Do iPad users still want FLASH?

[zergy]

No, it still crashes Safari on my Mac more than anything else. This is why iPad has become my go-to browser. AFAIK I have not missed it once and if others do it is for streaming video, for which I simply use Splashtop and VNC into my macbook, which can handle it better.

There is also Skyfire, but since I purchased it I have not found it necessary/useful since compatibility is lacking for so many sites.

However, like you I did pick up the Touchpad this weekend, both to tinker with getting MEEGO up on it and because I miss the notification system of my Pré.

I picture it being a nightstand-type device similar to Dash/Chumby for falling asleep to TV and waking to RSS/Weather feeds, maybe security-cam duties, for which more comprehensive accessibility to web video may be useful. Maybe a little LogMeIn via the web-portal while my friends play with the iPad.

But it will be relegated to this duty, rather than coming with me to work, since I cannot rely on it to not freeze/crash or to hold a charge all day, both of which problems are notoriously linked to implementation of flash, and both of which I have observed when using such sites on my Macbook.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Sorry, around 5% or 6%. Does that change the point in any way?

Did you not read what's in the parenthesis? Have you not upgraded from one iDevice to a new generation? If you have upgraded, your unit sales would be counted more than once but you would be only 1 iOS user.

Apple doesn't reveal total number of unique iOS users. There is some speculation but it's just speculation. Lots of iDevice sales are people who bought earlier generations buying later generations... sometimes more than once.

I'm tired of trying here. Believe what you wish.

Fini!

 

[BaldiMac]

Did you not read what's in the parenthesis? Have you not upgraded from one iDevice to a new generation? If you have upgraded, your unit sales would be counted more than once but you would be only 1 iOS user.

Apple doesn't reveal total number of unique iOS users. There is some speculation but it's just speculation. Lots of iDevice sales are people who bought earlier generations buying later generations... sometimes more than once.

I'm tired of trying here. Believe what you wish.

Fini!

Wrong again.

200 million iOS users as of July 2011.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This amounts to zero incentive for Apple to implement this. Disrupt their interface with notifications for activating Flash and a link to something that will never be read,

They already do this. Try installing any app on a Mac. Do you read those terms of use pop ups, etc?

I don't think this really fits with Apple's vision for the end-user experience. It's far worse then 'oh, this site doesn't work, welp, time to do something else'.

Of course not. Apple's made it extraordinarily clear that they don't want Flash on these iDevices. The threads question is about USERS not Apple.

"I want Flash for X reasons" is a far leap from "Apple has X reasons for implementing Flash". They have very few reasons to do so, and absolutely no obligation to do so; I've yet to be convinced otherwise.

Customer happiness? As an Apple customer I (for one) would be happier with my iDevice if I was allowed to have Flash player on it.

Certainly, Apple has NO obligation to do anything. But we are given the choice to install all kinds of software-including Flash- on our Macs and that seems to work well for Apple. Why does this have to be different? Let users choose for themselves is better than having some company choose for them.

Lastly, it's not about convincing you otherwise. The fundamental difference in every one of these kinds of discussion here is that my side is wanting an OPTION that could affect as little as just ourselves, NOT forcing that option on others, while the counter seems to be "I don't want Flash so no one should want it". I don't want to force a player on you or Baldi or anyone happy with things as they are. But I would get even more use out of my own iDevice if this option was available to me.

I'm not alone in this (see the 1,000,000 tries from iOS users in a single month reference in prior posts). Apparently, there are lots of iOS users that desire the OPTION to consume some Flash media on their devices. Denying them that option is a negative customer experience times 1,000,000 per month. Give them that option and even more utility is realized with these "magical" devices. No loss whatsoever to those who choose NOT to take advantage of that "app".

----------

Wrong again.

200 million iOS users as of July 2011.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html

That's PR spin. Apple is basically saying "we've sold 200 million of these things so we've tallied 200 million users". I agree with Apple in that every one they sold since that first iPhone was sold has probably been used. But we both should recognize that a lot of those people are the same user replacing older iDevices with newer ones.

 

[Piggie]

Part of the problem with the question is that you are asking the wrong people.

Without getting into the Adobe is Lazy, or Apple did not give them the info needed to make it work well.
You are asking a lot of people who have struggled with Flash due to Apple and Adobe acting like children (or one of them)

You are not really asking if they want flash or would like flash as these people can't give you a honest answer as what they think they are being asked is, to you want something that may run slow and/or crash their systems which is their Apple experience, then of course they are going to say no.

