being able to watch flash stuff, he was busy paving the way to a better web future. It took some time, but I think we are all ultimately better off for it. :)

unlinked
Jun 29, 2012, 09:42 AM
Too bad Steve Jobs didn't not live long enough to get confirmation from Adobe that he was right about Flash - he got so much heat for it and now Adobe basically admits that he was right.

R.I.P. Steve

I know people like simplistic points of view but Flash was less likely to have a long term future as long as iOS refused to support it. That says more about the market share of iOS than it does about the quality of Flash. Anyway the world has a way of changing over time. In the 5 years since the iPhone launched HTML5 has changed a lot. The Cirque du Soleil demo at Google IO was pretty amazing.

tomhut
Jun 29, 2012, 09:43 AM
It was inevitable I think, but a shame. Flash can do stuff like no other tech can. HTML5 is not even close.

The nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is a recent example of how beautiful Flash can be (scroll down a bit and turn down the Thermostat on Day 2). Not on an iOS device though... whoops. I wonder if the nest designer (ex designer of the iPod/iPhone) will like that? :)

Not a spot of flash on that page, all HTML5.

Its an example of just how good HTML5/JS/CSS3 is, some of the tech demos done at Google IO yesterday prove that flash simply is not needed anymore.

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 09:49 AM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

Actually, I believe HTML5 includes encrypting streams and doesn't cache it to disk...

tbrinkma
Jun 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
It was inevitable I think, but a shame. Flash can do stuff like no other tech can. HTML5 is not even close.

The nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is a recent example of how beautiful Flash can be (scroll down a bit and turn down the Thermostat on Day 2). Not on an iOS device though... whoops. I wonder if the nest designer (ex designer of the iPod/iPhone) will like that? :)

Ok. I scrolled down to it. Exactly what part of that do you think can't be done with HTML5? (Hint: It could have been done with HTML 3 or 4 and JavaScript.)

Edit: I guess I should have looked at the page's source. Apparently it *is* HTML 5! :eek: :D

The only thing Flash has had going for it since the days of IE 6 were the libraries it had available for developers to make coding certain things easier, and a plug-in which was largely consistent across the major platforms of the day (back when browsers weren't quite so consistent). Since that time, better standards compliance, and additional JavaScript libraries have eaten up most (all?) of that advantage. Flash hasn't been 'necessary' for ages now, and hasn't even been 'better' for about 3-4 years.

taeclee99
Jun 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
Not a spot of flash on that page, all HTML5.

Its an example of just how good HTML5/JS/CSS3 is, some of the tech demos done at Google IO yesterday prove that flash simply is not needed anymore.


Nice...Looks like somebody just got PWNED!!!!!

NightFox
Jun 29, 2012, 09:53 AM
The BBC really annoy me when I visit iplayer or go to their news videos and see that my flash blocker has blocked it. Just wish they'd use something better!

The BBC annoy you because your Flash blocker is blocking their Flash content? :cool:

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 09:54 AM
I thought IE and Chrome had Flash build right into the browser i.e. not a plug in.

Chrome has Pepperflash inculded with Chrome, but it's a removable componet, Chrome doesn't rely on it at all. And Idk or care about ie.

Munkypoo7
Jun 29, 2012, 09:55 AM
Wow! Only a year and a half for a wide scale "I told you so" moment.


This. So much of this.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 10:00 AM
They're in the "The SGIII is the best phone in the world, and Apple is doomed" forum.

How isn't the Samsung Galaxy SIII the best phone? Lets compare it to the forum favorite iPhone 4S. To name a few things, the international S3 beats the iPhone 4S by having a quad core CPU, a larger and higher resolution display, a slightly better GPU, double the RAM, a larger and user replaceable battery, a micro SD slot, an HDMI port, and has 5ghz WiFi. How does the iPhone win, when every single component is worst than what is on the S3? Also, as for the Apple is doomed stuff, Apple really needs to get their **** together or they will be. The iPhone 4S got around 4 million pre orders last year. The S3 has already gotten over 9 million pre orders!!! The S3 will be the phone of 2012, and if Apple doesn't do something extreme now, which is not likely given their abomination of what they call iOS 6, they will lose.

Xenomorph
Jun 29, 2012, 10:01 AM
Wow, the Flash haters are out this morning. I guess it's cool to hate Flash, as in "I hate Flash. I must be a little like Steve Jobs!"

I don't want to hate Flash, but it makes me hate it. It was a big upgrade from RealPlayer or whatever the heck when watching videos online took off. It has since been replaced, though - so why keep it around?

Gee, let me think of the ways it has made me hate it...

* Firefox unresponsive? I open Task Manager or Activity Monitor and see something like "Flash_Plugin" or "Firefox Plugin Process (Shockwave Flash)" is chewing up 100% CPU and usually unresponsive. Kill the task and Firefox resumes.

* Firefox tells me all the time that the Adobe Flash plugin has crashed. This is almost a daily occurrence. Thank goodness it crashes itself before slowing everything down.

* On Windows, you have to check for Flash updates daily, as each version is seems to have exploits developed for it within minutes. Flash (and Java) is a huge malware vector on Windows.

* On the mobile platform, performance is just terrible. If it can bring my 3GHz Quad Core desktop system to its knees, what do you think it's going to do to these ARM systems running at 800-1500 MHz? I made sure to keep it disabled on all my Android devices. Eventually I just removed it. I rarely visit a site that used it.

* Fanboys! "Our platform has Flash, so that makes it better!" - that's like boasting that because your girlfriend has herpes and syphilis, she is obviously a better lover than my girlfriend. Are you kidding me? An entire fanbase taking pride in the fact you have digital diarrhea installed on your device???

marcusj0015
Jun 29, 2012, 10:01 AM
Ooops!!! :eek:
Adobe is apparently committing suicide with Flash.

Apple had a good reason for refusing it; Google (Android) accepted it, and now is being taken away.

I can see phones catching fire while playing Flash content.

In some sense, Adobe is admitting their failure with Flash for the mobile environment. On the desktop environment, Flash is being avoided as much as possible by many, by using plugins or proxies to filter it.

Flash was great until it's use got abused.

Next in line: Javascript.

Whoa, what's wrong with Javascript? Linx?

1080p
Jun 29, 2012, 10:01 AM
I'm so glad I logged onto MacRumors today for this vital piece of Apple news!

Piggie
Jun 29, 2012, 10:03 AM
What current alternatives are there out there now programmers can use to create as easily the same animated affects/routines/games, that run as fast as flash does?

I'm all for moving on and changing to something more advanced and obviously better.

If there is a platform that is easier to create content, lets say games, and also beautiful vector animations with, that run faster, and are as easy to create than can someone please tell me what it is?

As fast as I see it, you ideally want the main "animation?" program on your computer, coded and running at top speeds and just the data needed to be actually inside the code on the web site.

I'm interested as to what's out there now, and if current flash vector animations will be able to be encoded into this new software/platform really easily so we don't lose content from the past.

I can't believe anyone really wants NOT to be able to view/experience something.

That's a bit like saying burn all the old black and white movies now we have colour.

crsh1976
Jun 29, 2012, 10:05 AM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

Hehe, indeed. I'm pretty much a full-time Android user now and never installed Flash on it, it's of no use to me - especially not on a mobile device.

kerryn
Jun 29, 2012, 10:06 AM
Wow, the Flash haters are out this morning. I guess it's cool to hate Flash, as in "I hate Flash. I must be a little like Steve Jobs!"

What an arrogant comment.

Hate is bred from experience. I hate Flash because whenever my macbook becomes slow, unresponsive with the fan in "turbo" mode I usually find that my wife or kids have left some website up that is reliant on Flash. Kill the website and the Macbook carms down.

Flash is a resource hog. If it worked nicely in the system I would not mind it. But it does not and I would love to remove it completely from my systems. However, it seems that my other family members always seem to need websites that rely on it so I am stuck with it.

I long for the day when Flash is gone for good.

Winni
Jun 29, 2012, 10:07 AM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

Don't worry, there are dozens of reasons to hate iOS with a passion, but these few are sufficient for me: iOS is artificially restricted and limited and takes away too much freedom from the user. There's no place for individuality and choice in Apple's brave new iOS world.

I still like Flash and don't need it as an excuse to loathe iOS. Just look at all those nice games from Amanita Designs and you know what great and beautiful things can be done with Flash when you not let a completely incompetent idiot use it.

Anyway. Soon all ad banners will be ported to HTM5 and then you guys will start hating that technology, too. But that's what Jobs wanted in the first place: He wanted to restrict the use of the Internet to apps - apps that you could only obtain from HIS app store. Platform independent technologies like Flash were in his way, and THAT'S why he began the campaign against Flash.

Well, enjoy your expensive, castrated gadgets with their restricted, censored and controlled user experience. I prefer a rough open platform over your shiny walled garden any day.

ghostface147
Jun 29, 2012, 10:10 AM
I wonder if I will be able to reload it if I wipe my Nexus S for whatever reason.

nefan65
Jun 29, 2012, 10:10 AM
How isn't the Samsung Galaxy SIII the best phone? Lets compare it to the forum favorite iPhone 4S. To name a few things, the international S3 beats the iPhone 4S by having a quad core CPU, a larger and higher resolution display, a slightly better GPU, double the RAM, a larger and user replaceable battery, a micro SD slot, an HDMI port, and has 5ghz WiFi. How does the iPhone win, when every single component is worst than what is on the S3? Also, as for the Apple is doomed stuff, Apple really needs to get their **** together or they will be. The iPhone 4S got around 4 million pre orders last year. The S3 has already gotten over 9 million pre orders!!! The S3 will be the phone of 2012, and if Apple doesn't do something extreme now, which is not likely given their abomination of what they call iOS 6, they will lose.

Right...they are doomed. I heard Tim Cook is selling his house, and all his stock as we speak.

Abomination? Yes, I agree. Project "Buttery Smooth" trumps anything in iOS 6.

Seriously though, all you did was spout specs, and nothing else. I would hope that the SGIII would have a better processor, it's brand new. Better specs doesn't automatically equate to better experience. When the next iPhone comes out n the Fall, and it's lacking then we can argue.

Oh, and it's "WORSE" not "WORST".

Akarin
Jun 29, 2012, 10:13 AM
It was inevitable I think, but a shame. Flash can do stuff like no other tech can. HTML5 is not even close.

The nest.com (http://www.nest.com/living-with-nest/) site is a recent example of how beautiful Flash can be (scroll down a bit and turn down the Thermostat on Day 2). Not on an iOS device though... whoops. I wonder if the nest designer (ex designer of the iPod/iPhone) will like that? :)

Nice try... but it's not Flash. It's HTML5.

If the iOS site looks different it is just because they created a different one for tablets & phone that looks better on these devices.

Try again ;)

----------

How isn't the Samsung Galaxy SIII the best phone?(...)

Because it runs Android. Period.

Winni
Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM
In the 5 years since the iPhone launched HTML5 has changed a lot.

Yeah, it has changed so much that still nobody wants to use it because it's still not a consolidated, working standard. And when Apple talks about HTML5, they only mean THEIR implementation of HTML5 with THEIR proprietary video codec in it.

The current web browsers still interpret HTML5 code differently and websites still look and behave differently in each browser. That was NEVER a problem with Flash, and it's still a problem with HTML5.

