Do iPad users still want FLASH?

[FloatingBones]

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.

Well, duh! No vendor reveals the number of unique users of their products, because there's no way for them to possibly know.

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

What we notice is that you challenge other people's claims, they explain them, while you fail to explain your own claims. I challenged you to explain your "small minority" claim:

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.

I noted that there were over a quarter-billion iOS devices. You challenged me to explain that number, and I did so here. On the other hand, you have never explained your "small minority" comment. Please explain the reasoning behind your phrase. Thanks!

I think apple are wrong, they should have let the consumer choose by being able to select on or off in the settings tab.

Many may not have considered: the design philosophy and choices that made the iPhone/iPad great would have been fundamentally undermined by adding Flash to the package. Adding Flash would have undermined their choice in many ways, including a comprehensive solution to the problem of accessibility on the web. AFAICT, Flash and accessibly are mutually incompatible. Apple's design decision will accelerate the eradication of Flash on the web -- a great boom for all users needing accessibility aids.

You are free to disagree with that opinion. You are free to choose: buy the iPad, buy some other tablet, buy some other kind of computer, or buy nothing at all. Please note: the runaway success of all of the iOS devices indicates that the public really likes Apple's design decisions. And describing these users as a "small minority" just doesn't cut it.

YES I want Flash, BUT as a standalone App.

Flash on web sites need to DIE, but I have a number of flash games I want to play on iPad.

Agreed. Flash developers can now cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store. I am really surprised of the small number of developers who have take advantage of this significant-and-growing platform for their games. If there are certain Flash games you want, please contact their developers directly and ask them to put their games into the App Store.

"Thanks for trying to access Flash Player. Unfortunately it is not available for your device because of restrictions that Apple has put in place. Click to see a wide array of the latest smartphones and tablets that do support Adobe's Flash Player." Notice, the word. It clearly says "Restrictions", meaning that could be an interpretation as, "we could have done it if Apple allowed us."

I don't think anybody disagrees with this. Apple chose to make their iOS browser Flash-free. Jobs explained why in detail here.

@darn: how about your website? Can you cross-compile your homepage into HTML5?

Do you care to update your definition of Adobe's "full internet experience"/"full web experience" phrase

Full interent is not marketing, it is the entire internet. Its viewing any site you want without having to resort to work arounds.

No I can't because as I already mentioned Adobe's cross compiler does not handle several things including ActionScript code.

You can't update your definition of "full web experience" because of some limitation in Adobe's compiler?

@darn: Adobe's phrase "full web experience" was a non-starter from the beginning. It's just a code-phrase for "Adobe Flash". Your definition doesn't work, either: there are all sorts of sites that contain code that doesn't run in your current browser. "any site you want" is way too squishy a phrase to have in a definition. I like Mathematica demonstrations, but there's not a way for me to play the CDF files on an Android phone. My "full web experience" is unfulfilled. If you think "full web experience" has some real meaning, please give it a meaningful definition. Until you do, we'll just score it as a marketing phrase.

I also don't buy that Flash would make iOS less secure. Apple has been extremely successful at locking down iOS from problems, this is evident from how hard it is to jailbreak the devices, and the complete lack of viruses/malware. I have no problem believing Flash for iOS would not have access to the file system.

If you cross-compile your code with Adobe's iOS packager and submit the Flash code to Apple, they will be happy to approve it and make it available to the public. If a problem is later found in your code, your app will be pulled from the store. If the problem is dire, Apple can even remotely deactivate the app from all the iOS devices that installed it.

There's a huge difference between that process and letting arbitrary Flash code (or, more precisely, unsigned Flash code snippets) run under the browser. If Flash could corrupt the running browser, then all sorts of bad behavior in the browser could happen (including leaking of accounts and passwords). Access to the file system would not even be required to wreak havoc!

Why do you want to talk about security? Let's talk first talk about the most important problem that Jobs cited in his memo. That would be the rational place to start that discussion.

