I think it can easily be argued that Flash for video streaming is the most used and useful feature of this tech for the last decade.
Last decade? I'm really not sure about that. Isn't it only the last five years or so that Flash has become dominant for video? Before that it was Windows Media that seemed to be winning, followed by Real and QuickTime. It will forever baffle me how Flash became dominant when QuickTime had equal capabilities (including UI skinning) with better client performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There is clear evidence that Flash for video is being dropped in favour of other avenues.
agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This shows that Flash's hold isn't absolute despite their installed base. Groovetube keeps changing his argument, whether he realizes it or not.
No, really, he hasn't changed his argument at all. I suggest you go back to the start of the thread and read only his posts. This was one of his earliest posts in the thread where he explicity states he is not talking about video delivery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The fact is, Flash is having problems on multiple fronts. It's one thing to defend against one attack, but when you have ads being delivered by webcode instead of Flash because too many people are using ad blockers; when you have MS pushing Silverlight hard which is why Adobe finally added HW acceleration and H.264 in the first place; when video streaming is being added to HTML5 making even HW decoded Flash content pale in comparison; when you have simple graphics being made easily with HTML, CSS and JS; when you have a surge of smartphones about to outpace PC sales all running full web browsers that can't support Flash and when they do finally support it won't be optimized for most of the Flash apps due to the relatively anemic ARM processors and touch-screen controls; and cheap native apps being made for these smartphones that make for a better UX over Flash apps, I have to wonder if Adobe can defend Flash on these fronts. I don't think they can. I don't think anyone could.
It's going to take a long time for Flash to fall, but when people think of fast and efficient code for your smartphone it won't be Flash they'll be thinking of. Right now, I can think of plenty of sites that use Flash when using a desktop browser, but if you change your User Agent to a mobile browser their site renders without any Flash content at all. That is a huge exodus from the norm was before the iPhone came along. Now we sites offering an option for Flash or HTML5 for video in a just a few short months. And the newest poster child for the ultimate Flash site, Farmville, is now going with a Xcode app to connect its users.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.
I agree with all of that to some extent. It's just that some here seem to think that Flash is going to die... yesterday. It's going to take a lot longer than that, if at all. I think it rests on what percentage of the smartphone market the iPhone ultimately ends up with, and how quickly, if at all, the iPhone + iPad become significant www clients in terms of share of traffic.
I think it rests on what percentage of the smartphone market the iPhone ultimately ends up with, and how quickly, if at all, the iPhone + iPad become significant www clients in terms of share of traffic.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market are probably banking on earning it back by selling stuff to the affluent iPhone user demographic. The average small company that simply needs a web presence will not see the need to spend that much money on such a small minority. Furthermore I would estimate that more than 90% of those smaller companies have asked their developer for Flash on their site verses the other way around of the developer recommending it.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
there is plenty of evidence that the new flash player has made major strides, relatively speaking given where -it was-. That's not to say it's solved all of the issues, and it's 'there'. I don't think it is. But if it doesn't work out on android/symbian, flash for mobile is not going to do well.
For flash video, speaking in terms of 'decade' isn't at all accurate. Flash 6 (mx) first got the ability to embed video in swf format. WHile we all jumped on because it was a much asked for feature, it was horrible clunky, and suffered badly from audio sync issues. Flash 7 saw the intro of the flv format, but it still wasn't there. It wasn't until flash 8, where improvements were made that companies began taking notice, and between flash 8 flash 9 when youtube and others emerged. That was maybe 5 years ago. Flash was still before that point, the dominant interactive/app technology on the internet. -before- it had video. There is a huge wealth of flash work out there like I said, that isn't video, ads, -or- games. In fact, I rarely do any of those.
a decade ago, we were at flash 4. Which html5 is trying, to emulate.
as a dev who came to the mac platform before most of my peers, I was committed to os x, and trying to improve things on my platform. WIndows was getting too much favour. I've had my issues with macromedia, I've never loved them as a company. I've never had problems with adobe. But it seems to me, after the merger, the things I disliked about macromedia, seemed picked up by adobe. Maybe it's just me. I've hated the way adobe has ignored the mac platform, and to me, this major kick in the ass, is just what adobe needed. Full on, kick to the junk.