They are not saying no to flash, even if they might think they are. They are saying no to the flash/experience they have had in the past.

An analogy:

Say I life in a town where we have a fantastic cook, who makes beef to tender and juicy it just falls off the bone, it's superb and we all love the beef.

Over the hill in Appleton, they have a rubbish cook, he cant cook beef well to save his life, no-one likes it or wants it.

We have a debate between the two towns, and of course Appleton's folk don't want beef on the menu. Not because there is actually anything wrong with beef, but their experience of beef has always been a bad one, so they can't really give any other viewpoint.

If flash ran as smooth as silk on a mac, and had done for decades, and due to Microsoft and Adobe not getting along, it made PC's crash and fall over all the time, then the whole argument would be the other way round with Apple fans standing up for flash.

No one would want to not have access to something by choice. You don't choose to have less choice. But if your experience has been bad, then you are naturally going to stay away from something.

 

[BaldiMac]

I included a link in my response. Did you not click it? Here it is again: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/201...-xp-loses-its-majority-share-of-web-users.ars Note in this one that for your belief to be correct, IE9 should be heavily loaded vs. IE8, IE7 and IE6. In actuality, it's got the least share of the 4 generations of that browser.

And amazingly, Ars's number don't support your claim.

I also encouraged you to read the very links you shared with me as "proof" as IE8 is not IE9, Firefox 3.6 is not Firefox 6 and so on.

I did read them. They were from 2010, so of course they are not going to have IE9 and Firefox 6 numbers. If 71% of users upgraded to the latest version in 2010, why would you think that the "vast majority" are not on an HTML5-capable browser in mid-2011?

Here's a pretty good link: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201007-201107 Note where the "latest browsers" fall vs older browsers like IE8, IE7, IE6 etc. There's plenty more like this one.

Seriously? That chart is for one day! Amazing how much less critical you are of the numbers when it supports your argument.

Here is a graph for the last 3 months from the same site.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201105-201107

Chrome 12 - 20%
Firefox 5 - 14%
IE 9 - 7%
Firefox 4 3%
Safari 5 3%

That's 47% with good HTML5 support. Plus, add in Opera and newer versions of Chrome and you are probably over 50%.

IE8 and FF3.6 add another 40% with limited HTML5 support.

Again, the numbers show that your claim that the "vast majority" of internet users can't access HTML5 is wrong.

----------

That's PR spin. Apple is basically saying "we've sold 200 million of these things so we've tallied 200 million users". I agree with Apple in that every one they sold since that first iPhone was sold has probably been used. But we both should recognize that a lot of those people are the same user replacing older iDevices with newer ones.

Again, what's your point? You are arguing a difference in numbers that doesn't matter to the discussion. So if you are right and there are only 120 million iOS users, that's still only 10%. How does that support your point?

 

[Carouser]

They already do this. Try installing any app on a Mac. Do you read those terms of use pop ups, etc?

I know they do this on Macs. It's not a good reason for bringing it into the iOS environment.

If the thread is about some users' opinions, it's already obvious that some want Flash. Any discussion beyond that is whether it is a good idea for Apple to satisfy those demands. Of course someone who wants Flash thinks they have great reasons why it should be implemented. A better question is why anybody else (such as Apple or a developer) should acquire the same opinion. Thus what I said in my earlier post.

The rest about 'what's wrong with just having the option' has failed to seriously consider the negative externalities it entails.

EDIT: People clicking on a Flash install in iOS Safari are not therefore saying 'I want a Flash option (with full knowledge of all the consequences)'. How many of them are just 'huh? This didn't load?' clicks?

EDIT 2: And how many of those clicks were for content that could only be offered in Flash? How much was for content that could be just as easily provided through simple HTML? The assumption is that Apple is unfairly targeting sites which can't help but rely on Flash, when I'm willing to bet idiot web developers hold some responsibility for making this stuff inaccessible by iOS users.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

No one would want to not have access to something by choice. You don't choose to have less choice. But if your experience has been bad, then you are naturally going to stay away from something.

But that's exactly the point of choice. We should not assume that everyone has had a bad experience with Flash "for decades". For example, I certainly am not in that camp. Has it provided a "smooth as silk" experience. No. But sometimes iMovie is far from smooth as silk. Sometimes iTunes is not smooth as silk. Sometimes OS X crashes for no apparent reason. Not often (like- for me- Flash issues are not that often) but I wouldn't argue that those programs should be arbitrarily banned either.

