Adobe Discontinues Development of Flash Player on Mobile Devices

[D.T.]

My opinion in that regard is, that there is no need for flash anymore. It just adds complexity and dependencies ...

Flash is obsolete, the best Adobe can do is to provide a superb HTML5 production environment seemlesly integrated into their suites.

That appears to be part of their plan, and it's a good one.

Hmm. Well, I can't say that I'm saddened. All I really want is Flash videos to play on my iPhone. Don't know what the technology and terminology behind all that jazz is, but I just want Flash video to play on my iPhone. Hopefully that will work someday. Some do already, but not all.

That's OK, "they" will [eventually] get all those videos re-deployed in an HTML5 container. Look how YT moved into HTML5, and more and more I see major video sites streaming without a Flash wrapper (using open CODECs and a nice HTML5 front end).

The alternative is app-store type games.

Yeah, exactly. It's a simple and much better equation:

Web with simple interactive elements, navigation and video = HTML5 (+javascript/jquery/etc)

Robust interactive apps/games/graphic intensive uses/etc. = Native Platform App (or at least a native runtime engine, i.e., AAir)

I'll be glad when Flash is at least gone from simple web UI elements like navigation. Firing up a whole runtime with the associated CPU/battery overhead to _navigate_? That's pretty ridiculous from a design/architecture standpoint.

Flash had it's day and adobe managed to capitalize on the burgeoning web video craze so many years ago, and provided a nice, tidy deployment solution. Flash is still ahead of HTML5, which shouldn't surprise anyone since it's a closed, single source solution vs. a feature-by-committee, open source specification, but HTML5 will get close enough, soon enough.

 

[Daveoc64]

HTML is not executing, it's only markup, if the parsing is slow or not comes down to your browser. Parsing HTML is not a hard problem (or at least XHTML ).

Flash uses a language called ActionScript that is interpreted in the same way that JavaScript is.

In terms of what you're talking about, there is no difference.

Another thing that is woefully misunderstood is what "HTML" or "HTML5" actually is.

"HTML5" tends to be an umbrella term that includes related technologies that come together to provide a web experience - like SVG.

 

[Piggie]

I'll ask some basic question then

Does HTML5 fully replace Flash then?
Can it run as fast and do everything Flash can?
It it as easy to program in as Flash?

When do we expect to see lot's of HTML5 things, like we have Flash web sites and Flash gaming web sites.

When is HTML5 going to replace all of this, and show how much better it is?

Have we thrown away our old car before we're even half way through building our new one?

 

[faroZ06]

Finally they gave in! Smart move.
And Flash does suck horribly on any device.

 

[D.T.]

Flash is not to blame for ads being annyoing. Ad makers are.

Hahaha, that's pretty outstanding.

Have we thrown away our old car before we're even half way through building our new one?

We're just not spending any more money fixing up the old ride ... otherwise we'll never finish the new one

 

[Renzatic]

I wish I have options from Photoshop and InDesign and I'll be happy to dump all my Adobe products from my computer.

Adobe have been a over-priced rip off for many years.

This is something that absolutely floors me. You know, I'm not a huge fan of Flash. It gets the job done, but it's not exactly the smoothest, most efficient thing in the world. There are better ways to do what Flash does. Or at least there will be.

As much as it initially limited me, I could understand why Jobs wanted to keep Flash off the iDevices.

The thing that gets me, though, is how as soon as Apple decided to kick Flash off their stuff, it suddenly became an Us Vs. Them thing for alot of people. Ole Steve goes off on Flash, and suddenly ALL Adobe products started sucking. Photoshop? Oh, it's been a bloated POS that never worked right. InDesign? Absolute crap. Illustrator? More like ILLUSTRATCAN'T AM I RITE?

I mean what is it with some of you people? It's not a damn war here. It's not commies vs. cappies here. Steve didn't like Flash, threw a tantrum, Adobe didn't like Steve not liking Flash, and threw a tantrum in return. Yeah, the situation was stupid, but it didn't suddenly degrade the entire Adobe product line.

Think for yourselves for a change.

 

[subsonix]

Flash uses a language called ActionScript that is interpreted in the same way that JavaScript is.

In terms of what you're talking about, there is no difference.

Yes, but JavaScript ≠ HTML.




Edit to include you additions:

Another thing that is woefully misunderstood is what "HTML" or "HTML5" actually is.

"HTML5" tends to be an umbrella term that includes related technologies that come together to provide a web experience - like SVG.

Yes.

 

[kcmac]

Steve once again shows how much of a visionary he was.

Nothing visionary about it. If you read Steve's statement on Flash, it was based on real and current issues. Unlike other device makers, Apple just did not want to be held hostage by Flash and a lower than desired user experience for the complete device, not just the web. (i.e., battery, etc). And don't forget, it never worked anyway.

 

[Aztec Fight]

this really makes the Blackberry Playbooks commercials irrelevant

FLASH...AHHHHHHH

 

[faroZ06]

I'll ask some basic question then

Does HTML5 fully replace Flash then?
Can it run as fast and do everything Flash can?
It it as easy to program in as Flash?

