Look, you've made this "point" several times. No need to repeat yourself over and over. All you're doing is demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to understand what people are telling you.
Do you develop websites for a living? Or are you otherwise involved in the web developer community?
Just because 10 websites which used Flash now have non-flash alternatives, doesn't mean Groovetube's arguments are wrong.
As I said before, you are demonstrating an awesome lack of understanding as to how big the world wide web is. 10 websites is nothing. As mstone said earlier:
No, YOU are missing the entire point. People were arguing about how the iPhone and iPad would never catch on because Flash was so critical. They listed a bunch of sites as being critical. Almost all the sites that were cited now have Flash-free versions. All those people whining about the iPHone's pending failure were completely wrong.
No, YOU are missing the entire point. People were arguing about how the iPhone and iPad would never catch on because Flash was so critical. They listed a bunch of sites as being critical. Almost all the sites that were cited now have Flash-free versions. All those people whining about the iPHone's pending failure were completely wrong.
You need to check out the title of this thread. The thread is about Flash, not about the iPhone. Clearly the iPhone is a success and will continue to be so. Glad we've got that sorted.
You need to check out the title of this thread. The thread is about Flash, not about the iPhone.
I realize the article was so poorly written that it's hard to get through it, but since you apparently never finished reading it:
"Mobile beta for Android
A second beta release for Android 2.2 was also released, along with the claim by Adobe that more than 250 million smartphones would be able to run Flash Player by 2012, also phrased as 53% of the 300 million smartphones it expects to be sold two years from now.
Adobe also said it plans to bring Flash Player to HP's Palm OS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, Nokia's Symbian OS, and RIM's BlackBerry OS at some point in the future. Apple has passed on supporting a version of Flash Player for its iOS devices, with the company's chief executive Steve Jobs saying recently that Adobe failed to ever demonstrate a version of Flash Player that could perform well enough to include on the iPhone."
Well, it's funny you should mention that because that seems to be another area users complain about platform parity, so it seems that this is a systemic problem at Adobe, and not just restricted to Flash.
But, I don't recall ever making any comparisons between browsers and Adobe's CS apps. In the post that you quoted, I was addressing the cross platform success, in terms of native appearance and behavior on various platforms, of several browsers, and indicated that it wasn't really that great. I'm really not sure how you equated that with the content of your response.
I realize the article was so poorly written that it's hard to get through it, but since you apparently never finished reading it:
"Mobile beta for Android
A second beta release for Android 2.2 was also released, along with the claim by Adobe that more than 250 million smartphones would be able to run Flash Player by 2012, also phrased as 53% of the 300 million smartphones it expects to be sold two years from now.
Adobe also said it plans to bring Flash Player to HP's Palm OS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, Nokia's Symbian OS, and RIM's BlackBerry OS at some point in the future. Apple has passed on supporting a version of Flash Player for its iOS devices, with the company's chief executive Steve Jobs saying recently that Adobe failed to ever demonstrate a version of Flash Player that could perform well enough to include on the iPhone."
Is this somehow meant to prove that I'm wrong when I state that this thread is about Flash rather than about the iPhone? If so, you fail at logic.
This thread has never been about whether or not the iPhone is going to fail because it doesn't run Flash. It's just in the last few posts that you've attempted to change your argument when it became apparent you were talking nonsense about the demise of Flash on the web.
... What he implied was that a full-blown browser is more complex than Flash - which is a true statement. ...
I did not actually mean to imply that. A browser is a complex piece of software -- rendering engine, javascript engine, etc. -- but I'm not actually sure that it's more complex than Flash, which obviously has it's own version of these things.
My point was that for anyone, writing a fully native app that runs well on multiple platforms is a daunting task. Too daunting, perhaps. And this is one of the key problems that Adobe's "Flash everywhere" strategy comes up against. They haven't demonstrated that they can do it on three "desktop" platforms, so why should anyone give any credence to the idea that Adobe can actually cover an additional, how many is it, at least 3 or 4 of significance, platforms?
They can't. That's why I referred to it as a house of cards. The whole strategy is doomed to failure and will crumble under its own weight.
No. It's about how Flash for mobile devices is a fail.
whatever. Anyone who's read this thread from the beginning knows that the arguments have revolved around Flash in general; and more specifically: about its performance (on the Mac and on mobile devices); about how it compares to HTML5; and about whether or not it is dying, and if so, how quickly.
