No surprises here. Anyone who did any crossplatform development, I mean, fat client cross platform C/C++ or Java client-side had no doubts that Flash was tilting at windmills. Every reason that SJ laid out from security to lowest common denominator features were obvious.
We know now a few things.
1)The many Android people who claimed that the Flash worked well were clearly exaggerating. You've just torpedoed your credibility folks.
2) Adobe never delivered a final version BECAUSE they couldn't get it to work well.
3)Control your destiny. The only company who didn't wast time and money on Flash was Apple. RIM doubled down on Flash and now look even more stupid, if that is possible.
4)All of you pundits who berated Apple and Jobs as control freaks ONCE AGAIN showed why Apple is on top and you write about technology. How would you like to have spent millions support something to have the company yank the rug out? See pt 3.
5)Flash did do one thing well. It allowed Android, WebOS and the Playbook to be added to the list of vulnerable Flash operating systems.
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.
And car companies. Although their sites have improved a lot in recent years.
... All Apple competitors jumped on Flash with the hope that they will sell this crap to the user as "competitive advantage" ...
Actually, Google's purpose, with both Flash and WebM, is to undermine open standards, which they see as a threat to their desire to control various industry sectors.
This is the first of what will be many things I wish Steve Jobs was around to see. Adobe certainly gave Steve a hard time for saying mobile is not the proper place for Flash. Glad they finally woke up and agreed with him.
Flash? Steve who? Looks like its ALL old news now.
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.
ran/runs Flash Lite - developed for feature phone internet service, and not full-featured Flash like that supported on the desktop. Flash Lite is not the full Flash Player Adobe was touting as their Flash Mobile implementation, that works so not well on the platforms that tried to use it. It doesn't support the full runtime elements that Adobe attempted in mobile Flash Player.
"Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it," Jobs said in an open letter last April.
I'm pretty sure that was April 2010, not "last April". Just sayin'...
Adobe is all about enabling designers and developers to create the most expressive content possible, regardless of platform or technology. For more than a decade, Flash has enabled the richest content to be created and deployed on the web by reaching beyond what browsers could do. It has repeatedly served as a blueprint for standardizing new technologies in HTML. Over the past two years, we?ve delivered Flash Player for mobile browsers and brought the full expressiveness of the web to many mobile devices.
However, HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms. We are excited about this, and will continue our work with key players in the HTML community, including Google, Apple, Microsoft and RIM, to drive HTML5 innovation they can use to advance their mobile browsers.
Our future work with Flash on mobile devices will be focused on enabling Flash developers to package native apps with Adobe AIR for all the major app stores. We will no longer continue to develop Flash Player in the browser to work with new mobile device configurations (chipset, browser, OS version, etc.) following the upcoming release of Flash Player 11.1 for Android and BlackBerry PlayBook. We will of course continue to provide critical bug fixes and security updates for existing device configurations. We will also allow our source code licensees to continue working on and release their own implementations.
They're just temporarily halting development. They've been ordered to first help with the 2,142 more flash virus/trojans discovered over the weekend and then they'll get back to making the perfect conduit for mobile infections and take overs.
Actually, Google's purpose, with both Flash and WebM, is to undermine open standards, which they see as a threat to their desire to control various industry sectors.
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
Your response is strange. I didn't say Apple just wanted to give Adobe a hard time. I said Steve felt mobile is not proper the place for Flash. And it's not proper for the reasons you mentioned.
Not even being dead can stop Steve from being right I've hated Flash on the PC for over a decade and about the only time I've missed it on my wife's iPad was when I was bored and wanted to play the D&D Facebook game. Hey, it's D&D *grin* It's nice for Adobe to finally admit they couldn't make Flash not suck so it's dead now.
but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Sorry, but are you insane? Less battery life, constant slowdowns, and application crashes make a better iPhone experience? Flash doesn't add anything good to the mobile experience. Yes we miss the web we are used to, but that is because so much of the web we are used to is based on flash, this must change. Sometimes change hurts, but in the long run the web and mobile experience will be better without Flash.
Your response is strange. I didn't say Apple just wanted to give Adobe a hard time. I said Steve felt mobile is not proper the place for Flash. And it's not proper for the reasons you mentioned.
I can imagine it seemed very strange! My apologies, somehow I quoted you instead of the comment beneath yours. I've corrected it now.
I think the competition element of this was overplayed. Both Apple and Adobe are made up of thousands of employees who can see where the industry is heading. I think it was more to do with timing.
Adobe have obviously invested a lot of resources into providing a plugin to make up for the lack of development in web standards. The problem with it is that because it is controlled by one company and allows content authors an end-to-end service like Apple's (author on Adobe, deploy on Adobe), it could be relied upon and far too many people did.
This led to the point where almost all rich content online was controlled by a single company. If Adobe ever collapsed, there would have been no reliable alternative to do the same job. There's also the reliance on them developing hardware-acceleration support for every device and the more SoC configurations there are, the more it gets out of control.
Moving to open standards benefits Android and Adobe more than anyone. It relieves Adobe of their support headache and it relieves Android users of some performance and battery woes.
I think the difference between Adobe and Apple is that Adobe have a commitment to content creation customers as they depend on them. Apple has a drive to move the technology industry in the right direction and has to do it by force because otherwise it takes too long. Both companies have the same goal but different schedules. Adobe doesn't want to jump before it's safe, Apple understands that people who don't want to jump need to be pushed otherwise they'll take far longer to jump than they need to.