But yeah, HTML5 is ah-so awesome, magical, beautiful because somebody once needed some ammunition to kill a dangerous competing technology that made cross-platform development a no-brainer.

jdogg836
Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM
I wonder if I will be able to reload it if I wipe my Nexus S for whatever reason.

Back it up, keep it somewhere safe. They can try to limit your access, but not really succeed unless they come and take it from you. Hell, if you are rooted you can push it to the /system/app/ directory and make it permanently part of the OS.

jonnysods
Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM
Bye now.

JAT
Jun 29, 2012, 10:18 AM
That's funny considering it wasn't too long ago Android's "Full Web Experience" campaign was using iPhone's lack of Flash as a selling point. Sayonara Flash!
That was never accurate, anyway. The Flash stuff my son likes doesn't work on his ICS tablet. Neither does the company's app work well. Maybe someday they'll just rewrite their games in a usable system.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 10:19 AM
Not a spot of flash on that page, all HTML5.

Its an example of just how good HTML5/JS/CSS3 is, some of the tech demos done at Google IO yesterday prove that flash simply is not needed anymore.

Flash is needed, as HTML 5 cant even come close to what flash can do. Check out some of the sites included to see what I mean. I would agree with everyone that many sites should be transitioning to HTML 5 though, such as simple video players, but there still is a niche for flash, and thus support should still be available.

http://waterlife.nfb.ca/
http://www.wechoosethemoon.org/#
http://www.syfy.com/tinman/oz/

HarryKeogh
Jun 29, 2012, 10:20 AM
Well, enjoy your expensive, castrated gadgets with their restricted, censored and controlled user experience. I prefer a rough open platform over your shiny walled garden any day.

I hate my castrated gadget. Sure I have thousands more quality apps to choose from but I can't have 200 different weather widgets. :(

JHankwitz
Jun 29, 2012, 10:21 AM
Too bad Steve Jobs didn't not live long enough to get confirmation from Adobe that he was right about Flash - he got so much heat for it and now Adobe basically admits that he was right.


Steve didn't need confirmation from Adobe. He knew it was a piece of crap and was devistating to battery life.

PJMAN2952
Jun 29, 2012, 10:21 AM
I always hated flash. Hope HTML5 takes over soon.

Piggie
Jun 29, 2012, 10:22 AM
What an arrogant comment.

Hate is bred from experience. I hate Flash because whenever my macbook becomes slow, unresponsive with the fan in "turbo" mode I usually find that my wife or kids have left some website up that is reliant on Flash. Kill the website and the Macbook carms down.

Flash is a resource hog. If it worked nicely in the system I would not mind it. But it does not and I would love to remove it completely from my systems. However, it seems that my other family members always seem to need websites that rely on it so I am stuck with it.

I long for the day when Flash is gone for good.

I guess you are right when you say "Hate is bred from experience"

And is the reason I have nothing bad to say about Flash, it has never caused me any issues at all, always run fine on all the PC's I've bought/made over the years.
I all honesty, it was not until I joined this Mac Forum in recent years did I even realise there was a hatred towards a piece of software simple due to some, probably personal issues between Apple/Steve Jobs and people at Adobe.

Rather than work together on the project/issue to make things run well for users it became a pathetic war which only hurt users.

As I say, I can't dislike Flash as I remember how Wonderful it was reported to be back in the early days of the internet, where is made possible platform independent rich content that had never been seen before, AND it has always ran, and continues to perform superbly of my current machine also.

Sorry but actually hating a piece of software does seem rather pathetic.

And the crazy situation is, and it would be a fact, is that if Flash ran superbly on Apple machines and poorly on Windows machines, then Everyone here would be praising it and saying how pathetic Windows users are for hating it.

Do even current iMacs, for example struggle to play back flash well?
Let's say 1080p YouTube content played back full screen?

JAT
Jun 29, 2012, 10:24 AM
Wow, the Flash haters are out this morning. I guess it's cool to hate Flash, as in "I hate Flash. I must be a little like Steve Jobs!"
What about:
"I just tried to watch something today. It was flash and the plugin crashed in Firefox. So I switched to Chrome and it just didn't work. So I switched to Windows and that plugin crashed. I hate Flash."

Would that be ok with you? I had the first such scenario with Flash in 1997. Hasn't really improved since then.

JHankwitz
Jun 29, 2012, 10:25 AM
Flash is needed, as HTML 5 cant even come close to what flash can do.

Flash may be able to do more than HTML 5, but that doesn't mean it must be used on a smart phone. If you need those extra features, use Flash on a PC that doesn't depend on a small battery to work. Don't include it on my smart phone where I need all the spare juice I can get.

Piggie
Jun 29, 2012, 10:29 AM
Following on from what I last posted:

Current Mac's playing back 1080p video on YouTube.

I just played back this on my PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3uKtfELfE

I changed the quality to 1080p and selected full screen.

I'm assuming it's flash as I right click and it says something about flash player at the bottom of the menu.

Watching my CPU Task Manager whilst this full screen 1080p trailer plays, my CPU usage is bumping along at between 1% and 2% loading all the time

How can I hate that, That's amazing!

dona83
Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM
nest.com is a Flash based website from my Mac and PC and an HTML5 based website on my iPhone.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM
Flash may be able to do more than HTML 5, but that doesn't mean it must be used on a smart phone. If you need those extra features, use Flash on a PC that doesn't depend on a small battery to work. Don't include it on my smart phone where I need all the spare juice I can get.
I have Flash installed on my Android, and I didn't notice a decrease in battery life. Additionally, Flash was an optional install for everyone, so nobody would be forcing you to have Flash on your phone. That is how it should have stayed. According to the Google Play store though, Flash has been downloaded for Android on over 100,000,000 million devices, so I don't think the majority of users share your concerns.

a.gomez
Jun 29, 2012, 10:35 AM
well I was stuck in South Africa for 10 hrs on my way to Uganda for work and netflix said I was outside their service area - thank god my Galaxy Tab 7 did flash and could see TV shows on a few sites.

Mobile browsing is not big enough to change the internet - with so many people still going online with desktops/laptops - Flash will be around for some time.

RebelScum
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
I'm happy flash is dead, but Android still has advantages over iOS:
1) More choice in phones (which can lead to removable batteries, better cameras, various screen sizes, etc...)
2) A less locked down app store. There can be browsers other than safari wrappers on the Google Play store.
3) Being able to set default clients (email, browser, etc...)
4) Google Maps. (I hope apple can pull off their own mapping solution, but google maps look better right now).


1) More choice is good, obviously, but the downside is it lets manufacturers flood the market with cheap, low-end, underpowered devices that give Android market share numbers that look good on paper but are actually at the expense of quality and customer satisfaction. So for every Galaxy SIII or Droid Razr sold, there's a bunch of Kyocera POS's just waiting to disappoint first-time smartphone buyers somewhere.If Google had more control over the hardware, they could better manage quality control, but all they really care about is getting their OS on as many devices as possible so they can report bigger market share numbers.

2) I used to think this was an inarguable point; I always hated Apple's Draconian walled-garden app store platform. And for the longest time, it deeserved to be hated. But IMHO, I think that Apple has proven that its curation system actually works. Last year they relaxed their policies significantly and now, as long as your app does not duplicate or improve upon existing Apple functionality, works as advertised, lives up to the standard of quality Apple sets out in its SDK, and isn't a Spambot, your app is as good as in. The only exceptions to that rule are profanity and pornopgraphy, neither of which I think should be exceptions, but it's Apple's store and they can choose what they're willing to sell in it. And it's a pretty broad base these days. Being able to sideload content from any source sounds like a good idea, but the fact is not a lot of people know how to vet software properly before installing, and it's easy to install malicious software and not even know it. And your phone is quite possibly the most personal device you own. I like the idea of knowing there's an oversight committee making sure what I'm putting on my device is safe. IMHO, when it comes to phones, curation works.

3) I can't speak to this one. I live in an apple universe, and my iPhone, iPad, iMac, Macbook Pro and work iMac all just talk to each other seamlessly. On an iPhone, I would NOT want to change my default browser, email client or calendar, because everything handshakes so well with everything else. That said, the world is full of people who hate Safari Mobile, and Mail App is somewhat limited (Y U NO HAVE CALENDAR??), so I can see why people migh want other options. I personally don't, but again, that's just me.

4) This is completely subjective, and I personally will wait until iMaps is released. That said, however, I always preferred TomTom to Gmaps for real-world navigation; I have TomTom on my iPhone and my wife has Google Navigation on her Android, and on a totally subjective level, I prefer TomTom. So I'm excited to see how TomTom translates to a mapping app. Also, neither the TomTom GPS device nor the iPhone App require a Data connection and Google Maps does, so hopefully, that will carry over as well. It would be nice to not have to pay roaming fees just to find out where the hell I am next time I'm driving through Tuscany.

"I'll tell you where you are for $37."

No thanks I'll just guess.

Anyway that's my 2˘.

macthetiger85
Jun 29, 2012, 10:43 AM
Why do I have the fealing that people are still going to differentiate iOS and Android with the lack of flash on iOS.

"Well iPhone has no flash"
"neither does android"
"yea huh, you don't know what you're talking about"

Lol, people.

Marx55
Jun 29, 2012, 10:44 AM
Flash is obnoxious. Get rid of it!

a.gomez
Jun 29, 2012, 10:46 AM
I have Flash installed on my Android, and I didn't notice a decrease in battery life. Additionally, Flash was an optional install for everyone, so nobody would be forcing you to have Flash on your phone. That is how it should have stayed. According to the Google Play store though, Flash has been downloaded for Android on over 100,000,000 million devices, so I don't think the majority of users share your concerns.

exactly - people bring out the "battery" card, but playing videogames also kills your batteries.

It is a plug in - if you thought it was a waste of batteries do not install it - just like I think videogames are a waste of time so I do not install them on my phone.

this was nothing about batteries or security - this was about content control on iOS.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
2)
4)

On point 2, Apple has gone way beyond banning just porn apps, which in itself is humorous, as they still allow Playboy and similar apps to exist. For example, I used to use the WiFiFoFum WiFi scanner, but a few years ago, it was banned for no reason, along with all of the other WiFi apps.
On point 4, if this is any indication..... http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1385928

http://i.imgur.com/bJibu.jpg

powers74
Jun 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
Welcome to the future, Adobe

HarryKNN21
Jun 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
This is truly nice and mature smartphone users should understand why. When we look at SGSIII and think about why does it need a quad core CPU, I think everyone would believe how all those Android widgets and Flash put hardware requirement to the highest.

If they don't give up on Flash, is it really good for anyone to see a 6-core phone in the future just because a quad core phone is too weak to support Flash? It is time for Android programmers and Android device manufacturers to slow down and think again.

antonis
Jun 29, 2012, 10:55 AM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

They are keeping company to the people that said "no Java on iPhone ?! Apple is doomed !"

Steve knew better than anyone. I hope desktop version of Flash will be next. Bad s/w is bad.

dokujaryu
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
Am I the only one who thought this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GiG15yme8cs/T3TNscALdDI/AAAAAAAABLg/owTr011HnGA/s1600/its-dead-jim-star-trek.jpg

deftdrummer
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
Wow, now maybe there will be a slight delay in the ramp up to advertising 2.0 that we will be facing in the next few years.

On a side note, does anyone know how this may or may not affect AdBlock Plus?

chrmjenkins
Jun 29, 2012, 10:57 AM
Yeah, it has changed so much that still nobody wants to use it because it's still not a consolidated, working standard. And when Apple talks about HTML5, they only mean THEIR implementation of HTML5 with THEIR proprietary video codec in it.