On the latter point, you made several attempts to argue that it is more-or-less already dead; you are wrong.
Though, for floppy drives, I thought they were kinda pretty dead by the time Steve Jobs called quits on them. It was a pretty safe bet.
Flash. Hmmm. Well, it ain't gonna happen very quickly if it -did- die. But I as I said before, I see some real shifts coming in that regard.
They were far from dead, they were still included in every or nearly every PC and were still commonly used to move files between systems. What was seen is that HDDs were getting larger, networks getting faster and more common, OS and apps getting better at connecting PCs and CD coming in as the shiny future of removable media.
But we can't really compare HW to SW because SW can evolve to meet changes while HW usually can't. Ecen now with CD to DVD to Blu-ray it's still a slow, power hungry component that takes up a great deal of space for the amount of use it's typically gets. I think we'll see Apple completely remove the ODD from their netbooks before too long but I see end in sight for Apple removing Flash from Mac OS X.
PS: Factoid: Sony will finally stop producing floppy discs in March, 2011.
Yes, people would hardly have been declaring Apple totally insane for dropping them if they were obviously on their death bed.
I think a lot of people were concerned at the time, not because they had dropped the floppy, but that they hadn't provided a direct alternative such as a zip drive or a super-floppy (both proprietary standards, the latter being backwards-compatible with standard floppies whilst offering up to 120 MB storage on "super-floppies" which were physically similar sized disks).
Of course, as it turned out it wasn't a problem. Also of note is that it took them a while longer to drop floppies from their other machines.
I think a lot of people were concerned at the time, not because they had dropped the floppy, but that they hadn't provided a direct alternative such as a zip drive or a super-floppy (both proprietary standards, the latter being backwards-compatible with standard floppies whilst offering up to 120 MB storage on "super-floppies" which were physically similar sized disks).
Of course, as it turned out it wasn't a problem. Also of note is that it took them a while longer to drop floppies from their other machines.
I think the only legitimate complaint was, the lack of a built-in or included option for a physcial file copy. Even when they launched the iMac with a CD-ROM drive in August 1998 they didn't even have an option for CD-RW until February 2001.
Segueing the conversation a bit, the situation now with optical drives is completely different. I don't think we'll go more than 2 more MBP revisions without the optical drive being removed. With the 13" MBP, they can't go with C2D much longer and if they do they are stuck with an Intel HD iGPU unless they make more room. Either shrink the battery or get rid of the ODD.
I did not actually mean to imply that. A browser is a complex piece of software -- rendering engine, javascript engine, etc. -- but I'm not actually sure that it's more complex than Flash, which obviously has it's own version of these things.
My point was that for anyone, writing a fully native app that runs well on multiple platforms is a daunting task. Too daunting, perhaps. And this is one of the key problems that Adobe's "Flash everywhere" strategy comes up against. They haven't demonstrated that they can do it on three "desktop" platforms, so why should anyone give any credence to the idea that Adobe can actually cover an additional, how many is it, at least 3 or 4 of significance, platforms?
They can't. That's why I referred to it as a house of cards. The whole strategy is doomed to failure and will crumble under its own weight.
perhaps I mistakenly quoted you as implying that. It appears it was jragosta which I guess isn't a surprise. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, people would hardly have been declaring Apple totally insane for dropping them if they were obviously on their death bed.
I don't know who those people were. But floppies was dying fast before Mr. Jobs said anything about it. There were enough alternatives (like usb floppies I believe) that if someone really wanted it they could have it. It wasn't like STeve Jobs said "you're NOt allowed to have floppies on os x!"
It was 1998, optical media slot was still very new and expensive. The far majority of computers still had floppy drives, even though it was inevitable that floppy was over.
Apple totally abandoned floppy while it was still widely used. At the time people thought they were crazy. Its only in revision that it doesn't seem so cray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
I agree. Though, for floppy drives, I thought they were kinda pretty dead by the time Steve Jobs called quits on them. It was a pretty safe bet.
I'm the one who brought up the comparison. It was more to say that its easier to get everyone en mass to adopt new software than it is to get everyone to buy new computers and adopt new hardware standards. Especially when it involves buying new peripherals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But we can't really compare HW to SW because SW can evolve to meet changes while HW usually can't.