I could make a boring version of the site without any animations. You keep trying to pin this on Adobe's marketing, but currently the full internet as its commonly known includes Flash. Plain and simple.

Adobe is publicly advocating ditching Flash on websites and only putting up HTML5. This comes from none less than the Principal Product Manager at Adobe. If you think Adobe somehow disagrees with what this senior product manager is saying, then please provide your evidence.

WRT your comments about Wallaby, Adobe's Flash->HTML5 tool, and your darngooddesign website, I see four possibilities:

1. You don't understand how the tool works and/or how the capabilities have been enhanced since John Nack's announcement last fall.
2. It is possible for Wallaby to generate satisfactory CSS/Javascript/HTML5 code in the future, but the current capabilities are lacking.
3. There exists ways to generate CSS/Javascript/HTML5 code, but it will never be within the scope or capabilities of Wallaby to be able to do it.
4. There will never ever be any way to do what you want that is within the capabilities of CSS/Javascript/HTML5

Which one is it? We don't know, and we don't really care. It's your job to sort that out, and it's your job to ensure that your webpage is compatible. If you disagree with the technical capabilities of Adobe's products, you should take it up with Adobe. If you disagree with John Nack's recommendation to ditch Flash, you should take it up with Adobe. Complaining here about Adobe's technical and marketing decisions on this forum is a rather pointless exercise. One exception: if you find leaders in Adobe that do actually disagree with John Nack and agree with your point of view, providing a reference would contribute to this discussion.

Adobe Flash fails on accessibility, and that was the most important reason that Apple decided its iOS devices would be Flash-free. Adobe has moved on, and so have website owners that want to interact with the quarter-billion iOS devices. Your passion for Flash is commendable, but you have failed to realize the fundamental limitations of that technology. Apple, Adobe, and much of the web has moved on.

 

[darngooddesign]

...Adobe is publicly advocating ditching Flash on websites and only putting up HTML5. This comes from none less than the Principal Product Manager at Adobe. If you think Adobe somehow disagrees with what this senior product manager is saying, then please provide your evidence.

Please provide your evidence that Adobe is advocating this; show us where Adobe publicly states that they want users to ditch Flash. On your link is this paragraph "The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Adobe Systems Incorporated." That is more proof that Adobe does advocate people stop using a piece of software they sell.

WRT your comments about Wallaby, Adobe's Flash->HTML5 tool, and your darngooddesign website, I see four possibilities:

1. You don't understand how the tool works and/or how the capabilities have been enhanced since John Nack's announcement last fall.
2. It is possible for Wallaby to generate satisfactory CSS/Javascript/HTML5 code in the future, but the current capabilities are lacking.
3. There exists ways to generate CSS/Javascript/HTML5 code, but it will never be within the scope or capabilities of Wallaby to be able to do it.
4. There will never ever be any way to do what you want that is within the capabilities of CSS/Javascript/HTML5

Which one is it? We don't know, and we don't really care...

You sure spend a lot of time talking about something you (not we) don't care about. As of the last time I posted Flash Builder does not support anything more than simple animation techniques. No animated masks. No tweens. No actionscript. It is sorely lacking as a HTML solution.

 

[FloatingBones]

Why Flash is a Failure

@darngooddesign: I strongly prefer to have an intellectually honest discussion with give-and-take on everything we are discussing. In my last message, I noted:

@darn: Adobe's phrase "full web experience" was a non-starter from the beginning. It's just a code-phrase for "Adobe Flash". Your definition doesn't work, either: there are all sorts of sites that contain code that doesn't run in your current browser. "any site you want" is way too squishy a phrase to have in a definition. I like Mathematica demonstrations, but there's not a way for me to play the CDF files on an Android phone. My "full web experience" is unfulfilled. If you think "full web experience" has some real meaning, please give it a meaningful definition. Until you do, we'll just score it as a marketing phrase.

Adobe can't define the phrase, and your definition is a non-starter. Do you now agree that "full web experience" is nothing but marketing fluff? If you still think that the phrase is meaningful, you need to give us an actual meaningful definition.

