Don't mind. Flash is not going anywhere, soon. Don't believe the haters, it will stay with us for a looooong time, and so will the haters
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flash Player Performance on Droid 2 Found to Be Hit-or-Miss at Best
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't mind. Flash is not going anywhere, soon. Don't believe the haters, it will stay with us for a looooong time, and so will the haters
I'll avoid letting you know how you sound since I might break forum rules that way...
What exactly did you expect my reaction to this excrement of propaganda journalism is going to be!?!?
Did you expect me to read that pile of nonsensical garbage and nod my head in approval of Job's draconian politics, internet censorship, lies and overall bullcrap!?!?
Get serious - please! Hahahaha
My dear friend FACT - let me spell it to you F.A.C.T. - is that Android users can use almost 100% of available content on the net - now and in the future...
There is also another F.A.C.T. which is that you and rest of iDevice users will NEVER EVER have full net in your hands...
This is where story starts and ends as far as I am concern...
Now that might sound arrogant to you - but quite frankly I don't care...
I am just pointing out the FACTS - that's all...
Just like Steve does, I also hope you will enjoy your blue lego boxes for quite some time
You sound like you have never written a line a code professionally a day in your life. I started with web development well over a decade ago, and continue to do so today with a team of outstanding professionals and visionaries. You just sound someone who likes flash just for sake of like it, which it totally ok, but not doing you any favors in making a valid argument.
And secondly, not all Android users are equal. Not all Android devices released are even capable of running the most recent OS, at least officially because the original firmware doesn't support it...so not all Android users are experiencing the "full web". Even on my MBP, I don't experience the "full web" if by "full web" you mean annoying "click to win a free iPhone" ad and all the other annoying flash pop-ups. Also, how Flash makes my computer scorching hot and takes my battery from full to empty in 2 hours.
Users don't miss out of any content from a proper website. Most examples of website using flash for content are restaurant websites, which are in a major need for redesign. If the user is missing out on content because they don't have flash, that is a bad design and developer NOT a bad user.
I suspect that the very recent uptake of high-resolution smartphones with CPU's capable of handling the full Flash experience has thrown this into the limelight (I'm mainly talking about Android phones here, though the iPhone 4 has now mostly caught up). You can't blame Adobe for wanting to get their products on such a burgeoning market.
As for Flash simply not being good enough - I'm not going to argue that point. I don't care if it's Flash, Silverlight, HTML5, or JobsMagicalPotion, I'd just like to experience the same WWW on my high-resolution phone as I do on my desktop. If a device denies me that experience then, unless there's a really compelling reason to deny me that experience, I'll look elsewhere. Thankfully with Android you get all that good stuff so it's an easy decision to make.
When the first-tier Android tablets hit the market in the Autumn selling season the locked down nature of the iPhone/iPad will be exposed even more - and I'm a mostly happy iPad owner
. I'm also a Unix developer and understand the technological arguments between Flash/HTML5. Those who think HTML5 will quickly take over the web are in for a shock - unless you fully embrace the Apple walled garden of course. Which is another reason to be wary. Apple's philosphy is "you can access everything we offer (and monetise), just don't venture out into the wild west of the www and expect the same thing". The personal computer (and really, the smartphone is just another iteration of that) was always a force of liberation for the user. The iPhone (and iPad) provide a potentially rich gateway into that world, but the owner of the platform doesn't want you to have that. I don't think that decision was made based on concern of the user experience. Others do, and that's fine, though I personally find it really hard to understand that reasoning when expressed here and elsewhere.
This is probably one of the stupidest comments in the whole thread, and there are plenty...
NOTE: Some tasks are just demanding! There is nothing you can do about it! All phone including the iPhone have built in hardware decoding chips to handle video streams and they all have their limits regarding resolution and bandwidth. Thats a simple fact and there is nothing Adobe can do about it. Is the iPad's software crap because it can't handle 1080p videos or high profile H.264 video??? Jesus!