Its not an argument its the reality of the situation. Do you not use the web? Are you that blind that you don't understand the vast majority of websites use Flash for streaming video and they are not using HTML5.
Besides why is it when someone says they use something, if it doesn't fit into the cookie cutter mold of what Apple wants you to use then your a troll.
Maybe you should just cut and paste becasue again you commented and said nothing.
Try using any local news or weather site and not have Flash as a plugin. See how far you get. Try using sites like VEVO or any of the other hundred that stream music without Flash.
Its not like this is something made up. For you to think Flash still doesn't totally dominate the web, you are living in a cave.
See the difference with you is you modify your behavior based on Apples rules, you play in their little arena, within the walls they create and you allow them to think for you. Which in some sick way makes you happy.
you missed the point as usual and solipsism said it best and I will leave it at that. Funny how you stopped commenting after these replies below. Reason for my comment was like Microsoft with you favourite argument point '99% marketshare' it is true, but really getting old and actually does discuss the changes that are occurring in the market. So that's why it old and crap, no new factual data.
As for the insults say again 'same old crap and same old behaviour from you, so I do not expect better'
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation
Vast majority uses flash cause no one is forcing them to change. Remember when the vast majority of the web used ActiveX plugins? Man those were ugly times.
Companies have a lot vested in flash, it's true, but the reality is that most flash on the web is used for advertising, other services already have big plans to move into HTML5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I still don't see how your argument supports the claim that Apple made a mistake eliminating floppy drives from the iMacs... oh, wait, this is about Flash. Well, same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav
Unfortunately its still on my ignore list - but hey at least I can see you contribute. On the other hand perhaps the commenter you quoted doesn't spend all of their time on porn sites which is where the majority of Flash (outside of ads of course) resides on the intertubes. But you knew that. Didn't you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Sure, more sites use Flash over HTML5 for video streaming, but even in the last few months that is changing. We have some offering an option for HTML5, others that have long sense started offering an HTML5 version for smartphones or a dedicated app, and others that have stated they will offer a non-Flash version.
I don't have wait until the milk jug to be empty before I know it's time to buy more milk. I can see the trend and Flash for video streaming is losing its hold. Adobe can try to salvage the video streaming it's lost to the largest growing sector of the market, but it doesn't look good. If you want fast and efficient video streaming to a phone, then Flash is not the answer. If you're more concerned with building once and not caring about mobile user eyeballs than Flash will be just fine.
For the other aspects of Flash it'll be a long time before webcode can begin to compete any of many levels, but it seems that isn't much of an issue either. It seems Flash apps are moving to dedicated apps for mobiles. All Flash splash pages are a thing of the past (thankfully) so that pretty much leaves businesses that use a Flash page for a sexy look and feel, but these aren't using the hardcore features of Flash and can be replaced with modern webcode with relative ease. But these sites don't matter much to the web as a whole if I'm looking for a fancy restaurant I will likely never use their website, Flash-based or otherwise.
In the end, even when Flash running on every modern mobile OS (sans iOS) and is pre-installed on every smartphone phone from the factory there is still the hurdle of usefulness to overcome. Like those super feature phones" of Japan and elsewhere and video conferencing that have been on phones for many years, it's not about technically having the capability, it's about it being a viable technology for the device. Nothing I've seen tells me Adobe has tackled that problem.
I don't know who those people were. But floppies was dying fast before Mr. Jobs said anything about it. There were enough alternatives (like usb floppies I believe) that if someone really wanted it they could have it. It wasn't like STeve Jobs said "you're NOt allowed to have floppies on os x!"
Just to indicate out how faulty your memory is on this particular issue, I will point out that the original iMac did not run OS X at release. It ran System 8, and OS X wasn't released yet.
Adobe is indeed taking their time. My theory is they need more power on a phone to make the player run better. 1 GHz is the entry level for them perhaps. My feeling is, we won't know if flash is going to really die, until about a year from now. Maybe a bit sooner perhaps.
Yes, I think the pinheads that run Adobe never read Herb Sutter's 'The Free Lunch is Over,' and figured that faster CPUs were going to continue to bail them out.
As they say, better late than never. And we'll see if 10.1 cements Flash long-term, or is 'too late.'
If Google can get WebM going, I think H264 will be forced to grant permanent free-license (instead of conditional) and then the HTML5 parade can actually get under way. In that case, Flash won't have video to hold it in place, and will only have their design/flexibility advantages over HTML5/CSS/JS.
