I'm surprised Android's "500,000" activations per day couldn't sustain Flash.
Having such a life-form in my surroundings, I have a pretty good idea where these numbers come from. The guy re-installs rooted Android versions at least 10 times a week and fills his spare time with posting Apple-hating bullshit on Gizmodo, Engadget and other hangouts for complete retards.
While I do consider that acceptable (should certainly be covered by some nth amendment
to something), I have no idea why these creatures always consider their drivel as being representative of normal people.
I enjoy Appleinsider. However, the authors hardly compare with John Gruber. Gruber is pretty smart, and provides opinion and analysis. I am not saying the authors of this site don't have some intelligence, we'd just never know based on the chosen presentation of the material.
I agree, smart to not letting anyone comment on his blog.
I enjoy reading Apple insider. I really do. Even now I am typing this on my iPad2. But after reading your daily for over a year, I cannot help but detect a consistent bias in favor of Apple. This article makes it clear to me.
In most cases, your writers seem to summarize an event, trend, or story in a way that either says: "Apple was right all along" or "See, this is proof that Apple really will conquer the world." As if we really needed another data point for either view.
Are you just living in fear of falling out of Apple's good graces? Are you actually Apple employees? Or are you blinded by the light...so smitten with the Apple wave that you cannot see any signal that might minimize its stature?
It is great to get updates on what is happening in the Apple domain (although admittedly I often read about a story first on Slashdot, Ars Techica or TechCrunch before picking it up here hours or days later).
But please stop writing the articles as if you are an extension of Apple's PR department. A little objectivity would restore quite a bit of your objectivity.
Respectfully,
Neil Francis
What basis? Adobe admitted for the most part SJ was right and without Flash on moblie, it pretty much guarantees it will become irrelevant to for desktop web browsing too, as every website will develop for HTML5 first to insure they can be accessed everywhere.
Flash will be a desktop application niche in 18 months and I bet Adobe see a major drop off in developer interest overall.
Do you still want to tell me that killing mobile flash was just a matter of timing and not a matter of competition.
Timing? Really?
I knew as soon as I saw the title you'd ask. If this manager represents the entire company and not just the Flash division, it's clear they saw this as more of a competitive issue than timing. I'd say this guy who's been working with Flash for 12-13 years is looking for a scapegoat/smokescreen.
He rightfully places only partial blame on Apple though and this shows when he cites reason for the failure. As JeffDM noted, this business model requires a high level of installations to be successful and Android doesn't always come with it preinstalled, you have to get it from the Android Market. Also, this Flash manager is clearly admitting that the resources to deploy on so many devices were beyond them and the performance requirements were too high. Add in the fact that mobile platforms don't have to support legacy browsers and the move was inevitable.
Despite Android's marketshare, it's not clear how many of those devices fall below a certain performance threshold so I'd go so far as to say it was just as much the fault of Android's business model. Apple could have given Flash a leg up by offering a stable platform with predictable hardware performance but that still doesn't make up for the failing of the other 50% of the market and Adobe for failing to make it run properly. Flash can't play video smoothly on anything less than a 1GHz CPU when they don't have GPU acceleration - the requirement should be half that.
If the company as a whole believes that Apple's development of Canvas and their push towards open standards has been a significant and competitive reason for Flash failing, I am being naive in thinking they are smarter than that.
I'm surprised Android's "500,000" activations per day couldn't sustain Flash.
Those "activations" are not moblie contract activations. They are simply Goggle "activations".
Base on web usage it's clear many Android users are simply moving up from Feature phones to Smartphones and using them much in the same way they did their feature phone. Overseas outside of westernized countries pre-pay is the standard and may of these people don't use data. or have credit cards to buy apps.
In the end an Android users doesn't always equal an iPhone user where it counts. This is what gets lost in the "activations" non-sense. The best market for developers is still clearly iOS - a paying market.
not sure why this thread bugs me so?.but Flash's demise is Adobe's fault, no one else's. No one here has mentioned that Microsoft quickly followed suit in their new mobile platform, jettisoning flash?..not that anyone WOULD notice that ?.yet
To say that Apple's lack of support killed your product is callow?MOBILE killed your product.
but agree with all those who say SJ did us a favor, taking a stand. Give Apple credit for being the first to say out loud what I bet many engineers at many companies had been saying privately for years. Flash is a parasite, it had its time, move on.
Yeah its Apple's fault that Adobe couldnt make flash work on a mobile device.