Your last paragraph shows some serious lack of basic technical knowledge: Flash gives you a plain canvas that you can paint to and interact with objects/elements on it. Using multi-touch isn't rocket science, it's easy to do once the platform supports it. And Flash does.
Whether Flash is good or bad is beside the point.
Apple has made a decision, declared it, and the industry will now follow suit. Apple moves the industry forward not just in terms of user-centric design, but in terms of "ideas" - that is, how tech *should be.*
Even if Flash ran great on mobile devices, it's too late. Flash will still be around, but will increasingly be seen as yesterday's technology.
Perception is EVERYTHING. Apple controls perception in tech.
If someone is going to end up manufacturing and controlling perception and consent in the realm of consumer tech, I'd rather it be Apple than anyone else.
The future = all about iDevices and how to copy them. We'd all better get used to it.
What exactly writing code and / or being developer means in this entire argument!?!?! Frankly I don't care what you do - and by the way, yes - I wrote fair bit of code too...
But this is all beside the point...
Point is, as R. R. said in above post, I want to be able to access as much of www as possible via my portable / handheld devices...
Most companies are trying their best to bring it to us (mainly Adobe and Google but also many others from Open Screen Project) and they have finally succeeded!
At the same time, there is another company out there with utter freak in charge (yes, Apple with SJ behind the wheel) which is making conscious decision to quite literally censor huge part of www on their mobile / portable devices...
Which lead us to what I said before:
You and rest of iDevice owners will never ever have full net in your hands - fact! Fine by me... By all means keep on paying premium price and keep on filling pockets of that old nut - cant care less...
But please, excuse me if I go and fully support the competitor who is clearly taking much, and I mean MUCH, more care about my computing needs.
Simple as that really
And yes, please do understand my need to respond to excrement like propaganda journalism every now and then... I am allergic to it
I think this is a philosophical difference. IMO, part of what makes the better smartphone OSes (iOS, WebOS) is that they don't try to act like miniature PCs, but as communication, media, and information appliances. Integration of services and content, etc. Based on observation, Apple quite obviously values the perceived integration of their platform as more valuable than feature checkmarks on a viewgraph. As a trade-off, to have a satisfactory user experience and (mostly) unified interface, new technologies won't be added unless they can seamlessly fit into the overall picture. Flash doesn't fit. Will it ever? Maybe, but will it be as relevant by then, or will it be mostly around to support legacy content? Who knows. Apple has a vested interest in media and applications being procured through their infrastructure, however. So if Adobe insists on Flash remaining exactly what it is now (but on an entirely different type of platform), then Apple won't feel inclined to help them dig into their profits, nor pull the smartphone user experience standard down. And if Adobe does that, I doubt Flash is going to be anything more than an HTML5 IDE in a decade.
Netflix is going to release their app for iPhone/iPod Touch soon. When that's out, I have access to their selection, Hulu+, iTunes Movies and Music, Pandora, iBooks, Kindle, Nook, and countless periodicals. I fail to see what I'm missing.
How does this qualify as propaganda journalism? Because it doesn't agree with your point of view?
The fact is, the writer tested several different sites and reported their performance. His approach was measured and balanced.
Unless, of course, you expected him to make excuses for Flash's poor performance.
Yelling does not make your point more valid. And it's not your point that sounds arrogant, it's the way you're saying it, your virtual pounding-on-the-table for emphasis. I'll assume your reading comprehension is such that you knew that and purposely spun my argument the other way. I will re-emphasize: your approach makes you sound like a hapless but fervent loyalist with notable social handicaps. Kinda like Dwight from the Office!
Also, please address the fact that millions are using iOS devices and are doing fine without Flash. Further, that those numbers are so compelling that many sites are converting away from Flash in order to accommodate this huge market of iOS users.
Do you really want to argue against the idea that the iOS platform is beginning to have some success in steering the entire market away from Flash?
I'll avoid letting you know how you sound since I might break forum rules that way...