Comments
Look, you've made this "point" several times. No need to repeat yourself over and over. All you're doing is demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to understand what people are telling you.
Do you develop websites for a living? Or are you otherwise involved in the web developer community?
Just because 10 websites which used Flash now have non-flash alternatives, doesn't mean Groovetube's arguments are wrong.
As I said before, you are demonstrating an awesome lack of understanding as to how big the world wide web is. 10 websites is nothing. As mstone said earlier:
No, YOU are missing the entire point. People were arguing about how the iPhone and iPad would never catch on because Flash was so critical. They listed a bunch of sites as being critical. Almost all the sites that were cited now have Flash-free versions. All those people whining about the iPHone's pending failure were completely wrong.
No, YOU are missing the entire point. People were arguing about how the iPhone and iPad would never catch on because Flash was so critical. They listed a bunch of sites as being critical. Almost all the sites that were cited now have Flash-free versions. All those people whining about the iPHone's pending failure were completely wrong.
I realize the article was so poorly written that it's hard to get through it, but since you apparently never finished reading it:
"Mobile beta for Android
A second beta release for Android 2.2 was also released, along with the claim by Adobe that more than 250 million smartphones would be able to run Flash Player by 2012, also phrased as 53% of the 300 million smartphones it expects to be sold two years from now.
Adobe also said it plans to bring Flash Player to HP's Palm OS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, Nokia's Symbian OS, and RIM's BlackBerry OS at some point in the future. Apple has passed on supporting a version of Flash Player for its iOS devices, with the company's chief executive Steve Jobs saying recently that Adobe failed to ever demonstrate a version of Flash Player that could perform well enough to include on the iPhone."
a browser is far more complex than the CS5 suite?
... riiiiight.
Well, it's funny you should mention that because that seems to be another area users complain about platform parity, so it seems that this is a systemic problem at Adobe, and not just restricted to Flash.
But, I don't recall ever making any comparisons between browsers and Adobe's CS apps. In the post that you quoted, I was addressing the cross platform success, in terms of native appearance and behavior on various platforms, of several browsers, and indicated that it wasn't really that great. I'm really not sure how you equated that with the content of your response.
I realize the article was so poorly written that it's hard to get through it, but since you apparently never finished reading it:
"Mobile beta for Android
A second beta release for Android 2.2 was also released, along with the claim by Adobe that more than 250 million smartphones would be able to run Flash Player by 2012, also phrased as 53% of the 300 million smartphones it expects to be sold two years from now.
Adobe also said it plans to bring Flash Player to HP's Palm OS, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, Nokia's Symbian OS, and RIM's BlackBerry OS at some point in the future. Apple has passed on supporting a version of Flash Player for its iOS devices, with the company's chief executive Steve Jobs saying recently that Adobe failed to ever demonstrate a version of Flash Player that could perform well enough to include on the iPhone."
Is this somehow meant to prove that I'm wrong when I state that this thread is about Flash rather than about the iPhone? If so, you fail at logic.
This thread has never been about whether or not the iPhone is going to fail because it doesn't run Flash. It's just in the last few posts that you've attempted to change your argument when it became apparent you were talking nonsense about the demise of Flash on the web.
... What he implied was that a full-blown browser is more complex than Flash - which is a true statement. ...
I did not actually mean to imply that. A browser is a complex piece of software -- rendering engine, javascript engine, etc. -- but I'm not actually sure that it's more complex than Flash, which obviously has it's own version of these things.
My point was that for anyone, writing a fully native app that runs well on multiple platforms is a daunting task. Too daunting, perhaps. And this is one of the key problems that Adobe's "Flash everywhere" strategy comes up against. They haven't demonstrated that they can do it on three "desktop" platforms, so why should anyone give any credence to the idea that Adobe can actually cover an additional, how many is it, at least 3 or 4 of significance, platforms?
They can't. That's why I referred to it as a house of cards. The whole strategy is doomed to failure and will crumble under its own weight.
This thread has never been about whether or not the iPhone is going to fail because it doesn't run Flash.
No. It's about how Flash for mobile devices is a fail.
No. It's about how Flash for mobile devices is a fail.
On the latter point, you made several attempts to argue that it is more-or-less already dead; you are wrong.