Choice allows the person who has had a bad experience with something to choose NOT to take another bite of "that bad beef". There's an abundant number of poorly-rated apps on the app store that I can download right now. For some, there are overwhelmingly negative ratings which ONE might say is good evidence that "nearly everyone thinks this is a bad app." But in spite of all that, if I want to download and try it for myself, I can do that.

Where you're absolutely correct is that this is the wrong place to ask this question. Here the dominant opinion mostly flows with whatever Apple says or does and flips as quickly as Apple flips. When Steve thought video on an iPod was not a good idea, it was not a good idea here... until Steve rolled out iPod with video... then it was a great idea. Intel was terrible, kludgey hardware inferior to PowerPC until Steve said it was the other way (and then it was). I recall passionate arguments against an iSight camera making sense in an iPad when version 1 rolled out and then some of the very same people making passionate cases for an iSight camera just one year later... when iPad 2 rolled out with one.

And this list could become quite long.

Apple has public statements against Flash. So the crowd here is against Flash. People have posted all kinds of things to support Apple's view. A few have posted counterpoints. In the end, should the OPTION become available, I'd certainly download it as it would make the thing more useful for my own purposes.

 

[Carouser]

Here the dominant opinion mostly flows with whatever Apple says or does and flips as quickly as Apple flips. When Steve thought video on an iPod was not a good idea, it was not a good idea here... until Steve rolled out iPod with video... then it was a great idea. Intel was terrible, kludgey hardware inferior to PowerPC until Steve said it was the other way (and then it was). I recall passionate arguments against an iSight camera making sense in an iPad when version 1 rolled out and then some of the very same people making passionate cases for an iSight camera just one year later... when iPad 2 rolled out with one.

I'm not sure if this is an example of a smear or of poisoning the well. I think it's a smear, because it's meant to discredit respondents, without naming them, by lumping them into some demonized group not even present in the current discussion.

 

[BaldiMac]

But that's exactly the point of choice. We should not assume that everyone has had a bad experience with Flash "for decades". For example, I certainly am not in that camp. Has it provided a "smooth as silk" experience. No. But sometimes iMovie is far from smooth as silk. Sometimes iTunes is not smooth as silk. Sometimes OS X crashes for no apparent reason. Not often (like- for me- Flash issues are not that often) but I wouldn't argue that those programs should be arbitrarily banned either.

Choice allows the person who has had a bad experience with something to choose NOT to take another bite of "that bad beef". There's an abundant number of poorly-rated apps on the app store that I can download right now. For some, there are overwhelmingly negative ratings which ONE might say is good evidence that "nearly everyone thinks this is a bad app." But in spite of all that, if I want to download and try it for myself, I can do that.

Where you're absolutely correct is that this is the wrong place to ask this question. Here the dominant opinion mostly flows with whatever Apple says or does and flips as quickly as Apple flips. When Steve thought video on an iPod was not a good idea, it was not a good idea here... until Steve rolled out iPod with video... then it was a great idea. Intel was terrible, kludgey hardware inferior to PowerPC until Steve said it was the other way (and then it was). I recall passionate arguments against an iSight camera making sense in an iPad when version 1 rolled out and then some of the very same people making passionate cases for an iSight camera just one year later... when iPad 2 rolled out with one.

And this list could become quite long.

Apple has public statements against Flash. So the crowd here is against Flash. People have posted all kinds of things to support Apple's view. A few have posted counterpoints. In the end, should the OPTION become available, I'd certainly download it as it would make the thing more useful for my own purposes.

Oh, bull. There you go with your over-generalizing again. Some people irrationally defend Apple. Some people irrationally hate Apple. Those are facts. Doesn't mean any of them are in this thread. Unless you can find evidence of one of the people in the thread flip-flopping on Apple's whims, then please stop with the stereotypical crap.

It's funny how you champion choice in this discussion, even though you are the one that is actually arguing to take it away.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm not sure if this is an example of a smear or of poisoning the well. I think it's a smear, because it's meant to discredit respondents, without naming them, by lumping them into some demonized group not even present in the current discussion.

but that doesn't go the other way? Have you not noticed how in any threads here when anyone goes counter to the collective vision Apple lays out what happens to them and their opinion? If not, see above. I'm interested in Flash for my own purposes and look what kind of counters that gets.

 

[Carouser]

but that doesn't go the other way. Have you not noticed how in any threads here when anyone goes counter to the collective vision Apple lays out what happens to them and their opinion?