Adobe is publicly advocating ditching Flash on websites and only putting up HTML5. This comes from none less than the Principal Product Manager at Adobe. If you think Adobe somehow disagrees with what this senior product manager is saying, then please provide your evidence.

Please provide your evidence that Adobe is advocating this; show us where Adobe publicly states that they want users to ditch Flash. On your link is this paragraph "The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Adobe Systems Incorporated." That is more proof that Adobe does advocate people stop using a piece of software they sell.

See above. As with the fluff-phrase "full web experience", you are free to believe whatever you want. I strongly doubt if any quantity of reasoning could alter your opinion.

To the rest of the community: when an employee of a company publicly posts an opinion about how to use that company's products, I take notice. When that employee is in the marketing department for the company -- someone who clearly understands what it means to make public comments on a product -- I take a bit more notice. When it is a senior marketing employee (in this case the Principal Product Manager at Adobe), I give it a bit more weight.

John Nack has his own personal blog, but he posted this message on his professional blog at adobe.com. He was clearly communicating a public message about Adobe's products to the community. The Principal Product Manager's posting was noted on a front-page article on Macrumors; the blog's URL has been referenced in almost 3,000 other webpages. Any Flash developer and anyone paying attention to the whole Apple-Adobe Flash issue definitely noticed John's message.

Has there been a retraction of John's words? Nope. Did it disappear from Adobe's website? Nope. Has @darngooddesign (or anyone else) been able to identify a single Adobe employee publicly making a recommendation contrary to John's recommendation? Nope. The message is pretty simple:

1. Flash is never going to be part of the web browser on iOS devices. Deal with it.
2. Website owner that wants to have their site be available to everyone should NOT use Flash.

The money quote from John's adobe.com blog entry (emphasis mine):

Are you surprised? Don’t be. As I’ve written many times, Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.

One instructive things to note: Adobe's homepage and almost all of the child pages are now Flash-free. (The Flash platform page contains Flash; I suppose that's appropriate.) Clearly, Adobe itself has gotten the message about using Flash as little as possible. AFAICT, they have stopped any corporate grousing about the lack of Flash on iOS.

As of the last time I posted Flash Builder does not support anything more than simple animation techniques. No animated masks. No tweens. No actionscript. It is sorely lacking as a HTML solution.

Then perhaps it's time to either simplify the animation techniques or ditch your Flash code base completely. Perhaps something like what Adobe did for their own corporate webpage. If you are interested in having your webpage play on the quarter billion iOS devices and other computers that are permanently Flash-free. Are you more interested in solving your problem, or are you more interested in complaining about it?

The decline of Flash -- coupled with the huge success of the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad -- seems to be a threat to the manhood (or womanhood) of some of its advocates. Many of them have clearly never read the memo. Some of them demonize Steve Jobs for Apple's decision; some discuss it in a wholly irrational fashion. The Flash-advocates will not deal head-on with the most important reason cited by Apple for ditching Flash. Do they understand that the platform-specific accessibility widgets will never ever work in Flash? I cannot tell.

None of my commentary is personal to those Flash-advocates. They are clearly passionate about the technology; they simply didn't realize the fundamental architectural limitations of their chosen technology. Apple -- and much of the web -- has moved on.

You really can't answer any post without talking about Flash. You must have several textfiles sitting on your desktop just so you can paste them into responses to whichever users weren't talking about Flash in the first place.

When conversing with the Flash-advocates, the thing most jarring is their failure to engage on particular topics. Apple decided to go Flash-free in 2007; but Flash was already a failure. Flash would never hack accessibility. As far as I can tell, all of the Flash-advocates have a blind spot about this most fundamental failure of their chosen technology.

You never did update your definition of "full web experience". I don't have a complete definition, but I propose that part of the definition of "full web experience" is that that everybody, regardless of their ability, should be able to access every webpage on the network. Data should be served with transparency so that the adapters on each users' computers can adapt the presentation of the data so the web content is universally recognizable and understandable.