I don't know what will happen in the end, I have my theories having worked in all the technologies mentioned very closely. But I find it tiresome when people make such crazy assumptions so early in the game. Because I really think, it is early in this game.
But in the meantime, apple is kicking ass with some major innovation, though it seems unlike a year ago, some companies are showing signs of catching up, well copying really, which is what happened way back when with windows. Perhaps apple will be lucky enough, to hang on to Steve Jobs a little longer this time round. Ballmer has pretty much ended Microsofts relevance it seems.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market are probably banking on earning it back by selling stuff to the affluent iPhone user demographic. The average small company that simply needs a web presence will not see the need to spend that much money on such a small minority. Furthermore I would estimate that more than 90% of those smaller companies have asked their developer for Flash on their site verses the other way around of the developer recommending it.
that's exactly the case. Ironically, I find myself talking clients -out- of flash quite often when I see it's really gratuitous, and is only going to degrade the site really, not add to it.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market
It's really rather hilarious how when you want to put Apple down, they're "1 % of the market" but when you want to attack them, they're a monopoly.
Is it too much to ask for you to take one position and stick to it?
Furthermore, we're talking about the mobile market. As of today, 99+% of mobile devices do NOT have Flash and less than 1% have it. So if you're interested in the mobile market, why would you use Flash?
I guess that's why Disney, Youtube, Hulu, CBS, car companies, NYTimes, Farmville, etc, etc, etc are all developing non-Flash sites.
It's really rather hilarious how when you want to put Apple down, they're "1 % of the market" but when you want to attack them, they're a monopoly.
Is it too much to ask for you to take one position and stick to it?
Furthermore, we're talking about the mobile market. As of today, 99+% of mobile devices do NOT have Flash and less than 1% have it. So if you're interested in the mobile market, why would you use Flash?
I guess that's why Disney, Youtube, Hulu, CBS, car companies, NYTimes, Farmville, etc, etc, etc are all developing non-Flash sites.
Maybe you misunderstood or I was not clear enough. The 1% is the TOTAL mobile market not just IOS.
The wise business isn't planning for today, they are planning for tomorrow. The mobile web is at its infancy but is growing fast. Its projected that by next year people will buy more smart phones than PC's.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. The iPhone has been around for three years. Steve Jobs said he challenged Adobe to give Apple something that works well, and they were unable to do it. All Adobe has to account for all of that time is a beta of Flash running on mobile phones, with no real clear date on an official launch.
You guys think everyone is just going to sit around and wait for them. That is not happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
I don't know what will happen in the end, I have my theories having worked in all the technologies mentioned very closely. But I find it tiresome when people make such crazy assumptions so early in the game. Because I really think, it is early in this game.
The wise business isn't planning for today, they are planning for tomorrow. The mobile web is at its infancy but is growing fast. Its projected that by next year people will buy more smart phones than PC's.
Agreed but a short term graph doesn't indicate a long term trend. Purchases are not directly proportional to web page views. It is already known that RIM phones sell more but view fewer web pages. I personally don't browse that much on my iPhone because it is tiresome to browse the Internet on a tiny screen. Everybody needs a phone but buyers looking for anything but a smart phone will have a difficult time finding anything without a touch screen and a browser, Question is will they use it as such?
This is just like Bill Gates prediction of the internet back in 1996.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Agreed but a short term graph doesn't indicate a long term trend. Purchases are not directly proportional to web page views. It is already known that RIM phones sell more but view fewer web pages. I personally don't browse that much on my iPhone because it is tiresome to browse the Internet on a tiny screen. Everybody needs a phone but buyers looking for anything but a smart phone will have a difficult time finding anything without a touch screen and a browser, Question is will they use it as such?
