Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

alex2792

macrumors 65816
Jun 13, 2009
1,125
2,973
This argument only makes sense until you think about it.

No, it's pretty simple if your IQ is in the positive territory. A $.99 app makes apple $.33(30% cut), me playing the same game for free via flash makes Apple $0.00. DUH!
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,725
10,802
No, it's pretty simple if your IQ is in the positive territory. A $.99 app makes apple $.33(30% cut), me playing the same game for free via flash makes Apple $0.00. DUH!

Correlation does not imply causation. Why is Apple promoting an alternative technology to Flash? Why would a developer release a game for free on the web and charge for it in the App Store? If the developer should choose to monetize the app on the App Store, why shouldn't they? Why couldn't a developer use the same ad-supported model on the App Store that he uses on the web? Apple doesn't get a cut of free.

And the biggest thing, Apple is currently operating the App Store "a bit over breakeven." The impact of Flash games on their bottom line would be negligible.
 

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,109
57
No, it's pretty simple if your IQ is in the positive territory. A $.99 app makes apple $.33(30% cut), me playing the same game for free via flash makes Apple $0.00. DUH!

Actually a ton of low level games are free or ad-supported which COSTS Apple money because Apple pays for the bandwidth and the approval process. There's nothing stopping Flash developers putting out their free Flash games on the app store for free except the developers' ability to code for iOS or lackthereof.
 

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,411
1
...one thread dies and another is born to give the same users the opportunity to make the same arguments and counter arguments all over again like nobody has ever thought of them before...

Yeah no kidding, but I can't resist, so here's what I've said in other Flash threads, expanded version:

I've hated flash websites since before the iPad (yes, way back then) and Flash deterred me from visiting sites which used it. When I visit a site which uses Flash, I blame the web designer. Not Apple, not some CEO, not Adobe. Websites should be as simple and accessible as possible; Flash is always optional unless your goal is literally 'use Flash'. Apple makes a product which doesn't accommodate Flash (which they are well within their rights and principles to do) and people take 'petulant' to a whole new level. Welp.

But yes, it's true, you can't watch moron videos and play dumb video games. If you want the option for Flash, it exists on other devices. Too bad Apple doesn't pander to you, or something.

If Apple disallowed Flash on the principle that it scooped profits, it wouldn't explain Netflix, the ability to import MP3s, why a company would offer a Flash game on the web for free but charge for it on the App Store, do we really need to do this again?

Fake edit: BaldiMac and fertilized-egg beat me to it. DUH! indeed.
 

PeterQVenkman

macrumors 68020
Mar 4, 2005
2,023
0
So I was on Kotaku today on an iPad and came across this link about COD:MW3.

http://www.findmakarov.com/

Please take out your iPads and enjoy this site for me. Now I'm not going to die if I don't get to see a stupid countdown on a website...but this is the sort of thing that pisses me off on an iPad. Cortex-A9 processors can easily handle Flash without draining batteries...implement it Apple!

The gawker network (of which kotaku is a member) is a perfect example of how the "death of flash" and HTML5 does not save anyone from ads or poor design.

It looks like a bad flash site now. Done in HTML and CSS.
 

PeterQVenkman

macrumors 68020
Mar 4, 2005
2,023
0
Why would a developer release a game for free on the web and charge for it in the App Store?

I don't know. Ask the makers of canabalt or the makers of games for adult swim. Both of them have free games in flash that cost money on the app store.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,725
10,802
I don't know. Ask the makers of canabalt or the makers of games for adult swim. Both of them have free games in flash that cost money on the app store.

I didn't say they wouldn't do it. Of course it happens often. The key question was "Why?" The answer probably isn't "So Apple can make money." And you ignored the rest of the questions that I posed as well about the same decision.

The gawker network (of which kotaku is a member) is a perfect example of how the "death of flash" and HTML5 does not save anyone from ads or poor design.

It looks like a bad flash site now. Done in HTML and CSS.

Except that isn't the real argument. The fact is that right now those annoying ads are most often done in Flash. The future isn't here yet.
 

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,443
4,138
Isla Nublar
But Flash is optimised...just look at the Playbook, Xoom and Touchpad. They all have Flash on Cortex-A9 chips, and from demos it works beautifully. The battery life for these iPad is amazing not because it doesn't use Flash, but because it uses ARM chips which are several folds more efficient than x86 chips.