Please answer the question: do you agree that this component of "full web experience" is valuable and something that we as a society should strive to deliver?

Your claim that I can't answer any post without talking about Flash is rather silly. Anyone can search my posting history to find your conjecture is nonsensical. Failing to account when you make a nonsense claim is a tell-tale that a rational discussion may not be possible.

 

[AirForceOne]

I'm buying my first Apple product today(iPad 2), the only thing I wish it had that is doesn't is Flash. I already own Android products so I can live without it on the iPad since I can use it on my Thunderbolt and Nexus One.

I know the prevailing opinion here is that Flash has major issues, but my experience has been that it works great and I love being able to play embedded Flash videos.

For example, I hang out at a Dallas Cowboys website/fansite and folks are always posting videos of plays. It's really nice to be able to view this content like everyone else. On my phone I can(and when I had the Xoom as well).

The two things I will miss coming from an Android Tab is Flash and Google Navigation...well and widgets too. iOS 5 has me excited in that it will have Android like notifications at some point. That is one of the things that finally made me decide to go ahead and try the iPad 2. Flash would have made it a no brainer and I'd have purchased the iPad a long time ago.

 

[RossMc]

Honestly since getting my iPhone 3GS when it was released not having flash has not bothered me at all I have never needed it but tonight is the first time I kind of wish there was flash.

I just took my Macbook Pro back to the Apple Store today for repair and it's going to be away for around a week and I fancied watching a program which was on TV years ago and there is only one site which has the program available to stream all seasons which is seesaw.com I tried it tonight but there video player is flash and I was searching on there site to see if they are going to have a HTML5 player but I found that they said

"I am afraid a present we aren't allowed to deliver content to the iPhone/iPad as Apple don't make available their DRM to anyone other than iTunes.

I know DRM is annoying but at present it is the only way to get permission to deliver 'quality' content. "

 

[Bluemeanie1976]

Surely they can just stream it via html5... Why does it need drm? Websites like tvcatchup stream stuff without issue.

 

[RossMc]

No idea I asked why can't they just do an app like BBC iPlayer, 4od, ITV Player or Sky Go if that's the case but had no response.

 

[FloatingBones]

I know the prevailing opinion here is that Flash has major issues, but my experience has been that it works great and I love being able to play embedded Flash videos.

For example, I hang out at a Dallas Cowboys website/fansite and folks are always posting videos of plays. It's really nice to be able to view this content like everyone else. On my phone I can(and when I had the Xoom as well).

With over 425,000 apps, the first place to look for content is the App Store. If you go there and search for

Dallas Cowboys

under apps, you'll find the official Dallas Cowboys app, which includes video. If you want to get a real team, you'll find the app for the New England Patriots.

If someone has Flash code, there should be no reason they can't publish their Flash code as an iOS app.

Over time, the percentage of Flash-free sites should increase.

 

[AirForceOne]

With over 425,000 apps, the first place to look for content is the App Store. If you go there and search for

Dallas Cowboys

under apps, you'll find the official Dallas Cowboys app, which includes video. If you want to get a real team, you'll find the app for the New England Patriots.

If someone has Flash code, there should be no reason they can't publish their Flash code as an iOS app.

Over time, the percentage of Flash-free sites should increase.

Hi

Yes, one of my first purchases is going to be Skyfire. Before Android got Flash support this was how I watched Flash content like embedded videos. That should allow me to view the embedded videos that folks post at CowboysZone. It won't actually play the video while it's embedded but will at least download it and play it thru it's player.

Thanks for the heads up on that Cowboys app. I will check it out. It won't replace CowboysZone tho. It's a forum like this one but for the Dallas Cowboys instead of the iPad. Imagine if folks kept posting Flash videos in this thread but you could never watch them.

I just wish Flash was a download in the App Store the way it is in the Android MarketPlace. That way folks that don't like it don't have to download and those that do have the option.