The current web browsers still interpret HTML5 code differently and websites still look and behave differently in each browser. That was NEVER a problem with Flash, and it's still a problem with HTML5.

But yeah, HTML5 is ah-so awesome, magical, beautiful because somebody once needed some ammunition to kill a dangerous competing technology that made cross-platform development a no-brainer.

Of all the times in the past I've had browsers crash or not function, I'd say 80 to 90% have been flash crashes. It can also really tax the hardware without acceleration. It's also complex for mobile environments because the interaction paradigm is different on desktop vs. mobile environments.

The only reason flash was consistent across platforms is because it runs in its own little proprietary shell and largely doesn't need interpretation like HTML does.

I'm not saying flash doesn't still have a place in desktop environments, but I do think it is antithetical to mobile browser environments. The concept of what flash does has been ported to apps that can alter the interaction paradigm, and that's precisely what AIR does and still allows cross-platform development.

aristotle
Jun 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
As a Flash Developer I can say this is good news. I have always disliked the flood of poor programming by sudo developers in Flash, this is one of the major reasons for issues with the Flash player, and welcome the hope that as Flash becomes an even smaller "niche" platform we begin to see fewer things developed in Flash, but much better quality for those things that are.

I for one will not miss it on mobile and have always thought it to be a bad idea in the first place.
I hate to break it to you but "Flash Developer" is an oxymoron. That is like saying you are an HTML/Javascript developer. You are a "web guy".

A "real" developer does not call themselves a "insert language here" developer. That is at best a "programmer". You should be familiar with several languages and at least proficient in both C/C++ and either C# or Java. Sorry but "web" scripting languages do not count.

I used to be an HTML/Javascript web guy at work for a short time but I already had learned other languages prior to that so moving from web development so I moved onto perl for rendering webpages before moving off to backend server development.

sfilingeri
Jun 29, 2012, 11:01 AM
I have been waiting for this day for a long time, Im so tired of my friends who are Android fanboys always putting down my iPhone and iPad for not having Flash.

I now have something I can throw back in their face!!!

Lennholm
Jun 29, 2012, 11:04 AM
Ooops!!! :eek:
Adobe is apparently committing suicide with Flash.

Apple had a good reason for refusing it; Google (Android) accepted it, and now is being taken away.

I can see phones catching fire while playing Flash content.

In some sense, Adobe is admitting their failure with Flash for the mobile environment. On the desktop environment, Flash is being avoided as much as possible by many, by using plugins or proxies to filter it.

Flash was great until it's use got abused.

Next in line: Javascript.

Huh? JavaScript is one of the core technologies of HTML5. It's what really gives HTML5 the edge to make Flash obsolete. Are you sure you're not confusing Javascript with Java applets and Java ME?

ChazUK
Jun 29, 2012, 11:07 AM
I hope this move forces the BBC to drop the Flash requirement on iPlayer fo Android.

Flash, you won't be missed by me. :D

phillipduran
Jun 29, 2012, 11:10 AM
Steve tried to tell ya! :rolleyes:

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
Actually, I believe HTML5 includes encrypting streams and doesn't cache it to disk...

It can't.

Web Standards are - by definition, completely open. Any system that is open can be modified.

Safari and Firefox or whatever might choose to abide by any requests by the licence holder (e.g. no copying), but there's nothing to stop someone making an application that simply ignores that protection.

A proprietary plugin like Flash or Silverlight doesn't have that problem, because the parts of the specification referring to DRM are kept confidential by Adobe and Microsoft respectively.

IMO Flash is the lesser of all evils in this regard. It has the best support for different platforms, and they've made real strides in improving its performance for video playback. The alternatives are either other plugins that aren't available everywhere or Apps for every platform. Neither option works as well as Flash does.

HiRez
Jun 29, 2012, 11:18 AM
So much for the "full Internet", right? What will we do now? How can we function?

akbarali.ch
Jun 29, 2012, 11:19 AM
Flash was good at the time when all the website had was static text and static images. the only way to get interaction was to use flash. Now with advancement in the web technology & html5 all that animation and interactivity can me done right in the web browser with no additional plugin.

I don't know but anyone seeing JAVA going the sameway ?

Sackvillenb
Jun 29, 2012, 11:22 AM
Hopefully flash will be on the way out then... And I don't say that as a mac fanboy, I've always disliked flash, even way back when it first came out and I was still using Windows. It's just so unstable and inefficient... crash-city.

notabadname
Jun 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
Ha, ha . . . this is kind of funny news. (Actually hilarious)

a.gomez
Jun 29, 2012, 11:34 AM
Not a spot of flash on that page, all HTML5.

Its an example of just how good HTML5/JS/CSS3 is, some of the tech demos done at Google IO yesterday prove that flash simply is not needed anymore.

yeah that is nice in a controlled DEMO - anyone who says flash is not needed anymore does not get a monthly analytic report on an international site

Dr McKay
Jun 29, 2012, 11:39 AM
I find it ironic because one of the main selling points of android was exactly that it supported flash. :p

No it hasn't, the main selling point for Android devices is normally the hardware inside it. Failing that, the fact how you can customize and personalize the device to your hearts content and make the device truly unique to you.

CreativeOutlaw
Jun 29, 2012, 11:45 AM
I'm happy flash is dead, but Android still has advantages over iOS:
1) More choice in phones (which can lead to removable batteries, better cameras, various screen sizes, etc...)
2) A less locked down app store. There can be browsers other than safari wrappers on the Google Play store.
3) Being able to set default clients (email, browser, etc...)
4) Google Maps. (I hope apple can pull off their own mapping solution, but google maps look better right now).
Lots of other things I'm probably forgetting.

But at the same time, iOS has a lot of nice things about it that I would miss if I moved to android (iPhone owner here, trying to decide what phone to get next):
1) Better games (graphics support is more consistant on apple devices, so game devs have an easier time developing for these).
2) Will continue to get firmware updates for years (though, google makes most of the apps that Apple has baked into the OS be updatable from the Play store, so not getting a new OS on android isn't too big of a deal).
3) Nice consistent feeling. This has gotten better with Android ICS, but few people have that.
4) Good customer support. When **** breaks with apple devices, their customer service rocks.
5) Consistency. As much as people like the control android gives you, it tends to make troubleshooting these devices for computer illiterate people a lot more difficult.


I still don't understand the whole argument that having a replaceable battery is so great. I've seen friends who have Android phones with their phone chargers out with them at the bar, or an extra battery in their pocket... is this really more convenient? I charge my iphone 4 when I go to sleep... that's it... and even on a really busy day of use I still have at least 25% left on the battery when I dock it (most days of light use I still have between 80 and 90%). Maybe it makes more sense to have a phone that lasts all day so you don't need to bring all that extra stuff around with you.

entatlrg
Jun 29, 2012, 11:49 AM
No it hasn't, the main selling point for Android devices is normally the hardware inside it. Failing that, the fact how you can customize and personalize the device to your hearts content and make the device truly unique to you.

In fact yes it is. Samsung and RIM advertise their devices as "YES, it plays Flash video, so you can do 'everything' on the web", they've touted that more than spec's in all their audio/video adds.

It's been a huge push and selling point for them right down to the rep's who pitch Andriod in all the cell shops, Best Buys etc. When I bought my HTC One for my second line the guy couldn't shut up about how happy I'd be getting the full 'web experience' with Flash, lol. So it's very much a feature they pushed and promoted heavily right up until today I'd guess.

Steve Jobs. Was. Right. :apple::apple::apple:

Lennholm
Jun 29, 2012, 11:49 AM
I hate to break it to you but "Flash Developer" is an oxymoron. That is like saying you are an HTML/Javascript developer. You are a "web guy".

A "real" developer does not call themselves a "insert language here" developer. That is at best a "programmer". You should be familiar with several languages and at least proficient in both C/C++ and either C# or Java. Sorry but "web" scripting languages do not count.

I used to be an HTML/Javascript web guy at work for a short time but I already had learned other languages prior to that so moving from web development so I moved onto perl for rendering webpages before moving off to backend server development.

I've never heard of a job title called "web guy" but the job title "front-end developer" is very frequent.
Using Perl, the read-only language, for rendering web pages sounds like a nightmare. Who did that to you?

faroZ06
Jun 29, 2012, 11:53 AM
No, it's a plug-in for all browsers.

Chrome has its own Flash plugin, which can sometimes be good if a bad version of Flash is released by Adobe, but it seems to use more CPU power.

----------

......

HAHAHAHA!

Who's having the last laugh now, eh Adobe? This is even funnier than when Steve Jobs said "We opted for killer graphics" (GeForce 320).

I'm laughing at Android more. Adobe is making a good move while Android users still want to cling onto the sinking ship.

kiljoy616
Jun 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

They had an aneurism after reading this article about Android, muhahahaha.:D

AppleFan1984
Jun 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
I hate to break it to you but "Flash Developer" is an oxymoron. That is like saying you are an HTML/Javascript developer. You are a "web guy".

A "real" developer does not call themselves a "insert language here" developer. That is at best a "programmer". You should be familiar with several languages and at least proficient in both C/C++ and either C# or Java. Sorry but "web" scripting languages do not count.
Ah yes, I remember the '90s when the arbitrary distinction between compiled and runtime languages still mattered to some. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Looks like those poor, misguided souls at O'Reilly have it all wrong, with titles like:

"Mobile JavaScript Application Development: Bringing Web Programming to Mobile Devices"

"Programming JavaScript Applications"

"Head First HTML5 Programming"

"Programming HTML5 Applications"

...and:

"Learning the iOS 4 SDK for JavaScript Programmers"

I guess those dummies at O'Reilly just don't know tech. ;)

Lennholm
Jun 29, 2012, 11:57 AM
I still don't understand the whole argument that having a replaceable battery is so great. I've seen friends who have Android phones with their phone chargers out with them at the bar, or an extra battery in their pocket... is this really more convenient? I charge my iphone 4 when I go to sleep... that's it... and even on a really busy day of use I still have at least 25% left on the battery when I dock it (most days of light use I still have between 80 and 90%). Maybe it makes more sense to have a phone that lasts all day so you don't need to bring all that extra stuff around with you.

Lasting "all day" i.e. ~12 hours isn't impressive for a phone and simply insufficient for some people. I'd personally like the ability to not have to rely on having access to a charger and power outlet every night.

SBlue1
Jun 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
I bet everybody have flash on their laptops. Why not uninstall flash on your laptop if you hate it so much.

i do not!

i got my new macbook pro two weeks ago and just yesterday i saw that flash is not preinstalled. so i guess flash is not that important nowadays. :eek:

VulchR
Jun 29, 2012, 12:08 PM
Why on earth is this item about a plugin that works on Android but not on iOS news in MacRumors? Anyways, I hate Flash and its privacy-busting LSO's (which is the only reason why companies use it on web sites)....

Lennholm
Jun 29, 2012, 12:11 PM
Why on earth is this item about a plugin that works on Android but not on iOS news in MacRumors? Anyways, I hate Flash and its privacy-busting LSO's (which is the only reason why companies use it on web sites)....

Because of this: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ and the impact it's had.

mabaker
Jun 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
I am elated that the Google drones have been proven wrong by history.