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. The iPhone has been around for three years. Steve Jobs said he challenged Adobe to give Apple something that works well, and they were unable to do it. All Adobe has to account for all of that time is a beta of Flash running on mobile phones, with no real clear date on an official launch.
You guys think everyone is just going to sit around and wait for them. That is not happening.
no, I don't think that. And people will stop waiting at some point. I've always maintained that adobe has a limited time to make it happen and show it can do it on a mobile platform. I've always thought they needed a mobile to have enough power to run it (1GHz?) perhaps now that's a reality it can. I don't know, we'll see. it looks promising from here. That's the best I've got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Anyone who attempts to predict the future is a fool.
6:26PM Steve: Well two things -- I'll come back to what you said. Apple is a company that doesn't have the resources that everyone else has. We choose what tech horses to ride, we look for tech that has a future and is headed up. Different pieces of tech go in cycles... they have summer and then they go to the grave. If you choose wisely, you save yourself an enormous amount of work.
6:28PM Steve: Sometimes you have to pick the right horses. Flash looks like it had its day but it's waning, and HTML5 looks like it's coming up.
We have a history of doing this. The 3 1/2 floppy. We made that popular. We got rid of the floppy altogether in the first iMac. We got rid of serial and parallel ports. You saw USB first in iMacs. We were one of the first to get rid of optical drives, with the MacBook Air. And when we do this, sometimes people call us crazy.
6:32PM Steve: Our goal is really easy -- we just made a tech decision. We aren't going to make an effort to put this on our platform. We told Adobe to show us something better, and they never did. It wasn't until we shipped the iPad that Adobe started to raise a stink about it. We were (not) trying to have a fight, we just decided to not use one of their products. They made a big deal of it -- that's why I wrote that letter. I said enough is enough, we're tired of these guys trashing us.
thanks that answers that question. So apparently Adobe showed them something,
I don't think that was ever in doubt.
Unfortunately, what Adobe showed them was a box full of smelly dog poop. Three years later, they had improved it and it's now a box of dog poop that doesn't smell quite as bad.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Well, they still aren't ready for Mac OS and they aren't even close to ready for Linux, so it's not really surprising that they aren't ready for mobile, and they never will be ready. In one sense, we should be fair to Adobe and acknowledge that supporting a complex piece of software on 3 platforms is a difficult task, and supporting it on, several new platforms with completely new requirements would be nearly impossible for anyone. I don't think Apple or Microsoft or Google or pretty much anybody could do it either. But, this is exactly why Flash will not make it into the next evolution of the web, despite Adobe's efforts to hold up progress and cripple HTML5.
So there are two forces at work here. First there are platforms like iOS and, increasingly, because of ad blockers and things like ClickToFlash, "desktop" systems where Flash simply isn't running and where content publishers are increasingly loosing, or never had, eyeballs, which correlates directly to revenue. Second, there is the internal pressure of actually making Flash work on so many different platforms, with so many different requirements and constraints, which will destroy it from the inside: more crashes, more security holes, more platforms with bad performance, ...
The entire Flash ecosystem, which some of you think is solid, is a house of cards. The demise of Flash is like an untreatable cancer. Undetectable in its earliest stages, barely detectable now, and metastasized. The body doesn't even know that it's sick yet, but as it continues to grow, it's pace of development continues to accelerate, until it eventually overwhelms the organism. There is no effective treatment. It may be possible to give it a little extra time, but its death is inevitable.
Comments
I think it can easily be argued that Flash for video streaming is the most used and useful feature of this tech for the last decade.
Last decade? I'm really not sure about that. Isn't it only the last five years or so that Flash has become dominant for video? Before that it was Windows Media that seemed to be winning, followed by Real and QuickTime. It will forever baffle me how Flash became dominant when QuickTime had equal capabilities (including UI skinning) with better client performance.
There is clear evidence that Flash for video is being dropped in favour of other avenues.
agreed
This shows that Flash's hold isn't absolute despite their installed base. Groovetube keeps changing his argument, whether he realizes it or not.
