The world is moving to mobile devices and Flash is being left behind. It's just the nature of progress: adapt or die. Time is running out for Adobe. They are not adapting fast enough.
Not for nothing or just political posturing did Steve Jobs call Adobe "lazy"...
There is over 20 years of history behind that assertion (Photoshop is 20 this year); faced with seismic changes in the hardware and OS landscape, the company seems to prefer to drag its feet and see where the wind blows before taking steps to catch up. And this from a company that was once ahead of the curve with PostScript and Display PostScript from out of the legendary Xerox PARC where so many earth-shattering new technologies (Ethernet, OOP, the GUI and yes, PostScript) emerged. One can only surmise that it was (and still is) the massive riches garnered from the emergence of the gargantuan Wintel-PC desktop market that has softened their creative and pioneering drive over the years. Sad.
The big seismic change that is now occupying Adobe's sluggish thinking is the touchscreen-based mobile computing paradigm that means they have to completely re-think their Flash design and code away from the mouse-hover, mouse-click/double-click/scroll-wheel, stylus and hardware keyboard functions, as they clearly will not work with the new kid on the block as successfully as they have on the desktop.
I honestly have no idea about the impact of Flash 9.x on N900 towards battery life. I surf daily, including sites with Flash, and I charge the phone every night or every other night.
I do believe heavy use of Flash might be a drain on battery, but again I'm saying it does provide me with useful access to Flash content - today. So, useful Flash for mobile is available.
Flash to play YouTube videos instead of a dedicated player or HTML5 on an ARM-based device? I like my battery power and I like to use a quality ≥ 360p so Flash for YouTube is not the best option.
If Flash is so great on Maemo why did Mozilla disable it in Firefox Mobile when that would have been a great selling point? Performance?
Which phone plays Hulu and other sites that stream TV shows on Flash?
I am not saying YouTube would be my primary use for Flash on a mobile device, but I am saying it works. Streaming SD video from YouTube works actually very well as do many Flash games. Some heavy motion graphics sites with interactivity may be slow, but often accessible nevertheless.
What is nice about Flash on Maemo is the occasional access it provides for such content that I need but otherwise would be inaccessible. I mean, it is good to have the option, right? For example a lot of Disney and other commercial content is Flash, and so far I have rarely been locked about because of 10.x requirement, most content I've come across works great on 9.x.
My only point was to counter the notion in the article that compatible Flash for mobile wouldn't be available. It is available. The rest of the discussion, Flash vs. Apple or what type of technology is best for what, I have no comment on. Adobe does have a working mobile Flash implementation out and Apple could choose to let them provide the option, but they have chosen not to.
Not because the technology isn't available, but because of Apple's choice. The Firefox-based MicroB browsing experience on N900 is indeed quite complete and Flash adds to that. It is a completely different discussion to make some philosophical, religious, commercial or principled decision against Flash, I'm just saying the option is already out there for those who want it.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
Flash 9.x is available for mobile devices e.g. the Nokia N900. Very usable for much of the Flash-based websites out there.
After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
MS adding support for HTML5 to IE9 is an interesting development. They have all these people who won't give up IE6 and it's a nightmare for them to have to support (with security patches at least) IE6, 7 & 8, and soon 9 as well. As much as MS has enjoyed the IE lock-in of developers over the years (and even MS centric developers are probably sick of IE6), I think they are finding it is just holding them back, and that they are hoping that with the push toward HTML5, IE9 will be the IE6 (as well as 7 & 8) killer.
The instant someone releases HTML5 development tools that designers can use (and this will absolutely happen, soon) there's going to be a stampede away from new Flash development by content providers. This future is already written, adapt or die.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
And you blame Apple for your ignorance. Talk about being lame.
I just have to laugh to myself whenever anyone throws "HTML5 is the Flash killer" around.
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
People keep saying that - and I keep asking the same question. What will Flash do that existing open technologies (not just html 5, but all the other available web tools) won't do? Before you answer, watch Jobs' Toy Story iAad demo.
So far, NO ONE has given a single thing that Flash does that can't be done with open technologies that don't drain your battery and crash your computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
I don't see the point of Adobe making Apple look like the bad guy if Flash 10.1 for mobile devices isn't even out yet.
You don't see the reason? It should be obvious.
Adobe has had this nice little niche that is widely used and gives them significant control. It encourages more people to use their Creative Suite products. Now, they see that little edifice starting to crumble as people are seeing that Flash is really a lousy technology and switching to alternatives. Adobe has a choice: either admit the problems and improve the product or spew FUD to tray to make it look like Apple is the bad guy. Since they're apparently incapable of the former, FUD is all they have left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable. However, without substantial engineering effort on Adobe's part, I don't think they can attain this milestone before Flash starts losing relevance.