Anyone else is finding it ironic that Android 4.1 is being heralded as "super smooth" with each and every new iteration? It's as if they always had an inferiority complex compared to the iOS interface speed.

kiljoy616
Jun 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
I still don't understand the whole argument that having a replaceable battery is so great. I've seen friends who have Android phones with their phone chargers out with them at the bar, or an extra battery in their pocket... is this really more convenient? I charge my iphone 4 when I go to sleep... that's it... and even on a really busy day of use I still have at least 25% left on the battery when I dock it (most days of light use I still have between 80 and 90%). Maybe it makes more sense to have a phone that lasts all day so you don't need to bring all that extra stuff around with you.

Its fear mostly. They believe they will run out of battery at any time. Goes back to times when batteries where not as efficient. What is funny is all those people with phones that can switch out batteries is that they never do.:rolleyes:

unlinked
Jun 29, 2012, 12:15 PM
Yeah, it has changed so much that still nobody wants to use it because it's still not a consolidated, working standard. And when Apple talks about HTML5, they only mean THEIR implementation of HTML5 with THEIR proprietary video codec in it.

The current web browsers still interpret HTML5 code differently and websites still look and behave differently in each browser. That was NEVER a problem with Flash, and it's still a problem with HTML5.

But yeah, HTML5 is ah-so awesome, magical, beautiful because somebody once needed some ammunition to kill a dangerous competing technology that made cross-platform development a no-brainer.

Cross company standards are always more difficult to pull off than single company ones.
I have seem Flash sites that don't work on my Mac but do on a PC. Programmers are amazing. No matter what you give them they still manage to break stuff. :)

Amazing Iceman
Jun 29, 2012, 12:33 PM
Whoa, what's wrong with Javascript? Linx?

Javascript is great and very useful, but it's being abused by developers, just like Flash has been abused (For example, a few years ago, the www.anandtech.com website had Flash content almost everywhere. At that time I was using Windows, and it was impossible to navigate due to the lag it was causing).

As an example, monitor your available RAM, then open Safari to http://forum.xda-developers.com
Open a few links on separate tabs, and you will see what I mean.
Then, do the same after you disable Javascript, and you will see the huge difference in allocated RAM.
It's unconceivable for a handful of web pages to consume over 500MB of RAM!

Is this a Javascript problem? Maybe with the page code, but in this case the Javascript engine should have a way to detect defective code. On the other hand, web developers should be more careful and make sure their code doesn't have any infinite loops, memory leaks or memory hogs.

----------

Huh? JavaScript is one of the core technologies of HTML5. It's what really gives HTML5 the edge to make Flash obsolete. Are you sure you're not confusing Javascript with Java applets and Java ME?

Please see post #127. This is based on my recent findings.

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:34 PM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

BBC use mp4 on mobiles, so no - wont be a problem at all...they just update the app to use the sale feed as the iOS version...the same will apply to everyone else.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
BBC use mp4 on mobiles, so no - wont be a problem at all...they just update the app to use the sale feed as the iOS version...the same will apply to everyone else.

Android doesn't support the necessary technology to do that, hence why their current Android App depends on Flash Player.

Jynto
Jun 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
We'll still hear it, but only from RIM fans (does Blackberry run Flash? I don't know. I don't care).

RIM has fans??

----------

It's about time. So does this mean Flash will be completely dead for desktop computers as well? I can't stand Flash and hope it rots in hell where it belongs.

Flash for mobile never really got started properly, and so people never rely on it. For the millions (no exaggeration, I bet there really are millions) of websites that people use on their computers, it will take a long time for them to switch.

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:50 PM
Android doesn't support the necessary technology to do that, hence why their current Android App depends on Flash Player.

Android supports the same (and more) video formats than iOS. It's perfectly capable of running MP4 in h.264 standards.

NIKKG
Jun 29, 2012, 12:53 PM
I don't get what the big deal is with the flash hating, I never had issues on my many computers. Oh well, maybe with it gone on Android, than web sites will adapt html5 faster since the developers will have no choice but to satisfy a combined market share of Android and iOS users.

----------

What they really need to do is get rid of is Quicktime. I don't know anyone who actually uses it. Its like an old relic from the 90's.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 12:54 PM
Android supports the same (and more) video formats than iOS. It's perfectly capable of running MP4 in h.264 standards.

It's the lack of support for HTTP Live Streaming (in Android 2.x) that is the problem.

Apple makes using HTTP Live Streaming mandatory for video streaming in Apps, which is quite the opposite of what they've done with Android.

StrudelTurnover
Jun 29, 2012, 12:56 PM
...as if millions of Adobe Certified Experts cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Asclepio
Jun 29, 2012, 12:56 PM
html5 sucks

Lindenhurst
Jun 29, 2012, 01:00 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I know my fanboy side is showing, but this is going to create soooo much ******** for fandroids.

Well, I couldn't care less whether flash us dead our not as long as my phone plays videos when I try to play them.

the8thark
Jun 29, 2012, 01:04 PM
(does X run Flash? I don't know. I don't care).
That about sums up how I feel on this.

rei101
Jun 29, 2012, 01:06 PM
Cool, maybe they can now use the resources they have freed up to fix Flash for desktops? The current version keeps crashing doing relatively simple tasks such as streaming radio.:mad:

Yes in porn sites :rolleyes:

kdarling
Jun 29, 2012, 01:10 PM
According to some other headlines in this forum, HTML5 isn't always the answer either:

Facebook Abandoning HTML5 to Speed Up iOS App (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1395006&highlight=facebook+html5)

Sensation
Jun 29, 2012, 01:25 PM
Shame ive always had an excellent experience with flash on my HTC Sensations. Videos were always smooth.

VulchR
Jun 29, 2012, 01:26 PM
Because of this: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ and the impact it's had.

SJ's note about Flash was about running it on iOS, not on Android. Nothing for iOS has changed. Just sayin'.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 01:31 PM
I have Flash installed on my Android, and I didn't notice a decrease in battery life. Additionally, Flash was an optional install for everyone, so nobody would be forcing you to have Flash on your phone. That is how it should have stayed. According to the Google Play store though, Flash has been downloaded for Android on over 100,000,000 million devices, so I don't think the majority of users share your concerns.

When did 25% become the majority?

According to some other headlines in this forum, HTML5 isn't always the answer either:

Facebook Abandoning HTML5 to Speed Up iOS App (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1395006&highlight=facebook+html5)

Who's been arguing for HTML5 to replace native code?

KnightWRX
Jun 29, 2012, 01:32 PM
It can't.

Web Standards are - by definition, completely open. Any system that is open can be modified.

Safari and Firefox or whatever might choose to abide by any requests by the licence holder (e.g. no copying), but there's nothing to stop someone making an application that simply ignores that protection.

SSLv2, SSLv3 and TLSv1 disagree. Open standards are completely open. But that doesn't mean that if you fail to properly implement them, they will still work.

notabadname
Jun 29, 2012, 01:35 PM
...as if millions of Adobe Certified Experts cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Thank you for the laugh! Well played.

mentaluproar
Jun 29, 2012, 01:45 PM
OK, so why does this MATTER so much to you? :rolleyes:

Tony

Because my android friends will have to stop crowing about how their phone is better than mine because they have flash. Seriously, you have swype and think FLASH is something to brag about?

nickgri
Jun 29, 2012, 02:03 PM
I for one wish the interactive part of Flash would remain-I don't really care about the video transmission part-that can be HTML5 via h.264 or whatever-but the layers of vector interactivity has not been replaced by anything even close to what Flash could do. Even for non-programmers -simple action scripts-modifiable by designers was wonderful-so big shot programmers-where is the GUI interface for that? Why has no one even Adobe made a simple replacement? (that actually works) Go to actions and play-layers of interactivity is SO needed in new books and web sites on pads now that it boggles my mind that there is so little and that little does so little compared to Flash.

petsounds
Jun 29, 2012, 02:10 PM
hopefully this is the death of flash!!!

Right. Well, the alternative in Safari is HTML5, and as we saw from the Facebook app (which is all built in HTML5), its performance on mobile devices is terrible.

Adobe may have needed a kick in the pants to optimize Flash (because Adobe has always prioritized features over bug-fixes across their whole product line), but Flash is still a great technology. It unfortunately lost the marketing war and Adobe's CEO is too clueless.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 02:14 PM
Right. Well, the alternative in Safari is HTML5, and as we saw from the Facebook app (which is all built in HTML5), its performance on mobile devices is terrible.

Terrible compared to native code. Seriously, is anyone arguing that HTML5 should replace native code these days?

eleven59
Jun 29, 2012, 02:22 PM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."


I have an android phone- lg Optimus and it can't do flash either (or html5 apparently). It's one of those never talked about hypocrisies from android fans. And yeah a removable battery is important when your android phone crashes or freezes every week!

petsounds
Jun 29, 2012, 02:31 PM
Terrible compared to native code. Seriously, is anyone arguing that HTML5 should replace native code these days?

No, terrible for interactive experiences in general. But that FB app is a good example, because it's basically running in a browser window in a native shell. I've written HTML5 apps for mobile browsers; animation and other things are just SLOW. I guess we'll never know if Flash would've been fast on iOS, but from my experiences with it on Android devices, it's certainly faster than HTML5.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 02:38 PM
No, terrible for interactive experiences in general. But that FB app is a good example, because it's basically running in a browser window in a native shell. I've written HTML5 apps for mobile browsers; animation and other things are just SLOW. I guess we'll never know if Flash would've been fast on iOS, but from my experiences with it on Android devices, it's certainly faster than HTML5.

It's a terrible example, because it is being rewritten in favor of native code, and it was running without the benefit of Apple's Nitro javascript engine.

(And saying that Flash is "certainly faster than HTML5" is just silly without context. There are plenty of obvious situations where HTML5 is going to be more efficient.)

Lennholm
Jun 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
SJ's note about Flash was about running it on iOS, not on Android. Nothing for iOS has changed. Just sayin'.

Well, it's the number one reason why most Apple fans dislike Flash and care about news like this. So as an answer to the question that was put forth, my post was relevant.

lkrupp
Jun 29, 2012, 03:21 PM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

Flash is definitely dead on mobile platforms with Adobe no longer supporting Flash on Android going forward. Flash on the desktop may be around for a little while longer but why should web developers support both? I think you are wrong in your assertion. The BBC will be forced to abandon Flash once hundreds of millions of iOS and Android users can no longer see their content. The future lies with the mobile platforms, not desktops.

tann
Jun 29, 2012, 03:22 PM
The BBC annoy you because your Flash blocker is blocking their Flash content? :cool:

More of the fact that they use it to begin with haha! Though when I originally typed that post I was thinking 'I bet someone will say that I'm whining about my flashblocker doing it's job' :p

I would have just expected the BBC to use something a little nicer, that's all :) :apple:

tech4all
Jun 29, 2012, 03:24 PM
It's about time. So does this mean Flash will be completely dead for desktop computers as well? I can't stand Flash and hope it rots in hell where it belongs.

It just a piece of software. Calm down dude. :eek: :eek: :eek:

:p

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 03:31 PM
It's the lack of support for HTTP Live Streaming (in Android 2.x) that is the problem.

Apple makes using HTTP Live Streaming mandatory for video streaming in Apps, which is quite the opposite of what they've done with Android.

Android 2.x is 3 years old. It's supported on Android 3.x (out of the box) and above.

It is actually possible to get it on 2.x but the software developer has to license vitamio which is bundled in the apk. There are a number of other ways it can be done as well as there are/were a number of local network streaming apps over upnp.