No, really, he hasn't changed his argument at all. I suggest you go back to the start of the thread and read only his posts. This was one of his earliest posts in the thread where he explicity states he is not talking about video delivery.
The fact is, Flash is having problems on multiple fronts. It's one thing to defend against one attack, but when you have ads being delivered by webcode instead of Flash because too many people are using ad blockers; when you have MS pushing Silverlight hard which is why Adobe finally added HW acceleration and H.264 in the first place; when video streaming is being added to HTML5 making even HW decoded Flash content pale in comparison; when you have simple graphics being made easily with HTML, CSS and JS; when you have a surge of smartphones about to outpace PC sales all running full web browsers that can't support Flash and when they do finally support it won't be optimized for most of the Flash apps due to the relatively anemic ARM processors and touch-screen controls; and cheap native apps being made for these smartphones that make for a better UX over Flash apps, I have to wonder if Adobe can defend Flash on these fronts. I don't think they can. I don't think anyone could.
It's going to take a long time for Flash to fall, but when people think of fast and efficient code for your smartphone it won't be Flash they'll be thinking of. Right now, I can think of plenty of sites that use Flash when using a desktop browser, but if you change your User Agent to a mobile browser their site renders without any Flash content at all. That is a huge exodus from the norm was before the iPhone came along. Now we sites offering an option for Flash or HTML5 for video in a just a few short months. And the newest poster child for the ultimate Flash site, Farmville, is now going with a Xcode app to connect its users.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.
I agree with all of that to some extent. It's just that some here seem to think that Flash is going to die... yesterday. It's going to take a lot longer than that, if at all. I think it rests on what percentage of the smartphone market the iPhone ultimately ends up with, and how quickly, if at all, the iPhone + iPad become significant www clients in terms of share of traffic.
I think it rests on what percentage of the smartphone market the iPhone ultimately ends up with, and how quickly, if at all, the iPhone + iPad become significant www clients in terms of share of traffic.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Each of these fronts needs to be dealt with as a separate issue because one loss for Flash on a single front doesn't mean a loss for Flash as a whole, but it does show that Flash is vulnerable and it is showing a trend. I don't know what other evidence is needed to see that Flash is no longer the only option to deliver rich content to users via the internet.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market are probably banking on earning it back by selling stuff to the affluent iPhone user demographic. The average small company that simply needs a web presence will not see the need to spend that much money on such a small minority. Furthermore I would estimate that more than 90% of those smaller companies have asked their developer for Flash on their site verses the other way around of the developer recommending it.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
there is plenty of evidence that the new flash player has made major strides, relatively speaking given where -it was-. That's not to say it's solved all of the issues, and it's 'there'. I don't think it is. But if it doesn't work out on android/symbian, flash for mobile is not going to do well.
For flash video, speaking in terms of 'decade' isn't at all accurate. Flash 6 (mx) first got the ability to embed video in swf format. WHile we all jumped on because it was a much asked for feature, it was horrible clunky, and suffered badly from audio sync issues. Flash 7 saw the intro of the flv format, but it still wasn't there. It wasn't until flash 8, where improvements were made that companies began taking notice, and between flash 8 flash 9 when youtube and others emerged. That was maybe 5 years ago. Flash was still before that point, the dominant interactive/app technology on the internet. -before- it had video. There is a huge wealth of flash work out there like I said, that isn't video, ads, -or- games. In fact, I rarely do any of those.
a decade ago, we were at flash 4. Which html5 is trying, to emulate.
as a dev who came to the mac platform before most of my peers, I was committed to os x, and trying to improve things on my platform. WIndows was getting too much favour. I've had my issues with macromedia, I've never loved them as a company. I've never had problems with adobe. But it seems to me, after the merger, the things I disliked about macromedia, seemed picked up by adobe. Maybe it's just me. I've hated the way adobe has ignored the mac platform, and to me, this major kick in the ass, is just what adobe needed. Full on, kick to the junk.
I don't know what will happen in the end, I have my theories having worked in all the technologies mentioned very closely. But I find it tiresome when people make such crazy assumptions so early in the game. Because I really think, it is early in this game.
