That's on the PC. Mobile devices are a whole new game.
Except reality doesn't bear this out. Smartphones sales are growing exponentially every quarter. Next year smartphones are projected to outsell personal computers. This trend will continue with or without Flash.
There is no public our cry for Flash on the phone. The most visited sites have all created mobile versions that stream media without Flash. Flash needs the smartphone more than the smartphone needs Flash.
Again you have to separate the desktop from the mobile device. Flash development does continue the same for the desktop. HTML5 compliance on desktop browsers is no where near as organized as it is on the mobile device. The reason for that is because webkit runs 90% of the smart phone web browsers. Running a recent build of webkit means they are immediately HTML5 compliant.
you're trying to point out assumptions I've made, with a whole string, of further assumptions!
The most vocal against flash, seems to be the small minority of mac users who dislike it. PC users, mostly couldn't give a crap. It runs fine for them.This in no way equates to a world wide push against flash.
Doesn't exist.
As you said, no one really cares, beyond a lot of people are tired of the broken icons. Even Apple has quietly tried to remove the broken icon display, prompting flash developers to insert their own. So there must be enough of a complaint, we certainly wouldn't hear about it though... They won't go away, and the general public could care less about steve jobs campaign against flash nor the community here who hates it, nor adobe "hearting' apple. end of story.
And you seemed to have conveniently missed the fact, that two versions of the site -still- have to be created if a major number of desktop browsers aren't html5 compliant.
And, you are pointing out the obvious, that flash, needs the mobile. Well, of course it does!!!
you're trying to point out assumptions I've made, with a whole string, of further assumptions!
What assumption did I make? Your examples directly point the relationship Flash currently has with personal computers. My point is Flash does not and will not have that same relationship to mobile devices.
Quote:
The most vocal against flash, seems to be the small minority of mac users who dislike it. PC users, mostly couldn't give a crap. It runs fine for them.This in no way equates to a world wide push against flash.
Most Windows users were fine with Windows XP and the limited internet that MS wanted to lock the world into with IE6, so who trusts their judgement. If it had been up to MS we would have extremely limited rich application development that largely kept us tied into Windows.
Quote:
As you said, no one really cares, beyond a lot of people are tired of the broken icons. Even Apple has quietly tried to remove the broken icon display, prompting flash developers to insert their own. So there must be enough of a complaint, we certainly wouldn't hear about it though....
You are over playing this claim. In reality you rarely ever see broken link icons. We're three years into this and most everyone has a site with a mobile UI. The mobile browser is directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
Apple removed the broken link icons because Engadget would post pictures of it as ridicule.
Quote:
And you seemed to have conveniently missed the fact, that two versions of the site -still- have to be created if a major number of desktop browsers aren't html5 compliant.
Major website developers don't care about crap phone browsers that are stuck displaying WAP pages. They are largely going to support mobile browsers with the most market share.
Quote:
And, you are pointing out the obvious, that flash, needs the mobile. Well, of course it does!!!
Is this about maintaining the status quo or is this about using the best technology available for the task?
What assumption did I make? Your examples directly point the relationship Flash currently has with personal computers. My point is Flash does not and will not have that same relationship to mobile devices.
There's your assumption. "will not". Apparently, you have a crystal ball! I think a lot of people make a whole lot of assumptions about the platform, without actually knowing what has happened the last couple years on the platform, and massive change in programming language that has taken place. I doubt very much it's going to continue as it is today, and can see it's going to continue to morph. It's no coincidence the new actionscript has become even closer to javascript than ever before, but one would need to be very well versed in both AS3 and JS to know this. I don't have the answers, but I am aware of some interesting movements on the platform.
Quote:
Most Windows users were fine with Windows XP and the limited internet that MS wanted to lock the world into with IE6, so who trusts their judgement. If it had been up to MS we would have extremely limited rich application development that largely kept us tied into Windows.
Not sure what your point is, I merely said, the majority of users out there on desktops, don't have the performance issues mac users have had in the past with flash. I certainly wasn't trying to say M$ was any better. (not)
Quote:
You are over playing this claim. In reality you rarely ever see broken link icons. We're three years into this and most everyone has a site with a mobile UI. The mobile browser is directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
Another assumption. It's all I hear about. Broken icons. In fact, as I said, it's important enough, to have prompted apple to take action, to reduce the number of broken icons users see. There's proof enough someone had to do something to reduce it...