Comments
We know now a few things.
1)The many Android people who claimed that the Flash worked well were clearly exaggerating. You've just torpedoed your credibility folks.
2) Adobe never delivered a final version BECAUSE they couldn't get it to work well.
3)Control your destiny. The only company who didn't wast time and money on Flash was Apple. RIM doubled down on Flash and now look even more stupid, if that is possible.
4)All of you pundits who berated Apple and Jobs as control freaks ONCE AGAIN showed why Apple is on top and you write about technology. How would you like to have spent millions support something to have the company yank the rug out? See pt 3.
5)Flash did do one thing well. It allowed Android, WebOS and the Playbook to be added to the list of vulnerable Flash operating systems.
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.
And car companies. Although their sites have improved a lot in recent years.
... All Apple competitors jumped on Flash with the hope that they will sell this crap to the user as "competitive advantage" ...
Actually, Google's purpose, with both Flash and WebM, is to undermine open standards, which they see as a threat to their desire to control various industry sectors.
This is the first of what will be many things I wish Steve Jobs was around to see. Adobe certainly gave Steve a hard time for saying mobile is not the proper place for Flash. Glad they finally woke up and agreed with him.
Flash? Steve who? Looks like its ALL old news now.
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.
ran/runs Flash Lite - developed for feature phone internet service, and not full-featured Flash like that supported on the desktop. Flash Lite is not the full Flash Player Adobe was touting as their Flash Mobile implementation, that works so not well on the platforms that tried to use it. It doesn't support the full runtime elements that Adobe attempted in mobile Flash Player.
"Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it," Jobs said in an open letter last April.
I'm pretty sure that was April 2010, not "last April". Just sayin'...
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform...-to-html5.html
Adobe is all about enabling designers and developers to create the most expressive content possible, regardless of platform or technology. For more than a decade, Flash has enabled the richest content to be created and deployed on the web by reaching beyond what browsers could do. It has repeatedly served as a blueprint for standardizing new technologies in HTML. Over the past two years, we?ve delivered Flash Player for mobile browsers and brought the full expressiveness of the web to many mobile devices.
However, HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms. We are excited about this, and will continue our work with key players in the HTML community, including Google, Apple, Microsoft and RIM, to drive HTML5 innovation they can use to advance their mobile browsers.
Our future work with Flash on mobile devices will be focused on enabling Flash developers to package native apps with Adobe AIR for all the major app stores. We will no longer continue to develop Flash Player in the browser to work with new mobile device configurations (chipset, browser, OS version, etc.) following the upcoming release of Flash Player 11.1 for Android and BlackBerry PlayBook. We will of course continue to provide critical bug fixes and security updates for existing device configurations. We will also allow our source code licensees to continue working on and release their own implementations.
Actually, Google's purpose, with both Flash and WebM, is to undermine open standards, which they see as a threat to their desire to control various industry sectors.
+1. Insightful.
Don't know why AI is slow when it comes to updates considering everyone else got this up, but yes it's official Adobe is focusing on HTML 5
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform...-to-html5.html
Hey, that seems to be more than a vague promise. Good!
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
Your response is strange. I didn't say Apple just wanted to give Adobe a hard time. I said Steve felt mobile is not proper the place for Flash. And it's not proper for the reasons you mentioned.
but the iPhone experience would have been better with Flash.
Sorry, but are you insane? Less battery life, constant slowdowns, and application crashes make a better iPhone experience? Flash doesn't add anything good to the mobile experience. Yes we miss the web we are used to, but that is because so much of the web we are used to is based on flash, this must change. Sometimes change hurts, but in the long run the web and mobile experience will be better without Flash.
Your response is strange. I didn't say Apple just wanted to give Adobe a hard time. I said Steve felt mobile is not proper the place for Flash. And it's not proper for the reasons you mentioned.
I can imagine it seemed very strange! My apologies, somehow I quoted you instead of the comment beneath yours. I've corrected it now.
Steve: 1, Adobe: 0
I think the competition element of this was overplayed. Both Apple and Adobe are made up of thousands of employees who can see where the industry is heading. I think it was more to do with timing.
Adobe have obviously invested a lot of resources into providing a plugin to make up for the lack of development in web standards. The problem with it is that because it is controlled by one company and allows content authors an end-to-end service like Apple's (author on Adobe, deploy on Adobe), it could be relied upon and far too many people did.
This led to the point where almost all rich content online was controlled by a single company. If Adobe ever collapsed, there would have been no reliable alternative to do the same job. There's also the reliance on them developing hardware-acceleration support for every device and the more SoC configurations there are, the more it gets out of control.
Moving to open standards benefits Android and Adobe more than anyone. It relieves Adobe of their support headache and it relieves Android users of some performance and battery woes.
I think the difference between Adobe and Apple is that Adobe have a commitment to content creation customers as they depend on them. Apple has a drive to move the technology industry in the right direction and has to do it by force because otherwise it takes too long. Both companies have the same goal but different schedules. Adobe doesn't want to jump before it's safe, Apple understands that people who don't want to jump need to be pushed otherwise they'll take far longer to jump than they need to.