Heck, I'm guessing that Flash already is losing relevance every single day.
No need to guess. YouTube already offers html 5. Hulu is coming. A number of major newspapers now offer Flash-free sites.
With 75 million iDevices accounting for 60-75% of mobile web access without Flash, site developers have plenty of incentive to move to other technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
Yes, if Adobe were a forward-thinking company, the latest version of CS would have fully implemented html 5 (yes, I realize that the standard isn't finalized but that doesn't mean they can use it and correct any minor changes with point upgrades later). They could continue to lead the way with their development tools, but apparently are more attached to Flash than their development tools.
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
You could have said similar things about multitasking on the iPhone, but your conclusion would not have been "Did, Apple, Die."
With 75 million iDevices accounting for 60-75% of mobile web access without Flash, site developers have plenty of incentive to move to other technologies.
It's 85 million iDevices, according to Steve at the iPhone OS 4.0 preview event.
You are missing the point. In many many cases Flash is not a good platform even on the desktop, and is grossly abused and used out of laziness. Its unbelievable that you have some idiots that actually design their entire website out of flash. Creating a flash free and flash version of a website really isn't the solution. The solution is don't build it in flash at all. The industry needs to get busy building and improving tools that bypass this resource hog. We should settle for nothing less. It is a pig of a product.
It works fine on 95% of desktops, and is installed on an even larger percentage.
Don't mistake the OS X experience for the typical desktop/laptop user experience.
Flash has more than 0% mobile coverage, just because 10.x isn't out yet for mobile doesn't mean Flash is not supported.
For example the Nokia N900 has Flash 9.x and definitely can access any usual Flash sites, such as Disney content. YouTube plays natively as Flash too. Definitely usable and broadens access a lot.
This article makes it sound like 10.x is somehow a requirement for all Flash content. Much of the content out there is already supported on many mobile devices.
Apple could easily support the same level of Flash as N900/Maemo does, if they wish. Please, good arguments are one thing, but let's not make it sound like Flash isn't available for mobile.
It is available, it is usable and I use it daily.
The author(s) on this site clearly have an agenda in delivering controversial news regarding adobes flash. I've used flash sites on the nexus one and they run swimmingly through content. In fact, they even run sites with 3d modeling that include embedded videos. There have always been limitations with older versions of flash not supporting all the newest features, and yet authors of flash content have gotten along just fine without the other 2% of content out there using every feature flash has to offer. I'd chance it to say that sites using ALL the power of flash on one page are likely not building anything lean enough to be contented worth viewing.
It's 85 million iDevices, according to Steve at the iPhone OS 4.0 preview event.
And yes, you've made your point.
that's presuming all those are active and since they're killing support for first gen iphones and ipod touches along with crippling their shipped versions of the second gens, i fail to see how those devices can be touted as factoring into the 4.0 landscape other than to pad numbers and inflate hype.
In the immortal words of Steve Jobs: "Are you nuts? We're (they're) doing the best we can". It's not as if Apple has never had a date slip (mobile me, push notifications come to mind). But I think the larger point here that Shantanu is trying to make is not that the iPhone or iPad doesn't support flash today, but that Apple refuses to cooperate with Adobe and allow it ever. Adobe is quite publicly working with every handset manufacturer save one to bring flash to mobile to mobile handsets. The "it's not technology" quote refers to two things: Adobe is currently proving that on mobile handsets that flash is not a CPU hog and does not drain the battery (http://www.flashmobileblog.com/2010/...-on-nexus-one/), and has better performance than HTML5 (actually blows iPhone HTML5 out of the water: http://vimeo.com/10553088). The second thing that he's referring to regarding technology is Apple's decision to ban the Flash iPhone Packager... it clearly wasn't a technology issue because it was feature complete and there were over 100 approved apps in the app store that were built with it... it was purely business.
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
you just drank up all the kool aid and left none for anyone else.
Flash Player 10.1 for Android is still on schedule for H1, no slippage... can you guys please correct the record, amend the article to state that there is no slippage.
Comments
The world is moving to mobile devices and Flash is being left behind. It's just the nature of progress: adapt or die. Time is running out for Adobe. They are not adapting fast enough.
Not for nothing or just political posturing did Steve Jobs call Adobe "lazy"...