Quote:
Apple removed the broken link icons because Engadget would post pictures of it as ridicule.
I highly doubt, it's all engadgets fault...
Quote:
Major website developers don't care about crap phone browsers that are stuck displaying WAP pages. They are largely going to support mobile browsers with the most market share.
But they do if they need to target both desktop browsers which don't support html5 now, and mobile that do. So, somewhere in the dumbing down, interactive requirements go down the tubes. You assume companies are ok with this. NOT.
Quote:
Is this about maintaining the status quo or is this about using the best technology available for the task?
It has -always- been about the best technology for the task. The trouble is, you keep defining the 'task' as one that doesn't require flash. There are, despite your assertions, many that do. When and if I can accomplish -everything, and I mean -everything- flash can do, (not just pretty vector animations possible 10 years ago) and can do so efficiently in a great development platform, I'll use something else. I don't care what I use, as long as it does what it is I want, without dumbing it down, if possible.
There's your assumption. "will not". Apparently, you have a crystal ball!
Yes I can say with absolute certitude that Flash will not be on 90% of the mobile devices.
Quote:
Another assumption. It's all I hear about. Broken icons. In fact, as I said, it's important enough, to have prompted apple to take action, to reduce the number of broken icons users see. There's proof enough someone had to do something to reduce it...
Media sensationalism.
Two main reason I know its media sensationalism. Because most mobile phone users are accessing web services through a native app more than they are through the browser, you don't need Flash for that. When you do use the browser the far majority of the time the browser will be directed to a mobile website that does not use Flash, so you don't need Flash for that either.
Quote:
But they do if they need to target both desktop browsers which don't support html5 now, and mobile that do. So, somewhere in the dumbing down, interactive requirements go down the tubes. You assume companies are ok with this. NOT.
You lost me here. They already have desktop sites that support Flash, nothing has changed there. I don't understand the dumbing down you are talking about.
In addition to the desktop site with Flash, they provide a mobile site, designed for small touch screens, and stream media in H.264. Where is the dumbing down?
Quote:
It has -always- been about the best technology for the task. The trouble is, you keep defining the 'task' as one that doesn't require flash. There are, despite your assertions, many that do. When and if I can accomplish -everything, and I mean -everything- flash can do, (not just pretty vector animations possible 10 years ago) and can do so efficiently in a great development platform, I'll use something else. I don't care what I use, as long as it does what it is I want, without dumbing it down, if possible.
Yes because Flash has clearly been shown numerous times to not work very well on mobile devices. Adobe is trying to force it to work any way. Not because it is the best technology for mobile devices but because they are trying to protect their control of the web.
While it is currently still maturing and it is in some ways hampered by design by committee. What HTML5 can do, has been shown numerous times to do better on mobile devices.
Yes I can say with absolute certitude that Flash will not be on 90% of the mobile devices.
Many people here are sure of a lot of things, based on some pretty flimsy projections. I've been around long enough to know, nothing, is for sure, and likely, there will be some surprises. Don't assume 1) flash won't make it on the mobile platform, (it is already to the chagrin of a few) and 2) flash will be as it is today.
Quote:
Media sensationalism.
Convenient I say. I say there's more to that storey. However, truthfully, as I've said before, flash not being on the iphone is probably less an issue, then say a tablet.
Quote:
Two main reason I know its media sensationalism. Because most mobile phone users are accessing web services through a native app more than they are through the browser, you don't need Flash for that. When you do use the browser the far majority of the time the browser will be directed to a mobile website that does not use Flash, so you don't need Flash for that either.
I'm talking primarily about accessing the web through a browser. And being directed to a mobile site only happens on most major sites. all the rest, I get the desktop version. Hardly the "majority of the time" for me, but it depends, if all you surf are those major sites with mobile versions, sure.
Quote:
You lost me here. They already have desktop sites that support Flash, nothing has changed there. I don't understand the dumbing down you are talking about.