When do we expect to see lot's of HTML5 things, like we have Flash web sites and Flash gaming web sites.

When is HTML5 going to replace all of this, and show how much better it is?

Have we thrown away our old car before we're even half way through building our new one?

It looks like HTML5 is not as fully developed, but it'll be developed now that Flash is out of the picture.
As for playing videos....what ever happened to Quicktime? It's the best!

----------

this really makes the Blackberry Playbooks commercials irrelevant

FLASH...AHHHHHHH

Funny because this time, Apple didn't even fix the "problem", Adobe did! It's like when the Droid ads were saying how they could take video, then Apple added video to the iPhone. I guess now they have nothing to boast other than a removable battery, which nobody wants since it shortens the life span.

 

[the8thark]

We all know Jobs said he would add flash to the iPhone when Adobe or anyone proved to them they could make flash actually work well on a mobile device. No one could do this hence of iPhone flash.

Personally I am glad mobile flash is closer to being dead. I will be happy when it is totally dead. The same goes for MS silverlight. I have the need for external codecs to run media files. I'd rather have something directly integrated into the browsing experience with the need for zero addons. HTML 5 is a nice step in this direction.

And this includes moving from quicktime to html 5 too. I like quicktime but it's place in the world is over too.

 

[BC2009]

A gross generalization. It worked fine. It has 400,000+ reviews and is still 4+ stars on the Android market :

https://market.android.com/details?...1bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5hZG9iZS5mbGFzaHBsYXllciJd

It also works splendidly on my TouchPad.

I think the issue we're seeing now is that Adobe is realising their efforts are much better spent on framework work for mobile platforms. Provide a single unified Android/iOS/WP7/webOS/Meego development environment so that developers can target every platform quickly and with little porting effort and that will bring in the cash.

It worked fine? A gross exaggeration. You have apparently been very lucky or I have been very unlucky in my browsing of Flash apps on mobile. There are also many others who have echoed my experience in forums or on online reviews. Don't just take my word for it:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/flash-android-look-dont-touch-838

http://blog.laptopmag.com/mobile-flash-fail-weak-android-player-proves-jobs-right

http://forums.androidcentral.com/motorola-xoom/126318-flash-player-11-problems.html

http://forums.androidcentral.com/motorola-xoom/100065-xoom-flash-problem-revelation.html

http://androidforums.com/htc-desire/230023-flash-problems-after-installing-update-2-33-161-2-a.html

I don't doubt that you have had a positive experience. And Flash Video has had very few problems. But using a Flash app / game has always been a crapshoot for me -- I was hoping version 11 would have fixed that, but it did not. Even the ones that do work often had redraw issues on a Xoom or eventually crashed the browser.

Of course it has a "4+" positive review on the Android market. Flash has been the rallying flag for Android. If an Android user could use one thing in Flash that an iOS user could not it was chalked up as a "win". And Android (and WebOS and QNX) devices can run Flash video just fine -- which is a big win since there is so much of it still out there and it represents the majority of Flash usage (probably 80%). But anything but Flash Video has been (as I said) a toss of the dice -- you may get lucky, you may not. To me, that is decidedly "not working".

Imagine if only 80% of the apps you download to your iPhone worked, and the rest just had frozen buttons or redraw issues out the gate? Would you call that "working"? I'm guessing not.

Keep in mind that I do not doubt that Flash developers could modify their apps so that they do work, but according to Adobe, they should not have to. Adobe says things like:

For existing content developed with mouse input in mind, Flash Player will automatically convert the touch events to mouse events when running on a touch device. This allows content designed for the desktop to work seamlessly on touch-based devices using Flash Player.

This has not been my experience at all, and to me that is a "gross generalization". For all I know this is not Adobe's fault -- maybe its the fault of shoddy Flash developers (nobody polices a Flash app to ensure it adheres to Adobe's guidelines). But this does not seem to change my experience of being able to enjoy video but being nervous whenever I stray beyond video.

This is why Adobe moving in this direction is a huge win for all of us. Now websites should start moving some of the basic things that HTML 5 can handle to HTML 5 and away from Flash. Sure HTML 5 can't do everything Flash can do, but there is nothing more frustrating than thinking you are going to be able to do something "on the go" only to discover that you can't because your supposed Flash support only works some of the time.

 

[Daveoc64]

I'll ask some basic question then

Does HTML5 fully replace Flash then?

No. Not least because the standard is not fully supported in every browser. Some browsers have much better support for some HTML5 features than others. A large majority of users are using browsers that don't support HTML5 or support only a limited subset of its features.

Even browsers like Safari do not support all of the HTML5 features.

Can it run as fast and do everything Flash can?

No.

It it as easy to program in as Flash?

In general yes, but Adobe provides a lot of tools to design things in Flash, while there aren't many out there for the newer "HTML5" features.