So much for that blasted selling point on Android
Steve was right the entire time
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff
If adobe made great mobile versions of flash that worked flawlessly and consumed little to no power , apple would have used them. The truth is, flash on desktop still eats more battery power than watching a quicktime h/264 podcast from itunes, wich does not spin the fans even at 1080p.
The web is well served by apple's strong stance against flash, and mobile web sites made for html 5 are now much higher quality experience than even their desktop counterparts in my opinion.
Now only if restaurants finally got rid of their flash sites we could all kiss the flash era good bye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
You're right. Restaurants as an industry have embraced flash. I don't know why.
Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac -it's laptop user that only complain about their batteries and heat. And besides students are the heaviest laptop users- cant afford to dine anyways.
"This one should be pretty apparent, but given the fragmentation of the mobile market, and the fact that one of the leading mobile platforms (Apple?s iOS) was not going to allow the Flash Player in the browser, the Flash Player was not on track to reach anywhere near the ubiquity of the Flash Player on desktops," Chambers said.
This was pretty much common sense for anyone not caught in Adobe's Flash-think. How did a company that was barely able to get Flash to work well on a single "desktop" platform ever think it was going to get it to work well on multiple mobile platforms, with even more demanding requirements, in addition to desktops? It was just never going to happen. Obviously, Apple/SJ realized this years ago, and Adobe finally, grudgingly, has now too.
This was pretty much common sense for anyone not caught in Adobe's Flash-think. How did a company that was barely able to get Flash to work well on a single Apple "desktop" platform ever think it was going to get it to work well on multiple mobile platforms, with even more demanding requirements, in addition to Apple desktops? It was just never going to happen. Obviously, Apple/SJ realized this years ago, and Adobe finally, grudgingly, has now too.
I guess you need to have it spelled out for you. It worked reasonably well on Windows. It did not work well on Mac OS X or Linux, it sucked on both of these platforms. So, 1 out of 3 desktop platforms, there were able to get reasonable performance. Given that, the idea that it would ever work well on even more mobile platforms, wasn't realistic. And, Adobe has now recognized that.
EDIT: And, I know a lot of people will say, "Yes, it worked well on Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe to get it to work well on Windows." But, think about that for a minute. Why should an OS vendor need to "work with" -- i.e., customize their platform -- a browser plugin vendor to get the browser plugin to work well. The whole idea of that is ridiculous, and Microsofft having done it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Should the OS vendor customize their platform for every software vendor to insure that the software vendor's software runs well, or should it be the responsibility of the software vendor to make sure their software runs well? I don't see how any rational person can think anything but the latter. There's nothing about Flash that somehow makes it an exception to this rule.
If you say HTML5 will do everything Flash will do,
and you say you hate what Flash does,
then what, exactly, are you saying?
Maybe I don't get it. "Kill Flash" seems to translate into "Kill banner ads," but there is nothing to stop HTML5 from building the exact same banner ads, and in fact, the "kill flash" people use this equivalence as an argument for ditching Flash.
Seems like one sect lynching another sect, while both holding firm to the same root religion. What am I missing?
If you were following the great Flash debate shortly after the iPad was released in 2010, you'll remember when Adobe paid for full page ads in newspapers around the US and saying sarcastically how they love Apple but not the way Apple limited people's choice. RIM chimed in about how your freedom of choice was limited by Apple because there was no flash in your browser. They made Apple to look like a dictator and as this Adobe manager said, the issue became very political.
But they were all blinded to the fact that from Apple's point of view this was purely a technology issue. As SJ mentioned at All Things D, his company bets on technology trends like people bet on race horses. Flash was an old horse on its way out while HTML5 was the new thoroughbred that Apple was going to bet on for the forseeable future. Flash became the Floppy drive that Apple got rid of with the original iMac.
It's too bad that stubborn minds taking the lead at Adobe, RIM and Android took this long to come pull their heads out of the sand.
If you say HTML5 will do everything Flash will do,
and you say you hate what Flash does,
then what, exactly, are you saying?
Maybe I don't get it. "Kill Flash" seems to translate into "Kill banner ads," but there is nothing to stop HTML5 from building the exact same banner ads, and in fact, the "kill flash" people use this equivalence as an argument for ditching Flash.
Seems like one sect lynching another sect, while both holding firm to the same root religion. What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that the web no longer needs plugins.
Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac -it's laptop user that only complain about their batteries and heat. And besides students are the heaviest laptop users- cant afford to dine anyways.
iMac 24" Core 2 Duo
No Browser windows open with Flash running
"Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac" -- Really?