Even the new more powerful Cortex-A9 (vs the iPads Cortex-A8) has better battery life (as shown in the Xoom) than the current iPad.

I don't think battery life is an issue as big as Apple has presented it to be...

No, its not optimized. Its far far from it. Please, look at the Xoom and use flash on it. Its a sluggish pig that eats battery life because Adobe doesn't want to re-write flash. Its obvious too since if you know anything about Adobe you'd know they are working on HTML 5 authoring tools. If you don't believe me go sign up for Adobe newsletters and go frolick in their forums. Adobe knows flash's reign is ending and they are doing the smart thing by making HTML5 authoring tools.

And no, the Xoom doesn't have a better battery life and this was comparing it to my iPad I had since launch.
 

wolfpackfan

macrumors 68000
Jun 10, 2007
1,547
16
Cary, NC
You don't have to. There are other platforms available. "No Flash on the iPad" is not a surprise so people either need to accept it for what it is or they can find alternatives that better suit their needs.

Why would I want to sell my iPad and buy something else when I absolutely love everything else about my iPad. I just wish it would do everything I want it to.
 

spinedoc77

macrumors G4
Jun 11, 2009
11,369
5,192
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice? It's like saying the ipad2 won't have wifi in it because when you use wifi it's been shown to decrease battery by 20%. The whole performance issue is a huge red herring, my samsung captivate runs Flash quite perfectly with no hiccups or crashes, it makes me look at my ip4 with disgust. I'm sure it uses more battery life, but this is pretty obvious. Just a lot of perpetuated myths that don't really answer the real question of why it's not on their for us to choose to use or not use.

It's an incredibly silly debate, Apple is laughing as they let the flash vs. no flash users blindly battle each other instead of asking the real questions.
 

wolfpackfan

macrumors 68000
Jun 10, 2007
1,547
16
Cary, NC
Have you written to your local paper and told them that there are readers that can't view their site on the device of their choice? Then after doing that, quit going to their website. As long as you switch to the laptop/ desktop, their visitor numbers will stay up. I know it might hurt a little. Or you could just get a Xoom and oops, never mind. :)

Actually I have and they blew me off.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,725
10,802
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice? It's like saying the ipad2 won't have wifi in it because when you use wifi it's been shown to decrease battery by 20%. The whole performance issue is a huge red herring, my samsung captivate runs Flash quite perfectly with no hiccups or crashes, it makes me look at my ip4 with disgust. I'm sure it uses more battery life, but this is pretty obvious. Just a lot of perpetuated myths that don't really answer the real question of why it's not on their for us to choose to use or not use.

It's an incredibly silly debate, Apple is laughing as they let the flash vs. no flash users blindly battle each other instead of asking the real questions.

That REAL question hasn't been ignored. It's been answered over and over again in this forum.
 

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,443
4,138
Isla Nublar
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice? It's like saying the ipad2 won't have wifi in it because when you use wifi it's been shown to decrease battery by 20%. The whole performance issue is a huge red herring, my samsung captivate runs Flash quite perfectly with no hiccups or crashes, it makes me look at my ip4 with disgust. I'm sure it uses more battery life, but this is pretty obvious. Just a lot of perpetuated myths that don't really answer the real question of why it's not on their for us to choose to use or not use.

It's an incredibly silly debate, Apple is laughing as they let the flash vs. no flash users blindly battle each other instead of asking the real questions.

There is no red herring. You said yourself that "I'm sure it uses more battery life, but this is pretty obvious". This is one of the reasons, if not the main reason Apple doesn't want it on their system.

Apple is about user experience, if something hinders that then they don't want it. As for "choice", many people have the choice not to buy the product if they don't like its capabilities.

I myself hate flash and never miss it.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,454
in a New York State of mind
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice? It's like saying the ipad2 won't have wifi in it because when you use wifi it's been shown to decrease battery by 20%. The whole performance issue is a huge red herring, my samsung captivate runs Flash quite perfectly with no hiccups or crashes, it makes me look at my ip4 with disgust. I'm sure it uses more battery life, but this is pretty obvious. Just a lot of perpetuated myths that don't really answer the real question of why it's not on their for us to choose to use or not use.