If you find your lexicon to be that limited, may I recommend http://www.lexipedia.com. It's in Flash, so you can even use it when you're on the go!
What exactly writing code and / or being developer means in this entire argument!?!?! Frankly I don't care what you do - and by the way, yes - I wrote fair bit of code too...
But this is all beside the point...
Point is, as R. R. said in above post, I want to be able to access as much of www as possible via my portable / handheld devices...
Most companies are trying their best to bring it to us (mainly Adobe and Google but also many others from Open Screen Project) and they have finally succeeded!
At the same time, there is another company out there with utter freak in charge (yes, Apple with SJ behind the wheel) which is making conscious decision to quite literally censor huge part of www on their mobile / portable devices...
Which lead us to what I said before:
You and rest of iDevice owners will never ever have full net in your hands - fact! Fine by me... By all means keep on paying premium price and keep on filling pockets of that old nut - cant care less...
But please, excuse me if I go and fully support the competitor who is clearly taking much, and I mean MUCH, more care about my computing needs.
Simple as that really
And yes, please do understand my need to respond to excrement like propaganda journalism every now and then... I am allergic to it
Youre a weird .
It is text book example of propaganda journalism!
Why?
Simply because it contains 0% objectivity without pointing out one simple fact that we repeated fair few times so far... Android can (even if it is "hit and miss" - it still can...) while iOS can't and can't at all (as in just "miss" 100%)
Hope that explains
But since you are HTML developer I am sure you won't agree...
-----
Regarding my "arrogance" - trust me - it is of microscopic size compared to arrogance of Steve Jobs, his FanBoiz, die hard HTML developers and corrupted journalists
-----
I don't want to argue about anything - I just want as much of www on my mobile device(s). Apple doesn't want to give it to me (not can't but doesn't want!) and for that reason alone I say - screw them!
-----
That lexicon is AWESOME!
Shame iDevice owners are missing on it...
Thanks for the link anyway
It is text book example of propaganda journalism!
Why?
Simply because it contains 0% objectivity without pointing out one simple fact that we repeated fair few times so far... Android can (even if it is "hit and miss" - it still can...) while iOS can't and can't at all (as in just "miss" 100%)
Hope that explains
But since you are HTML developer I am sure you won't agree...
-----
Regarding my "arrogance" - trust me - it is of microscopic size compared to arrogance of Steve Jobs, his FanBoiz, die hard HTML developers and corrupted journalists
Again we go back to reading comprehension. The purpose of the article was to evaluate Flash's performance, not to point out that Android has it and Apple doesn't. Judge the article based on what it is, not what you think it should be.
It is not in any way shape or form a textbook example of propaganda. There was no fabrications or omissions (he did point out that iPhone doesn't have Flash). He simply wrote on a different topic than you think he should have.
Regarding arrogance. Just because there's other idiots out there, doesn't mean you're not one as well.
You really make me LOL man!
Just the fact that article ended up on the front page of Mac-bloody-Rumors means that it is text book example of propaganda journalism!
Or are you that naive really...!?!?!
You sound like clever guy so I just think that you are HTML developer who likes this sort of trash
Now, do you want me to quote you how this "great journalist" finished his article?
Ok...
For f. sake Steve himself wouldn't have said it better!!! Hahahahaha
Instead - for the sake of objectivity
- ending should have sounded like this...As long as Android is the only mobile phone with an almost-decent Flash player (that is still incredibly flawed in that developers have to re-work their Flash applications anyway to get them working with a touch interface without a physical keyboard) then there is a HUGE and GROWING market that cannot access that content. Advertisers DO NOT want their ads in Flash anymore because a HUGE and GROWING market can't see their ads. Websites DO NOT have nearly as much Flash content as they did in the past (remember when most Websites were one page with a full-size Flash frame?) because a HUGE and GROWING market cannot see it.