In addition to the desktop site with Flash, they provide a mobile site, designed for small touch screens, and stream media in H.264. Where is the dumbing down?
If you want to create -one- website viewable by all, which seems to be the mantra around here, you're going to have to dumb things right down. Or, create two versions, fine. Which means flash will continue to be used, flourish on the desktops, and if adobe -does- succeed in creating a good flash for mobile, we'll see where that goes...
Quote:
Yes because Flash has clearly been shown numerous times to not work very well on mobile devices. Adobe is trying to force it to work any way. Not because it is the best technology for mobile devices but because they are trying to protect their control of the web.
They have shown it to very clearly work very well too, it depends on what your bias is... . And, they have also shown it can have problems. What was that you mentioned... what was it. yes. "media sensationalism". I'll take all that with a grain of salt, and make my own opinions based on experience, I don't need a couple dudes in search of click hits to tell me what to think.
Quote:
While it is currently still maturing and it is in some ways hampered by design by committee. What HTML5 can do, has been shown numerous times to do better on mobile devices.
There's that "shown" thing again. I waitin for some real production ready stuff here! I'm tired of all this look at what my google link says. People in forums throwing around the latest blog sensation that "makes them right". What a waste of time. There are just as plenty videos out there that show html5 to run as dog as flash out there. But truthfully, I file those right in the same bin as the bad flash videos. I know well those technologies will improve, they will change things rapidly, certainly will change things for flash you'd be a fool not to see that.
I'm talking primarily about accessing the web through a browser. And being directed to a mobile site only happens on most major sites. all the rest, I get the desktop version. Hardly the "majority of the time" for me, but it depends, if all you surf are those major sites with mobile versions, sure.
What sites do you frequent that absolutely require Flash?
Quote:
If you want to create -one- website viewable by all, which seems to be the mantra around here, you're going to have to dumb things right down. Or, create two versions, fine. Which means flash will continue to be used, flourish on the desktops, and if adobe -does- succeed in creating a good flash for mobile, we'll see where that goes...
If the website has lots of mixed media content then you have to create at least two websites. One for a personal computer with keyboard and mounse. Another for 3 inch touch screen. Both require entirely different UI. Some are making a third for the 9-10 inch tablet UI.
Quote:
They have shown it to very clearly work very well too, it depends on what your bias is... . And, they have also shown it can have problems. What was that you mentioned... what was it. yes. "media sensationalism". I'll take all that with a grain of salt, and make my own opinions based on experience, I don't need a couple dudes in search of click hits to tell me what to think.
It does work, working well is a different matter. It does crash, it does slow the phones performance, it does drain the battery faster.
Quote:
There's that "shown" thing again. I waitin for some real production ready stuff here! I'm tired of all this look at what my google link says. People in forums throwing around the latest blog sensation that "makes them right". What a waste of time. There are just as plenty videos out there that show html5 to run as dog as flash out there. But truthfully, I file those right in the same bin as the bad flash videos. I know well those technologies will improve, they will change things rapidly, certainly will change things for flash you'd be a fool not to see that.
That's interesting you don't like the google links? The only reason to not like them is that they don't prove your point.
I've seen HTML5 demonstrations that shows a feature running poorly because the browser does not properly support that element of HTML5. I agree that is an issue. But I have not seen a demonstration of HTML5 that crashed the browser, caused the phone to perform poorly, or drained the battery faster.
No I don't see the magical fairy dust that Adobe is using to suddenly drastically improve the performance of Flash.
I was about to mention that very same thing, all this Android talk is making windows technology all the more irrelevant. I like that
Well, they were betrayed or tricked by both Apple (iTunes, etc.) and Google (Search, Online Marketing & Content) companies which at least in Apple's case they ironically invested and only helped Steve Jobs back into his position held till today.
It seems a bit late compared to both Apple and Android, but the latest Windows Phone 7 seems yet another (very blunt from what I've seen) clone of the iPhone OS. Including all the flaws, they scrapped multi-threading and even simple Copy&Paste has been postponed to a further release (sounds familiar? )
What sites do you frequent that absolutely require Flash?