Though, for floppy drives, I thought they were kinda pretty dead by the time Steve Jobs called quits on them. It was a pretty safe bet.
Flash. Hmmm. Well, it ain't gonna happen very quickly if it -did- die. But I as I said before, I see some real shifts coming in that regard.
They were far from dead, they were still included in every or nearly every PC and were still commonly used to move files between systems. What was seen is that HDDs were getting larger, networks getting faster and more common, OS and apps getting better at connecting PCs and CD coming in as the shiny future of removable media.
But we can't really compare HW to SW because SW can evolve to meet changes while HW usually can't. Ecen now with CD to DVD to Blu-ray it's still a slow, power hungry component that takes up a great deal of space for the amount of use it's typically gets. I think we'll see Apple completely remove the ODD from their netbooks before too long but I see end in sight for Apple removing Flash from Mac OS X.
PS: Factoid: Sony will finally stop producing floppy discs in March, 2011.
[Floppy drives] were far from dead ...
Yes, people would hardly have been declaring Apple totally insane for dropping them if they were obviously on their death bed.
... On the latter point, you made several attempts to argue that it is more-or-less already dead; you are wrong.
It's not dead yet, but it is terminally ill.
Yes, people would hardly have been declaring Apple totally insane for dropping them if they were obviously on their death bed.
I think a lot of people were concerned at the time, not because they had dropped the floppy, but that they hadn't provided a direct alternative such as a zip drive or a super-floppy (both proprietary standards, the latter being backwards-compatible with standard floppies whilst offering up to 120 MB storage on "super-floppies" which were physically similar sized disks).
Of course, as it turned out it wasn't a problem. Also of note is that it took them a while longer to drop floppies from their other machines.
I think a lot of people were concerned at the time, not because they had dropped the floppy, but that they hadn't provided a direct alternative such as a zip drive or a super-floppy (both proprietary standards, the latter being backwards-compatible with standard floppies whilst offering up to 120 MB storage on "super-floppies" which were physically similar sized disks).
Of course, as it turned out it wasn't a problem. Also of note is that it took them a while longer to drop floppies from their other machines.
I think the only legitimate complaint was, the lack of a built-in or included option for a physcial file copy. Even when they launched the iMac with a CD-ROM drive in August 1998 they didn't even have an option for CD-RW until February 2001.
Segueing the conversation a bit, the situation now with optical drives is completely different. I don't think we'll go more than 2 more MBP revisions without the optical drive being removed. With the 13" MBP, they can't go with C2D much longer and if they do they are stuck with an Intel HD iGPU unless they make more room. Either shrink the battery or get rid of the ODD.
I did not actually mean to imply that. A browser is a complex piece of software -- rendering engine, javascript engine, etc. -- but I'm not actually sure that it's more complex than Flash, which obviously has it's own version of these things.
My point was that for anyone, writing a fully native app that runs well on multiple platforms is a daunting task. Too daunting, perhaps. And this is one of the key problems that Adobe's "Flash everywhere" strategy comes up against. They haven't demonstrated that they can do it on three "desktop" platforms, so why should anyone give any credence to the idea that Adobe can actually cover an additional, how many is it, at least 3 or 4 of significance, platforms?
They can't. That's why I referred to it as a house of cards. The whole strategy is doomed to failure and will crumble under its own weight.
perhaps I mistakenly quoted you as implying that. It appears it was jragosta which I guess isn't a surprise. Sorry.
Yes, people would hardly have been declaring Apple totally insane for dropping them if they were obviously on their death bed.
I don't know who those people were. But floppies was dying fast before Mr. Jobs said anything about it. There were enough alternatives (like usb floppies I believe) that if someone really wanted it they could have it. It wasn't like STeve Jobs said "you're NOt allowed to have floppies on os x!"
Apple totally abandoned floppy while it was still widely used. At the time people thought they were crazy. Its only in revision that it doesn't seem so cray.
I agree. Though, for floppy drives, I thought they were kinda pretty dead by the time Steve Jobs called quits on them. It was a pretty safe bet.
But we can't really compare HW to SW because SW can evolve to meet changes while HW usually can't.
Its not an argument its the reality of the situation. Do you not use the web? Are you that blind that you don't understand the vast majority of websites use Flash for streaming video and they are not using HTML5.