To say that Flash is here to stay and get better over time is a very ignorant statement in my opinion, especially with HTML5 coming that is pretty much going to replace Flash when it comes to videos. Sure, there will always be Flash games, but I'm not sure how many average web surfers are going to go out of their way to install Flash just so they can play Farmville or that helicopter game. Flash is definitely heading towards a downward slope. Saying that they are only going to do better is, well... completely untrue.
Apple uses their control of both the iPod and iTunes software to unfairly block competition from competing music players, or competing applications.
Apple does not publish the set of conventions, or "API", through which the iPod and iTunes communicate. Rather, they change it constantly. In many cases the only goal of these changes is to force customers to only use Apple products with iTunes and vice versa.
When the Palm Pre (a smartphone that competes with the iPhone) included iTunes compatibility, Apple shot back with an automatic software update that broke the Palm Pre's iTunes compatibility. The update didn't tell users that it could break compatibility with their new phone; the only warning was buried in an Apple tech support page a few weeks earlier. When Palm fixed the problem, Apple broke it again. They made their own software less useful, hurting their own customers, just to enforce lock-in.
Apple does not publish the set of conventions, or "API", through which the iPod and iTunes communicate. Rather, they change it constantly. In many cases the only goal of these changes is to force customers to only use Apple products with iTunes and vice versa.
When the Palm Pre (a smartphone that competes with the iPhone) included iTunes compatibility, Apple shot back with an automatic software update that broke the Palm Pre's iTunes compatibility. The update didn't tell users that it could break compatibility with their new phone; the only warning was buried in an Apple tech support page a few weeks earlier. When Palm fixed the problem, Apple broke it again. They made their own software less useful, hurting their own customers, just to enforce lock-in.
Who are these users? The people I know with smartphones have them to work and communicate more productively. I'll grant you that perhaps sophomoric considerations such as what other people think may apply to enthusiast circles, but you would be very misguided if you thought enthusiasts were a large demographic.
I'd posit that the way "miniature PC's" have developed IS primarily as a "communication, media, and information appliance". I'm pretty sure most PC users are Facebook users, Google browsers, website readers. I've no doubt that Apple (and Google) know this. I don't see the link between that and access to Flash though. Surely an Apple or Google/Android smartphone user can still do those tasks regardless of the existence of Flash? Flash content on the web is mostly video or games (and advertising, but both Google and Apple have their own ad distribution model for that).
I fully agree that Apple have their own infrastructure which they want to use for distribution of apps, and it's obviously in their own interests to not promote a rival technology! I think you've reduced the argument to the essence right there - but on here as well as other iOS fansites the reason will be because Flash "sucks"....
.Basically, Apple would like to reinvent the world wide web. They want to turn it into an "app". It'll provide a really rich experience for those who have the right hardware to access it. Those using it will never know what else is out there and be supremely happy.
I hope it happens. It'll be the best of both worlds. I'm looking forward to never having to pop into "Macrumors - the IOS edition"
. Maybe the OpenInternet (tm) site dedicated to actual Mac users will be free of this .
Too bad they provide everything you need to sync with itunes with other devices....
I think it is a tech writer's responsibility to put it into perspective. If a video plays choppy and another one runs great, why is that? Maybe the first one was just "overkill" for the hardware built into the phone? Or the mouse/keyboard thing.
It would be OK just to report the experience if you let stand it on it's own. But the author decided to draw a conclusion from it and the moment you do that as a tech writer, you should really put it all into perspective.
Somehow the author started with the crazy assumption that a phone should be able to do everything with the same quality and speed as a fully fledged computer. And that, my friends, is just plain silly, no matter whether you look at Android phones, iPhone or whatever.
Just the fact that article ended up on the front page of Mac-bloody-Rumors means that it is text book example of propaganda journalism!
[...]
Now, do you want me to quote you how this "great journalist" finished his article?
Ok...
More importantly, Adobe needs to have a better answer to whether or not Flash is still relevant in a world where other technologies have rapidly started displacing it. Based on my early experience with Flash Player 10.1 for mobile, it could soon join the floppy drive in the tech graveyard, something else Steve Jobs helped kill.