It's an incredibly silly debate, Apple is laughing as they let the flash vs. no flash users blindly battle each other instead of asking the real questions.

This may be the only answer we get...

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


Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

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.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

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.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

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?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

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.

Conclusions.

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.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010
 

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,411
1
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice?

It's a stupid question, because it's not like Apple is obliged to provide that choice. Let's suppose there's no Flash choice because some CEO just decided to not offer it out of spite (lmao). Now what? What difference does it make? You can feel slighted, I guess; go carry that around with you.
 

plinden

macrumors 601
Apr 8, 2004
4,029
142
why isn't it available now?
Thats what I said when my brand new iPad didn't have multitasking.

Not sure how that's relevant - Flash is totally different software from iOS 4.2 for the iPad.

However, if you're referring to the iPhone getting multitasking with iOS 4 in June 2010, where you had to wait a whole four months for 4.2 for the iPad ... Adobe has had close to four years to optimize Flash for mobile since the first iPhone release.

As for demos, I'm a software engineer ... I know just what a load of crock demos are. They're designed to look good. You keep the demo out of the hands of the people you're showing it to so they don't see the seams ... gee, just like the demos Adobe's done of Flash.

I'm actually working right now on something that had a demo twelve months ago, something to show the executives to get a go ahead to develop. We've only just gone to beta.
 

spinedoc77

macrumors G4
Jun 11, 2009
11,369
5,192
It's a stupid question, because it's not like Apple is obliged to provide that choice. Let's suppose there's no Flash choice because some CEO just decided to not offer it out of spite (lmao). Now what? What difference does it make? You can feel slighted, I guess; go carry that around with you.

It's not a stupid question, although it was rhetorical because we do know the answers, whether it's the financial ties Apple enjoys with HTML5 or it really is that Jobso has a personal vendetta. The time when there was only a single viable tablet option has just ended, and there are only going to be more and more choices on the market. If you are an Apple shareholder the stubborn lack of Flash should concern you. If you are only a consumer the lack of Flash will make most of you at least consider the alternatives. I'm both a consumer and a stock holder and I feel it's an appropriate curiosity to have about Flash.

But you missed the entire point of my post. Why debate the supposed shortcomings of Flash when it's such a prevalent standard? It's like debating bluetooth, or debating javascript, or debating even having a web browser.
 

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,411
1
But you missed the entire point of my post. Why debate the supposed shortcomings of Flash when it's such a prevalent standard? It's like debating bluetooth, or debating javascript, or debating even having a web browser.

When you have data on how many people bought a competing tablet instead of an iPad because of Flash, let us know, it would be very interesting.

If a product doesn't come with X and X is that important to me then I won't buy it. Not sure what real questions I need to ask beyond that.
 

spinedoc77

macrumors G4
Jun 11, 2009
11,369
5,192
When you have data on how many people bought a competing tablet instead of an iPad because of Flash, let us know, it would be very interesting.

If a product doesn't come with X and X is that important to me then I won't buy it. Not sure what real questions I need to ask beyond that.

What's telling is that the tech companies are using their devices having Flash as a marketing advantage and are using it in their ads. You asked the very same question consumers ask when determining to buy a product or not buy it, so I don't fathom how it couldn't be an important question. Maybe it's not an important question to *you* because you don't need "X", but it is still an important question to consumers who do feel they need it.
 

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,411
1
What's telling is that the tech companies are using their devices having Flash as a marketing advantage and are using it in their ads. You asked the very same question consumers ask when determining to buy a product or not buy it, so I don't fathom how it couldn't be an important question. Maybe it's not an important question to *you* because you don't need "X", but it is still an important question to consumers who do feel they need it.

Yes, they are using whatever they can to differentiate their products from Apple's. This doesn't mean those differences will or should matter to consumers.