 

[faroZ06]

People talk about killing Flash and that it's some fault of website owners for still using it - but the issue revolves more around the designers creating the sites using Flash.

The alternative technologies need to push designers forward if the change-over is going to happen.

Another issue is that even instituting the change costs money and if a website owner has already spent their budget on their site, you're not going to see any change happen until the next budget cycle - and if the designer they have working on their site doesn't know how to design around something other than Flash, then it becomes even more problematic.

Well now, if you use Flash for your site, you can kiss your mobile users goodbye
Or you'd have to also make a mobile site that is Flash-less, but everyone would want the Flash-less one anyway.

 

[samcraig]

I assume you're some flash fanatic? I guess you choose to like inefficient things that suck very badly.

No. Can I assume that you have no idea what Flash can and can't do vs HTML5 at this point in time?

I guess you choose to like eliminating functionality that one technology offers in favor of one that is inefficient in doing the same thing.

ETA: I am all for better technology options. But right now - HTML is not (total) flash replacement.

 

[Daveoc64]

Yes, but JavaScript ≠ HTML.

And Flash ≠ HTML.

Flash is most like JavaScript.

When people say I used the HTML5 version of Google Maps, they're really using JavaScript features. JavaScript is used to move around the map, zoom in, find your location etc.

HTML can't do these things by itself.

 

[faroZ06]

In general yes, but Adobe provides a lot of tools to design things in Flash, while there aren't many out there for the newer "HTML5" features.

Wasn't there a rumor earlier that Adobe is making an HTML5 tool? I agree that HTML5 is still not as developed at the moment.

I used to have this thing that made my Youtube videos run in Quicktime instead of Flash or HTML5. What's wrong with Quicktime for videos??

 

[Acorn]

good flash sucks on mobile devices. it eats battery life like hell. anything you can do in flash you can do in html 5 better AND it doesnt eat the battery like it does in flash. Shutting flash off on mobile devices can add over an hour and 45 minutes.No wonder steve didnt want it.

personally i dont care anyway because 99% of the flash I see is flash ads spamming my screen.

 

[subsonix]

And Flash ≠ HTML.
.

Of course it isn't! Which is why I objected to your comparison.

 

[Daveoc64]

I used to have this thing that made my Youtube videos run in Quicktime instead of Flash or HTML5. What's wrong with Quicktime for videos??

QuickTime is a plug-in.

You can't argue for open standards if you use QuickTime, which only runs on Windows (poorly) and Mac OS X.

Flash works on more platforms than that.

 

[faroZ06]

We all know Jobs said he would add flash to the iPhone when Adobe or anyone proved to them they could make flash actually work well on a mobile device. No one could do this hence of iPhone flash.

Personally I am glad mobile flash is closer to being dead. I will be happy when it is totally dead. The same goes for MS silverlight. I have the need for external codecs to run media files. I'd rather have something directly integrated into the browsing experience with the need for zero addons. HTML 5 is a nice step in this direction.

And this includes moving from quicktime to html 5 too. I like quicktime but it's place in the world is over too.

It's too bad. All of these things are inefficient. I want to watch my videos in Quicktime, which is super efficient and very powerful. I know that HTML5 can give sites cooler features and stuff, but for video playing, Quicktime should be standard. I used to have a thing that let you watch Youtube in Quicktime, and that was awesome.

But don't most people have Quicktime because it comes with iTunes?

 

[corbin_a2]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

 

[realmike15]

Don't need floppy, got CD.
Don't need PS2/Serial, got USB.
Don't need expansion, got Firewire/Thunderbolt.

So many choices were right.

Don't need Flash, got HTML5.

So, now Adobe has given up and is doing the next best thing from their perspective - translating Flash apps for the medium. Good choice.

Overall I agree with you,

but the Expansion/FW-TB thing is only true for mobile devices like Laptops

For powerful work stations, expansion slots (like those found in the Mac Pro) are still superior. Most people wouldn't look at a bunch of external devices with wires all over the place plugged their our desktops as a superior alternative to internal devices. Not professionals at least.

The advantage to Thunderbolt is for devices that don't have room for extra storage and expansion cards.

 

[Daveoc64]

anything you can do in flash you can do in html 5 better

Totally wrong.

Ignoring the "better" part of your sentence, there are MANY things that HTML5 cannot do that Flash can.

 

[faroZ06]

QuickTime is a plug-in.

You can't argue for open standards if you use QuickTime, which only runs on Windows (poorly) and Mac OS X.

Flash works on more platforms than that.

If Quicktime became dominant, Apple would make it for other platforms. It's easy to do. And it's also for iOS, and I'd say that it's the best video player on Windows.

----------

Next step: get Netflix to drop Silverlight on their online streaming. That's one of the reasons we left those fools. I don't want a retarded Microsoft plugin just to watch an H.264 video. I bet MS paid them for that. I've heard some horror stories about Microsoft plugins on Firefox that datamined, and at the very least, it is super inefficient.