 

[AirForceOne]

I can't believe this, but I just found the Photon Flash Web Browser in the App Store. It plays embedded Flash videos inline....plays podcasts at forums like CrackBerry and Android Central that use Flash, plays Flash games... it runs almost exactly like Flash on Android browser. I mean, the darn thing even shows Flash ads the exact way they are meant to be. If you showed this to someone they would never think it was an iPad running, they'd think it was an Android Tab.

I'm completely happy. As an Android user I had NO idea this was possible. I've got the great hardware and software of Apple/iOS and a Flash browser to go with it. If I could just change my email ringtone I would feel completely at home.

 

[Liquinn]

Personally not really.

Since you can use the BBC iPlayer app and the ITV on demand app to watch TV, and you could also use the channel 4od app so flash being absent isn't a problem.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

There have been times when a site is Flash or Silverlight only, but smart sites now have an iPad version. And as for games, c'mon, there are oodles of free game apps that run rings around any cheesy Flash game online.

The inclusion of Flash has never been a deal killer for me as I had the original iPad minutes after it went on sale Day One, and same for iPad 2. Judging from iPad and Android sales, I'd say I'm not alone. (I'd include WebOS sales in the mix too but the $99 price tag kinda skewed the data there).

 

[FloatingBones]

I can't believe this, but I just found the Photon Flash Web Browser in the App Store. It plays embedded Flash videos inline....plays podcasts at forums like CrackBerry and Android Central that use Flash, plays Flash games... it runs almost exactly like Flash on Android browser. I mean, the darn thing even shows Flash ads the exact way they are meant to be. If you showed this to someone they would never think it was an iPad running, they'd think it was an Android Tab.

A close reading of the product description of this app on AppShopper.com (the same folks who do Macrumors) notes a fine distinction: the Flash code is not actually running on the iOS device; it is running on a remote computer. The same is also true of programs that stream Flash videos like Skyfire.

Running the Flash code indirectly will always be less reliable. There will be much higher latency in the Flash interactivity and more bandwidth will be consumed. If you look at these apps in the app store, you will always find a fair number of 1-star reviews. Whether this is pilot error, problems with the remote Flash engine, or something else is unknown.

The best way to run Flash code on iOS devices is by apps cross-compiled through Adobe's tools and distributed through the iOS App Store. You will have greater interactivity and have no requirements of connectivity to run the Flash code (and will incur no bandwidth expenses). The best video format is H.264 that is unencumbered with a Flash wrapper.

I'm completely happy. As an Android user I had NO idea this was possible. I've got the great hardware and software of Apple/iOS and a Flash browser to go with it. If I could just change my email ringtone I would feel completely at home.

I'm not trying to throw water on your enthusiasm. I'm happy that you're happy. The app you found (and the servers behind their service) are a testimony to the brilliance of iOS app developers and the wonderful ecology of the iOS app store.

My point is to be wary of complacency. You might find that some Flash sites and/or Flash video sites work poorly through this service. It's useful to tell those website owners that you like their services but you would prefer to use them without an intermediary.

 

[AirForceOne]

A close reading of the product description of this app on AppShopper.com (the same folks who do Macrumors) notes a fine distinction: the Flash code is not actually running on the iOS device; it is running on a remote computer. The same is also true of programs that stream Flash videos like Skyfire.

Running the Flash code indirectly will always be less reliable. There will be much higher latency in the Flash interactivity and more bandwidth will be consumed. If you look at these apps in the app store, you will always find a fair number of 1-star reviews. Whether this is pilot error, problems with the remote Flash engine, or something else is unknown.

The best way to run Flash code on iOS devices is by apps cross-compiled through Adobe's tools and distributed through the iOS App Store. You will have greater interactivity and have no requirements of connectivity to run the Flash code (and will incur no bandwidth expenses). The best video format is H.264 that is unencumbered with a Flash wrapper.



I'm not trying to throw water on your enthusiasm. I'm happy that you're happy. The app you found (and the servers behind their service) are a testimony to the brilliance of iOS app developers and the wonderful ecology of the iOS app store.