Sites with major interactive requirements. People also seem to not consider the platform for development. Flash is simple better, and far more capable than other alternatives currently, and for some time to come. Flash has also morphed in an extremely powerful application development platform. I'm still waiting to see those "flash killer" sites. I see a lot of example of cool animations, and game stuff, but no "flash killers". But I suppose you have to really understand the capabilities before understanding where to use it, and not. Many here simply spit out what they read on a blog or what someone else posted as some kind of fact. By the same token, I know many developers who don't understand either, and over use a technology when something better is out there.
Quote:
If the website has lots of mixed media content then you have to create at least two websites. One for a personal computer with keyboard and mounse. Another for 3 inch touch screen. Both require entirely different UI. Some are making a third for the 9-10 inch tablet UI.
That's interesting because you're singing a different tune than some of the others around here, who asserted that an html5 site could be viewable across all. Truthfully, you could create one flash site and have it serve -all- devices. All screen sizes. Yes, this is very possible. And you could with html/js/css if you were smart.
Quote:
It does work, working well is a different matter. It does crash, it does slow the phones performance, it does drain the battery faster.
Have you personally verified this? I have.
Quote:
That's interesting you don't like the google links? The only reason to not like them is that they don't prove your point.
Oh but they -can-. There are plenty of links out there showing how crappy html5 runs, all the myths surrounding flash on mobile devices etc etc. But, no one is interested in those, even though I posted them, for the reasons you stated. But playing the "google link" war is for know nothings who don't know anything about something, so they google to look smart.
Quote:
I've seen HTML5 demonstrations that shows a feature running poorly because the browser does not properly support that element of HTML5. I agree that is an issue. But I have not seen a demonstration of HTML5 that crashed the browser, caused the phone to perform poorly, or drained the battery faster.
Oh, it's the browser's fault. I -have- seen html5 / javascript lock up browsers, and crash them. Quite a few times in fact. But I don't slam html5 because of it. You can take out a browser quite a few different ways.
Quote:
No I don't see the magical fairy dust that Adobe is using to suddenly drastically improve the performance of Flash.
I do. I've seen the performance increases since V9 because I've worked very closely and had to make a lot of tweaks to account for the differences between pc and mac for years now. Whether adobe can make it happen, well that I can't control. We'll see the player out on android, and nokia phones which will be quite a few phones. So if the player is crapware, then, it'll die.
Comments
That's on the PC. Mobile devices are a whole new game.
Except reality doesn't bear this out. Smartphones sales are growing exponentially every quarter. Next year smartphones are projected to outsell personal computers. This trend will continue with or without Flash.
There is no public our cry for Flash on the phone. The most visited sites have all created mobile versions that stream media without Flash. Flash needs the smartphone more than the smartphone needs Flash.
Again you have to separate the desktop from the mobile device. Flash development does continue the same for the desktop. HTML5 compliance on desktop browsers is no where near as organized as it is on the mobile device. The reason for that is because webkit runs 90% of the smart phone web browsers. Running a recent build of webkit means they are immediately HTML5 compliant.
you're trying to point out assumptions I've made, with a whole string, of further assumptions!
The most vocal against flash, seems to be the small minority of mac users who dislike it. PC users, mostly couldn't give a crap. It runs fine for them.This in no way equates to a world wide push against flash.
Doesn't exist.
As you said, no one really cares, beyond a lot of people are tired of the broken icons. Even Apple has quietly tried to remove the broken icon display, prompting flash developers to insert their own. So there must be enough of a complaint, we certainly wouldn't hear about it though...
And you seemed to have conveniently missed the fact, that two versions of the site -still- have to be created if a major number of desktop browsers aren't html5 compliant.
And, you are pointing out the obvious, that flash, needs the mobile. Well, of course it does!!!
you're trying to point out assumptions I've made, with a whole string, of further assumptions!
What assumption did I make? Your examples directly point the relationship Flash currently has with personal computers. My point is Flash does not and will not have that same relationship to mobile devices.
The most vocal against flash, seems to be the small minority of mac users who dislike it. PC users, mostly couldn't give a crap. It runs fine for them.This in no way equates to a world wide push against flash.
Most Windows users were fine with Windows XP and the limited internet that MS wanted to lock the world into with IE6, so who trusts their judgement. If it had been up to MS we would have extremely limited rich application development that largely kept us tied into Windows.