1) irrelevant tangent
2) it's just the opposite: if you're generally happy with Apple products and would rather discuss them instead of harping on subjective grievances which will never be satisfied and praising competitor's products then it's 'fanboy kool-aid Steve Jobs sheep blablabla'

 

[Piggie]

See this site works on a computer and the iPad, but it looks nicer on a computer.
It's only a very small difference, but it just adds that extra little bit:

http://www.tiffany.co.uk/?omcid=UKG...Branded+New+-+Exact&utm_term=13374628-Tiffany

 

[FloatingBones]

Unless of course the website really needs mixed media, interactive media, etc, for which then you need to go with solutions that work for the whole world of Internet users (Flash) plus the relatively small minority (iDevice users) locked out of Flash.

@HobeSoundDarryl: there are over a quarter of a billion iOS devices. Please turn those real numbers into relevant percentages.

You have also ignored users who have de-installed Flash from their computers and companies that have gotten rid of high-risk apps like Adobe Reader, Shockwave, and Adobe Flash on all of their corporate machines.

It's time to upgrade your world-view. iOS devices now number over a quarter of a billion. Please start calling them a medium-sized minority.

How many iOS devices will it take before you start labeling the Flash-free users as a large minority?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

EDIT: People clicking on a Flash install in iOS Safari are not therefore saying 'I want a Flash option (with full knowledge of all the consequences)'. How many of them are just 'huh? This didn't load?' clicks?

I'm not saying that. What the stat shows is that more than a million people in a single month tried to make Flash go on their own iDevice. Of course, neither of us can know whether it was with full knowledge of all consequences. However, if the latter must apply or else it is justified to forbid the option, then all software would need to be forbidden. Every app I download comes without the certainty of all consequences. I never have full knowledge of something I'm about to download from the app store. We try things. They work for us or they don't. They help us do more with our iDevices or they don't. But as individuals, it sure is nice getting to choose rather than having the choice made for us.

EDIT 2: And how many of those clicks were for content that could only be offered in Flash? How much was for content that could be just as easily provided through simple HTML? The assumption is that Apple is unfairly targeting sites which can't help but rely on Flash, when I'm willing to bet idiot web developers hold some responsibility for making this stuff inaccessible by iOS users.

Everything could be isolated out of Flash and shared in something as simple as just plain text if desired. We could do away with all media and reduce the web to just plain text or maybe plain text & static images (like it was in the earliest days). Then, we don't need HTML5 either- we can return to HTML1 or 2, which already works with our iDevices and all other computers worldwide.

The issue here is that to embrace the "what can't be redone in just HTML?" means that the whole web has to change to solve the problem. That change may very well arrive... eventually. But between now and then, the whole web is as it is. While we wait for it to all change to fit how Apple wants us to consume it, it would be nice for those interested to have a bridge between the present and that future capability... you know, just like we have on Apple Macs.

 

[BaldiMac]

While we wait for it to all change to fit how Apple wants us to consume it, it would be nice for those interested to have a bridge between the present and that future capability... you know, just like we have on Apple Macs.

And some of us would prefer not to have a bridge if it will delay the widespread adoption of future capabilities.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

@HobeSoundDarryl: there are over a quarter of a billion iOS devices. Please turn those real numbers into relevant percentages.

Not sure where you got that number, but here's Apple's own press release from just about 1.5 months ago...

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html

I don't believe they've sold another 50 million (one fifth of all iOS devices ever sold) in the last 1.5 months, but since I can't know that for sure, I'll leave that one to each reader's imagination. If you know for sure, please post the evidence that shows it. If sales have spiked up another 50 million iOS devices in just 1.5 months since Apple reported 200 million units, we all need to go buy a whole lot of Apple stock right now.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not sure where you got that number, but here's Apple's own press release from just about 1.5 months ago...

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html

I don't believe they've sold another 50 million (one fifth of all iOS devices ever sold) in the last 1.5 months, but since I can't know that for sure, I'll leave that one to each reader's imagination. If you know for sure, please post the evidence that shows it. If sales have spiked up to 50 million iOS devices in just 1.5 months since Apple reported 200 million units, we all need to go buy a whole lot of Apple stock right now.

The link you provided said over 200 million iOS devices. Apple actually hit 200 million before WWDC in early June. So it's been almost 3 months. Last quarter, Apple sold around 35 million iOS devices. 250 million isn't a bad estimate, even though it's a little high.