My point is to be wary of complacency. You might find that some Flash sites and/or Flash video sites work poorly through this service. It's useful to tell those website owners that you like their services but you would prefer to use them without an intermediary.

Oh I understand what you're saying. Yes I knew Flash was not running in the device itself, but that is neither here nor there if all you want is content. I don't care how they do it...just get it to me.

Yes there is some occasional crashing and some latency but Photon does a rally nice job of presenting Flash content. Watching Flash videos inline is something I thought I would have to give up with an iOS tablet. Now I can watch those videos people post at the Cowboys forum without having to navigate away(Skyfire), or not view it at all. I've used Skyfire as well and it does not do nearly the job that Photon does. My experience with Skyfire(it's been awhile) is that it converts the videos and then launches them in a player. Photon "hides" these actions and presents the Flash content as you would see it normally.

 

[MacAddict1978]

This was probably the worse place to ask that question for a few reasons:
1. Tech happy people who don't mind having to have a seperate app to download and open to circumvent when not having Flash is a problem
2. Apple "devout" who listen to anything Steve Jobs says and calls it gospel.
3. Most of us techies hate flash on a level that has little to do with the content it shows us, but the under the hood things that drive us insane.
4. The people who will vote this negative because I cited the apple devout who live by the gospel of steve jobs in a biased world.

Here's my thing... while mobile flash has sucked, recently it's gotten pretty good. Those of you who aren't using mobile flash need to update your gripes. It USED TO lag and suck on mobile devices. The Touch Pad and PlayBook have been the best 2 tablets thus far in their implementation of running flash, and it works pretty good. Don't count on playing any of the villes, but video etc. has been quite acceptable.

I'd like Flash because I'm an adult and can turn it off except when I really need it, and many web cites will redirect you to the mobile HTML 5 friendly version, which is often a stripped down site without all the info and features of the regular site. I was car shopping with a friend, and the majority of car sites sucked and were near useless in trying to research info on the fly in the mobile version. Sometimes it won't even let you load the flash site with the blank spaces. Just annoying. Not as common as you'd think, but a suck fest when it happens.

You can indeed live without it, but I never got why Apple has gone to extremes in banning Adobe from releasing Flash to IOS. It would be your choice to install it, to use or not use it. Putting Flash in IOS has literally no consequence on Apple. I still think it was more of a larger competitive vendetta Apple has with Adobe than the quality of Flash itself.

Everyone says, "When HTML 5 is the new standard" but that's till years away. HTML 5 is still far away from being able to be that standard in its capabilities. People forget how little Flash did when it came out, and how it evolved to be even a capable gaming platform over time. HTML5 has to go through the growth cycle, and don't think Adobe is just going to roll over and die while it happens.

If anything, we should see a better Flash (and they've done a lot of work on improvements) and a great HTML5 to compete. Adobe is one of the leading software companies out there that people use to create media, and Flash ties in easily to all their options. It's kind of like trying to say, Google Docs and Open Office can kill new off Microsoft Office because they can read the .doc format and save to it. They still don't have all the features or the install base of MS Office, just like HTML 5 doesn't have all the bells and whistles of Flash. It's just cleaner and better implemented currently for what it can do. I think Adobe got caught with their pants down when all these mobile touch devices took off.

And this comes from a flash hater who just isn't blind to reality.

 

[FloatingBones]

The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation of the web

This was probably the worse place to ask that question for a few reasons:
1. Tech happy people who don't mind having to have a seperate app to download and open to circumvent when not having Flash is a problem
2. Apple "devout" who listen to anything Steve Jobs says and calls it gospel.
3. Most of us techies hate flash on a level that has little to do with the content it shows us, but the under the hood things that drive us insane.
4. The people who will vote this negative because I cited the apple devout who live by the gospel of steve jobs in a biased world.

Oh, please. Stop the cartoonish stereotyping. I do not know a single person on these forums who agrees with every single thing that Jobs does. If you do, please tell us who that person is. If your posting gets voted down it'll be because you've made indefensible claims.