For f. sake Steve himself wouldn't have said it better!!! Hahahahaha
Instead - for the sake of objectivity
How an article is used and where it is reproduced does not define it as propaganda.
Also, where did you get that quote where he was called a great journalist?
Finally. How is it that you define what is considered objective? He did a fair evaluation of Flash's performance, and then stated what the market is clearly indicated (that Flash is in danger of being displaced) and concluded that Flash needs to perform better if it's going to maintain its hold. Just because it doesn't agree with your point of view, make excuses for flash, or point the finger at other devices that succeed without flash, doesn't mean it's not objective.
I like your point. The only reply is to point out that there are other technologies out there that don't have that disparity between desktop and mobile functionality.
The average consumer isn't going to make excuses for flash performing well on some sites and not others. They will work off the crazy assumption that the phone should be able to do what their computer does.
Since there is technology out there that displaces Flash and performs just as well on mobile as well as desktop devices, the market will continue to move towards those other technologies.
The author made a fair assessment that, if Flash doesn't improve greatly, it will get left behind. Because the market won't make excuses for it just to keep it alive.
Apple starts well, but can't seem to sustain its momentum
Be careful about confusing the market's perception with your personal perception. If you look back, you will see a pattern with Apple of some early flashes of brilliance followed by mediocrity and marginalization as a boutique, niche player in the larger context. Apple has had, and seems to continue to have fans that will support whatever it does, no matter how flawed. But it has a fairly consistent record of failing at sustained market leadership.
Apple pioneered early personal computers and had a dominant market share until open system PCs arrived and Apple nearly closed its doors for lack of business. Apple has dominated mobile music devices using the iTunes store to hold its position, and that's where its strength has come from. It tried to parlay that win into domination on the broader mobile phone and tablet computer platforms, and were successful for a few years. But Android has come out of nowhere and has blown by Apple in the smartphone arena. The tablet computer market is much like the early smartphone market where Apple has an early lead. But like in smartphones, expect Apple to stubbornly limit their offering and again be schooled by the vitality of an open system when mature Android based tablets show up in 2011.
It was this way in computers and smartphones, and all the signs are there for the same thing happening in tablets. That is, unless Apple can find some anchor, like the iTunes store has been for music devices, to lock people into iPads. They seem to be betting on iBooks, but so far it has more been an anchor to drown customers than it has been to tie them to Apple. Not a good sign.
Will 2010 be the year that Adobe drops Flash for lack of interest? Or 2011, or 2012? Who knows. If they do, though, it will be because the other 90% of the market decides, not because Apple says so.
Be careful about confusing the market's perception with your personal perception. If you look back, you will see a pattern with Apple of some early flashes of brilliance followed by mediocrity and marginalization as a boutique, niche player in the larger context. Apple has had, and seems to continue to have fans that will support whatever it does, no matter how flawed. But it has a fairly consistent record of failing at sustained market leadership.
Apple pioneered early personal computers and had a dominant market share until open system PCs arrived and Apple nearly closed its doors for lack of business. Apple has dominated mobile music devices using the iTunes store to hold its position, and that's where its strength has come from. It tried to parlay that win into domination on the broader mobile phone and tablet computer platforms, and were successful for a few years. But Android has come out of nowhere and has blown by Apple in the smartphone arena. The tablet computer market is much like the early smartphone market where Apple has an early lead. But like in smartphones, expect Apple to stubbornly limit their offering and again be schooled by the vitality of an open system when mature Android based tablets show up in 2011.
It was this way in computers and smartphones, and all the signs are there for the same thing happening in tablets. That is, unless Apple can find some anchor, like the iTunes store has been for music devices, to lock people into iPads. They seem to be betting on iBooks, but so far it has more been an anchor to drown customers than it has been to tie them to Apple. Not a good sign.
Will 2010 be the year that Adobe drops Flash for lack of interest? Or 2011, or 2012? Who knows. If they do, though, it will be because the other 90% of the market decides, not because Apple says so.