 

[Carouser]

The issue here is that to embrace the "what can't be redone in just HTML?" means that the whole web has to change to solve the problem.

No, it means that content not available for iOS devices has to be changed if the people offering it want it available on iOS devices. This is far from the whole web. Apple, developers, and consumers are all free to offer and choose what they want under conditions they are free to make.

'Making a bridge' for those isolated cases has those negative externalities I and others have mentioned earlier. People have their reasons for wanting Flash. Apple has their reasons for not incorporating it. Unless you are arguing that Apple should offer Flash for reasons that might matter to Apple, there is not much to be said. You might as well argue that Apple should offer blue iPads, because the choice is better than no choice (or any other argument which reiterates the opinion but has zero bearing on Apple).

 

[kelub]

Would I like the individual user OPTION for a Flash player on my iDevice? Absolutely. If I want to "burn my battery faster", "crash Safari 10 times a day", and so on, shouldn't that be MY choice?

I can tell you exactly why. Let me use an example.

I used to own a Jeep, and had it at the dealership getting something routine done on it. I was chatting it up with the head of service, and he got talking about how pretty much all car manufacturers require nearly everything, even down to the smallest maintenance or repair work, to be done at the dealership for warranty work, etc., and how much it's changed from the "mom and pop mechanic" days. He said the reason is that quite frequently, someone would take their vehicle to a mom and pop shop, pay $800 for repair work, and get subpar service. The vehicle might function for a while, but ultimately would break down or have more problems because the original problem was never actually fixed. People didn't blame their local mechanics, they blamed Chrysler or Chevy or whoever.

Now, that's not to say they weren't making subpar products already, but I got a bigger picture from the conversation, and a better understanding of why companies like Apple impose some of the control that they do. If flash sucked on the iPad, I mean really sucked (and I have to agree with an earlier post -- I also have owned an Android device that supported flash natively, and it was *awful*), would average consumers blame Adobe, or would they say "man this iPad thing really sucks for web browsing" and feel bitter about the experience? I believe the latter would happen overwhelmingly. The average consumer would accept that 1) flash is prevalent on the interwebz, and 2) the iPad sucks for looking at the interwebz. The End. They wouldn't understand that Adobe has had years to improve the mobile experience but failed time and again to provide a clean, simple flash solution for mobile devices.

Additionally, were Apple to have simply accepted flash the way it is, there would not be an industry-wide push to go to a better format. What would be the point if flash was technically accessible by all devices? Because of Apple's stand, HTML5 has flourished the past couple of years. The success of the iPad has forced content providers to change how they provide material to users. I worked for a university as the online education systems administrator, and the iPad forced us to aggressively update our video streaming options to phase out flash. Yes, as a content provider, it was a hassle, but as a consumer, I believe it was the right thing to do.

As far as whether or not I personally miss flash, I have yet to come across a site I *really* wanted/needed to access but couldn't because it had flash. there have been a couple of sites I've casually visited that were inaccessible, but it was their loss since I simply found a competitor's site that WAS accessible from my iPad/iPhone.

 

[Piggie]

Out of interest, will you be able to turn off HTML5 in the browser?

 

[BaldiMac]

Out of interest, will you be able to turn off HTML5 in the browser?

If you ask that question, I'm not sure you know what HTML5 is. You do realize that HTML is what most webpages are built with? Maybe you were referring to a specific HTML5 related technology?

 

[kelub]

Plus, the "1,000,000,000,000,000" however many people "trying" to access flash...? That sounds really out of context. I may visit a site not knowing that it has flash on it which won't play. I may click a link that says "click to watch the video" and not find out until after I click it that it requires flash. Just because it's there doesn't mean I set out to find it, and just because I clicked it doesn't mean that I really, really wish flash was accessible. Are they including ads not loading etc in that number?

The iPad has been around for 2 years now, and the iPhone/iPod Touch have been around for going on 5 years. The flash thing is not new. If it was *so* restrictive, *such* an issue with consumers, then I'd imagine that by now, the market would have reflected that. iPads wouldn't be flying off shelves while android tablets collected dust; the iPhone wouldn't continue to be one of the most popular phones with consumers (android is popular because it's cheap, and on a lot of cheap phones, NOT because it's superior); Adobe wouldn't need to create a "flash to HTML5 converter" tool, etc.

Bottom line: the lack of flash is a non-issue, even less so today than when the device was first offered for sale.

----------

Out of interest, will you be able to turn off HTML5 in the browser?