As you said, no one really cares, beyond a lot of people are tired of the broken icons. Even Apple has quietly tried to remove the broken icon display, prompting flash developers to insert their own. So there must be enough of a complaint, we certainly wouldn't hear about it though....
You are over playing this claim. In reality you rarely ever see broken link icons. We're three years into this and most everyone has a site with a mobile UI. The mobile browser is directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
Apple removed the broken link icons because Engadget would post pictures of it as ridicule.
And you seemed to have conveniently missed the fact, that two versions of the site -still- have to be created if a major number of desktop browsers aren't html5 compliant.
Major website developers don't care about crap phone browsers that are stuck displaying WAP pages. They are largely going to support mobile browsers with the most market share.
And, you are pointing out the obvious, that flash, needs the mobile. Well, of course it does!!!
Is this about maintaining the status quo or is this about using the best technology available for the task?
What assumption did I make? Your examples directly point the relationship Flash currently has with personal computers. My point is Flash does not and will not have that same relationship to mobile devices.
There's your assumption. "will not". Apparently, you have a crystal ball! I think a lot of people make a whole lot of assumptions about the platform, without actually knowing what has happened the last couple years on the platform, and massive change in programming language that has taken place. I doubt very much it's going to continue as it is today, and can see it's going to continue to morph. It's no coincidence the new actionscript has become even closer to javascript than ever before, but one would need to be very well versed in both AS3 and JS to know this. I don't have the answers, but I am aware of some interesting movements on the platform.
Most Windows users were fine with Windows XP and the limited internet that MS wanted to lock the world into with IE6, so who trusts their judgement. If it had been up to MS we would have extremely limited rich application development that largely kept us tied into Windows.
Not sure what your point is, I merely said, the majority of users out there on desktops, don't have the performance issues mac users have had in the past with flash. I certainly wasn't trying to say M$ was any better. (not)
You are over playing this claim. In reality you rarely ever see broken link icons. We're three years into this and most everyone has a site with a mobile UI. The mobile browser is directed to the mobile site that has no Flash.
Another assumption. It's all I hear about. Broken icons. In fact, as I said, it's important enough, to have prompted apple to take action, to reduce the number of broken icons users see. There's proof enough someone had to do something to reduce it...
Apple removed the broken link icons because Engadget would post pictures of it as ridicule.
I highly doubt, it's all engadgets fault...
Major website developers don't care about crap phone browsers that are stuck displaying WAP pages. They are largely going to support mobile browsers with the most market share.
But they do if they need to target both desktop browsers which don't support html5 now, and mobile that do. So, somewhere in the dumbing down, interactive requirements go down the tubes. You assume companies are ok with this. NOT.
Is this about maintaining the status quo or is this about using the best technology available for the task?
It has -always- been about the best technology for the task. The trouble is, you keep defining the 'task' as one that doesn't require flash. There are, despite your assertions, many that do. When and if I can accomplish -everything, and I mean -everything- flash can do, (not just pretty vector animations possible 10 years ago) and can do so efficiently in a great development platform, I'll use something else. I don't care what I use, as long as it does what it is I want, without dumbing it down, if possible.
There's your assumption. "will not". Apparently, you have a crystal ball!
Yes I can say with absolute certitude that Flash will not be on 90% of the mobile devices.
Another assumption. It's all I hear about. Broken icons. In fact, as I said, it's important enough, to have prompted apple to take action, to reduce the number of broken icons users see. There's proof enough someone had to do something to reduce it...
Media sensationalism.
Two main reason I know its media sensationalism. Because most mobile phone users are accessing web services through a native app more than they are through the browser, you don't need Flash for that. When you do use the browser the far majority of the time the browser will be directed to a mobile website that does not use Flash, so you don't need Flash for that either.
But they do if they need to target both desktop browsers which don't support html5 now, and mobile that do. So, somewhere in the dumbing down, interactive requirements go down the tubes. You assume companies are ok with this. NOT.
You lost me here. They already have desktop sites that support Flash, nothing has changed there. I don't understand the dumbing down you are talking about.