There is over 20 years of history behind that assertion (Photoshop is 20 this year); faced with seismic changes in the hardware and OS landscape, the company seems to prefer to drag its feet and see where the wind blows before taking steps to catch up. And this from a company that was once ahead of the curve with PostScript and Display PostScript from out of the legendary Xerox PARC where so many earth-shattering new technologies (Ethernet, OOP, the GUI and yes, PostScript) emerged. One can only surmise that it was (and still is) the massive riches garnered from the emergence of the gargantuan Wintel-PC desktop market that has softened their creative and pioneering drive over the years. Sad.
The big seismic change that is now occupying Adobe's sluggish thinking is the touchscreen-based mobile computing paradigm that means they have to completely re-think their Flash design and code away from the mouse-hover, mouse-click/double-click/scroll-wheel, stylus and hardware keyboard functions, as they clearly will not work with the new kid on the block as successfully as they have on the desktop.
May the Spirit of PARC Xerox be with Adobe.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock...
not even an anecdotal answer?
I honestly have no idea about the impact of Flash 9.x on N900 towards battery life. I surf daily, including sites with Flash, and I charge the phone every night or every other night.
I do believe heavy use of Flash might be a drain on battery, but again I'm saying it does provide me with useful access to Flash content - today. So, useful Flash for mobile is available.
Flash to play YouTube videos instead of a dedicated player or HTML5 on an ARM-based device? I like my battery power and I like to use a quality ≥ 360p so Flash for YouTube is not the best option.
If Flash is so great on Maemo why did Mozilla disable it in Firefox Mobile when that would have been a great selling point? Performance?
Which phone plays Hulu and other sites that stream TV shows on Flash?
I am not saying YouTube would be my primary use for Flash on a mobile device, but I am saying it works. Streaming SD video from YouTube works actually very well as do many Flash games. Some heavy motion graphics sites with interactivity may be slow, but often accessible nevertheless.
What is nice about Flash on Maemo is the occasional access it provides for such content that I need but otherwise would be inaccessible. I mean, it is good to have the option, right? For example a lot of Disney and other commercial content is Flash, and so far I have rarely been locked about because of 10.x requirement, most content I've come across works great on 9.x.
My only point was to counter the notion in the article that compatible Flash for mobile wouldn't be available. It is available. The rest of the discussion, Flash vs. Apple or what type of technology is best for what, I have no comment on. Adobe does have a working mobile Flash implementation out and Apple could choose to let them provide the option, but they have chosen not to.
Not because the technology isn't available, but because of Apple's choice. The Firefox-based MicroB browsing experience on N900 is indeed quite complete and Flash adds to that. It is a completely different discussion to make some philosophical, religious, commercial or principled decision against Flash, I'm just saying the option is already out there for those who want it.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
Flash 9.x is available for mobile devices e.g. the Nokia N900. Very usable for much of the Flash-based websites out there.
After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
MS adding support for HTML5 to IE9 is an interesting development. They have all these people who won't give up IE6 and it's a nightmare for them to have to support (with security patches at least) IE6, 7 & 8, and soon 9 as well. As much as MS has enjoyed the IE lock-in of developers over the years (and even MS centric developers are probably sick of IE6), I think they are finding it is just holding them back, and that they are hoping that with the push toward HTML5, IE9 will be the IE6 (as well as 7 & 8) killer.
The instant someone releases HTML5 development tools that designers can use (and this will absolutely happen, soon) there's going to be a stampede away from new Flash development by content providers. This future is already written, adapt or die.
The fact you even have to write this article means that Apple could be doing a better job at PR. I didn't realize this and I tried to find Flash for my sister's Android phone. It makes this whole Flash whine ridiculous. How could it be on the iPad, when it's not even out yet!
Lame.
And you blame Apple for your ignorance. Talk about being lame.
If you overclock it you might be able to run Flash 10.1 in Chrome
Your phone won't last as long and battery life will be shot to pieces.
You'd better hope that Meego is compatible, the Maemo OS is fast approaching a dead end.
Flash 9.x is available for mobile devices e.g. the Nokia N900. Very usable for much of the Flash-based websites out there.
I just have to laugh to myself whenever anyone throws "HTML5 is the Flash killer" around.
It seems most people don't really know HTML or what HTML5's video tag really does.
The argument about HTML5 replacing Flash doesn't really make sense.
People keep saying that - and I keep asking the same question. What will Flash do that existing open technologies (not just html 5, but all the other available web tools) won't do? Before you answer, watch Jobs' Toy Story iAad demo.
So far, NO ONE has given a single thing that Flash does that can't be done with open technologies that don't drain your battery and crash your computer.
I don't see the point of Adobe making Apple look like the bad guy if Flash 10.1 for mobile devices isn't even out yet.
You don't see the reason? It should be obvious.