But in the meantime, apple is kicking ass with some major innovation, though it seems unlike a year ago, some companies are showing signs of catching up, well copying really, which is what happened way back when with windows. Perhaps apple will be lucky enough, to hang on to Steve Jobs a little longer this time round. Ballmer has pretty much ended Microsofts relevance it seems.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market are probably banking on earning it back by selling stuff to the affluent iPhone user demographic. The average small company that simply needs a web presence will not see the need to spend that much money on such a small minority. Furthermore I would estimate that more than 90% of those smaller companies have asked their developer for Flash on their site verses the other way around of the developer recommending it.
that's exactly the case. Ironically, I find myself talking clients -out- of flash quite often when I see it's really gratuitous, and is only going to degrade the site really, not add to it.
The companies that have financial resources to rewrite all of their code to accommodate 1% on the market
It's really rather hilarious how when you want to put Apple down, they're "1 % of the market" but when you want to attack them, they're a monopoly.
Is it too much to ask for you to take one position and stick to it?
Furthermore, we're talking about the mobile market. As of today, 99+% of mobile devices do NOT have Flash and less than 1% have it. So if you're interested in the mobile market, why would you use Flash?
I guess that's why Disney, Youtube, Hulu, CBS, car companies, NYTimes, Farmville, etc, etc, etc are all developing non-Flash sites.
It's really rather hilarious how when you want to put Apple down, they're "1 % of the market" but when you want to attack them, they're a monopoly.
Is it too much to ask for you to take one position and stick to it?
Furthermore, we're talking about the mobile market. As of today, 99+% of mobile devices do NOT have Flash and less than 1% have it. So if you're interested in the mobile market, why would you use Flash?
I guess that's why Disney, Youtube, Hulu, CBS, car companies, NYTimes, Farmville, etc, etc, etc are all developing non-Flash sites.
Maybe you misunderstood or I was not clear enough. The 1% is the TOTAL mobile market not just IOS.
U.S. Mobile Web Usage Grew 110 Percent Last Year
And by the way, mobile web accounts for only around 1% of all web traffic so it isn't a huge market.
You guys think everyone is just going to sit around and wait for them. That is not happening.
I don't know what will happen in the end, I have my theories having worked in all the technologies mentioned very closely. But I find it tiresome when people make such crazy assumptions so early in the game. Because I really think, it is early in this game.
The wise business isn't planning for today, they are planning for tomorrow. The mobile web is at its infancy but is growing fast. Its projected that by next year people will buy more smart phones than PC's.
U.S. Mobile Web Usage Grew 110 Percent Last Year
Agreed but a short term graph doesn't indicate a long term trend. Purchases are not directly proportional to web page views. It is already known that RIM phones sell more but view fewer web pages. I personally don't browse that much on my iPhone because it is tiresome to browse the Internet on a tiny screen. Everybody needs a phone but buyers looking for anything but a smart phone will have a difficult time finding anything without a touch screen and a browser, Question is will they use it as such?
Agreed but a short term graph doesn't indicate a long term trend. Purchases are not directly proportional to web page views. It is already known that RIM phones sell more but view fewer web pages. I personally don't browse that much on my iPhone because it is tiresome to browse the Internet on a tiny screen. Everybody needs a phone but buyers looking for anything but a smart phone will have a difficult time finding anything without a touch screen and a browser, Question is will they use it as such?
This is just like Bill Gates prediction of the internet back in 1996.
Anyone who attempts to predict the future is a fool. Myself included as I am sure I predicted something.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. The iPhone has been around for three years. Steve Jobs said he challenged Adobe to give Apple something that works well, and they were unable to do it. All Adobe has to account for all of that time is a beta of Flash running on mobile phones, with no real clear date on an official launch.
You guys think everyone is just going to sit around and wait for them. That is not happening.
no, I don't think that. And people will stop waiting at some point. I've always maintained that adobe has a limited time to make it happen and show it can do it on a mobile platform. I've always thought they needed a mobile to have enough power to run it (1GHz?) perhaps now that's a reality it can. I don't know, we'll see. it looks promising from here. That's the best I've got.
