I totally recommend remedial classes in the English language and in English grammar.
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.
Web Browsing Performance on Android 2.2 Hampered by Flash Compatibility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally recommend remedial classes in the English language and in English grammar.
You know that you have to actually download the Flash app from Marketplace (Open Garden)? You think people will do that and then complain?
I don't think so - people who want Flash will download it and enjoy it. People who don't want/need/know it will continue to use their Froyo phones without Flash.
Yay for CHOICE!
Do the research, my statements are true. You're the one making numbers up. 100million iphone OS devices? Where did you pull that rabbit from? Oh or did you mean by the year 2020?
Android devices are selling at a rate of over 100,000 per day, every day.
OMG you're so right!!! It's not like all computers lag from time to time.
The iPhone is good about covering its lag though. It just shows a long stretch of a checkerboard image whenever it can't keep up.
For some reason Apple thinks that users would rather see a blank page than see some minor tearing as they scroll.
If you want to cut corners in all the right places just look at the entire iPhone OS. Splash screens that look like the actual application, checkerboards when scrolling, killing all third party apps when certain boot issues occur (without telling the user), etc.
Seriously? You honestly think that from a user's perspective, it's better if when you try to scroll a page, the page doesn't move for half a second and then catches up with the user? That's preferable to moving the page in the way the user intended, and then waiting a fraction of a second to render it if needed (it's very rare on a 3GS that you see the checkerboard and I didn't see it in the bit of this video that I watched).
A lag between the user doing something and the phone responding is the most noticeable and frustrating form of lag. It is not something the user should be expected to 'deal with' as you seem to think.
Apple doesn't hide the fact that splash screens reduce the apparent load time of an app. Read their public documentation, it suggests developers do this. It's all about perception. If the user perceives no lag, then there is no lag as far as the user is concerned
Round 2 Browser comparison
I find it ironic that Google is comparing their current release with a year Safari mobile that needs to be compared when iPhone OS 4 is released.
I find it ironic that Google is comparing their current release with a year Safari mobile that needs to be compared when iPhone OS 4 is released.
If Apple hired Jacob Nielson to improve usability, he'd recommend that Apple disable images. If Apple did so, would you be using this same logic, claiming that "images are past their prime, and phones that can view images have slower loading times?"
iPhone OS runs iPod Touch. They surpassed 100 Million quite a while ago.
iPad runs iPhone OS. The conservative segment for this in a year over year is an additional 40 million units in the wild, not including iPhone 4 OS based systems.
About half-way through, I love the comment, "Okay, so I'm probably going to uninstall the Flash 10.1 plug-in...." That about says it all.
Ok, I'll give you that VHS was pretty clunky right then. But it got much better very soon after that. And then about 4-6 years later got better than either had been with new tech like Svideo and other advancements.
I haven't been in a pro shop, so I don't know why they would or would not stay with Beta.
They use the same laser, which was the major upgrade in tech. HD-DVD used a similar storage design to DVD, hence its smaller per-layer GB space and usage of prior mfgring equipment. That is hardly the reason for BD's win, in fact, the 15GB layers would likely cause me fewer Netflix problems today. Not to mention that HD-DVD started using dual layer faster than BD, so they actually had 30GB discs to the 25GB of BD. Meaning actual movie discs for sale to consumers. The fact that either tech could go to at least 3 layers negated the size difference, anyway. Gimme a break.
And I already gave the answer to your mfgring cost issue: Sony threw money at BD. Lots of money, wheeled and dealed in boardrooms across the planet to get partners and convince companies to spend more to upgrade mfgring machines. Hell, they even partnered with Samsung. (Steve mode: "It worked") Edit: Sorry, what I mean is...this SHOULD HAVE worked for Toshiba. Reducing cost (not price) is a great way to beat a competitor. It still failed.
Some BD proponents like to claim that BD's more advanced on-disc options (BD-Live, etc) also played a part, but I doubt that, as well. Since they didn't arrive til after HD-DVD died, and it mostly still sucks today.
I haven't been in a pro shop, so I don't know why they would or would not stay with Beta.
I did, years ago. You do know that article predates the launch of HD-DVD by nearly 2 years, to say nothing of the demise. Hardly explains the results of the war.
They use the same laser, which was the major upgrade in tech. HD-DVD used a similar storage design to DVD, hence its smaller per-layer GB space and usage of prior mfgring equipment. That is hardly the reason for BD's win, in fact, the 15GB layers would likely cause me fewer Netflix problems today. Not to mention that HD-DVD started using dual layer faster than BD, so they actually had 30GB discs to the 25GB of BD. Meaning actual movie discs for sale to consumers. The fact that either tech could go to at least 3 layers negated the size difference, anyway. Gimme a break.
And I already gave the answer to your mfgring cost issue: Sony threw money at BD. Lots of money, wheeled and dealed in boardrooms across the planet to get partners and convince companies to spend more to upgrade mfgring machines. Hell, they even partnered with Samsung. (Steve mode: "It worked") Edit: Sorry, what I mean is...this SHOULD HAVE worked for Toshiba. Reducing cost (not price) is a great way to beat a competitor. It still failed.
