I wish I could get PETA to throw red paint on all restaurants that use flash for their websites! I feel like printing this article and wallpapering the front of my local Thai restaurants front entrance with it.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
You are fundamentally missing the point. Apple didn't leave support for Flash out of iOS because they felt like being difficult, they left it out because it wasn't good enough. It wipes out battery, it doesn't perform anything like well enough and it is utterly unsuited to touch interfaces.
Apple released the first version of what would be come known as iOS in 2007. Here we are 4 years later, 4 years, and Adobe still haven't got it working anywhere close to the standard that Apple expects of its core technologies. For the first 3 years of iOS, there wasn't even a version of Flash available for them LOOK at, but they still got criticised for lacking Flash support, as if it was Apple's responsibility to port a Flash client. Absurd.
Apple knows how consumers think. If you go to a site on Mobile Safari that runs Flash and it runs like a dog, your impression of the device you are using will be impacted. Apple saw that the user would not got much benefit from a terrible Mobile Flash implementation, but they would get a bad impression of their iPhone and later iPad. In short, they didn't want to tarnish the work they'd put in to making the iPhone and iPad such great user experiences.
Look at how powerful the iPhone4, 4S and iPad 2 are. They can run PS2-quality games, arguably even better, but even with all that power, Flash can't work well. It's become utterly apparent that Flash is not a technology we should want around.
Don't blame Apple for not supporting Flash, blame the site you are visiting for choosing to lazily use a plugin that doesn't support 100,000,000 iOS devices and circumvents web standards. Blame Adobe for pushing an inappropriate technology into the mobile space with false promises that were swallowed by manufactures desperate for any USP they could laud over the iPhone/iPad. Also blame IE for flat out ignoring web standards and making Flash a short cut to reliable cross-browser compatibility.
Sure we tend to side with Apple because we like their stuff, but in this case Apple really is the good guy. The web will be far, far better off without Flash in the medium term.
On another note:
I don't think AI really believe this report. If they did, I think this would have been in red. If it turns out to be true, it is a BIG deal.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Adobe finally got the picture. Why can't you?
Flash does NOT work on mobile and never has. Any instance where it seems to work is an example of something that could have been better done with HTML. It's time for websites to stop creating crappy Flash content.
Yeah, remind me about that the next time I visit a crappy website with a hundred obnoxious animated Flash ads on it. Oh wait... I don't see those anymore because all of my mobile devices ignore Flash content and my desktop web browser is set to block Flash as well. Never mind...
Flash does NOT work on mobile and never has. Any instance where it seems to work is an example of something that could have been better done with HTML. It's time for websites to stop creating crappy Flash content.
And instead create crappy HTML content. Shit is shit, no matter what form it is delivered. And don't fool yourself that HTML magically results in performance improvement.
Flash does need to die, that I agree with...but I like having the option of activating it when necessary...
HTML 5+ is the future, definitely...and all major players are supporting its advancement...but this does suck IMO
on the other hand I can see HTML 5 adoption increasing rapidly.
People's insistence on using dead end Flash technology has helped prolong its demise. Now that Adobe has finally abandoned it, we'll see everyone focus on improving HTML5 instead.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
If you wanted Flash, You should have bought an Android phone.
In many ways this is a good thing for Adobe. It's core strength is content creation tools. With this they can focus even more on this side of the business.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Ah, you seem to have a short memory. Mobile flash (proper flash not flash lite etc) only turned up this year, whereas the iPhone has been around since 2007. So, whether you wanted flash on the iPhone or not you couldn't have it as it wasn't available. So seeing as IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, Im guessing the iPhone with flash would have been no different from the iPhone without flash.
Ah, you seem to have a short memory. Mobile flash (proper flash not flash lite etc) only turned up this year, whereas the iPhone has been around since 2007. So, whether you wanted flash on the iPhone or not you couldn't have it as it wasn't available. So seeing as IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, Im guessing the iPhone with flash would have been no different from the iPhone without flash.
I have had my Nokia N900 since July 2010 or so. But maybe that thing ran a non-mobile version of Flash. It worked well, anyway. It was way ahead of its time. Pity that Nokia chucked it about three weeks after I bought it.
Score! Finally all sites will be forced to take off the idiotic flash wrapper off their native h.264 encoded videos. Restaurants are next - get rid of flash sites if you want customers.
Score! Finally all sites will be forced to take off the idiotic flash wrapper off their native h.264 encoded videos. Restaurants are next - get rid of flash sites if you want customers.
Well no, because there is still no way to implement DRM using video delivered using the HTML <video> tag.
There are still voices that Apple could have a Flash at least as an opt-in option. What those guys don't understand is the simple fact that companies and developers are lazy. With Flash "sort of" supported they will have no incentive to move on. The Flash agony would last much longer, at the expense of the end user.
Dropping support entirely sends a clear message: if you want your page viewed from a mobile device, do it right!
There are still dozens of lies about Flash still flying around.
Flash on a mobile device gives the end user full web experience. Eeeaah, with a couple of "IFs", like IF the page is acceptably sized for a mobile device, IF the page does not rely on mouse overs (N/A on touch screen device), IF ?, IF ?
The #2:
All mobile devices besides iOS based ones always supported Flash.
When the original iPhone came out, there was only "Flash lite" on mobile phones. It was NEVER intended to provide "full web experience", and it didn't. It was merely a programming language to allow Flash developers to write (simple and crippled) apps for those phones. SEVERAL YESARS LATER, Adobe released "real Flash" implementation, which stayed in beta for months, till (the middle of?) this year. All Apple competitors jumped on Flash with the hope that they will sell this crap to the user as "competitive advantage", and that it would somehow compensate for the lack of quality apps and widen the developer support (most notable examples: Xoom and PlayBook).