From what I gathered from that, he's basically saying that because Android is so fragmented and its hardware so varied, it took a great deal of resources to develop it. On top of that, the one handset that's basically homogenized and could keep development costs low, won't allow it to be installed. Therefore, it simply cost too much to develop Flash for Android and they're gonna drop it. That seems to be the gist of it, despite ongoing blah blah blah trying to diffuse the reasoning, pointing to additional things like application markets.
So, basically, Android's model is a failure for app developers because of the high cost of developing for handsets using various cpu/gpu, screen sizes, Android version, etc.. Are we starting to see cracks in Android's house of cards?
Comments
I'm surprised Android's "500,000" activations per day couldn't sustain Flash.
Having such a life-form in my surroundings, I have a pretty good idea where these numbers come from. The guy re-installs rooted Android versions at least 10 times a week and fills his spare time with posting Apple-hating bullshit on Gizmodo, Engadget and other hangouts for complete retards.
While I do consider that acceptable (should certainly be covered by some nth amendment
to something), I have no idea why these creatures always consider their drivel as being representative of normal people.
I enjoy Appleinsider. However, the authors hardly compare with John Gruber. Gruber is pretty smart, and provides opinion and analysis. I am not saying the authors of this site don't have some intelligence, we'd just never know based on the chosen presentation of the material.
I agree, smart to not letting anyone comment on his blog.
J.
I enjoy reading Apple insider. I really do. Even now I am typing this on my iPad2. But after reading your daily for over a year, I cannot help but detect a consistent bias in favor of Apple. This article makes it clear to me.
In most cases, your writers seem to summarize an event, trend, or story in a way that either says: "Apple was right all along" or "See, this is proof that Apple really will conquer the world." As if we really needed another data point for either view.
Are you just living in fear of falling out of Apple's good graces? Are you actually Apple employees? Or are you blinded by the light...so smitten with the Apple wave that you cannot see any signal that might minimize its stature?
It is great to get updates on what is happening in the Apple domain (although admittedly I often read about a story first on Slashdot, Ars Techica or TechCrunch before picking it up here hours or days later).
But please stop writing the articles as if you are an extension of Apple's PR department. A little objectivity would restore quite a bit of your objectivity.
Respectfully,
Neil Francis
What basis? Adobe admitted for the most part SJ was right and without Flash on moblie, it pretty much guarantees it will become irrelevant to for desktop web browsing too, as every website will develop for HTML5 first to insure they can be accessed everywhere.
Flash will be a desktop application niche in 18 months and I bet Adobe see a major drop off in developer interest overall.
Just a matter of time now.
Hey Marvin
Do you still want to tell me that killing mobile flash was just a matter of timing and not a matter of competition.
Timing? Really?
He rightfully places only partial blame on Apple though and this shows when he cites reason for the failure. As JeffDM noted, this business model requires a high level of installations to be successful and Android doesn't always come with it preinstalled, you have to get it from the Android Market. Also, this Flash manager is clearly admitting that the resources to deploy on so many devices were beyond them and the performance requirements were too high. Add in the fact that mobile platforms don't have to support legacy browsers and the move was inevitable.
Despite Android's marketshare, it's not clear how many of those devices fall below a certain performance threshold so I'd go so far as to say it was just as much the fault of Android's business model. Apple could have given Flash a leg up by offering a stable platform with predictable hardware performance but that still doesn't make up for the failing of the other 50% of the market and Adobe for failing to make it run properly. Flash can't play video smoothly on anything less than a 1GHz CPU when they don't have GPU acceleration - the requirement should be half that.
If the company as a whole believes that Apple's development of Canvas and their push towards open standards has been a significant and competitive reason for Flash failing, I am being naive in thinking they are smarter than that.
I'm surprised Android's "500,000" activations per day couldn't sustain Flash.
Those "activations" are not moblie contract activations. They are simply Goggle "activations".
Base on web usage it's clear many Android users are simply moving up from Feature phones to Smartphones and using them much in the same way they did their feature phone. Overseas outside of westernized countries pre-pay is the standard and may of these people don't use data. or have credit cards to buy apps.
In the end an Android users doesn't always equal an iPhone user where it counts. This is what gets lost in the "activations" non-sense. The best market for developers is still clearly iOS - a paying market.
To say that Apple's lack of support killed your product is callow?MOBILE killed your product.
but agree with all those who say SJ did us a favor, taking a stand. Give Apple credit for being the first to say out loud what I bet many engineers at many companies had been saying privately for years. Flash is a parasite, it had its time, move on.
Yeah its Apple's fault that Adobe couldnt make flash work on a mobile device.