In addition to the desktop site with Flash, they provide a mobile site, designed for small touch screens, and stream media in H.264. Where is the dumbing down?
It has -always- been about the best technology for the task. The trouble is, you keep defining the 'task' as one that doesn't require flash. There are, despite your assertions, many that do. When and if I can accomplish -everything, and I mean -everything- flash can do, (not just pretty vector animations possible 10 years ago) and can do so efficiently in a great development platform, I'll use something else. I don't care what I use, as long as it does what it is I want, without dumbing it down, if possible.
Yes because Flash has clearly been shown numerous times to not work very well on mobile devices. Adobe is trying to force it to work any way. Not because it is the best technology for mobile devices but because they are trying to protect their control of the web.
While it is currently still maturing and it is in some ways hampered by design by committee. What HTML5 can do, has been shown numerous times to do better on mobile devices.
Yes I can say with absolute certitude that Flash will not be on 90% of the mobile devices.
Many people here are sure of a lot of things, based on some pretty flimsy projections. I've been around long enough to know, nothing, is for sure, and likely, there will be some surprises. Don't assume 1) flash won't make it on the mobile platform, (it is already to the chagrin of a few) and 2) flash will be as it is today.
Media sensationalism.
Convenient I say. I say there's more to that storey. However, truthfully, as I've said before, flash not being on the iphone is probably less an issue, then say a tablet.
Two main reason I know its media sensationalism. Because most mobile phone users are accessing web services through a native app more than they are through the browser, you don't need Flash for that. When you do use the browser the far majority of the time the browser will be directed to a mobile website that does not use Flash, so you don't need Flash for that either.
I'm talking primarily about accessing the web through a browser. And being directed to a mobile site only happens on most major sites. all the rest, I get the desktop version. Hardly the "majority of the time" for me, but it depends, if all you surf are those major sites with mobile versions, sure.
You lost me here. They already have desktop sites that support Flash, nothing has changed there. I don't understand the dumbing down you are talking about.
In addition to the desktop site with Flash, they provide a mobile site, designed for small touch screens, and stream media in H.264. Where is the dumbing down?
If you want to create -one- website viewable by all, which seems to be the mantra around here, you're going to have to dumb things right down. Or, create two versions, fine. Which means flash will continue to be used, flourish on the desktops, and if adobe -does- succeed in creating a good flash for mobile, we'll see where that goes...
Yes because Flash has clearly been shown numerous times to not work very well on mobile devices. Adobe is trying to force it to work any way. Not because it is the best technology for mobile devices but because they are trying to protect their control of the web.
They have shown it to very clearly work very well too, it depends on what your bias is... . And, they have also shown it can have problems. What was that you mentioned... what was it. yes. "media sensationalism".
While it is currently still maturing and it is in some ways hampered by design by committee. What HTML5 can do, has been shown numerous times to do better on mobile devices.
There's that "shown" thing again. I waitin for some real production ready stuff here! I'm tired of all this look at what my google link says. People in forums throwing around the latest blog sensation that "makes them right". What a waste of time. There are just as plenty videos out there that show html5 to run as dog as flash out there. But truthfully, I file those right in the same bin as the bad flash videos. I know well those technologies will improve, they will change things rapidly, certainly will change things for flash you'd be a fool not to see that.
I'm talking primarily about accessing the web through a browser. And being directed to a mobile site only happens on most major sites. all the rest, I get the desktop version. Hardly the "majority of the time" for me, but it depends, if all you surf are those major sites with mobile versions, sure.
What sites do you frequent that absolutely require Flash?
If you want to create -one- website viewable by all, which seems to be the mantra around here, you're going to have to dumb things right down. Or, create two versions, fine. Which means flash will continue to be used, flourish on the desktops, and if adobe -does- succeed in creating a good flash for mobile, we'll see where that goes...
If the website has lots of mixed media content then you have to create at least two websites. One for a personal computer with keyboard and mounse. Another for 3 inch touch screen. Both require entirely different UI. Some are making a third for the 9-10 inch tablet UI.
They have shown it to very clearly work very well too, it depends on what your bias is... . And, they have also shown it can have problems. What was that you mentioned... what was it. yes. "media sensationalism".