Either way, it's a mute point as android 3.x and above fully supports it. Obviously there will be a transition period but theres nothing to stop there being a check in apps to see if the OS is 2.x or lower and then use flash instead of an mp4 stream.

PracticalMac
Jun 29, 2012, 03:32 PM
Finally, Flash is put back to where it is best used for!

devilstrider
Jun 29, 2012, 03:33 PM
I don't know why its so hard to understand: nobody is loyal to flash. We just want to be able to watch flash videos or view websites that use flash. If the technology changes or improves, so be it. Just make sure my device is compatible with the new standard.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 03:37 PM
Android 2.x is 3 years old. It's supported on Android 3.x (out of the box) and above.

It is actually possible to get it on 2.x but the software developer has to license vitamio which is bundled in the apk. There are a number of other ways it can be done as well as there are/were a number of local network streaming apps over upnp.

Either way, it's a mute point as android 3.x and above fully supports it. Obviously there will be a transition period but theres nothing to stop there being a check in apps to see if the OS is 2.x or lower and then use flash instead of an mp4 stream.

Except 90% of Android users are still on 2.x, including many devices on sale now. :)

Jessica Lares
Jun 29, 2012, 03:38 PM
I love Flash on my Android devices. Sad to see it go. :( It works really, really well.

petsounds
Jun 29, 2012, 03:39 PM
It's a terrible example, because it is being rewritten in favor of native code, and it was running without the benefit of Apple's Nitro javascript engine.

(And saying that Flash is "certainly faster than HTML5" is just silly without context. There are plenty of obvious situations where HTML5 is going to be more efficient.)

Fair point about Nitro; I forgot that Apple locks that out of the developer Safari window. But as I've said, I've run resource-intensive HTML5 apps in mobile Safari, and it's just as slow. "Nitro" can't improve that HTML5's poor speed at animations.

And please name these obvious situations where HTML5 is more efficient than Flash. I'm not aware of any. The current version of Flash (11.3) is pretty efficient.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 03:48 PM
Fair point about Nitro; I forgot that Apple locks that out of the developer Safari window. But as I've said, I've run resource-intensive HTML5 apps in mobile Safari, and it's just as slow.

Why would it be just as slow if it uses a faster javascript engine? Are you creating resource intensive html5 apps without using javascript?

"Nitro" can't improve that HTML5's poor speed at animations.

Of course it can! Javascript is the primary method of creating animations in html5.

And please name these obvious situations where HTML5 is more efficient than Flash. I'm not aware of any. The current version of Flash (11.3) is pretty efficient.

Playing video.
Displaying text.

Those are the obvious examples. Like I said, it depends on what you are doing as to which method is more efficient.

But we've gotten off the point here. Obviously, Flash is more efficient than HTML5 in a lot of situations. Particularly complex animations. My point was that you simply chose a really poor example.

pearvsapple
Jun 29, 2012, 03:49 PM
It's okay. Mobile OS is near its end. The beginning of PC/maybe Mac quality for tablets is beginning. Companies are starting to go with Intel over slow ARM and a real operating system such as Windows 8. In the future, it's going to be Intel-equipped hardwares for all tablets. So, we'll probably see professional OS such as OSX and Windows 8 being the main platform, ala Macs and PC, but for tablet form factor. No more phone OS!:eek:

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 03:52 PM
It's okay. Mobile OS is near its end. The beginning of PC/maybe Mac quality for tablets is beginning. Companies are starting to go with Intel over slow ARM and a real operating system such as Windows 8. In the future, it's going to be Intel-equipped hardwares for all tablets. So, we'll probably see professional OS such as OSX and Windows 8 being the main platform, ala Macs and PC, but for tablet form factor. No more phone OS!:eek:

Because if there is one thing that the last decade has proven, it's that people want the same interface on their mobile devices that they have on their desktop. :rolleyes:

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 03:58 PM
SSLv2, SSLv3 and TLSv1 disagree. Open standards are completely open. But that doesn't mean that if you fail to properly implement them, they will still work.

They don't work on the same principles.

With TLS, you're saying:

Bob wants to send Alice a piece of information securely, but they don't want Joe to be able to intercept it.

With Video Streaming, you're saying:

Bob (Netflix) wants to send Alice a movie, but only wants her to do a few things with it.

It's a completely different type of scenario. With TLS, the untrusted party is some stranger in the middle up to no good. With Video, the customer is the untrusted party.

This is ultimately the downfall of most DRM schemes - you have to give the user some level of access to the system. At least with something closed source it has to be reverse engineered.

In an "open" DRM scheme, you'd have a scenario where anyone could simply implement a client that ignores all of the rules.

----------

Except 90% of Android users are still on 2.x, including many devices on sale now. :)

My point exactly.

I don't usually go for the "ZOMG it's fragmented" line, but this is one scenario where it actually makes sense.

leroypants
Jun 29, 2012, 04:04 PM
Wow, early birthday gift for me!

That has to be one of the saddest most pathetic things I have ever read in my entire life...

Mad-B-One
Jun 29, 2012, 04:25 PM
This will be problematic for companies like the BBC reliant on Flash for their products.

We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming (other than Silverlight, which is just Microsoft's version of Flash, so hardly different in concept - closed-source browser plugin.).

Then they would have to wake up and learn alternatives: tagesschau.de - the Federal German news station's news show (of the ARD) has all its news content available in other ways as well. See the iPhone and iPad Apps - which in my eyes are by far the best German news source.

Eduardo R.
Jun 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
Aww... you'll be missed in our iOS devices.

Oh - wait - you were never here. =P

inkswamp
Jun 29, 2012, 05:04 PM
http://geekshovel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/appleflash.jpg

:D

inkswamp
Jun 29, 2012, 05:16 PM
We're not going to see the death of flash any time soon. There's no real alternative to it for protected video streaming

In what way is Flash video "protected?" There's really no such thing. The video content is there regardless of the delivery method. Flash, just like anything else, obfuscates the location of that content, but then, you can do that with any delivery method, including HTML5.

Mad Man
Jun 29, 2012, 05:21 PM
Its fear mostly. They believe they will run out of battery at any time. Goes back to times when batteries where not as efficient. What is funny is all those people with phones that can switch out batteries is that they never do.:rolleyes:

You know whats funny - I have co-workers that got Androids just because they can replace the battery .... but they still run around the office looking for someone with a compatible charger because they were to cheap to buy a second battery (or 'forgot' the battery at home).

Glad my iPhone battery lasts all day (well, during the hours that I am awake) and that I don't have to carry a second battery with me all the time.

BaldiMac
Jun 29, 2012, 05:21 PM
In what way is Flash video "protected?" There's really no such thing. The video content is there regardless of the delivery method. Flash, just like anything else, obfuscates the location of that content, but then, you can do that with any delivery method, including HTML5.

Flash provides the option to wrap the video in DRM.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 05:38 PM
In what way is Flash video "protected?" There's really no such thing. The video content is there regardless of the delivery method. Flash, just like anything else, obfuscates the location of that content, but then, you can do that with any delivery method, including HTML5.


Flash provides the option to wrap the video in DRM.

Indeed.

I mentioned earlier that most DRM systems fail because current approaches to security are not designed to cope with this scenario.

While these systems are not 100% secure, the content providers want them to be used. Until that changes, you'll need a proprietary system of some sort -whether it's Flash, Silverlight, an App or something else.

I take the view that the proprietary system should be as widely accessible as it possibly can be, and right now Flash is the best fit for that.

Barna Biro
Jun 29, 2012, 05:49 PM
You people have no idea what you are talking about... Adobe Flash Player for mobile was completely useless from the very beginning since no Flash content was optimized for mobile. Yes, you could load Flash content in the browser but it was far from usable...

Adobe is now focusing on Adobe Air to create applications / games that can be easily packed for both iOS and Android ( stuff that has been around for quite a while but of course the ignorant hordes know nothing about the apps / games they've been using all this time ). The apps written in ActionScript 3.0 and wrapped for iOS or Android are of course not be as fast as well optimized native apps, but they can get close enough to native speed in the hands of an experienced programmer.

99% of you people really have no idea what you're talking about... You've just bough the cheap Apple propaganda like blind slaves. Flash is far from perfect, but it's also far from being as crappy as many of you blind slaves want to make it seem it is.

Seriously, S.T.F.U. if you think Flash is only about the banners you see on the P0RN sites you visit on a daily basis!

aristotle
Jun 29, 2012, 06:26 PM
I've never heard of a job title called "web guy" but the job title "front-end developer" is very frequent.
Using Perl, the read-only language, for rendering web pages sounds like a nightmare. Who did that to you?
Wow. Have you ever read slashdot? You know, that site that brings down other sites? Guess what? They generate their pages in.... perl.

Back in the day, when PHP was even worse than it is now and before .NET even existed, I wrote a set of parsing/rendering routines which read in HTML file snippets and populated embedded symbols/tags with controls rendered with perl functions. Some of those functions contained drop down lists with values pulled from lookup tables in a database.

I essentially, re-implemented what PHP was trying to do in Perl. You would hit the PHP CGI script with parameter and I would return the appropriate webparts with the controls populated through macro substitution/evaluation.

To the end user, it looked like static webpages but it was dynamic. I even had an in memory session/user state and I tied that back into a shopping cart. The sessions had an expiry timer on them which reset based on user activity or were destroyed if the user was inactive too long. Sessions were tied to a combination of the encrypted username and random GUID parameters.

It was sort of like what you could do with JSP or ASP.NET.

linux2mac
Jun 29, 2012, 06:28 PM
That was never accurate, anyway. The Flash stuff my son likes doesn't work on his ICS tablet. Neither does the company's app work well. Maybe someday they'll just rewrite their games in a usable system.

Yup, the look on Walt's face said it all.

345842

Walt Mossberg Tells Adobe CEO to His Face Flash Sucks On Android
http://www.cultofmac.com/98231/walt-mossberg-tells-adobe-ceo-to-his-face-that-flash-sucks-on-android/

PlaceofDis
Jun 29, 2012, 06:31 PM
well i can't say that i'm surprised that Flash is going away from mobile devices. Adobe never seemed to put much effort into making it work once they realized that Apple would never support it. its an anachronistic piece of technology that will hopefully be replaced completely in the near future.

zzLZHzz
Jun 29, 2012, 06:34 PM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

andriod is doom. their only selling point is now gone

KnightWRX
Jun 29, 2012, 07:02 PM
With Video Streaming, you're saying:

Bob (Netflix) wants to send Alice a movie, but only wants her to do a few things with it.

It's a completely different type of scenario. With TLS, the untrusted party is some stranger in the middle up to no good. With Video, the customer is the untrusted party.

This is ultimately the downfall of most DRM schemes -

DRM is based on encryption most of the time. To decrypt the video, you'll need the proper keys. To get the proper keys... yep you guessed it, you're either going to have to hack them (DeCSS, AACS keys that got cracked) or conform to the standard and implement properly with a proper license.

You can't just hop one day and decide to write a client that "ignores" DRM protection on media and hopes it works because you comment off the DecryptStreamUsingKey(); function call. ;)

bigpics
Jun 29, 2012, 07:04 PM
Nelson said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

(2 second vid)

KnightWRX
Jun 29, 2012, 07:04 PM
In what way is Flash video "protected?" There's really no such thing. The video content is there regardless of the delivery method. Flash, just like anything else, obfuscates the location of that content, but then, you can do that with any delivery method, including HTML5.