Anyone who attempts to predict the future is a fool.
yep.
Steve Jobs said he challenged Adobe to give Apple something that works well, and they were unable to do it..
Not being argumentative, but do you have a link for this as i would like to read the interview where he said that?
6:28PM Steve: Sometimes you have to pick the right horses. Flash looks like it had its day but it's waning, and HTML5 looks like it's coming up.
We have a history of doing this. The 3 1/2 floppy. We made that popular. We got rid of the floppy altogether in the first iMac. We got rid of serial and parallel ports. You saw USB first in iMacs. We were one of the first to get rid of optical drives, with the MacBook Air. And when we do this, sometimes people call us crazy.
6:32PM Steve: Our goal is really easy -- we just made a tech decision. We aren't going to make an effort to put this on our platform. We told Adobe to show us something better, and they never did. It wasn't until we shipped the iPad that Adobe started to raise a stink about it. We were (not) trying to have a fight, we just decided to not use one of their products. They made a big deal of it -- that's why I wrote that letter. I said enough is enough, we're tired of these guys trashing us.
Steve Jobs live from D8
Not being argumentative, but do you have a link for this as i would like to read the interview where he said that?
We told Adobe to show us something better, and they never did
thanks that answers that question. So apparently Adobe showed them something,
Is it now 10+2 = 12?
Ah no because one of the links in the "10 games" collection is actually for a collection therefore the total is roughly 16.
That being said though there are far more and the best thing is that you can also download the source code much easier than for a Flash game.
thanks that answers that question. So apparently Adobe showed them something,
I don't think that was ever in doubt.
Unfortunately, what Adobe showed them was a box full of smelly dog poop. Three years later, they had improved it and it's now a box of dog poop that doesn't smell quite as bad.
Even if the iPhone has a small percentage of the smartphone market and the iPad has a small percentage of the tablet market I still don't see Flash on those ARM devices as being wildly popular even after it's a default install on all Android, WebOS, WinPh7, Maemo and Symbian devices. The demos I've seen are just not convincing me that it's even near ready for the average user.
I think those system seem to get a lot faster and Flash need needs to get a lot more efficient before it will even start to break free from the performance and battery life issues that plague it. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Well, they still aren't ready for Mac OS and they aren't even close to ready for Linux, so it's not really surprising that they aren't ready for mobile, and they never will be ready. In one sense, we should be fair to Adobe and acknowledge that supporting a complex piece of software on 3 platforms is a difficult task, and supporting it on, several new platforms with completely new requirements would be nearly impossible for anyone. I don't think Apple or Microsoft or Google or pretty much anybody could do it either. But, this is exactly why Flash will not make it into the next evolution of the web, despite Adobe's efforts to hold up progress and cripple HTML5.
So there are two forces at work here. First there are platforms like iOS and, increasingly, because of ad blockers and things like ClickToFlash, "desktop" systems where Flash simply isn't running and where content publishers are increasingly loosing, or never had, eyeballs, which correlates directly to revenue. Second, there is the internal pressure of actually making Flash work on so many different platforms, with so many different requirements and constraints, which will destroy it from the inside: more crashes, more security holes, more platforms with bad performance, ...
The entire Flash ecosystem, which some of you think is solid, is a house of cards. The demise of Flash is like an untreatable cancer. Undetectable in its earliest stages, barely detectable now, and metastasized. The body doesn't even know that it's sick yet, but as it continues to grow, it's pace of development continues to accelerate, until it eventually overwhelms the organism. There is no effective treatment. It may be possible to give it a little extra time, but its death is inevitable.
Actually runs a little bit better on the old PowerPc platform (not that many people care),
10.1 runs a little bit faster on my 500 MHz G3 also. Flash has finally caught up to 1999. Way to go Adobe!
Who was it that said they're so far behind, they think they're in the lead...