Comments
flash is on demand...it's not always on.
yet strangely, even this web page, when viewed without ClicktoFlash, still manages to be "always on"
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
You are fundamentally missing the point. Apple didn't leave support for Flash out of iOS because they felt like being difficult, they left it out because it wasn't good enough. It wipes out battery, it doesn't perform anything like well enough and it is utterly unsuited to touch interfaces.
Apple released the first version of what would be come known as iOS in 2007. Here we are 4 years later, 4 years, and Adobe still haven't got it working anywhere close to the standard that Apple expects of its core technologies. For the first 3 years of iOS, there wasn't even a version of Flash available for them LOOK at, but they still got criticised for lacking Flash support, as if it was Apple's responsibility to port a Flash client. Absurd.
Apple knows how consumers think. If you go to a site on Mobile Safari that runs Flash and it runs like a dog, your impression of the device you are using will be impacted. Apple saw that the user would not got much benefit from a terrible Mobile Flash implementation, but they would get a bad impression of their iPhone and later iPad. In short, they didn't want to tarnish the work they'd put in to making the iPhone and iPad such great user experiences.
Look at how powerful the iPhone4, 4S and iPad 2 are. They can run PS2-quality games, arguably even better, but even with all that power, Flash can't work well. It's become utterly apparent that Flash is not a technology we should want around.
Don't blame Apple for not supporting Flash, blame the site you are visiting for choosing to lazily use a plugin that doesn't support 100,000,000 iOS devices and circumvents web standards. Blame Adobe for pushing an inappropriate technology into the mobile space with false promises that were swallowed by manufactures desperate for any USP they could laud over the iPhone/iPad. Also blame IE for flat out ignoring web standards and making Flash a short cut to reliable cross-browser compatibility.
Sure we tend to side with Apple because we like their stuff, but in this case Apple really is the good guy. The web will be far, far better off without Flash in the medium term.
On another note:
I don't think AI really believe this report. If they did, I think this would have been in red. If it turns out to be true, it is a BIG deal.
All I can say is
QFT
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Adobe finally got the picture. Why can't you?
Flash does NOT work on mobile and never has. Any instance where it seems to work is an example of something that could have been better done with HTML. It's time for websites to stop creating crappy Flash content.
I wish Steve was here for this news. It's a cruel irony that Flash Mobile outlived him.
What's ironic about it?
flash is on demand...it's not always on.
Yeah, remind me about that the next time I visit a crappy website with a hundred obnoxious animated Flash ads on it. Oh wait... I don't see those anymore because all of my mobile devices ignore Flash content and my desktop web browser is set to block Flash as well. Never mind...
Adobe finally got the picture. Why can't you?
Flash does NOT work on mobile and never has. Any instance where it seems to work is an example of something that could have been better done with HTML. It's time for websites to stop creating crappy Flash content.
And instead create crappy HTML content. Shit is shit, no matter what form it is delivered. And don't fool yourself that HTML magically results in performance improvement.
Many html5 demos work poorly on any iOS device.
Flash does need to die, that I agree with...but I like having the option of activating it when necessary...
HTML 5+ is the future, definitely...and all major players are supporting its advancement...but this does suck IMO
on the other hand I can see HTML 5 adoption increasing rapidly.
People's insistence on using dead end Flash technology has helped prolong its demise. Now that Adobe has finally abandoned it, we'll see everyone focus on improving HTML5 instead.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
If you wanted Flash, You should have bought an Android phone.
Both are old, worn out, and past their time.
And hanging on to either is just plain stupid.
So as a replacement of Flash we get some vague promises. I'd rather have Flash then. At least it works. I have an iPhone but I find the lack of Flask quite irritating. That is compensated for by other things, but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Ah, you seem to have a short memory. Mobile flash (proper flash not flash lite etc) only turned up this year, whereas the iPhone has been around since 2007. So, whether you wanted flash on the iPhone or not you couldn't have it as it wasn't available. So seeing as IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, Im guessing the iPhone with flash would have been no different from the iPhone without flash.
Ah, you seem to have a short memory. Mobile flash (proper flash not flash lite etc) only turned up this year, whereas the iPhone has been around since 2007. So, whether you wanted flash on the iPhone or not you couldn't have it as it wasn't available. So seeing as IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, Im guessing the iPhone with flash would have been no different from the iPhone without flash.
I have had my Nokia N900 since July 2010 or so. But maybe that thing ran a non-mobile version of Flash. It worked well, anyway. It was way ahead of its time. Pity that Nokia chucked it about three weeks after I bought it.
Score! Finally all sites will be forced to take off the idiotic flash wrapper off their native h.264 encoded videos. Restaurants are next - get rid of flash sites if you want customers.
Well no, because there is still no way to implement DRM using video delivered using the HTML <video> tag.
Dropping support entirely sends a clear message: if you want your page viewed from a mobile device, do it right!
There are still dozens of lies about Flash still flying around.
The #1 lie:
Flash on a mobile device gives the end user full web experience. Eeeaah, with a couple of "IFs", like IF the page is acceptably sized for a mobile device, IF the page does not rely on mouse overs (N/A on touch screen device), IF ?, IF ?
The #2:
All mobile devices besides iOS based ones always supported Flash.
When the original iPhone came out, there was only "Flash lite" on mobile phones. It was NEVER intended to provide "full web experience", and it didn't. It was merely a programming language to allow Flash developers to write (simple and crippled) apps for those phones. SEVERAL YESARS LATER, Adobe released "real Flash" implementation, which stayed in beta for months, till (the middle of?) this year. All Apple competitors jumped on Flash with the hope that they will sell this crap to the user as "competitive advantage", and that it would somehow compensate for the lack of quality apps and widen the developer support (most notable examples: Xoom and PlayBook).