Here's my thing... while mobile flash has sucked, recently it's gotten pretty good.

We could argue whether or not Flash still has huge resource problems (it does) or if zero-day security flaws keep getting revealed (yes), but that is missing the point. All of those flaws are superficial; they hide the most fundamental problems of Flash. Flash is the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation of the web:

It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of [Flash] by the sense of achievement you get from getting [Flash] to work at all. In other words - and this is the rock solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation's Galaxy-wide success is founded - the fundamental design flaws [of Flash] are completely hidden by its superficial design flaws.

You can indeed live without it, but I never got why Apple has gone to extremes in banning Adobe from releasing Flash to IOS.

Then you should go read the memo. Not only are the reasons listed there, but the most important reason -- the fundamental design flaw of Flash -- is spelled out. You will discover the Sirius-Cybernetics-flaw of Flash.

Flash fails on accessibility. As long as websites cling to Flash code, we will never have an accessible web. Apple's action and its quarter-billion iOS devices will accelerate the process of purging the web of Flash code.

HTML5 has to go through the growth cycle, and don't think Adobe is just going to roll over and die while it happens.

Did you bother to read any of the last dozen-or-so messages in the discussion? Do you know what Adobe is recommending WRT Flash?

 

[George Knighton]

Haven't missed Flash in the least personally

For the most part, neither do I.

Most Web sites have mobile non-Flash capability.

I'll occasionally miss something because I've gone to the BBC main site instead of using their iPad application. On the main site, they use Flash, so I just won't get that content. If I am really all that interested, I will switch to the iPad BBC application, which will always have relevant content for all major stories for both the UK site and the US/Canada site.

Archived content that will only be available on the main site, I don't think it's likely that many of us are doing deep research at BBC with an iPad.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

 

[phpmaven]

Apparently I don't frequent sites where flash is necessary. The only time in recent memory that I did was my company's pension plan website - they went with a new secure sign-in method and apparently it is flash based (rather funny, when all I hear about flash is that it doesn't have strong security). So, I just used my computer the next time I wanted to check it.

The last flash video I tried to play worked fine in Skyfire.

Flash for the sign-in process? There's a web developer that should be fired.

 

[Ijustfarted]

Yes I miss flash!!!

 

[NZed]

NO

HTML-5 pretty much replaced flash for my needs, but may not for some of you.

 

[bearbear]

no reason to not even offer the option of having flash. If you don't like it, turn it off.

 

[*LTD*]

The whole Flash thing is no longer an issue.

 

[FloatingBones]

no reason to not even offer the option of having flash. If you don't like it, turn it off.

The most important reason is that Flash undermines accessibility. Flash does not use the accessibility adapters; those who need such adapters are "shut out" from Flash websites. Apple has given a vote of no confidence for Flash; the quarter-billion iOS devices put a huge amount of weight behind their vote. Anyone hosting a website who wishes to have a universal solution cannot use Flash. Over the long run, this will have a huge positive impact for those who need accessibility-aided browsing -- whether or not they ever personally use Apple computers.

If you happen to be an executive at a company and are designing the architecture for a new kind of computer, you have certain decisions to make. You're welcome to offer Flash on your new computer's web browsers, or you're welcome to have the browsers be Flash-free. But please don't claim there's no reason for Apple's bold decision go Flash-free on iOS. That dog don't hunt.

The whole Flash thing is no longer an issue.

Bingo. The issue is decided. The two main questions remaining:

1. How long will it take websites to ditch their Flash code for everybody?
2. How long will the Flash-advocates continue to complain about this?

 

[Invincibilizer]

Flash would be a nice option to have but if Apple won't incorporate it to work it's still fine.

 

[supermac96]

Why do you even want to take pictures on a tablet? And either way i'm pretty sure the touchpad only has a front facing camera. Plus it's $99 dollars because they need to get rid of it because nobody wants to pay $499 for it.

Hahaha wow minus 22 I think that's the worst I've ever seen on macrumors.