He's talking about the DRM capabilities built into Flash Media Server :

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashmediaserver/articles/digital_media_protection.html

HTML5 offers no alternative for this. Forget the fact that it was cracked ages ago, no legit implementation of Flash exists that can read these streams outside of Adobe's own runtime.

Gnash have not implemented it for good reasons : Adobe doesn't document it in the Flash specification, and all the reverse engineering is less than legit.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 07:04 PM
DRM is based on encryption most of the time. To decrypt the video, you'll need the proper keys. To get the proper keys... yep you guessed it, you're either going to have to hack them (DeCSS, AACS keys that got cracked) or conform to the standard and implement properly with a proper license.

That's the point though, you can't have an open DRM system if it has to have a licence!

At the moment, anyone can write a web browser. You don't need anyone's permission, you don't need to conform to any rules imposed by a company etc.

DRM is simply incompatible with open standards.

If it's not an open standard, it's not really any different from Flash - it's just made by someone else. What you suggest is essentially how Flash works now.

Abazigal
Jun 29, 2012, 07:13 PM
andriod is doom. their only selling point is now gone

I won't say it is doomed. Android is not without its own strengths; problem is, how do you even start marketing the idea of widgets or rootkits to the masses?

Adobe Flash Player for mobile was completely useless from the very beginning since no Flash content was optimized for mobile. Yes, you could load Flash content in the browser but it was far from usable...

Isn't that the whole point? Flash sucked then (for whatever reason). If Apple had just included an option to toggle off flash, we would never see any progress, because people would just continue to create crappy flash content, with the logic that if you wanted to view it, simply enable flash.

By banning flash altogether (and coupled with the fact that the ipad was popular enough that people evidently didn't mind this limitation), developers were forced to seek other alternatives (either dropping flash or releasing custom apps). And I reiterate my belief that in the end, we are better off for it.

Yeah, so sites like BBC suffer. But they cannot say they didn't see this coming a mile away. Even the blindest of fools would have seen the ipad's popularity coming a mile away, and optimise to take advantage of it. Anyways, I am using rss feeds to get my news, as I find their sites take too long on my ipad and have a tendency to freeze the browser. :confused:

KnightWRX
Jun 29, 2012, 07:13 PM
I've never heard of a job title called "web guy" but the job title "front-end developer" is very frequent.
Using Perl, the read-only language, for rendering web pages sounds like a nightmare. Who did that to you?

Hum, you do understand that the LAMP stack once stood for Linux Apache MySQL Perl right ?

Perl was very big before PHP (and frankly, is much better at doing web stuff still today). CGI.pm, HTML::Template, Catalyst, you can go as low-leve or high level as you want.

I wrote a ton of Perl web stuff in the late 90s/early 00s.

zzLZHzz
Jun 29, 2012, 07:16 PM
I won't say it is doomed. Android is not without its own strengths; problem is, how do you even start marketing the idea of widgets or rootkits to the masses?


in a way, the marketer have to think of new ways to market it.
as an OS, andriod is still usable.

KnightWRX
Jun 29, 2012, 07:16 PM
That's the point though, you can't have an open DRM system if it has to have a licence!

Sure you can. There's a difference between documenting a protocol and documentation the keys. The keys don't have to be documented, only the protocol (exchange of information) and the key format. Once you have that, you license the actual keys. That's how every encrypted protocol works in the open standards world.

At the moment, anyone can write a web browser. You don't need anyone's permission, you don't need to conform to any rules imposed by a company etc.

The W3C disagrees. You need to conform to HTTP standards, HTML, DOM, CSS standards, you need to implement a number of ratified standards or else you're not a Web browser.

If it's not an open standard, it's not really any different from Flash - it's just made by someone else. What you suggest is essentially how Flash works now.

I'm not suggesting anything. Simply saying that DRM can be an open standard.

Daveoc64
Jun 29, 2012, 07:34 PM
Sure you can. There's a difference between documenting a protocol and documentation the keys. The keys don't have to be documented, only the protocol (exchange of information) and the key format. Once you have that, you license the actual keys. That's how every encrypted protocol works in the open standards world.

You're not looking at it correctly. Key exchange is not the problem.

Key exchange is a way for TWO parties to exchange keys with each other over a potentially insecure network so that they can communicate securely with each other.

It is not a way for one party to restrict how the other can use content.

I'll repeat. If we have an open DRM standard that anyone can implement, what stops me doing this:

Browser: I want video B please
Server: Video B is encrypted with this key and is only to be viewed once
Browser: Ok, I'll only let them play it once
Browser: Hehe, I'll just save this in an unencrypted form.

If there's anything that prevents you doing that, then it's not open.

All of the current proposals (including the major one from Netflix, Google and Microsoft) effectively block support for open-source browsers for this reason.

Others use a form of closed-source plugin.

The W3C disagrees. You need to conform to HTTP standards, HTML, DOM, CSS standards, you need to implement a number of ratified standards or else you're not a Web browser

All of these standards are openly available and do not require the developer of a browser to sign up to anything or restrict how their browser works.

I think you'll find that the W3C agrees with me entirely on this matter. They do not see how DRM can ever become part of HTML5 video.

revelated
Jun 29, 2012, 09:16 PM
People will have the .apk downloaded and readily available. Fortunately.

Adobe is making a critical error. I see no viable reason to yank it. If they want to stop updates that's one thing. But the reality for now and the future is, Flash gives the added security for content providers that HTML5 cannot. Until there is a contender in that arena, it'll continue to be an issue.

All Adobe is really doing is creating a market for Microsoft Surface (which would then be the only tablet capable of full Flash).

Winter Charm
Jun 29, 2012, 09:19 PM
64-bit Linux users will attest to the fact that the software was always bloated. That's why it took them so long to port it - apparently lots of it only really worked on Windows, Intel 32-bit systems.

Anyway, good to hear it's dead. Now I want to see companies serving their HTML5-enabled sites to desktop users, too.

As an ex-linux user, I always found it absolutely hilarious that linux could support 128 CPU's, but couldn't deliver full screen lag-free flash. :D

Those of you who never really got how bad flash was, or thought you had it bad on the Mac OS side... Well... enjoy the fresh baked perspective pie. ;)

elpamyelhsa
Jun 29, 2012, 11:12 PM
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

SeattleMoose
Jun 29, 2012, 11:25 PM
But...I hope the adoption of HTML5 is faster than the adoption of Thunderbolt :(

Jb07
Jun 30, 2012, 12:12 AM
Hopefully battery life on Android devices will be significantly better.

rmwebs
Jun 30, 2012, 03:44 AM
Except 90% of Android users are still on 2.x, including many devices on sale now. :)

Generally the only devices on sale pre-3.0 now are:

- Unlicensed phones (e.g ones without the 'GAPPS' package)
- Discounted/Refurb phones (some silly manufacturers produced their Android handsets in huge numbers thinking it would be 'the one' that everyone wanted so now they have huge stockpiles of crappy old handsets.
- Own-brand handsets (for example in the UK T-Mobile and Orange have their own Android handset lines. They are cheap and under powered, and cant run flash in the first place.

Put it this way. If someone is using a phone on 2.x that's reasonably new, its highly unlikely that flash ever worked on it in the first place, so its still a mute point.

Given the huge leaps in hardware over the last 12 months, give it another 12 months and you'll see decent specced hardware in the budget droid phones.

Lennholm
Jun 30, 2012, 06:57 AM
Hum, you do understand that the LAMP stack once stood for Linux Apache MySQL Perl right ?

Perl was very big before PHP (and frankly, is much better at doing web stuff still today). CGI.pm, HTML::Template, Catalyst, you can go as low-leve or high level as you want.

I wrote a ton of Perl web stuff in the late 90s/early 00s.

Granted, that was before my time but it still sounds like a nightmare to work with, just as PHP IS a nightmare to work with today.

linux2mac
Jun 30, 2012, 12:19 PM
where are all the people that said "no Flash on iOS ?! Apple is doomed !" ?

Probably with the same people that said, "No Blu-ray on Macs?! Apple is doomed!"

ryrock77
Jun 30, 2012, 01:49 PM
hopefully this is the death of flash!!!

Flash is still used to create iPhone Apps my friend (Flash to Adobe Air).... look at Angry Birds.

Flash is not dead.

juannacho
Jun 30, 2012, 06:30 PM
As a Flash Developer I can say this is good news. I have always disliked the flood of poor programming by sudo developers in Flash, this is one of the major reasons for issues with the Flash player, and welcome the hope that as Flash becomes an even smaller "niche" platform we begin to see fewer things developed in Flash, but much better quality for those things that are.

I for one will not miss it on mobile and have always thought it to be a bad idea in the first place.

Not to be a pedant but come on, 'pseudo'...

Flash (mobile) development however will migrate into Air based apps. Certainly it keeps it relevant on iOS, and regardless of what you might think of Flash (actionscript) developers, the fact that there are bloody THOUSANDS of them out there means that Flash isn't going to go softly into that dark night.

It will just reposition itself for the time being.

Oh yeah, and banners...

ryrock77
Jun 30, 2012, 07:27 PM
Not to be a pedant but come on, 'pseudo'...

Flash (mobile) development however will migrate into Air based apps. Certainly it keeps it relevant on iOS, and regardless of what you might think of Flash (actionscript) developers, the fact that there are bloody THOUSANDS of them out there means that Flash isn't going to go softly into that dark night.

It will just reposition itself for the time being.

Oh yeah, and banners...

Just shows you how biased and uneducated Apple fan boys are towards Flash.

MacNewsFix
Jun 30, 2012, 07:47 PM
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/screen-shot-2012-06-19-at-121422.png

twigman08
Jun 30, 2012, 09:25 PM
Ohh, I just love Flash. I mean here I was watching a video and the next thing I know Chrome gives a message saying that flash has become unresponsive and crashed.

Only flash can bring a top of the line computer to its knees while watching a simple video. They day that web developers stop saying "I'll make it in Flash" will be a great day for the web.

Piggie
Jul 1, 2012, 09:53 AM
Here is what I don't understand.

Flash used to be considered great, and it grew over the years together with computing power.

Like anything Windows, OSX and even iOS as we are finding now, as time goes on and software gets more advanced it runs alongside the hardware that gets more powerful.

So as all of us realise software of today, needs hardware of today, and it's been this was sine the very 1st computers in the late 1970's
It's obvious and natural that both software and hardware keep together as technology (speed) moves forward.

So, years later, we have Flash that does great things and runs fine on computers of the day

(let's leave out the issue with Apple not wanting to let Adobe access to hardware acceleration as that's another argument about Flash not running as well as it does on PC's)

So, there we were, hardware and software balanced and working well, like most software does.

Then along comes companies, Apple included that say, Hey, we are launching this new LOW COMPUTING POWER device.
Which is fine, and they can code specifically for the low power these battery devices can only offer at the time.

But then, all of a sudden it's now Adobe's fault that something evolved to run on high powered computers, can't run on something with a fraction of the power.

That's crazy isn't it?

I mean, it's like saying OSX is a piece of bloated slow junk as it won't run on a iMac built 20 years earlier with a fraction of the power.

Flash was never designed or grew to run on low power machines it grew to run well and offer great things to computers it was coded for, which advanced in time.