Besides why is it when someone says they use something, if it doesn't fit into the cookie cutter mold of what Apple wants you to use then your a troll.
Maybe you should just cut and paste becasue again you commented and said nothing.
Try using any local news or weather site and not have Flash as a plugin. See how far you get. Try using sites like VEVO or any of the other hundred that stream music without Flash.
Its not like this is something made up. For you to think Flash still doesn't totally dominate the web, you are living in a cave.
See the difference with you is you modify your behavior based on Apples rules, you play in their little arena, within the walls they create and you allow them to think for you. Which in some sick way makes you happy.
you missed the point as usual and solipsism said it best and I will leave it at that. Funny how you stopped commenting after these replies below. Reason for my comment was like Microsoft with you favourite argument point '99% marketshare' it is true, but really getting old and actually does discuss the changes that are occurring in the market. So that's why it old and crap, no new factual data.
As for the insults say again 'same old crap and same old behaviour from you, so I do not expect better'
Vast majority uses flash cause no one is forcing them to change. Remember when the vast majority of the web used ActiveX plugins? Man those were ugly times.
Companies have a lot vested in flash, it's true, but the reality is that most flash on the web is used for advertising, other services already have big plans to move into HTML5.
I still don't see how your argument supports the claim that Apple made a mistake eliminating floppy drives from the iMacs... oh, wait, this is about Flash. Well, same thing.
Unfortunately its still on my ignore list - but hey at least I can see you contribute. On the other hand perhaps the commenter you quoted doesn't spend all of their time on porn sites which is where the majority of Flash (outside of ads of course) resides on the intertubes. But you knew that. Didn't you.
Sure, more sites use Flash over HTML5 for video streaming, but even in the last few months that is changing. We have some offering an option for HTML5, others that have long sense started offering an HTML5 version for smartphones or a dedicated app, and others that have stated they will offer a non-Flash version.
I don't have wait until the milk jug to be empty before I know it's time to buy more milk. I can see the trend and Flash for video streaming is losing its hold. Adobe can try to salvage the video streaming it's lost to the largest growing sector of the market, but it doesn't look good. If you want fast and efficient video streaming to a phone, then Flash is not the answer. If you're more concerned with building once and not caring about mobile user eyeballs than Flash will be just fine.
For the other aspects of Flash it'll be a long time before webcode can begin to compete any of many levels, but it seems that isn't much of an issue either. It seems Flash apps are moving to dedicated apps for mobiles. All Flash splash pages are a thing of the past (thankfully) so that pretty much leaves businesses that use a Flash page for a sexy look and feel, but these aren't using the hardcore features of Flash and can be replaced with modern webcode with relative ease. But these sites don't matter much to the web as a whole if I'm looking for a fancy restaurant I will likely never use their website, Flash-based or otherwise.
In the end, even when Flash running on every modern mobile OS (sans iOS) and is pre-installed on every smartphone phone from the factory there is still the hurdle of usefulness to overcome. Like those super feature phones" of Japan and elsewhere and video conferencing that have been on phones for many years, it's not about technically having the capability, it's about it being a viable technology for the device. Nothing I've seen tells me Adobe has tackled that problem.
I don't know who those people were. But floppies was dying fast before Mr. Jobs said anything about it. There were enough alternatives (like usb floppies I believe) that if someone really wanted it they could have it. It wasn't like STeve Jobs said "you're NOt allowed to have floppies on os x!"
Just to indicate out how faulty your memory is on this particular issue, I will point out that the original iMac did not run OS X at release. It ran System 8, and OS X wasn't released yet.
Adobe is indeed taking their time. My theory is they need more power on a phone to make the player run better. 1 GHz is the entry level for them perhaps. My feeling is, we won't know if flash is going to really die, until about a year from now. Maybe a bit sooner perhaps.
Yes, I think the pinheads that run Adobe never read Herb Sutter's 'The Free Lunch is Over,' and figured that faster CPUs were going to continue to bail them out.
As they say, better late than never. And we'll see if 10.1 cements Flash long-term, or is 'too late.'
If Google can get WebM going, I think H264 will be forced to grant permanent free-license (instead of conditional) and then the HTML5 parade can actually get under way. In that case, Flash won't have video to hold it in place, and will only have their design/flexibility advantages over HTML5/CSS/JS.
No. It's about how Flash for mobile devices is a fail.
It has not yet been released. How can it be a fail?