So much for that blasted selling point on Android
Steve was right the entire time
If adobe made great mobile versions of flash that worked flawlessly and consumed little to no power , apple would have used them. The truth is, flash on desktop still eats more battery power than watching a quicktime h/264 podcast from itunes, wich does not spin the fans even at 1080p.
The web is well served by apple's strong stance against flash, and mobile web sites made for html 5 are now much higher quality experience than even their desktop counterparts in my opinion.
Now only if restaurants finally got rid of their flash sites we could all kiss the flash era good bye.
You're right. Restaurants as an industry have embraced flash. I don't know why.
Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac -it's laptop user that only complain about their batteries and heat. And besides students are the heaviest laptop users- cant afford to dine anyways.
"This one should be pretty apparent, but given the fragmentation of the mobile market, and the fact that one of the leading mobile platforms (Apple?s iOS) was not going to allow the Flash Player in the browser, the Flash Player was not on track to reach anywhere near the ubiquity of the Flash Player on desktops," Chambers said.
This was pretty much common sense for anyone not caught in Adobe's Flash-think. How did a company that was barely able to get Flash to work well on a single "desktop" platform ever think it was going to get it to work well on multiple mobile platforms, with even more demanding requirements, in addition to desktops? It was just never going to happen. Obviously, Apple/SJ realized this years ago, and Adobe finally, grudgingly, has now too.
This was pretty much common sense for anyone not caught in Adobe's Flash-think. How did a company that was barely able to get Flash to work well on a single Apple "desktop" platform ever think it was going to get it to work well on multiple mobile platforms, with even more demanding requirements, in addition to Apple desktops? It was just never going to happen. Obviously, Apple/SJ realized this years ago, and Adobe finally, grudgingly, has now too.
There, I fixed that for you.
There, I fixed that for you.
I guess you need to have it spelled out for you. It worked reasonably well on Windows. It did not work well on Mac OS X or Linux, it sucked on both of these platforms. So, 1 out of 3 desktop platforms, there were able to get reasonable performance. Given that, the idea that it would ever work well on even more mobile platforms, wasn't realistic. And, Adobe has now recognized that.
EDIT: And, I know a lot of people will say, "Yes, it worked well on Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe to get it to work well on Windows." But, think about that for a minute. Why should an OS vendor need to "work with" -- i.e., customize their platform -- a browser plugin vendor to get the browser plugin to work well. The whole idea of that is ridiculous, and Microsofft having done it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Should the OS vendor customize their platform for every software vendor to insure that the software vendor's software runs well, or should it be the responsibility of the software vendor to make sure their software runs well? I don't see how any rational person can think anything but the latter. There's nothing about Flash that somehow makes it an exception to this rule.
Joking aside, what do you expect?
<snip>
Tallest Skil your pic was hilarious. Good work. I was going to reply about Flash working on my Droid but screw it. That was really funny.
If you say HTML5 will do everything Flash will do,
and you say you hate what Flash does,
then what, exactly, are you saying?
Maybe I don't get it. "Kill Flash" seems to translate into "Kill banner ads," but there is nothing to stop HTML5 from building the exact same banner ads, and in fact, the "kill flash" people use this equivalence as an argument for ditching Flash.
Seems like one sect lynching another sect, while both holding firm to the same root religion. What am I missing?
But they were all blinded to the fact that from Apple's point of view this was purely a technology issue. As SJ mentioned at All Things D, his company bets on technology trends like people bet on race horses. Flash was an old horse on its way out while HTML5 was the new thoroughbred that Apple was going to bet on for the forseeable future. Flash became the Floppy drive that Apple got rid of with the original iMac.
It's too bad that stubborn minds taking the lead at Adobe, RIM and Android took this long to come pull their heads out of the sand.
What gets me is the irony:
If you say HTML5 will do everything Flash will do,
and you say you hate what Flash does,
then what, exactly, are you saying?
Maybe I don't get it. "Kill Flash" seems to translate into "Kill banner ads," but there is nothing to stop HTML5 from building the exact same banner ads, and in fact, the "kill flash" people use this equivalence as an argument for ditching Flash.
Seems like one sect lynching another sect, while both holding firm to the same root religion. What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that the web no longer needs plugins.
Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac -it's laptop user that only complain about their batteries and heat. And besides students are the heaviest laptop users- cant afford to dine anyways.
iMac 24" Core 2 Duo
No Browser windows open with Flash running
"Flash has always worked just fine on an iMac" -- Really?
So, basically, Android's model is a failure for app developers because of the high cost of developing for handsets using various cpu/gpu, screen sizes, Android version, etc.. Are we starting to see cracks in Android's house of cards?