Flash requires a plug-in to run, therefore you can "turn it off" by disabling the plug-in (or not having it installed in the first place). HTML5 is simply the latest version of HTML code, and all it does is tell the browser "this is video." It's almost as simple as saying "<video>locationofvideo.mp4</video>" - your browser just needs to recognize what codec to use to play the video. That's where we're at right now - agreeing on what codec should be the "standard." Not all browsers support all video codecs.

 

[FloatingBones]

Not sure where you got that number, but here's Apple's own press release from just about 1.5 months ago...

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html

I don't believe they've sold another 50 million (one fifth of all iOS devices ever sold) in the last 1.5 months, but since I can't know that for sure, I'll leave that one to each reader's imagination.

Nothing needs to be left for the imagination, Hobe. It looks as if your numbers may be off. You should look at the announcement of Apple's Q3 2011 financial results. During the call, which happened on July 19, 2011, Apple announced that over 222 million iOS devices have been sold.

If you now go look at Apple's Press Release of Q3 results, you'll see that Apple sold 20.34 million iPhones in Q3 and 9.25 million iPads ("sold every iPad we could make"). Apple also noted total sales of 33 million iOS devices.

As Apple's document notes, Q3 ended on June 25, 2011; we're roughly 2/3 into Q4.

If you know for sure, please post the evidence that shows it. If sales have spiked up another 50 million iOS devices in just 1.5 months since Apple reported 200 million units, we all need to go buy a whole lot of Apple stock right now.

Why the sarcasm? Why the personal attacks -- especially when your 200M number from "1.5 months ago" was off by at least 22 million units. Let's have a calm and rational discussion, OK?

First: only Apple can give audited numbers. What we can do is do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

To get to a quarter of a billion devices, 28 million iOS (and NOT your 50 million) would have had to have been sold in the last 2 months (2/3 of the quarter). If you extrapolate sales to the quarter, that means that 28 * 1.5 = 42 million iOS devices will have to be sold in Q4.

This number is quite within the estimates. These guys estimate sales of 30M iPhones. This will be the first quarter where iPad manufacturing capability has caught up with demand; countries like Brazil are finally getting the iPad 2 this quarter. I see estimates in the range of 12M to 15M. iPod touch sales are off; I would expect numbers somewhere around 3.5M. Looks like somewhere around 45M iOS devices in Q4 to me. What estimate do you get?

Let's have some quid pro quo in this discussion. Earlier today, you said:

Unless of course the website really needs mixed media, interactive media, etc, for which then you need to go with solutions that work for the whole world of Internet users (Flash) plus the relatively small minority (iDevice users) locked out of Flash.

When you include laptops and desktops that have de-installed Adobe Flash and corporations that don't allow Flash, even you should agree that there are already over a quarter-billion Flash-free devices in the world.

It's time to upgrade your world-view. There are over a quarter-billion Flash-free devices in the world; calling them a "small minority" is dreadfully inappropriate. At the very least, you should be calling them a medium-sized minority.

How many iOS devices will it take before you start labeling the Flash-free users as a large minority?

 

[FloatingBones]

Without getting into the Adobe is Lazy, or Apple did not give them the info needed to make it work well.You are asking a lot of people who have struggled with Flash due to Apple and Adobe acting like children (or one of them)

You look like another person who hasn't read the Thoughts on Flash memo. The most important reason that Flash was excluded from iOS has nothing to do with efficiency or security.

They are not saying no to flash, even if they might think they are. They are saying no to the flash/experience they have had in the past.

They are saying no to the fundamental problems with the architectural framework in flash. Search on the words

Flash broke WORA

on macrumors.com if you missed those messages the first time around.

An analogy:
[...]
If flash ran as smooth as silk on a mac, and had done for decades, and due to Microsoft and Adobe not getting along, it made PC's crash and fall over all the time, then the whole argument would be the other way round with Apple fans standing up for flash.

Your analogy completely ignores the most important reason that Flash was excluded from iOS.

No one would want to not have access to something by choice. You don't choose to have less choice. But if your experience has been bad, then you are naturally going to stay away from something.

Interesting choice of words! When Flash is in use, accessibility widgets do not work. People who need accessibility widgets want just as much access to their computers as everyone else. They would not choose to have less choice -- but that's exactly what happens when they encounter a Flash website.

Have you read Jobs's memo? Did you note what Jobs called out as the most important problem with Flash?

Do you understand the problem that Flash creates for accessibility?