Some BD proponents like to claim that BD's more advanced on-disc options (BD-Live, etc) also played a part, but I doubt that, as well. Since they didn't arrive til after HD-DVD died, and it mostly still sucks today.
That was JavaScript performance, though. Apple can just adobt V8. It's open source, after all
LOL! Steve should try selling iPhones without HTML Image support and people here will rejoice how faster their Internets have become and how iPhone wins all browser speed races!
Do less, faster. No thanks - I will do more and get faster at it later.
Poor comparison.
Images are rendered natively through HTML, therefore when they're loaded performance isn't hampered. And, being native, load quicker than a foreign plugin such as Flash.
And, images are crucial to the Internet, Flash, on the other hand most certainly isn't.
Pretty sure that number is accurate actually. And it may have come from Jobs himself. Don't forget that every iPod Touch has the iPhone OS too.
I believe a more suitable test would be a Flash vs. HTML5 one with both websites displaying the same video/content.
Comparing a website using flash to a website displaying nothing but static contents is comparing apples to oranges and really doesn't tell us much.
It does tell us that a basic web experience is faster than an enhanced web experience, which is a big duh. Adobe can't change the laws of "computer physics" no matter how hard they try. More bits of data + more resources needed to process that data = longer load time.
Comparing a website using flash to a website displaying nothing but static contents is comparing apples to oranges and really doesn't tell us much.
It does tell us that a basic web experience is faster than an enhanced web experience, which is a big duh. Adobe can't change the laws of "computer physics" no matter how hard they try. More bits of data + more resources needed to process that data = longer load time.
I always lol how well the 3GS holds up to all these brand new phones. Just shows that iPhone 4 is going to kill it.
"We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it"
Steve Jobs
Thoughts on Flash
April, 2010
Steve Jobs
Thoughts on Flash
April, 2010
+1
And this is exactly the reason why Apple makes the best UI phone in the world. That smoothness of opening and closing apps, scrolling around etc - blows away ANY phone on the market, including the Nexus One without Flash, the HD2 etc etc.
The one major thing the iPhone is now missing: Resolution, especially in comparison to the HD2, the DROiD, Nexus One etc.
But let's wait a couple of weeks and see if that's still try.
Flash can stay "dead." I don't want it. Ever.
On another note this shows the lackluster scrolling and zooming of Android. It was much more choppy and less "physicsy" and fluid than iPhones (and even the HD2). Plus the lack of rubber banding when reaching an endpoint would be sorely missed.
That's one of my biggest reasons for staying with the iPhone platform. Android seems to be the Jack of all trades, master of none. It lacks polish. If they could improve the browsing experience in a few key areas I'd be much less hesitant to jump ship. I'll say it again, fluidity is sorely lacking. Even without Flash.
Other reasons for not wanting to go Android: horrible font choice, fragmentation, update times and a general lack of polish and refinement.
Android is looking great, though. It has a lot of brilliant touches that I wish the iPhone had. If the Android platform comes more
of age I'll likely have one to compliment my iPhone (not replace, simply switch SIMs) in the future. I look forward to seeing what Google will do in the future, Froyo was impressive.
That's one of my biggest reasons for staying with the iPhone platform. Android seems to be the Jack of all trades, master of none. It lacks polish. If they could improve the browsing experience in a few key areas I'd be much less hesitant to jump ship. I'll say it again, fluidity is sorely lacking. Even without Flash.
Other reasons for not wanting to go Android: horrible font choice, fragmentation, update times and a general lack of polish and refinement.
Android is looking great, though. It has a lot of brilliant touches that I wish the iPhone had. If the Android platform comes more
of age I'll likely have one to compliment my iPhone (not replace, simply switch SIMs) in the future. I look forward to seeing what Google will do in the future, Froyo was impressive.
Apple announced 85 million at the iPhone OS 4.0 preview two months ago. Good bet that they've hit 100 million by now.
Not sure that this number is accurate, since they only sold an estimated 5.2 million in the first quarter. (100,000 a day would be 9 million a quarter.)
You clearly understand how to maximise your phones battery life, others may not. The thing a lot of tech savvy people forget is that not all phone users are so knowledgeable. Maybe the folks at the android store will be able to help them out when they complain about bad batteries eh?
"We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it"
Steve Jobs
Thoughts on Flash
April, 2010
And now finally Steve can see it on Nexus One. I suspect that SJ uses iPhone only on public and secretly uses Nexus One/Flash to watch porn.
You are not completely accurate with regard to HD-DVD and Bluray. From a disc manufacturing point of view HD-DVD was more compatible with DVDs. However, the bulk of the patents for HD-DVD was owned by Toshiba. More hardware companies had stake in Bluray. Also, Bluray was more scalable compared to HD-DVD. Also, the max bitrate was also much higher. I am glad Bluray won out.
So maybe it's not (only) Flash that makes the browser laggish? Maybe the browser is just bad one in general?