It does work, working well is a different matter. It does crash, it does slow the phones performance, it does drain the battery faster.
There's that "shown" thing again. I waitin for some real production ready stuff here! I'm tired of all this look at what my google link says. People in forums throwing around the latest blog sensation that "makes them right". What a waste of time. There are just as plenty videos out there that show html5 to run as dog as flash out there. But truthfully, I file those right in the same bin as the bad flash videos. I know well those technologies will improve, they will change things rapidly, certainly will change things for flash you'd be a fool not to see that.
That's interesting you don't like the google links? The only reason to not like them is that they don't prove your point.
I've seen HTML5 demonstrations that shows a feature running poorly because the browser does not properly support that element of HTML5. I agree that is an issue. But I have not seen a demonstration of HTML5 that crashed the browser, caused the phone to perform poorly, or drained the battery faster.
No I don't see the magical fairy dust that Adobe is using to suddenly drastically improve the performance of Flash.
I was about to mention that very same thing, all this Android talk is making windows technology all the more irrelevant. I like that
Well, they were betrayed or tricked by both Apple (iTunes, etc.) and Google (Search, Online Marketing & Content) companies which at least in Apple's case they ironically invested and only helped Steve Jobs back into his position held till today.
It seems a bit late compared to both Apple and Android, but the latest Windows Phone 7 seems yet another (very blunt from what I've seen) clone of the iPhone OS. Including all the flaws, they scrapped multi-threading and even simple Copy&Paste has been postponed to a further release (sounds familiar?
What sites do you frequent that absolutely require Flash?
Sites with major interactive requirements. People also seem to not consider the platform for development. Flash is simple better, and far more capable than other alternatives currently, and for some time to come. Flash has also morphed in an extremely powerful application development platform. I'm still waiting to see those "flash killer" sites. I see a lot of example of cool animations, and game stuff, but no "flash killers". But I suppose you have to really understand the capabilities before understanding where to use it, and not. Many here simply spit out what they read on a blog or what someone else posted as some kind of fact. By the same token, I know many developers who don't understand either, and over use a technology when something better is out there.
If the website has lots of mixed media content then you have to create at least two websites. One for a personal computer with keyboard and mounse. Another for 3 inch touch screen. Both require entirely different UI. Some are making a third for the 9-10 inch tablet UI.
That's interesting because you're singing a different tune than some of the others around here, who asserted that an html5 site could be viewable across all. Truthfully, you could create one flash site and have it serve -all- devices. All screen sizes. Yes, this is very possible. And you could with html/js/css if you were smart.
It does work, working well is a different matter. It does crash, it does slow the phones performance, it does drain the battery faster.
Have you personally verified this? I have.
That's interesting you don't like the google links? The only reason to not like them is that they don't prove your point.
Oh but they -can-. There are plenty of links out there showing how crappy html5 runs, all the myths surrounding flash on mobile devices etc etc. But, no one is interested in those, even though I posted them, for the reasons you stated. But playing the "google link" war is for know nothings who don't know anything about something, so they google to look smart.
I've seen HTML5 demonstrations that shows a feature running poorly because the browser does not properly support that element of HTML5. I agree that is an issue. But I have not seen a demonstration of HTML5 that crashed the browser, caused the phone to perform poorly, or drained the battery faster.
Oh, it's the browser's fault. I -have- seen html5 / javascript lock up browsers, and crash them. Quite a few times in fact. But I don't slam html5 because of it. You can take out a browser quite a few different ways.
No I don't see the magical fairy dust that Adobe is using to suddenly drastically improve the performance of Flash.
I do. I've seen the performance increases since V9 because I've worked very closely and had to make a lot of tweaks to account for the differences between pc and mac for years now. Whether adobe can make it happen, well that I can't control. We'll see the player out on android, and nokia phones which will be quite a few phones. So if the player is crapware, then, it'll die.
What sites do you frequent that absolutely require Flash?
Sites with major interactive requirements.
That's not an answer, give me some URL's.
That's not an answer, give me some URL's.
you're kidding me right?
I don't mean to be offensive buuut.. you do surf the net right?
here's some examples of highly regarded flash sites. www.thefwa.com
note, I don't like all of these, but there's some good examples here.