Adobe has had this nice little niche that is widely used and gives them significant control. It encourages more people to use their Creative Suite products. Now, they see that little edifice starting to crumble as people are seeing that Flash is really a lousy technology and switching to alternatives. Adobe has a choice: either admit the problems and improve the product or spew FUD to tray to make it look like Apple is the bad guy. Since they're apparently incapable of the former, FUD is all they have left.
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable. However, without substantial engineering effort on Adobe's part, I don't think they can attain this milestone before Flash starts losing relevance.
Heck, I'm guessing that Flash already is losing relevance every single day.
No need to guess. YouTube already offers html 5. Hulu is coming. A number of major newspapers now offer Flash-free sites.
With 75 million iDevices accounting for 60-75% of mobile web access without Flash, site developers have plenty of incentive to move to other technologies.
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
Yes, if Adobe were a forward-thinking company, the latest version of CS would have fully implemented html 5 (yes, I realize that the standard isn't finalized but that doesn't mean they can use it and correct any minor changes with point upgrades later). They could continue to lead the way with their development tools, but apparently are more attached to Flash than their development tools.
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
You could have said similar things about multitasking on the iPhone, but your conclusion would not have been "Did, Apple, Die."
Adobe is currently releasing the official beta.
With 75 million iDevices accounting for 60-75% of mobile web access without Flash, site developers have plenty of incentive to move to other technologies.
It's 85 million iDevices, according to Steve at the iPhone OS 4.0 preview event.
And yes, you've made your point.
You are missing the point. In many many cases Flash is not a good platform even on the desktop, and is grossly abused and used out of laziness. Its unbelievable that you have some idiots that actually design their entire website out of flash. Creating a flash free and flash version of a website really isn't the solution. The solution is don't build it in flash at all. The industry needs to get busy building and improving tools that bypass this resource hog. We should settle for nothing less. It is a pig of a product.
It works fine on 95% of desktops, and is installed on an even larger percentage.
Don't mistake the OS X experience for the typical desktop/laptop user experience.
So, useful Flash for mobile is available.
I wish I had a Nokia. Likely I will get a Nexus One.
Flash has more than 0% mobile coverage, just because 10.x isn't out yet for mobile doesn't mean Flash is not supported.
For example the Nokia N900 has Flash 9.x and definitely can access any usual Flash sites, such as Disney content. YouTube plays natively as Flash too. Definitely usable and broadens access a lot.
This article makes it sound like 10.x is somehow a requirement for all Flash content. Much of the content out there is already supported on many mobile devices.
Apple could easily support the same level of Flash as N900/Maemo does, if they wish. Please, good arguments are one thing, but let's not make it sound like Flash isn't available for mobile.
It is available, it is usable and I use it daily.
The author(s) on this site clearly have an agenda in delivering controversial news regarding adobes flash. I've used flash sites on the nexus one and they run swimmingly through content. In fact, they even run sites with 3d modeling that include embedded videos. There have always been limitations with older versions of flash not supporting all the newest features, and yet authors of flash content have gotten along just fine without the other 2% of content out there using every feature flash has to offer. I'd chance it to say that sites using ALL the power of flash on one page are likely not building anything lean enough to be contented worth viewing.
I wish I had a Nokia. Likely I will get a Nexus One.
Dude, wait for the 4G HTC EVO on sprint.. that thing is the cats pajamas.
It's 85 million iDevices, according to Steve at the iPhone OS 4.0 preview event.
And yes, you've made your point.
that's presuming all those are active and since they're killing support for first gen iphones and ipod touches along with crippling their shipped versions of the second gens, i fail to see how those devices can be touted as factoring into the 4.0 landscape other than to pad numbers and inflate hype.
(as for the mouseover comment, that's just pure silliness... http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/201...d-touch-input/)
Adobe has already run out of time with Flash, and any development efforts they make to "improve" it are wasted: money dumped into the past, instead of the future.
you just drank up all the kool aid and left none for anyone else.
you just drank up all the kool aid and left none for anyone else.
Yes, it's that special koolaid that keeps you from being in denial about dead and dying technologies.
Are you still upset that the iPad doesn't work as a universal TV remote?
I can remember MacroMedia from the Marc Canter days, before Flash. They were good guys, too. I even enjoyed early Flash.
Wow, thanks for the memories.
The highlight of any MacWorld Boston was always having dinner at Legal Seafood with Marc and Company. Good food; good friends; raucous laughter.
It was always the best part of the trip.
Flash Player 10.1 for Android is still on schedule for H1, no slippage... can you guys please correct the record, amend the article to state that there is no slippage.