Or to look at it another way, let's move forward 10 or 20 years, and THEN we will have in our hands, say a mobile phone or tablet that will have the same CPU and GPU power as the very top end iMac or PC Today.

So, THEN if you take Flash of TODAY and run it on that future hardware that has the same POWER as TODAY, then of course Flash will run perfect on it.

It seems bizarre

JAT
Jul 1, 2012, 10:12 AM
Then along comes companies, Apple included that say, Hey, we are launching this new LOW COMPUTING POWER device.
Which is fine, and they can code specifically for the low power these battery devices can only offer at the time.

But then, all of a sudden it's now Adobe's fault that something evolved to run on high powered computers, can't run on something with a fraction of the power.

Um, yes. It is absolutely Adobe's fault they can't make Flash work properly on mobile devices. Who else would be responsible for Flash's abilities? You? Me? Jared from Subway?

I'm not so sure you are correct about the power requirements, today's phone/tab cpus are plenty powerful. But regardless, they didn't address mouse-over. At all. Not even a little bit. Meanwhile, other mouse-over works. Go to woot.com, their mouse-over stuff works on my phone. There are many problems with Flash, like crappy devs.

And frankly, Adobe seems to think they screwed up. Why don't you?

Piggie
Jul 1, 2012, 10:32 AM
Um, yes. It is absolutely Adobe's fault they can't make Flash work properly on mobile devices. Who else would be responsible for Flash's abilities? You? Me? Jared from Subway?

I'm not so sure you are correct about the power requirements, today's phone/tab cpus are plenty powerful. But regardless, they didn't address mouse-over. At all. Not even a little bit. Meanwhile, other mouse-over works. Go to woot.com, their mouse-over stuff works on my phone. There are many problems with Flash, like crappy devs.

And frankly, Adobe seems to think they screwed up. Why don't you?

Ok.

So you work for me, and You are my software writer, over the time we work together, 10 years, I keep giving you faster and faster hardware and you continually work on and enhance your software as I pass the new hardware onto you.
All is happy between us, and your software you write for me always works great and the hardware.

Now, I spring a surprise on you, and give you some new hardware that runs as slow as the hardware I gave you 10 years ago, and say to you. I demand you change your software now to run as good and as advanced as it does TODAY on the same hardware we were using 10 years ago.

As a software engineer you look at me like some idiot boss, dumb ass you think, of course this won't work, we've both moved on from that old tech we were using 10 years or more ago. Of course we can't make software of today run on 10+ year old systems as well as it runs today on cutting edge hardware.

So I just look at you, call you a useless programmer as you can't perform a miracle and perhaps fire you.

Who is the jerk here, You for doing your job well and as expected as time move on, or me for expecting the impossible from you?

Tones2
Jul 1, 2012, 10:36 AM
Whether flash is good or bad on a mobile phone is irrelevant. That's all I know that there are many sites that I want to watch a video on and I can't because my stupid iPhone doesn't have flash. That's a fact. I want to watch it and I can't. Period. End of story. Until the entire web converts, these anti-flash arguments are ridiculous. Anything is better than nothing. :rolleyes:

JAT
Jul 1, 2012, 10:42 AM
Who is the jerk here, You for doing your job well and as expected as time move on, or me for expecting the impossible from you?
I'm not a programming expert, so I find it difficult to analyze the possibility. However, it is evident that our 'crappy' phones and tabs can handle video, including codecs far beyond (in bandwidth, power consumption) what was available to the masses in 1996. So...I'm not sure why Flash can't handle crappy 320 line video on a phone.

I am in accounting, and companies, FASB, and the IRS spring s*** on us all the time. And if we don't keep up, White Castle needs people to make burgers.

The alternative is to say we can't do it and move on to something else. Which is what Adobe did. Apple said it first, Adobe went an extra year attempting it. But frankly, I don't see that they did much. Other than finally making an OSX version that works decently. (first time in 15 years)

Piggie
Jul 1, 2012, 11:16 AM
I'm not a programming expert, so I find it difficult to analyze the possibility. However, it is evident that our 'crappy' phones and tabs can handle video, including codecs far beyond (in bandwidth, power consumption) what was available to the masses in 1996. So...I'm not sure why Flash can't handle crappy 320 line video on a phone.

I am in accounting, and companies, FASB, and the IRS spring s*** on us all the time. And if we don't keep up, White Castle needs people to make burgers.

The alternative is to say we can't do it and move on to something else. Which is what Adobe did. Apple said it first, Adobe went an extra year attempting it. But frankly, I don't see that they did much. Other than finally making an OSX version that works decently. (first time in 15 years)

I hear what you are saying, but I feel there is much more to this behind the scenes than we as normal people understand.

It's well known there were personal issues, which should not come into business between Jobs and Adobe.

It's also well known that Adobe did not have access to, I think I'm right in saying, certain key aspects of graphics hardware acceleration in Apple computers until very late, which meant Flash could never work as well as it did/does on computers running Windows.

Also remember please that flash was never build to be a video playback piece of software, it just happened that is was one of the "things on the side" it also did, and it just happened to become a easy standard was to present video over the years.

I have no doubt, and I'm sure many would agree that if Apple and Adobe acted the way they should of done and worked together, as opposed to almost fighting, to perhaps re-do Flash from the ground up, then we could be in the scenario where it ran superbly.

But history and issues mean that such a collaboration between the two companies was never going to happen.

Plus of course, we have to throw in the mix also that Apple, esp in the beginning naturally would much rather you buy an entertainment app from the app score where they can make money from you, than for you to play some online flash game as many children did/do on their home computers.

There is a LOT more to it, than just "Adobe are Idiots and Flash Sucks" which seems to be the sad dumb statement a few have on these forums.

Carouser
Jul 1, 2012, 11:49 AM
Whether flash is good or bad on a mobile phone is irrelevant. That's all I know that there are many sites that I want to watch a video on and I can't because my stupid iPhone doesn't have flash. That's a fact. I want to watch it and I can't. Period. End of story. Until the entire web converts, these anti-flash arguments are ridiculous. Anything is better than nothing. :rolleyes:

Actually, what's stupid is not the iPhone, what's stupid are:
1) websites which are relying on Flash to deliver video to phones in 2012
2) people who buy something which has never run Flash since its inception and then whining about it

All that aside, I'm glad we have some experts in the management of software and hardware development weighing in, I had no idea how bosses handed things off to software writers, amazing.

MacNewsFix
Jul 1, 2012, 12:17 PM
Um, yes. It is absolutely Adobe's fault they can't make Flash work properly on mobile devices. Who else would be responsible for Flash's abilities? You? Me? Jared from Subway?

.....

And frankly, Adobe seems to think they screwed up.

More than a year ago, several former Adobe Flash devs were quoted stating the company had long ignored their warnings of the public's growing shift to mobile and allowed the software languish on the vine. Whatever grudges existed between Apple and Adobe, I agree that blame falls firmly at the feet of Adobe.

I think Piggie is neglecting the fact that there were more players than just Apple and Adobe in Flash's demise in mobile. If Adobe had made a compelling enough execution on one of the other numerous mobile platforms, Apple would have had to eventually capitulate as the Internet clung to Flash as the default video streaming standard. Instead, Flash implementations couldn't avoid a hit to battery life, stability, or overcome its reliance on a mouse on any mobile OS.

P.S. "Jared from Subway?" That made me LOL, as did the later White Castle quip.

Piggie
Jul 1, 2012, 01:40 PM
Seems that Flash was good, when Steve wanted to show it as being good:

http://youtu.be/xAVUf6rMsrU


Interesting.

inkswamp
Jul 1, 2012, 02:05 PM
Indeed.

I mentioned earlier that most DRM systems fail because current approaches to security are not designed to cope with this scenario.

While these systems are not 100% secure, the content providers want them to be used. Until that changes, you'll need a proprietary system of some sort -whether it's Flash, Silverlight, an App or something else.

I take the view that the proprietary system should be as widely accessible as it possibly can be, and right now Flash is the best fit for that.

Anyone else find it bizarre that the (ostensibly) free and open crowd advocate Flash which offers DRM while the proprietary "walled garden" types want HTML5 which doesn't? Welcome to Bizarro World.

Anyway, like others have already said, there's no protection that Flash offers that can't be sidestepped one way or the other. Given that screen recording software has advanced to the point where you can create high-quality video captures, it's almost irrelevant. It's like the new version of the analog hole. There's no "protected" format on the Internet, regardless of Flash offering delusions to the contrary.

BSben
Jul 1, 2012, 02:18 PM
Seems that Flash was good, when Steve wanted to show it as being good:

http://youtu.be/xAVUf6rMsrU


Interesting.

It was only dropped from iOS, not from the Mac altogether.
And seems he was right about it not working properly on touchscreen devices,
why else would Adobe give up on it?
Black and white television had it's time, so did silent movies, and now Flash for
mobile devices joins the list.

Piggie
Jul 1, 2012, 03:05 PM
It was only dropped from iOS, not from the Mac altogether.
And seems he was right about it not working properly on touchscreen devices,
why else would Adobe give up on it?
Black and white television had it's time, so did silent movies, and now Flash for
mobile devices joins the list.

That's fine, but colour TV's could also play back black and white content.

Let's hope we get a replacement for flash that can play back old flash content then. Yes ?

moldy912
Jul 1, 2012, 03:24 PM
It was only dropped from iOS, not from the Mac altogether.

They should drop it from Mac too. It runs terribly on my machine.

theanimaster
Jul 1, 2012, 04:45 PM
...it's official: Flash just had an abortion.

Daveoc64
Jul 1, 2012, 05:10 PM
Anyone else find it bizarre that the (ostensibly) free and open crowd advocate Flash which offers DRM while the proprietary "walled garden" types want HTML5 which doesn't? Welcome to Bizarro World.

I don't know if you're referring to me specifically, but I'm advocating what works best for the most people.

Apple's decision to not include Flash was clearly based on a belief that they could manage without it in the long term and their market share allowed them to have an impact on the market by doing that. They know that their platform has sufficient pull with users and developers to get away with two approaches:

1) HTML5 Video in the proprietary h.264 format for video that doesn't need to be protected
2) Apps for video sources that need protection (like Netflix)

Other platforms aren't big enough or can't support those concepts for legal reasons.

Android is big enough for users to be (reasonably) covered, but then there are so many others out there, not just on mobile.

Apple likes to say that it supports an open standard (HTML5 video), but they know that:

a) They only support a single codec that they benefit from financially and that is patent encumbered

b) It does not support DRM

In reality, that means that the "open standard" isn't all that useful or open.

Anyway, like others have already said, there's no protection that Flash offers that can't be sidestepped one way or the other. Given that screen recording software has advanced to the point where you can create high-quality video captures, it's almost irrelevant. It's like the new version of the analog hole. There's no "protected" format on the Internet, regardless of Flash offering delusions to the contrary.

This may all be true, but the fact remains - a lot of content will not be offered in any format that doesn't provide DRM that meets the standards of the content provider.

Arguing about DRM here doesn't magically mean that Netflix works on Linux.

Tones2
Jul 1, 2012, 05:45 PM
Actually, what's stupid is not the iPhone, what's stupid are:
1) websites which are relying on Flash to deliver video to phones in 2012
2) people who buy something which has never run Flash since its inception and then whining about it

All that aside, I'm glad we have some experts in the management of software and hardware development weighing in, I had no idea how bosses handed things off to software writers, amazing.