The question 'does it have Flash' is an important question if someone wants Flash. Yet you said "The REAL question is why it's not on there to choose to use or not". Still not sure why that question is so real. If I'm looking at a product and it doesn't have what I need, I don't waste any time saying whyyy, I move on pretty quick. If it doesn't have what I need, who cares why? Oh, it's because of Steve Jobs' personality, well then, that makes zero difference to anything ever, since the product hasn't changed.
 

spinedoc77

macrumors G4
Jun 11, 2009
11,369
5,192
Yes, they are using whatever they can to differentiate their products from Apple's. This doesn't mean those differences will or should matter to consumers.

The question 'does it have Flash' is an important question if someone wants Flash. Yet you said "The REAL question is why it's not on there to choose to use or not". Still not sure why that question is so real.

Because Flash is a huge part of the internet experience, no matter how you slice and dice it. Apple is not altruistically banning Flash because of some knight in shining armor desire to make the world better. Consumers, especially non tech savvy consumers who are really the dirty masses with the money, are going to be asking "why can't I watch this video, why can't I view this webpage?".
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,376
13,412
Midlife, Midwest
Why is it that so MANY of you miss the real question. The REAL question is why don't we have the choice?

That's sort of like asking, "Why doesn't Audi offer an optional 8-track player in their 2011 models?"

With any consumer tech device, there comes a point at which it no longer makes sense to support certain older technologies. Remember, there were howls of outrage when Apple dropped floppy disk drives from their desktops.

And yet, just a few years later, the absence of floppy drives is neither missed, nor remarked upon.

I certainly don't need to repeat Steve Job's litany of complaints RE: Flash. But what I DO wonder about, is what compelling reason is their for anyone to particularly WANT Flash? What sites and/or internet experiences can ONLY be enjoyed and experienced using this ancient, buggy, inefficient, and insecure technology?
 

Carouser

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2010
1,411
1
Because Flash is a huge part of the internet experience, no matter how you slice and dice it. Apple is not altruistically banning Flash because of some knight in shining armor desire to make the world better. Consumers, especially non tech savvy consumers who are really the dirty masses with the money, are going to be asking "why can't I watch this video, why can't I view this webpage?".

But now you are missing the point - it still doesn't matter why Flash isn't there, yet that is the question you said we all need to ask. If Flash isn't there because Jobs said so, because magic made it happen, or for technical reasons, the consequences are the same regardless. Okay, I get it, Flash is all over the web, the iPad doesn't play it.

"Oh, I thought it didn't have Flash because Apple thought it didn't suit the device. But now you tell me it's because Steve Jobs has poor intentions! Well then, I had better change absolutely none of my behavior, because what you tell me is irrelevant to everything."

When those consumers can't watch video or see a webpage, they aren't going to blame Jobs or Adobe because they have no idea what either is. They're going to blame the webpage. It doesn't matter what they blame, either, because the website loses traffic and revenue as a result either way.
 

spinedoc77

macrumors G4
Jun 11, 2009
11,369
5,192
That's sort of like asking, "Why doesn't Audi offer an optional 8-track player in their 2011 models?"

With any consumer tech device, there comes a point at which it no longer makes sense to support certain older technologies. Remember, there were howls of outrage when Apple dropped floppy disk drives from their desktops.

And yet, just a few years later, the absence of floppy drives is neither missed, nor remarked upon.

I certainly don't need to repeat Steve Job's litany of complaints RE: Flash. But what I DO wonder about, is what compelling reason is their for anyone to particularly WANT Flash? What sites and/or internet experiences can ONLY be enjoyed and experienced using this ancient, buggy, inefficient, and insecure technology?

But it's an important question to the person who wants or feels they need the 8 track player, although Flash to the internet experience is MUCH more important than a 8 track player in an Audi lol. I'm not defending Flash, but in my experience I just don't see it as being negative in any way, it's just something else that contributes to my internet experience.

As for what sites use Flash, well for me it's almost all the sites I visit. I like tech blogs quite a bit, the vast majority of them use Flash for their review videos and such. I do a lot of medical research and most if not all of the videos I need to access are Flash based. News sites, CNN, etc have Flash based video which would be nice to watch. I'm sure I'm just touching a very few sites which have Flash on them in some form. You know the funny part, Macrumors.com has Flash video also, right on their front page today there are 2 articles with Flash video.

In the end the question I propose we ask is why don't we have the choice. Ok take yourself, you say Flash is bad, but if you had the choice to turn it off on your ipad browser what impact would it make on you?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.