No what's stupid is people lik you who simply refuse to accept that whatever THEY think, flash is out there and will be out there for a LONG time. As for buying something that will never run flash, well of couse flash is a somewhat minor consideration in buying a phone, although a real irritant. I did just pre-order a Samsung Galaxy S3 though to get off the iPhone cycle. Not because of flash but rather 100 other reasons.

Carouser
Jul 1, 2012, 06:04 PM
No what's stupid is people lik you who simply refuse to accept that whatever THEY think, flash is out there and will be out there for a LONG time. As for buying something that will never run flash, well of couse flash is a somewhat minor consideration in buying a phone

Actually, my point isn't affected by whether Flash content will be around for a long time. Also, since you grant that Flash is 'of course' a minor consideration for buying a phone, I'm sure you agree there is little incentive for Apple to accommodate it.

doobybiggs
Jul 1, 2012, 11:49 PM
Flash is still used to create iPhone Apps my friend (Flash to Adobe Air).... look at Angry Birds.

Flash is not dead.

I hate flash on my PC ... there are so many updates that dont fix anything and just mess it up more.

Piggie
Jul 2, 2012, 04:12 AM
They should drop it from Mac too. It runs terribly on my machine.

If I am to assume you have a reasonably powerful modern Mac computer.
Why do you think Flash runs as smooth as silk with very little CPU loading on my PC I put together myself and terribly on your Mac machine?

As I said in a previous post, a 1080p YouTube video running at full screen 1920x1080 is using between 1% and 2% of my CPU.

Would you consider that bad? I don't think you would do.

If you like, I'm happy to run a .swf vector Flash animation full screen, full res 1920x1080 later tonight and report back the CPU loading for this type of file also.

rhyno1
Jul 2, 2012, 06:10 AM
Hi Kyrra...don't know if you have tried out Android or not, but here is my take when I tried to change to the HTC One X last week:
PROS
Camera was SMOKING fast.
Screen was really sharp, on par with the Retina display on my iPhone 4.

CONS
Email was a chore to set up compared to Mail on the iOS.
App store isn't as "clean" to search through.
Visual voice mail is an additional app that needs to be downloaded and set up, also not as "clean" as iOS.
When listening to music, sound quality was not up to par with the iPhone. Guessing this is more hardware related, but the HTC has Beats built in so I thought the sound would be better than it was.
Overall user experience seemed clunky when compared to the iOS, and the One X has ICS.

For me, the open source really didn't matter. I don't care what my wallpaper is, or if my screen displays the current weather. I prefer the iOS ecosystem. Of course, this is just my opinion. I was trying to be open about the change, but I only had the phone for 24 hours and it went back. Hopefully the iPhone 5 will get here soon so I can enjoy a larger screen and faster camera. I suppose that is what 5 years of using an iPhone will do to you.



I'm happy flash is dead, but Android still has advantages over iOS:
1) More choice in phones (which can lead to removable batteries, better cameras, various screen sizes, etc...)
2) A less locked down app store. There can be browsers other than safari wrappers on the Google Play store.
3) Being able to set default clients (email, browser, etc...)
4) Google Maps. (I hope apple can pull off their own mapping solution, but google maps look better right now).
Lots of other things I'm probably forgetting.

But at the same time, iOS has a lot of nice things about it that I would miss if I moved to android (iPhone owner here, trying to decide what phone to get next):
1) Better games (graphics support is more consistant on apple devices, so game devs have an easier time developing for these).
2) Will continue to get firmware updates for years (though, google makes most of the apps that Apple has baked into the OS be updatable from the Play store, so not getting a new OS on android isn't too big of a deal).
3) Nice consistent feeling. This has gotten better with Android ICS, but few people have that.
4) Good customer support. When **** breaks with apple devices, their customer service rocks.
5) Consistency. As much as people like the control android gives you, it tends to make troubleshooting these devices for computer illiterate people a lot more difficult.

shartypants
Jul 2, 2012, 10:27 AM
In related news: "Just days after Adobe announced they will no longer support Flash on mobile devices, today they announced they will be reviving the once highly popular HyperCard. Since it was originally created by Apple, they expect quick approval by Apple." :p :D

Piggie
Jul 2, 2012, 12:06 PM
As a follow up as I promised, just as a test.

I ran this funny vector animation with catchy music .swf flash file, and selected full screen 1920x1080p

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/Baby+Baboon/

Watching my CPU loading on my task manager, on my second attached screen, I'd say it averaged at approx 12% loading during playback of this music/animation at full screen.

What is the CPU loading on a Mac playing this back full screen 1920x1080 then?

kdarling
Jul 2, 2012, 12:24 PM
Don't really have a dog in this fight, but just a few random comments:


Adobe didn't create Flash. They inherited it when they bought Macromedia.


HTML had the same problem as Flash when touchscreens came out: most web/Flash apps didn't understand touch. HTML was often worse because it would pop-up a context menu to save a button image, instead of noticing a long press to fire your weapon :)


Mobile Flash works pretty well these days. I'll be sorry if newer phones don't support it, simply because I often run across sites that still use it.


Flash fulfilled a need for a rich cross-system app player. I'm all for replacing it with something like HTML5, but current browser implementations still have a way to go. HTML5 can be just as CPU intensive as Flash
.

Daveoc64
Jul 2, 2012, 02:07 PM
vector animation

I think I ought to stop you right there.

Vector Animation is rarely GPU accelerated.

In terms of Flash Player, it's hard to say how it was written by the developer.

revelated
Jul 2, 2012, 11:43 PM
Anyone else find it bizarre that the (ostensibly) free and open crowd advocate Flash which offers DRM while the proprietary "walled garden" types want HTML5 which doesn't? Welcome to Bizarro World.


"walled garden" wants to be rid of Flash only because they see an alternative that will actually work on their device. I submit the iPhone as crippled without HTML5. So they'll say anything to justify it.

On the flip side, Windows tablets can play Flash, HTML5, and whatever else you want to come up with. Same with Android tablets. But the thing is, people know that the content slant is currently like 90/10 in favor of Flash content that is extremely unlikely to be converted in the near term.

So I have a choice: Do I walk towards the Promised Land, or dive off the cliff in hopes I hit something?

wikus
Jul 2, 2012, 11:57 PM
Does this mean we no longer have to hear: "No flash? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there." from the anti-iOS folks?

Oh well, at least they'll still have: "No removable battery? Yeah, that's a deal-breaker right there."

LOL, wrong.

Tech savvy consumers arent buying android phones solely because of flash or removable batteries, although both are beneficial aspects which only Apple users would negate. The reason why people are going Android is because theyre not locked into a closed system like iTunes and iOS that doesnt allow any customization. You really have to be anti-choice to slam Android. Good on you for that.

Wake me up when iPhone lets me throw in a ROM of my choice. Until then, you can continue making lame attempts at mockery of Android users.

HarryKeogh
Jul 3, 2012, 06:52 AM
LOL, wrong.

Tech savvy consumers arent buying android phones solely because of flash or removable batteries, although both are beneficial aspects which only Apple users would negate. The reason why people are going Android is because theyre not locked into a closed system like iTunes and iOS that doesnt allow any customization. You really have to be anti-choice to slam Android. Good on you for that.

Wake me up when iPhone lets me throw in a ROM of my choice. Until then, you can continue making lame attempts at mockery of Android users.

The vast majority of consumers are not tech savvy unless you count being able to set the DVR to record the entire season of Keeping Up With the Kardashians "tech savvy" and even then they still record all the repeats.

I think people buy Android phones because they're nice phones, big screens, good features. Very few people are installing a custom ROM. They wouldn't even know what that means.

As for saying my attempt at mockery was lame...how dare you! Each thumbs up my comment received is proof that my post's humor was at the same level as a Carlin or Pryor in their prime.

Hyper-X
Jul 3, 2012, 07:44 AM
Flash was something great back many years ago however it is time that we look forward to capitalizing on more modern technologies which offer the user a more rich and secure experience.

Hope Adobe looks to providing HTML5 tools and content as they did when they shocked the world with the intro of Flash.

inkswamp
Jul 4, 2012, 04:22 AM
On the flip side, Windows tablets can play Flash, HTML5, and whatever else you want to come up with. Same with Android tablets. But the thing is, people know that the content slant is currently like 90/10 in favor of Flash content that is extremely unlikely to be converted in the near term.

I'll be honest with you. Most of your post doesn't make any sense to me. However, I'd like to know where you get the idea that "the content slant is currently like 9010 in favor of Flash." Do you have an actual source to back up the claim that 90% of content on the Web requires Flash? That sound ridiculously unlikely to me.

I have several iOS devices and I don't recall the last site that didn't accommodate me with an HTML5 option. Flash is not quite as essential and you think it is. If you're viewing the Web with Flash-enabled devices, you wouldn't be aware of that. I can't think of any sites I routinely visit on my iPad or iPhone that don't make their content available through non-Flash alternatives at this point.

revelated
Jul 4, 2012, 09:37 PM
I'll be honest with you. Most of your post doesn't make any sense to me. However, I'd like to know where you get the idea that "the content slant is currently like 9010 in favor of Flash." Do you have an actual source to back up the claim that 90% of content on the Web requires Flash? That sound ridiculously unlikely to me.

I have several iOS devices and I don't recall the last site that didn't accommodate me with an HTML5 option. Flash is not quite as essential and you think it is. If you're viewing the Web with Flash-enabled devices, you wouldn't be aware of that. I can't think of any sites I routinely visit on my iPad or iPhone that don't make their content available through non-Flash alternatives at this point.

Your confusion is because your quote was inaccurate.

I didn't say the slant was in favor of Flash. The COMPLETE quote is that the slant is currently like 90/10 in favor of Flash content that is extremely unlikely to be converted in the near term.

In other words I'm not talking about new content. I'm talking about content that already exists in Flash where the content provider has spent literally years populating their media section; they're not quickly going to spend thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars converting all of that content in the near future.

You're also working under a flawed assumption that I'm only referring to movies. There are TONS of Flash games that simply won't be converted that house millions of gamers. There are game wrappers where the underlying code is Flash; those won't be converted either. HTML5 cannot do the interactive components necessary for some of the most advanced games out there. We're not talking some simple click-and-drag of bubbles in a fish tank here. You're not going to power Godfather: Five Families in HTML5.

inkswamp
Jul 5, 2012, 02:38 AM
The COMPLETE quote is that the slant is currently like 90/10 in favor of Flash content that is extremely unlikely to be converted in the near term.

You just spent several paragraphs responding but failed to address my main question: where did you get this 90/10 number from? Are you guessing or do you have an actual source for this? I think you're grossly over-exaggerating Flash's importance and was wondering where you're getting this 90/10 thing. It seems fictitious.

moldy912
Jul 6, 2012, 02:54 PM
If I am to assume you have a reasonably powerful modern Mac computer.
Why do you think Flash runs as smooth as silk with very little CPU loading on my PC I put together myself and terribly on your Mac machine?

As I said in a previous post, a 1080p YouTube video running at full screen 1920x1080 is using between 1% and 2% of my CPU.

Would you consider that bad? I don't think you would do.

If you like, I'm happy to run a .swf vector Flash animation full screen, full res 1920x1080 later tonight and report back the CPU loading for this type of file also.

I am not talking numbers here. This is my subjective opinion that it runs poorly on my computer. It freezes and skips a lot, and it's not fun to watch videos hardly. This was a lot worse a while back before Flash 11 I think.